By Chris Highland ~

While studying Philosophy at Seattle Pacific ("free" Methodist) University, a wise old professor suggested I thumb through some Nietzsche. My evangelical mind was already stumbling numb from reading Socrates in Greek, and staggering in and out of Confucius, Walt Whitman and Kierkegaard. On the personal side, I was discovering the joys of (sinful) sex while attending a "house church" led by a Jews for Jesus-type friend and paling around with some Muslim students. But Nietzsche? Wasn't he the "God is Dead" guy? I quickly found he was much, much more, and I've returned to his writings off and on over the long journey out of faith. At this point I read him now and again during my "meditation" times (my wife knows this means while I'm in the bathroom sanctuary). This morning I came upon more delightfully upsetting lines from Mr. N's little book of pithy sayings called, Human, All Too Human (HATH, 1878). He was very good at the delightfully upsetting stuff. In this passage of troubling truthtelling he is discussing a "Substitute for Religion." He says that some want to simply replace Religion with Philosophy, but the move from religious to scientific thinking can be a "dangerous leap" and actually "inadvisable." The leap, that is. But, he reasons, "transitional spheres of thought" are necessary sometimes. His suggestion? Art. To move out of religious ideas that "originate only from errors of reason," a person needs a little help, a bridge, an alternative path that isn't some dramatic leap of un-faith (as opposed to Kierkegaard's famous leap of faith).

 "It is preferable to use art for this transition. . . . Beginning with art, one can more easily move on to a truly liberating philosophical science" (HATH, 27).

That's a taste of Mr. N. And here I make an incredibly wild connection to one of Friedrich's Scottish-American contemporaries who led my final exit from faith. Not a philosopher; not an atheist; not an artist. A Mr. M. . . .Muir. . . .John Muir. A fine freethinking trail guide for the wild journey out of "foggy city thinking" to the great wide open, fresh air artwork of Nature. I'm wrong, though. Muir was indeed an artist--with words. No one could tell a story or use his lips to paint a picture quite like the Mountain Man Muir. His fantastic tales of climbing cliffs and trees, of riding avalanches and facing bears, whispering to flowers and singing with birds, all were shaped into stories to inspire generations of people to get involved, to participate, to care for the Chapel of the Cosmos. As I like to say, we are each, as humans made of humus with a pinch of humor (for fertilizer?), called to be Nature Chaplains--whatever that means. We need to discover what that means.

Whether sleeping in a cemetery in Georgia or sleeping on a blanket in the sierra snow with Teddy Roosevelt, Muir was truly crazy. . .crazy in love with the earth and everything earthly. And his words, his art, changed things. Politicians got agitated. National Parks were created. He didn't distract people to other worlds, to the fancies and fantasies of faith. He, like Thoreau, had no interest in the inventions of heavens, some imagined above, beyond, behind the universe. Nature was heaven enough, religion enough, scripture enough. Muir's was not a super-natural faith. His was an all-natural, organic, crunchy and biodegradable trust that Life itself was super enough.

Here are a few elements of Muir's "faith" as I see it:

1. A light but serious belief that beliefs are distractions from the simple and most wonderful gifts of life
2. A full-out belly-flop baptism in the beauty of Nature
3. A pure, endless delight in the world, the cosmos, all that is and can be explored
4.  A student's heart to "sit on Nature's knee" and learn from the Greatest Teacher
5. An evangelical enthusiasm to convert the masses to preserving the only home we share with each other and all other wild life

How did he preach this wild gospel (a kind of anti-gospel)? From the pulpit of the forests and mountains. "I care to live only to entice people to look at Nature's loveliness" (Wilderness Essays). Though he memorized the Bible as a boy, his scripture was written along the ridge-lines and recited in the waterfalls. Was Muir a Pantheist? Maybe. Did he believe in God? Yes, with a radical (literally rooted and grounded) twist. "No synonym for God is so perfect as Beauty" (Journals). When we look at the world more closely, more reverently if you will, we "behold a new heaven and new earth and are born again, as if we had gone on a pilgrimage to some far-off holy land" (Journals). This bearded incarnation of Thoreau's "saunterer" felt that every step in the wilderness left a bootprint on sacred ground.

Muir, like Nietzsche (strange to say), gave us hints, pointed the way down the paths to a way, a truth, a life, greater than anything Religion has ever offered. Is there a Creator? Of course there is: Nature. Is there a Paradise? Look around. Heaven is under our feet (and stuck on our shoe!). Is there a cure, a salvation, for our humanity? Only being more human. Is there anything left after faith is left behind? Only countless trails to be discovered, explored, wandered by every wanderer with a pack full of wonder (and the adventure reaches from our body and brain to the farthest point of light in space).

Now, before I head off down another deer trail into the unknown, here's an old, wrinkled map left by the crazy artist Muir:

"Go now and then for fresh life--if most of humanity must go through this town stage of development--just as divers hold their breath and come ever and anon to the surface to breathe. . . . Go whether or not you have faith. . . . Form parties, if you must be social, to go to the snow-flowers in winter, to the sun-flowers in summer. . . . Anyway, go up and away for life; be fleet!" (Journals)

Can you think of a better benediction?


Chris Highland
(former Presbyterian Minister; former Interfaith Chaplain; author of Life After Faith, Jesus and John Muir, Meditations of John Muir, and other works. www.naturetemple.wordpress.com)

Website: http://www.chrishighland.wordpress.com

By Paul So ~

I’m not sure if everyone had this experience, but in my deconversion story Discordance and my other article Problem with Repentance, I pointed out that the main reason why I abandoned Christianity is I could not really know whether or not I’m saved, I can only believe that I am saved. Now, I understand that this is not sufficient to undermine Christianity but I would say that it has lead me to question whether any of this is true; Because atonement, for me at the time, was one of the main foundational pillars of Christianity, questioning atonement was really a hard blow on my faith. I would like to treat this essay (or article) as a sub-story of my deconversion. I find this to be very important part of why I deconverted but I want to make several things clear.

First, this deconversion was strictly from being a Christian to being an agnostic deist (with nihilistic tendencies); in other words, I cannot prove that God exists but at the time I thought God’s existence was the only explanation for why the world (including morality) exists. Second, even if I am wrong about my views on salvation I don’t see this as a problem since as I grew up I matured intellectually and philosophically to the point that I understand that there are more problems with Christianity than I was previously aware of, so even if my problem with Christianity is not warranted I wouldn’t see this as a reason to return to Christianity. The main reason why I mention this is because I was worried that if I was wrong about this then I have to become a Christian but I realize how ridiculous this is; I have many more reasons, and even if I had none, I still would have no reason to believe in Christianity to begin with.

With these in mind, I would like to explain what my problem with salvation is from the perspective of the seventeen year old with some more sophisticated college student interpretation that stays faithful to the spirit of the problem. When I was seventeen years old I really wanted to be saved and I was extremely scared of the fact that I might have committed blasphemy against the holy spirit. Because the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was a very vague sin I quickly assumed that I could have committed it without understanding what it was (I currently see it as very vague). This has motivated me to understand how salvation works so I begin to read several devotional books and some important passages from the bible. However, overtime, I realize that I cannot know that I am saved for the following reasons.

First, the books of Romans said that nobody can be repentant except through God, which made me think that somehow I cannot be repentant on my own so I must somehow communicate with God in order to become repentant. But this idea made no sense to my seventeen year old mind at all. While it still does not make any sense to me, my seventeen year old mind just could not pin down why there this idea was so incoherent and nonsensical. It was only after a couple years later when I read the Biography of Immanuel Kant who complained that “repenting that you are not repentant enough so God can make you repentant through the Holy Spirit.” After reading that passage it made so much sense to me why it made no sense at all! If you cannot be repentant without God to begin with, then how can you be repentant for not being repentant enough? If God made you repentant then doesn’t that imply that somehow this cannot be your fault for being incapable of being repentant? I mean, the airplane barely lifts off the ground to fly, so why blame the pilot for not being a qualified pilot? It just made no sense to me.

The whole point about salvation is to believe that you are saved because you believe. Second, how do I know that I am saved? This perplexed my seventeen year old mind for quite a while. I just could not know how I am saved; which part of my personal experiences (or clusters of my personal experiences) are indicative that I am saved? People suggested to me that if I had the experience then I would know, but then I asked myself “but what if that I am wrong to believe that personal experience means that I am saved?”. I mean isn’t that possible? Isn’t it possible that either the devil made you think that way or that you unconsciously self-deceived yourself to believe that way? At the time that’s what I thought: I just could not rule out other explanations that say that I am not saved.

I think the second problem then leads to the third problem: The whole point about salvation is to believe that you are saved because you believe. This is the point that the books of Romans make, but somehow it just didn’t work for me; it didn’t convince me. The reason being is that I can believe that I am saved, but is that belief true? How do I know that it’s true? Is it because of emotions or spiritual experiences? If so, which ones? How do I know which one of these experiences indicates that I am saved? The only answer I got from most Christians was “Stop thinking too much, just have faith!” Well, I couldn’t. I couldn’t just believe I find it too difficult because it doesn’t answer my question: How do I know?

Eventually this became an emotional problem which leads me to abandon Christianity but never lead me to abandon the existence of God until two years ago. I look back at this event wondering to myself if I made the right decision but by reflecting on this I came to the conclusion that even if I’m wrong about my reasoning I still have no reason left to believe in Christianity any better than Islam or Judaism. However I look at this experience positively as an event that lead me to become the kind of person that I am proud to be.

By tothemorning (formerly known as HickoryGrove)

My journey began 30 yrs. ago at the tender age of 14. An invite to a youth service resulting in a trip to the alter where I repented of the evil that I was and accepted man's defined plan of God's salvation. Here in this Assembly of God Church the process began...an indoctrination of guilt ridden salvation that left scar tissue. Through all the traumatizing years my young but mature mind would rationalize the Godly leaders immoral self-serving leadership by passing it off as being part of the human-factor. My only desire was to have a heart after God's own heart: to serve him in a most excellent way. But the years of a heart burning with a fire of pure sincerity for God was finally blown out by the winds of truth and deception. The following is a simple time line of incidents that finally took their toll and lead me to freedom. Here we go...

Following my salvation I became very involved in the youth ministry. The main theme that the youth pastor seemed to preach on was the sins of the flesh. At youth camp in Humble, TX guys and girls were separated for morning teaching services. It was during these services that the sin of masturbation was preached with wild-fire to us sinful boys. Guilt and shame was the prescription of the day. (What a way to jack-up a teens mind while they have yet to establish their adult identity). It is my firm belief that these preachers are culpable and should be held criminally and civilly accountable for their gross religious ideologies that they inject into young people's minds; it is truly abusive.

"The pain of the Spirit" Following high school I attended an Assemblies of God College. Being "caught up in the spirit" was the goal of every daily chapel service. During a service over a hundred babbling tongue talkers were either convulsing "in the spirit" or rolling on the ground in an uncontrollable manner after having been slain in the spirit. This experience was always referred to as receiving an "extra blessing". To receive this extra-blessing was to denote that the receiver was closer to God than the others who were still sitting in the pews. Definitely a feeling of spiritual superiority was derived from this extra-blessing. As I would sit through these services in a reserved manner (rationalizing that I was worshipping in spirit and in truth) students would come to me and encourage me to go to the front (the alter) and receive a "blessing." I would respectfully say that I was o.k. and would continue to assess all the hoopla while trying to focus on "God". During one chapel service a student who was in front of his pew was jumping up and down in a hyper-erratic manner. He slipped, his legs went out from under him and the middle of his back struck the wooden backrest of the pew. He went to the floor for the ten count. I watched carefully and then determined to render aid. As I began my approach to him, he slowly stood to his feet and walked out of the service...head hung low with a look of disillusionment and pain on his face. I couldn't help but observe all the other pseudo-spiritual self-absorbed lemmings caught up in their own moment not to notice their brother who took such a bad fall. I then knew something was not right...but my pursuit for God continued.

My perfect hearing has now been healed: One Wednesday evening my college friends and I went to the evening service of the Assembly of God church that was around the corner from the college. There was a visiting evangelist. He preached and attempted to stir the emotions of the listeners with his sensationalism. This is what they call "The move of the spirit" or "Feeling the presence of the Lord". He also had a "word of knowledge". As he walked down the center aisle he spotted me...pointed at me and called me out to the aisle. He then proclaimed to all that I had been partially deaf since I was baby. (This was news to me.) I then began to say, " Excuse me sir I am not deaf". By the time I said "not deaf", with a look of astonishment he overpowered me with his voice and declared me to be healed in the name of Jesus while pushing my forehead with his healing hand. He then immediately began to walk backwards away from me and compelled the congregants to praise the Lord for my healing. The praise party then began in pseudo-spiritual splendor...all for what the Lord had just done for me. I remember it like it was yesterday...standing there in those people's midst thinking "what is going on in here?" I was in shock and awe over the manipulation and deception that this man was performing. After pondering, I made biblical concessions for this man's bad behavior.

Reflecting on all my incidents reveals to me that rationalizing people's bad behaviors was a coping mechanism. It was a needed one to survive in the only environment that I knew. At that time, I had no confidants other than the foolish.

First youth pastorate at the age of 20. Strike one: One Sunday morning in Dallas TX I was turning on the lights of the church at the Assembly of God church when the pastor walked up to me, greeted me and then asked me, "So what did you do last night?" I replied that my girlfriend and I went out for dinner. He elbowed me playfully and asked "So did you getcha any?" I just looked at him shocked and said "Excuse me?" I knew something was not right. Strike two: Following one service there was a get-together at his house. His house was adorned with thousands of dollars of furnishings much of which was gold or at least gold in color. He pulled me aside, referenced his high dollar furnishings and told me so proudly that if I followed his lead that I too could have all that he had. I knew something was not right. Yet my pursuit continued. I left this position out of consciousness. Strike three: Upon leaving this position the pastor called me a thief for accepting a salary (for pastoral services rendered). He then chuckled and told me that the elders had been placing bets as to whether or not I would make it as a pastor. This revelation only confirmed that my decision to leave was the right one.

Following a hard break-up with my girlfriend I returned to my home town in Tyler Tx for the summer. She called me a month later wanting me to go visit her for the weekend. I did. We rekindled our relationship on that Fri and Sat and then on Sunday morning I attended her A of G church with her. Following the service, she and her pastor were across the sanctuary from me and were in a quiet conversation with one another. I felt uncomfortable as they were discreetly glancing at me. She finished her conversation with him and came to me. I asked her if all was ok. She looked and acted as though she was without thoughts. (Come to find out, she was not allowed to think for herself.) We then went out to eat with her mother and siblings (as all good Christians do). Before going into the restaurant she told me that her pastor had advised her that God gave him a word of knowledge that I was not the one for her and a spiritual darkness and for her to be with me was an invite for a life of pain. I was totally disillusioned and disturbed by such a statement made against me. (I knew something was not right about this pseudo-realm that I was dwelling in). Following lunch we returned back to her house and she then told me that I needed to leave. I then retrieved my overnight bag, got in my car and drove away...once again in pain...never to see her again...holding on to my faith, with a hurt and pissed-off attitude...in my pursuit of God.

Fast forward: 2nd Youth Pastor Position at age 30. Inner turmoil amongst the leadership of the church, pastor allegedly having an affair. Two adult leaders get into a fist fight while chaperoning at a Petra concert. The church ultimately collapsed and no longer exists.

Still holding on...

One last shot: Approximately 7yrs ago I went to a church that was breaking-ground in the community. Here I would see if there was a place for me to serve. I met the pastor and we talked for about two hours. He then told me that it was God's will that I accept the associate pastor position of the church. During our conversation he told me that he was the only voice of God in the church and that all leaders would heed his words. He then shared with me the many miracles that God worked through him such as a 10 yr. old child that levitated by the power of the Holy Ghost. I then respectfully got the hell out of there.

Over the past 5 years I have processed my religious journey and have seen where this dogma and experiences have dynamically effected my life in such a negative manner. I am now partially released from the burden of this horrible weight. I guess you can now say I am no longer spiritually oppressed. (Sound familiar anyone?) Brian Tracy says we are all responsible for everything we think and do. Because of this new outlook I can have and be anything I want to be. People...religion is not a crutch...it is an injury.

The aforementioned are experiences that played a part in my release. My journey is not dictated by these experiences alone. (Believe me there is a lot more I could share.) There is also the intellectual assessment of the unexplainable and the non-sensible part of religions that led to my escape.

My journey now continues for my family and those I care about...not just for me.

By Agnes ~

Hello. I have recently been able to say [with my own voice that I have recently developed for the first time] that I am not a christian, and I have searched for a place like this for support.

Image by Sand Creation via Flickr

I was born into a Lutheran family, and attended my Lutheran school/church for 6 days a week, for the first 14 years of my life. This adds up to 4,032 days of my life, not including minor exceptions for Saturday church events. I blossomed at this place, from sitting in Sunday school at age 7 contemplating my existence while everyone else sang "Go Tell it on the Mountain", to wondering what happens to Ethiopian children after death while my 7th teacher talks about hell.

I have a deep love for nostalgia; Despite the beautiful and deceptive memories I have of "fellowship", and of my "faith walk", I have realized that I was born into a family with a mind that is incapable of working like theirs. I realize now, looking back at my youth group events, camps, school days, fundraisers, chapel services, etc. that I was always, always contradicted in the back of my head with my natural feelings. This was all between the ages of 0 and 14 with me, so as I was having feelings of discomfort and disbelief, I was still able to convince myself that they were "wrong" and brainwash myself into believe that I believe (if that makes sense) for the sake of having the all around secure feeling of pleasing my "God" and living "forever".

This severely delayed my development of a voice, a conscience, a personality, and mind, interests, knowledge, talents, a self.

This also caused a severe self destruction in my young female life, being around males who view me as a possession, a project, rather than a human.

For the past 3 years, I have been constantly exposing myself to everything I was kept from. Sci-fi movies, the world of folklore, christian theology, the science behind homosexuality, anything I'm interested in that I was never able to learn about.

I have also read about the history of the bible to the point that I understand why my family is brainwashed, and it hurts me.

I am 21 years old and in love with my boyfriend of 2 years (we're both spiritualists, and agree that we are no one to say what that concept of god even is). I have been living with him and his family for about a year, and plan to soon move into an apartment with him and 3 others, (all boys, they're our friends). It's just the most logical way to live until we're out of school, in order to save money, etc.

My mom, being a christian, is surprisingly supportive because she understands that I'm an adult and should be able to make my own choices without guilt. My dad is the opposite, and continues to guilt me and cry and claim that I'm not the daughter he raised, when, in all reality, I am, I've just developed a belief system of my own that is different.

I have studied enough to understand that the concept of abstinence in the bible rooted from the need for growth of religion, and the reliance of family structure in order to make that happen. Same with homosexuality, reproduction needed to happen for the growth of religion in that time. There is an explanation for everything, every "rule" written in the bible and it saddens me that people have come to the point that they think they will go to hell if they fail to follow.

It saddens me even more that people will use what it says to manipulate others to live a morally acceptable life in their eyes.

Part of me feels that humans already knew how terrible of a species we were back then to the point that they made this system, this "hell" and these "commandments" and these stories only to control the future of the human species. (just a thought)

Anyways, I can't really label myself anything. I like to say I am a spiritualist but my logic overpowers it most of the time. Except in the winter. I just love nature, and doing what is healthy. No, I don't sleep around, or do drugs, or self destruct, or hate nice Christians, I'm just tired of the brainwashing. I just want to live healthily and happily with no one telling me that I have to write on a paper and have witnesses that I'm married before I can make love to the person I'm utterly in love with. I want people who experience feelings for someone of the same sex to be able to express them because yes, I understand it's against the natural order of reproduction, but it is not against natural order itself because it obviously happens.

Life is never meant to be structured and fundamental, it is never supposed to be that simple, and I feel for those for are missing out on precious time to be free.

"god has a voice, he speaks through me,
god has a voice she speaks through me"
-cocorosie

By Ex Baptist Pastor ~

I suppose this would be a rant. I want to come back and properly introduce myself, but this has been running through my head and I just want to get it out there.

I'm a former Baptist pastor of the neo-Calvinist strain. Not to long ago my former co-pastor and I were emailing back and forth as he tried to keep me from leaving the faith.

Image by Jack Batchelor via Flickr

One of the things we talked about was how I'd only recently learned that my step-daughter had been molested by her biological father six years ago during her last visit with him. This happened at the same time as my wife and I were being baptized and joining the church.

I asked him why God, who is supposedly sovereign, ordained this to happen and then kept it from us for so many years?

He said he didn't know, but that he was thankful that God had stopped it before her father went any further.

I asked him if I should thank God that he'd only let her be molested a little? Is that what he was saying?

He then told me only Jesus had the hope my daughter needed.

I asked him again: You mean the Jesus who let her, or even decreed that she be, molested in the first place? What kind of twisted thinking was that?

How could she ever trust a God who let it happen in the first place?

How could I? Or my wife? At the same time we were "getting right" with God he goes ahead and does this? And then for six years we pray for the safety of our kids and all the time damage has already been done - but it's kept from us? And we should trust him why?

At one point I believed just like that. Scary.

By Danimal ~

Would you like to be a Methodist? As a former United Methodist, I am here to tell you how. As the movie "A River Runs Through It" says, Methodists are Baptists who can read. If you can follow these simple steps, you can become a member of the United Methodist Church:

1. Be sure you know nothing about the denomination. Don't know who John Wesley is or the Book of Discipline. Be ignorant of the itinerant ministry and don't know who your bishop is.

2. Participate in the church prayer chain. Remember, the only prayers allowed are for the sick, injured or dead. Anything personal is off-limits. If someone recovers, make sure the prayers get the credit, not the doctors or nurses.

3. If you like to debate or argue, be sure you only argue over insignificant things such as musical styles, worship styles, or how good the sermons are.

4. Avoid controversial topics such as homosexuality and abortion.

5. Possess multiple personalities. You need the minimum of a church personality, a private personality, and a public personality. Never be the same person wherever you may be.

6. Never remember sermons. You must not remember the Sunday sermon any longer than 24 hours. But, do let the pastor know how effective his sermon was and how it "spoke to your heart".

7. Overuse words such as "grace", "heart", and "mercy" so that these words lose their meaning.

8. Learn to make great casseroles and salads so you can bring them to potlucks.

9. Learn to love boring committees.

10. Never question the spirituality of any other church member. If they like to handle rattlesnakes or use profanity in church, you must never "judge".

11. Learn some common church slang and stock phrases. You will sound really smart and "spiritually mature".

12. Learn to be a sheep. Methodists really love sheep.

13. Learn to love K-Love radio and its sappy worship music.

14. Don't make friends with anyone. Methodists are into fellowship, not friends.

If you can do most of these things, you too can become eligible for membership in any Methodist church. But, it's just a lot easier not to be one,not to mention more logical.

By Carl S ~

Here's the "reality" most people are taught: There's a creator who made everything that exists, as it is. Out of all the billions of galaxies, this creator chose this particular planet to be God's own planet. He made it, pronounced it "good," and has been finding fault with its human inhabitants ever since. Now, the human inhabitants are to serve this god on earth, obediently do his will, and get a reward in an eternal blissful afterlife, or go to eternal torment. Anything this god does, or allows, is good. Anything his chosen people do in his name, for his glory, is virtuous and a.o.k. It's called justification. But, just how the will, wishes, or work of god is defined, is never questioned, just obeyed.

This is quite interesting. For a Mormon, not imbibing in alcoholic beverages or coffee is the will of god, and proselytizing is the work of god. For the Moslem, pork is forbidden, likewise the Jew. God permits one wife only, or many wives, creates homosexuals but forbids gay intercourse. God tells both the Christians and the Moslems the same thing: Kill the infidel. God approves/does not approve, of many things, all over the moral landscape, and things that have nothing at all to do with morality; tells some humans he is three persons, while telling others that he is but one god. He has worshippers bowing toward Mecca and others kissing statues. He has tens of thousands of spokesmen telling their followers just what he expects of them, what his will is, what work they are called to do in his name and stead. He's always coming up with new ways to put people at odds with each other, to make some people feel much more superior to others, telling for example, one group that it's "true" to him whereas another isn't, and that means that every one of them is a "heretic" to the other.

Deprivation is god's game: sex, booze, delicious meats, sleeping in on Sunday mornings (or Friday, if you're Jewish or Moslem), etc. Deprive your senses, mind, and reasoning. Just obey, that's all. This is the formula god lays out for success in spirituality - the society that he reigned over for more than a thousand years, and longs to repeat: just believe, obey, don't ever question. (I wish this were sarcastic, but it's theologically correct.) Interestingly, the will of god is contingent on geography, culture, and the pressure cooker indoctrination of children.

If you want to know what "God wants," what his will is, you'll have to check out all the religions which speak for "him;" and don't stop there, check each congregation, each spokesman, each cult, because they will tell you. And the smaller the unit, the more specific and "certain" are god's rules, will, wishes, doctrines, for god is very adaptable, capable of morphing, while giving contradictory commands from one place to another. In fact, because the will of god is so ambiguous, as well fits the hiddenness of god, just about anything can be said to be the will of, the raison d'ętre for the work of god, and is. Whether you are told to believe Mohammed or Elias or Jesus (and his mom floated up through the clouds), that god is one or three, that Islam or Christianity is the one true religion, god has said all of this is true, so shut your mind and be quiet and obey. Oh, and by the way, pick whatever truths you choose to accept, for crissakes. God will lead you on.

Reality check: There's no such thing as "God's will", or "God's laws". There are the laws of man and the fabricating what is the will/wishes/commands of an invisible, imaginary power, and buffoons speaking in its name simply because they've done so for centuries. Get real. If they were truly honest, they would say, "We don't know."

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And those who are given power to impose absolute values of an absolutely powerful invisibility, are the most corrupt of all. It's all about power: over thoughts, sexuality, appetites, freedom, children's minds. It's about the lowest, sneakiest reality hiding under the camouflage of goodness. That's getting real, when you realize this.

By Brian Kellogg ~

I believe the title of this post really strikes at the core of religious belief. Humans, in general, so desperately want to believe that they either personally have magical power over a chaotic world or they have a god that can exercise such power for their benefit. It is a very traumatic event in one's life to honestly confront the fact that the Universe is wholly indifferent to us and is in fact quite chaotic and out of our control. The religious find comfort through the illusion of control and power afforded by their religion in much the same way superstitious fisherman or baseball players do with their good luck charms and other good luck rituals. I can understand and sympathize with this to a point.

We see such thinking often played out in disasters where one church is destroyed but another survives seemingly miraculously. The parishioners of the surviving building thank god for his goodness, but what of god's goodness for the parishioners of the other church? Well they say god works in mysterious ways and so on and so forth. We see the same circular reasoning employed in many other instances; sickness, job loss, ... . There is no rebuttal to this fallacious logic because those who employ it are not as concerned with truth as much as they are with emotional succor.

It is my sincere hope that humans can move beyond religion and especially messianic religions as these are terribly and intentionally divisive and contentious.It is my sincere hope that humans can move beyond religion and especially messianic religions as these are terribly and intentionally divisive and contentious. This will take considerable time and good fortune as this Universe is indifferent to our plight. I doubt I will be alive to see it. I don't expect a humanistic utopia to take hold some day where everyone always gets along, but I think we would be much better off without messianic religions especially.

When reviewing history I would be hard pressed to recognize anything else other than science and democracy that have contributed more to the betterment of the human species. Religion is not even close on this list. Now some would argue Christianity provided the fertile soil by which science and democracy have been nourished. This is not true and it is a very myopic view to hold especially when considering Chinese, Indian, and Muslim advances throughout the centuries among others. This gets into the whole untruth of the US being founded a christian nation. All I have to say to this is Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine; argument over. In fact I would argue religion, Christianity especially (dark ages through to now), has stunted our advancement considerably.

We need to get off this fragile blue spinning ball onto other fragile spinning balls to hedge our bets. Religion, for the most part, is an impediment to this most important of humanistic goals.

By Paul So ~

One of the most common assumptions among Christians is that there is only one kind of authentic purpose which is something that is built into human beings when God designs them. If you remember the doctrine of Deus Imagio (Image of God), propounded by the theologian Irenicus, Christians believe that we all posses the image of God which means we all have the potential to be like God and the entire purpose from this image is the fact that we are meant to go to heaven. Admittedly it sounds like a nice idea but there seems to be an implicit double standard in this way of thinking: Whatever purpose God creates is meaningful, but whatever purpose human creates cannot be meaningful.

Image by Bill Gracey via Flickr

Why is this? Well, perhaps one plausible explanation is that Christians emphasize a lot on God’s sovereignty which involves creating authentic purposes that human beings are incapable of building. Whatever purpose that we create just isn’t good enough as that of God’s. Our created purpose will always fade into the shadows along with our existence due to its impermanence. But there seems to be another troubling assumption there: Purpose is authentic only if it is eternal, and eternal things can only be created by God but not by human beings. By eternal, I mean that when the end-goal is achieved the sense of happiness and fulfillment of it is everlasting since whatever is achieved is also everlasting. So far there seems to be two main reasons why Christians think only God can create purpose: First, because God is the sovereign creator who are legitimately in charge of what purpose things have. Second, because nobody can create a purpose that is eternal except God.

There is a specific problem related to this subject that I want to focus on: the fact that there are plenty (but not every) ex-Christian who unconsciously accept these assumptions. Because they accept it they also believe that rejecting Christianity amounts to nihilism which is that life has no purpose. They agree with Christians that the only authentic purpose is the one’s that can be created by a creator and the ones that are eternal. However, I want to make an argument against the common assumption that whatever purpose humans create cannot be meaningful.

First, what does it mean to say that the purpose we have is “meaningful”? The term “meaningful” is very ambiguous because it can mean semantic meaning which simply understands what the word means or it could mean seeing the actual existing patterns. But the kind of meaning that we are talking about here has little to do with semantics and patterns, rather the kind of meaning that we are talking about is living a flourishing life with a high quality of happiness. I don’t think believers will deny this definition of “meaning of life” because it seems to fit in with their notion of what the purpose of their life is. But if they accept this definition why is it restricted to their beliefs? Why can’t meaning be more open and broad for everyone who is either a believer or non-believer?

If meaningful life is defined as a flourishing life with a high quality of happiness then it’s pointless to ask “Is there a meaning of life” because it sounds like saying “Is there a possible flourishing of life with a high quality of happiness” which most of us agree is true. What the question should be is “meaningful to whom?” because meaning is dependent on our overall well-being. Is this is the definition of meaning that we can accept then it is possible to see how meaning of life is possible without God. Evolution has already provided us with capacities and capabilities to use them for non-evolutionary purposes: to create art, do science, do philosophy, play sports, etc.

This brings to me next point: Why can’t we construct a meaningful purpose for ourselves? All it really amounts to is creating conventions, rules, and technologies with the design to help us achieve a meaningful life. This isn’t at all unusual or totally artificial because if you study human history we do this all the time: We create cultures, civilizations, art, music, philosophy, religions, laws, science, and other things with the purpose to achieve a meaningful life. We build houses with roofs with the purpose to keep us warm and prevent the rain drops from getting us wet. We create economies so we can create jobs with purpose to help other people through services and produce enough wages to use it buy commodities. We have sports with rules, conventions, and goals and so far most of us seem to love sports even though it is created by us. Go to the sports fan (let’s say the red skins fan) and tell them that their enthusiasm for sports is meaningless because it is created by man but not by God; what would their reaction be? It would probably range from annoyance to anger, and the reason for this is because even though it was created by human beings it doesn’t mean that it cannot make us sufficiently happy. The point I’m trying to make is that just because we construct things with purposes for our welfare and happiness it doesn’t mean that they are any less “real” or “authentic” to us. The sports fan example I just gave clearly demonstrates that sports, in spite of being artificially made, is real and authentic to the sports fan. The houses we create is real to us, it holds a lot of meaning for us; when we move away from the house we live for a while don’t we feel a bit nostalgic? Is this feeling “unreal” simply because it was man-made? I don’t think so, and I think most of you would agree. We also create families through marriages, and despite the fact that there is increasing amount of divorce rates there is still plenty of successful marriages left in which couples remain content and happy. Marriages are created, but that doesn’t mean that the relationship between couples are any less meaningful; friendships are also created but they aren’t any less meaningful either.

Books and ideas are created for variety of purposes, yet many of us who love to read books (including myself) do not find these books to be any less “authentic”, “real”, or “meaningful”. These books feel very “real”, “authentic” and “meaningful” (especially fiction books!) to many readers. Even religious books give those similar feelings to religious believers and scholars alike.

But what about the fact that these purposes we created are not eternal in the sense that they do not give us everlasting happiness? The answer to that question is with another question “Is there such thing as everlasting happiness?” Like the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, I do not think that there is such thing as “everlasting happiness” because our brains are hardwired to desire more things. This may sound troubling to both believers and non-believers alike, but the only way out of this “dilemma” is that we should focus our ongoing desires on things that are most important to us. For most of us it’s going to be about our relationships with people since we are social creatures, but for some of us it will be about the pursue towards knowledge among other human activities. There are certain things in this world that we are so deeply attached to that much of what we desire is already focused on those things.

We all have different desires, plans, interests, and values so why try to fit everyone into one thing call “purpose” instead of allowing people to construct variety of purposes that fit with their context of life? It’s true that these things do not last forever, but perhaps that’s the problem: perhaps when we think about meaningful life or happiness we think too much about external goods. Perhaps we can focus on happiness from “within” by trying to interpret impermanent events a bit differently, which is a way to keep us happy. I don’t know, but I still maintain the position that overall we can construct purposes for ourselves.

Perhaps a believer may complain that creation of purpose among human beings can be abusive and not universal. That’s true, but it doesn’t mean that overall humanly constructed purpose are any less meaningful. There are many kinds of constructed purposes in variety of forms and many of them keep different people happy; why can’t purpose be like that? Why can’t we accept the plurality of purpose rather than the homogeneity of purpose? We all have different desires, plans, interests, and values so why try to fit everyone into one thing call “purpose” instead of allowing people to construct variety of purposes that fit with their context of life?

Perhaps it’s because in Christianity people are use to the idea that there is this universal purpose that everyone must partake in, otherwise they will all be doomed. It isn’t entirely clear why God prefers universal purpose over plurality of purposes, but it’s clear that even though we are all the same kind of human beings we are still different from each other because we experience life different from different perspectives. That fact alone, I think, can determine what kind of purpose we want to create which is why if you travel around the world you see that people have different purposes.

Nonetheless we all have a common reason why we create these purposes: to enjoy and secure life. So to come to a conclusion I want to point out that constructed purpose is does not mean that it is unreal or less meaningful than the kind of purpose God would create if such a being does exist. We construct purposes all the time (whether we are aware of this or not) from the most trivial to the most significant, and many times it captivates us enough to enjoy life alone. I just don’t get why there needs to be this “single formula of purpose” that makes people happy; happiness is already a complicated and varied psychological affair that varies because of culture, politics, economy, and especially religions. We are only starting to understand ourselves better through neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and political science (among other things), so it’s a bit unfair to come to some sweeping generalization on what human nature is in order to determine what single formula of purpose we all need.

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

The ship of fools is an allegory which depicts a vessel populated by humans who are confused, frivolous, or deluded, and often ignorant of their own course or destination. In the 15th and 16th centuries, the ship of fools concept also served to parody the 'ark of salvation' as the Catholic Church was sometimes called.

Ship of Fools (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In some ways, the Titanic could be seen as a “ship of fools.” The designers of the ship, its owners, and its captain and crew were all fools in one way or another, leading the doomed ship to a watery grave. Following the disaster, two official inquiries, US and British, reached similar conclusions; the number of lifeboats aboard was inadequate, the Captain failed to take proper heed of ice warnings, many of the lifeboats were only partially loaded when launched (due to inadequate crew training), and the ship was steaming through a dangerous area at too high a speed. The whole enterprise appears to be a matter of leadership by fools.

The Christian religion is similar in many respects. Many of its primary movers and shakers, the architects of much Christian dogma, were – if not downright fools – decidedly odd individuals. Below, I offer, in their own words, some of their own foolishness. I give extra space to Paul because he is widely considered the chief architect of Christianity - and because he said so darned many foolish things.

Paul of Tarsus:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.“ - Letter to the Romans 13:1.

This is the principal of the “Divine Right of Kings.” Here, Paul is saying that one should always agree with one’s political leader, even a Hitler or Stalin.

In 1 Corinthians 1: 17, Paul claimed that God was anti-intellectual:

“Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe.”

So, to be wise in the ways of the world is foolish? And, science, the process by which we learn how the world works, is a foolish undertaking? My life was saved several years go by colon surgery. I’m sure glad that surgeon ignored the “wisdom” of Paul.

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect (complete, adequate, competent), equipped for every good work.” - 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

So, if all scripture is inspired by god, then we can be sure that god really wants us to stop eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics, and to kill homosexuals, adulterers, and people who work on Sunday? Could it be that Paul didn’t know what was in scripture quite as well as he thought he did?

"Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior." - Titus 2:9-10.

Apparently, if you’re a slave then that is god’s will, so you should just shut up and enjoy it; easy to say, if you’ve never been a slave.

“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” - 1 Tim. 2: 9-15.

Thus, women are inferior because Eve was scammed by a talking snake. Is that a good enough reason for you?

“I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none. . . For the present form of this world is passing away. - I Corinthians 7: 29.

Here, Paul is suggesting that men abandon their wives because the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. His timing was off by over 2,000 years. Was he a tad deluded, do ya think?


Tertullian (c.160-c.225 - has been called "the father of Latin Christianity" and "the founder of Western theology."):


Speaking of the Resurrection of Christ, Tertullian wrote:

“I  believe because it is absurd.”

So, according to this great thinker, if something, anything, is utterly preposterous, then it must be true? Maybe I just lack imagination, but I can’t think of a dumber reason to believe in something.


Augustine (354-430 C.E. - was a Latin philosopher and theologian from whose writings were very influential in the development of Western Christianity.):

“Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.”

This reminds me of that other fairy tale where Peter Pan says that if you really believe, then you can fly. I particularly like Dan Barker’s take on this: “Faith is a cop-out. . . With faith, you don't have to put any work into proving your case. You can ‘just believe.’ “


Augustine also wrote, “There is no possible source of evil except good.” And I’m sure you all know exactly what he meant by that.


Like many Christian writers, Augustine had a talent for confounding the Bible’s teaching. In one place he wrote, “God loves each of us as if there were only one of us.” And in another place he wrote, “He that is jealous is not in love.” Now, one of these statements MUST be false, for Bible-god admits to being jealous.


Anselm (1033-1109 - is most famous in philosophy for the so-called “ontological argument,” and in theology for his doctrine of the atonement):


In the ontological argument, Anselm defined God as the greatest possible being we can conceive and argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. Numerous writers since Anselm have shown that the ontological could be used to prove the existence of anything, thus the argument has absurd consequences. After all, Anselm is basically saying that if you can think it, then it must exist, which is silly. Anselm seems to have confused imagination with reality.

“I have written the little work that follows . . . in the role of one who strives to raise his mind to the contemplation of God and one who seeks to understand what he believes.”

We could paraphrase thus: “There’s stuff here I don’t understand, but I believe it anyway.” Hardly the mark of a deep thinker, I’d say.


Aquinas (1225-1274 – considered by some to be the Catholic Church's greatest theologian and philosopher):

“If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy.”

So, if one doesn’t believe as Aquinas believes, then he should be put to death. Clearly he was a man of great morality and compassion. Don’t believe me? Well, Aquinas also said, “That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell.” Who would have guessed that hell was a spectator sport? And how do you suppose Aquinas knew this, anyway?

“It is necessary to posit something which is necessary of itself, and has no cause of its necessity outside of itself but is the cause of necessity in other things. And all people call this thing God.”

Aquinas is speaking here of what is usually termed a first cause: i.e., the only cause which is not also an effect of a prior cause. But, even if we granted that a first cause must exist, why must it be a god and not just a property or law of nature? Further, even if we granted that a first cause must be a god, why must it be Aquinas’ god and not some other god? Aquinas’ conclusion here appears to be nothing but hand waving.

“We can't have full knowledge all at once. We must start by believing; then afterwards we may be led on to master the evidence for ourselves.”

Again, he wants us to just believe, regardless of evidence. Interestingly, the Buddhist, the Muslim, and the Hindu all say pretty much the same thing. They all want us to just believe. Most people take their advice and this is why we have hundreds of religions with millions of followers and none of them can prove a damned thing. And none of them thinks that matters. If science worked that way, we would still be living in caves dreaming of creating fire.


Martin Luther (1483-1546 - was a German monk, priest, professor of theology and iconic figure of the Protestant Reformation.):

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. “

Should we ever follow one who defames reason? Could that ever be reasonable? Luther is also credited with saying, “Reason is the enemy of faith.”

“I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist.”

Did you get that? He is “certain!”

“You should not believe your conscience and your feelings more than the word which the Lord who receives sinners preaches to you.”

So, if the “word” the Lord preaches to me says homosexuals should be killed (Leviticus 20:13), then I should just ignore my conscience? If I “feel” that killing people who work on the Sabbath is wrong, then I am in error because the “word” of the Bible preaches otherwise? This sounds like the philosophy of a guy who thinks reason is the enemy of faith.


John Calvin (1509-1564 - was the leading French Protestant Reformer and the most important figure in the second generation of the Protestant Reformation.):

“Knowledge of the sciences is so much smoke apart from the heavenly science of Christ.”

Right. And Jesus thought disease was caused by demons. Curiously, the Harvard Medical School course catalogue no longer lists a course on demon possession.

“Yet consider now, whether women are not quite past sense and reason, when they want to rule over men.”

So, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Queens Elizabeth I and Victoria, and thousand of other women leaders all lacked sense and reason? Calvin certainly gives Paul of Tarsus a run for his money when it comes to misogyny.


These men are all widely considered by Christians to be great thinkers. They are in large measure those who made the Christian religion what it is today. But isn’t it obvious, from their own words, that each of them was foolish in one way or another?


Ah, you say, but what matters most are the teachings of Jesus Christ. Surely Christ never said anything foolish? Think again.

“But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.”

The people of Europe should not have resisted Hitler?

“If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.”

This is where the profane is mistaken for the profound. Isn’t this the kind of advice you hope no one takes? If people really believed this nonsense, wouldn’t there be a whole lot more one-eyed, one-armed people in this world?

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink . . . Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.”

Jesus says, don’t plan ahead, god will provide. Even squirrels know this is foolish advice! And so does everyone else who seeks a good education, buys insurance, or has a retirement plan.

“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”

Well, there you go men, if you can handle it, just cut ‘em off. This is clearly sick, dangerous, nonsense advice which no one in his right mind would take, and deserves no further comment.


And here’s the bottom line, Jesus sometimes didn’t even take his own advice. He said, “But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.” Then he proceeds to call people fools. “Ye fools and blind.” (Matthew 23:17). Was he confused, or what?


Now, here is the elephant in the living room that Christians try their best to ignore: even a casual reading of the New Testament proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither Jesus Christ nor Paul had any god-given inside knowledge of how the world works. Both stated over and over that the “Kingdom of Heaven” was coming SOON, but, 2,000 years later it has still not arrived. That is not “soon.” Clearly, they were not relaying the wisdom of a god – so they had to be making it up! Reverend Harold Camping twice predicted the end of the world in 2011, would you follow him and his teachings? No? Then how does it make any sense to follow Jesus or Paul, who made the same mistake multiple times?


Why book passage on a ship (or religion) designed by the deluded and steered by the confused? I can think of no better real life example of the ship of fools motif than the Christian religion.

By Astreja

There's a lot of black-and-white thinking in the world of the believer.  It's unfortunately quite rare to find nuanced argument; all too often, we're treated to binary ranting and raving.  Don't worship God?  You must be a Devil-worshipper, then.  Not saved?  Then you're condemned.

Things get a little more interesting when one challenges a believer on the morality of their demonstrably immoral god.  Yes, Biblegod destroyed the
________  people, but they must have somehow deserved it. Christian apologists, professionals and amateurs alike, never seem to offer any good historical evidence as to what the
________  people actually did to merit genocide and the express elevator to Hell, but it couldn't possibly have been Biblegod's fault because Biblegod comes predefined as Infinitely Good and Infinitely Just.
We're told that coveting a friend's candy bar is morally exactly equivalent to committing mass murder.This is interesting, because believers of this mindset seem to have a very odd idea as to what "good" and "evil" and "just" and "unjust" actually mean in the real world.

Take, for example, the lunatics-running-the-asylum concept of a mortal giving infinite offense to an omnipotent deity.  How can a mortal harm an immortal?  More to the point, why is said immortal getting upset about something it allegedly knew would happen?  (Or something which it deliberately willed to happen, as the inmates in the Calvinist wing of the asylum would have us believe.)
Even worse, we're told that coveting a friend's candy bar is morally exactly equivalent to committing mass murder.  There's a good reason we don't believe such a thing:  It's hogwash and hand-waving.  Are you, Mr. or Ms. True Believer, really that stupid when you tell us that all "sins" are equally bad in the eyes of your imaginary friend?  (I do grant that this might offer some clues to some of the horrific atrocities committed by Biblegod in the pages of Scripture -- Apparently it doesn't have any more compassion or common sense than does its cheerleading section.)
Finally, there's the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell.  These are nasty little caricatures, promising solace or satisfaction when life isn't good enough or death isn't bad enough.  They promote an extremely unsophisticated, infantile, even primitivistic worldview where everything can be sorted into two non-intersecting sets and pawned off as "The Truth."
The universe, and our own lives, are delightfully messy, full of ambiguity and uncertainty and breathtaking surprises.  If you want to paint an accurate picture of your life, don't settle for a box with only two grimy crayons.

By Valerie Tarico ~

Did the Catholic Bishops wince last week when their leader, anti-contraception Cardinal Timothy Dolan, was exposed for paying pedophiles to disappear? One can only hope. After all, these are men who claim to speak for God. They have direct access to the White House, where they regularly weigh in on issues ranging from military policy to bioethics, and they expect us all to listen – not because of relevant expertise or elected standing or even money, but because of their moral authority.

Ahem.

If pedophile payouts weren’t enough to convince you that this “moral” authority is anything but moral, take a look at some of their other sins against compassion and basic decency.

Punishing doctors and nuns for saving lives. In 2009, a 27-year-old mom, pregnant with her fifth child, was rushed to a Phoenix hospital, St. Josephs, where her doctors said she would almost certainly die unless her pregnancy was aborted immediately. The nun in charge approved the emergency procedure, and the woman survived. The local bishop promptly excommunicated her. ‘There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can't do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means." said Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix. How far are the Church authorities willing to take this “moral” logic? In Brazil last year, with Vatican backing, the Church excommunicated a mother and doctor for saving the life of a nine-year-old rape victim who was pregnant with twins. (At four months pregnant, the girl weighed eighty pounds.) Cardinal Giovanni Batista Re, who heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, said “life must always be protected.” Perhaps Mr. Batista Re can explain to the Vatican’s 1500-year tradition of “just war.”

Protecting sex-offenders (even non-Catholics) against child victims. As we have seen, the moral priorities of the bishops are laid naked when they decide who to excommunicate and who not. The doctor and mother of the pregnant 9-year-old got the boot for approving an abortion but not the stepfather who had sexually assaulted the child, probably over a period of years. A similar contrast can be seen between the case of the Phoenix nun and hundreds of pedophile priests who were allowed to remain Catholic even after they finally were identified and removed from the Church payrolls. It gets worse. In New York, a bill that would give child molestation victims more time to file charges has been blocked seven times by the Catholic hierarchy lead by none other than Cardinal Dolan. Why? "We feel this is terribly unjust, we feel it is singles out the church, and it would be devastating for the life of the church.” In other words, regardless of whether the abuse really happened or what the consequences were for victims, what matters is how much additional lawsuits might cost the Church. Isn’t that the ends justifying the means?

Using churches to organize gay haters. When the Washington State legislature approved marriage equality this spring, fundamentalist Christians across the state organized to reverse the legislation. Even though three quarters of American Catholics think that gay marriage should be legal, Archbishop Peter Sartain jumped to the front of the pack, decreeing that Western Washington parishes under his –moral authority--should gather signatures for an anti-equality initiative. To their credit, a number of priests refused, and a group called Catholics for Marriage Equality is raising money for ads. In contrast to the Catholic League, which has made the degrading argument that sex between priests and adolescent boys is consensual homosexuality, lay Catholics appear to know the difference.

Lying about contraceptives to poor Africans. Of the mortal sins committed by the men of the cloth, the most devastatingly lethal in the last 30 years has been the Catholic hierarchy’s outspoken opposition to condom use in Africa. In 2003, the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family publically lied about the efficacy of condoms in preventing both pregnancy and HIV: “The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.” The archbishop of Nairobi told people that condoms were spreading HIV. Some priests told parishioners that condoms were impregnated with the virus.

The motivation for such flagrant falsehoods? The Church has practiced competitive pro-natalism for centuries, but lately anti-contraceptive edicts have been ignored by most educated European and American Catholics, and Italy has the second lowest birthrate in the Western World, at 1.3 per woman. The bishops see this as a “catastrophe” and are looking to Africa as “a reservoir of life for the Church.” They wrap their opposition to contraception in lofty moral language such as that offered by Pope John Paul II: It seems profoundly damaging to the dignity of the human being, and for this reason morally illicit, to support a prevention of AIDS that is based on a recourse to means and remedies that violate an authentically human sense of sexuality. As late as 2009 John Paul’s successor, Benedict, continued to tell poor African Catholics that condoms were “wrong” and even to suggest that they were making the epidemic worse. With god-knows –how-many lives lost and children orphaned, it he finally softened his stance in 2010.

In addition to lust, gluttony, wrath, sloth and envy, the traditional seven include pride and greed, which, to my mind, drive much of the appalling behavior in this list.Obstructing patient access to accurate information and services in secular hospitals. In rural Arizona near the Mexican border, women delivering babies by cesarean section were refused tubal ligations because their independent hospital was negotiating a merger with a health care network run by Catholics. Worse, when a woman arrived at the same hospital in the middle of a miscarriage and need a surgical abortion to complete the process, she was forced to travel by ambulance to Tucson, eighty miles away, risking that she would hemorrhage on the way. All over the U.S. secular and Catholic-run health systems are merging, and patients are quietly losing the right to make medical decisions based on the best scientific information available and the dictates of their own conscience.

Even when the Catholic-owned hospital is a small part of the merger, administrators insist that Catholic directives apply to the system as a whole. These directives P prohibit not only abortions but also contraceptives, vasectomies and tubal ligations, some kinds of fertility treatment, and compliance with patient directives at the end of life. Ectopic pregnancies cannot be handled in keeping with the medical standard of care. As biotechnologies and treatments relevant to the beginning and end of life advance, we can expect the list to grow longer. Patients cannot trust that they will be told that other options are available elsewhere.

One of the bitter ironies here is that even wholly “Catholic” hospitals and charities are staffed primarily by non-Catholics and largely provide services to people of other faiths or of none, paid for with tax dollars. In health care much of the money flows from Medicare and Medicaid. In 2010, non-medical affiliates of Catholic Charities received 62 percent of annual revenue from the taxpayers – nearly 2.9 billion dollars. Only three percent came from church donations, with the remainder coming from investments, program fees, community donations and in-kind contributions. And yet all of those dollars get directed according to the dictates of bishop conscience rather than individual conscience.

Slapping down uppity nuns. Catholic charities and hospitals are at some competitive advantage in part because of hard working nuns, many of whom have skills and responsibilities that exceed their compensation. The bishops are the Catholic Church’s 1%; the nuns are managers and service workers --and many have taken the kind of poverty vows that America’s 1% is trying to impose on the rest. Because the nuns live in the real world, where suffering and morality are complex, they often make care-based decisions and take nuanced positions on moral questions that the Council of Bishops resolves by appealing to dogma and authority.

In April, the Vatican decided to remind the nuns who’s on top. Rome issued an 8-page assessment accusing the Leadership Conference of Women Religious of disagreeing with the bishops and of “radical feminism.” It appears that their labors on behalf of poor, vulnerable people had distracted them from a more Christian priority: controlling other people’s sex lives—oh, and standing up against the ordination of women. The Archbishop assigned by the Vatican to reign in unruly American nuns is –none other than Peter Sartain of Seattle, the same moral authority who has declared a holy crusade against gay marriage.

Bullying girl scouts. Unlike the Boy Scouts, who recently earned media and public attention by booting out a gay den-mother, the Girl Scouts have been stubbornly inclusive and focused on preparing girls for leadership. For example, last year a Colorado troop included a trans-gender seven year old. That’s a problem for the Bishops, and since up to a quarter of American Girl Scouts are Catholic kids with troops housed in churches, they see it as their problem. To make matters worse, the American Girl Scouts refuse to leave their international umbrella, the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, which has stated that young women "need an environment where they can freely and openly discuss issues of sex and sexuality." The World Association would appear to believe the data that girls who can’t manage their sexuality and fertility are more likely to end up in poverty than leadership positions.

Then again, maybe that’s what the church hierarchy is after. According to an article last month at the Huffington Post, “The new inquiry will be conducted by the bishops' Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth. It will look into the Scouts' "possible problematic relationships with other organizations" and various "problematic" program materials, according to a letter sent by the committee chairman, Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne, Ind., to his fellow bishops.” (Italics mine.) We’re talking about an organization run by women for girls faced with an all male inquisition. In today’s Catholic church, leadership still requires a y chromosome.

Purging interfaith bridge builders. Lest some reader assert that the sins of the Bishops all are a consequence of sexual repression – some contorted pursuit of sexual purity that degrades both sex and compassion—it is important to note that the current cohort of Church authorities are as obsessed with doctrinal purity as sexual purity. It would take me many paragraphs to describe their tireless pursuit of purity as well as retired Anglican bishop, John Shelby Spong, does in one:

Hans Kung, probably the best read theologian of the 20th century, was removed from his position as a Catholic theologian at Tubingen because his mind could not be twisted into the medieval concepts required by his church. This action was carried out by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who at that time under Pope John Paul II held the office that in another time gave us the Inquisition. Matthew Fox, one of the most popular retreat and meditation leaders and an environmental activist, was then silenced by the same Cardinal Ratzinger. Professor Charles Curran, one of America’s best known ethicists, was removed from his tenured professorship at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., also by the same Cardinal Ratzinger. Father Leonardo Boff, the best known Latin American liberation theologian, was forced to renounce his ordination in order to continue his work for justice among the poor of Latin America by the same Cardinal Ratzinger. Next we learn that the Vatican, now headed by Cardinal Ratzinger under his new name Pope Benedict XVI, has ordered the removal of a book from all Catholic schools and universities written by a popular female theologian at Fordham University, Sister Elizabeth A. Johnson. Now the nuns are to be investigated. Conformity trumps truth in every direction.

The Catholic tradition defines deadly or “cardinal” sins are those from which all other sins derive. In addition to lust, gluttony, wrath, sloth and envy, the traditional seven include pride and greed, which, to my mind, drive much of the appalling behavior in this list. If an attempt to assert autocratic control over the spiritual and physical lives of lay people isn’t pride, I don’t know what pride is. And if a willingness to silence child victims to protect church assets isn’t greed, I don’t know what greed is. The BBC’s revelation last month of money laundering in the Vatican Bank pales by comparison. To me, ultimately, the sins of the Catholic bishops are “deadly sins” because they kill people, whether pregnant mothers or depressed gay teens or African families, or simply desperate people who are forced into greater desperation by “moral” priorities that distract from real questions of wellbeing and harm.

What the Bishops will have to account for when they meet their maker, none of us can say. For some American Catholics, the process of holding them to account has already started. The Women Religious have pushed back against the condescending “assessment” issued by the Vatican. Small groups of lay Catholics have rallied to their support. Picketers meet monthly outside Sartain’s cathedral to protest his stance against equality. The Franciscan brothers issued a statement of solidarity with the nuns, many of whom have remained solidly focused on economic justice instead of sexual transgressions.

Given the arrogant cruelty of Church leaders, criticism to date has been remarkably tempered. As the Bishops flash their moral authority in the White House and media and pulpit, clothed in pure white robes and draped in crimson, they should be glad they aren’t eyeball to eyeball with Jesus himself. As the writer of Matthew tells it, he called out the corrupt religious leaders of his day in no uncertain terms: Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.