A message to anyone who has lost religious faith:
If doubts have replaced your religious faith, please understand that you are not alone-- regardless of your age, gender or race.
Some people embrace non-belief at a young age and feel very comfortable with the idea of godlessness. Other people grow up non-religious and never know what it's like to lose religious faith. And then, there are those like me whose faith was everything until it came apart like wet cardboard.
If you're new to losing your religion, try not to be afraid. Others have faced the same fears you have and end up fine. If you do feel afraid and alone, search for a local support group; or consider an online group where you can safely explore and express your feelings while you gather your thoughts. Processing these new emotions is important. Unfortunately, I must add a disclaimer here: I assume you're living in a somewhat free society-- and even free societies aren't always as free as advertised. So, don't expose yourself if you honestly think expressing your thoughts will endanger your life.
And to that previous point: While the non-religious community needs more of us to become visible and vocal, you don't have to come out of the closet immediately-- or ever. Only you should decide when to open up about your non-belief. Do not feel ashamed if you want to avoid losing your livelihood or a close family bond. Again: try making some non-religious friends through local groups or in online groups while you gather yourself. That way, you don't endure feeling alone while remaining in the closet at the same time.
You have a right to decide the manner in which you come to terms with your newfound non-belief. After all-- your private and personal beliefs shouldn't be a public debate. The day may come where you have the courage and need to come out of the closet. Fantastic! Just realize that a heavy price may come with being open-- depending on your circumstances. But also know that you will also bolster a community in need of further acceptance and understanding by modern-day society. Such a display of courage can bring about great rewards for yourself and others, too.
I hope one day the subject matter of my blog is laughable to all. When that day comes, people will no longer remain fearful concerning their privately held non-beliefs.
Until then, may comfort, camaraderie, and inner peace replace the religious faith that you have lost.
Showing posts with label non believer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label non believer. Show all posts
Thursday, February 8, 2018
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
So . . . How Do You Feel About God?
So . . . if you happened to have read my recent post A Storm is Brewing, then you might consider this post to be part two.
My mother-in-law and wife have a mother-daughter talk over the phone. I can only hear my wife's side of the conversation. And I hear something like:
Uh-oh.
Later, my wife told me what prompted her end of the conversation. Her mother asked her, "So, how do you feel about God?"
My wife totally went into politician mode on her and evaded the question by discussing a slightly different, but related topic. She just talked about not liking church.
So . . . the MIL is making her rounds. She asked her grandson . . . then next she's asked her own daughter. Now, I think my daughter and I are next on her list.
I guess I had better plan what I'm going to say. And I better hope my daughter doesn't out us from the closet.
My mother-in-law and wife have a mother-daughter talk over the phone. I can only hear my wife's side of the conversation. And I hear something like:
I just don't like going to church . . . I dunno . . . I just don't feel comfortable there. I mean, I give you Mother's day, Christmas, Easter . . . I just can't come every Sunday. I just don't feel comfortable there . . . . No, no . . . it's nothing that anybody has done . . . No, I don't want to go to that church either . . . I know this is important to you and this is an important part of your life but I'm just not like you in that way . . .
Uh-oh.
Later, my wife told me what prompted her end of the conversation. Her mother asked her, "So, how do you feel about God?"
My wife totally went into politician mode on her and evaded the question by discussing a slightly different, but related topic. She just talked about not liking church.
So . . . the MIL is making her rounds. She asked her grandson . . . then next she's asked her own daughter. Now, I think my daughter and I are next on her list.
I guess I had better plan what I'm going to say. And I better hope my daughter doesn't out us from the closet.
Monday, August 12, 2013
A Storm is Brewing
A storm is brewing; I think I may be outed soon.
See . . . evangelical Christians have a duty to evangelize. As a former Christian, I was trained to share my faith, my mom was taught this way, my mother-in-law believes this and practices this, and passages like Matthew 28:19 imply this duty. Over and over, I've heard that parents are charged with teaching their children "the faith"; Christians who are seeking a spouse are admonished to avoid marrying non-believers (1 Corinthians 7) and convert their spouse if neither of them were in the faith before entering matrimony.
To make this duty towards evangelism more complicated, the various flavors of evangelical Christianity have their own outline of creeds and articles of faith which detail the preaching and obtaining of salvation and how to introduce the gospel to others. Some evangelical Christians can accept the differences of other Christians sects while other Christian groups cannot. So then, a strong drive to teach others about the correct Christianity can be seen in some believers. They will attempt to convert anyone outside of their belief system-- even other Christians outside of their specific denomination.
When I stopped looking through the lens of Christian duty, I found it curious when various Christians claimed they are under attack by secularism, the "new atheism", Islam or the government. I say this because many Christians are unaware that they sometimes go beyond simply sharing their faith; rather, they find themselves imposing it. And when non-believers (theist or not) push back in order to maintain their liberty to worship as they please (or to not worship at all), some Christians can become offended by that.
Since Christendom contains members who assume their faith is the only correct viewpoint, such believers tend to unwittingly posses a sense of entitlement for preferential treatment-- for no policy can exist outside the ultimate authority and bridle its overstep; for without their faith, there could be no good or correct policy in the first place. So naturally, these kinds of Christians feel attacked when others simply remind them that the world shouldn't be required to follow suit and adopt their religious faith.
All of which brings me to the problem at hand.
My mother-in-law approached my son about matters of faith recently-- behind closed doors. My son told me and his mom about this incident shortly after it happened. My mother-in-law cornered him and asked him if he believed in God. My son has told me in the past that he does not, but he responded to her question with an emphatic yes. He even recounted that he tried to use such a tone in his voice that made her inquiry sound crazy. She proceeded to tell him that he doesn't need his parents' permission to have a relationship with God. And well . . . I don't dispute that. What worries me is that her probing implies that she doesn't trust that we, his parents, are doing what we should and she feels now that it's her duty to impose Christian faith on our children since we don't seem to be doing so. I also hate to see my son caught in the middle of this issue. He's being pressured to deal with matters that shouldn't be of his concern, yet. Neither of my children deserve that.
My wife, on the other hand, became incensed to the point of planning a day to confront her over this issue. She seems quite ready to revel that she's done with church and God and wants her mother to leave our kids alone concerning matters of faith.
Me . . . I'm not ready to have that talk. I don't want my mother to know that I'm no longer a believer in Christianity-- let alone God. I don't want to deal with all the questions my mother-in-law will have as to how or why I could have come to be this way. And worse-- I'm not ready to deal with my mom's feelings at this point in our lives. I know I don't have a lot of time left with my mom relative to how long I've already had. I don't want to ruin what may be the last years of my relationship with my mom.
Also, I feel my son is grounded in what he does and doesn't believe. I am not opposed to him being a believer; my only hope is that he thinks for himself. I have not forbidden him from believing in God. I have only asked him to make sure that whatever group he connects to, he thinks for himself and chooses which ever deity he worships for himself. I am also teaching my daughter this way. So, I'm not too worried about my mother-in-law converting my children as much as her dragging them off to church when they have decided for themselves that they are non-believers as well. That will become hard to explain and forcing them both to play along for years to come isn't fair to them.
And finally-- right or not-- I feel that I would face discrimination upon being outed concerning my non-belief in God. My place of employment often appears in a local, Christian-based business magazine. Upper management assumes everyone is a believer and they take the liberty to forward pro-Christian e-mail chain letters with the tone that anybody is stupid who disagrees. I've seen non-believers lose their jobs for reasons that to me, seemed to boil down to their being too outspoken about their unconventional thinking. To be fair, I only think one person actually lost their job for being openly atheist on YouTube while in the same breath mentioning his place of employment. Dumb move. But, I think when you make yourself open about non-believe, that becomes a marker against you and may be the deciding factor should you ever find yourself being re-evaluated by management.
It seems an unfortunate destiny awaits me-- that duty bound Christians will continue to pry until they pry away the door to my closet. Waiting for this day is like watching a brewing storm; I worry about the damaged relationships the storm might leave behind in it's wake.
See . . . evangelical Christians have a duty to evangelize. As a former Christian, I was trained to share my faith, my mom was taught this way, my mother-in-law believes this and practices this, and passages like Matthew 28:19 imply this duty. Over and over, I've heard that parents are charged with teaching their children "the faith"; Christians who are seeking a spouse are admonished to avoid marrying non-believers (1 Corinthians 7) and convert their spouse if neither of them were in the faith before entering matrimony.
To make this duty towards evangelism more complicated, the various flavors of evangelical Christianity have their own outline of creeds and articles of faith which detail the preaching and obtaining of salvation and how to introduce the gospel to others. Some evangelical Christians can accept the differences of other Christians sects while other Christian groups cannot. So then, a strong drive to teach others about the correct Christianity can be seen in some believers. They will attempt to convert anyone outside of their belief system-- even other Christians outside of their specific denomination.
When I stopped looking through the lens of Christian duty, I found it curious when various Christians claimed they are under attack by secularism, the "new atheism", Islam or the government. I say this because many Christians are unaware that they sometimes go beyond simply sharing their faith; rather, they find themselves imposing it. And when non-believers (theist or not) push back in order to maintain their liberty to worship as they please (or to not worship at all), some Christians can become offended by that.
Since Christendom contains members who assume their faith is the only correct viewpoint, such believers tend to unwittingly posses a sense of entitlement for preferential treatment-- for no policy can exist outside the ultimate authority and bridle its overstep; for without their faith, there could be no good or correct policy in the first place. So naturally, these kinds of Christians feel attacked when others simply remind them that the world shouldn't be required to follow suit and adopt their religious faith.
All of which brings me to the problem at hand.
My mother-in-law approached my son about matters of faith recently-- behind closed doors. My son told me and his mom about this incident shortly after it happened. My mother-in-law cornered him and asked him if he believed in God. My son has told me in the past that he does not, but he responded to her question with an emphatic yes. He even recounted that he tried to use such a tone in his voice that made her inquiry sound crazy. She proceeded to tell him that he doesn't need his parents' permission to have a relationship with God. And well . . . I don't dispute that. What worries me is that her probing implies that she doesn't trust that we, his parents, are doing what we should and she feels now that it's her duty to impose Christian faith on our children since we don't seem to be doing so. I also hate to see my son caught in the middle of this issue. He's being pressured to deal with matters that shouldn't be of his concern, yet. Neither of my children deserve that.
My wife, on the other hand, became incensed to the point of planning a day to confront her over this issue. She seems quite ready to revel that she's done with church and God and wants her mother to leave our kids alone concerning matters of faith.
Me . . . I'm not ready to have that talk. I don't want my mother to know that I'm no longer a believer in Christianity-- let alone God. I don't want to deal with all the questions my mother-in-law will have as to how or why I could have come to be this way. And worse-- I'm not ready to deal with my mom's feelings at this point in our lives. I know I don't have a lot of time left with my mom relative to how long I've already had. I don't want to ruin what may be the last years of my relationship with my mom.
Also, I feel my son is grounded in what he does and doesn't believe. I am not opposed to him being a believer; my only hope is that he thinks for himself. I have not forbidden him from believing in God. I have only asked him to make sure that whatever group he connects to, he thinks for himself and chooses which ever deity he worships for himself. I am also teaching my daughter this way. So, I'm not too worried about my mother-in-law converting my children as much as her dragging them off to church when they have decided for themselves that they are non-believers as well. That will become hard to explain and forcing them both to play along for years to come isn't fair to them.
And finally-- right or not-- I feel that I would face discrimination upon being outed concerning my non-belief in God. My place of employment often appears in a local, Christian-based business magazine. Upper management assumes everyone is a believer and they take the liberty to forward pro-Christian e-mail chain letters with the tone that anybody is stupid who disagrees. I've seen non-believers lose their jobs for reasons that to me, seemed to boil down to their being too outspoken about their unconventional thinking. To be fair, I only think one person actually lost their job for being openly atheist on YouTube while in the same breath mentioning his place of employment. Dumb move. But, I think when you make yourself open about non-believe, that becomes a marker against you and may be the deciding factor should you ever find yourself being re-evaluated by management.
It seems an unfortunate destiny awaits me-- that duty bound Christians will continue to pry until they pry away the door to my closet. Waiting for this day is like watching a brewing storm; I worry about the damaged relationships the storm might leave behind in it's wake.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Passion Against the Christ
Now that I have labeled myself as an atheist, I'm beginning to see how colorful and amalgamated my new cohorts truly are.
I see many who have deep passion for action and change. Brimming with ideas on how to make society become more accepting of our non-belief, many atheists wield an unfettered openness and fearlessness. I see people anxious to go "head to head" against the status quo concerning the negative views theists generally have against atheists.
I believe these sentiments are noble and worthy; I privately watch such atheists with admiration and envy.
I also see many who are passive and quite. Change is desired, but prudence restricts their openness. A sensitivity is there amid a simmering passion for change. Caution is on the lips of such an atheist. This type of non-believer constantly reiterates the fact that we need to evaluate our activism before we try to change the world around us.
I am one of the latter types. I'm still in the closet, peeking through the crack I've made in the door frame. I want to come out, but too many people are watching me. I don't want to ruin important relationships that are too meaningful to me. I'm flexible enough to accept any changes they might make, but perhaps they wouldn't know what to do with me. We're simply not at the same level of tolerance.
I'm not referring to the casual acquaintance or even the stranger on the street. I don't mind if these people know about my non-belief. Rather, I refer to family members which I love deeply; loved ones that may only have a few precious years left in my life. Should I become open before such people, I would lose them long before necessary. I also have close friends that would perhaps feel betrayed should I ever come out in an open, fearless, and brazen fashion.
And then, there is my place of employment. One never knows how Christian employers my treat an apostate atheist.
Hey -- I gotta eat.
So, I keep quite -- except around a few select people and within the medium of this blog.
I think nearly all atheists can agree that we want more acceptance from the religious world. We want to know that we can be open and expressive about our non-belief without the backlash of possible discrimination.
We want others to realize that we atheists do not have horns on our heads and a pointy tail. We are not amoral by default. We're not imps of the devil.
In light of this, we must also be careful that we remember that religion in and of itself is not always the problem. Intolerance is the problem. Yes, religion easily fuels intolerance. In many cases, religion even creates intolerance.
But the religious have a right to enjoy and express their beliefs just as we as atheists desire the same rights to free expression of non-belief.
I've noticed that many people who possess high mental acumen in a particular subject matter -- or overall -- have a tendency to be impatient with those who do not share their mental gift.
Have you ever talked on the phone with a tech support representative who was gruff and terse? Usually this is because they do not want to spend time helping anyone with such elementary things as double-clicking. Geeks generally do not want to help someone figure out a problem which, in their minds, has such a painfully obvious solution. Either that or they were busy being geeks and didn't want to be bothered by your support call.
This seems to happen in any facet of life.
I think the same happens between many atheists and theists. The logic that convinces one to become an atheist becomes so apparent and obvious. At the very least, all the faiths of our time are mythological at best. So, should god truly exist and the atheist were mistaken, god would still probably be far more understanding at our mistake than his alleged followers would ever be. After all, shouldn't god actually transcend humanity? Isn't that the whole idea of being a deity?
So, I think many atheists become impatient with theists. Why can't the religious zealot open his or her eyes and see? Can't theists see the abuse? Why don't they see the hurt? Don't they see the obvious mythological elements to their beliefs?
No, they don't. Because they are brainwashed.
I was brainwashed, too. At my earliest memories, I was Christian. Family members have told me that I tried to witness to people when I was very young. My devotion to Christ spans beyond my own memories.
Can you imagine the difficulty in deprogramming this mindset? Impacting such a phenomena takes time -- and the results happen at a pace of one person at a time in many cases.
But, to imply that the religious are totally devoid of reasoning is dangerous. I wouldn't be writing this blog today if that statement were true for every religious person.
If atheists are to do much good in changing how the religious sees us, we will have to be tolerant, patient, and understanding. We can't simply reduce the theists and religious to "dummies" or "idiots" all the time. Name calling and being belligerent won't help -- even if many religious people are that way towards us. Theists need patient help over time before they can have any hope of overcoming the hurdles of their own bias concerning their faith and their misguided feelings towards the atheist. This change must come in small doses. A little here, a little there.
So be patient with anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you -- regardless of what you believe. Be patient with anyone who hasn't arrived to where you are yet.
Be mindful that your impatience may undermine your passion for activism and change. Your zeal for tolerance may produce the very intolerance you despise.
I see many who have deep passion for action and change. Brimming with ideas on how to make society become more accepting of our non-belief, many atheists wield an unfettered openness and fearlessness. I see people anxious to go "head to head" against the status quo concerning the negative views theists generally have against atheists.
I believe these sentiments are noble and worthy; I privately watch such atheists with admiration and envy.
I also see many who are passive and quite. Change is desired, but prudence restricts their openness. A sensitivity is there amid a simmering passion for change. Caution is on the lips of such an atheist. This type of non-believer constantly reiterates the fact that we need to evaluate our activism before we try to change the world around us.
I am one of the latter types. I'm still in the closet, peeking through the crack I've made in the door frame. I want to come out, but too many people are watching me. I don't want to ruin important relationships that are too meaningful to me. I'm flexible enough to accept any changes they might make, but perhaps they wouldn't know what to do with me. We're simply not at the same level of tolerance.
I'm not referring to the casual acquaintance or even the stranger on the street. I don't mind if these people know about my non-belief. Rather, I refer to family members which I love deeply; loved ones that may only have a few precious years left in my life. Should I become open before such people, I would lose them long before necessary. I also have close friends that would perhaps feel betrayed should I ever come out in an open, fearless, and brazen fashion.
And then, there is my place of employment. One never knows how Christian employers my treat an apostate atheist.
Hey -- I gotta eat.
So, I keep quite -- except around a few select people and within the medium of this blog.
I think nearly all atheists can agree that we want more acceptance from the religious world. We want to know that we can be open and expressive about our non-belief without the backlash of possible discrimination.
We want others to realize that we atheists do not have horns on our heads and a pointy tail. We are not amoral by default. We're not imps of the devil.
In light of this, we must also be careful that we remember that religion in and of itself is not always the problem. Intolerance is the problem. Yes, religion easily fuels intolerance. In many cases, religion even creates intolerance.
But the religious have a right to enjoy and express their beliefs just as we as atheists desire the same rights to free expression of non-belief.
I've noticed that many people who possess high mental acumen in a particular subject matter -- or overall -- have a tendency to be impatient with those who do not share their mental gift.
Have you ever talked on the phone with a tech support representative who was gruff and terse? Usually this is because they do not want to spend time helping anyone with such elementary things as double-clicking. Geeks generally do not want to help someone figure out a problem which, in their minds, has such a painfully obvious solution. Either that or they were busy being geeks and didn't want to be bothered by your support call.
This seems to happen in any facet of life.
I think the same happens between many atheists and theists. The logic that convinces one to become an atheist becomes so apparent and obvious. At the very least, all the faiths of our time are mythological at best. So, should god truly exist and the atheist were mistaken, god would still probably be far more understanding at our mistake than his alleged followers would ever be. After all, shouldn't god actually transcend humanity? Isn't that the whole idea of being a deity?
So, I think many atheists become impatient with theists. Why can't the religious zealot open his or her eyes and see? Can't theists see the abuse? Why don't they see the hurt? Don't they see the obvious mythological elements to their beliefs?
No, they don't. Because they are brainwashed.
I was brainwashed, too. At my earliest memories, I was Christian. Family members have told me that I tried to witness to people when I was very young. My devotion to Christ spans beyond my own memories.
Can you imagine the difficulty in deprogramming this mindset? Impacting such a phenomena takes time -- and the results happen at a pace of one person at a time in many cases.
But, to imply that the religious are totally devoid of reasoning is dangerous. I wouldn't be writing this blog today if that statement were true for every religious person.
If atheists are to do much good in changing how the religious sees us, we will have to be tolerant, patient, and understanding. We can't simply reduce the theists and religious to "dummies" or "idiots" all the time. Name calling and being belligerent won't help -- even if many religious people are that way towards us. Theists need patient help over time before they can have any hope of overcoming the hurdles of their own bias concerning their faith and their misguided feelings towards the atheist. This change must come in small doses. A little here, a little there.
So be patient with anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you -- regardless of what you believe. Be patient with anyone who hasn't arrived to where you are yet.
Be mindful that your impatience may undermine your passion for activism and change. Your zeal for tolerance may produce the very intolerance you despise.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
A Broken Friendship
I do admit -- sometimes I miss god.
Sometimes.
He was my friend.
He gave me comfort and I felt secure when I trusted him and stopped worrying about imagined and actual problems I faced in life.
I could cry out to him and feel better. I could praise him and fall into a world of euphoria. I could fall out before him and have a cathartic outburst and feel relieved.
He was a true friend to me.
Among my favorite hymns was What A Friend We Have In Jesus. I would sing that song and wonder why anyone would ever feel troubled. Just pray. Like the song said:
When I first realized real evidence existed against the Bible, my heart sank.
Whoa! All that time and energy I spent!
But worst of all . . . I lost a really good friend.
God changed from a Person into an imaginary friend.
I didn't want to stop believing in god at first. But, once you have that moment -- that stroke of insight and reason -- your mind just stops believing; your faith just shuts off. This is really no different from realizing your parents were playing the role of Santa Clause all along. You catch them wrapping your gifts and placing them under the tree as you sneak into the living room to catch Santa visiting your home.
After that, you just can't go back to believing Santa Clause exists.
I lost a friend when I lost my faith in God.
But, that's okay. With a little time, I could happily move on.
And so I have.
Sometimes.
He was my friend.
He gave me comfort and I felt secure when I trusted him and stopped worrying about imagined and actual problems I faced in life.
I could cry out to him and feel better. I could praise him and fall into a world of euphoria. I could fall out before him and have a cathartic outburst and feel relieved.
He was a true friend to me.
Among my favorite hymns was What A Friend We Have In Jesus. I would sing that song and wonder why anyone would ever feel troubled. Just pray. Like the song said:
Oh what peace we often forfeit! Oh what needless pains we bare.My troubles would melt away.
All because we do not carry, everything to God in prayer.
When I first realized real evidence existed against the Bible, my heart sank.
Whoa! All that time and energy I spent!
But worst of all . . . I lost a really good friend.
God changed from a Person into an imaginary friend.
I didn't want to stop believing in god at first. But, once you have that moment -- that stroke of insight and reason -- your mind just stops believing; your faith just shuts off. This is really no different from realizing your parents were playing the role of Santa Clause all along. You catch them wrapping your gifts and placing them under the tree as you sneak into the living room to catch Santa visiting your home.
After that, you just can't go back to believing Santa Clause exists.
I lost a friend when I lost my faith in God.
But, that's okay. With a little time, I could happily move on.
And so I have.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Church of the Atheist
I stated in an earlier post that I really don't think one can seriously call atheism a religion. I argued that religion in the most common definition requires the worship of a higher power or governor of the universe (AKA god). Atheism rejects this notion. At best, atheism is a philosophy. Passion about an idea isn't a religion -- but can be described as religious. But again, not in the sense that Christianity is a religion.
I still stick to that idea.
I'm still planning to meet with a group of local atheist for my first time. I'm a little nervous and curious as to what I'll witness.
I have found someone to share this with that respects my emerging non-belief. But, I got an odd comment about my plans:
Maybe.
Church certainly has a social structure to it. And the more active and enjoyable the social atmosphere of a church, the more motivated the members tend to be.
But, church isn't just a social club. Church isn't only a place for Christians to mingle and share ideas. Besides, not all churches participate in allowing members to become close-nit so that they become comfortable sharing ideas and emotions with each other. When all else fails, church is supposed to be the hub of worship towards God for that group of believers who meet together. The sacred rites of Christians are performed -- Eucharist (Communion), baptism, worship and praise, repentance, reconciliation and so forth.
I'm sure none of that will be going on at a meeting of atheists who have come together to share their views. Just because the group is atheist doesn't mean they will all agree on everything.
But, there is a solace when you know you aren't alone.
I know that church provides that, too, for believers. But that similarity still doesn't make atheism a religion -- even if they meet to share their, er, non-belief.
I still stick to that idea.
I'm still planning to meet with a group of local atheist for my first time. I'm a little nervous and curious as to what I'll witness.
I have found someone to share this with that respects my emerging non-belief. But, I got an odd comment about my plans:
Isn't this meeting the same as going to church? I mean, you're meeting to encourage each other. Christians do the same thing when they meet for church.
Maybe.
Church certainly has a social structure to it. And the more active and enjoyable the social atmosphere of a church, the more motivated the members tend to be.
But, church isn't just a social club. Church isn't only a place for Christians to mingle and share ideas. Besides, not all churches participate in allowing members to become close-nit so that they become comfortable sharing ideas and emotions with each other. When all else fails, church is supposed to be the hub of worship towards God for that group of believers who meet together. The sacred rites of Christians are performed -- Eucharist (Communion), baptism, worship and praise, repentance, reconciliation and so forth.
I'm sure none of that will be going on at a meeting of atheists who have come together to share their views. Just because the group is atheist doesn't mean they will all agree on everything.
But, there is a solace when you know you aren't alone.
I know that church provides that, too, for believers. But that similarity still doesn't make atheism a religion -- even if they meet to share their, er, non-belief.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
So Now What?
This is my first impromptu post. All the other posts so far were thought out and pre-written before I published them. But, I don't feel like doing all that this time.
Quite frankly, I can't think of much else to say. So . . . now what?
Well, I did start this blog for my self as an outlet for my feelings. That's what most blogs are, right?
I'm still in the closet concerning my apostasy. Now, my next issue . . . am I an atheist?
I'm not sure. I think I am. I'm comfortable with the idea. I can't see the point in worshiping God if I have to decide what and who God is. If it's left up to me, I'd rather not bother with it.
And, the idea of not having an after life doesn't bug me all that much.
Sometimes . . . but I'd rather have no afterlife than to be cast into the hell I was taught to believe in.
So, upon the suggestion of a friend, I will join a local group of atheists and see what it's like.
I've come to find out that when I stopped being a Christian, I just stopped. Something clicked in my brain and I just stopped. I didn't make a decision exactly. I just couldn't do it any longer after I realized I didn't believe. I think the same thing is happening with my thoughts on atheism. I don't think the group will convince me. I think something has clicked again and here I am -- an atheist.
If I am one . . . I'd say I'm a soft atheist. I don't believe there is a god, but I think spirituality can still be enjoyed and explored.
And of course, I have no problem with anyone else believing in god.
Just don't burn me at the steak if I disagree.
Quite frankly, I can't think of much else to say. So . . . now what?
Well, I did start this blog for my self as an outlet for my feelings. That's what most blogs are, right?
I'm still in the closet concerning my apostasy. Now, my next issue . . . am I an atheist?
I'm not sure. I think I am. I'm comfortable with the idea. I can't see the point in worshiping God if I have to decide what and who God is. If it's left up to me, I'd rather not bother with it.
And, the idea of not having an after life doesn't bug me all that much.
Sometimes . . . but I'd rather have no afterlife than to be cast into the hell I was taught to believe in.
So, upon the suggestion of a friend, I will join a local group of atheists and see what it's like.
I've come to find out that when I stopped being a Christian, I just stopped. Something clicked in my brain and I just stopped. I didn't make a decision exactly. I just couldn't do it any longer after I realized I didn't believe. I think the same thing is happening with my thoughts on atheism. I don't think the group will convince me. I think something has clicked again and here I am -- an atheist.
If I am one . . . I'd say I'm a soft atheist. I don't believe there is a god, but I think spirituality can still be enjoyed and explored.
And of course, I have no problem with anyone else believing in god.
Just don't burn me at the steak if I disagree.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Religion, Spirituality, and Atheism
Time for an English lesson:
Religion: noun
a Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship
The life of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teaching of a spiritual leader
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion
Antonyms: (That means opposite, by the way . . . .)
agnosticism, atheism, disbelief
Spiritual: adjective
1. of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material
2. of, concerned with, or affecting the soul
3. of, from, or related to God; characterized by divine or godlike nature
4. of, or belonging to a church or religion; sacred5. relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural
Now . . . . lets start our e-musings in light of these defined terms.
Religion is a set of beliefs or practices. I assure you that the beliefs and practices within the same religion don't always match. For instance . . . Resurrection Sunday doesn't always fall in the same month with Passover – which was essential to the crucification and resurrection of Christ. Tradition trumps beliefs and has caused Easter to follow it's own schedule which only matches Passover most of the time.
Spirituality deals with matters of spirit – the immaterial, metaphysical, or supernatural. But, not necessarily with any specific religious rules or dogma. Many times, yes, but sometimes, no.
Fundamentalism is considered to be strict adherence to a belief set within a religion. The belief is often taken literally and accepted unquestioningly. Usually a religious text and spiritual leader give the layout for the religious rules of the fundamentalist group. Fundamentalism usually involves spirituality.
Fundamentalist believers of religion have no room for opposing viewpoints within or from outside of their sect. As a result, such religious groups often splinter due to disagreement over doctrine. These disagreements often turn into power struggles for authority. This, in my opinion, is to be expected; Imagine the difficulty of turning metaphysical things into rigorous rules upon which everyone must agree!
Try getting a group of people to gaze at a cloud and insist they all perceive the exact same image. Everyone is entitled to an opinion – especially with finding shapes in clouds, wouldn't you say?
Spirituality minus religion allows people to acknowledge the metaphysical and experience the metaphysical without strictness of any sort. Everyone can see whatever image they desire from the cloud in the sky. Why not? After all . . . it's just a cloud. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right?
Of the three great religions – Judaism, Islam, and Christianity – fundamentalist belief is most exuberant and (I dare say) most dangerous. All three fundamentalist variations of these faiths lean towards the expectation of a cataclysmic series of events. These events will herald the act of God taking back control of the earth (Taking back? What happened to his omnipotence?) War and conflicts are almost welcomed – at the very least, expected. Thus, invasions, suicide bombings, terrorism, and military retaliation are viewed as necessary to fervent, radical fundamentalist believers. Some even think that these events can accelerate the advent of the Apocalypse.
Am I saying that the world would enjoy total peace if all the Jews, Muslims, and Christians disappeared?
No, absolutely not. I am saying, however, that fundamentalism needs to largely disappear. Spirituality is welcomed to stay – regardless of the religious faith.
Oh, and as final note – I really wish people would stop buying into the idea that atheism is a religion. Atheism can only be considered a religion to the degree that someone is devout or zealous over a concept or idea. Concerning the true definition of the word “religion”, atheism is no more a religion that my devotion to keeping myself caffeinated with fresh brewed, organic, 100% Arabica coffee made from fresh ground whole beans.
No instant, pre-ground, or stale coffee – please.
Religious? YES!
A religion?
NO!
Religion requires a deity as the object of worship and often has a leader who is the object of leadership towards the rules and acts of worship and adoration to the deity in question.
Atheism is the opposite of religion. A-theism. No belief in a deity or god. No object to worship or adore or serve. No religion to follow, as a result.
If you are one that says atheism is a religion, then what is the opposite of religion?
Agnosticism?
Spirituality?
Science?
Reason?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Freemasonry and the American Revolution
The History Channel showed an interesting segment concerning the role Freemasonry played in the birth of the United States. From as early as the Boston Tea Party, Masons played a large role in the growth and establishment of the United States during the Revolution.
Interestingly, Freemasonry in the US fueled the Revolution through one of it's great ideals:
Free Thought based on Reason.
While God is acknowledged – reason – not faith – is the virtue of the Freemasons of the Revolution. This is why Muslims, Jews, and Christians all come together under a unified order. The lines of religion are blurred – making reason and action the choice stance against the challenges of life.
This rejected the religious tyranny prevalent in Europe at the time of the Revolution.
Many of the founding fathers were Masons. Masonic connections spanned across nations and this came in handy for keeping the US Revolution alive. Ben Franklin used his masonic connections to get desperately needed aid from France so that their lodge brother General Washington would not cave in during the war.
With Freemasonry so intertwined with the birth of our republic and with Freemasonry being so non-embracing and non-endorsing of any specific religion – how can we say the US is a Christian nation?
Freemasonry encouraged reason and open mindedness – the very ideals of freedom. Fundamentalist religions so often enforce closed mindedness because free thinking is quite incompatible with Fundamentalist theology.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Always Right, Even When It's Wrong
I recently read a comment on-line where someone gave a rebuttal to the argument that the Biblical text had inconsistencies and contradictions within it. It went something like:
Maybe I shouldn't have – but I conceded to this idea upon my first reading of this. If something truly happened in the past, a poor account or embellishment of the event doesn't prove the event as false nor does this bad information rub it out from history. That sounded logical and fair.
But after that thought, I began to sweat. A good skeptic learns to become skeptical of everything – even of himself and his beliefs. So, I became skeptical of the causes of my skepticism!
Was it time to retract my disbeliefs and erase everything I've posted?!
After long thought, I finally asked myself two questions:
If the Bible is true, it must be reliable concerning the accounts recorded within its own pages. After all, this is the Word of God. God's Word is to be wholesome, complete, holy, and true. Right?
Holy men acted as God's mouthpiece. But aren't all men subject to error? Even so, the overall presentation of the Bible must be true and reliable. The historical account within the Bible needs to match any other reliable, extra-biblical account of history. The divine writers of God's word can be given some room for error, I suppose – even including some minor contradictions. But overall the basic account given by the Bible about the past must be true and verifiable so that we can also trust the theological message.
And what if the Bible is myth?
We should then find reliable evidence in history that clashes with the Biblical account. The Bible and history will contradict and we will find detrimental lapses and mistakes within the Biblical text when compared against other reliable sources.
Otherwise, the Bible will be right even if found to be wrong. And, the Bible could be labeled as wrong even when found to be right and true.
Therefore, if the Bible is accurate, it should coincide with other reliable, extra biblical sources and accounts of history along with sound scientific and archaeological discoveries.
History must be reconstructed from what we find and observe to be true based on the evidence we discover around us. No other means should be used. History mustn't be reconstructed off of the reputation of an ancient text alone. Other sources and archaeological data must also help prove our rebuilding of the past.
Any source that sharply contradicts sound evidence should be held with suspicion and skepticism until better information comes along. Until then, such sources shouldn't be regarded as totally reliable.
Archeology examines the physical evidence of history just as forensics examines a crime scene. Both are concerned with the same goal – to reconstruct the past by using the evidence or artifacts left behind.
As I've already mentioned, the Bible can only be relied upon to the degree the text is shown to be historically accurate. Regardless of any contradiction found or imagined within the Biblical text, we must acknowledge when archeology and science upholds the Biblical account.
So then . . . if sound archaeological data contradicts the Bible in important ways, the scriptures (as beautiful as they might be) will only yield us beautiful mythology.
Science has proven that the earth is round. But, closer examination of the Biblical text suggests that the writers of the text believed the world was flat with a dome or partition of “sky” upholding waters above or within the heavens. The book of Genesis describes God creating this kind of world when the writer gives an account of God making a firmament to divide the waters from the waters. The firmament was called by God “heaven” or “sky” and the sun, moon, and stars were placed into this heaven to govern the days, nights, and seasons. So, the sun was built into earth's atmospheric dome and God dwelt up above after the fall of Eden. This is why it was so dangerous for the architects of the tower of Babel to continue their attempt at greatness. They might actually reach heaven! Heaven was only at the top of the world's dome.
So then, we can feel confident that Genesis gives a mythological account of the creation. But – perhaps we cannot say in fairness that God never created the earth.
But now we know that we cannot find complete truth within the Biblical text. We now know that mythological versions of possible past events are contained therein and should not be taken so literally.
But what happens when archeology gives strong evidence that the Israelites emerged from the Canaanites rather than conquering them? That would mean no Exodus – and no Passover. The Israelites could never be placed in the wilderness to receive the law of Moses.
Huge chunks of the Bible become instant mythology and so much of the theology can no longer be taken literally.
This problem ripples even into the New Testament scriptures; the life of Jesus would also become instant myth! The New Testament is founded upon the account of Judaism. Judaism must be true for Christianity to be true because Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Judaism is the bud, Christianity is the bloom. Judaism is the child, Christianity is the adult – but of the same person, so to speak. If that bud or child never existed, the same will be true of it's mature self.
If that much of the Bible becomes myth, can we then still defend the important events in the Bible as though they truly happened – just not exactly as the text claims?
What if civilization faded away as we know it and several millennia later someone was excavating the artifacts we left behind? What if fragmented copies of The Deer and the Cauldron were discovered across the world (it was an international best seller – why not?) in various translations? They would find that the places listed were largely accurate and true. Archaeological data would prove that the places and even several of the characters in The Deer and the Cauldron actually lived and shaped history during their lives. Some of the accomplishments of the people listed would even have historical accuracy. This data would even span into the history of other countries. But the main character – was he real? Did he really exist? Did he really do all that was recorded?
What would happen if the main character made claims to be god and that he would one day return to judge us all?
Ooooh, and those miraculous, legendary feats of kung fu! Did they really happen? Could they have happened?
And if those accounts were found to be embellishments, are we still obligated to say that the main character actually existed? Do we just learn to overlook the fact that certain events were probably too fantastic to have actually happened and defend the notion that the whole text should be taken literally anyhow?
Remember – we know that The Deer and the Cauldron is a work of fiction, despite any historical accuracy it may have.
And most people feel the very same way about religious text – minus their own religion, of course.
According to The Bible Unearthed, many places would never have been discovered if the Bible had not mentioned them and gave hints to their locations. This aspect of the Biblical text does contain an important level of accuracy and truth. Yet, as the Bible helped uncover some of these places, the text also unwittingly lead to the discoveries which discredited the very heart of Biblical theology. Many archaeologists and scholars believed the Bible was historically accurate out of habit and out of respect for the Biblical religions. They weren't giving the text much scrutiny before the 1970s. But once you discover that the sunlight hitting our atmosphere from outer-space makes the sky look blue and not the mythical water kept over the dome of the earth – you can no longer defend the creation account of Genesis as being historical.
But you still want to insist that God created everything, right?
Go right ahead . . . but it didn't happen the way the Bible says.
But, it gets worse.
God is found building the earth as a snow glob of sorts not only in Genesis. This concept is sprinkled through the whole Bible. As I mentioned earlier – remember the tower of Babel? And even worse, archaeological evidence does show us that the Israelites evolved from the Canaanites around 1000 BCE and became established in the hill sides – living among the Canaanites all along. Archeology also gives strong evidence that Yahweh evolved from El and Baal. The Israelites evolved and their god evolved, too, because they were basically Canaanites that budded off into their own group of clans over the centuries after populating the hill sides.
So, even when the Bible is wrong about creation, wrong about the Exodus, and wrong about the alleged conquering of Canaan, we are still supposed admit that these events happened – but only not exactly like the Bible says?
We say this for the Resurrection of Christ, too, I suppose.
Can the Resurrection be historical fact if the Passover is no more than a tradition built off of mythological events?
For me, defending this notion by saying “yes” is basically saying that the Bible is always right – even when it's wrong.
I would be admitting that the sky does have a vast ocean of blue water above our heads. You can build a tower into the heavens. The Exodus did happen – damn the evidence that says otherwise! Same with Joshua conquering the Canaanites, too. They just walked right in and took the land flowing with milk and honey. (ooh so sweet!) And regardless of any contradiction you think you read in the Biblical text . . . you're imagining things! And if you aren't . . . so what? These things still happened simply because the Bible said so.
God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
You know by now that I'm being sarcastic, right?
Now, I no longer puzzle over the various alleged contradictions within the Biblical text; never mind actual or alleged contradictions found in the Gospel concerning the Resurrection – or for any other topics of similar nature.
Reality itself seems to contradict the very heart of the Biblical narrative.
How much more proof of contradiction do you need to realize the Bible is mythology?
Even with the alleged contradictions of the Bible text, the events to which the text points still could have happened. Mis-representation of an event doesn't mean the event did not still happen. For example -- if a person finds and confirms a bona fide contradiction between the Gospel accounts about the Resurrection, the Resurrection still remains possible and has not been dis-proven. The contradiction only means that writers were slightly incorrect about their accounts. Perhaps this even proves the accounts because the variation in story is natural when multiple views are given of the same account by witnesses.
(this is only a paraphrase, by the way)
Maybe I shouldn't have – but I conceded to this idea upon my first reading of this. If something truly happened in the past, a poor account or embellishment of the event doesn't prove the event as false nor does this bad information rub it out from history. That sounded logical and fair.
But after that thought, I began to sweat. A good skeptic learns to become skeptical of everything – even of himself and his beliefs. So, I became skeptical of the causes of my skepticism!
Was it time to retract my disbeliefs and erase everything I've posted?!
After long thought, I finally asked myself two questions:
What must be true if the Bible is true?
What must be true if the Bible is only a myth?
If the Bible is true, it must be reliable concerning the accounts recorded within its own pages. After all, this is the Word of God. God's Word is to be wholesome, complete, holy, and true. Right?
Holy men acted as God's mouthpiece. But aren't all men subject to error? Even so, the overall presentation of the Bible must be true and reliable. The historical account within the Bible needs to match any other reliable, extra-biblical account of history. The divine writers of God's word can be given some room for error, I suppose – even including some minor contradictions. But overall the basic account given by the Bible about the past must be true and verifiable so that we can also trust the theological message.
And what if the Bible is myth?
We should then find reliable evidence in history that clashes with the Biblical account. The Bible and history will contradict and we will find detrimental lapses and mistakes within the Biblical text when compared against other reliable sources.
Otherwise, the Bible will be right even if found to be wrong. And, the Bible could be labeled as wrong even when found to be right and true.
Therefore, if the Bible is accurate, it should coincide with other reliable, extra biblical sources and accounts of history along with sound scientific and archaeological discoveries.
History must be reconstructed from what we find and observe to be true based on the evidence we discover around us. No other means should be used. History mustn't be reconstructed off of the reputation of an ancient text alone. Other sources and archaeological data must also help prove our rebuilding of the past.
Any source that sharply contradicts sound evidence should be held with suspicion and skepticism until better information comes along. Until then, such sources shouldn't be regarded as totally reliable.
Archeology examines the physical evidence of history just as forensics examines a crime scene. Both are concerned with the same goal – to reconstruct the past by using the evidence or artifacts left behind.
As I've already mentioned, the Bible can only be relied upon to the degree the text is shown to be historically accurate. Regardless of any contradiction found or imagined within the Biblical text, we must acknowledge when archeology and science upholds the Biblical account.
So then . . . if sound archaeological data contradicts the Bible in important ways, the scriptures (as beautiful as they might be) will only yield us beautiful mythology.
Science has proven that the earth is round. But, closer examination of the Biblical text suggests that the writers of the text believed the world was flat with a dome or partition of “sky” upholding waters above or within the heavens. The book of Genesis describes God creating this kind of world when the writer gives an account of God making a firmament to divide the waters from the waters. The firmament was called by God “heaven” or “sky” and the sun, moon, and stars were placed into this heaven to govern the days, nights, and seasons. So, the sun was built into earth's atmospheric dome and God dwelt up above after the fall of Eden. This is why it was so dangerous for the architects of the tower of Babel to continue their attempt at greatness. They might actually reach heaven! Heaven was only at the top of the world's dome.
So then, we can feel confident that Genesis gives a mythological account of the creation. But – perhaps we cannot say in fairness that God never created the earth.
But now we know that we cannot find complete truth within the Biblical text. We now know that mythological versions of possible past events are contained therein and should not be taken so literally.
But what happens when archeology gives strong evidence that the Israelites emerged from the Canaanites rather than conquering them? That would mean no Exodus – and no Passover. The Israelites could never be placed in the wilderness to receive the law of Moses.
Huge chunks of the Bible become instant mythology and so much of the theology can no longer be taken literally.
This problem ripples even into the New Testament scriptures; the life of Jesus would also become instant myth! The New Testament is founded upon the account of Judaism. Judaism must be true for Christianity to be true because Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Judaism is the bud, Christianity is the bloom. Judaism is the child, Christianity is the adult – but of the same person, so to speak. If that bud or child never existed, the same will be true of it's mature self.
If that much of the Bible becomes myth, can we then still defend the important events in the Bible as though they truly happened – just not exactly as the text claims?
What if civilization faded away as we know it and several millennia later someone was excavating the artifacts we left behind? What if fragmented copies of The Deer and the Cauldron were discovered across the world (it was an international best seller – why not?) in various translations? They would find that the places listed were largely accurate and true. Archaeological data would prove that the places and even several of the characters in The Deer and the Cauldron actually lived and shaped history during their lives. Some of the accomplishments of the people listed would even have historical accuracy. This data would even span into the history of other countries. But the main character – was he real? Did he really exist? Did he really do all that was recorded?
What would happen if the main character made claims to be god and that he would one day return to judge us all?
Ooooh, and those miraculous, legendary feats of kung fu! Did they really happen? Could they have happened?
And if those accounts were found to be embellishments, are we still obligated to say that the main character actually existed? Do we just learn to overlook the fact that certain events were probably too fantastic to have actually happened and defend the notion that the whole text should be taken literally anyhow?
Remember – we know that The Deer and the Cauldron is a work of fiction, despite any historical accuracy it may have.
And most people feel the very same way about religious text – minus their own religion, of course.
According to The Bible Unearthed, many places would never have been discovered if the Bible had not mentioned them and gave hints to their locations. This aspect of the Biblical text does contain an important level of accuracy and truth. Yet, as the Bible helped uncover some of these places, the text also unwittingly lead to the discoveries which discredited the very heart of Biblical theology. Many archaeologists and scholars believed the Bible was historically accurate out of habit and out of respect for the Biblical religions. They weren't giving the text much scrutiny before the 1970s. But once you discover that the sunlight hitting our atmosphere from outer-space makes the sky look blue and not the mythical water kept over the dome of the earth – you can no longer defend the creation account of Genesis as being historical.
But you still want to insist that God created everything, right?
Go right ahead . . . but it didn't happen the way the Bible says.
But, it gets worse.
God is found building the earth as a snow glob of sorts not only in Genesis. This concept is sprinkled through the whole Bible. As I mentioned earlier – remember the tower of Babel? And even worse, archaeological evidence does show us that the Israelites evolved from the Canaanites around 1000 BCE and became established in the hill sides – living among the Canaanites all along. Archeology also gives strong evidence that Yahweh evolved from El and Baal. The Israelites evolved and their god evolved, too, because they were basically Canaanites that budded off into their own group of clans over the centuries after populating the hill sides.
So, even when the Bible is wrong about creation, wrong about the Exodus, and wrong about the alleged conquering of Canaan, we are still supposed admit that these events happened – but only not exactly like the Bible says?
We say this for the Resurrection of Christ, too, I suppose.
Can the Resurrection be historical fact if the Passover is no more than a tradition built off of mythological events?
For me, defending this notion by saying “yes” is basically saying that the Bible is always right – even when it's wrong.
I would be admitting that the sky does have a vast ocean of blue water above our heads. You can build a tower into the heavens. The Exodus did happen – damn the evidence that says otherwise! Same with Joshua conquering the Canaanites, too. They just walked right in and took the land flowing with milk and honey. (ooh so sweet!) And regardless of any contradiction you think you read in the Biblical text . . . you're imagining things! And if you aren't . . . so what? These things still happened simply because the Bible said so.
God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
You know by now that I'm being sarcastic, right?
Now, I no longer puzzle over the various alleged contradictions within the Biblical text; never mind actual or alleged contradictions found in the Gospel concerning the Resurrection – or for any other topics of similar nature.
Reality itself seems to contradict the very heart of the Biblical narrative.
How much more proof of contradiction do you need to realize the Bible is mythology?
Friday, June 8, 2007
So, Now I Can Be an Axe Murderer, Right?
Now that I don't believe in any religion any more . . . it's ok to be a serial killer, right? Cheat on my significant other and go on a binge of debauchery, right?
That sort of thinking reminds me of when Paul the Apostle finished explaining the liberating implications of grace in the book of Romans. Now that grace frees the Christian from the Law, we can do whatever sins we please, right? That way . . . grace will just heap up higher and higher!
Paul's response was: God forbid!
But does lack of religious belief necessitate an immoral standard?
God forbid!
I asked myself once . . . why did I resist sin when I was a Christian? Hell sounded like a really, really bad place . . . so, you know . . . I was trying to avoid going there! But, why, for instance, didn't I cheat on my significant other? Would I cheat if I knew I could never get caught?
I decided that I would never cheat even if I knew I could get away with it. Why? Love and loyalty. I didn't want to hurt my lover in that way. I can't do it. My heart sank thinking about it.
But, maybe I'd skip church or miss a few tithe payments if I know I could never go to hell.
But what about not hurting God?
"Because the Bible said so" isn't really the best motivator. Nor is hell, in my opinion. Love should drive our actions. Sharing and helping. Recognizing that all people are unique, yet still share in the common human experience.
I decided I wanted to follow God's word because I didn't want to hurt Him.
But, sometimes God didn't seem like he was there. Hard not to hurt someone that you've never physically met or seen visibly. No audio confirmation ever came from they sky or anything -- it all came from within the inner ear. Who can really know if that's God or myself telling me what I really wanted to hear inside my own head?
Much of my morality was really just love for my family, friends, and fellow man. The teachings of my mom and church played a big role -- yes. But, in the end, these were only influences and guides. My sensitivity to my own conscience and common sense ultimately prevailed.
All else was just fear of hell.
So, I can see why someone would just lose all morality if they lost their religion -- assuming that hell is the only deterrent someone has from premarital sex, adultery, or even killing someone. With that mind set, you'll consider those acts more freely if you ever conclude hell doesn't exist. But, if you love and respect your fellowman regardless -- hell never matters -- whether you're religious or not.
An article came out in the NY Times about the evolution of morality in primates -- hey, aren't we humans called primates?
Anyway -- chimps are found risking their lives to save each other. Older primates scold younger ones when they break social rules. Expressions of empathy and concern form on their faces when they see another in constant pain. Especially if they feel like they've caused it.
Besides, if our laws came from God and He's "no respect of person", then why can King David have several wives and I can't. I do not wish for multiple wives. But if I ever did, I'd be considered an immoral polygamist, nowadays.
Or, a Mormon, perhaps?
Remember, also, that the US Constitution separates Church from State. Sure, US law may resemble Judeo-Christian morality. But, the Constitution clearly expresses that the law is made by the Congress. And Congress represents the people's will from their various 50 states within the Union.
If this really were a Christian nation, we'd have a Pastor . . . not a President. We'd have a great Congregation -- not a Congress. And, we wouldn't have the Constitution, we'd have the King James Version of the Holy Bible for our law book.
Many freedoms would become illegal. Prohibition would rise again. Forget about that beer on the weekends after a hard week of work. Unless . . . our US Pastor were Catholic! Just think . . . one night the police might kick in your door because you missed church last Sunday. Getting ex-communicated or disfellowshipped could mean getting deported to another country! You would become a sex offender if you simply had premarital sex with another consenting adult. Don't even mention homosexuality!
The Flavor of Love and all of it's spin off variants couldn't air on TV anymore.
Hey . . . wait . . . maybe that would be a good thing!
Are there things that should be legal in our "free" society that aren't today due to the religious moral right? Think about it.
Church and State are separate. That's the law. Maybe that isn't what's done in practice, but those are the ideals that our Founding Fathers agreed upon -- regardless of what any of their religious orientations were.
Religion and morality are separate, too. Not true? Why aren't only the religious people good? Non-religious people can be quite moral and good. It's just as easy for a non-religious person to be moral as it is for a religious person to be dirty and rotten.
That sort of thinking reminds me of when Paul the Apostle finished explaining the liberating implications of grace in the book of Romans. Now that grace frees the Christian from the Law, we can do whatever sins we please, right? That way . . . grace will just heap up higher and higher!
Paul's response was: God forbid!
But does lack of religious belief necessitate an immoral standard?
God forbid!
I asked myself once . . . why did I resist sin when I was a Christian? Hell sounded like a really, really bad place . . . so, you know . . . I was trying to avoid going there! But, why, for instance, didn't I cheat on my significant other? Would I cheat if I knew I could never get caught?
I decided that I would never cheat even if I knew I could get away with it. Why? Love and loyalty. I didn't want to hurt my lover in that way. I can't do it. My heart sank thinking about it.
But, maybe I'd skip church or miss a few tithe payments if I know I could never go to hell.
But what about not hurting God?
"Because the Bible said so" isn't really the best motivator. Nor is hell, in my opinion. Love should drive our actions. Sharing and helping. Recognizing that all people are unique, yet still share in the common human experience.
I decided I wanted to follow God's word because I didn't want to hurt Him.
But, sometimes God didn't seem like he was there. Hard not to hurt someone that you've never physically met or seen visibly. No audio confirmation ever came from they sky or anything -- it all came from within the inner ear. Who can really know if that's God or myself telling me what I really wanted to hear inside my own head?
Much of my morality was really just love for my family, friends, and fellow man. The teachings of my mom and church played a big role -- yes. But, in the end, these were only influences and guides. My sensitivity to my own conscience and common sense ultimately prevailed.
All else was just fear of hell.
So, I can see why someone would just lose all morality if they lost their religion -- assuming that hell is the only deterrent someone has from premarital sex, adultery, or even killing someone. With that mind set, you'll consider those acts more freely if you ever conclude hell doesn't exist. But, if you love and respect your fellowman regardless -- hell never matters -- whether you're religious or not.
An article came out in the NY Times about the evolution of morality in primates -- hey, aren't we humans called primates?
Anyway -- chimps are found risking their lives to save each other. Older primates scold younger ones when they break social rules. Expressions of empathy and concern form on their faces when they see another in constant pain. Especially if they feel like they've caused it.
Besides, if our laws came from God and He's "no respect of person", then why can King David have several wives and I can't. I do not wish for multiple wives. But if I ever did, I'd be considered an immoral polygamist, nowadays.
Or, a Mormon, perhaps?
Remember, also, that the US Constitution separates Church from State. Sure, US law may resemble Judeo-Christian morality. But, the Constitution clearly expresses that the law is made by the Congress. And Congress represents the people's will from their various 50 states within the Union.
If this really were a Christian nation, we'd have a Pastor . . . not a President. We'd have a great Congregation -- not a Congress. And, we wouldn't have the Constitution, we'd have the King James Version of the Holy Bible for our law book.
Many freedoms would become illegal. Prohibition would rise again. Forget about that beer on the weekends after a hard week of work. Unless . . . our US Pastor were Catholic! Just think . . . one night the police might kick in your door because you missed church last Sunday. Getting ex-communicated or disfellowshipped could mean getting deported to another country! You would become a sex offender if you simply had premarital sex with another consenting adult. Don't even mention homosexuality!
The Flavor of Love and all of it's spin off variants couldn't air on TV anymore.
Hey . . . wait . . . maybe that would be a good thing!
Are there things that should be legal in our "free" society that aren't today due to the religious moral right? Think about it.
Church and State are separate. That's the law. Maybe that isn't what's done in practice, but those are the ideals that our Founding Fathers agreed upon -- regardless of what any of their religious orientations were.
Religion and morality are separate, too. Not true? Why aren't only the religious people good? Non-religious people can be quite moral and good. It's just as easy for a non-religious person to be moral as it is for a religious person to be dirty and rotten.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
What Vodou & Pentecostalism Have in Common
One day while channel surfing, I ran across a televised pod cast on Current TV about Vodou.
Nope, not the traditional voodoo stuff I was used to seeing from Hollywood like sticking pins into dolls, putting roots into peoples shoes, or invoking spells and hexes to alter luck. Instead, the author gave a close up look at the religion that was prevalent in Haiti.
At first impact, the worship services looked way different from what I was used to seeing. However, I sensed something familiar about the way they bucked and danced around with their eyes rolling back. I felt a lump in my throat as I watched faces glaze over in a trance-like state and people falling out under the influence of other spirits – welcoming the possession of some other presence or spirit to take control of them until some miracle, divine message, or euphoric experience finally happens.
On the surface, Vudou looked really strange. But deep down inside, Vodou looked quite Pentecostal.
Seeing that similarity bothered me. Such behavior was too close to what I witnessed under Pentecostalism. Sure, I saw overt differences in the Vodou worship services, but the similarities were more frighting than the oddities.
So then, what made my experiences as a Pentecostal any different? The God I chose to invoke – is that why my experience was supposed to be genuine and all others fraudulent? The particular spirit I evoke makes all the difference?
But what if that doesn't matter? What if all those feelings and all that euphoria was self imposed? Ancient cults had tongue speaking as well . . . so not even that was a unique feature of Pentecostalism.
Are we simply psyching ourselves out with self-hypnosis?
This became my next concern when my faith first started to crumble. What was making me have all that euphoria during worship and praise? Where did the ecstatic speech really come from?
I saw an episode of Is it Real? on the National Geographic channel. In a particular scene, a Martial Arts teacher caused his students to “fall out” through the power of his qi. The response of the students looked very similar to being “slain in the Spirit” in the world of Pentecostalism. The idea is that God's presence is so heavy upon you that you just faint physically. But, mentally and emotionally, you are basking in God's presence.
That was an eye opener to see! I thought that only we Pentecostals did that!
The bad part is: for many Pentecostals, these kind of experiences serve as the all important evidence that God has accepted you as a believer and is involved in your life. To see someone call on the name of some other god or to use some other energy force to produce similar supernatural events was unnerving for me. Why? Because it undermined my deity. My deity was supposed to be unique.
Yeah, yeah, I remember the big showdown between Moses and Pharaoh. And, I remember Elijah and the priests of Baal. Their wicked counterparts could produce similar miracles and signs. But, the wicked only produced counterfeit signs that only the Almighty can trump.
But, I have little faith in the accounts that the Bible gives about those two "showdowns”. Especially after reading The Bible Unearthed.
All the arguments brought up by skeptics finally started to congeal into one major front against my faith. For if the Bible wasn't a true representation of history, then without question the pre-Jesus god-men are now a serious problem for my faith. Mystery Religions could very well be the true breeding grounds of Christianity. One part Mystery Religion, two parts Essene. And now with viewing the Bible as largely legend, I can't believe that the universe was created in the fashion that the Bible expressed. So, now evolution and the Big Bang theories start to sound quite reasonable.
And what about all those supernatural experiences? Now they can easily be explained away by self-hypnoses and trance like states of the mind caused by deep concentration and meditation.
But . . . what if The Bible Unearthed was wrong? What if the Bible really was infallible and inerrant? Maybe then I could recover my faith.
So, I started to take a closer look at whether the Bible was truly inerrant or infallible. If the scriptures could prove to be such, then I could trust them again. Maybe then, I could stop feeling like Vodou and Pentecostalism had more in common than I wished to admit.
Nope, not the traditional voodoo stuff I was used to seeing from Hollywood like sticking pins into dolls, putting roots into peoples shoes, or invoking spells and hexes to alter luck. Instead, the author gave a close up look at the religion that was prevalent in Haiti.
At first impact, the worship services looked way different from what I was used to seeing. However, I sensed something familiar about the way they bucked and danced around with their eyes rolling back. I felt a lump in my throat as I watched faces glaze over in a trance-like state and people falling out under the influence of other spirits – welcoming the possession of some other presence or spirit to take control of them until some miracle, divine message, or euphoric experience finally happens.
On the surface, Vudou looked really strange. But deep down inside, Vodou looked quite Pentecostal.
Seeing that similarity bothered me. Such behavior was too close to what I witnessed under Pentecostalism. Sure, I saw overt differences in the Vodou worship services, but the similarities were more frighting than the oddities.
So then, what made my experiences as a Pentecostal any different? The God I chose to invoke – is that why my experience was supposed to be genuine and all others fraudulent? The particular spirit I evoke makes all the difference?
But what if that doesn't matter? What if all those feelings and all that euphoria was self imposed? Ancient cults had tongue speaking as well . . . so not even that was a unique feature of Pentecostalism.
Are we simply psyching ourselves out with self-hypnosis?
This became my next concern when my faith first started to crumble. What was making me have all that euphoria during worship and praise? Where did the ecstatic speech really come from?
I saw an episode of Is it Real? on the National Geographic channel. In a particular scene, a Martial Arts teacher caused his students to “fall out” through the power of his qi. The response of the students looked very similar to being “slain in the Spirit” in the world of Pentecostalism. The idea is that God's presence is so heavy upon you that you just faint physically. But, mentally and emotionally, you are basking in God's presence.
That was an eye opener to see! I thought that only we Pentecostals did that!
The bad part is: for many Pentecostals, these kind of experiences serve as the all important evidence that God has accepted you as a believer and is involved in your life. To see someone call on the name of some other god or to use some other energy force to produce similar supernatural events was unnerving for me. Why? Because it undermined my deity. My deity was supposed to be unique.
Yeah, yeah, I remember the big showdown between Moses and Pharaoh. And, I remember Elijah and the priests of Baal. Their wicked counterparts could produce similar miracles and signs. But, the wicked only produced counterfeit signs that only the Almighty can trump.
But, I have little faith in the accounts that the Bible gives about those two "showdowns”. Especially after reading The Bible Unearthed.
All the arguments brought up by skeptics finally started to congeal into one major front against my faith. For if the Bible wasn't a true representation of history, then without question the pre-Jesus god-men are now a serious problem for my faith. Mystery Religions could very well be the true breeding grounds of Christianity. One part Mystery Religion, two parts Essene. And now with viewing the Bible as largely legend, I can't believe that the universe was created in the fashion that the Bible expressed. So, now evolution and the Big Bang theories start to sound quite reasonable.
And what about all those supernatural experiences? Now they can easily be explained away by self-hypnoses and trance like states of the mind caused by deep concentration and meditation.
But . . . what if The Bible Unearthed was wrong? What if the Bible really was infallible and inerrant? Maybe then I could recover my faith.
So, I started to take a closer look at whether the Bible was truly inerrant or infallible. If the scriptures could prove to be such, then I could trust them again. Maybe then, I could stop feeling like Vodou and Pentecostalism had more in common than I wished to admit.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Who the Heck is Gilgamesh?
History has a way of bringing about rude awakenings. The Epic of Gilgamesh is one such history lesson that can blast preconceived notions out of the water – at least for those who never heard of him before.
Who in the heck is Gilgamesh, anyway?!
The story of Gilgamesh has elements that are eerily familiar to the story of Noah. I won't dare try to recount the story here. Look it up and check it out for yourself. But for me, a pre-Noah story contained in the Gilgamesh Epic was problematic for me as a Biblical fundamentalists. One of the oldest recorded pieces of literature unearthed from one of the oldest recorded societies in history has a flood story that predates the Biblical manuscript. At first I thought, “So what? Many cultures have a flood story”. But, the dating of the Gilgamesh Epic kept begging the thought that Noah's Ark was a retelling of certain parts of the Gilgamesh Epic.
But for a die hard Christian like I was, I told myself that Gilgamesh was simply confirmation of Noah's trek across the flooded earth. Civilization simply had perverted versions of the true story concerning Noah. The Gilgamesh Epic just happened to be the oldest version written down on a stone tablet. Age didn't make Gilgamesh right or true.
But, I still didn't like knowing that this bit of archeology existed. What a bummer!
And I didn't like reading about a fellow named Sargon, King of Akkad. Before the Exodus story of Moses could have happened, Sargon was floating down the river in a basket. His mother secretly sent him down a river and he was drawn out and raised as someone else's son. And, well, I suppose he became royalty one day, since he's called King of Akkad.
A thread was forming; Stories in the Bible were mirroring older non-biblical narratives. I didn't want to say it, but the Bible looked like it was copying from other works in history. Legends and folk tales appeared to be passed around from culture to culture. Other god-men, other flood stories, other babies floating down the river – all older than the Biblical text.
Maybe those archaeologists and scientist just don't know how to date things. They don't really know what they're doing. Besides, the world started off with two people. We all have the same history and ancestry. It just all got perverted over time as our various cultures developed. This stuff means nothing!
At least, that what I said to myself at the time.
I hung in there. At least now, I better understood the skeptic. I could understand why they were so stubborn in their disbelief. I was starting to realize that you really had to know your stuff to witness to a skeptic.
However, the more I learned . . . . the more I started to feel like a skeptic, too.
Who in the heck is Gilgamesh, anyway?!
The story of Gilgamesh has elements that are eerily familiar to the story of Noah. I won't dare try to recount the story here. Look it up and check it out for yourself. But for me, a pre-Noah story contained in the Gilgamesh Epic was problematic for me as a Biblical fundamentalists. One of the oldest recorded pieces of literature unearthed from one of the oldest recorded societies in history has a flood story that predates the Biblical manuscript. At first I thought, “So what? Many cultures have a flood story”. But, the dating of the Gilgamesh Epic kept begging the thought that Noah's Ark was a retelling of certain parts of the Gilgamesh Epic.
But for a die hard Christian like I was, I told myself that Gilgamesh was simply confirmation of Noah's trek across the flooded earth. Civilization simply had perverted versions of the true story concerning Noah. The Gilgamesh Epic just happened to be the oldest version written down on a stone tablet. Age didn't make Gilgamesh right or true.
But, I still didn't like knowing that this bit of archeology existed. What a bummer!
And I didn't like reading about a fellow named Sargon, King of Akkad. Before the Exodus story of Moses could have happened, Sargon was floating down the river in a basket. His mother secretly sent him down a river and he was drawn out and raised as someone else's son. And, well, I suppose he became royalty one day, since he's called King of Akkad.
A thread was forming; Stories in the Bible were mirroring older non-biblical narratives. I didn't want to say it, but the Bible looked like it was copying from other works in history. Legends and folk tales appeared to be passed around from culture to culture. Other god-men, other flood stories, other babies floating down the river – all older than the Biblical text.
Maybe those archaeologists and scientist just don't know how to date things. They don't really know what they're doing. Besides, the world started off with two people. We all have the same history and ancestry. It just all got perverted over time as our various cultures developed. This stuff means nothing!
At least, that what I said to myself at the time.
I hung in there. At least now, I better understood the skeptic. I could understand why they were so stubborn in their disbelief. I was starting to realize that you really had to know your stuff to witness to a skeptic.
However, the more I learned . . . . the more I started to feel like a skeptic, too.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The God-men
I rolled up my sleeves and I got to work at understanding the how the skeptic thinks. Why did the skeptic seems so confident in their disbelief of Christianity?
The first concept from the world of skepticism that I encountered was the “god-men” problem. This was all new to me and my mouth gaped open as I read claims that many Divine god-men came along before Christ claiming to bring salvation. I was shocked! But, I took all these claims as blatant, unfounded lies and trickery from demonic forces whose only purpose was to cause people to stray. Even if there were other “god-men” types who came and taught similar teachings to Jesus prior to 1 AD, these men in my mind were clearly counterfeit. So, eventually I dismissed this material. I didn't believe the claims. So, there . . .
Until, I came across an interesting website entitled – The Pagan Origins of the Christian Myth. This website referenced many of the former claims and materials that I read which were often referenced by skeptics. The idea was the same: Jesus isn't unique because so many other god-men came prior to him teaching and claiming similar things. And sometimes these god-men even used speech frighteningly similar to that of Christ's sayings in the New Testament. You could say they were copying Jesus, except that many of these guys came before Christ! I won't try to list them all here. Check out the link above and read all about it for yourself.
The author of POCM used an interesting analogy that caught my attention. He compares religion to soda pop. All soda pop share a few basic ingredients which is the essence of soda pop: carbonated water and sugar for starters. Now, the names are different on the cans and each brand may throw in some of their own unique flavorings. But, in the end, soda pop can't get too different as you go from drink to drink. So it is with religion; religions have a few basic ingredients that they all share: God, worship, sin, atonement, judgment, afterlife, miracles, scripture texts, clergy, and so on. And particularly during Jesus' time, a series of religions known as the Mystery Religions were prominent. These religions had rites of passage and inductions (baptism), symbolic meals (Communion), teachings with hidden meanings (teaching only the believers understand), and Divine expressions of the Godhead as a human being – just as Jesus is the divine expression of God in a human body.
Another idea that stuck with me was the challenge he gave at the beginning of his site: All these other god-men came before Jesus, and claimed to do many things like Jesus. However, we don't believe in them; we don't believe they ever performed the miraculous or made good on their claims at salvation. Nor, their claims to be God in flesh. Why then, do we believe in Jesus who isn't unique when compared to his predecessors?
Again, this didn't de-convert me; This information by itself wasn't enough to move me.
But, the skeptic's argument is long and has a cumulative effect. Later, my eyes opend to some additional ideas that caused the "god-men" problem to become a very serious problem for my faith.
The first concept from the world of skepticism that I encountered was the “god-men” problem. This was all new to me and my mouth gaped open as I read claims that many Divine god-men came along before Christ claiming to bring salvation. I was shocked! But, I took all these claims as blatant, unfounded lies and trickery from demonic forces whose only purpose was to cause people to stray. Even if there were other “god-men” types who came and taught similar teachings to Jesus prior to 1 AD, these men in my mind were clearly counterfeit. So, eventually I dismissed this material. I didn't believe the claims. So, there . . .
Until, I came across an interesting website entitled – The Pagan Origins of the Christian Myth. This website referenced many of the former claims and materials that I read which were often referenced by skeptics. The idea was the same: Jesus isn't unique because so many other god-men came prior to him teaching and claiming similar things. And sometimes these god-men even used speech frighteningly similar to that of Christ's sayings in the New Testament. You could say they were copying Jesus, except that many of these guys came before Christ! I won't try to list them all here. Check out the link above and read all about it for yourself.
The author of POCM used an interesting analogy that caught my attention. He compares religion to soda pop. All soda pop share a few basic ingredients which is the essence of soda pop: carbonated water and sugar for starters. Now, the names are different on the cans and each brand may throw in some of their own unique flavorings. But, in the end, soda pop can't get too different as you go from drink to drink. So it is with religion; religions have a few basic ingredients that they all share: God, worship, sin, atonement, judgment, afterlife, miracles, scripture texts, clergy, and so on. And particularly during Jesus' time, a series of religions known as the Mystery Religions were prominent. These religions had rites of passage and inductions (baptism), symbolic meals (Communion), teachings with hidden meanings (teaching only the believers understand), and Divine expressions of the Godhead as a human being – just as Jesus is the divine expression of God in a human body.
Another idea that stuck with me was the challenge he gave at the beginning of his site: All these other god-men came before Jesus, and claimed to do many things like Jesus. However, we don't believe in them; we don't believe they ever performed the miraculous or made good on their claims at salvation. Nor, their claims to be God in flesh. Why then, do we believe in Jesus who isn't unique when compared to his predecessors?
Again, this didn't de-convert me; This information by itself wasn't enough to move me.
But, the skeptic's argument is long and has a cumulative effect. Later, my eyes opend to some additional ideas that caused the "god-men" problem to become a very serious problem for my faith.
You know something I don't?
I always had trouble understanding why the skeptics that I personally knew were so confident in their disbelief of Christianity. Why couldn't they see the power of God? Why couldn't they seem to hear him knocking on their hearts? Some unbelievers I knew were cool and calm about their disbelief. They had this quietness with nothing to prove. They were settled. I felt like they knew some secret that I didn't really know.
Then, there are others who are vehement. They aren't just unbelievers but they have a strong dislike for Christianity. Seething anger about the influence of Christendom throughout world history and more specifically, in their lives as individuals pours out when they talk about church and Jesus. Yes, many unbelievers like this were Christians or at least went through the motions and practiced Christianity because their parents raised them so. Often many hurtful things and unnecessary sacrifices were forced upon these people during their time as practicing Christians. But, they too, seemed to know some secret that reached beyond their hurt and anger. Almost as if the hurtful events they endured under Christendom were only a catalyst to their unbelief – not the cause in and of itself.
Either way, I still puzzled over how they could be this way when the Bible was so plain and so true concerning Christ. He was so real in my life. The excitement and power I felt during worship and prayer times. Being free and being cleansed from sin! Why couldn't they feel it, too? Maybe their hearts were too cold or maybe God finally decided to leave them alone to become reprobate.
That's what I thought, anyway.
But, they were the “Lost” . . . and shouldn't we try to reach them? So now my endeavor had a goal higher than the dismantlement of any “evidence” that could disprove my faith. Now, I needed to understand the skeptic. That way, I could better witness to him or her.
I had already learned one thing about skeptics really, really quickly. You cannot come to them with scripture to prove a point. I couldn't figure out why at the time. So, I hoped that understanding why skeptics didn't accept the Bible as authority would be the key to reaching the skeptic – a group of people I often felt powerless around when trying to be a witness to them.
More than my “pride” was at stake in this fateful triple dog dare. More was at play here than proving my faith and saving face. Now, I wanted to overcome the obstacle that kept Christians from being a powerful witness to the skeptic . . . that person who will flatly tell you that they just don't accept the Bible as the Word of God.
How ironic that in trying to understand them, I became one of them!
Then, there are others who are vehement. They aren't just unbelievers but they have a strong dislike for Christianity. Seething anger about the influence of Christendom throughout world history and more specifically, in their lives as individuals pours out when they talk about church and Jesus. Yes, many unbelievers like this were Christians or at least went through the motions and practiced Christianity because their parents raised them so. Often many hurtful things and unnecessary sacrifices were forced upon these people during their time as practicing Christians. But, they too, seemed to know some secret that reached beyond their hurt and anger. Almost as if the hurtful events they endured under Christendom were only a catalyst to their unbelief – not the cause in and of itself.
Either way, I still puzzled over how they could be this way when the Bible was so plain and so true concerning Christ. He was so real in my life. The excitement and power I felt during worship and prayer times. Being free and being cleansed from sin! Why couldn't they feel it, too? Maybe their hearts were too cold or maybe God finally decided to leave them alone to become reprobate.
That's what I thought, anyway.
But, they were the “Lost” . . . and shouldn't we try to reach them? So now my endeavor had a goal higher than the dismantlement of any “evidence” that could disprove my faith. Now, I needed to understand the skeptic. That way, I could better witness to him or her.
I had already learned one thing about skeptics really, really quickly. You cannot come to them with scripture to prove a point. I couldn't figure out why at the time. So, I hoped that understanding why skeptics didn't accept the Bible as authority would be the key to reaching the skeptic – a group of people I often felt powerless around when trying to be a witness to them.
More than my “pride” was at stake in this fateful triple dog dare. More was at play here than proving my faith and saving face. Now, I wanted to overcome the obstacle that kept Christians from being a powerful witness to the skeptic . . . that person who will flatly tell you that they just don't accept the Bible as the Word of God.
How ironic that in trying to understand them, I became one of them!
Monday, April 30, 2007
The Double Dog Dare
So, I keep insisting that I was a strong Christian before my doubts about my faith set in. If that was true, how could I become weak in faith and walk away?
Ever have someone dare you? Ever have someone double dog dare you?
Triple dog?
If you've got a lot of passion about a belief and then someone double dog dares you with the challenge that your faith can be proven false – why, it's on, baby! Bring it! Let's go, chump! Who is this uncircumcised Philistine – cause Goliath is fixin' to go down hard and get a beat down!
That's basically what happened to me. I inadvertently came across a documentary trailer for The God who Wasn't There. Most of the trailer just glazed over my mind; It was all junk to me. Why listen to it? But, somewhere in all that stuff I heard:
Huh? What did that guy just say? Did he just say there was more evidence against Christianity than for it? Oh, no he dih-ent! He just basically said that if I knew the real truth, I'd have to lie to myself to remain a Christian!
Did he just double dog dare me?!
Nope. That was a triple dog dare!
Just like David didn't back down from Goliath, I wasn't going to back down from this slanderous accusation against God's Word.
Christianity was solid enough to withstand the harshest criticism. I was ready for the challenge.
"The Bible is true”, I told myself. The only possible outcome is for the Bible to win this challenge.
Right?
Ever have someone dare you? Ever have someone double dog dare you?
Triple dog?
If you've got a lot of passion about a belief and then someone double dog dares you with the challenge that your faith can be proven false – why, it's on, baby! Bring it! Let's go, chump! Who is this uncircumcised Philistine – cause Goliath is fixin' to go down hard and get a beat down!
That's basically what happened to me. I inadvertently came across a documentary trailer for The God who Wasn't There. Most of the trailer just glazed over my mind; It was all junk to me. Why listen to it? But, somewhere in all that stuff I heard:
People continue to believe in Christianity in spite of the evidence against it, not because of the evidence for it.
Huh? What did that guy just say? Did he just say there was more evidence against Christianity than for it? Oh, no he dih-ent! He just basically said that if I knew the real truth, I'd have to lie to myself to remain a Christian!
Did he just double dog dare me?!
Nope. That was a triple dog dare!
Just like David didn't back down from Goliath, I wasn't going to back down from this slanderous accusation against God's Word.
Christianity was solid enough to withstand the harshest criticism. I was ready for the challenge.
"The Bible is true”, I told myself. The only possible outcome is for the Bible to win this challenge.
Right?
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Leaving the Sandbox
So . . . what kind of Christian was I and why did I leave my faith?
The process didn't happen over night. This de-conversion took place gradually over the course of two years in all.
I was raised Baptist during my early childhood and adolescence. During my late teenage years, I followed after the Pentecostal persuasion until my de-conversion. While I'm not over the hill yet, I'm no spring chicken, either. So, I spent many years in tight adherence to Pentecostalism. After years of mindlessly following the tenets of my faith, I started to question the traditions that didn't seem Biblically founded. Some traditions even seemed contradictory to the Biblical writings! At that point, I wanted to weed out those things that were from people and nurture those things found in God's Word.
I hungered for authentic Christianity and determined I'd search for it. I wanted to live out what the Bible taught instead of just following what people said. My goal was to strengthen my faith and make my faith true. Little did I know my endeavor was the beginning of the end of my Christian faith.
How can that be?! How can a Pentecostal zealot even walk away from the Faith? Doesn't the speaking in tongues experience validate the Biblical writings? Tongues, man! Why, that's experiencing the miraculous, right?
Again – little did I know I was headed for where I am now. My search was to come closer to God. My honest desire was to be real and earnest concerning my faith in Christ. I would fast and pray often. I would read my Bible and attend church quite regularly. Yes, I had moments where I got off track, but I was involved and dedicated. I committed my life to Jesus Christ.
Unequivocally, I was a strong Christian.
That's why I wanted to better understand my faith. Once I realized the Jewish roots of Christianity, I became fascinated by the early church. I wanted my faith to look more like the way the early church behaved. One year, I wanted to celebrate Good Friday by having the Lord's Supper in the way that the first century believers might have done. Then, I was going to do an intense Bible study from Good Friday into Passover. That's when I noticed in this specific year Easter Sunday fell out of sync with Passover; I did not see Passover in the same month as Easter that year. Why?! After all, Passover is the foreshadowing of Christ's blood being shed for sin, right? How could Passover ever be out of sync with Easter?
Church tradition has a slightly different schedule from Passover's schedule because the church wanted to make sure Easter always fell in a certain range of weeks each year -- regardless of whether Passover fit the schedule or not. So . . . now and then . . . Passover and Easter get out of sync.
Inevitably, other questions started to surface. Why did we file down the aisles for a small wafer and tiny cup of grape juice or a tiny gulp of wine during Communion? The Lord's Supper was clearly a meal where believers ate a Passover-like meal together to commemorate the death and Resurrection of Christ. The Apostle Paul's description of Communion in I Corinthians 11 strongly suggest that the early church had Communion as a meal. The Last Supper was most likely one of many smaller ceremonial meals that Jews had leading up to the main Passover celebration.
So, why are we doing it so differently?
A deep passion rose up in me about these things. Ideas about how we could practice our faith more like the early church started bubbling out of me. But my ideas and my passion started making other Christians around me a little nervous. Pointing out the Jewishness of the Christian faith seemed unsettling for other Christians. “Don't rock the boat” formed on people's expressions when I started bringing up these type issues. Or else, eyes would just glaze over out of disinterest. Or, my ideas just were not making much sense.
Not my fault Passover and Easter get out of sync from time to time.
Oh well . . . why does it matter? Just don't worry about it.
So, that's what I tried to do.
Then, other odd issues started to come up. Why did I have to pay tithes, again? If the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ and I'm not to keep the law to receive or maintain my salvation – why do I have to perform the Jewish law of tithing?
Isn't that like going back to circumcision?
Boy, I really got dirty looks for that idea! But, why should I get dirty looks? I'm trying to live under “grace”. I'm still trying to live my life by the rules the Apostles and Jesus left us in the New Testament. I'm still trying to take Old Testament writings and learn from them and apply their meaning within the dispensation of grace. What's wrong with that? The book of Galatians really comes to mind right now. Basically, Paul is asking a group of Gentile believers why they are letting pockets of Jewish Christians insist they must practice parts of Judaism to be fully Christian.
Sounds like tithes would fit into that category quite nicely.
But, discovering these things didn't shake my faith. Nor did the lack of concern from other Christians.
What did happen, however, was this – I left my little mental sandbox for the first time. I was actually believing in Jesus Christ because the Biblical text said to do so; I had started placing my trust in the Bible. So, I left the sandbox of tradition to allow my faith to be molded by the Biblical text – not people's opinions.
So, if my faith was growing so strong, why did I lose it? Because, leaving the status quo trained my mind to accept new ideas. This laid the foundation for me realizing that dangerous possibility: maybe something other than my beliefs were true-- making me totally wrong about my core beliefs.
The process didn't happen over night. This de-conversion took place gradually over the course of two years in all.
I was raised Baptist during my early childhood and adolescence. During my late teenage years, I followed after the Pentecostal persuasion until my de-conversion. While I'm not over the hill yet, I'm no spring chicken, either. So, I spent many years in tight adherence to Pentecostalism. After years of mindlessly following the tenets of my faith, I started to question the traditions that didn't seem Biblically founded. Some traditions even seemed contradictory to the Biblical writings! At that point, I wanted to weed out those things that were from people and nurture those things found in God's Word.
I hungered for authentic Christianity and determined I'd search for it. I wanted to live out what the Bible taught instead of just following what people said. My goal was to strengthen my faith and make my faith true. Little did I know my endeavor was the beginning of the end of my Christian faith.
How can that be?! How can a Pentecostal zealot even walk away from the Faith? Doesn't the speaking in tongues experience validate the Biblical writings? Tongues, man! Why, that's experiencing the miraculous, right?
Again – little did I know I was headed for where I am now. My search was to come closer to God. My honest desire was to be real and earnest concerning my faith in Christ. I would fast and pray often. I would read my Bible and attend church quite regularly. Yes, I had moments where I got off track, but I was involved and dedicated. I committed my life to Jesus Christ.
Unequivocally, I was a strong Christian.
That's why I wanted to better understand my faith. Once I realized the Jewish roots of Christianity, I became fascinated by the early church. I wanted my faith to look more like the way the early church behaved. One year, I wanted to celebrate Good Friday by having the Lord's Supper in the way that the first century believers might have done. Then, I was going to do an intense Bible study from Good Friday into Passover. That's when I noticed in this specific year Easter Sunday fell out of sync with Passover; I did not see Passover in the same month as Easter that year. Why?! After all, Passover is the foreshadowing of Christ's blood being shed for sin, right? How could Passover ever be out of sync with Easter?
Church tradition has a slightly different schedule from Passover's schedule because the church wanted to make sure Easter always fell in a certain range of weeks each year -- regardless of whether Passover fit the schedule or not. So . . . now and then . . . Passover and Easter get out of sync.
Inevitably, other questions started to surface. Why did we file down the aisles for a small wafer and tiny cup of grape juice or a tiny gulp of wine during Communion? The Lord's Supper was clearly a meal where believers ate a Passover-like meal together to commemorate the death and Resurrection of Christ. The Apostle Paul's description of Communion in I Corinthians 11 strongly suggest that the early church had Communion as a meal. The Last Supper was most likely one of many smaller ceremonial meals that Jews had leading up to the main Passover celebration.
So, why are we doing it so differently?
A deep passion rose up in me about these things. Ideas about how we could practice our faith more like the early church started bubbling out of me. But my ideas and my passion started making other Christians around me a little nervous. Pointing out the Jewishness of the Christian faith seemed unsettling for other Christians. “Don't rock the boat” formed on people's expressions when I started bringing up these type issues. Or else, eyes would just glaze over out of disinterest. Or, my ideas just were not making much sense.
Not my fault Passover and Easter get out of sync from time to time.
Oh well . . . why does it matter? Just don't worry about it.
So, that's what I tried to do.
Then, other odd issues started to come up. Why did I have to pay tithes, again? If the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ and I'm not to keep the law to receive or maintain my salvation – why do I have to perform the Jewish law of tithing?
Isn't that like going back to circumcision?
Boy, I really got dirty looks for that idea! But, why should I get dirty looks? I'm trying to live under “grace”. I'm still trying to live my life by the rules the Apostles and Jesus left us in the New Testament. I'm still trying to take Old Testament writings and learn from them and apply their meaning within the dispensation of grace. What's wrong with that? The book of Galatians really comes to mind right now. Basically, Paul is asking a group of Gentile believers why they are letting pockets of Jewish Christians insist they must practice parts of Judaism to be fully Christian.
Sounds like tithes would fit into that category quite nicely.
But, discovering these things didn't shake my faith. Nor did the lack of concern from other Christians.
What did happen, however, was this – I left my little mental sandbox for the first time. I was actually believing in Jesus Christ because the Biblical text said to do so; I had started placing my trust in the Bible. So, I left the sandbox of tradition to allow my faith to be molded by the Biblical text – not people's opinions.
So, if my faith was growing so strong, why did I lose it? Because, leaving the status quo trained my mind to accept new ideas. This laid the foundation for me realizing that dangerous possibility: maybe something other than my beliefs were true-- making me totally wrong about my core beliefs.
Talking through the closet door . . .
I'm a closet ex-Christian. There. I said it. I've been so afraid to tell my Christian friends and family members that I've lost my religious beliefs. I've hid this for almost two years now. But now I'm desperate to pour out my thoughts about my changing beliefs. Yes – this is my dirty little secret. I can't keep it to myself any longer. But, I can't tell this to the believers still in my life. I don't want to injure their faith. I don't want to infect them with the doubt that I've contracted. I don't want to drive a wedge between me and my Christian friends and family members.
But, so much is bottled up inside of me and I have to let it out somewhere!
Maybe I'll be safe here. I can be anonymous and say what I really think and feel and still avoid fallout from my Christian friends and family. I'll confess now . . . I'll talk! I'll talk! But only from behind my closet door. I'm not ready to come out and be seen just yet. But, I can't keep quite any longer!
I'm walking away from practicing any religion – not just Christianity. I would share the reason why with my Christian loved ones, but I fear that I might shake their faith just as mine was shaken.
Ultimately, this blog is a release for me – a journal of my evolving beliefs.
Ah . . . and the Internet is so big; I'll be very surprised if anyone even visits here. But, if someone should, feel free to comment, share or even argue against anything I post; just be civil about any argument you post. I agree to let people disagree with me. An open mind opens one to the world. And few things open the mind like listening to a difference in opinion.
But, so much is bottled up inside of me and I have to let it out somewhere!
Maybe I'll be safe here. I can be anonymous and say what I really think and feel and still avoid fallout from my Christian friends and family. I'll confess now . . . I'll talk! I'll talk! But only from behind my closet door. I'm not ready to come out and be seen just yet. But, I can't keep quite any longer!
I'm walking away from practicing any religion – not just Christianity. I would share the reason why with my Christian loved ones, but I fear that I might shake their faith just as mine was shaken.
Ultimately, this blog is a release for me – a journal of my evolving beliefs.
Ah . . . and the Internet is so big; I'll be very surprised if anyone even visits here. But, if someone should, feel free to comment, share or even argue against anything I post; just be civil about any argument you post. I agree to let people disagree with me. An open mind opens one to the world. And few things open the mind like listening to a difference in opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
