I read an analogy that I found appropriate.
Being on the outside and looking in at Christianity is like being unplugged from "The Matrix".
Everyone who is "plugged in" lives in a world where a deity rules supreme, where angels and Satan exist, where the saved mingle with the saints, and the unsaved are forgotten - or worse, they are NOT forgotten!
But outside, there are those of us who look at this complex inner life, and can do very little to change it. We can talk, we can yell. It doesn't matter. As Cypher said, "Ignorance is bliss."
I won't strain the analogy by talking about pills of various colors, and whether or not it is a sign of intelligence to be on the inside, or the outside of this belief system.
But I will say that being on the outside has been very rewarding.
I am responsible for my own actions. I'm not "gifted" - no deity gave me anything. I have some talent, and some hard won skills, and a lot of luck and support from those who love me. What I've accomplished I can have pride in, and I can be grateful to those people who have invested in my future.
I don't have a mental peeping Tom. That realization alone was extremely valuable to me. In the privacy of my thoughts, I'm allowed to be unkind, to be jealous, to be angry. I'm allowed to feel, and not feel guilty for feeling. I spent almost 3 decades believing that my thoughts were monitored, in a real "tinfoil hat" manner. I was being judged by a deity who knew my least charitable thoughts.
That's gone. And it is freeing! And yes, I know that my actions are informed by my thoughts, so I do try to keep good mental hygiene. But at the same time, I'm allowed to give myself some space to be outraged, to be unkind, to throw my own pity-party. I just keep it short, and then get over it. I didn't realize how much I stressed over this silliness.
I've lost my fear of Hell. That gave me nightmares as a believer. Even as someone who can lucid dream, some nightmares hurt before I could bring them under control. With that worry gone, my dreams are much less Armageddon-ish.
All in all, my life is much less stressful outside the Matrix. It is more relaxed. There is no "God-shaped hole" in my life. And there is no more fear there either.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
The Christian church is its own biggest enemy
Ed Stetzer writes in Christianity Today about pastors who are finding themselves on the Ashley Madison list.
From the article:
This isn't a dig. Oh, sure, I've been making digs at the Duggar family for Josh's (many!) indiscretions. But mostly that is because they have made a name for themselves as a literal "Holier than Thou" family. They are suffering from a poverty of humility.
From Steve Farrar’s book, "Finishing Strong" (published in 2000):
Non-Christians fail too. But even very public non-Christians generate little more than a "meh" in the media when they are caught cheating.
This deficit of humility, this hypocrisy, this facade of pretending that biological urges don't exist, and the refusal to have frank and rational discussions about human sexuality is chipping away at religion like an ice pick.
The Church is portraying itself as rigid, unyielding, and impassive toward those who are vulnerable. It is seen as being unable to live up to its own ideas.
No wonder church attendance is dropping among young people. The youth of this generation is having this conversation. And they are noticing who is telling them to "shut up" about it.
From the article:
Based on my conversations with leaders from several denominations in the U.S. and Canada, I estimate that at least 400 church leaders (pastors, elders, staff, deacons, etc.) will be resigning Sunday. (Due to being on the Ashley Madison List)I'm not surprised.
This isn't a dig. Oh, sure, I've been making digs at the Duggar family for Josh's (many!) indiscretions. But mostly that is because they have made a name for themselves as a literal "Holier than Thou" family. They are suffering from a poverty of humility.
From Steve Farrar’s book, "Finishing Strong" (published in 2000):
A number of years ago a national conference for church youth directors was held at a major hotel in a city in the mid-west. Youth pastors by the hundreds flooded into that hotel and took nearly every room. At the conclusion of the conference, the hotel manager told the conference administrator that the number of guests who tuned into the adult movie channel broke the previous record, far and away outdoing any other convention in the history of the hotel.The consumption of "porn on demand" in hotels during Christian conferences has been noted since the '90's. Pastors, Churches, and major religious bodies have been publicly warning their flocks that they are being watched. But the warnings never worked because "Plausible deniability" made it all too easy.
Non-Christians fail too. But even very public non-Christians generate little more than a "meh" in the media when they are caught cheating.
This deficit of humility, this hypocrisy, this facade of pretending that biological urges don't exist, and the refusal to have frank and rational discussions about human sexuality is chipping away at religion like an ice pick.
The Church is portraying itself as rigid, unyielding, and impassive toward those who are vulnerable. It is seen as being unable to live up to its own ideas.
No wonder church attendance is dropping among young people. The youth of this generation is having this conversation. And they are noticing who is telling them to "shut up" about it.
Do you have a book that will make me religious? Let me know! Or better yet, send it to me!
Carl (a former atheist) wrote in one of my posts about Ray Comfort, that he, "wonder(s) if atheists have ever truly looked at Christian Apologetics objectively."
I found this comment interesting because I do have several bookshelf feet of Christian apologetics.
Carl did mention a couple of apologists that I didn't know about. And because of that, I've just ordered a copy of "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions" by Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Berlinski. I chose this book due to the review by Rebecca Hamilton on the blog "Public Catholic".
I've also added Ravi Zacharias, and St. Ignatius of Antioch to my apologetics wishlist on Amazon. William Lane Craig is already in my list, and I own copies of "Hard Questions, Real Answers" and "Reasonable Faith" by Craig.
I purchase anywhere from 10-20 physical books a month, and more digitally. I prefer purchasing physical copies of apologetics because I like to write my thoughts in the margins. (You should see my copy of "Mere Christianity"!)
But if it comes down to it, if I have the choice between purchasing a book for work, or for personal growth, or for entertainment, or for religion - religion takes a back seat to the rest. My primary wish list has over 900 books on it!
So here is where you might be willing to help me out. First, suggest a book that will make me abandon atheism for your religion. I don't care if you are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, or a Bön shamanist from Tibet. If you know a great apologetics book for your relgion, suggest it to me and I'll add it to my apologetics wishlist on Amazon.
Next, if you wish (no pressure here!) you might see it clear to actually browse my apologetics wishlist and actually PURCHASE one of these books for me as a gift. You could purchase it for me used if it is available. I don't mind.
In fact, many of my books are used, either from Amazon, or from me combing through the local used bookstores, Goodwill, AmVets, or Salvation Army. The demographics of this area include lots of older religious conservatives, and when they die their books are frequently donated. (I find lots and LOTS of books from Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, and Tom Clancy. That gives you a broad idea of what the local conservative mindset is like.)
So, let me know what book you want to see on my Amazon wishlist. Or take a look at it yourself, and send me a copy. But only if you really feel like it.
I found this comment interesting because I do have several bookshelf feet of Christian apologetics.
Carl did mention a couple of apologists that I didn't know about. And because of that, I've just ordered a copy of "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions" by Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Berlinski. I chose this book due to the review by Rebecca Hamilton on the blog "Public Catholic".
I've also added Ravi Zacharias, and St. Ignatius of Antioch to my apologetics wishlist on Amazon. William Lane Craig is already in my list, and I own copies of "Hard Questions, Real Answers" and "Reasonable Faith" by Craig.
I purchase anywhere from 10-20 physical books a month, and more digitally. I prefer purchasing physical copies of apologetics because I like to write my thoughts in the margins. (You should see my copy of "Mere Christianity"!)
But if it comes down to it, if I have the choice between purchasing a book for work, or for personal growth, or for entertainment, or for religion - religion takes a back seat to the rest. My primary wish list has over 900 books on it!
So here is where you might be willing to help me out. First, suggest a book that will make me abandon atheism for your religion. I don't care if you are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, or a Bön shamanist from Tibet. If you know a great apologetics book for your relgion, suggest it to me and I'll add it to my apologetics wishlist on Amazon.
Next, if you wish (no pressure here!) you might see it clear to actually browse my apologetics wishlist and actually PURCHASE one of these books for me as a gift. You could purchase it for me used if it is available. I don't mind.
In fact, many of my books are used, either from Amazon, or from me combing through the local used bookstores, Goodwill, AmVets, or Salvation Army. The demographics of this area include lots of older religious conservatives, and when they die their books are frequently donated. (I find lots and LOTS of books from Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, and Tom Clancy. That gives you a broad idea of what the local conservative mindset is like.)
So, let me know what book you want to see on my Amazon wishlist. Or take a look at it yourself, and send me a copy. But only if you really feel like it.
Christian Credentials - Redux
Christians who make a living "being Christian", benefit from having a sordid past and a dramatic transformation. The more sordid the past, the more dramatic the transformation, the better.
This directly translates into marketability as a Christian. And when dollars are on the line, who can blame someone who "embellishes" their past. Like a fisherman talking about "The One That Got Away", the story grows to impress the audience.
When a Christian speaks of their sordid past, how much of their story based on fact? I don't doubt that there is some truth - but how much? In many cases it's impossible to know for sure.
It is expected that all beliefs should be disrespected.
Beliefs are a hypothesis about the world.
Some are well proven - for instance, the belief that elevators work is so well proven that it is taken for granted to be true. Other beliefs have little or no evidence to back them up. The belief that Lizard People are taking over our world governments has little, if any, credible evidence.
Disrespect toward a belief is not offensive, in fact - it is expected. All beliefs should be continually tested.
Finding a belief to be ridiculous, and making fun of it, is not a sign of disrespect, because beliefs do not have emotions, and cannot be victims of derision.
It is true that people think less of other people who hold uncommonly strange beliefs. Beliefs held by some are so strange that asserting them will make average people doubt the mental health of the one holding that belief.
So yes, I may show some derision toward those people who are asserting that Lizard People are secretly ruling the world. If they try to act on those beliefs, I may move to counter those actions if I believe them to be harmful.
You do have the right to your feelings. Feel free to be offended that someone like me is deriding you due to something that you believe.
But don't you DARE try to shut me or anyone else up by using legislation or through some sort of social shaming. Trying to silence a person is more offensive than any belief you or they may hold. I'm a proponent of free expression, and will get very annoyed at people who tell me to shut up and respect their beliefs.
If you truly want me or anyone else to stop deriding a belief that you hold dear, you can do so by demonstrating that belief is well supported by evidence.
Given sufficient evidence, I would even stop deriding the idea of Lizard People. Given extraordinary evidence, I would adopt that belief myself.
12 Crosses - On the Christian response to the massacre at Aurora Colorado
Greg Zanis drove 16 hours from Aurora Illinois to Aurora Colorado in order to set up 12 crosses in tribute to the 12 victims of James Holmes.
Denver Colorado resident Arthur Blessitt also arrived soon after the attacks at the Century 16 theater, carrying the same 12-foot tall cross that he has already carried to every nation in the world, over 40 thousand miles in the last 44 years.
These Christians, and others, haven't asked to which religions, if any, the victims belonged.
Zanis has said that the crosses he built are for the families of the deceased, and has said that they are welcome to take the crosses. He doesn't know, or seem to care, that to some people this might be presumptuous, and perhaps insulting.
There are atheists who are making hay out of this - and I won't be joining them.
These are people who are dealing with tragedy, and who will do so in their own way. Whether it is by carrying a big cross, or by bringing little crosses to lay at a memorial. I think there is little difference between this, and the laying of flowers, or a teddy bear, or photos or a candle at the scene of a tragedy.
Yes, there are those few religious people who have taken a moment to use this tragedy to build themselves up. The always odious Bryan Fischer has used the Aurora shooting as an opportunity to attack the LGBT community and lay blame on those who have "turned away from God", including the ACLU and the Supreme Court.
Are Blessitt and Zanis riding this tragedy for personal fame? I don't know, and I haven't cared to find out.
But I think the majority of Christians are just trying to deal with this tragedy - in whatever way makes sense to them.
Ultimately this tragedy is senseless. As an atheist, I know there are people who are not able to feel empathy for others, people to whom sympathy is a foreign emotion. These people are exactly the types of outliers we would see if we charted the bell curve of evolved human compassion. They lie outside of the norm. What makes sense to people like Holmes wouldn't make any sense at all to most of us.
You use the tools you have for the job at hand. If all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. If your tool is religion, you'll deal with tragedy using religion. If your tool is rational thought, empathy, sympathy for others, then you will deal with tragedy in that manner.
Speaking just from my experience, neither religion, nor rational thought is equal to real grief. Only time lessens tragedy.
The universe was created a week ago Thursday.
In the beginning there was nothing.
No space, no time. No matter, or energy - nothing.
Well, almost nothing.
There was, in fact, a mind.
I'm as surprised at this as you are - because for the history of human history no one has been able to demonstrate evidence that a mind can exist without a brain to make it run. Minds are funny that way. All of our latest, up to date neurological science indicates that a mind is an emergent property of a brain - or to put it in layman's terms, "A mind is what a brain does."
But here we are, before time started, before matter existed, there was a mind.
But before we discuss what it was that this mind thought, let us discuss the manner in which it thought.
Electrical engineers and software programmers know and use parallel processing. This is where you use multiple processors to split up a software task and accomplish your task faster. More processors in parallel equal faster tasks.
But what if you only have one processor, and it exists without time and space?
Without time, one task doesn't happen before another task, because there is no "before", no "after". Without space, the signals that make up the task instructions don't have anywhere to travel.
In "Jonathan Livingston Seagull", by Richard Bach, Jonathan says to Skully:
But overcome space, and all we have left is Here. Overcome time, and all we have left is Now. And in the middle of Here and Now, don't you think that we might see each other once or twice?"
Obviously science is wrong... without space and time, thought doesn't stop - instead thought becomes infinte. All thoughts that occur to this mind happen at once, during an instant that takes zero time. If you counted to a billion, at a rate of two numbers per second, it would take you fifteen years to finish. But for a mind in zero time, even imagining that it would take no time at all is wrong... and confusing. For such a mind, counting to a billion just happens.
So what would such a mind do?
Such a mind would be capable of thinking so deeply, that it could imagine new worlds, and simulate them, doing it over and over again until it understood the process so well that it was perfect. It could simulate a perfect world, alongside of all the other worlds where it made mistakes in their simulations.
It could do this all at the same time - the word "instantly" has no meaning here.
I can only imagine that it would become bored - being able to think all of it's thoughts at once, outside of time, is equivelent to living forever. Eventually, where you live in eternity, or if you live in an eternal now, you will realize you have done everything you can do, and your existance has no meaning, no purpose.
So let's suppose that this perfect mind, out of boredom, plans it's own death. To kill a mind that lives in an eternal now, it would need to destroy its environment. It could destroy the eternal "here and now" by creating space and time.
After giving it a great deal of thought, such a mind could simulate an entire universe filled with space and time, where matter and energy are emergent properties, where natural laws result in the eventual evolution of intelligence.
It could examine this wonderful simulation in detail. It could see that it takes ages for the universe to build itself up from the original Helium and Hydrogen. Finally, according to the simulation, life would ignite, and use evolutionary processes to gradually become intelligent.
"Frankly," the mind muses to itself, "the first 14.6 billion years of my simulation are incredibly boring. Instead of starting from the beginning, I think I will start along a bit."
Finally the mind exerts it's will, and in doing so creates time and space, matter and energy, and places them all in a form that meets it's best simulation, at about the 14.6 billion year mark.
In the process of creation, the mind, our creator, ceases to exist. Which was the point of the exercise after all.
So that's how we all came into existence, a week ago from this week's Thursday. We were created by a mind in the process of destroying itself. Everything that you or I think we experienced before last week Thursday was only simulated by this mind. Yes, it feels true to us, but how can we tell? It is, after all, a perfect simulation brought to life.
And for those of you who say that this is a tall tale, that there is no evidence that this ever happened... I'll agree. There is no evidence that this happened. And there is no way that you can prove that it did NOT happen.
So if I've directed you here, to read this tale, it is probably because you have said something equally silly, such as: "You can't prove that God does NOT exist!"
So true. And you can't prove that you actually existed two weeks ago.
Silencing Christians
Pam's House Blend reported on the launching of the new AFA website called, "Silencing Christians". Apparently it's run by Don Wildmon's son Tim, who's following in his father's footsteps.
From Pam's website:
When he first announced this project, Wildmon had this to say:
On the "Silencing Christians" website, there is a survey. The survey asks thirteen questions, and gives "Yes, No, Maybe" multiple choice answers. However it would be better to answer these questions essay style.
For a site that is supposed to expose bias, these questions reveal a surprising amount of bias! I'll answer these questions here:
From Pam's website:
The premise is that Christians are under assault by homosexualists, enabled by state and local governments and schools, to force them to accept LGBTs as -- gasp -- human beings deserving of civil rights! They are careful to mention "former homosexuals" and those struggling with "unwanted same-sex attraction" in order to soothe and absolve the target audience of "Christians" that their motivations are rooted in compassion, not bigotry.Don Wildmon got this thing rolling back in February 2008 when he announced a 13 week half-hour television series called "Speechless... Silencing Christians" on the Inspiration cable network INSP. (Not available from any cable provider in my area.) After its run, he made it available as a streaming video online.
When he first announced this project, Wildmon had this to say:
For years, I have had a dream that AFA would find a way to produce and distribute TV programs addressing major moral issues, programs that explain how great the anti-Christian bias is in our society and that give viewers ways to respond.
On the "Silencing Christians" website, there is a survey. The survey asks thirteen questions, and gives "Yes, No, Maybe" multiple choice answers. However it would be better to answer these questions essay style.
For a site that is supposed to expose bias, these questions reveal a surprising amount of bias! I'll answer these questions here:
- Do you believe the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin?
- Yes. Both in the New Testament and Old Testament. Jesus also condemns all women who divorce their husbands (for any offense) as adulterers. And Paul says Christians shouldn't sue each other in front of a secular judge. Perhaps we shouldn't be getting moral advice from a bunch of stories about amateur philosophers who lived a couple of thousand years ago?
- Can homosexuals change their sexual orientation?
- No one really knows for sure, but in many cases the answer seems to be "no".
- Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?
- Yes.
- Should homosexuals be given the same special rights extended to African-Americans and other minorities?
- What "special rights" have been given to blacks? The right to not be treated as chattel? The right to be treated equally? The right to an interracial marriage? The right to the same rights as other American citizens? The language you use here exposes more than a little racism.
- Should hate crimes legislation be passed that would call for more severe penalties for crimes against homosexuals?
- No. Hate crime legislation should be passed that gives equally severe penalties for a hate crime. In some states the penalty for a hate crime against a gay person is less than for a similar crime against an ethnic or religious minority. How is that fair?
- Do you believe that churches and religious organizations should be forced to hire homosexuals?
- No. They are private organizations. Just like the Boy Scouts. They should be allowed to ban anyone they want from their clubs. However, if they do so they should be denied government funding of any sort so that the State may remain neutral toward religion. If the State gives money to a group who bans some of the State's citizens, then endorsement of this practice is implied. How could citizens be equal in these conditions?
- Would you support a boycott of a major U.S. corporation that contributes money to support homosexual activist organizations?
- No. And judging from your results, neither should you. That boycott against Disney really brought them to their knees didn't it?
- Should judges be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court who support extending special rights to homosexuals?
- No. Judges should be appointed who support equal rights to all citizens, and who uphold the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Special rights - such as the special right that some non-profit organizations must pay taxes while others don't, should be closely examined for fairness.
- Should employers be forced to extend special consideration in the hiring of homosexuals?
- No. Employers should be forced to treat employees and potential employees equally in compliance with basic human rights and the rights that any American citizen has. In other words, no glass ceilings, no quid pro quo, no hiring minorities just because you need a "token", no firing employees because they refuse to believe in E-meters and Thetans, and no shuffling resumes to the bottom of the pile just because someone seems effeminate or butch.
- Is the secular media demonstrating a bias in favor of the homosexual agenda?
- I don't know. Which secular media do you mean? Fox News? Is the secular media less biased about the "homosexual agenda" than the religious media? I don't think so.
- Do you support amending the U.S. Constitution to limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman?
- No.
- Should children in public schools be taught homosexuality is normal, acceptable, and equal to the traditional marriage of a man and a woman?
- It depends on the age of the children. Should we teach drivers education to kindergarteners? Or maybe have woodshop for first graders? Sex education is important, and some subjects are important enough to be taught before puberty, while other subjects can wait for later. By the time puberty happens, some kids are going to realize they are not like their friends. They shouldn't have to feel like outcasts because of this - so it would be immoral to allow kids to think that it is right to treat homosexuals differently, unequally.
- Do you agree that Christians should be arrested for speaking against homosexuality in public places?
- No. I will gladly, vehemently defend a Christian's right to say whatever he feels is appropriate in a public place, as long as he or she doesn't break any law in doing so. (No yelling "Fire" in the theater.) However, I've noticed that preaching hate only gets a certain class of people to join your congregation. Is that who you really want as your membership?
Proposition 8 passed, same sex marriage is unlawful. Now what?
I've said before that I think same-sex marriage in the United States is inevitable.
It's going to happen. Get used to the idea now.
It will happen because the children of today are more accepting of the LGBT community than my generation, or of my father's generation. The older generations are fading away, and today's youth are taking over.
On March 7th of 2000, California Proposition 22 modified California's civil code to limit marriage to a man and a woman. That proposition passed 61.4% to 38.6%. That 61.4% was touted by Christian conservatives over and over again in the following years as a "Clear indication of the will of all Californians."
Proposition 8 today looks like it will pass 52% to 48%. That "clear indication" has dropped 10 points in 8 years. I believe this trend will continue.
And while it is much harder to overturn a constitutional amendment in California than it is to enact one - I do believe that there will come a time when this blot of hate will be removed from the state constitution.
It has been brought to my attention that the passage of Proposition 8 may be the best thing to happen to same-sex marriage. If Proposition 8 had failed, religious conservatives would have recreated it again and again for each election cycle. It would have been remade with more subtle wording - designed to worm it's way into law while remaining beneath our notice.
If we must legislate hate, if we must remove rights, it is better that we do it openly. It is better that we recognize that this is done out of purely religious motivation and that it is based upon an inflexible "moral" code that equates homosexuality with murder, deceit and malice. Let us all see that the Christian religion calls homosexuals, "senseless, faithless, heartless," and "ruthless" who are "wicked, evil, greedy," and "depraved".
It is this same religious morality that says in no uncertain terms that homosexuals, and those who support them, are worthy of nothing more than death itself. (Romans 1:18-32)
It is good to bring this hate out in the open so we can examine it under bright lights with high magnification. We have states in conflict - a marriage certificate in one state is worthless in another. This violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and it must be addressed at a Federal level.
And I believe that in time, and with effort, equality will prevail. I believe that because last night I watched equality prevail in an historic election. I believe that equality will prevail because members of the LGBT community have come "out of the closet", so that more and more Americans recognize that they know, or are related to someone who is gay. I believe that equality will prevail because while it is easy to hate a faceless, nameless "evil", it is much harder to hate a kind aunt, or a loving son, or a friendly neighbor. I believe that equality will eventually prevail because even now, even under Proposition 8, same-sex couples are allowed to have and to raise children in a loving home - and those children will influence other children, and they will all grow up and vote their conscious out of love and knowledge.
The one thing that the Protectmarriage.com people have said that they fear the most - that same-sex marriage will be taught to children in class - has already come to pass. Your children ARE being taught to be more accepting - they are being taught by their classmates and peers.
My grandparent's generation has faded away. Soon my parent's generation will follow, and then my generation - the last of the Baby Boomers - will also fade. The future of LGBT equality lies inevitably with the generations that follow me.
It's going to happen. Get used to the idea now.
It will happen because the children of today are more accepting of the LGBT community than my generation, or of my father's generation. The older generations are fading away, and today's youth are taking over.
On March 7th of 2000, California Proposition 22 modified California's civil code to limit marriage to a man and a woman. That proposition passed 61.4% to 38.6%. That 61.4% was touted by Christian conservatives over and over again in the following years as a "Clear indication of the will of all Californians."
Proposition 8 today looks like it will pass 52% to 48%. That "clear indication" has dropped 10 points in 8 years. I believe this trend will continue.
And while it is much harder to overturn a constitutional amendment in California than it is to enact one - I do believe that there will come a time when this blot of hate will be removed from the state constitution.
It has been brought to my attention that the passage of Proposition 8 may be the best thing to happen to same-sex marriage. If Proposition 8 had failed, religious conservatives would have recreated it again and again for each election cycle. It would have been remade with more subtle wording - designed to worm it's way into law while remaining beneath our notice.
If we must legislate hate, if we must remove rights, it is better that we do it openly. It is better that we recognize that this is done out of purely religious motivation and that it is based upon an inflexible "moral" code that equates homosexuality with murder, deceit and malice. Let us all see that the Christian religion calls homosexuals, "senseless, faithless, heartless," and "ruthless" who are "wicked, evil, greedy," and "depraved".
It is this same religious morality that says in no uncertain terms that homosexuals, and those who support them, are worthy of nothing more than death itself. (Romans 1:18-32)
It is good to bring this hate out in the open so we can examine it under bright lights with high magnification. We have states in conflict - a marriage certificate in one state is worthless in another. This violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and it must be addressed at a Federal level.
And I believe that in time, and with effort, equality will prevail. I believe that because last night I watched equality prevail in an historic election. I believe that equality will prevail because members of the LGBT community have come "out of the closet", so that more and more Americans recognize that they know, or are related to someone who is gay. I believe that equality will prevail because while it is easy to hate a faceless, nameless "evil", it is much harder to hate a kind aunt, or a loving son, or a friendly neighbor. I believe that equality will eventually prevail because even now, even under Proposition 8, same-sex couples are allowed to have and to raise children in a loving home - and those children will influence other children, and they will all grow up and vote their conscious out of love and knowledge.
The one thing that the Protectmarriage.com people have said that they fear the most - that same-sex marriage will be taught to children in class - has already come to pass. Your children ARE being taught to be more accepting - they are being taught by their classmates and peers.
My grandparent's generation has faded away. Soon my parent's generation will follow, and then my generation - the last of the Baby Boomers - will also fade. The future of LGBT equality lies inevitably with the generations that follow me.
What if the Rapture already happened, and you missed it? A Christian Halloween Story
What if the Rapture has already happened?
You would think someone would have noticed. The Bible paints the rapture as a very quick and noisy event.
There will be trumpets and dead people rising from their graves. People will disappear. Air liners full of people will go crashing to the ground as the pilots disappear. (Hm. And will it be a straight trip to Hell through a fireball's explosion for those remaining airline passengers? Wouldn't that be unfair, considering there will be people who have the chance to get right with God after the rapture?)
Everything in the Bible says that it will happen fast, with lots of fanfare and noise!
But... doesn't the Bible also claim that Jesus will return soon? "The day is at hand" said Paul, "The time is short!" James, traditionally thought of as the brother of Jesus also says that "the Lord's return is near!". By the time we get to 2 Peter in the bible, people are already starting to ask, "Where is he?"
When I ask when, approximately, will the end times happen I get different answers - depending on which Christian sect responds. The answer is all over the map - but from my own completely nonscientific polling, the overwhelming majority (5 out of 7) Christians that I've spoken to say that it will happen in their or their children's lifetime.
It's been 2,000 years now folks. Maybe we just don't have the same concept of time as a deity?
Maybe when God (assuming he exists) says "fast" it means something else. Maybe when he says "day" he really means "all in a day's work for me!"
For example, according to the Day-Age Creationist theory, each "day" of the creation story in the book of Genesis is equal to an age that is in accordance to the evidence of cosmology and evolution. The chronology of Archbishop James Ussher is inaccurate, according to this theory, because of a slightly different way of translating the Hebrew words for father and son to mean forefather and descendant.
So I can't help but wonder... if the idea of the return of Jesus in a timeframe of "soon" has been misconstrued, then perhaps we have made a similar mistake with the idea of the rapture happening "fast" or "in an instant".
After all, wouldn't all of the eternity of our universe be but an instant to the God that is described by Christians?
So maybe the rapture has been happening v e r y s l o w l y, in comparison to the human time frame.
Different Christian sects look at the rapture time frame differently. There are some who believe that the rapture will happen after the tribulation, and those who believe that the rapture will happen midway through the tribulation. But most evangelical Christians believe in the "Pre-tribulation rapture" - where the rapture will happen after certain prophesies are are fulfilled, and will be followed by a period of tribulations - just like the "Left Behind" series of books.
There is disagreement about the accuracy of prophecies in the Bible. Perhaps the prophecies won't happen in the manner described in popular Christian works. Maybe they have been fulfilled in a way that we mere mortals wouldn't recognize in order to prevent interference with our free will.
Let's think about the "Christian dead rising from their graves" - if it happened one at a time over a period of a couple of hundred years - would anyone notice? Especially if they just faded out of their caskets or other final resting places.
And people disappear all the time. Wandered off, run away, missing in action. Their missing person report would go into the cold case files and will be a curiosity for some future researcher. How many thousands of people go missing each year? How many over the last few centuries? Perhaps it would be enough to fill up Heaven.
So, with all these Christian objections dispersed with some hand waving - wouldn't it be an interesting idea to think that the Rapture happened already - that no one noticed - that we are already living in the time of tribulation?
It's kind of a scary thought - especially if you are one of those Christians who are absolutly certain that you'll be one of those who are "taken up".
It's obvious that this goes against mainstream Christian mythology. Still, I think it is a fascinating subject to consider.
I wonder if it could be made into a Christian "Twilight Zone" episode?
You would think someone would have noticed. The Bible paints the rapture as a very quick and noisy event.
There will be trumpets and dead people rising from their graves. People will disappear. Air liners full of people will go crashing to the ground as the pilots disappear. (Hm. And will it be a straight trip to Hell through a fireball's explosion for those remaining airline passengers? Wouldn't that be unfair, considering there will be people who have the chance to get right with God after the rapture?)
Everything in the Bible says that it will happen fast, with lots of fanfare and noise!
But... doesn't the Bible also claim that Jesus will return soon? "The day is at hand" said Paul, "The time is short!" James, traditionally thought of as the brother of Jesus also says that "the Lord's return is near!". By the time we get to 2 Peter in the bible, people are already starting to ask, "Where is he?"
When I ask when, approximately, will the end times happen I get different answers - depending on which Christian sect responds. The answer is all over the map - but from my own completely nonscientific polling, the overwhelming majority (5 out of 7) Christians that I've spoken to say that it will happen in their or their children's lifetime.
It's been 2,000 years now folks. Maybe we just don't have the same concept of time as a deity?
Maybe when God (assuming he exists) says "fast" it means something else. Maybe when he says "day" he really means "all in a day's work for me!"
For example, according to the Day-Age Creationist theory, each "day" of the creation story in the book of Genesis is equal to an age that is in accordance to the evidence of cosmology and evolution. The chronology of Archbishop James Ussher is inaccurate, according to this theory, because of a slightly different way of translating the Hebrew words for father and son to mean forefather and descendant.
So I can't help but wonder... if the idea of the return of Jesus in a timeframe of "soon" has been misconstrued, then perhaps we have made a similar mistake with the idea of the rapture happening "fast" or "in an instant".
After all, wouldn't all of the eternity of our universe be but an instant to the God that is described by Christians?
So maybe the rapture has been happening v e r y s l o w l y, in comparison to the human time frame.
Different Christian sects look at the rapture time frame differently. There are some who believe that the rapture will happen after the tribulation, and those who believe that the rapture will happen midway through the tribulation. But most evangelical Christians believe in the "Pre-tribulation rapture" - where the rapture will happen after certain prophesies are are fulfilled, and will be followed by a period of tribulations - just like the "Left Behind" series of books.
There is disagreement about the accuracy of prophecies in the Bible. Perhaps the prophecies won't happen in the manner described in popular Christian works. Maybe they have been fulfilled in a way that we mere mortals wouldn't recognize in order to prevent interference with our free will.
Let's think about the "Christian dead rising from their graves" - if it happened one at a time over a period of a couple of hundred years - would anyone notice? Especially if they just faded out of their caskets or other final resting places.
And people disappear all the time. Wandered off, run away, missing in action. Their missing person report would go into the cold case files and will be a curiosity for some future researcher. How many thousands of people go missing each year? How many over the last few centuries? Perhaps it would be enough to fill up Heaven.
So, with all these Christian objections dispersed with some hand waving - wouldn't it be an interesting idea to think that the Rapture happened already - that no one noticed - that we are already living in the time of tribulation?
It's kind of a scary thought - especially if you are one of those Christians who are absolutly certain that you'll be one of those who are "taken up".
It's obvious that this goes against mainstream Christian mythology. Still, I think it is a fascinating subject to consider.
I wonder if it could be made into a Christian "Twilight Zone" episode?
Christians - How would your life be different if you suddenly became an Atheist?
I was reading Hemant's "Friendly Atheist" blog and saw the question he put to Atheists. "Would your friends stay if you Converted?".
His question was based on Dan Barker's new book, "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists". In this book Mr. Barker talks about how his friendships changed due to his deconversion away from Christianity. In a nutshell, some friendships got better, some worse.
Some of his friendships were lost forever.
Hemant asked Atheists how their lives would be if they suddenly became Christian.
I want to ask the opposite. If you are a Christian, how would it affect your life if you suddenly became an Atheist? (Please don't say that you'd have the sudden urge to start committing atrocities like rape, murder, or voting the Democratic ticket.)
Would you tell your friends and family? Would they mind? Would it mean that you'd lose or be forced to give up something, like a scholarship, a marriage or your job, if you told anyone?
Would you become a "closet" Atheist for the sake of your family and friends?
Who would support your decision, and who wouldn't?
His question was based on Dan Barker's new book, "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists". In this book Mr. Barker talks about how his friendships changed due to his deconversion away from Christianity. In a nutshell, some friendships got better, some worse.
Some of his friendships were lost forever.
Hemant asked Atheists how their lives would be if they suddenly became Christian.
I want to ask the opposite. If you are a Christian, how would it affect your life if you suddenly became an Atheist? (Please don't say that you'd have the sudden urge to start committing atrocities like rape, murder, or voting the Democratic ticket.)
Would you tell your friends and family? Would they mind? Would it mean that you'd lose or be forced to give up something, like a scholarship, a marriage or your job, if you told anyone?
Would you become a "closet" Atheist for the sake of your family and friends?
Who would support your decision, and who wouldn't?
Serena Joy casts her vote for Colorado to become the "Republic of Gilead"
I saw this on the Pharyngula blog, so there is a good chance that most of my readers have already seen this.
There is an initiative to amend the Colorado state constitution to redefine "person" to include any fertilized ovum.
From the PDF link to this law:
At one point in time I spent a few weeks hanging out on a "pro life" forum, asking questions, putting out my views, and being used as the local Internet piñata by those who rabidly supported the notion that any fertilized ovum had the exact same rights as any human.
I came to the conclusion that most of the followers in this movement have their hearts in the right place, but their ideals are NOT based upon reality, and if implemented can cause a great deal of harm. As for the leaders of these movements, it seems to me many of them jealously guard their leadership positions because of the authority that is granted through their organizations. (Randall Terry is a good example of how even this power corrupts.)
Miscarriage happens in as much as 20% of all recognized pregnancies, and maybe as often as 50% of all pregnancies. The lifestyle of the woman increases the risk factors of miscarriage, so it is possible, or even likely that a woman could be charged for manslaughter due to her risky lifestyle. Stress, exercise, prescribed medication for illness may all cause sub-optimal conditions that cause a blastocyst to fail to implant.
For example, sprinter and two time Gold medal winner Torri Edwards might, if she were sexually active during training for the 2008 Olympics, be guilty of "manslaughter" for failing to recognize that her training regime would make her much more likely to spontaneously abort. Under this law, Edwards wouldn't be allowed even the use of birth control pills, and would have to rely on mechanical methods of contraception - or abstain.
Perhaps Colorado would knock itself out of any future Olympic considerations when it announces that not only will olympians be checked for doping, but women atheletes will be subjected to daily pregnancy tests. We don't just take an athelete's word that they are not using drugs - so it is logical that we wouldn't take their word about sexual activity either.
And why would it stop only at the Olympic level? You could easily make the case for mandatory pregnancy testing at the college level too.
I've written before about what could happen when we define a fertalized ovum as a person. It is not a pretty picture, and it is the first step to declaring women to be a second-class citizen. The outcome would be a world much like that of "Handmaid's Tale". Any woman who votes for this amendment is voting against her own freedom.
There is an initiative to amend the Colorado state constitution to redefine "person" to include any fertilized ovum.
From the PDF link to this law:
It bears repeating that this is A REALLY BAD IDEA!Amendment 48
Definition of Person
- Ballot Title: An amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term "person"
- to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those
- provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice,
- and due process of law.
- Text of Proposal:
- Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
- SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE
- ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
- Section 31. Person defined. AS USED IN SECTIONS 3, 6, AND 25 OF ARTICLE II OF
- THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THE TERMS "PERSON" OR "PERSONS" SHALL INCLUDE ANY
- HUMAN BEING FROM THE MOMENT OF FERTILIZATION.
At one point in time I spent a few weeks hanging out on a "pro life" forum, asking questions, putting out my views, and being used as the local Internet piñata by those who rabidly supported the notion that any fertilized ovum had the exact same rights as any human.
I came to the conclusion that most of the followers in this movement have their hearts in the right place, but their ideals are NOT based upon reality, and if implemented can cause a great deal of harm. As for the leaders of these movements, it seems to me many of them jealously guard their leadership positions because of the authority that is granted through their organizations. (Randall Terry is a good example of how even this power corrupts.)
Miscarriage happens in as much as 20% of all recognized pregnancies, and maybe as often as 50% of all pregnancies. The lifestyle of the woman increases the risk factors of miscarriage, so it is possible, or even likely that a woman could be charged for manslaughter due to her risky lifestyle. Stress, exercise, prescribed medication for illness may all cause sub-optimal conditions that cause a blastocyst to fail to implant.
For example, sprinter and two time Gold medal winner Torri Edwards might, if she were sexually active during training for the 2008 Olympics, be guilty of "manslaughter" for failing to recognize that her training regime would make her much more likely to spontaneously abort. Under this law, Edwards wouldn't be allowed even the use of birth control pills, and would have to rely on mechanical methods of contraception - or abstain.
Perhaps Colorado would knock itself out of any future Olympic considerations when it announces that not only will olympians be checked for doping, but women atheletes will be subjected to daily pregnancy tests. We don't just take an athelete's word that they are not using drugs - so it is logical that we wouldn't take their word about sexual activity either.
And why would it stop only at the Olympic level? You could easily make the case for mandatory pregnancy testing at the college level too.
I've written before about what could happen when we define a fertalized ovum as a person. It is not a pretty picture, and it is the first step to declaring women to be a second-class citizen. The outcome would be a world much like that of "Handmaid's Tale". Any woman who votes for this amendment is voting against her own freedom.
Preaching at the other choir - why we shouldn't try to "convert"
I was reading Dan Barker's words about "How to Talk to a Fundamentalist" in the Secular Student Alliance, and there were two points that he made that I've encountered before - something that I think on often.
The first point he made is about converting fundamentalists (to Atheism I presume). In Mr. Barker's words:
Mr. Barker makes the same points that I've articulated before. Preaching rationality at a true believer won't change him or her. From Mr. Barker's words:
When I was a Christian, my pastor called this sort of practice, "bringing people to God by living a Christian life". By being a good, confident and compassionate human, you would attract people to you - people who wanted to emulate you. We were encouraged to speak our mind when the time was right, and we were supposed to point out immoral or harmful actions. But in using this method, according to our pastor we were supposed to draw people in by answering their questions.
I think Mr. Barker is right in this. When I speak to Christians, I never do so with the intent to convert them. I don't mind saying things that will make them mull over my words, that will plant a seed of doubt. But I fully realize that if their belief is strong, my words will fall in the dust.
BUT
I do think it is right and proper for secular and rational people to speak up in opposition to the religious when appropriate. When, for example, religious people presume to speak for all of a community, including the secular members of that community. I think it is right to speak out when religious people propose actions that are immoral according to secular ethics. I think it is right for us to insist on equal and fair treatment under the law.
And I find it extremely amusing when, in doing these things, some religious people brand us as being aggressive or militant.
The second thing that Mr. Barker speaks about is the "black or white" mindset that is so often prevalent among religious fundamentalists. He quotes the verse from Revelation 3:14, where those who are not "hot or cold" are instead "lukewarm" and will be spit out. I've heard pastors use this verse to demand that their congregation be firm in the Lord, and I believe that this sort of statement is a "thought-terminating cliché" that actually stops critical thinking in a cult-like manner.
When people think in this simplistic manner they do not admit that life, the universe and everything is full of subtle shades of gray. There is an infinite amount of uncertainty, and uncertainty thrives even in the strictest of scientific observations.
When a rational person encounters such black and white thinking it is often better to not try to correct it, but instead point out that there is another way of viewing the world. Then walk away. As Mr. Barker points out, by refusing to fight, you've already won.
One last thing I would like to point out - Dan Barker and I share something else, something that I think a lot of ex-Christians share. We've felt the "Holy Spirit". From the article:
I've said much the same thing before in my "Mind hacking God" blog entry. Again, I'm quoting myself:
Please, excuse me for quoting my own words. I don't mean to do so out of hubris. But it is gratifying to me to read that so many of the same things I've been talking about in my blog, months ago, are being said by someone I very much respect.
The first point he made is about converting fundamentalists (to Atheism I presume). In Mr. Barker's words:
... actually, we can’t “convert” anyone. We all have to come to our own conclusions. If you were raised religious, like me, you know that your de-conversion came from inside, not from an atheist evangelist.I really want to say, "Amen!" to that. I've come to the same conclusion when I mused on "Evangelical Atheism" before. To quote myself:
I’m convinced that outright Atheistic evangelism would be worse than useless when applied [aggressively], but it was Daniel Dennett who helped me put it into words. Dennett said in “Breaking the Spell” that the strength of an insular, cohesive group comes from the price that members must pay to join or to leave, and one of those prices is insularism – the “Us versus Them” and “Our religion is under attack!” beliefs shared by all Christians to some degree.
Any sort of evangelical Atheism specifically targeted toward a church would be seen as an attack. Christians who perceived it as such would only wrap themselves tighter in their illogical beliefs, vindicated in the price they were paying as a member of their chosen group.
Mr. Barker makes the same points that I've articulated before. Preaching rationality at a true believer won't change him or her. From Mr. Barker's words:
The bible predicts that we obedient messengers of Jesus would be misunderstood and persecuted. If you called me names, that proved the bible is true! It also raised my status in His eyes, which were more important than your eyes.
It was exciting to get doors slammed in my face. It was affirming to hear ignorant college students arguing with me, trying to use the flawed and misconstrued “facts” of mere science, which are always changing, to combat the transcendent truth of the bible, which never changes.
...
[Nonbelievers should] Just be yourself, say what you think, and don’t worry if [fundamentalists] change their minds. Be relaxed about it.
...
Most of us nontheists will complain only about the harmful behavior (not ideas) of believers, because people should be judged by their actions, not their beliefs. If a religiously motivated action is causing unnecessary harm, then moral people will challenge such behavior. Otherwise, belief is a private matter. Tell them a little of your opinions, then leave it at that.
When I was a Christian, my pastor called this sort of practice, "bringing people to God by living a Christian life". By being a good, confident and compassionate human, you would attract people to you - people who wanted to emulate you. We were encouraged to speak our mind when the time was right, and we were supposed to point out immoral or harmful actions. But in using this method, according to our pastor we were supposed to draw people in by answering their questions.
I think Mr. Barker is right in this. When I speak to Christians, I never do so with the intent to convert them. I don't mind saying things that will make them mull over my words, that will plant a seed of doubt. But I fully realize that if their belief is strong, my words will fall in the dust.
BUT
I do think it is right and proper for secular and rational people to speak up in opposition to the religious when appropriate. When, for example, religious people presume to speak for all of a community, including the secular members of that community. I think it is right to speak out when religious people propose actions that are immoral according to secular ethics. I think it is right for us to insist on equal and fair treatment under the law.
And I find it extremely amusing when, in doing these things, some religious people brand us as being aggressive or militant.
The second thing that Mr. Barker speaks about is the "black or white" mindset that is so often prevalent among religious fundamentalists. He quotes the verse from Revelation 3:14, where those who are not "hot or cold" are instead "lukewarm" and will be spit out. I've heard pastors use this verse to demand that their congregation be firm in the Lord, and I believe that this sort of statement is a "thought-terminating cliché" that actually stops critical thinking in a cult-like manner.
When people think in this simplistic manner they do not admit that life, the universe and everything is full of subtle shades of gray. There is an infinite amount of uncertainty, and uncertainty thrives even in the strictest of scientific observations.
When a rational person encounters such black and white thinking it is often better to not try to correct it, but instead point out that there is another way of viewing the world. Then walk away. As Mr. Barker points out, by refusing to fight, you've already won.
One last thing I would like to point out - Dan Barker and I share something else, something that I think a lot of ex-Christians share. We've felt the "Holy Spirit". From the article:
Most of you nonbelievers don’t know what it is like to “talk with God.” But I do know, which is why I can write about this. It’s quite a powerful experience, which I can reproduce today, with all the attendant feelings of being in the presence of a superior being—but as an atheist I now know that “talking with God” is purely psychological and points to nothing outside of the brain.
I've said much the same thing before in my "Mind hacking God" blog entry. Again, I'm quoting myself:
I find it very plausible that religious experience is created in the software of our minds as it runs on the wetware of our brains. I think this way because after I became Atheist, I was able to re-achieve transcending feelings of awe, of acceptance, of being comforted, and of reverence.
I don’t think that feelings of Nirvana come from outside of us because the feelings are not created by a common cause. Fasting in a sweat lodge, singing in mass, inspired group visualization (i.e. preaching) and meditation can all bring people to achieve these feelings.
Religion isn’t the answer because these feelings can be achieved in mutually exclusive religions.
I've managed to recreate these religious feelings as an Atheist by using music while meditating. Classical music will do it for me. Oddly enough, so will Van Halen's "Jump". It's the same feeling of love, peace and acceptance that I got when I was Christian, only now I know that I’m the one making it happen.
...
What this means to me is that it is possible to be a spiritual Atheist, not in some pseudoscientific paranormal sense, but in the sense that ‘mind’, the software that runs on the brain, has the capacity to achieve a different level of awareness of itself.
Please, excuse me for quoting my own words. I don't mean to do so out of hubris. But it is gratifying to me to read that so many of the same things I've been talking about in my blog, months ago, are being said by someone I very much respect.
A discussion with the Jedi Pastor
I've got a soft spot for Methodists. I first came from a Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) background and we always found it easy to work together with Methodists. Our youth groups played together, our churches worked on common goals. When one of us walked into the other's church, 
we found it familiar and safe. (Not at all like that time the local Baptist church tried to baptize me all over again so I'd finally be a "real" Christian!)
So I want my readers to give a warm welcome to pastor Ken Hagler, of the Crossroads United Methodist Church of Marietta Georgia. Pastor Ken, who is also known as the Jedi Pastor, has been gracious and friendly in stopping by my blog to trade notes with me. We find we have things in common - the biggest of which is that we are both trying to grow new organizations.
Ken has several scattered comments throughout my blog, and I have commented in his blog. I thought it might be useful to bring much of that discussion to it's own post, where we can continue in a more orderly fashion.
Ken, in an earlier comment we say,
I would think that the majority of main stream Christians would not want to claim Fred Phelps as their brother in Christ. But how many would claim James Dobson as a fellow Christian? Or Donald Wildmon, or Tony Perkins or David Barton? These people have wide support, not just among fundamentalist evangelicals, but among mainstream Christians too. But I and many others have noted where these people are acting in unethical and hypocritical ways.
But what if you're a Christian who doesn't agree with these people?
I don't claim that some atheists are not "True Atheists". I've written a two part post where I agree that atheists-turned-Christian were probably at one time atheist. (I do, however, question their understanding of secular philosophies and ethics.)
But when I point out the latest hateful act by a Christian leader, I very often get a response from a Christian where he or she says, "Oh, well I don't have that person's beliefs. I think he's wrong."
Worst of all is the response of, "Well, he's obviously not a Christian or else he wouldn't be acting that way."
Which leads to the obvious question. If you don't agree with one of these Chrstian leaders, have you let anyone know? I ask this because silence implies agreement.
When Tony Perkins uses his position to agree with California pastor Jim Garlow that same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to a loss of religious liberty (and eventually lead to the jailing of pastors), I see very few Christians refuting that silly argument. So I'm forced to believe that most Christians are in agreement, or at least not opposed, due to their silence.
Do you consider any of these religious leaders to be "almost Chrsitians"? And if so, do you speak against them, or try to teach others why these leaders may not be correct on an issue?
And yes, I know it is impossible to counter every little silly thing that a person might say, and I realize those on "my" side of the fence are just as prone to being idiotic. (Check out Patrick Greene) But I still think it is important to say something - even if you do feel like you're merely tilting at windmills.
Ken, I know that was a hard "poke", but it reveals some of my frustration with the mainstream religious "silent" majority in this country - their silence allows other religious people to speak for them. I think that our comments reveal that you and I are probably fairly close in how we view most things.
From another comment thread:
This path has to talk about the religious form of the supernatural (and is it different or the same as what I would call the "ghosts and telepathy" form of the supernatural? Why or why not?) The path has to convince me that Christianity is superior to any other religion. It should answer those people who are also trying to convince me that "any path is good" - for example Universalism which is as happy with me being Islamic as they are with me being Christian.
This path should convince me that Jesus is something more than just a myth or historical figure turned mythic. And if you bring the Bible into your argument, you have an additional path to travel, namely convincing me that the Bible is anything more than a collection of stories. You'll be asked to clarify the contradictions in the Bible, and explain why God in the Bible seems so bipolar between the Old and New Testaments.
Worst of all, you'll have to do this not just for me, but for those people that I will go to ask advice of. I draw upon a large community of ex-Christians, some who have been former evangelical ministers, who know this material as well as you do. But being fair, I expect you to also draw on your own Christian community. However, that might work against you because I note that different Christians have interpreted the Bible to mean different things, some of which are contradictory!
And ultimately, while I think such a discussion will be interesting, I think that the psychology of belief (I've been reading about this lately) would seem to indicate that neither of us will be persuaded. The most either of us could hope for is to "plant a seed of doubt" in the other.
To continue this comment, you say:
I don't think analogous to theories in science. First of all, I would argue that "scientific evidence" suggests a misnomer. I would narrowly define that there is a Scientific Method, and those who follow this method are scientists who are practicing science. I would define science to mean that effort to increase human understanding and knowledge of our physical world.
To me, the term "scientific evidence" is analogous to the term "alternative medicine". Evidence is either well supported, or it isn't evidence. The scientific method indicates methods of finding well-supported evidence, and I suppose in that way you could call it "scientific evidence" - but I believe most scientists would just call it "good evidence".
Another definition that I have a problems with is that of the word, "spiritual". When people say "spiritual" they often load the word with a lot of new-age-y concepts that deal with things beyond the material universe. Some people use it as a sort of "dodge" to allow themselves to identify themselves as "religious" without the necessity of conforming to all the rules of a religion.
I use the word spiritual to indicate the human condition, for example how humankind is able to share their pride in accomplishment, how we are able to share our sense of wonder.
I personally have not found evidence that there is anything beyond the material universe, so I don't use the word "spiritual" in that fashion.
Now that I've picked those nits... lets get down to the question. What I think you are asking is if I can pick on the different "flavors" of religion, then don't you get to pick on the different "flavors" of Atheism? Or of Science?
But atheism isn't science, although atheists may (and often do) point out that science findings don't support a supernatural world-view. Maybe an experiment tomorrow will prove the supernatural, but until then I'm satisfied to wait for evidence.
There is often an objection to science "not knowing anything (or everything)" because of the small sliver we see in the daily headlines. For example, according to the headlines scientists say coffee is good / bad for you and causes miscarriage / increased mental abilities / cancer / longer life. What are we to believe?
There are two difficulties with science. The first difficulty is that the game of science is played among humans. And humans can be petty and illogical. But when they follow the scientific method and follow the rules of the game the science becomes self-correcting. Sometimes it takes decades, and sometimes newer ideas have to wait until the petty supporters of an older and not quite as correct idea die off.
Even Einstein made this sort of mistake. His support of determinism in physics led to his famous quote, "God does not play dice with the universe." Quantum mechanics proved him wrong. As Stephen Hawking has said, "God not only plays dice, but sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."
What this means is that even the "holiest" and most respected scientist can be proven wrong. Scientists love proving each other wrong because it leads to prestige. (And grant money!)
The second difficulty is that non-scientists don't understand that scientific theories are based on successive approximation. The first iteration of a theory, like Newtonian mechanics, is often "good enough" to get the job done. We went to the moon using Newtonian mechanics. Later iterations happen when the theory is refined, like using Einstein's general and special relativity to explain why the orbit of Mercury doesn't fit Newtonian mechanics. Einstein's theories didn't replace Newton's work, instead they clarified it further.
This is true in the field of evolution. Darwin's original theory is still being refined. Although I'm not a biologist, it is my understanding that some of his ideas were somewhat wrong and have since been corrected. And there is a whole host of things that Darwin never thought of, that have since been added.
But when two scientists argue passionately about their theories on evolution, a religious bystander is apt to crow that "Darwinism is in doubt!" I find it amusing that religious people did not point at the arguments between Einstein and Bohr as evidence that "Newtonian physics is in doubt!" This leads to the joke about the Evangelical position on "Intelligent Falling".
You are welcome to attack any scientific theory you wish. Scientists do it all the time. If you're successful, you could actually be awarded for doing so. But realize that science and atheism are not the same thing.
Now, if you wish to discuss secular philosophies and secular based ethics, I could recommend several - such as Secular Humanism or Positive Atheism or even The Brights.
One last bit from your comment:
They are not directed by religion to learn how all of (ahem) "creation" works. In fact, some flavors of Christianity explicitly reject certain avenues of study. For example, talking about the possible evolutionary and genetic components of homosexuality gets some Christians very upset.
But you're Methodist, and you have a "different code". In other words, you belong to a flavor of Christianity that allows more freedom of inquiry than others. From my point of view, your scientific friends are able to be scientists in spite of their religion, not because of it. I'm pretty familiar with the contents of the Bible, and I don't recall this sort of inquiry to be encouraged anywhere.
And I have to wonder - what if you successfully converted me to Christianity, but instead of choosing to be a Methodist, I instead became one of those flavors of fundamentalist who condemn your scientific friends for their hubris in "playing God"? When you finally meet your maker, would that count as a "win" or a "loss"?
Okay, I think I've dragged this on far enough. I have no idea if any of my readers made it this far. (I hope so!) I'll get down off of my soapbox now and let Ken do some poking.
And Ken, I've just realized you're from Georgia, the opposite side of the continent from me! I think I've spent a total of 3 days in Georgia, but I loved every day I was there.
we found it familiar and safe. (Not at all like that time the local Baptist church tried to baptize me all over again so I'd finally be a "real" Christian!)So I want my readers to give a warm welcome to pastor Ken Hagler, of the Crossroads United Methodist Church of Marietta Georgia. Pastor Ken, who is also known as the Jedi Pastor, has been gracious and friendly in stopping by my blog to trade notes with me. We find we have things in common - the biggest of which is that we are both trying to grow new organizations.
Ken has several scattered comments throughout my blog, and I have commented in his blog. I thought it might be useful to bring much of that discussion to it's own post, where we can continue in a more orderly fashion.
Ken, in an earlier comment we say,
Me: No matter what path a new Christian takes, at least he's a Christian - right?I have to wonder about this sort of Christian position. It sort of borders on the all too common finger pointing where one Christian accuses another of not being a "true" Christian, which is often a logical fallacy.
You: Yeah, I suppose you've got me on that one, to a point. Yet, John Wesley did an entire sermon and theme of the "Almost Christian." The idea being you're walking around with all the trappings but look at the heart. Do you really love God? Really? Then let me ask, do you love your neighbor and how about your enemy? Really? So, are you going out of your way to do anything about that?
I would think that the majority of main stream Christians would not want to claim Fred Phelps as their brother in Christ. But how many would claim James Dobson as a fellow Christian? Or Donald Wildmon, or Tony Perkins or David Barton? These people have wide support, not just among fundamentalist evangelicals, but among mainstream Christians too. But I and many others have noted where these people are acting in unethical and hypocritical ways.
But what if you're a Christian who doesn't agree with these people?
I don't claim that some atheists are not "True Atheists". I've written a two part post where I agree that atheists-turned-Christian were probably at one time atheist. (I do, however, question their understanding of secular philosophies and ethics.)
But when I point out the latest hateful act by a Christian leader, I very often get a response from a Christian where he or she says, "Oh, well I don't have that person's beliefs. I think he's wrong."
Worst of all is the response of, "Well, he's obviously not a Christian or else he wouldn't be acting that way."
Which leads to the obvious question. If you don't agree with one of these Chrstian leaders, have you let anyone know? I ask this because silence implies agreement.
When Tony Perkins uses his position to agree with California pastor Jim Garlow that same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to a loss of religious liberty (and eventually lead to the jailing of pastors), I see very few Christians refuting that silly argument. So I'm forced to believe that most Christians are in agreement, or at least not opposed, due to their silence.
Do you consider any of these religious leaders to be "almost Chrsitians"? And if so, do you speak against them, or try to teach others why these leaders may not be correct on an issue?
And yes, I know it is impossible to counter every little silly thing that a person might say, and I realize those on "my" side of the fence are just as prone to being idiotic. (Check out Patrick Greene) But I still think it is important to say something - even if you do feel like you're merely tilting at windmills.
Ken, I know that was a hard "poke", but it reveals some of my frustration with the mainstream religious "silent" majority in this country - their silence allows other religious people to speak for them. I think that our comments reveal that you and I are probably fairly close in how we view most things.
From another comment thread:
Me: But from an Atheist's point of view, this has to apply to ALL religions, not just Christianity. I'm an equal opportunity Atheist, I think there is no evidence for ANY religion.Agreed. This is a major flaw in Pascal's Wager, which C.S. Lewis bases part of "Mere Christianity" upon. You can't start from Atheism and deliver me directly to the Trinity of Christianity - you have to travel a path.
You: I was responding more to this point, which I interpreted you to mean you were throwing all religions together: Theists VS Atheists. IF you and I were going to begin this discussion my first goal couldn't be to convince you of the truth of Christianity. You would have me present a case for God, in other words, to convince you of a theistic world view. At least this is how I understand your reasoning to this point.
This path has to talk about the religious form of the supernatural (and is it different or the same as what I would call the "ghosts and telepathy" form of the supernatural? Why or why not?) The path has to convince me that Christianity is superior to any other religion. It should answer those people who are also trying to convince me that "any path is good" - for example Universalism which is as happy with me being Islamic as they are with me being Christian.
This path should convince me that Jesus is something more than just a myth or historical figure turned mythic. And if you bring the Bible into your argument, you have an additional path to travel, namely convincing me that the Bible is anything more than a collection of stories. You'll be asked to clarify the contradictions in the Bible, and explain why God in the Bible seems so bipolar between the Old and New Testaments.
Worst of all, you'll have to do this not just for me, but for those people that I will go to ask advice of. I draw upon a large community of ex-Christians, some who have been former evangelical ministers, who know this material as well as you do. But being fair, I expect you to also draw on your own Christian community. However, that might work against you because I note that different Christians have interpreted the Bible to mean different things, some of which are contradictory!
And ultimately, while I think such a discussion will be interesting, I think that the psychology of belief (I've been reading about this lately) would seem to indicate that neither of us will be persuaded. The most either of us could hope for is to "plant a seed of doubt" in the other.
To continue this comment, you say:
I had not thought of expanding the sphere of scientific evidence. But if we did as you suggest, namely exploring options, doesn't that equate to one of the atheist arguments against denominations and sects? If we grant to you the opportunity to explore scientific answers, can we not receive the same opportunity to explore the spiritual without being plastered for it?There is an Atheist argument against the different "flavors of Christianity" as I put it. If I'm asked to be Christian, and I say, "Sure! I'll become a Mormon!" I might get a horrified reaction. The same might be true if I select "Catholic" or even "Baptist" - it all depends on the faith of the person trying to convert me.
I don't think analogous to theories in science. First of all, I would argue that "scientific evidence" suggests a misnomer. I would narrowly define that there is a Scientific Method, and those who follow this method are scientists who are practicing science. I would define science to mean that effort to increase human understanding and knowledge of our physical world.
To me, the term "scientific evidence" is analogous to the term "alternative medicine". Evidence is either well supported, or it isn't evidence. The scientific method indicates methods of finding well-supported evidence, and I suppose in that way you could call it "scientific evidence" - but I believe most scientists would just call it "good evidence".
Another definition that I have a problems with is that of the word, "spiritual". When people say "spiritual" they often load the word with a lot of new-age-y concepts that deal with things beyond the material universe. Some people use it as a sort of "dodge" to allow themselves to identify themselves as "religious" without the necessity of conforming to all the rules of a religion.
I use the word spiritual to indicate the human condition, for example how humankind is able to share their pride in accomplishment, how we are able to share our sense of wonder.
I personally have not found evidence that there is anything beyond the material universe, so I don't use the word "spiritual" in that fashion.
Now that I've picked those nits... lets get down to the question. What I think you are asking is if I can pick on the different "flavors" of religion, then don't you get to pick on the different "flavors" of Atheism? Or of Science?
But atheism isn't science, although atheists may (and often do) point out that science findings don't support a supernatural world-view. Maybe an experiment tomorrow will prove the supernatural, but until then I'm satisfied to wait for evidence.
There is often an objection to science "not knowing anything (or everything)" because of the small sliver we see in the daily headlines. For example, according to the headlines scientists say coffee is good / bad for you and causes miscarriage / increased mental abilities / cancer / longer life. What are we to believe?
There are two difficulties with science. The first difficulty is that the game of science is played among humans. And humans can be petty and illogical. But when they follow the scientific method and follow the rules of the game the science becomes self-correcting. Sometimes it takes decades, and sometimes newer ideas have to wait until the petty supporters of an older and not quite as correct idea die off.
Even Einstein made this sort of mistake. His support of determinism in physics led to his famous quote, "God does not play dice with the universe." Quantum mechanics proved him wrong. As Stephen Hawking has said, "God not only plays dice, but sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."
What this means is that even the "holiest" and most respected scientist can be proven wrong. Scientists love proving each other wrong because it leads to prestige. (And grant money!)
The second difficulty is that non-scientists don't understand that scientific theories are based on successive approximation. The first iteration of a theory, like Newtonian mechanics, is often "good enough" to get the job done. We went to the moon using Newtonian mechanics. Later iterations happen when the theory is refined, like using Einstein's general and special relativity to explain why the orbit of Mercury doesn't fit Newtonian mechanics. Einstein's theories didn't replace Newton's work, instead they clarified it further.
This is true in the field of evolution. Darwin's original theory is still being refined. Although I'm not a biologist, it is my understanding that some of his ideas were somewhat wrong and have since been corrected. And there is a whole host of things that Darwin never thought of, that have since been added.
But when two scientists argue passionately about their theories on evolution, a religious bystander is apt to crow that "Darwinism is in doubt!" I find it amusing that religious people did not point at the arguments between Einstein and Bohr as evidence that "Newtonian physics is in doubt!" This leads to the joke about the Evangelical position on "Intelligent Falling".
You are welcome to attack any scientific theory you wish. Scientists do it all the time. If you're successful, you could actually be awarded for doing so. But realize that science and atheism are not the same thing.
Now, if you wish to discuss secular philosophies and secular based ethics, I could recommend several - such as Secular Humanism or Positive Atheism or even The Brights.
One last bit from your comment:
Me: Science goes where religion fears to tread. And it's a darned good thing too!No, I think I still have the right of it here. From my point of view, you have described friends who are able to effectively operate under a dichotomy. In the lab, they are able to postulate and investigate a strictly material world, and do so successfully from the evidence of your words. But outside of the lab they are able to postulate a supernatural world that includes a divine creator.
You: I'm sorry but again, I can't go here with you. I have friends in the clergy ranks who are microbiologists and who have excelled in science and published excellent articles in defense of the scientific method (and even evolution!) Granted, it isn't my cup of tea (I have a broadcasting background), these clergy and I are United Methodist. We have a different code..."more like guidelines," to coin a phrase.
They are not directed by religion to learn how all of (ahem) "creation" works. In fact, some flavors of Christianity explicitly reject certain avenues of study. For example, talking about the possible evolutionary and genetic components of homosexuality gets some Christians very upset.
But you're Methodist, and you have a "different code". In other words, you belong to a flavor of Christianity that allows more freedom of inquiry than others. From my point of view, your scientific friends are able to be scientists in spite of their religion, not because of it. I'm pretty familiar with the contents of the Bible, and I don't recall this sort of inquiry to be encouraged anywhere.
And I have to wonder - what if you successfully converted me to Christianity, but instead of choosing to be a Methodist, I instead became one of those flavors of fundamentalist who condemn your scientific friends for their hubris in "playing God"? When you finally meet your maker, would that count as a "win" or a "loss"?
Okay, I think I've dragged this on far enough. I have no idea if any of my readers made it this far. (I hope so!) I'll get down off of my soapbox now and let Ken do some poking.
And Ken, I've just realized you're from Georgia, the opposite side of the continent from me! I think I've spent a total of 3 days in Georgia, but I loved every day I was there.
"See You At The Pole" - Atheist Approved!
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is a Christian for-profit organization that uses litigation to oppose those who support certain rights - including abortion, same sex marriage, and sex education. They also litigate to blur the line between Church and State.I've received a couple of self-important emails from the ADF on the subject of the annual gathering called "See You at the Pole" (SYATP). This event happens on the fourth Wednesday of September, every year. During this event students will gather at their school flagpole before the start of class in order to hold hands, pray together, and maybe read some scripture and sing a hymn. It is supposed to be a student initiated and student led gathering.
So the ADF's alert points out a very formal ADF legal memo about this event, and also references an ACLJ memo about this. The alert, and the memos, seem to imply that this student right was a hard won victory by the Christian forces of good.
Of course, they don't mention that the ACLU also approves of SYATP.
And you know what? I also approve of "See You at the Pole". Students have the right to pray, or sing, or read the Bible (silently or aloud). They can pray before tests and before their cafeteria meals. They can let their friends borrow their Bibles, or they can give them as gifts.
What the students can not do is disrupt class, or create a hostile environment for other students.
And what a school can not do is to show preference to one type of student over another. By "establishing" a preferred religion, a public school would be acting against the American Constitution, and in doing so would give a clear message that those students of one faith are "better" than students of different faiths, or without faith. Regardless of Constitutionality, this is clearly immoral.
So, I've got an offer to all of you good Christians who are cheering about this religious "Victory" in public schools:
I will happily help you pass out Bibles to any student who wants one.
I'll add a couple of caveats.
- I won't help you pass out Bibles on a public school campus or property. That is a clear breech of the Establishment Clause, and it indicates school-sanctioned favoritism toward one religion over others.
- I won't force, coerce or bribe any student to take a Bible. I realize that the Bible isn't for everyone, and urging it upon some people would be insulting.
So - how about it? Wouldn't this be a public relations coup? "President of Local Atheist Organization helps pass out Bibles to Schoolchildren!" Pastors, you could make this sound like a win over Satan himself during your Sunday sermon!
And yes, I'm being a bit glib here - but I'm also very serious. And I'll remind any pastor in the Fresno and Clovis area - if you preach that Atheists are trying to keep religion out of school, I'll call you on it. I'll do more than that - I'll help you make sure that any public school student has the right to his religion in school.
The noose as free speech, or as a form of intimidation
When I was in Boy Scouts (a long time ago now) I was taught how to tie rope. Bowline, half-hitch, square knots. One knot I was never taught was that for a noose. "A noose is only used for one purpose," said our scout leader, "and I hope you kids never want or need to know it."
He was wrong. A noose has three purposes. It can be used to kill someone, it can be used to intimidate others, or it can be used as a form of free speech. As a form of free speech it is insensitive, vulgar and crass - but I will still support your right to use it in this manner. Use it as a display to remind us of the horrors of lynching and of racial segregation. Or use it as part of your Halloween display. Don't be surprised at my distinct lack of enthusiasm.
But if you hang it in order to intimidate others, or worse - in preparation for use, then I hope you get arrested for your hate. For the safety of our society, I hope you are locked away.
Using the noose for intimidation purposes has increased since the Jena six incident, it has increased to the point where some people are talking about outlawing, or have outlawed the noose entirely. I don't agree with outlawing it. I do agree with outlawing hate crimes, and I think it might be a good idea to add a multiplier of some sort to any hate crime committed in which a noose is used.
Lewis Allan wrote about lynchings in the poem "Strange Fruit" which was then set to music and sung by Billie Holiday. This was during the McCarthy era, and anti-lynching songs were determined to be a sort of "attack" by communism on America. "Strange Fruit" was blacklisted, and not played on any radio station at the time, but it still became one of the top ten songs of the time.
It's a beautiful, chilling song. It's easy to understand why it was successful - it's a story that needs to be told and retold in order to avoid repeating the past.
And lynching is an excellent example that ethics and morals must be based upon sympathy and empathy for others, and upon the reduction of human suffering. It is only when people live according to a dogmatic moral code that this sort of atrocity becomes acceptable.
The story behind this song is fascinating, and very sad. I've been reading about the story behind the song, and the people involved. And I'm impressed with Billie Holiday's abilities to bring the beauty of her music to such an ugly thing.
He was wrong. A noose has three purposes. It can be used to kill someone, it can be used to intimidate others, or it can be used as a form of free speech. As a form of free speech it is insensitive, vulgar and crass - but I will still support your right to use it in this manner. Use it as a display to remind us of the horrors of lynching and of racial segregation. Or use it as part of your Halloween display. Don't be surprised at my distinct lack of enthusiasm.
But if you hang it in order to intimidate others, or worse - in preparation for use, then I hope you get arrested for your hate. For the safety of our society, I hope you are locked away.
Using the noose for intimidation purposes has increased since the Jena six incident, it has increased to the point where some people are talking about outlawing, or have outlawed the noose entirely. I don't agree with outlawing it. I do agree with outlawing hate crimes, and I think it might be a good idea to add a multiplier of some sort to any hate crime committed in which a noose is used.Lewis Allan wrote about lynchings in the poem "Strange Fruit" which was then set to music and sung by Billie Holiday. This was during the McCarthy era, and anti-lynching songs were determined to be a sort of "attack" by communism on America. "Strange Fruit" was blacklisted, and not played on any radio station at the time, but it still became one of the top ten songs of the time.
It's a beautiful, chilling song. It's easy to understand why it was successful - it's a story that needs to be told and retold in order to avoid repeating the past.
And lynching is an excellent example that ethics and morals must be based upon sympathy and empathy for others, and upon the reduction of human suffering. It is only when people live according to a dogmatic moral code that this sort of atrocity becomes acceptable.
The story behind this song is fascinating, and very sad. I've been reading about the story behind the song, and the people involved. And I'm impressed with Billie Holiday's abilities to bring the beauty of her music to such an ugly thing.
Christian girls kidnapped, forced to convert to Islam, forced to marry their kidnappers
This is a horrible thing. In Pakistan the two pre-teen daughters of a Christian father were kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam. The kidnappers married the girls.
According to the story in the Ecumenical News Service, Switzerland, as found in the Religion News Blog:
Apparently this has happened before:
But this is just vile. If you are Muslim, if you believe in the Islamic faith, and you do not protest the kidnapping and violation of these girls - well then I don't care how "moderate" you may be. If you are Islamic and you are NOT protesting, then you are enabling this behavior.
If you're Muslim and you agree with this sort of behavior, then I believe that your particular brand of philosophy should be scrubbed from the Earth. Preferably through education, but if necessary then through more strenuous methods.
I'm not letting the Christians off easily either. If your Christian philosophy insists that Homosexuals is "curable" through religion, and that atheists should be denied any position in government, then I think your beliefs are almost as despicable, because they will eventually lead to similar tyranny.
According to the story in the Ecumenical News Service, Switzerland, as found in the Religion News Blog:
On 12 July, a judge in Pakistan’s Punjab province ignored pleas that Saba Younis, aged 12, and her 10 year old sister, Anila Younis, who went missing on 26 June from the small town of Chowk Munda, had been kidnapped while on their way to their uncle’s residence and ruled that their conversion to Islam was legal.
The kidnappers, who had married the girls, had also filed for custody of the girls at a local police station on 28 June, asserting that the sisters had converted to Islam and their father no longer had jurisdiction over them.
...
The Muzaffargarh district court on 12 July said the disputed conversion of the girls was legal, and it was this ruling that left the local Christians stunned.
“We will move the [Lahore] high court to challenge this order,” said Maria, who works as the programme coordinator for Pakistan’s Centre for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement.
The Pakistan Minorities Concern network said in a statement that Younis Masih, the father of the kidnapped girls, was threatened by the local police when he went to complain about the kidnapping of his daughters. The statement noted that the village has only a few Christian families living among 150 Muslim families, and said that police refused to support the Christian family.
Apparently this has happened before:
The Pakistan Minorities Concern network ... pointed out that in 2005, nearly 50 Hindu girls and 20 Christian girls were kidnapped and the majority had been forcibly converted to Islam.I make no bones in my blog in pointing out that Christianity and Islam are both equally illogical, are both harmful and not very rational positions. I haven't taken the position that one is more violent than the other. I haven't studied the history of violence of both religions, but from what I have read I would guess that depending on the decade in question, Christianity could compare with or surpass Islam in terms of violence and the suppression of Human rights.
“This is a travesty of justice. But unfortunately, this is the practice here,” lamented Victor Azariah, general secretary of the National Council of Churches in Pakistan, which groups four Protestant churches. Azariah said, “The courts never help us.”
But this is just vile. If you are Muslim, if you believe in the Islamic faith, and you do not protest the kidnapping and violation of these girls - well then I don't care how "moderate" you may be. If you are Islamic and you are NOT protesting, then you are enabling this behavior.
If you're Muslim and you agree with this sort of behavior, then I believe that your particular brand of philosophy should be scrubbed from the Earth. Preferably through education, but if necessary then through more strenuous methods.
I'm not letting the Christians off easily either. If your Christian philosophy insists that Homosexuals is "curable" through religion, and that atheists should be denied any position in government, then I think your beliefs are almost as despicable, because they will eventually lead to similar tyranny.
School of Biblical Evangelism, Chapters 72 & 73, Part 1. Where did Comfort get these questions?
Atheist’s Questions, Lessons 72 and 73.
Comfort starts this section by saying that God, not man, is in control of our destiny. Comfort says:
I’m sure this isn’t what Comfort intends for his opening paragraph. However, I’m unsure exactly what Comfort wants us to take from this. Humans are not in control of our destiny? Isn’t that heresy to the Living Waters ministry? I didn't think that Comfort would be happy with predestination or Calvinism. If true, this would imply that our final destination is preordained. You’re going to Heaven, or you are going to Hell, and there isn’t anything you can say or do to change it.
If we humans are not in control of our destiny, then freewill is a sham and evangelism is unnecessary.
I’m sure Comfort could tap-dance his way out of this position if he wished. My point is that he is treading a fine line where he wants to give his God infinite abilities while still allowing humans the right to screw up their own lives. (Or in Christian terms, fail to become Saved.) This is an inherently contradictory position, and one of the basic problems with God.
Allow me to explain this. If God can see the future as easily and as intimately as he can see the past, then he can see our final destination just as easily. He knows all of the decisions we will make over our lifetime. This theological determinism means that God knows our actions in advance, and thereby negates freewill.
C.S. Lewis answers this problem by giving God the ability to exist outside of time, and therefore the ability to see how our futures are altered as we make changes in our 'now'. From “The Screwtape Letters”, where the demon Screwtape is talking about his enemy, God:
Imagine God, with the ability to examine creation from outside of time. He can then look at each of our lives like threads or strings laid out, side by side on a table. If we make a choice in our “now” God can see the string reposition itself along it’s length to end in a new destination. God could, if he wished, influence any critical point in our “now” in order to nudge the string to a new position.
Although C. S. Lewis wrote great fantasy, he was a lousy science fiction author. Any Sci-Fi fan with a little thought could have poked major holes in this argument. Every science fiction fan knows that any yes/no decision might instead generate two universes, one where the ‘yes’ path is taken, and another universe where the ‘no’ path is taken.
Imagine again our lives as string on a table. But now, instead of a single thread with an ultimate destination, there is a string with multiple branchings, becoming more or less bushy as the branches separate or come together, in a complex and twisty entanglement with multiple different final destinations. This mess represents all the possible choices that we could take in our lives, an almost infinite number of possible future "yous".
This entanglement would not bother an omniscient God, who would be able to comprehend the whole bushy mess as easily as we comprehend a single string. He could hold every possible decision that we could make in his mind – easily. No decision path would be a surprise to him, because every path already exists, and he is intimately familiar with each of them. Again we are confronted with theological determinism and the end of our freewill.
If Comfort wanted to address Atheist problems with God, he could discuss problems like theological determinism in depth. But he doesn’t. Comfort prefers easy, simplistic answers. Instead of refuting Bertrand Russell, Robert Ingersoll, or Daniel Dennett, Comfort prefers to refute a list of off-the-cuff questions he found in a somewhat obscure corner of the Internet.
And where did those questions come from? They were hosted in a corner of the website of Atheists United.
Atheists United is a Los Angeles based non-profit Atheist organization. It was founded in 1982, and it works with the atheist community and various atheist organizations throughout Southern California, concentrating on the California Inland Empire. Atheists United works closely with the Center for Inquiry and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, they work with the Secular Coalition for America and have hosted Lori Lipman Brown on occasion. They work together with people like James Randi, Michael Shermer, and Dr. Goparaju Vijayam from the accomplished Atheist Centre in India. Recently Atheists United assisted Dr. Vijayam on a whirl-wind speaking tour of the Western United States, of which I myself was recruited and involved.
Atheists United hosts an online library of atheistic topics, with dozens of articles written by famous, and not so famous atheists. Most articles are well written and scholarly. A few are humorous or off-the-cuff. There are more comprehensive atheist libraries hosted by other online organizations. I find the Secular Web library to be the most useful.
Comfort dismisses everything that Atheists United has achieved, and jabs them with a little insult by calling them “a Hollywood atheist organization”. The atheist questions that he answers in Lessons 72 and 73 are the simple list of off-the-cuff questions that were written a decade ago and then tucked away, forgotten, in an obscure section of the Atheists United online library. The current Atheists United president, Stuart Bechman, told me that they are not well expressed, and perhaps he should remove them? I argued instead that he should leave them. They demonstrate Comforts preference for answering the easy questions instead of the hard questions.
And Comfort manages to fumble his answers to these questions, he even skips a few of them without mentioning that he's done so or why.
Comfort answers 30 of these 37 questions, and I'll be picking my way through his answers one by one in a tedious manner starting in my next post in this series. And although I have some help in this from Atheists United (thanks Stuart!) I'm really not looking forward to the process.
You can see the questions in their original form here.
(Part 3) (Part 5)
Comfort starts this section by saying that God, not man, is in control of our destiny. Comfort says:If man is in total control of his future, then he should at least be in control of his own body.Christians give God credit for our normal function, but often refuse to credit God for our normal handicaps. If I should credit God for the way that my heart works, I must also credit him for my radical astigmatism. He should receive full marks for birth defects like Autism, and Anencephaly.
…
God has set his body in motion and there is little (man) can do about it.
…
(Man's) kidneys, bladder, intestines, heart, liver, lungs, etc., work independently of his will.
I’m sure this isn’t what Comfort intends for his opening paragraph. However, I’m unsure exactly what Comfort wants us to take from this. Humans are not in control of our destiny? Isn’t that heresy to the Living Waters ministry? I didn't think that Comfort would be happy with predestination or Calvinism. If true, this would imply that our final destination is preordained. You’re going to Heaven, or you are going to Hell, and there isn’t anything you can say or do to change it.
If we humans are not in control of our destiny, then freewill is a sham and evangelism is unnecessary.
I’m sure Comfort could tap-dance his way out of this position if he wished. My point is that he is treading a fine line where he wants to give his God infinite abilities while still allowing humans the right to screw up their own lives. (Or in Christian terms, fail to become Saved.) This is an inherently contradictory position, and one of the basic problems with God.
Allow me to explain this. If God can see the future as easily and as intimately as he can see the past, then he can see our final destination just as easily. He knows all of the decisions we will make over our lifetime. This theological determinism means that God knows our actions in advance, and thereby negates freewill.
C.S. Lewis answers this problem by giving God the ability to exist outside of time, and therefore the ability to see how our futures are altered as we make changes in our 'now'. From “The Screwtape Letters”, where the demon Screwtape is talking about his enemy, God:
How (God) does so is no problem at all; for the Enemy does not foresee the humans making their free contributions in a future, but sees them doing so in His unbounded Now. And obviously to watch a man doing something is not to make him do it.
Imagine God, with the ability to examine creation from outside of time. He can then look at each of our lives like threads or strings laid out, side by side on a table. If we make a choice in our “now” God can see the string reposition itself along it’s length to end in a new destination. God could, if he wished, influence any critical point in our “now” in order to nudge the string to a new position.Although C. S. Lewis wrote great fantasy, he was a lousy science fiction author. Any Sci-Fi fan with a little thought could have poked major holes in this argument. Every science fiction fan knows that any yes/no decision might instead generate two universes, one where the ‘yes’ path is taken, and another universe where the ‘no’ path is taken.
Imagine again our lives as string on a table. But now, instead of a single thread with an ultimate destination, there is a string with multiple branchings, becoming more or less bushy as the branches separate or come together, in a complex and twisty entanglement with multiple different final destinations. This mess represents all the possible choices that we could take in our lives, an almost infinite number of possible future "yous".
This entanglement would not bother an omniscient God, who would be able to comprehend the whole bushy mess as easily as we comprehend a single string. He could hold every possible decision that we could make in his mind – easily. No decision path would be a surprise to him, because every path already exists, and he is intimately familiar with each of them. Again we are confronted with theological determinism and the end of our freewill.
If Comfort wanted to address Atheist problems with God, he could discuss problems like theological determinism in depth. But he doesn’t. Comfort prefers easy, simplistic answers. Instead of refuting Bertrand Russell, Robert Ingersoll, or Daniel Dennett, Comfort prefers to refute a list of off-the-cuff questions he found in a somewhat obscure corner of the Internet.
And where did those questions come from? They were hosted in a corner of the website of Atheists United.
Atheists United is a Los Angeles based non-profit Atheist organization. It was founded in 1982, and it works with the atheist community and various atheist organizations throughout Southern California, concentrating on the California Inland Empire. Atheists United works closely with the Center for Inquiry and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, they work with the Secular Coalition for America and have hosted Lori Lipman Brown on occasion. They work together with people like James Randi, Michael Shermer, and Dr. Goparaju Vijayam from the accomplished Atheist Centre in India. Recently Atheists United assisted Dr. Vijayam on a whirl-wind speaking tour of the Western United States, of which I myself was recruited and involved.
Atheists United hosts an online library of atheistic topics, with dozens of articles written by famous, and not so famous atheists. Most articles are well written and scholarly. A few are humorous or off-the-cuff. There are more comprehensive atheist libraries hosted by other online organizations. I find the Secular Web library to be the most useful.
Comfort dismisses everything that Atheists United has achieved, and jabs them with a little insult by calling them “a Hollywood atheist organization”. The atheist questions that he answers in Lessons 72 and 73 are the simple list of off-the-cuff questions that were written a decade ago and then tucked away, forgotten, in an obscure section of the Atheists United online library. The current Atheists United president, Stuart Bechman, told me that they are not well expressed, and perhaps he should remove them? I argued instead that he should leave them. They demonstrate Comforts preference for answering the easy questions instead of the hard questions.
And Comfort manages to fumble his answers to these questions, he even skips a few of them without mentioning that he's done so or why.
Comfort answers 30 of these 37 questions, and I'll be picking my way through his answers one by one in a tedious manner starting in my next post in this series. And although I have some help in this from Atheists United (thanks Stuart!) I'm really not looking forward to the process.
You can see the questions in their original form here.
(Part 3) (Part 5)
Grandma's in Hell, but I'm in Heaven so I just don't give a damn!
I carry a feed from Jeff Swenson's "Freethunk" cartoon on the right of my blog. Freethunk has been a reliable source of amusement for me, while riffing on the common questions that Atheists ask religious people.
I noticed that the latest cartoon riffs on a question that I've written of before - the question of the problem with Heaven. How can can you enjoy an eternity in Heaven knowing that someone you love is condemned to an eternity in Hell?
From my original entry on this subject, Heaven Full of Sorrow:
It is a good thing I don't believe in Hell. The thought of good people going to Hell at the whim of a jealous, vindictive God, merely because they lacked belief in God, is abhorrent. It would clearly demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of such a God.
The cartoon is funny - the concept behind it is morally repugnant.
I noticed that the latest cartoon riffs on a question that I've written of before - the question of the problem with Heaven. How can can you enjoy an eternity in Heaven knowing that someone you love is condemned to an eternity in Hell?From my original entry on this subject, Heaven Full of Sorrow:
As a parent you die and end up in Heaven. Your beloved child (or children) dies (eventually) and ends up in Hell. Your child wasn’t evil, just a non-believer. She or he was a loving, good person – but due to a lack of faith or belief, or just not making the grade, she or he is doomed to Hell for the rest of eternity.Maybe Christians are made of sterner stuff than am I. Maybe I'm just being a wimp when I say that knowing my loved ones are in Hell would make Heaven an eternal Hell for me. Maybe spending eternity in Heaven puking my guts out in horror would be a poor way to repay God for my salvation.
The question is: How can you enjoy your eternity in Heaven knowing that your beloved child or children are being punished for the rest of eternity? Won’t it haunt you to know that they are in a “lake of fire” or in whatever punishment you believe they are being subjected?
How can it be Heaven if you feel sorrow, pain, regret, panic and despair over the punishment of your child?
Those without children can’t get out of this so easily – replace “Child” with “Parent” or “Loved one”.
Or spouse.
Even if you have no one, even if you've managed to gain no friends, and never knew your family before you died and ascended to Heaven, won’t the inherent good in you result in your eternal mourning over those lost souls?
Pardon my hyperbole, but how can anyone enjoy teatime in Heaven knowing that their tea is boiled over burning sinners in a lake of fire?
It is a good thing I don't believe in Hell. The thought of good people going to Hell at the whim of a jealous, vindictive God, merely because they lacked belief in God, is abhorrent. It would clearly demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of such a God.
The cartoon is funny - the concept behind it is morally repugnant.
The "I'll pray for you" meme
I ... uhm... seem to have helped start something.
I had noticed something while reading the mail that Dr. Myers was getting over crackergate.
Most of this Christian email had two things in common. First is the dismissive language. There were a lot of people taking Dr. Myers to task for his actions. I have no idea how many people were interested in opening a real dialog, after all they're probably thinking there is no point. And there is an excellent chance that the email from more reasonable people is buried in the deluge that Dr. Myers is currently receiving.
But the other thing most of the displayed email had in common was a very dismissive version of "I'll pray for you".
I'll be the first to admit, I'm a geek from way back. I grew up reading JRR Tolkien's books - and even slogged my way through the Silmarillion. So it was no surprise (to me at least) that every time I read a dismissive version of the words, "I'll pray for you", I would hear them in the voice of Bilbo Baggins as he prepared for his 111st birthday. "No Thank You!" he would say when some new relative or well-wisher knocked on his door.
Or I would read the words, "I'll pray for you", and hear it in the voice of Willy Wonka (as portrayed by actor Gene Wilder) as he said, "You get nothing! You lose! Good day! I said good day!"
"I'll pray for you" is written by Christians, over and over and over again, in exactly this tone. It became annoying, and it was pretty obvious what the writers were implying ... and so I made this comment:
The rest of the thread, already unstable, started staggering as both Atheists and Christians started throwing "I'll pray for you" back and forth at each other like some sort of twisted game of "catch the javelin". Sentences like, "I'll pray for you all night long" took on a more sordid meaning.
Honestly, I thought it would die out.
But the meme seems to have legs. Days, and thousands of comments later, it's still happening.
I've been skimming through the responses to crackergate around the web, and I'm finding that religious people everywhere are still saying "I'll pray for you! (or I'll pray for them)" in the same dismissive tone. I see it in the comments of secular blogs, and in the entries of religious blogs. It seems to me that it is rarely said in a heartfelt manner.
"No, Thank You! I'll pray for you! Good DAY sir!"
It's no wonder that the meme hasn't died yet. Once you become sensitive to something, you can't help but notice it when it appears again - and in this case it is appearing over and over again, in the same exact way.
I had noticed something while reading the mail that Dr. Myers was getting over crackergate.
Most of this Christian email had two things in common. First is the dismissive language. There were a lot of people taking Dr. Myers to task for his actions. I have no idea how many people were interested in opening a real dialog, after all they're probably thinking there is no point. And there is an excellent chance that the email from more reasonable people is buried in the deluge that Dr. Myers is currently receiving.
But the other thing most of the displayed email had in common was a very dismissive version of "I'll pray for you".
I'll be the first to admit, I'm a geek from way back. I grew up reading JRR Tolkien's books - and even slogged my way through the Silmarillion. So it was no surprise (to me at least) that every time I read a dismissive version of the words, "I'll pray for you", I would hear them in the voice of Bilbo Baggins as he prepared for his 111st birthday. "No Thank You!" he would say when some new relative or well-wisher knocked on his door.
Or I would read the words, "I'll pray for you", and hear it in the voice of Willy Wonka (as portrayed by actor Gene Wilder) as he said, "You get nothing! You lose! Good day! I said good day!"
"I'll pray for you" is written by Christians, over and over and over again, in exactly this tone. It became annoying, and it was pretty obvious what the writers were implying ... and so I made this comment:
The more I read, the more I realize that "I will pray for you" is just a euphemism for, "Fuck you!"The commenter (and blogger) Blake Stacey found it funny, and riffed on it in a way that I personally think is inspired and hilarious. (Warning to Christians - if you find atheistic humor insulting, don't click on that!)
It's always said in the same way, the same tone. And it usually ends the conversation.
Posted by: Calladus | July 11, 2008 8:02 PM
The rest of the thread, already unstable, started staggering as both Atheists and Christians started throwing "I'll pray for you" back and forth at each other like some sort of twisted game of "catch the javelin". Sentences like, "I'll pray for you all night long" took on a more sordid meaning.
Honestly, I thought it would die out.
But the meme seems to have legs. Days, and thousands of comments later, it's still happening.
I've been skimming through the responses to crackergate around the web, and I'm finding that religious people everywhere are still saying "I'll pray for you! (or I'll pray for them)" in the same dismissive tone. I see it in the comments of secular blogs, and in the entries of religious blogs. It seems to me that it is rarely said in a heartfelt manner.
"No, Thank You! I'll pray for you! Good DAY sir!"
It's no wonder that the meme hasn't died yet. Once you become sensitive to something, you can't help but notice it when it appears again - and in this case it is appearing over and over again, in the same exact way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)