By Valerie Tarico ~
With marriage equality battles in front of the voters in four states, the faithful are out in flocks to defend traditional matrimony. I don’t know exactly what traditional means in this context. It certainly doesn’t mean biblical, or it would include captive virgins and sex slaves and fathering children for your deceased brothers. It certainly doesn’t mean Mitt Romney’s version of traditional, since his great grandfather had five wives and his great-great grandfather had twelve.
But whatever. I hope they fight tooth and nail and keep fighting until they are so old that their teeth and nails fall out. The battles are expensive, but they are worth every penny. Why? Because of all the nasty things that religion is doing in our country, beating up on gays is one of the most visibly nasty, especially to the young people who will be shaping our future. Teenagers, even many Christian teenagers, look at it, and it makes no sense. It just looks ugly. So bad, in fact, that Christian homophobia may have the power to take down the whole ugly edifice of tribal text worship that has had Western culture in its grip for the last 500 years, also known as bibliolatry. Fundamentalists fear that homosexuality is going to do in their enterprise. I hope and pray to the universe that homophobia does.
To some extent, religion is big business, and when it comes to gay marriage Big Christianity has hired some of the best political ad consultants around. They are sophisticated; they have won at the ballot box 32 times in a row. But every time they win and force us to have this conversation one more time, they advance one of my causes, which is to expose the toxic consequences of biblical thinking.
At best the anti-gay ads are arrogant and othering; at worst, they are plain old mean. They insinuate between pop songs that nice gay people who have the legal protection of civil unions shouldn’t want the stuff that feels special to the rest of us. They remind anxious queer-ish, questioning teens that a whole bunch of people think they really ought to fit the gender binary. They suggest that the pigtailed kindergartener in your daughter’s class should keep her two beloved mommies a little secret. They imply that your neighbor, friend or brother is a moral question mark who shouldn’t be around your kids or maybe even his own.
When it comes to sexual matters, whether the topic be pedophilia, contraception, celibacy, masturbation, or orientation, fewer and fewer people think of the authoritarian Church as father- knows-best.Sermons and pastoral pronouncements can be even worse. Mega-church minister Ken Hutcherson, who has railed against effeminate men, once joked to his congregation that if a man opened a door for him he would “rip off his arm and beat him with the wet end.” More recently he warned that if marriage equality becomes the law of the land, “you can marry a horse.” Seattle’s Catholic Archbishop Peter Sartain pronounced that marriage “would be harmed beyond repair” if equality passed. Hutcherson was trying to elicit disgust (and laughter) among believers, but men of the cloth like Hutcheron and Sartain are actually stirring disgust among a lot of other people—and not against gays. When it comes to sexual matters, whether the topic be pedophilia, contraception, celibacy, masturbation, or orientation, fewer and fewer people think of the authoritarian Church as father- knows-best.
There are lots of important reasons to loathe and to fight against Iron Age thinking, as transmitted through over-valued ancient texts, and encrusted institutions and social communities built on both. Thanks in large part to the Church, women around the world are dying, literally, for lack of contraceptive access when what they really want is to “bring every good thing to one child before I have another.” Here at home, poor women are stuck with 1960’s Pill technology that they can buy on the cheap at Walmart while the Righteous oppose the kind of coverage that would give them genuinely modern options. The sacred web of life on our planet is being strained to the point of collapse while religions that are stuck in the past preach “be fruitful and multiply” and other forms of competitive breeding. Creationist contortionists have committed themselves to taking down the edifice of evolutionary biology—putting the next generation of scientific education and engineering, medicine and biotechnology at risk—rather than question their inerrant Bible. Their assault on science has undermined our ability to tackle the greatest moral challenge of our time, climate change, and extreme weather is hitting vulnerable communities in America and elsewhere. Meanwhile, as the Middle East dances at the edge of catastrophic conflict, close to half of Americans shrug their shoulders because of something an unknown author on the apocalyptic equivalent of crack wrote about the Roman Empire.
But each of these issues, for one reason or another, is harder than gay bashing to hang around the neck of Conservative Christians like the great rotting, stinking albatross it is. The linkage is less direct or more convoluted, or simply less visible. Some of these problems—like maternal mortality or the ever growing number of hungry children or the ever shrinking number of even hungrier animals—are complicated. Religious fundamentalism is mixed with a host of other causal factors, and the solutions are even more tangled. Some problems, like shoddy creationist textbooks and shiny creationist museums, are isolated in specific communities and so seem not to touch us, even though in the end they do.
Gay rights, though, is everywhere, because gay people are everywhere. They surprise us as Honey Boo Boo’s Uncle Poodle or Dick Cheney’s daughter, Mary, who, by the way, got married this fall. They show up as my best friend, Meilin, at Wheaton College (the Illinois one of Billy Graham fame) or as my little brother, David, or as the beloved but wildly effeminate son of a Mormon client who would rather stop loving her religion than stop loving her child. They show up as your neighbor or niece or even your grandmother, if you are only listening. Sexual orientation has no regard for politics, social class, or religion.
Here is the other thing that makes gay rights a stake-through-the-heart fundamentalism slayer: People are who they are and they love who they love. Sexual orientation is non-negotiable. It appears to be even more inflexible than fundamentalism, perhaps one of the few things that is. When someone comes out, you can’t talk them out of it. You can’t baptize them out of it, exorcise them out of it, pray them out of it, rock them out of it, threaten them out of it, bribe them out of it or fuck them out of it. Religious conservatives and their mental health lackeys have tried all of the above.
So, the conflict between religion and reality is clear, it’s all around us, it’s non-negotiable, and it has a simple solution: either the men in red velvet and their Protestant offspring shut up about our brothers and sisters and children and friends being abominations—or we stop listening. Simple. Solution. So far they haven’t shut up. I happen to think that has been a gift, in a twisted sort of way. That is because, in a world where Bible believers indulge in queer-baiting, gay-hating or even the thinly veiled bullying they call “defending marriage,” being or loving someone queer has more power to boot people out of biblical fundamentalism than anything else I’ve seen.
I get kind of scared about what will happen when we finally win this fight, which, given the trend lines, is just a matter of a decade or two. What if gay folks actually do get on with the Gay Agenda: getting married and raising kids and joining the military? Then the Conservative Christians can turn their full fury on the rest of us. People like me who were born with vaginas and want to manage our fertility, or kids who wanted the biotech jobs of the future that might involve, say, germ line modifications (aka evolution), or polar bear mamas who really really need science-driven humans to slow global warming may be s-o-l. Smart, determined gay leaders have spent the last thirty years figuring out how to fight against the rear guard of the Iron Age, and they’ve gotten damn good at it.
Let’s face it, they also tend to represent some of the coolest people in the progressive movement. If they go home, who will be left? Nerd girls? Scientists? Polar bears? How are we going to keep young people voting for secular, pluralistic, pragmatists, if Lady Gaga and the It Gets Better guys are home cooking dinner for kids in diapers between gigs? To frame it even more concretely: How will we ever again find a smackdown of biblical literalism that is as awesome as the Dr. Laura letter?
My daughters, who passionately love their gay uncles and aunts and queer friends, volunteered for the marriage equality campaign in Washington State. One night, curious, they pulled up some ads from the California fight and listened with mounting incredulity to the horrible things that were going to happen if California gays started tying the knot. One threat was this: “Those who oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds will be increasingly labeled as intolerant.” Both girls burst out laughing.
I hope those Defense of Marriage guys keep fighting until their fangs and claws have worn down to harmless nubs and all of us can simply go home and curl up with someone we love.
Search This Blog
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Confused
By LB ~
I was raised as a Christian, but it was the type of Christian that went to church, prayed, etc. I was never VERY religious. My dad died when I was only 14 and then things started to change for me. I didn't want to go to church anymore and kicked against God because he took my dad away. I did eventually finish sunday school because of my mother's pressure. I got married, had two kids, got divorced. I re-married, had three more kids. Through all this, I could probably count on my hands how many times I've been to church. My kids got christened because of pressure from the grandparents, but it never really bothered me.
Well, after my last child was born, I started to suffer from depression. It was so bad that I tried to commit suicide five times in a period of two years. I felt something was missing in my life (I even experienced with metaphysics for a while), it didn't work, so I turned to a church. Our whole family started to go to church on a regular basis. I felt it uplifted me, it made me feel whole and I felt like I found the place where I belong. I stopped using my anti-depressants and didn't have a bad episode of depression again. I became VERY religious and wanted to do all things good and tell people about Jesus and I did just that, but one thing I couldn't do was stop smoking.
I got baptised and wanted to change my life, be a better person etc. etc, but the smoking got me down. I started to question everything, like if it is really so bad that I will burn in hell forever! For months I felt condemned, I felt guilty, I tried to stop smoking and still want to, but until now, I just couldn't.
With this questioning, I came across interesting things for example that some things in the bible is mistranslated. That Christianity was not the first religion.
Now I lean more towards the fact that Christianity was made up to control people. That the bible was written by people, and through the years it has been changed so much to fit what people MUST believe, or what they want people to believe.
At this stage, I am very confused, mostly because of the punishment that hangs over my head - not that I believe it so much anymore, but I am scared of the what if I am wrong. I cannot fully explain why I felt so much better belonging to a church and attending services. Maybe I looked outside myself to be healed? Maybe I believed that the healing must come from a higher power and so it manifested? Maybe someone can give me more clarity on this. I also wonder sometimes why people say their prayers do get answered if Christianity is fake?
I don't know what to call myself at this stage, but through all the things I have read and went over in my mind, I don't want to be a Christian - it just seems you can't enjoy anything without feeling guilty about it!
I do believe that every person has a soul, so I am not an atheist. I do believe there is life after death, but I also tend to believe that your soul goes through stages to learn lessons. I also do believe that there is a Higher Power, the beginning of it all, I believe there is other spirits around us, but how it all ads up, I still have to figure out.
Well, after my last child was born, I started to suffer from depression. It was so bad that I tried to commit suicide five times in a period of two years. I felt something was missing in my life (I even experienced with metaphysics for a while), it didn't work, so I turned to a church. Our whole family started to go to church on a regular basis. I felt it uplifted me, it made me feel whole and I felt like I found the place where I belong. I stopped using my anti-depressants and didn't have a bad episode of depression again. I became VERY religious and wanted to do all things good and tell people about Jesus and I did just that, but one thing I couldn't do was stop smoking.
I got baptised and wanted to change my life, be a better person etc. etc, but the smoking got me down. I started to question everything, like if it is really so bad that I will burn in hell forever! For months I felt condemned, I felt guilty, I tried to stop smoking and still want to, but until now, I just couldn't.
With this questioning, I came across interesting things for example that some things in the bible is mistranslated. That Christianity was not the first religion.
Now I lean more towards the fact that Christianity was made up to control people. That the bible was written by people, and through the years it has been changed so much to fit what people MUST believe, or what they want people to believe.
At this stage, I am very confused, mostly because of the punishment that hangs over my head - not that I believe it so much anymore, but I am scared of the what if I am wrong. I cannot fully explain why I felt so much better belonging to a church and attending services. Maybe I looked outside myself to be healed? Maybe I believed that the healing must come from a higher power and so it manifested? Maybe someone can give me more clarity on this. I also wonder sometimes why people say their prayers do get answered if Christianity is fake?
I don't know what to call myself at this stage, but through all the things I have read and went over in my mind, I don't want to be a Christian - it just seems you can't enjoy anything without feeling guilty about it!
I do believe that every person has a soul, so I am not an atheist. I do believe there is life after death, but I also tend to believe that your soul goes through stages to learn lessons. I also do believe that there is a Higher Power, the beginning of it all, I believe there is other spirits around us, but how it all ads up, I still have to figure out.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Some thoughts this morning for our family and friends
By electech98 ~
Skepticism and doubt are priceless tools we all use every day in our own lives to great and worthwhile effect. They help us to avoid injuring ourselves or losing our way, and they help us to be financially, socially, and relationally responsible. They help us survive in a world of liars, disasters, and diverse other uncertainties.
Skepticism is what you use to fend off the latest get-rich-quick schemes or Nigerian email scams. It helps you get a second opinion from a doctor to catch anything that might have been missed. It makes us cautious at four-way stops to avoid a life-threatening wreck with the drunk driver that just flew past. It informs our decisions about who we leave our children with at day-care. It forces you to call the cops because of the suspicious-looking character entering your neighbor's backyard in the middle of the night. It calls into question the integrity of the guy or gal you met last week at the bar. It makes you look out the peephole in your door to see who could be knocking while you are alone in your house. It helps us realize that Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy don't really exist after all. It guides us as we vote for politicians and propositions. And for many of us, it helps us reject faith claims and religious view that are different than our own (even while we are usually unwilling to turn that same skepticism and doubt upon our own views).
After centuries of observation and paleontological excavation, we would be in agreement that as of yet there is no plausible reason to believe that unicorns exist due to the total lack of evidence available to us that would cause us to believe such a claim.I would expect that any one of us would meet with skepticism the claim that unicorns are real; I would also expect that after centuries of observation and paleontological excavation, we would be in agreement that as of yet there is no plausible reason to believe that unicorns exist due to the total lack of evidence available to us that would cause us to believe such a claim. In the same way, I would hope that any one of us would meet with skepticism the claim that any particular deity exists in opposition to the god-claims of thousands of other monotheistic and polytheistic religious systems, and that we would be in agreement that as of yet there is no plausible reason to believe in any one particular deity due to the total lack of evidence available to us that would cause us to believe such a claim. After all, that is exactly what we do when we reject the specific claims of the Mormon, the Jehovah's Witness, the Baptist, the Muslim, or the Hindu when evaluating their calls to believe.
Therefore, dear family member or close friend, please do not be offended when I use these invaluable tools of investigation in questioning or rejecting your particular faith claim or religious belief system. If I should use skepticism and doubt for simple day-to-day decisions throughout my life, as you also do, would it not be extremely important for me to use them in an even bigger way when confronted by grandiose claims of the paranormal or supernatural? Especially when there are multiple competing claims that are each threatening me with eternal torment for not believing this one, or that one, or that one? Regardless, my skepticism says nothing about your own intelligence or ability to reason, and it says everything about my desire to seek truth in a world filled with countless competing and contradictory claims of reality.
After all, where would we be if we should decide to suspend our skepticism for just the every day decisions we make in ordinary life? Our survival would be incredibly short-lived, indeed. Even more so, then, are we entreated to meet with rigid skepticism and critical analysis those claims that cause people to threaten, divide, conquer, or kill in the name of one unseen supernatural deity or another.
It's really not personal; it's just prudent.
Skepticism and doubt are priceless tools we all use every day in our own lives to great and worthwhile effect. They help us to avoid injuring ourselves or losing our way, and they help us to be financially, socially, and relationally responsible. They help us survive in a world of liars, disasters, and diverse other uncertainties.
Skepticism is what you use to fend off the latest get-rich-quick schemes or Nigerian email scams. It helps you get a second opinion from a doctor to catch anything that might have been missed. It makes us cautious at four-way stops to avoid a life-threatening wreck with the drunk driver that just flew past. It informs our decisions about who we leave our children with at day-care. It forces you to call the cops because of the suspicious-looking character entering your neighbor's backyard in the middle of the night. It calls into question the integrity of the guy or gal you met last week at the bar. It makes you look out the peephole in your door to see who could be knocking while you are alone in your house. It helps us realize that Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy don't really exist after all. It guides us as we vote for politicians and propositions. And for many of us, it helps us reject faith claims and religious view that are different than our own (even while we are usually unwilling to turn that same skepticism and doubt upon our own views).
After centuries of observation and paleontological excavation, we would be in agreement that as of yet there is no plausible reason to believe that unicorns exist due to the total lack of evidence available to us that would cause us to believe such a claim.I would expect that any one of us would meet with skepticism the claim that unicorns are real; I would also expect that after centuries of observation and paleontological excavation, we would be in agreement that as of yet there is no plausible reason to believe that unicorns exist due to the total lack of evidence available to us that would cause us to believe such a claim. In the same way, I would hope that any one of us would meet with skepticism the claim that any particular deity exists in opposition to the god-claims of thousands of other monotheistic and polytheistic religious systems, and that we would be in agreement that as of yet there is no plausible reason to believe in any one particular deity due to the total lack of evidence available to us that would cause us to believe such a claim. After all, that is exactly what we do when we reject the specific claims of the Mormon, the Jehovah's Witness, the Baptist, the Muslim, or the Hindu when evaluating their calls to believe.
Therefore, dear family member or close friend, please do not be offended when I use these invaluable tools of investigation in questioning or rejecting your particular faith claim or religious belief system. If I should use skepticism and doubt for simple day-to-day decisions throughout my life, as you also do, would it not be extremely important for me to use them in an even bigger way when confronted by grandiose claims of the paranormal or supernatural? Especially when there are multiple competing claims that are each threatening me with eternal torment for not believing this one, or that one, or that one? Regardless, my skepticism says nothing about your own intelligence or ability to reason, and it says everything about my desire to seek truth in a world filled with countless competing and contradictory claims of reality.
After all, where would we be if we should decide to suspend our skepticism for just the every day decisions we make in ordinary life? Our survival would be incredibly short-lived, indeed. Even more so, then, are we entreated to meet with rigid skepticism and critical analysis those claims that cause people to threaten, divide, conquer, or kill in the name of one unseen supernatural deity or another.
It's really not personal; it's just prudent.
Test Your Knowledge of Wild, Weird, and Outright Wacky American Religious Beliefs
By Valerie Tarico ~
Americans in past generations lived in a sea of religion inherited largely from the Middle East by way of Europe, with home grown refinements. Most still do. When Americans venture off the continent, one of the things many find fascinating is the religious beliefs they encounter. Some people worship flying monkeys, or magical big breasted dancers, or Prince Phillip.
From the outside, beliefs like these seem fantastical and unlikely. They played a key role in evoking such ethnocentric ideas as noblesse oblige and manifest destiny and white man’s burden. But if we could see our own culture from an outside vantage point, as if we were travelers, the world might look a little different. Even one of the Bible writers pointed out that self-examination is the first order of business. Why are you looking at the speck in your brother’s eye, he asked (to paraphrase), when you have a plank in your own?
So, how well do you know what your neighbors believe? How about the church to which your parents are quietly tithing away your inheritance? For that matter, how about the actual details of the creed to which you yourself give a nod?
All of the following beliefs can be found in your own back yard, still today. They have been long taught by religions that either are considered part of the Abrahamic mainstream or are home grown, made in the U.S.A., produced here and exported. Some of these beliefs are ensconced in sacred texts. Others are simply traditional. All, at one time or another, have had the sanction of the highest church authorities, and most still do.
How many of them can you match up with a familiar religious tradition? (The answers are at the bottom.)
How many of these beliefs can you match up with a familiar religious tradition?Each of these beliefs is remarkable in its own way. But the composite goes beyond remarkable to revealing. We humans are astoundingly susceptible to handed down nonsense. Human children are dependent on their parents for a decade or even two, which is why nature made children credulous. When parents say, eat your peas, they’re good for you, kids may argue about the eat your peas part but they don’t usually question the factual assertion about nutrition. When parents say Noah put all of the animals into the ark, it is the rare child who asks, Why didn’t the lion eat the guinea pigs?
Even as adults, we simply can’t afford to research everything we hear and read, and so, unless something isn’t working for us, we tend to accept what we are told by trusted authority figures. We go with the flow. Religion exploits this tendency by, among other things, establishing hierarchy and by ensuring that believers are in a certain mindset when they encounter religious ideas. A friend once gave me a button that said, Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church. I didn’t really want to wear a button that said “I’m an arrogant jerk,” but the reality is that even the best of churches aren’t optimized for critical thinking. Quite the opposite. The pacing, the music, the lighting—all are designed for assent and emotion, for a right brain aesthetic experience, for the dominance of what Nobel prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman has called System 1 thinking, meaning intuition and gut feel rather than rational, slow, linear analysis.
Some of our ancestors were doing the best they could to understand the world around them but had a very limited set of tools at their disposal. It would appear that others were simply making stuff up. Mormonism and Scientology appear to fall in the latter camp. But when it comes to religious credulity, the difference matters surprisingly little. For example, Mormonism is more easily debunked than many other religions, because it makes so many historically wild claims, and yet it is also one of the fastest growing religions in the world proportional to its membership. Wild claims matter less than whether a religion has viral characteristics like promises, threats, funding structures, and copy-me commands and a certain kind of cognitive structure.
But apart from those viral characteristics, the thing that makes fantastical claims believable is plain old familiarity. We find it easy to dismiss the wild beliefs of people in other times and places and even startling claims made by our neighbors, but those that we’ve been exposed to since childhood seem not so far out. Virgin birth? Water turning into wine? A fig tree shriveling on the spot? Dead people getting up out of their graves and walking around? Beware of the plank in your own eye.
An earlier version of this article appeared at Alternet under the title, The 20 Wierdest Religious Beliefs, October 15, 2012.
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Her articles can be found at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.
Americans in past generations lived in a sea of religion inherited largely from the Middle East by way of Europe, with home grown refinements. Most still do. When Americans venture off the continent, one of the things many find fascinating is the religious beliefs they encounter. Some people worship flying monkeys, or magical big breasted dancers, or Prince Phillip.
From the outside, beliefs like these seem fantastical and unlikely. They played a key role in evoking such ethnocentric ideas as noblesse oblige and manifest destiny and white man’s burden. But if we could see our own culture from an outside vantage point, as if we were travelers, the world might look a little different. Even one of the Bible writers pointed out that self-examination is the first order of business. Why are you looking at the speck in your brother’s eye, he asked (to paraphrase), when you have a plank in your own?
So, how well do you know what your neighbors believe? How about the church to which your parents are quietly tithing away your inheritance? For that matter, how about the actual details of the creed to which you yourself give a nod?
All of the following beliefs can be found in your own back yard, still today. They have been long taught by religions that either are considered part of the Abrahamic mainstream or are home grown, made in the U.S.A., produced here and exported. Some of these beliefs are ensconced in sacred texts. Others are simply traditional. All, at one time or another, have had the sanction of the highest church authorities, and most still do.
How many of them can you match up with a familiar religious tradition? (The answers are at the bottom.)
- The foreskin of [a holy one] may lie safeguarded in reliquaries made of gold and crystal and inlayed with gems--or it may have ascended into the heavens all by itself. (2)
- A race of giants once roamed the earth, the result of women and demi-gods interbreeding. (1). They lived at the same time as fire breathing dragons. (1)
- Evil spirits can take control of pigs. (1)
- A talking donkey scolded a prophet. (1, 3)
- A righteous man can control his wife’s access to eternal paradise. (6)
- Brown skin is a punishment for disobeying God. (6)
- A prophet once traveled between two cities on a miniature flying horse with the face of a woman and the tail of a peacock. (4)
- [The Holy One] forbids a cat or dog receiving a blood transfusion and forbids blood meal being used as garden fertilizer. (7)
- Sacred underwear protects believers from spiritual contamination and, according to some adherents, from fire and speeding bullets (6)
- When certain rites are performed beforehand, bread turns into human flesh after it is swallowed. (2)
- Invisible supernatural beings reveal themselves in mundane objects like oozing paint or cooking food. (2)
- In the end times, [the Holy One’s] chosen people will be gathered together in Jackson County, Missouri. (6)
- Believers can drink poison or get bit by snakes without being harmed. (1)
- Sprinkling water on a newborn, if done correctly, can keep the baby from eons of suffering should he or she die prematurely. (2)
- Waving a chicken over your head can take away your sins. (3)
- [A holy one] climbed a mountain and could see the whole earth from the mountain peak. (1, 2)
- Putting a dirty milk glass and a plate from a roast beef sandwich in the same dishwasher can contaminate your soul. (3)
- There will be an afterlife in which exactly 144,000 people get to live eternally in Paradise. (8)
- Each human being contains many alien spirits that were trapped in volcanos by hydrogen bombs. (5)
- [A supernatural being] cares tremendously what you do with your penis or vagina. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8.
How many of these beliefs can you match up with a familiar religious tradition?Each of these beliefs is remarkable in its own way. But the composite goes beyond remarkable to revealing. We humans are astoundingly susceptible to handed down nonsense. Human children are dependent on their parents for a decade or even two, which is why nature made children credulous. When parents say, eat your peas, they’re good for you, kids may argue about the eat your peas part but they don’t usually question the factual assertion about nutrition. When parents say Noah put all of the animals into the ark, it is the rare child who asks, Why didn’t the lion eat the guinea pigs?
Even as adults, we simply can’t afford to research everything we hear and read, and so, unless something isn’t working for us, we tend to accept what we are told by trusted authority figures. We go with the flow. Religion exploits this tendency by, among other things, establishing hierarchy and by ensuring that believers are in a certain mindset when they encounter religious ideas. A friend once gave me a button that said, Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church. I didn’t really want to wear a button that said “I’m an arrogant jerk,” but the reality is that even the best of churches aren’t optimized for critical thinking. Quite the opposite. The pacing, the music, the lighting—all are designed for assent and emotion, for a right brain aesthetic experience, for the dominance of what Nobel prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman has called System 1 thinking, meaning intuition and gut feel rather than rational, slow, linear analysis.
Some of our ancestors were doing the best they could to understand the world around them but had a very limited set of tools at their disposal. It would appear that others were simply making stuff up. Mormonism and Scientology appear to fall in the latter camp. But when it comes to religious credulity, the difference matters surprisingly little. For example, Mormonism is more easily debunked than many other religions, because it makes so many historically wild claims, and yet it is also one of the fastest growing religions in the world proportional to its membership. Wild claims matter less than whether a religion has viral characteristics like promises, threats, funding structures, and copy-me commands and a certain kind of cognitive structure.
But apart from those viral characteristics, the thing that makes fantastical claims believable is plain old familiarity. We find it easy to dismiss the wild beliefs of people in other times and places and even startling claims made by our neighbors, but those that we’ve been exposed to since childhood seem not so far out. Virgin birth? Water turning into wine? A fig tree shriveling on the spot? Dead people getting up out of their graves and walking around? Beware of the plank in your own eye.
An earlier version of this article appeared at Alternet under the title, The 20 Wierdest Religious Beliefs, October 15, 2012.
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Her articles can be found at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Sex, Death and the Meaning of Life
Richard Dawkins explores what science can tell us about death. It's a journey that takes him from Hindu funeral pyres in India to genetics labs in New York.
Dawkins brings together the latest neuroscience, evolutionary and genetic theory to examine why we crave life after death, why we evolved to age and how the human genome is something like real immortality - traits inherited from our distant ancestors that we pass on to future generations.
He meets a Christian dying of motor neurone disease, reminisces about the Wall Street Crash with a 105-year-old stockbroker, and interviews James Watson, the geneticist who co-discovered the structure of DNA.
Dawkins admits to sentimentality in imagining his own church funeral, but he argues we must embrace the truth, however hard that is.
In a television first, he has his entire genome sequenced to reveal the genetic indicators of how he himself may die.
Dawkins brings together the latest neuroscience, evolutionary and genetic theory to examine why we crave life after death, why we evolved to age and how the human genome is something like real immortality - traits inherited from our distant ancestors that we pass on to future generations.
He meets a Christian dying of motor neurone disease, reminisces about the Wall Street Crash with a 105-year-old stockbroker, and interviews James Watson, the geneticist who co-discovered the structure of DNA.
Dawkins admits to sentimentality in imagining his own church funeral, but he argues we must embrace the truth, however hard that is.
In a television first, he has his entire genome sequenced to reveal the genetic indicators of how he himself may die.
Unlocked Cage
By Lily D ~
My siblings and I were raised by a father who was brought up as a strict Plymouth Brethren, as well as being paranoid, bipolar in his depression and rage, insulting and verbally abusive, and using the threat of a terrifying God to control and frighten us. My mother was quiet and scared of him and usually seemed to melt into the background.
We attended Baptist, Presbyterian, informal gatherings, Covenant, etc. We switched churches quite a few times due to my father having a "falling out" with people there. The churches were not really all gloom and doom themselves, there was the sense of a loving God, the people were friendly. My dad actually did a pretty good job appearing to fit in as a nice, down to earth, jovial guy. They didn't know how insane and cruel and confusing he could be at home. One minute we were great kids, the next we were so wicked he couldn't look at us. The rants and blaming and yelling could be triggered by any little thing and could last for hours. The image of God I had come to feel inside was very much shaped by his personality. By the time I was a teenager, there was the official sort of Father and Son that was learned in church, but also deep in the psyche there was the version I had shaped from homelife, I stayed out of trouble, didn't smoke, drink, drug, sex, etc., so God felt neutral about me, he wasn't actively furious with me. And I went to church. I wasn't necessarily loved as far as I could tell, but was "safe" enough.
Then at the very end of high school I made a blunder, not very earth-shattering for many (let a boyfriend get more intimate with me than I planned), part of the territory for most teens. But for me it had a terrifying psychological effect. I had fallen out of the "safe" zone in my head. I don't think I even realized until then what a profound effect my indoctrination had on me to my very core. Suddenly I was devastated, I couldn't look at myself the same way any longer, I felt the hate and condemnation of God pressing down on me. Terror, a sense of unforgivability, vivid dreams of frightening spirits surrounding me. By this time I was out of school and working, and all I would want to do is come home from work and sleep to escape the disgusting feeling of dread.
I don't think my mind was able to take much more of this feeling. I still had to go to church with my family and came across a few Christians who were of the very loving, forgiving type, very sweet people. They had a drastically different view of God and Jesus. Not scary, full of compassion. I think this new view, combined with my mind being at some sort of bursting point with all the fear and doom, caused me to manufacture a sort of born again experience, which was absolutely wonderful. It may have been a sort of mania in how intense it was. Every loving, wise, merciful, good, magnificent image of God coming together, magnified by 1000 and personified. I was filled to bursting with such self-generated relief, gratefulness, love. My fear and doom had evaporated. I loved every person I saw. At the time I truly believed God had done this for me. All of the feelings were extremely real, but the source of them? Whatever brain chemistry gone awry that causes people to have hallucinations, euphoria, etc.
But not realizing that, and believing that I was held in the hand of a God that would love me forever, when my body began to come down from this high and plunge the other way into depression, to me it felt as if God's amazing love for me had begun to slowly cool, turn to indifference, and slowly sink back into a condemnation that was worse than where I began. As my feelings had been cooling back down, my doubts as to God's goodness and the reality of my experience began to form, and my depression seemed to make those doubts very dangerous sins. And then in my confusion and vulnerability I let myself get taken in by a very persistent guy I knew was bad news(my now ex), that sealed it, in my head that had been a fatal move, my mind echoed with the certainty that I was now unforgivable.
This is the enormous danger of faith in the invisible, the unprovable. I had no proof that this was true. But neither did I have proof or assurance that it wasn't. All I had were my experience and overwhelming feelings. No person could quell my fears, explain them away. Once a belief is somehow formed and cemented, it can be extremely difficult to change or let go of.
This is the enormous danger of faith in the invisible, the unprovable. I had no proof that this was true. But neither did I have proof or assurance that it wasn't. Eventually when I began looking for other explanations, even finding a checklist of the symptoms of mania, and seeing how many of my experiences and behaviors fit into it, my logical mind could see a connection, but my emotions and this intangible belief would not let go and allow me to consider it, much less accept it. Ideas and beliefs that are fed to you from the very beginning-- it's almost as if they're mixed into the cement that is then poured as the foundation of your mind. You can't just toss them aside, your whole house will begin to shake.
It took me a very long time to get to the point where I can write this. I went back and forth for years. And even in studying the Bible and seeing all the contradictions and knowing with my head that it simply couldn't be "infallible", this belief in my own doom had a grip on me that nothing seemingly could loosen. All the logic I could throw at it I did, yet it held on, even to the point that I was sure it had won, and that I'd never be free of it. This time last year I was a very different person than I am now.
In the end , it wasn't logic that beat it (as I'd hoped), but chemistry. These out of control beliefs were eating up so much of my attention and brainpower that it was getting very difficult to be present in the "real world". The reality in my head seemed more vivid to me much of the time. ADD medications are known more for helping people concentrate than casting out invisible demons and helping to topple mental prisons constructed by twisted religion. But somehow, (I have no idea how, but am so glad it did), taking this stuff to help me focus had the amazing effect of making the horrible sense of doom vanish. 16 years of suffering, and suddenly all the voices of certain destruction and guilt and hopelessness that had encircled my head seemed to quiet down, float away from me, and evaporate into thin air. And suddenly I was much more aware of my physical surroundings and all of the overwhelming mental distractions... just gone. And taking a pill, then seeing all those powerful feelings lose their grip and disappear, it broke the spell for me. How could any of it have been real and true if a little capsule made it vanish?
This past year has been so different from any other year in my adult life. I'm still not sure about a lot of things, it'll probably take me awhile to figure out some new set of beliefs. I think I still hold the image of the wonderfully loving and compassionate God I experienced during my high time, and I wish somehow that was the truth. But if it were, it really couldn't be the Biblical God. There wasn't a trace of jealousy, anger, war-mongering in the spirit of that deity. Nothing but love, mercy, goodness... if such a god did truly exist in reality and not just in imagination, I believe he/she/it would be worth worshipping. But i don't think this deity has a book, at least not one I've read.
My siblings and I were raised by a father who was brought up as a strict Plymouth Brethren, as well as being paranoid, bipolar in his depression and rage, insulting and verbally abusive, and using the threat of a terrifying God to control and frighten us. My mother was quiet and scared of him and usually seemed to melt into the background.
We attended Baptist, Presbyterian, informal gatherings, Covenant, etc. We switched churches quite a few times due to my father having a "falling out" with people there. The churches were not really all gloom and doom themselves, there was the sense of a loving God, the people were friendly. My dad actually did a pretty good job appearing to fit in as a nice, down to earth, jovial guy. They didn't know how insane and cruel and confusing he could be at home. One minute we were great kids, the next we were so wicked he couldn't look at us. The rants and blaming and yelling could be triggered by any little thing and could last for hours. The image of God I had come to feel inside was very much shaped by his personality. By the time I was a teenager, there was the official sort of Father and Son that was learned in church, but also deep in the psyche there was the version I had shaped from homelife, I stayed out of trouble, didn't smoke, drink, drug, sex, etc., so God felt neutral about me, he wasn't actively furious with me. And I went to church. I wasn't necessarily loved as far as I could tell, but was "safe" enough.
Then at the very end of high school I made a blunder, not very earth-shattering for many (let a boyfriend get more intimate with me than I planned), part of the territory for most teens. But for me it had a terrifying psychological effect. I had fallen out of the "safe" zone in my head. I don't think I even realized until then what a profound effect my indoctrination had on me to my very core. Suddenly I was devastated, I couldn't look at myself the same way any longer, I felt the hate and condemnation of God pressing down on me. Terror, a sense of unforgivability, vivid dreams of frightening spirits surrounding me. By this time I was out of school and working, and all I would want to do is come home from work and sleep to escape the disgusting feeling of dread.
I don't think my mind was able to take much more of this feeling. I still had to go to church with my family and came across a few Christians who were of the very loving, forgiving type, very sweet people. They had a drastically different view of God and Jesus. Not scary, full of compassion. I think this new view, combined with my mind being at some sort of bursting point with all the fear and doom, caused me to manufacture a sort of born again experience, which was absolutely wonderful. It may have been a sort of mania in how intense it was. Every loving, wise, merciful, good, magnificent image of God coming together, magnified by 1000 and personified. I was filled to bursting with such self-generated relief, gratefulness, love. My fear and doom had evaporated. I loved every person I saw. At the time I truly believed God had done this for me. All of the feelings were extremely real, but the source of them? Whatever brain chemistry gone awry that causes people to have hallucinations, euphoria, etc.
But not realizing that, and believing that I was held in the hand of a God that would love me forever, when my body began to come down from this high and plunge the other way into depression, to me it felt as if God's amazing love for me had begun to slowly cool, turn to indifference, and slowly sink back into a condemnation that was worse than where I began. As my feelings had been cooling back down, my doubts as to God's goodness and the reality of my experience began to form, and my depression seemed to make those doubts very dangerous sins. And then in my confusion and vulnerability I let myself get taken in by a very persistent guy I knew was bad news(my now ex), that sealed it, in my head that had been a fatal move, my mind echoed with the certainty that I was now unforgivable.
This is the enormous danger of faith in the invisible, the unprovable. I had no proof that this was true. But neither did I have proof or assurance that it wasn't. All I had were my experience and overwhelming feelings. No person could quell my fears, explain them away. Once a belief is somehow formed and cemented, it can be extremely difficult to change or let go of.
This is the enormous danger of faith in the invisible, the unprovable. I had no proof that this was true. But neither did I have proof or assurance that it wasn't. Eventually when I began looking for other explanations, even finding a checklist of the symptoms of mania, and seeing how many of my experiences and behaviors fit into it, my logical mind could see a connection, but my emotions and this intangible belief would not let go and allow me to consider it, much less accept it. Ideas and beliefs that are fed to you from the very beginning-- it's almost as if they're mixed into the cement that is then poured as the foundation of your mind. You can't just toss them aside, your whole house will begin to shake.
It took me a very long time to get to the point where I can write this. I went back and forth for years. And even in studying the Bible and seeing all the contradictions and knowing with my head that it simply couldn't be "infallible", this belief in my own doom had a grip on me that nothing seemingly could loosen. All the logic I could throw at it I did, yet it held on, even to the point that I was sure it had won, and that I'd never be free of it. This time last year I was a very different person than I am now.
In the end , it wasn't logic that beat it (as I'd hoped), but chemistry. These out of control beliefs were eating up so much of my attention and brainpower that it was getting very difficult to be present in the "real world". The reality in my head seemed more vivid to me much of the time. ADD medications are known more for helping people concentrate than casting out invisible demons and helping to topple mental prisons constructed by twisted religion. But somehow, (I have no idea how, but am so glad it did), taking this stuff to help me focus had the amazing effect of making the horrible sense of doom vanish. 16 years of suffering, and suddenly all the voices of certain destruction and guilt and hopelessness that had encircled my head seemed to quiet down, float away from me, and evaporate into thin air. And suddenly I was much more aware of my physical surroundings and all of the overwhelming mental distractions... just gone. And taking a pill, then seeing all those powerful feelings lose their grip and disappear, it broke the spell for me. How could any of it have been real and true if a little capsule made it vanish?
This past year has been so different from any other year in my adult life. I'm still not sure about a lot of things, it'll probably take me awhile to figure out some new set of beliefs. I think I still hold the image of the wonderfully loving and compassionate God I experienced during my high time, and I wish somehow that was the truth. But if it were, it really couldn't be the Biblical God. There wasn't a trace of jealousy, anger, war-mongering in the spirit of that deity. Nothing but love, mercy, goodness... if such a god did truly exist in reality and not just in imagination, I believe he/she/it would be worth worshipping. But i don't think this deity has a book, at least not one I've read.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Ignorance of the Truth
By Steve S ~
Take a look at this link: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/275836/3/UNF-student-makes-plea-to-keep-Chick-fil-A-off-campus.
In it, you will see laid out succinct reasons why it is not a good idea to let a religious right affiliated, Mike Huckabee supported company into your university. Sadly, his speech failed to prevent the interests of greed and the ignorance of justice. Chik-fil-A will be built at this college.
It was then I decided to read the comments.
Once I read them,the vast majority anti-gay screeds, mixed in with slander and excuses for the cruelty these beliefs cause to others, a defense that, "Well, this is the loving thing to do" and a proclamation of the gay lifestyle as sinful, and the effluvium of trash that is "Love the sinner, hate the sin", I understood why America can't have nice things. I've just exceeded my weekly dose of stupid. Wow. I was expecting dumb, but the level of sheer idiocy and blind faith and the stench of willful ignorance sickened me.
It doesn't matter how polite you are when you throw around slanderous remarks and donate to groups that actively lie about and slander others, then flip-flop on a position so many were hoping you'd actually take. It comes awfully close to being bigotry,and in this age of information, I will say that it IS bigotry, especially when homosexuality is just as genetically determined as being born left handed or having vision problems and ESPECIALLY when the evidence for this FACT is located all across the internet. It's just that book in your hand and that preacher in your pulpit that make you think being gay is somehow wrong or sinful. A few decades from now, if we all somehow manage to get our shit together and stave off the threat of global climate change - imagine how stupid Chik-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, and any organization that donates to Religious Right affiliated organizations are going to look.
They might have the money, and the power, and the blind faith - but we have something more than that: we have the facts. We have the evidence. We will come out on top and we will NOT allow the religious wingnuts of our country to claim victory. Justice will prevail - it must, for the sake of our nation. Because the Religious Right's opposition to gay rights reflects their positions on global warming, evolution, and abortion. They are blindly wrong on all these topics. Fuck the Bible - those of us who stand for justice and peace and kindness have something stronger - not based on contradictory personal revelations, but the EVIDENCE. Proof is greater than faith and to that I say hallelujah, Amen, blessed be the FSM, praise him, praise him, and may his noodly appendage bless us and keep us and make his face to shine upon us, now and forever more. Ramen.
If you do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster, the peace be upon you anyways. We Pastafarians are very tolerant of other religions. But hey, if you want beer volcanoes and stripper parties when you die, look us up. :)
Take a look at this link: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/275836/3/UNF-student-makes-plea-to-keep-Chick-fil-A-off-campus.
In it, you will see laid out succinct reasons why it is not a good idea to let a religious right affiliated, Mike Huckabee supported company into your university. Sadly, his speech failed to prevent the interests of greed and the ignorance of justice. Chik-fil-A will be built at this college.
It was then I decided to read the comments.
Once I read them,the vast majority anti-gay screeds, mixed in with slander and excuses for the cruelty these beliefs cause to others, a defense that, "Well, this is the loving thing to do" and a proclamation of the gay lifestyle as sinful, and the effluvium of trash that is "Love the sinner, hate the sin", I understood why America can't have nice things. I've just exceeded my weekly dose of stupid. Wow. I was expecting dumb, but the level of sheer idiocy and blind faith and the stench of willful ignorance sickened me.
It doesn't matter how polite you are when you throw around slanderous remarks and donate to groups that actively lie about and slander others, then flip-flop on a position so many were hoping you'd actually take. It comes awfully close to being bigotry,and in this age of information, I will say that it IS bigotry, especially when homosexuality is just as genetically determined as being born left handed or having vision problems and ESPECIALLY when the evidence for this FACT is located all across the internet. It's just that book in your hand and that preacher in your pulpit that make you think being gay is somehow wrong or sinful. A few decades from now, if we all somehow manage to get our shit together and stave off the threat of global climate change - imagine how stupid Chik-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, and any organization that donates to Religious Right affiliated organizations are going to look.
They might have the money, and the power, and the blind faith - but we have something more than that: we have the facts. We have the evidence. We will come out on top and we will NOT allow the religious wingnuts of our country to claim victory. Justice will prevail - it must, for the sake of our nation. Because the Religious Right's opposition to gay rights reflects their positions on global warming, evolution, and abortion. They are blindly wrong on all these topics. Fuck the Bible - those of us who stand for justice and peace and kindness have something stronger - not based on contradictory personal revelations, but the EVIDENCE. Proof is greater than faith and to that I say hallelujah, Amen, blessed be the FSM, praise him, praise him, and may his noodly appendage bless us and keep us and make his face to shine upon us, now and forever more. Ramen.
If you do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster, the peace be upon you anyways. We Pastafarians are very tolerant of other religions. But hey, if you want beer volcanoes and stripper parties when you die, look us up. :)
Another Unique Experience
By Carl S ~
This is a sort of late-anniversary testimonial for me. My first posting on this site was on Sept. 6, 2009, under the heading, "My Unique Experience.” Since that time, a lot of writing has gone down - hopefully helpful. Today is Sept. 23, 2012; this date is listed here for you to know that I wish to be as honest as possible in describing what preceded something unique to this date.
Several years ago, I had a phone conversation with my wife‘s pastor, I believe in regards to an auction to raise money to send some kids for a get-together, and I wanted details. Well, it seems that this auction collection enables them to go down South to a rally involving youth groups from all over the country. After reading of child abuses by the clergy, I mentioned my concerns for their safety, and was immediately assured they would be well looked after. Then we got into "God," etc., and it ended up with me so disgusted with the ignorance he was expounding that I finally told him it was reprehensible to indoctrinate children with it, and I hung up.
Before I go any further, I shall leave it up to you, the reader, to judge whether I am narrow-minded, an a-hole, a smartass, or a reasonable guy (with a chip on his shoulder?) with reasonable points to make. I shall endeavor not to portray myself in too favorable a light. Anyhow, since that time I have had a recurring and nagging impulse to introduce some other viewpoints to that congregation/pastor. Maybe it‘s just my hobby, because I used to go there with my wife to keep her company and supported in comfort. (I’ve already explained why that didn’t last long, in a previous testimonial.)
Over the years since that time, I have done a lot of freethought and scientific reading and tons of thinking. Amongst those readings, I have found absolute gems of wisdom and logic, many from comments on this site. So, to put it mildly, I have used these gems to make waves in the church building, taking from this site the statement, "First, pray that I will get faith. Hebrews 11:1 says that 'faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see.' Pray that my mental constitution would change so I can be certain of things I merely hope for, in the absence of any evidence. In fact, John 20:29 says that those who believe without evidence are more blessed than those who believe based on evidence. I want to be among the blessed. Pray that I would be as ignorant as possible, yet 100% convinced of the correctness of my Christian beliefs." This I posted in the men's room of the church, thinking no more of it than if I had put a cartoon there.
Once I slipped in a copy of "Prayer and Babies," by Guy P Harrison, Feb. 2009, possibly from American Atheist magazine, which told of millions of babies dying each year as their mothers prayed for them. This the pastor discovered. It got to be kind of a silly thing considering. One time, as I attended another auction in the church's basement, I had to go up to the first floor men's room, and when I came back, the pastor headed up the same steps, coming back 10 or I5 minutes later. (I hadn’t put anything "up there.")
This is all background for today. Today, after leaving the bookstore cafe, I went to pick up my wife after her service, as usual, and as usual, I had to make a stop in the restroom. (Too much coffee at the cafe?) Since the bulletin board is in the hallway, on passing it coming out of the restroom I used a thumbtack to post a single strip of comments from this site. Here they are: “eveningmeadows responded to searchingwithnoagenda: When you have to ban books from the church library, make people afraid they’re going to 'lose their faith' if they read anything that isn't by Christian authors, and delete comments made by extians on Christian websites, it makes me wonder what they're afraid of." Just below this, on the same strip of paper: "searchwithnoagenda responded to eveningmeadows : EXACTLY!!! But their god and message are SOOOO powerful, yet that supernatural power can't stand up to different viewpoints from mere mortals? More than a little suspicious to me!" I just casually left the building. My wife was still in another room there, helping to count the donation money. When she came out, she had a strip of paper in her hand, and a message from her pastor: I was not to put anything more in the church building, as I had done "several" times before, or else I would not be allowed in the building, period. (Notice that a person who even has a difference of opinion/belief will be banned from using the restroom, which by the way, my wife generously contributed to having constructed.) There would have been a hubbub if I left a “Discover” magazine lying around in a place where "intelligent design” is being taught to trusting, gullible, children.
Well, I told my wife that for her sake only I would cease posting my and others observations, noting that free speech is banned in that church. But, I said, "because of her pastor's actions, he had VALIDATED what was said by eveningmeadows and Searchingwithno agenda. He was agreeing with them!
Now, there are many writers whose essays, critiques, criticisms and commentaries I have read, who take rational and analytical approaches in dealing with beliefs, dogmas. They are educated, erudite, often brilliant, and I'm impressed. In fact, they may be just TOO so, putting believers off as being cool. Excuse me, but as WizenedSage and others have noted, all this "spiritual" stuff believers place on a pedestal is nothing but feelings. So, I don’t think logic will go very far with them. But to say, "You're content with a one-sided life in which only your bias is accepted and this is unfair to the rest of us and yourself ," well, that‘s powerful. It says that we’re angry with good reasons, and it's not only about THEIR feelings. We are also saying that we want those questions asked which the children have a right to have answers for, and are either too trusting or intimidated to ask. We are also saying that we are not children, we're adults. We are saying that we are American citizens who have freedom of speech to question and criticize, and your church won't accept that right. And we are noting that, ironically, the same First Amendment which backs freedom of religion also backs freedom of speech, which religion has repressed for millennia.
I urge you to take on the churches, one at a time. It’s a start. For the children of the next generation. Each church has its own versions of "truth," its own close-mindedness, which it passes on to its members/victims. Martin Luther brought about the Protestant revolution by nailing up a list of protests on a church door. We have duct tape - and no violence. For a unique experience, challenge the "authority" of those who speak for the absolute power corrupted absolutely, unopposed. The mighty fortress is a house of cards.
And take someone with you to join in your venture: double your pleasure, double your fun. In case you haven’t noticed, dictatorships ARE falling.
This is a sort of late-anniversary testimonial for me. My first posting on this site was on Sept. 6, 2009, under the heading, "My Unique Experience.” Since that time, a lot of writing has gone down - hopefully helpful. Today is Sept. 23, 2012; this date is listed here for you to know that I wish to be as honest as possible in describing what preceded something unique to this date.
Several years ago, I had a phone conversation with my wife‘s pastor, I believe in regards to an auction to raise money to send some kids for a get-together, and I wanted details. Well, it seems that this auction collection enables them to go down South to a rally involving youth groups from all over the country. After reading of child abuses by the clergy, I mentioned my concerns for their safety, and was immediately assured they would be well looked after. Then we got into "God," etc., and it ended up with me so disgusted with the ignorance he was expounding that I finally told him it was reprehensible to indoctrinate children with it, and I hung up.
Before I go any further, I shall leave it up to you, the reader, to judge whether I am narrow-minded, an a-hole, a smartass, or a reasonable guy (with a chip on his shoulder?) with reasonable points to make. I shall endeavor not to portray myself in too favorable a light. Anyhow, since that time I have had a recurring and nagging impulse to introduce some other viewpoints to that congregation/pastor. Maybe it‘s just my hobby, because I used to go there with my wife to keep her company and supported in comfort. (I’ve already explained why that didn’t last long, in a previous testimonial.)
Over the years since that time, I have done a lot of freethought and scientific reading and tons of thinking. Amongst those readings, I have found absolute gems of wisdom and logic, many from comments on this site. So, to put it mildly, I have used these gems to make waves in the church building, taking from this site the statement, "First, pray that I will get faith. Hebrews 11:1 says that 'faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see.' Pray that my mental constitution would change so I can be certain of things I merely hope for, in the absence of any evidence. In fact, John 20:29 says that those who believe without evidence are more blessed than those who believe based on evidence. I want to be among the blessed. Pray that I would be as ignorant as possible, yet 100% convinced of the correctness of my Christian beliefs." This I posted in the men's room of the church, thinking no more of it than if I had put a cartoon there.
Once I slipped in a copy of "Prayer and Babies," by Guy P Harrison, Feb. 2009, possibly from American Atheist magazine, which told of millions of babies dying each year as their mothers prayed for them. This the pastor discovered. It got to be kind of a silly thing considering. One time, as I attended another auction in the church's basement, I had to go up to the first floor men's room, and when I came back, the pastor headed up the same steps, coming back 10 or I5 minutes later. (I hadn’t put anything "up there.")
This is all background for today. Today, after leaving the bookstore cafe, I went to pick up my wife after her service, as usual, and as usual, I had to make a stop in the restroom. (Too much coffee at the cafe?) Since the bulletin board is in the hallway, on passing it coming out of the restroom I used a thumbtack to post a single strip of comments from this site. Here they are: “eveningmeadows responded to searchingwithnoagenda: When you have to ban books from the church library, make people afraid they’re going to 'lose their faith' if they read anything that isn't by Christian authors, and delete comments made by extians on Christian websites, it makes me wonder what they're afraid of." Just below this, on the same strip of paper: "searchwithnoagenda responded to eveningmeadows : EXACTLY!!! But their god and message are SOOOO powerful, yet that supernatural power can't stand up to different viewpoints from mere mortals? More than a little suspicious to me!" I just casually left the building. My wife was still in another room there, helping to count the donation money. When she came out, she had a strip of paper in her hand, and a message from her pastor: I was not to put anything more in the church building, as I had done "several" times before, or else I would not be allowed in the building, period. (Notice that a person who even has a difference of opinion/belief will be banned from using the restroom, which by the way, my wife generously contributed to having constructed.) There would have been a hubbub if I left a “Discover” magazine lying around in a place where "intelligent design” is being taught to trusting, gullible, children.
Well, I told my wife that for her sake only I would cease posting my and others observations, noting that free speech is banned in that church. But, I said, "because of her pastor's actions, he had VALIDATED what was said by eveningmeadows and Searchingwithno agenda. He was agreeing with them!
Now, there are many writers whose essays, critiques, criticisms and commentaries I have read, who take rational and analytical approaches in dealing with beliefs, dogmas. They are educated, erudite, often brilliant, and I'm impressed. In fact, they may be just TOO so, putting believers off as being cool. Excuse me, but as WizenedSage and others have noted, all this "spiritual" stuff believers place on a pedestal is nothing but feelings. So, I don’t think logic will go very far with them. But to say, "You're content with a one-sided life in which only your bias is accepted and this is unfair to the rest of us and yourself ," well, that‘s powerful. It says that we’re angry with good reasons, and it's not only about THEIR feelings. We are also saying that we want those questions asked which the children have a right to have answers for, and are either too trusting or intimidated to ask. We are also saying that we are not children, we're adults. We are saying that we are American citizens who have freedom of speech to question and criticize, and your church won't accept that right. And we are noting that, ironically, the same First Amendment which backs freedom of religion also backs freedom of speech, which religion has repressed for millennia.
I urge you to take on the churches, one at a time. It’s a start. For the children of the next generation. Each church has its own versions of "truth," its own close-mindedness, which it passes on to its members/victims. Martin Luther brought about the Protestant revolution by nailing up a list of protests on a church door. We have duct tape - and no violence. For a unique experience, challenge the "authority" of those who speak for the absolute power corrupted absolutely, unopposed. The mighty fortress is a house of cards.
And take someone with you to join in your venture: double your pleasure, double your fun. In case you haven’t noticed, dictatorships ARE falling.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The Same God? Twelve Beliefs Mormons Might Not Want You to Know About
By Valerie Tarico ~
In an effort to reassure Evangelical voters, presidential candidate Mitt Romney inserted the phrase “the same god” into his domestic policy debate against Barack Obama. Over the course of 2012, the LDS Church promoted “I’m a Mormon,” a multi-million dollar marketing campaign seeking to portray Mormonism as mainstream. But do Mormons and Evangelicals worship the same God? How mainstream are their beliefs?
Dr. Tony Nugent, retired professor of religious studies, has compiled a list of twelve teachings that Mormons tend to downplay. Dr. Nugent calls each of these beliefs “questionable.” A quick read suggest they also are far from mainstream.
1. The American Continent Was Originally Settled by Ancient Near Easterners.
The story of the Book of Mormon (BoM) is that the American continent was originally settled by people from the ancient Near East who came across the ocean in boats between 5000 and 2500 years ago. This includes four groups: the Jaredites, who came from Mesopotamia after the fall of the Tower of Babel (3rd Millennium BC), and three groups of Israelites who came in the 6th Century B.C.—Lehites from the tribe of Manasseh, Ishmaelites from the tribe of Ephraim, and Mulekites from the tribe of Judah. Contrary to this view, archaeological, historical, and genetic evidence indicates that the American continent was originally settled by Mongoloid people who came over the Bering land bridge during the last Ice Age and who are the ancestors of today’s Native American people.
2. Native Americans Are Descendants of Ancient Israelites.
Much of the BoM story focuses on two groups of Israelites in the New World, the Nephites and the Lamanites, descended from two of the sons of Lehi of the tribe of Manasseh. These groups fought continually, but when Christ came from heaven after his ascension to visit them in AD 34, they all believed in him and stopped fighting. However, in the 3rd and 4th Centuries AD, when the Lamanites stopped believing in Christ, these peaceful relations ended. Their renewed hostilities culminated in a great religious war in AD 385 at the hill Cumorah in upstate New York, in which the Lamanites were victorious and 230,000 Nephites were killed. The few surviving Nephites soon died, and the surviving Lamanites became the “American Indians.”
Among the problems with this scenario are that there is no evidence that any Native American groups are Semitic, but rather that they are Mongoloid; there are no surviving traces in their cultures of ancient Israelite customs, language, or religion; and there are no traces of their supposedly former Christian practices and beliefs.
Then from where would Joseph Smith have gotten this story? The mistaken idea that the American Indians descend from the lost tribes of Israel was, in fact, a very popular idea in the United States in the early 19th Century. The closest parallel to Joseph Smith’s version of the idea is found in Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews, published in 1823, just four years before Joseph started working on the BoM. The many specific parallels between these two works have often been noted. How might Smith have known about this work? From Oliver Cowdery, one of Smith’s scribes in the translation of the BoM and whose family attended the church in Vermont where Ethan Smith was pastor at the time he was writing his book. In her 1945 work, No Man Knows My History, Fawn Brodie writes, “Thus where the View of the Hebrews was just bad scholarship, the BoM was highly original and imaginative fiction.” (Brodie, p. 48)
3. Dark Skin is a Sign of God’s Curse, White Skin a Sign of God’s Blessing.
In the BoM dark skin is a sign of God’s curse, while white skin is a sign of his blessing. When the Lamanites displease God, “because of their iniquity....the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Nephi 5:21). Later, when the Lamanites become Christians, “their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites” (3 Nephi 2:15). Other racist passages in the scripture have simply been changed by Mormon authorities---e.g., 2 Nephi 30:6, which originally referred to conversion to Christianity bringing about a “white and delightsome people,” now reads, as of 1981, “a pure and delightsome people.” As for black people, Joseph Smith taught that they are cursed as “sons of Cain.” Brigham Young, the successor of Joseph Smith, stated: “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10). Since blacks were a stigmatized race in Mormonism, black men were denied ordination to the priesthood in the LDS Church. While the LDS Church, under pressure, finally granted black men the priesthood in 1978, the racism in their Scriptures remains as offensive as ever.
4. The BoM is Based on a Historically Accurate and Believable Ancient Work.
Mormons believe that the BoM is a translation from ancient records written in a “Reformed Egyptian” script on metal plates between the years 2500 BC and AD 421. Among the many reasons for doubting this claim are the following:
The Mormon story is that the Nephite military commander and prophet Moroni buried a history of his people, written on “gold plates,” in the hill Cumorah in AD 421. 1400 years later, on the night of September 22-23, 1823, Moroni, now having become an angel, visits 17-year-old Joseph Smith in his bedroom and tells him where the plates are buried. It happens to be just 3 miles south of where Smith lives. He goes there and sees the plates in a stone box, but as soon as he tries to take them the angel forbids him. He returns to the same spot on the same night of the year for the next two years, without success. Then, by looking into his magic peep-stone (seer-stone), a chocolate-colored, egg-shaped stone which he had found when digging a well in 1822 and used to find lost and buried treasure, Smith learns that to be successful he must marry Emma Hale and take her with him to Cumorah. So on Sept. 22, 1827, he and Emma conduct a “black magic” ritual: at midnight, dressed entirely in black, they drive a black carriage drawn by a black horse to the hill. Joseph unearths the box and takes the plates, along with some magical eyeglasses made out of stones (called “interpreters” and “the Urim and Thummim”) with which to decipher the “reformed Egyptian” language in which the texts on the plates are written. According to Smith, the plates were “six inches wide and eight inches long and not quite as thick as common tin;” they were “filled with engravings in Egyptian characters and bound together in a volume, as the leaves of a book with three rings running through the whole;” and the stack of metal pages stood about six inches high.
Smith’s main translation process involved putting the interpreters (or his “peep-stone”) in a hat, putting his face in the hat (he didn’t need to view the plates themselves), and dictating to a scribe. After 116-initial pages of translation were lost by Smith’s scribe Martin Harris, Moroni supposedly took away the interpreters, and Smith was forced to rely on his old and trusty peep-stone. Smith’s translation was completed at the end of June 1829, and the BoM was first published by E.B. Grandin in Palmyra, NY, in March 1830. Where can we see these marvelous gold plates? We can’t, because Smith gave them back to Moroni.
6. There Are Testimonies to the “Gold Plates” from 11 Credible Witnesses.
But, say the Mormons, there were 11 “witnesses” to the gold plates! These witness statements are printed at the beginning of each copy of the BoM. Three witnesses declare that an angel of God showed them the engravings upon the plates, while the eight others claim that that Joseph Smith showed them the plates with their engravings, which they also handled. Regarding the first three witnesses, Martin Harris said he had “never claimed to have seen the plates with his natural eyes,” but only with “spiritual eyes.” Oliver Cowdery was a relative of Smith’s, served as his scribe in translating the BoM, and was accustomed to having otherworldly visions. He told Smith that he had seen the gold plates in a “vision” even before the two of them had met. The third, David Whitmer, later said that the angel he saw “had no appearance or shape,” that he merely had the “impression” of an angel.
A few years after the BoM was published these three witnesses were excommunicated and harshly denounced and insulted by Smith. He described Whitmer as "an ass to bray out cursings instead of blessings." He denounced Cowdery as "too mean to mention" and the leader of a gang of "scoundrels of the deepest degree." He said Martin Harris was "so far beneath contempt that to notice him would be too great a sacrifice for a gentleman to make."
Regarding the other eight witnesses, one of them was Joseph Smith’s father, two of them were his brothers, and the other five were close relations of David Whitmer. All the Whitmer family witnesses were later excommunicated, although David eventually rejoined the church.
7. Ancient Prophecies in Mormon Scriptures Foretell the Coming of Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith, Jr. couldn’t resist the temptation of injecting a self-serving prophecy of himself into the BoM. In the section of the book supposedly written in about 600 BC an Israelite by the name of Nephi reports that the biblical patriarch Joseph uttered this prophecy: “A seer shall the Lord my God raise up,” and “his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father” (2 Nephi 3:6,15). Here we have a prophecy like a riddle, the answer to which is, of course, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Sr. Not satisfied to have this prophecy of himself and his father only in the BoM, Smith goes further by adding nearly-identical verses to the text of the Bible. In the last chapter of Genesis in Smith’s Inspired Version of The Holy Scriptures, the Lord says to Joseph just before he dies in Egypt: “That seer will I bless.....and his name shall be called Joseph; and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you.” This and the many other “prophecies” in Mormon scripture are cases of what is known in biblical scholarship as a vaticinium ex eventu, a “prophecy after the fact.” And it is one where the ulterior motive of the perpetrator of the hoax could not be more evident.
8. Joseph Smith Restored What Catholics Removed from the Bible.
While the LDS Church, under pressure, finally granted black men the priesthood in 1978, the racism in their Scriptures remains as offensive as ever.What is the basis for this and the many other Mormon additions to the Bible? As explained in 1 Nephi, these are needed because the “Great and Abominable Church, which is most abominable above all other churches,” traditionally understood in Mormonism as the Roman Catholic Church, has “taken away” from the Bible “many plain and precious things.” But in fact this couldn’t have been the work of the Catholics, because there’s no sign of these omissions in the Hebrew Bible, written several hundred years before there were any Christians or churches! It must have been the nefarious Jews who did it, which would explain why so many of the passages Joseph Smith identifies as having been removed from the Bible and which he restores are its Old Testament (< Hebrew Bible) references to Jesus Christ. Take parts of the 6th chapter of Genesis in the Inspired Version: God says to Adam, “Turn unto me....and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ” (Genesis 6:53). And then “Adam cried unto the Lord, and was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water; and thus he was baptized” (Genesis 6:67).
9. The LDS Church’s Theological Doctrines Are Not Significantly Different from Those of Mainstream Christian Denominations.
In the last few decades the LDS Church has made a major effort to downplay its distinctive teachings (and practices) in order to present itself as a “mainstream” Christian denomination. These distinctive doctrines include the following: (The last two were taught by Joseph Smith but are not official doctrines of the LDS church.)
Since the 19th Century the LDS church has denied that polygamy is a part of its core doctrines, and many Mormons deny that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. However, the doctrine of “plural marriage,” referring in this case to a man having more than one wife (polygyny), was revealed to Joseph Smith at Nauvoo, IL, on July 12, 1843, and was enshrined in 1876 as Section 132 of Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), one of the LDS Church’s scriptures. At the same time Section 101 in the early edition of the D&C, specifying the rule of monogamy, was removed. In this new “revelation,” God declares plurality of wives as essential for attainment of godhood (article 20), that those who reject it are damned (article 4), and that if Emma Smith rejects Joseph’s other marriages he will destroy her (article 54). This revelation was kept secret from the general church membership until Brigham Young made it known in 1852.
The principle of plural marriage in Mormonism has its roots in 1832, when Joseph Smith told his innermost circle that “he had inquired of the Lord concerning the principle of plurality of wives, and he received for an answer...that it is a true principle, but the time had not yet come for it to be practiced.” At about that time, when Joseph and Emma had become boarders at the home of John and Elsa Johnson in Hiram, Ohio, people in the neighborhood suspected that Joseph was having a sexual relationship with their daughter, 15-year old Marinda Nancy Johnson. According to a statement by Marinda’s brother Luke Johnson, on March 24, 1832 “a mob of forty or fifty...entered his room in the middle of the night....he was then seized by as many as could get hold of him, and taken about forty rods from the house...they tore off the few night clothes that he had on, for the purpose of emasculating him, and had Dr. Dennison there to perform the operation; but he refused to operate. The mob...poured tar over him, and then stuck feathers in it and left him.” Early the following year 16-year-old Fanny Alger moved into the Smith house as a domestic servant, and in February or March Joseph took her as his plural wife. He kept this secret from Emma, but in 1835 she caught them in flagrante delicto and ejected Fanny from the house. This incident led to a severe rift between Smith and his collaborator Oliver Cowdery, who referred to it as "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair."
These conflicts apparently did little to alter Smith's course of action. "Joseph continued to take plural wives throughout the 1830’s in Ohio and Missouri, and he married with even greater frequency in Nauvoo in the early 1840’s.” In his lifetime Smith “married at least thirty-three women, and probably as many as forty-eight.” (Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven, pp. 5, 119-121)
Mormons who are taught that Joseph was a “devoted husband” (see the LDS Church’s website) should be reminded that Emma Smith never approved of her husband’s philandering and never accepted the principle or the practice of plural marriage. After Joseph’s death she did not join the Mormons moving west to Utah, led by the polygamist Brigham Young. Instead she stayed behind and joined the anti-polygamist Reorganized LDS Church (known today as the Community of Christ). While the practice of polygamy has been forbidden in the LDS Church since the “1890 Manifesto,” it is still enshrined in their revealed Scriptures as necessary for obtaining “godhood.”
11. Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Abraham from Egyptian Papyri.
In July of 1835 a man by the name of Michael Chandler brought some Egyptian mummies and papyri which had been excavated near the ancient city of Thebes to Kirtland, OH, and sold them to Joseph Smith. Although Smith had no knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language or writing, he nevertheless “translated” some of these papyri, and in 1842 published the results along with three “facsimiles” (with interpretations) as the Book of Abraham. In 1880, thirty-six years after Smith’s death, this work was incorporated as part 2 of the LDS Church’s scripture known as The Pearl of Great Price. In Smith’s “translation” the patriarch Abraham tells a story of traveling from Chaldea to Egypt, where a priest lays him on an altar to sacrifice him, but he is miraculously saved by an angel of God; he gives a discourse about the universe, time, and stars, including the star/planet Kolob, which is closest to the throne of God; and he provides a polytheistic paraphrase of the first two chapters of Genesis which substitutes the word “Gods” for the biblical “God” and “Lord God.”
Many prominent 19th and 20th Century Egyptologists have examined the Joseph Smith papyri, including the one from the Egyptian “Book of Breathings” which is thought to be the specific papyrus which Smith “translated” as the main text of the Book of Abraham. All the papyri are inscribed with hieratic funerary texts, and the “Book of Breathings” is dated to the 1st Century BC or AD, 2000 years after Abraham supposedly lived. It is the unanimous opinion of the many Egyptologists who have examined the papyri that the text of Smith’s Book of Abraham, together with his related interpretations of the papyrus “facsimiles,” bear no resemblance whatsoever to the papyri texts. The Book of Abraham is, in the words of these renowned Egyptologists, an “impudent fraud” (A. H. Sayce, Oxford Univ.), “absurd” (W. M. Flinders Petrie, London Univ.), a work by an “absolutely ignorant” person (James H. Breasted, Univ. of Chicago), a work whose “explanations [of the facsimiles] are completely wrong” (Richard A. Parker, Brown Univ.), a “pure fabrication” (Arthur C. Mace, Metropolitan Museum of Art), a “work of pure imagination” (S. A. B. Mercer, Western Theological Seminary).
12. Joseph Smith Was a Highly Ethical, Honest, Truth-Seeking, Law-Abiding Person.
Although Joseph Smith was clearly very charismatic, there is considerable evidence that the official Mormon view of his pure moral character is a fiction. When Smith became famous as the “Mormon Prophet,” people who knew him from his early years were aghast, and they express their feelings in the following signed affidavits:
Mrs. S. F. Anderick: “Jo was pompous, pretentious...claimed he could tell where lost or hidden things and treasures were buried. He deceived many farmers.”
Isaac Butts: “I have frequently seen Jo drunk. He had a forked witch-hazel rod, later a peep-stone with which he claimed he could locate buried money or hidden things.”
W. R. Hine: “I heard a man say who was a neighbor to the Mormon Smith family, that they were thieves, indolent, the lowest, meanest family he ever saw or heard of.”
Joseph Rogers: “Farmers said he as a terror to the neighborhood and that he would either have to go to State prison, be hung, or leave the county, or he would be killed. Jo contrived in every way to obtain money without work. The farmers claimed that not a week passed without Jo stole something. I knew at least one hundred farmers in the towns of Phelps, Manchester, and Palmyra, N.Y., who would make out that Jo Smith the Mormon prophet was a a liar, intemperate and a base imposter...He could read the character of men readily and could tell who he could dupe.”
Mrs. Sylvia Walker: “They [the Smith family] were the lowest family I ever knew. They worked very little and had the reputation of stealing everything they could lay their hands on....When Jo told his neighbors about finding gold plates no one believed him nor paid any attention to it, he had humbugged them so much.”
On August 1, 1831, Joseph Smith received a revelation which became Section 58 of Doctrine and Covenants. Verse 21 of that section states: "Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land" (D&C 58:21). This revelation is at odds with his own life history. Beginning at least as early as 1826, when he was 25 years old, until his death, Smith was continuously in trouble with legal authorities. In his lifetime Smith had to defend himself in forty-eight criminal cases and had a total of over 200 suits brought against him. His troubles with the law caused the parents of his first wife, Emma Hale, to disown their daughter. Many of Smith's trials are attributed by Mormons to religious persecution. However, his legal troubles predate his religious proclamations. Smith's first known trial, on March 20, 1826, in East Bainbridge, NY, he was arrested, jailed, charged, and convicted of being "a disorderly person and an imposter" and "falsely pretending to discover lost goods."
The “questionable” beliefs and teachings outlined above, as well as others not discussed, have created problems for Mormons, their leaders, and the LDS Church from the religion’s beginnings until today. The Church does not allow members to openly and independently investigate or question its core beliefs or historical claims, or to challenge its leadership or core values. It does not allow hard-to-swallow doctrines to be discussed with potential converts before they have digested simpler ones (called “milk before meat”), nor for these doctrines to be publicly disseminated. When members do these things, and do not leave the Church voluntarily, they are “disfellowshipped” or excommunicated. Witness the famous modern-day 1993 case of the “September Six.”
“Lying for the Lord” is the term some ex-Mormons use for the Mormon practice of not telling the whole truth or dissimulating when necessary to further the image and interests of the Church. In the 19th Century, when the clash between Mormons and mainstream Christians was more overt, deception was more overt as well. Examples often cited are the denials by LDS leaders and members when they were charged with condoning and practicing polygamy (“plural marriage”). Since polygamy became illegal throughout the United States in the mid-19thCentury, church leaders such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Heber Kimball, as well as members who practiced polygamy were breaking the law, so that secrecy and denial were considered necessary to protect the church. At times deception assumed the status of a religious duty. This stance led to perjury by LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith and others during the Reed Smoot Congressional Hearings of 1904-7.
The historical necessity of self-protective deception creates a conundrum in that the Mormon religion strongly values honesty both in private life and in its public image. Yet the issue of deception in Mormonism runs deeper than a matter of “situational ethics.” Consider the following statements by Mormon leaders:
Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth president of the LDS Church (1970-72): “If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false.” (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188).
Orson Pratt, elder and member of the original Quorum of the LDS Church: “The Book of Mormon…must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God to man…If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions” (Introduction, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, 1850).
Should Mormonism be founded in an elaborate hoax, as much evidence suggests, then deception is not just an occasional practice, but the foundation structure upon which the entire edifice of the Mormon religion has been erected. Mormons of good faith are then inescapably caught between the demands of doctrine and their core moral values of honesty and integrity.
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and freelance writer, and the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light. Dr. Tony Nugent is a symbologist and retired professor of religious studies.
In an effort to reassure Evangelical voters, presidential candidate Mitt Romney inserted the phrase “the same god” into his domestic policy debate against Barack Obama. Over the course of 2012, the LDS Church promoted “I’m a Mormon,” a multi-million dollar marketing campaign seeking to portray Mormonism as mainstream. But do Mormons and Evangelicals worship the same God? How mainstream are their beliefs?
Dr. Tony Nugent, retired professor of religious studies, has compiled a list of twelve teachings that Mormons tend to downplay. Dr. Nugent calls each of these beliefs “questionable.” A quick read suggest they also are far from mainstream.
1. The American Continent Was Originally Settled by Ancient Near Easterners.
The story of the Book of Mormon (BoM) is that the American continent was originally settled by people from the ancient Near East who came across the ocean in boats between 5000 and 2500 years ago. This includes four groups: the Jaredites, who came from Mesopotamia after the fall of the Tower of Babel (3rd Millennium BC), and three groups of Israelites who came in the 6th Century B.C.—Lehites from the tribe of Manasseh, Ishmaelites from the tribe of Ephraim, and Mulekites from the tribe of Judah. Contrary to this view, archaeological, historical, and genetic evidence indicates that the American continent was originally settled by Mongoloid people who came over the Bering land bridge during the last Ice Age and who are the ancestors of today’s Native American people.
2. Native Americans Are Descendants of Ancient Israelites.
Much of the BoM story focuses on two groups of Israelites in the New World, the Nephites and the Lamanites, descended from two of the sons of Lehi of the tribe of Manasseh. These groups fought continually, but when Christ came from heaven after his ascension to visit them in AD 34, they all believed in him and stopped fighting. However, in the 3rd and 4th Centuries AD, when the Lamanites stopped believing in Christ, these peaceful relations ended. Their renewed hostilities culminated in a great religious war in AD 385 at the hill Cumorah in upstate New York, in which the Lamanites were victorious and 230,000 Nephites were killed. The few surviving Nephites soon died, and the surviving Lamanites became the “American Indians.”
Among the problems with this scenario are that there is no evidence that any Native American groups are Semitic, but rather that they are Mongoloid; there are no surviving traces in their cultures of ancient Israelite customs, language, or religion; and there are no traces of their supposedly former Christian practices and beliefs.
Then from where would Joseph Smith have gotten this story? The mistaken idea that the American Indians descend from the lost tribes of Israel was, in fact, a very popular idea in the United States in the early 19th Century. The closest parallel to Joseph Smith’s version of the idea is found in Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews, published in 1823, just four years before Joseph started working on the BoM. The many specific parallels between these two works have often been noted. How might Smith have known about this work? From Oliver Cowdery, one of Smith’s scribes in the translation of the BoM and whose family attended the church in Vermont where Ethan Smith was pastor at the time he was writing his book. In her 1945 work, No Man Knows My History, Fawn Brodie writes, “Thus where the View of the Hebrews was just bad scholarship, the BoM was highly original and imaginative fiction.” (Brodie, p. 48)
3. Dark Skin is a Sign of God’s Curse, White Skin a Sign of God’s Blessing.
In the BoM dark skin is a sign of God’s curse, while white skin is a sign of his blessing. When the Lamanites displease God, “because of their iniquity....the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Nephi 5:21). Later, when the Lamanites become Christians, “their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites” (3 Nephi 2:15). Other racist passages in the scripture have simply been changed by Mormon authorities---e.g., 2 Nephi 30:6, which originally referred to conversion to Christianity bringing about a “white and delightsome people,” now reads, as of 1981, “a pure and delightsome people.” As for black people, Joseph Smith taught that they are cursed as “sons of Cain.” Brigham Young, the successor of Joseph Smith, stated: “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10). Since blacks were a stigmatized race in Mormonism, black men were denied ordination to the priesthood in the LDS Church. While the LDS Church, under pressure, finally granted black men the priesthood in 1978, the racism in their Scriptures remains as offensive as ever.
4. The BoM is Based on a Historically Accurate and Believable Ancient Work.
Mormons believe that the BoM is a translation from ancient records written in a “Reformed Egyptian” script on metal plates between the years 2500 BC and AD 421. Among the many reasons for doubting this claim are the following:
- Many different animals, plants, & manufactured goods are reported in the BoM story as being present in the New World during this time period. There is apparently no credible evidence that any of the following were present in the New World during this time period: cows, horses, oxen, asses, goats, sheep, pigs, honeybees, elephants, barley, wheat, silk, iron & brass metallurgy, steel, metal coins, swords, chariots, wheels, compasses, and metal plates inscribed with writing.
- Many passages in the BoM repeat Old and New Testament biblical passages word-for-word. But how would Nephi, for instance, who lived in the 6th Century BC, know passages in Old Testament books such as Malachi, written after his time, and in the New Testament, written 600-700 years later?
- Analogously, why would distinctively Christian practices and beliefs, including the establishment of a “Church of Christ,” the practice of baptism, and belief that those not baptized are damned to be tortured in hell for eternity, be found in ancient records said to have been written before the beginning of the Christian Era?
- In the second verse of the BoM Nephi says, “Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.”(1 Nephi 1:2). Later in the work Moroni says that his record is “in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian” (Mormon 9:32). These are problematic statements. First of all, the term “Jew” refers to the people of the tribe of Judah and those from the other tribes who joined with them, starting with the period of the Babylonian exile (which is after Lehi’s family has left Jerusalem). In addition, there is no biblical or other evidence that Israelites of the 6th Century BC spoke Egyptian or wrote using any of the forms of Egyptian hieroglyphics.
The Mormon story is that the Nephite military commander and prophet Moroni buried a history of his people, written on “gold plates,” in the hill Cumorah in AD 421. 1400 years later, on the night of September 22-23, 1823, Moroni, now having become an angel, visits 17-year-old Joseph Smith in his bedroom and tells him where the plates are buried. It happens to be just 3 miles south of where Smith lives. He goes there and sees the plates in a stone box, but as soon as he tries to take them the angel forbids him. He returns to the same spot on the same night of the year for the next two years, without success. Then, by looking into his magic peep-stone (seer-stone), a chocolate-colored, egg-shaped stone which he had found when digging a well in 1822 and used to find lost and buried treasure, Smith learns that to be successful he must marry Emma Hale and take her with him to Cumorah. So on Sept. 22, 1827, he and Emma conduct a “black magic” ritual: at midnight, dressed entirely in black, they drive a black carriage drawn by a black horse to the hill. Joseph unearths the box and takes the plates, along with some magical eyeglasses made out of stones (called “interpreters” and “the Urim and Thummim”) with which to decipher the “reformed Egyptian” language in which the texts on the plates are written. According to Smith, the plates were “six inches wide and eight inches long and not quite as thick as common tin;” they were “filled with engravings in Egyptian characters and bound together in a volume, as the leaves of a book with three rings running through the whole;” and the stack of metal pages stood about six inches high.
Smith’s main translation process involved putting the interpreters (or his “peep-stone”) in a hat, putting his face in the hat (he didn’t need to view the plates themselves), and dictating to a scribe. After 116-initial pages of translation were lost by Smith’s scribe Martin Harris, Moroni supposedly took away the interpreters, and Smith was forced to rely on his old and trusty peep-stone. Smith’s translation was completed at the end of June 1829, and the BoM was first published by E.B. Grandin in Palmyra, NY, in March 1830. Where can we see these marvelous gold plates? We can’t, because Smith gave them back to Moroni.
6. There Are Testimonies to the “Gold Plates” from 11 Credible Witnesses.
But, say the Mormons, there were 11 “witnesses” to the gold plates! These witness statements are printed at the beginning of each copy of the BoM. Three witnesses declare that an angel of God showed them the engravings upon the plates, while the eight others claim that that Joseph Smith showed them the plates with their engravings, which they also handled. Regarding the first three witnesses, Martin Harris said he had “never claimed to have seen the plates with his natural eyes,” but only with “spiritual eyes.” Oliver Cowdery was a relative of Smith’s, served as his scribe in translating the BoM, and was accustomed to having otherworldly visions. He told Smith that he had seen the gold plates in a “vision” even before the two of them had met. The third, David Whitmer, later said that the angel he saw “had no appearance or shape,” that he merely had the “impression” of an angel.
A few years after the BoM was published these three witnesses were excommunicated and harshly denounced and insulted by Smith. He described Whitmer as "an ass to bray out cursings instead of blessings." He denounced Cowdery as "too mean to mention" and the leader of a gang of "scoundrels of the deepest degree." He said Martin Harris was "so far beneath contempt that to notice him would be too great a sacrifice for a gentleman to make."
Regarding the other eight witnesses, one of them was Joseph Smith’s father, two of them were his brothers, and the other five were close relations of David Whitmer. All the Whitmer family witnesses were later excommunicated, although David eventually rejoined the church.
7. Ancient Prophecies in Mormon Scriptures Foretell the Coming of Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith, Jr. couldn’t resist the temptation of injecting a self-serving prophecy of himself into the BoM. In the section of the book supposedly written in about 600 BC an Israelite by the name of Nephi reports that the biblical patriarch Joseph uttered this prophecy: “A seer shall the Lord my God raise up,” and “his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father” (2 Nephi 3:6,15). Here we have a prophecy like a riddle, the answer to which is, of course, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Sr. Not satisfied to have this prophecy of himself and his father only in the BoM, Smith goes further by adding nearly-identical verses to the text of the Bible. In the last chapter of Genesis in Smith’s Inspired Version of The Holy Scriptures, the Lord says to Joseph just before he dies in Egypt: “That seer will I bless.....and his name shall be called Joseph; and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you.” This and the many other “prophecies” in Mormon scripture are cases of what is known in biblical scholarship as a vaticinium ex eventu, a “prophecy after the fact.” And it is one where the ulterior motive of the perpetrator of the hoax could not be more evident.
8. Joseph Smith Restored What Catholics Removed from the Bible.
While the LDS Church, under pressure, finally granted black men the priesthood in 1978, the racism in their Scriptures remains as offensive as ever.What is the basis for this and the many other Mormon additions to the Bible? As explained in 1 Nephi, these are needed because the “Great and Abominable Church, which is most abominable above all other churches,” traditionally understood in Mormonism as the Roman Catholic Church, has “taken away” from the Bible “many plain and precious things.” But in fact this couldn’t have been the work of the Catholics, because there’s no sign of these omissions in the Hebrew Bible, written several hundred years before there were any Christians or churches! It must have been the nefarious Jews who did it, which would explain why so many of the passages Joseph Smith identifies as having been removed from the Bible and which he restores are its Old Testament (< Hebrew Bible) references to Jesus Christ. Take parts of the 6th chapter of Genesis in the Inspired Version: God says to Adam, “Turn unto me....and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ” (Genesis 6:53). And then “Adam cried unto the Lord, and was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water; and thus he was baptized” (Genesis 6:67).
9. The LDS Church’s Theological Doctrines Are Not Significantly Different from Those of Mainstream Christian Denominations.
In the last few decades the LDS Church has made a major effort to downplay its distinctive teachings (and practices) in order to present itself as a “mainstream” Christian denomination. These distinctive doctrines include the following: (The last two were taught by Joseph Smith but are not official doctrines of the LDS church.)
- God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate divine beings (Mormonism is anti-Trinitarian).
- In his pre-mortal existence Jesus Christ, the literal Son of God the Father, was the LORD (= Jehovah/Yahweh) of the Old Testament
- Humans have pre-mortal existences as spirit-children of God the Father and a Heavenly Mother.
- Humans can become angels, and angels can become humans, e. g., Adam used to be St. Michael (refer to Temple Endowment ceremony), Noah used to be St. Gabriel, and the Nephite man Moroni became the angel Moroni.
- Matter has always existed, so the Creation was not ex nihilo.
- There is no "hell" in the traditional Christian sense but rather a spirit prison where wicked spirits are cleansed in preparation for their resurrection.
- A deceased person who was never baptized can get to the Celestial Kingdom as a result of a proxy baptism in a Mormon temple.
- The highest level of the Celestial Kingdom is reserved for couples who have been “sealed” in a Mormon temple for a life of “eternal marriage.”
- God the Father used to be a human living on the earth (Joseph Smith, “King Follett Discourse,” 1844)
- Humans can become Gods (be exalted) in the future and dwell in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. (Joseph Smith, “King Follett Discourse,” 1844)
Since the 19th Century the LDS church has denied that polygamy is a part of its core doctrines, and many Mormons deny that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. However, the doctrine of “plural marriage,” referring in this case to a man having more than one wife (polygyny), was revealed to Joseph Smith at Nauvoo, IL, on July 12, 1843, and was enshrined in 1876 as Section 132 of Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), one of the LDS Church’s scriptures. At the same time Section 101 in the early edition of the D&C, specifying the rule of monogamy, was removed. In this new “revelation,” God declares plurality of wives as essential for attainment of godhood (article 20), that those who reject it are damned (article 4), and that if Emma Smith rejects Joseph’s other marriages he will destroy her (article 54). This revelation was kept secret from the general church membership until Brigham Young made it known in 1852.
The principle of plural marriage in Mormonism has its roots in 1832, when Joseph Smith told his innermost circle that “he had inquired of the Lord concerning the principle of plurality of wives, and he received for an answer...that it is a true principle, but the time had not yet come for it to be practiced.” At about that time, when Joseph and Emma had become boarders at the home of John and Elsa Johnson in Hiram, Ohio, people in the neighborhood suspected that Joseph was having a sexual relationship with their daughter, 15-year old Marinda Nancy Johnson. According to a statement by Marinda’s brother Luke Johnson, on March 24, 1832 “a mob of forty or fifty...entered his room in the middle of the night....he was then seized by as many as could get hold of him, and taken about forty rods from the house...they tore off the few night clothes that he had on, for the purpose of emasculating him, and had Dr. Dennison there to perform the operation; but he refused to operate. The mob...poured tar over him, and then stuck feathers in it and left him.” Early the following year 16-year-old Fanny Alger moved into the Smith house as a domestic servant, and in February or March Joseph took her as his plural wife. He kept this secret from Emma, but in 1835 she caught them in flagrante delicto and ejected Fanny from the house. This incident led to a severe rift between Smith and his collaborator Oliver Cowdery, who referred to it as "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair."
These conflicts apparently did little to alter Smith's course of action. "Joseph continued to take plural wives throughout the 1830’s in Ohio and Missouri, and he married with even greater frequency in Nauvoo in the early 1840’s.” In his lifetime Smith “married at least thirty-three women, and probably as many as forty-eight.” (Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven, pp. 5, 119-121)
Mormons who are taught that Joseph was a “devoted husband” (see the LDS Church’s website) should be reminded that Emma Smith never approved of her husband’s philandering and never accepted the principle or the practice of plural marriage. After Joseph’s death she did not join the Mormons moving west to Utah, led by the polygamist Brigham Young. Instead she stayed behind and joined the anti-polygamist Reorganized LDS Church (known today as the Community of Christ). While the practice of polygamy has been forbidden in the LDS Church since the “1890 Manifesto,” it is still enshrined in their revealed Scriptures as necessary for obtaining “godhood.”
11. Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Abraham from Egyptian Papyri.
In July of 1835 a man by the name of Michael Chandler brought some Egyptian mummies and papyri which had been excavated near the ancient city of Thebes to Kirtland, OH, and sold them to Joseph Smith. Although Smith had no knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language or writing, he nevertheless “translated” some of these papyri, and in 1842 published the results along with three “facsimiles” (with interpretations) as the Book of Abraham. In 1880, thirty-six years after Smith’s death, this work was incorporated as part 2 of the LDS Church’s scripture known as The Pearl of Great Price. In Smith’s “translation” the patriarch Abraham tells a story of traveling from Chaldea to Egypt, where a priest lays him on an altar to sacrifice him, but he is miraculously saved by an angel of God; he gives a discourse about the universe, time, and stars, including the star/planet Kolob, which is closest to the throne of God; and he provides a polytheistic paraphrase of the first two chapters of Genesis which substitutes the word “Gods” for the biblical “God” and “Lord God.”
Many prominent 19th and 20th Century Egyptologists have examined the Joseph Smith papyri, including the one from the Egyptian “Book of Breathings” which is thought to be the specific papyrus which Smith “translated” as the main text of the Book of Abraham. All the papyri are inscribed with hieratic funerary texts, and the “Book of Breathings” is dated to the 1st Century BC or AD, 2000 years after Abraham supposedly lived. It is the unanimous opinion of the many Egyptologists who have examined the papyri that the text of Smith’s Book of Abraham, together with his related interpretations of the papyrus “facsimiles,” bear no resemblance whatsoever to the papyri texts. The Book of Abraham is, in the words of these renowned Egyptologists, an “impudent fraud” (A. H. Sayce, Oxford Univ.), “absurd” (W. M. Flinders Petrie, London Univ.), a work by an “absolutely ignorant” person (James H. Breasted, Univ. of Chicago), a work whose “explanations [of the facsimiles] are completely wrong” (Richard A. Parker, Brown Univ.), a “pure fabrication” (Arthur C. Mace, Metropolitan Museum of Art), a “work of pure imagination” (S. A. B. Mercer, Western Theological Seminary).
12. Joseph Smith Was a Highly Ethical, Honest, Truth-Seeking, Law-Abiding Person.
Although Joseph Smith was clearly very charismatic, there is considerable evidence that the official Mormon view of his pure moral character is a fiction. When Smith became famous as the “Mormon Prophet,” people who knew him from his early years were aghast, and they express their feelings in the following signed affidavits:
Mrs. S. F. Anderick: “Jo was pompous, pretentious...claimed he could tell where lost or hidden things and treasures were buried. He deceived many farmers.”
Isaac Butts: “I have frequently seen Jo drunk. He had a forked witch-hazel rod, later a peep-stone with which he claimed he could locate buried money or hidden things.”
W. R. Hine: “I heard a man say who was a neighbor to the Mormon Smith family, that they were thieves, indolent, the lowest, meanest family he ever saw or heard of.”
Joseph Rogers: “Farmers said he as a terror to the neighborhood and that he would either have to go to State prison, be hung, or leave the county, or he would be killed. Jo contrived in every way to obtain money without work. The farmers claimed that not a week passed without Jo stole something. I knew at least one hundred farmers in the towns of Phelps, Manchester, and Palmyra, N.Y., who would make out that Jo Smith the Mormon prophet was a a liar, intemperate and a base imposter...He could read the character of men readily and could tell who he could dupe.”
Mrs. Sylvia Walker: “They [the Smith family] were the lowest family I ever knew. They worked very little and had the reputation of stealing everything they could lay their hands on....When Jo told his neighbors about finding gold plates no one believed him nor paid any attention to it, he had humbugged them so much.”
On August 1, 1831, Joseph Smith received a revelation which became Section 58 of Doctrine and Covenants. Verse 21 of that section states: "Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land" (D&C 58:21). This revelation is at odds with his own life history. Beginning at least as early as 1826, when he was 25 years old, until his death, Smith was continuously in trouble with legal authorities. In his lifetime Smith had to defend himself in forty-eight criminal cases and had a total of over 200 suits brought against him. His troubles with the law caused the parents of his first wife, Emma Hale, to disown their daughter. Many of Smith's trials are attributed by Mormons to religious persecution. However, his legal troubles predate his religious proclamations. Smith's first known trial, on March 20, 1826, in East Bainbridge, NY, he was arrested, jailed, charged, and convicted of being "a disorderly person and an imposter" and "falsely pretending to discover lost goods."
The “questionable” beliefs and teachings outlined above, as well as others not discussed, have created problems for Mormons, their leaders, and the LDS Church from the religion’s beginnings until today. The Church does not allow members to openly and independently investigate or question its core beliefs or historical claims, or to challenge its leadership or core values. It does not allow hard-to-swallow doctrines to be discussed with potential converts before they have digested simpler ones (called “milk before meat”), nor for these doctrines to be publicly disseminated. When members do these things, and do not leave the Church voluntarily, they are “disfellowshipped” or excommunicated. Witness the famous modern-day 1993 case of the “September Six.”
“Lying for the Lord” is the term some ex-Mormons use for the Mormon practice of not telling the whole truth or dissimulating when necessary to further the image and interests of the Church. In the 19th Century, when the clash between Mormons and mainstream Christians was more overt, deception was more overt as well. Examples often cited are the denials by LDS leaders and members when they were charged with condoning and practicing polygamy (“plural marriage”). Since polygamy became illegal throughout the United States in the mid-19thCentury, church leaders such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Heber Kimball, as well as members who practiced polygamy were breaking the law, so that secrecy and denial were considered necessary to protect the church. At times deception assumed the status of a religious duty. This stance led to perjury by LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith and others during the Reed Smoot Congressional Hearings of 1904-7.
The historical necessity of self-protective deception creates a conundrum in that the Mormon religion strongly values honesty both in private life and in its public image. Yet the issue of deception in Mormonism runs deeper than a matter of “situational ethics.” Consider the following statements by Mormon leaders:
Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth president of the LDS Church (1970-72): “If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false.” (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188).
Orson Pratt, elder and member of the original Quorum of the LDS Church: “The Book of Mormon…must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God to man…If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions” (Introduction, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, 1850).
Should Mormonism be founded in an elaborate hoax, as much evidence suggests, then deception is not just an occasional practice, but the foundation structure upon which the entire edifice of the Mormon religion has been erected. Mormons of good faith are then inescapably caught between the demands of doctrine and their core moral values of honesty and integrity.
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and freelance writer, and the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light. Dr. Tony Nugent is a symbologist and retired professor of religious studies.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Christianity: A New Type of Myth - Part 4
By Michael Sherlock ~
4. Myths Are True.
Discussing this aspect of the definition of myth, Professor Vandiver says:
Such is the case not only with Christianity, but almost all religions, especially the Abrahamic ones, which have attempted to weave myth into the very fabric of history. Ask a true-believing Christian whether or not, they believe the Gospels describe real history and they may respond with any of the following remarks:
Now, ask a non-Christian this same question and you will likely hear any of the following kinds of remarks:
It all comes down to whether a person believes it to be true, or not. In other words, it is all biased conjecture, occasioned by personal experience and subjective bias. Non-Christians call it myth, and in my biased opinion, should be forgiven for doing so, as people are not born of ghosts and virgins, they cannot walk on water, or even turn that water into wine. They do not return from the dead once 3 days has past and rigor mortis has set in, and they certainly do not float into outer-space, well not in my experience, or anyone else’s I know! Christians on the other hand, take it on faith, that these things happened in an isolated region, in a time long ago, and to a person who, was otherwise a “blip” on the radar! A figure whose remoteness has served to spawn justified criticism and the credulous defence of the intellectually remote believer!
To be continued…
References
1. Professor Elizabeth Vandiver. Classical Mythology. Lecture 2: What is Myth? The Teaching Company. (2002).
2. Michael J. Wilkins & J. P. Moreland. Jesus Under Fire. Zondervan Publishing House. (1995). p. 5.
3. Albert Schweitzer. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Adam and Charles Black. (1911). p. 13.
4. Lee Strobel. The Case for the Real Jesus. Zondervan. (2007). p. 33.
5. M.M. Mangasarian. The Truth About Jesus. Is He a Myth? Independent Religious Society. (1909). pp. 37-38.
6. Thomas Paine. The Age of Reason. (1796). p. 14-15.
7. John E. Remsburg. The Christ. The Truth Seeker Company. Preface p. 9.
Website: http://michaelsherlock.org
4. Myths Are True.
Discussing this aspect of the definition of myth, Professor Vandiver says:
They (myths) present themselves within the society in which they develop, as factual accounts of how things actually happened in the past. It would be very rare for any culture to recognise its own mythology as mythology. Myth is only a category when you are outside a culture looking in. From within any culture, myths are accounts of the way things really are. It is only when we step outside the culture and look in, that we can say; these stories are myths.(1)
Such is the case not only with Christianity, but almost all religions, especially the Abrahamic ones, which have attempted to weave myth into the very fabric of history. Ask a true-believing Christian whether or not, they believe the Gospels describe real history and they may respond with any of the following remarks:
…"historicity, however, should be determined not by what we think possible or likely, but by the antiquity and reliability of the evidence. As we shall see, as far back as we can trace, Jesus was known and remembered as one who had extraordinary powers."(2) -- Father Raymond E. Brown (Catholic Bible Scholar)
"The Gospels follow no order in recording the acts and miracles of Jesus, and the matter is not, after all, of much importance. If a difficulty arises in regard to the Holy Scripture and we cannot solve it, we must just let it alone."(3) -- Martin Luther (Founder of the Protestant Church)
“We look at the New Testament documents and, yes, they have an agenda: they’re affirming that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. But they also make all kinds of statements that can be evaluated. Are they culturally accurate? Are they true to what we know from other historical sources? Were they written in a time and place that has proximity to Jesus’ life? The answers are yes.(4) -- Craig A. Evans (Bible Scholar – Professor of New Testament Studies)
Now, ask a non-Christian this same question and you will likely hear any of the following kinds of remarks:
The prominence, therefore, of the sun and stars in the Gospel story tends to show that Jesus is an astrological rather than a historical character. That the time of his birth, his death, and supposed resurrection is not verifiable is generally admitted. This uncertainty robs the story of Jesus, to an extent at least, of the atmosphere of reality.(5) -- M.M Mangasarian (Theologian turned Freethinker)
It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion.(6) -- Thomas Paine (Philosopher)
The Jesus of the New Testament is the Christ of Christianity. The Jesus of the New Testament is a supernatural being. He is, like the Christ, a myth. He is the Christ myth.(7) -- John E. Remsburg (Rationalist)
It all comes down to whether a person believes it to be true, or not. In other words, it is all biased conjecture, occasioned by personal experience and subjective bias. Non-Christians call it myth, and in my biased opinion, should be forgiven for doing so, as people are not born of ghosts and virgins, they cannot walk on water, or even turn that water into wine. They do not return from the dead once 3 days has past and rigor mortis has set in, and they certainly do not float into outer-space, well not in my experience, or anyone else’s I know! Christians on the other hand, take it on faith, that these things happened in an isolated region, in a time long ago, and to a person who, was otherwise a “blip” on the radar! A figure whose remoteness has served to spawn justified criticism and the credulous defence of the intellectually remote believer!
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” -- ¯ Bertrand Russell
To be continued…
References
1. Professor Elizabeth Vandiver. Classical Mythology. Lecture 2: What is Myth? The Teaching Company. (2002).
2. Michael J. Wilkins & J. P. Moreland. Jesus Under Fire. Zondervan Publishing House. (1995). p. 5.
3. Albert Schweitzer. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Adam and Charles Black. (1911). p. 13.
4. Lee Strobel. The Case for the Real Jesus. Zondervan. (2007). p. 33.
5. M.M. Mangasarian. The Truth About Jesus. Is He a Myth? Independent Religious Society. (1909). pp. 37-38.
6. Thomas Paine. The Age of Reason. (1796). p. 14-15.
7. John E. Remsburg. The Christ. The Truth Seeker Company. Preface p. 9.
Website: http://michaelsherlock.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and...
-
By Carl S ~ I 've known my relative and his family for over 25 years now. I decided to share something with him in an email: "I...
-
The Tower of Babel by Pieter Brueghel the Elder By Carl S ~ C hildren are still being taught the Tower of Babel tale about building somet...
-
By Daniel out of the Lion's Den ~ A ccuse a Christian of being a polytheist by worshiping three gods, and they will vehemently deny it...
-
An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the ...
-
By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Ch...