Search This Blog:

Friday, November 27, 2015

BREAKING FREE: A LONG TIME COMING (PART ONE)

By Jennifer ~

I grew up under South Africa’s apartheid government whose leaders were Fascists as well as fiercely religious. This white minority group called themselves Afrikaners, likening themselves to “modern day” Israelites of the Old Testament to whom God had given the Promised Land. White people were naturally superior to non-white people because it said so in the bible, according to the Afrikaner clergy of the time.

See, after the flood when the ark finally landed on dry land after forty days and forty nights’ rain, Noah had planted himself some vineyards. One day he had too much to drink and passed out naked in his tent. Noah’s son, Ham, saw his old man in the buff. Giggling, he joined his brothers outside relaying what he had just seen. Next day, Noah now sober, found out that Ham had seen him “nekked,” cursed him and sent him to Africa where he sired black people! (I'll reserve my objections to biblical racism for another blog.) Funny how nudity always pisses off God and other Biblical characters, though.

Anyway, so Ham’s black offspring was to become slaves and servants to the Afrikaners who landed at the tip of Cape Town during the 17th century. They (as well as European missionaries, I must add) tried to “civilize” the heathen blacks by teaching them bible lessons hoping to make them less savage and more European - like God!

Religion had always been a part of the school curriculum and still was when I started school in the late 1950s. Not only was I inculcated with Christianity in school, but I also grew up in an ultra-strict Christian fundamentalist family. We attended church three times a day on Sundays - the morning service, afternoon Sunday school for us kids and the evening service.

The church patriarchy, according to St. Paul, was set up by God, the head of the husband, and the husband, in turn, head of the wife and his children. Women (and children) had no voice at all and had to be “obedient” to their husbands.

Marriage vows, back in the day, had the bride promising to “obey” her husband. There were a slew of rules for how Christian women were to generally conduct themselves. Women were not allowed any leadership role in the church, other than leading women’s groups.

During church services, women had to cover their heads. (Unlike Eastern religions, we got to wear pretty hats, though.) Women were not allowed to wear pants, make-up, cut their hair, go to the movies and I didn’t even yet get to the biggies – booze, sex, cigarettes, drugs and rock ‘n roll! How’s that for ultra-strict!

“Pentecost is real, no matter what they say, Pentecost is real, I’m on the narrow way, Pentecost is real, by the Spirit say, allelujah, Praise the Lord, I know, I know it’s real.” These are the types of choruses we’d sing accompanied by guitar, accordion and spirited handclapping.

American evangelists such as Oral Roberts, who we caught on shortwave radio from time to time, had a huge influence on the South African mixed-race people in particular. As a kid, I remember, placing my hand on the little transistor radio for the healing of a wart. Oral Roberts, who was up there next to God, invited listeners all over the world to place their hands on the radio. Miracle of miracles - the wart disappeared!

At twelve years old, I “went forward” in church together with a bunch of other people, to accept Jesus into my heart because I didn’t want to go to hell. After all, look what happened to beautiful movie star, Jane Mansfield, who “gained the whole world, had fame and fortune, but her pretty little head was decapitated in a car accident,” bellowed the preacher. “For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?” (Matthew 16:26) Apparently, Ms. Mansfield didn’t know Jesus. So she certainly wasn’t taking the celestial escalator to the Pearly Gates. Can you imagine using such a gruesome scene to scare the hell of out of kids?

At 16 years old, I went forward again, because my heart was black with sin and I needed Jesus’ blood to wash me white as snow. This time I was serious about my commitment and got myself baptized in the river together with a group of other “candidates.” The pastor said God was pleased that we were making a public declaration of our commitment to God. We, donning white robes, following our Moses-like pastor, staff in hand to test the water depth, certainly put on a great show for spectators watching from the river banks.

In truth, as a teenager, I felt hugely self-conscious and embarrassed but I didn’t want to be disowned by God in heaven one day, because I disowned him publicly. The upshot was that I buried my sinful self in the watery grave and emerged ‘the new and improved’ me. I won approval from God, the pastor, my family and the entire congregation. I’d take approval any day.

Alas, I didn’t keep my promise to God. Yeah, my heart got black with sin over and over again, because since an early age, I was easy pickings for the gropers and fondlers. Yep, those same Christian “brothers” waving their holy hands in the air singing glory to God, were molesting me when no one was looking. Only, then it was not called molesting. It was this horrible thing that happened to young girls that nobody talked about. Culturally, it was understood that men couldn’t control their “urges” so women in particular, turned a blind eye to this behaviour. It was always the victim’s fault. Looking back, depression began to manifest itself then, but of course, those dark feelings were ascribed to the devil.

I had tried so hard to be a “good” girl but I lost the fight against carnality to my hot and horny boyfriend. I lost my virginity at age sixteen. The day after, I was apoplectic with shame and remorse and petrified of getting pregnant. I holed myself in my room for the entire day and wept till my tears ran dry. I figured I was beyond redemption, but nonetheless begged God that I would not be pregnant. I dared not even wish to die, because I’d go straight to hell.

My mother, who found out about my “sin” heaped added judgement on me. “If grandma and grandpa knew what you’ve been up to, I don’t think they’d be pleased to have given you that bible,” she scolded. My grandparents had given me a white leather bound bible for my sixteenth birthday...

Banned From Heaven; Mature Adults Not Wanted

By Carl S ~

First of all, here's a great comment from a BBC series: "Being a vicar doesn't make him right. It just means others assume he's right." To which we might add: All houses of worship with their pastors and apologists are encyclopedias of assumptions.

Now, I am not making this up. It's Christian dogma: "that unless you become as a little child, you cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven." Got that? You must become a trusting, gullible, unquestioning, obedient child. (Too bad that these adults forgo being the kinds of children of curiosity and questioning who become the scientists who keep their childhood sense of discovery and wonder.) Which leaves me, as a curious, questioning, rebellious, free thinking and skeptical mature adult, ineligible for entrance. As such, I'm not only barred from any future "heaven," but from all churches.

This child/adult difference explains some previously mysterious but now obvious questions. Believers are like the above described children. Therefore, you're banging your head against a brick wall trying to talk any sense to them; if you can get them to talk seriously about what they claim to be the most important thing in their lives, their faith (following the examples of their shepherds, the masters of avoidance). And churches give their inner child the place to act up.

Like a child clinging to a security blanket, the believer is on guard for any perceived movement that might threaten to take "it" away. Sometimes you get the feeling that they have been warned that YOU, oh you agent of doubt, are trying to tempt them with candy and will make them the next victims.

Frequently, outspoken Christians exhibit spoiled child behavior such as having tantrums when they're questioned, or whenever they don't get their way. Often, also like spoiled (chosen) children, they try to make the ones opposing them out to be persecutors, and themselves the persecuted. Like such children, they insist on, naturally, preferential deference because they believe...whatever it is they believe. No matter how ludicrous their beliefs are. Give people like that power and you've got troubles

Like a child clinging to a security blanket, the believer is on guard for any perceived movement that might threaten to take "it" away.In fact, these "children of God" in the U.S. are engaged in religious warfare. They have influenced the government to the extent of getting away with making internecine warfare in traditional ways. For example, the Catholic Church is using the legal system in making war by depriving non-Catholic patients in their hospitals of their Constitutional rights, by forcing them to comply with its doctrines. Christian denominations are making war on each other through the power of discriminating in their employee hiring, doctrinally purging workers within their government-supported ranks, by firing them strictly for their beliefs. Typically, members of one Christian denomination want the right to refuse to issue licenses to same-sex marriage partners of other Christian denominations, who believe differently than they do.

Some believers want the right to death with dignity, while others are fighting against them because THEY believe the opposite is "God's will." And "God's will" can be interpreted to mean anything within each denomination, sect, and even in minor cults! "God's will" is a weapon wielded to enforce. It's about domination. When one denomination dominates over another in any way, it's war. As usual, Christians are the ones persecuting Christians.

And the U. S. judicial system, which should never be involved in religious battles of any kind, is being sucked into them, to the consternation and disorder of our society and legal system, which was established to protect the rights religious denominations would revoke. Thus, spoiled-brat exemptions to the very laws the electorate is sworn to uphold are causing needless pain and the waste of time and taxpayer money. But the temper-tantrum throwing children refuse to give an inch of accommodation. So much for virtue, charity, ethics, fairness, and freedom of religion itself, there!

And so many problems are because religions insist they are entitled to the utmost respect because of tradition and the fact that they believe, even though WHAT they believe is just plain bizarre. And that’s all there is? Maybe they should NOT be respected because of what they REFUSE to believe, which is just about everything uncomfortable in reality. But then, growing up and taking adult responsibility for moral decisions and facing the facts of life isn't easy. And it certainly won't get you into the fantasyland heavens or paradises. No thanks, I'll take maturity.

I Give Up--Stop the planet and let me get off...

By Klym ~

Dear Ex-C,

I write this article with a heavy heart. I posted a comment on FaceBook that I knew would be controversial, but I never expected one of the replies I received. The reply was not posted on my FB page---my "friend" sent me a personal email this morning. I should have expected it---I don't know why I am so surprised and so deeply hurt. This friend was, after all, a Baptist missionary for many years in China. In our twenties, we were best friends---soulmates, really. He was the nearest thing to a brother that I ever had and he helped me through some horrible times in my life. I have a great deal of love and respect for this man, but his email made me cry. It seriously hurt me in the deepest part of my soul.

So, I post it here and welcome your insights; in fact, I need your insights. And keep in mind that my "friend" is not a bad guy---he just honestly believes that my post was "dangerous" to the message of Jesus. ME and my thoughts are DANGEROUS?? I can't even wrap my mind around that.

Here is the email I received that includes my FB post:

"I saw your post on Facebook recently, and I wanted to reply to you. I don't plan to unfriend you, because you have meant too much to me as a friend, I have loved you as a friend, for too many years to let a political difference be a wall between us. I disagree with several of your statements, and I do feel strongly enough about them to point them out. I've quoted your post below to make it easier for me to refer to it.

___POST___

I'm going to get political & when I'm done, some of you may want to unfriend me. But that's OK because I am passionate about this "issue". I am a liberal progressive Unitarian Universalist & I can't logically understand how ultra-conservative Republican Christians can claim that their politics follow Jesus' teachings. The fact is that Jesus was a socialist. He told the rich man to sell everything & follow him. Jesus advocated for the marginalized in society--that's who he hung out with. He healed people's illnesses & did not ask to be paid for it. He was the furthest thing from a capitalist as is possible. He was anti-war, respected women, & said to love your neighbor as yourself. Immigrants are our neighbors; LGBTQ people are our neighbors; people of all religions or no religion at all are our neighbors, right? Jesus practiced a radical hospitality that got him crucified. So, how can true followers of Jesus be conservative capitalists?

It just isn't logical, to my thinking.

___END___

If Jesus had come for political purposes many of your conclusions would be right; but Jesus did not at all come for any secular reason. He told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world." [John 18]

The conversation with the rich young man was not about economics, it was about the heart. Jesus told him to sell everything, not because He wanted to redistribute wealth, but because it was a test of his heart. He had just asked Jesus how he could have eternal life, and claimed he had done all of the commandments in the law. (We know that was actually false, because the whole point of the law is that no one can keep the law in his own strength.) Jesus told him there was one thing he lacked. He told him to give up his possessions because He knew that was an idol to him, that it was more important to him than God; and the young man left sad, because he saw his own heart too. [Luke 18] Conversely, when Zaccheus said he would give half his wealth to the poor, Jesus was overjoyed, not because “socialism has come to this house,” but because “salvation has come to this house.” [Luke 19]

“Jesus advocated for the marginalized in society--that's who he hung out with.” He certainly hung out with them, but His reason for doing so was spiritual, not societal. “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” [Luke 5] In fact, on at least two occasions that I can find Jesus ate with very rich people [Levi the tax collector, Luke 5; Simon the Pharisee, Luke 7]. In both instances Jesus talked to them about forgiveness and repentance.

“Jesus practiced a radical hospitality that got him crucified.” Again, it wasn’t Jesus’ hospitality or politics or socio-economic policy that got Him killed. It was His claim to be equal with God that enraged the people in power so much that they wanted Him dead; and they stopped at nothing to make it happen. [Luke 20 - 22]

I don’t know about “ultra-conservative,” but I am a conservative, a Republican, and a Christian. I’d be glad to discuss with you how I reconcile those positions, but that’s outside the scope of what I wanted to say this time.

It’s really dangerous to take the words of Christ and make them say something He didn’t intend. Jesus came to earth in obedience to His Father’s will, to take the punishment for the sins of men and to give His own righteousness to them, and to demonstrate how one can live in obedience to God. To make His life about social causes cheapens His life and His death, and directs men’s attention away from issues of eternal significance in favor of things that will not last.

OK, I’ve had my say. If you want to dialog about these things, I’d be happy to do that; you know how I love to talk. If not, please know that we love you and hope to see you again next time we come down to Texas, whenever that may be."

Here is my reply to him:

Dear friend,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. You know I love you too, and always will.

You might as well know that I am no longer a Christian or a believer in Bible God. I have changed a lot through the years. Please don't think I stopped believing on a whim. Being a Christian was always difficult for me, but I hid it pretty well because I wanted so badly to fit in with my friends & with the culture around me.

As I have told my husband, who is still a Christian--I no longer believe in a God who would create a place of eternal torment for ANY of his creatures to spend an eternity in. I no longer believe in a god who requires a blood sacrifice to make us acceptable to him. The Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation--you know I have read & studied it all my life. I can no longer do the mental gymnastics required to reconcile all its contradictions, etc.

Even as a little girl it didn't make sense to me. When I asked probing questions, my Sunday School teachers would chastise me for thinking too much, not having enough faith, blah, blah, blah. I was demonized when I divorced my first husband, even though he abused me in every possible way. I was told I would go to hell for not staying with him & "suffering for righteousness sake."

Anyway, I am now a Unitarian Universalist, which means so much to me. My friends at church are atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Pagans, Mystics, humanists, & liberal Christians, Jews, etc. There are many, many lesbians & gay men among my best & closest friends. You can google UU principles & sources to get an idea of what I believe & live out as my core values & principles.

One more thing-- it's always deeply disturbed me to think that millions of people who came before and after Jesus are going to hell. IF there IS an afterlife, which I highly doubt, based on my personal experiences (especially with the deaths of my parents), then I believe in UNIVERSAL salvation--that Jesus died for every living being--not just Christians.

I told my husband that him being a Christian, he must believe that I am now going to hell, based on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. He has a hard time with that because he loves me & thinks I am a good person. He thinks being "good" counts for something. He wasn't raised in a fundamental thinking church, BTW.

Anyway, I know all the above is probably a shock to you. I have no interest in further "debate" because I'm sure nothing you say will change my mind & nothing I say will change yours. We need not think alike to love alike.

One more thing--after 17 years of counseling abused & neglected children, & sometimes spending hours on my knees praying to God to protect them--& then watching as they continued to suffer year after year after year--I began to wonder if there really is a personal God watching over them. There didn't seem to be.

Ok, I'm done.

Love always,

Klym



After I wrote the above, and had a good cry, I felt like I wanted to move away---out of the USA and to someplace where religion no longer creates division among people. But, there doesn't seem to be a place like that on this earth, hence the title of this article. So stop the planet and let me off. I'm tired of all the hate spewed in the name of religion. Since the attacks in Paris, it seems people have gone off the deep end. I went to get my hair cut this morning and my hairdresser told me she had gotten her CHL license and had a loaded gun in her purse now. I almost walked out of the salon, and I'm debating whether to ever go back. I'm just altogether sick and tired of it all. (Cue the song "Imagine" now---John Lennon, you were a genius!)

Challenging the View

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

My letter-to-the-editor, which follows, was published recently in our local weekly newspaper here in midcoast Maine. I had titled it “Religion and Moral Development,” but apparently the editors didn’t like that title. C’est la vie. Anyway, I thought I would offer it here, too, since it shows the non-religious in such a positive light.

Challenging the View

If you want your kids to grow up to be moral, altruistic, and tolerant of others’ missteps, you get them to church and Sunday school. Right? This belief is so widely accepted in our culture that it’s generally taken as simple “common sense.” As Christian teaching puts it, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matthew 22:39)

Hold the presses! A new study just published in Current Biology turns this “standard wisdom” upside down. Those scientists get up to some silly stuff, don’t they?

The lead author of the study, Dr. Jean Decety of the University of Chicago, collaborated with other developmental psychologists in the US and 5 other countries to test whether religion really leads to greater altruism and moral sensitivity. The subjects were 1,170 children between the ages of 5 and 12 from 6 countries.

The children were arranged into three groups according to their families’ religious inclinations; Christian, Muslim, and non-religious. The degree of religiosity in the children’s families was also measured through a questionnaire concerning religious observance administered to their parents.

For the altruism test, the children played a version of the “Dictator Game,” where each child was given 10 attractive stickers and given the opportunity to share some of them with another, unseen child who, they were told, would not get to play the game.

The children of religious families were significantly less likely to share their stickers than children from non-religious families. And, there was no significant difference between the children from Christian and Muslim families in their propensity to share.

Moreover, on average, the more religious the child’s family, the less she shared. These results proved to be independent of the families’ wealth and status, the child’s age, or the nationality of the child.

For the moral sensitivity test, the children watched short animations wherein one of the characters pushes or bumps another, either accidentally or on purpose. Then, the children were asked about how mean the offending character was and the amount of punishment he deserved.

In general, the children from religious households judged the offending character’s behavior more severely and favored harsher punishment for him.

Dr. Decety concluded, "Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism. They challenge the view that religiosity facilitates pro-social behavior, and call into question whether religion is vital for moral development - suggesting the secularization of moral discourse does not reduce human kindness. In fact, it does just the opposite."

Ah, those crazy scientists, huh? Never just accepting the standard wisdom, but testing, testing, testing.

So, maybe next Sunday morning, instead of trundling the kids to church and Sunday school, folks should just send them off to play with their friends instead? Could it be that that’s really a better way to encourage their moral and altruistic development?

We're On Our Own

By Ben Love ~

Everywhere you look, people are being killed. Raped. Cheated. Everytime you turn on the news, or click on Yahoo, you see more war, more carnage, more tragedy…more death. To die is natural, but to die at the hands of blind rage is unnatural. The world is dark, and brutal, and cold.

And yet, according to recent polls, there are at least 2.4 billion practicing Christians on this planet. Most of them, we must presume, spend a portion of their life praying. Praying for what? For peace. For goodwill. For the intervention of their God. Most of these Christians, we must presume, have petitioned their God about the current situation on Earth (as they have presumably been doing for at least 2,000 years). And their God (who allegedly said that when his believers ask anything in his name, it will be done) either doesn’t listen, or doesn’t care. But that wouldn’t make any sense. If he doesn’t care, then these believers are wrong about his love anyway and the whole point is moot. If he doesn’t listen, why did he lie to them when he said their prayers mattered? And neither can these Christians claim that their God has answered their prayers. There is no peace on Earth. There is no salvation. Reality is dark, and it’s getting darker. No one is answering any prayers (and the recovery of lost items or the finding of a parking space—these things don’t count; not when such bigger matters are being ignored).

Where is the God of the parking spaces and the greeting cards when 150 human beings are being senselessly butchered in the name of religion? So where is this God? Where is the God of the parking spaces and the greeting cards when 150 human beings are being senselessly butchered in the name of religion? Where is the net result of 2.4 billion prayers? Where is the result of 2,000 years worth of prayer? If this God existed and deigned to answer prayer, this planet would be completely different. But look around. Look for those answers. There are none.

We are on our own, people. There is no God out there. It’s time to finally come to terms with that, as a species. It’s time to stop praying and start taking matters into our own hands. The only ones who can save the humans are the humans. We must be our own salvation…

Everytime I think of Paris I get so fucking angry. Religion did this. What is ISIS if not religion out of control? Religion has been killing humans ever since humans had religion.

Enough is enough.

So get your head out of your own ass. This ain’t no fuckin’ fairy tale. We are on our own…

Saturday, November 21, 2015

SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING? NONSENSE, RIGHT?

By Ben Love ~
“How can something come from nothing?”
This is the statement made to me time and time again when I discuss the possibility of a godless Cosmos with believers. They speak this statement as though it is the end-all, be-all trump card of all time. But is it?
Usually, this statement is made in reference to the fact that it is difficult to imagine, even for the staunchest of atheists, that the Universe came from nothing, that [nothing] + [time] = [everything]. I get that. I am an atheist, and this is a difficult concept for me to accept. I don’t deny that. But grappling with difficult concepts as opposed to easy concepts is not the measuring stick for how unlikely a given idea is. And yet I do concede that while I subscribe to a godless Cosmos, I am at a loss to sufficiently explain it. (But at least I don’t deny that.)
Having said all of this, why should it be that attaching the “God solution” to the problem makes it any easier to swallow? Who says that inserting God into the gap suddenly makes all the complications go away? The truth is this: the “God solution” does nothing. Allow me to demonstrate…
If we were to observe that it makes no sense to believe matter can spontaneously exist where matter did not previously exist, and that nothing or no one caused the matter to suddenly exist, we would be right to observe it. But wouldn’t we be just as right to observe that it makes no sense to believe a God can exist without ever having need of a beginning? Which makes more or less sense: 1) that the Universe came from nothing, or 2) that God has always existed? Why is it deemed intellectually ridiculous to attribute a godless origin to the Universe but not deemed intellectually ridiculous to attribute eternality to God?
Furthermore, which sounds more trustworthy to you, that 1) scientific discoveries of new data continue to shed light on the mysterious origins of our Universe, and while we don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle, we are beginning to get a sense of the writing on the wall; or that 2) an invisible being whose existence we believe in through faith made everything we see? If you ask me, both come with their problems, and yet one feels much more responsible than the other does.
Moreover, why do the believers fuss about needing a sufficient answer to how a godless Cosmos could exist, but not fuss about needing a sufficient answer as to how an eternal God can exist? Isn’t it because one question serves their purpose while the other does not? I would think a truly respectable approach would be to demand the same standard in each case. If the believers pronounce a godless Cosmos as illogical, why don’t they take it a step further and pronounce that a God with no beginning is just as illogical? I simply fail to understand why a Universe with no creator is unacceptable while a God with no creator is perfectly acceptable. I think the truth is that they fail to understand this too, but they’re going to dig their heels in all the same.
How can something come from nothing?Personally, I tire from having to point this out over and over again. It’s not unlike trying to explain to toddlers why a toy should be shared. You can’t reason with a toddler about social justice and appropriate behavior and moral correctness. You’re simply dealing with concepts above and beyond the toddlers capabilities. And so it is with believers on this issue. The idea of their God is so ingrained within their mentalities that they fail to see the double standard that exists here. You could shout in their face about it all day and they will never see it. You could write books and essays and articles and blogs about it and they will never admit the hypocrisy. They will never see, because they are simply unable, that an eternal God is just as problematic is a godless Universe.
So who is right? If both stances strain credibility, how does a curious spectator know which direction to take? The answer is quite simple: Evidence. It always comes back to evidence. Always, always, always. What is the evidence for God compared to the scientific evidence for a godless Cosmos? One requires belief in the invisible; the other requires confidence in a method. One asks you to believe in an uncertainty; the other asks that you make conclusions as you go, conclusions based on that for which the evidence has made you certain. One is open to interpretation and, as such, can produce a wide array of disagreements and disparities; the other forces all people from all backgrounds to arrive at the same destination.

How can something come from nothing, you ask? My answer is this: I have no fucking idea. That is why I am not certain that something came from nothing. I have held off on make a definitive claim. The jury, for me, is still out. Now, it’s your turn. How can something exist without ever having need of a beginning? Isn’t this question just as important as the one you asked me? But you're not going to answer it, are you? No, I didn't think so. And yet, you will still make your definitive claims, won't you? Yeah, I thought so. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Constant State of Self-Indoctrination

By Eric G. ~

Constant State of Self-Indoctrination

Lately I've been asking myself, "What exactly made me believe anyway?". Besides the emotions, there were intellectual arguments that I used to convince myself (see list below). After a Methodist childhood and Atheist college years, I began my adult life as a discontented spiritual seeker. There was also some naivete and gullibility at work. Enter a Christian friend who seemed to have some wisdom and peace of mind. After interrogating him, I decided to read the Gospels for myself "with an open mind". It was all downhill from there. I started visiting every church in town and found one that seemed cool and progressive.

For someone who wasn't a Christian for very long - I went deep. I was baptized (full immersion) in front of my new congregation. I signed up for every group, class, and Bible study. On my own I became determined to read the entire Bible and read for hours every night. I spent forever online searching for Christian rock that wasn't corny. I bought a stack of pocket-size Gospel of John booklets and stealthily placed them around town. I even asked a woman to pray with me - on a first date. I was in a constant state of self-indoctrination. Always with the worship music or Christian audiobook in the car. Always looking for a better a better Bible. All this was needed to brainwash myself and push out the gnawing doubts.

It was intoxicating and fulfilling - for a while. But I had major hang-ups, like the fact that I wasn't really into Jesus. I related more to the personal God of the Psalms. The Gospel of John was beautiful and inspiring, but the angry Jesus in Mark almost ruined it. I had too many questions also. Most people didn't seem conflicted with why a loving God would create an eternal torture chamber. More than once I was called a "thinker". I struggled socially. After a few years I left the church feeling disillusioned and disappointed. I had every intention of finding a new church, but time passed and I never did. I realized I had overdosed on Christianity and stopped with the Bible and music. Slowly, I naturally decompressed from my indoctrination. It was a very gradual process of resetting back to my default.

After two years of avoiding the subject of religion completely, I decided to rewatch Julia Sweeny's Letting Go of God. Loved it. I became a huge fan of Bart Ehrman . I read Elaine Pagels, Valerie Tarico, Sam Harris, Robert Ingersoll, and Thomas Paine. I came to see that all religions are the same. Ancient tribes evolved unique religions, just like they evolved unique languages. Wanting the entire world to be Christian is like wanting the entire world to speak English. Tolerance returned to me and that feeling of spiritual superiority faded. I became passionate about topics that I never was as a Christian. Things like human rights, free speech, democracy, and the plight of ex-Muslims. I feel like I have finally matured. Better late than never.

What exactly made me believe anyway?

1. Reading the Gospels as (exaggerated) historical biographies

I have learned that the Gospels were not written to document history. They are evangelical tools, designed to make you believe. "...these are written so that you may come to believe" (John 20:31). The Gospels contradict each other theologically and are highly fictionalized. They were written by people with an agenda.

2. Drawing inspiration from former agnostics like C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis was a brilliant wordsmith and could have made any religion sound just as beautiful and poetic. He shares this talent with the writer of the Gospel of John and probably Jesus himself. People who are great with words or public speaking can make others believe anything (think L. Ron Hubbard).

3. C.S. Lewis' "Liar, Lunatic, Lord" argument

Tolerance returned to me and that feeling of spiritual superiority faded. I became passionate about topics that I never was as a Christian.
Why does there have to be just three choices? I have a fourth one - delusional. Hyper-religious with delusions of grandeur. There is a broad spectrum of delusional thinking, not just lunacy. Joan of Arc was delusional but continued to be productive. People did think Jesus was disturbed (including his family, Mark 3:21) but he was obviously clear-headed and charismatic enough to gain followers regardless.

4. "Why would the disciples go their deaths for something that wasn't true?"

It happens all the time. People sacrifice themselves for misguided causes every day. There are the obvious examples of Islamic jihadists and the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh. There is also every sincere soldier or freedom fighter who died for a cause that turned out to be wrong.

5. "Why would the disciples lie?"

There must have been some opportunists who used their Jesus story to gather a following. And a few people probably did think they saw the resurrected Jesus (Mark 16:12) the same way people see the virgin Mary today. I can also imagine how an empty tomb (assuming there was an empty tomb) could cause a superstitious mind to jump to conclusions.

6. Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament

It seems obvious that the early Christians read Jesus into the scriptures (Isaiah 53:12, 61:1). Christians still do it today - read the bible with Jesus on the brain. It involves major cherry picking as well. It makes a difference which translation is used too. Psalm 22:16 can either be "... they pierce my hands and my feet" (NIV) or "My hands and feet have shriveled" (NRSV)

7. Truth statements like "... we know that his testimony is true." (John 21:24) and Jesus' constant use of "Truly I tell you..." (Matt. 16:28)

It's unclear who exactly is the "we" or "his" in John 21. It's heresy. Jesus probably did believe he was telling the truth, but "Truly I tell you" could have been added for effect by the writer of Matthew. Plus, I am usually suspicious when people start their sentences with "To tell you the truth..." or "Honestly..."

8. "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9)

I am convinced that the historical Jesus did not claim to be God. He probably thought of himself as the Messiah or the 'son of man', but not the Father. The Gospel of John is not historically reliable. The words reflect less on Jesus and more on the evangelist who wrote it.

9. Healing miracles like 'A Man Born Blind Receives Sight' (John 9)

Every religion on earth has miracle stories. Modern gurus are constantly credited with miracles. Faith healers and shamans are everywhere. Sometimes they can have a temporary placebo effect. My favorite story of faith healing is of the shipwrecked conquistador Cabeza de Vaca.

10. DNA repair enzymes - used as proof of "Intelligent Design"

These little guys repair and rebuild DNA strands. They are fascinating - mind boggling - but no need to bring in the supernatural. It's chemistry. I had made the age-old blunder of seeing something incomprehensible and calling it 'magic'. I believe this blunder is the origin of superstition, religion, and Intelligent Design.

https://twitter.com/ericofthegreen

Knowing Everything is Knowing Nothing

By Steve Dustcircle ~

The problem with being a Christian, especially involved with a leadership position like pastor or minister, is you have to be everything to everyone. This is encouraged by the Apostle Paul, being all things to all people so that you can reach them for Jesus.

To non-Christians, you have to be able to discuss matters of all types: science, history, theology, counseling, et al. And within these subjects, you have to know an array of topics. In science, you have to know about creationism, evolution, cosmology, archeology, environment, biology.

In history, you have to know about the various eras, continents, and people groups, religious and cultural. In theology, you have to know about the various Bible translations, the understanding of why and to whom it was written, and the application of the text, whether it's literal or figurative. In counseling, you have to know about disorders, personality issues, development, relationship boundaries, single-hood matters.

In each area, if you're going to have a solid conversation with another Christian—or a debate with a non-Christian—you're going to have to be an expert in each area. This is no simple matter.

I was reading constantly. Everywhere I went, I was reading something Christian-related: worship, exegesis, sexuality, integrity, demons, church history, intelligent design, and more. Who had time for fiction? Who had time for the Bible?

As an atheist now, I find myself in the same mess. Unlearning the false and relearning proven. That is, proven truths based on evidence and discovery.

Much of what I had learned during my Christian years, I am undoing. Also, there's surprisingly some that I'm finding was actually true, and I can keep a hold of those things. There honestly is a bit of stress involved.

Getting involved in the atheist community, both locally and Online, I'm seeing the same thing with agnostics and atheists. There's a lot to learn about, and there's a spectrum of personality and belief types.

Many are learned individuals. A few aren't. But most are very knowledgeable, and they would have destroyed me in a debate when I was a Christian, even as educated as I was.

You just get taught the wrong stuff.

Biology books written by Christians are biased and lack sufficient arguments. These Christian biology books refer constantly to the Bible, though most of what they instruct is false or distorted.

You can't debate with a non-Christian when you keep saying, “But the Bible says….” To one who doesn't believe in the Bible, it delivers as a cop-out catch-phrase. When there is evidence that is contrary to the Bible, and all you can say, “The Bible says…,” you look like a fool. I know. I felt like a fool, shrugging off plausible answers because they didn't jive with Scripture.

I got to the point, as a Christian, where I was giving “God's Word” the benefit of the doubt. I felt like there were better arguments against the Bible's teachings, but I wouldn't let go of some things.

The evolution argument seemed more and more true to me, and I justified the Genesis 1 and 2 stories as being old text. They were stories passed on from generation to generation verbally, until someone after Moses wrote them down. That's why there's two creation stories: Two stories existed, so both myths were written down. Both stories explained the beginning of time, as Jews understood it at the time. Globally, there are other myths that have been passed on, most easily laughed at, including my own.

So, I decided that maybe God used evolution to create animals and humans. I could be wrong. I could possibly am being heretical, but I was okay with that. I was sure God would understand. I wasn't calling the Bible a lie, but I understood that there weren't eye-witnesses at Creation, so hear-say text shouldn't be taken as word-for-word testimony. Some Bible stories were told by humans, not all of it being words from God.

But what about the six days of creation? Some Christians believe in a literal six-day creation story. Perhaps, but it seemed implausible to me at the time, facing the evidence for evolution. There is a verse that says, to the Lord, a day can be a thousand years, or a thousand days be a year, or something to that effect. I assume it's to mean that God is outside of time.

But that didn't make much sense to me either. With that mindset, you can apply that 1000:1 scenario to anything in the Bible.

What if when the Bible says, “The following day…,” it actually means, “The next millennium?” What if Jesus didn't rise on the third day, but rather will rise three thousand years later? What if there isn't seven scrolls to be opened in Heaven, but seven-thousand? What if instead of being on the ark for forty days, Noah and his family were on it for forty-thousand? What if Adam wasn't over nine-hundred years old, but—?

You get the point.

It started to open a can of worms. How much of the biblical text was literal, and how much of the Bible was figurative, or not even true at all? Maybe the whole thing is hear-say testimony?

I could just pull my hair out, remembering what I was going through mentally back then. And who does one ask about these sorts of things?

I went to a worship leader at the church I was going to at the time. This is maybe 2002. He said essentially what most Christians would say to another in times like these:

We all have doubts;

We have to pray about it;

We have to read the Scriptures;

We have to ask God to open up the wisdom of the Bible to us;

We have to ask for revelation in our meditation;

We have to accept that some things we'll never make sense of;

It'll all be shown to us when we get to Heaven.

How much of the biblical text was literal, and how much of the Bible was figurative, or not even true at all? Maybe the whole thing is hear-say testimony?I don't know about you, but half of this seems like it's dancing around the question. Why not just say, “I don't know.” And leave it at that? I can handle that.

At least sympathize a little bit, you know? Tell me that the more I studied the Bible and Christian reference books, the more confused I was going to get. Tell me the rabbit hole is deep and I've only just begun, after being a Christian for ten or so years. Tell me it doesn't make more sense as time goes on, but less.

Sometimes I wish I had been as I was at sixteen or seventeen years old. Christian by definition (or “nationality!”), but freaking ignorant as a cuss. I blended in better back then. I was wild, obnoxious, and abusive.

But goddamn it, I knew what to write when papers asked, “Religion: ____________”

The more I studied about the Bible and history, the more I realized what I had feared most: my mentors knew this stuff. The stuff I shouldn't be learning.

You theologians and apologists know what I am talking about: biblical myth stories, different Bible canonizations, the “Lost Books,” dead Christianities, histories of suppression and malice, textual tales of genocide and rape.

These things are in the Bible, but they were news to me. I knew about the Crusades and I knew about the other horrors that people have done in the name of Christianity, but I had felt those were done by people “who didn't know Jesus personally.”

But I didn't know about the genocides that “God's Chosen People” did in the Bible. I knew of battles and wars, but assumed they were defending their land. You know, “bringing democracy to the people.” I thought the “Armies of God” were defeating invaders. But this is far from the case. Just read the text yourself.

I had no clue, until I took the time to actually read the Bible cover to cover, that God was commanding the Israelites to go here and there, wiping out whole groups of people—seemingly on a whim. He would even do it to his own People.

Specifically, read for yourself, Exodus through Judges, and the Books of Kings. Because people groups didn't believe in YHWH, they were destroyed. Not just the men, but women and children, too. Even the properties and animals. Everything was tainted and needed to be destroyed, repeatedly.

Reading the Jewish Bible, the Christians' Old Testament, you start to realize that this god of the Old Testament was quite different than the god of the New Testament. How Christians nowadays can piggyback on the Jewish text and say it's the same deity, I cannot reconcile.

This was maybe in 2005 or so that I had read the complete Bible.

I tend to place things in a modern context. Hypothesize, you know? Place the ancient stories in a modern setting.

What if God had told Canada to invade America and wipe out everyone because they, hypothetically, had a different god? Then, after the genocide, the Canadians moved into the land. But not to stay. They're on an exodus. After America, they are to destroy the Mexicans, because of their evil wickedness. See where I'm going with this?

How does “God's Chosen People” decide or determine this? They don't speak the same language, right? You don't live among them to determine how evil they are. Getting too close is risky.

So you develop a plan and go in, destroying everyone. But you're still on the move. The land about to be given to you is further south, so God commands you to continue your wandering in the desert, destroying large people groups—by surprise—to “give” you the rich land of plenty.

Eventually, after destroying multiple people groups, you settle down in the land you were “given,” but now you have to defend this land from enemies of your god, because you took their freaking land. You're the homicidal invader, yet others are evil for attacking you back. The irony!

This is the path of the Jews in the biblical books from Exodus to 2 Kings. How awesome is their god?!

On the Reincarnations of God

By Carl S ~

Reincarnation is also known as "the transmigration of souls." It is an intransigent belief going back for millennia. As a creed of Hinduism and Buddhism, reincarnation is the belief that the soul of a human or animal can pass, after death, into that of another human or animal body. (This can be disturbing to those who really believe they might be reincarnated as slugs or cave fish if they have not behaved well in life.) If we are to take some claims seriously, this can take place while bodies are still alive. Thus we have tales of demonic possession, as in the movie, "The Exorcist," or the tale of demon spirits migrating into the bodies of swine.

Fairy tales are another example. We know the story of the prince turned into a frog and being restored to being a prince again, by a kiss. (Little children have been known to accept this as true.) Transferring to Transylvania, we find Dracula, who transmigrates from man to bat to vapor and back again. All vampires can do so, at will. The undead, like God and the gods, can do this. Belief in spirits roaming about, creating order and havoc, leads those willing to believe in them to accept such a thing as gods entering, without sperm, the wombs of women, thus incarnating themselves. Speaking of disembodied spirits, Christian theology speaks of a "Trinity." Since a "Holy Spirit" (the Harpo Marx of the three), indicates one without body, it would be better if we speak of a "Duality"+ Spirit. According to the O.T. and N.T., both Father and Son have bodies.

The original meaning of "spirit" tells us something: it means "breath." When the breath left the body, it was noticed that the person was dead. Gods gave humans the "breath of life." The winds and hurricanes and tornados, are all "acts of God." Pentecost of Christianity uses the term "wind" to indicate the presence of a "Holy Spirit." It is not hard to see how a wind might be considered a blessed spirit to pagans in a desert. A newborn is slapped on the butt so that the spirit will enter it. So, if breath and spirit are one and the same, might we say then that two lovers kissing are exchanging part of their souls, and if they keep kissing, they'll become "soul mates?" Does mouth-to-mouth resuscitation "restoreth my soul?" Do you really want any part of another's soul‘? Will artificial resuscitation allow the soul of the machine to enter the body of the resuscitated?

Without a belief in the transmigration of souls, there would be no religions, no reasons to believe in an after-death life in another form for the individual. There would be no spirits, let alone those to migrate. The very idea of such souls presupposes an existence outside of a body which merely happens to inhabit a body in a lifetime. (People still say, "Bless you" after you've sneezed. According to lore, you have sneezed the "devil" out.)

The belief in an overtaking of one's own soul by eternal demons brings us to the opposite question: What about possession/incarnation/transmigration by "the Spirit of the Lord?" This is praised as unity with God. Traditional theology, scriptures, and the fundamentalism of three Abrahamic faiths hold this possession as the highest experience a human can have, above any pleasure known to humans. All of those who are and have ever been revered and obeyed as "holy" are so because they are believed to be the Chosen Ones, singularly possessed by God. The reincarnations of God are legion: Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, Warren Jeffs, Father Divine, all the popes and every charismatic cult leader, priests, shamans, rabbis, imams, etc., etc., down through thousands of years - "possessed by the Spirit."

And who is this God who possesses them? Isn't "he" the rigidly judgmental God who drowned mankind because it was "evil," the God who rained fire and brimstone on cities, who commanded civilizations be slaughtered? Isn't he the one who will destroy everything we hold valuable as humans, in absolute catastrophic destruction? This is the God who will send millions to eternal torture if they do not obey and believe the words he speaks through those he possesses. Those possessed by this God are driven by his divine fire-spirit. While totally possessing them, it is not only to work his "wonders” through them, but to control the minds and hearts of those who hear them. And while the belief in demonic possession puts believers on guard to see it where it does not exist, their minds are closed to see the evils wrought by the deistic possession they believe in.

God speaks through many bodies. From what we have experienced, God chooses to transmigrate into many bodies, usually becoming platitude-spouting charismatic leaders. God transmigrates himself 24 hours a day on religious television channels’ "spiritual infomercials." Obviously, there, God manifests himself as jerks who are arrogant spirit-blow-hards.

You'd think that after thousands of years he'd do better. But, maybe he's like the Hindus who have to keep re-incarnating until they get it right. If you pay attention, you'll notice that, unlike them, God's forever and ever not learning.

Scam or Schizophrenia?

By Father Thyme ~

"I felt God calling me."
Messages covering the windows of a house from ...
Messages covering the windows of a house from a patient with schizophrenia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I smell Christians writing such nonsense all the time. *chuckle*

What's up with such preposterous language? Feel somebody calling you? I think this absurdity is a way to weasel-out of direct, honest language that may be too revealing. If one goes around saying that he can "hear God calling me," then the believer is admitting to a common symptom of schizophrenia.
"A common report from those with schizophrenia is some type of a religious delusion - that is...God is talking to them..." -- Wikipedia, Schizophrenia and religious delusions
By attributing divine communication to "feelings," Christians make their emotional whims the Lord of their life. And if anybody questions their whims, the whimster gets to claim it was God. Can't question that! My dearly beloved whims have the power of the Almighty!

These whims are, quite literally, non-sense. Nothing is actually sensed. Even the Bible admits these whims are abject nonsense that are not accepted by intelligent people.

1 Corinthians 1:18-26 (ISV) For the message about the cross is nonsense...the nonsense of our preaching...Not many of you were wise by human standards...

What type of person wants you to believe nonsense? A confidence man. Tellingly enough, the Bible admits that faith in religious nonsense is a confidence game.

• Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

• Ephesians 3:12 confidence through faith

• 1 Timothy 3:13 increased confidence in their faith


God-talkers are either pushing a confidence (faith) trick on you, or they are pushing their schizophrenia on you. I think most religious people are the former, but do keep in mind the informed opinion of the following neurologist:

"Religion is organized schizophrenia." -- Dr. Robert Sapolsky, The Biological Origins of Religion, Bio 150/250 Lecture, Stanford University, Spring 2002

The fun with God-talkers is deciding which way they roll, (a) scam or (B) schizophrenia?

If they use scammy talk placing their emotional whims on the level of empirical evidence, it's likely a scam. If they earnestly believe they hear divine voices in their head, it's possibly schizophrenia.

Have fun deciding! Either way, you don't need what they're pushing.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Christianity and Children

By Dr. Marlene Winell ~

Christianity as a whole takes a dim view of children.  This is not unusual for the Abrahamic religions but Christianity takes it further.   We can benefit from understanding this because 1) our own Christian training can unconsciously impact the way we treat children, 2) our indoctrination can affect the way we view and treat ourselves in the most basic ways, and 3) many people in our culture are impacted by Biblical views of children. 

You may object if you have images of Jesus with children in his lap, protecting them and teaching them.  But that was a Sunday School picture, and not exactly in the Bible.  Jesus words were to allow the children to come to him, for of such were the kingdom of heaven (humble, compliant).  

Children in the Bible are most often objects to be owned, controlled, used, and discarded when a problem.  They are important for lineage, not for themselves.  They are often not mentioned at all and sometimes slaughtered wholesale.  Human sacrifice in the Bible happens multiple times, and always with a child.

One of the most horrific stories of the Bible is the story of Abraham being asked by God to sacrifice Isaac.  He complies (God intervenes), and the story reports no controversy or anguish whatever.  God is pleased with Abraham’s obedience.  In church we were also taught to be impressed with this obedience – not concerned about Isaac’s therapy bill or how Sarah felt.

In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot offers his daughters to the visitors to rape – again objects to simply use.  God still considers Lot righteous and saves him and his family. 

Jephthah was a military man who promised God that if he was victorious in battle, he would return home and sacrifice to the Lord the first person who greeted him.  It was his daughter, and did he change his mind?  No, she was the thing to sacrifice – just part of a deal.

Many people consider the Ten Commandments to be a superior moral guide.  Yet there is no mention of children at all.  There is no prohibition for child abuse (or for rape).  But parents get full billing with the fourth commandment, “Honor thy father and mother, that thy days may be long on the earth.”  Not only are you to respect your parents but you get a special reward for doing so (the only commandment with an extra inducement).   This commandment is a central tenet of Christian parenting that can lead to authoritarian methods and abuse.

The God of the Bible, Jehovah, uses authoritarian and sometimes arbitrary methods to deal with people, including children.   In the flood of Noah’s time, there was no effort to spare innocent children.  In Egypt, God “hardened” Pharoah’s heart so he could show his power, and this culminated in slaughtering many thousands of Egyptian babies.    The genocides in Canaan included every man, woman, and child, sometimes explicitly  (See I Samual 15:3 about the Amalakites).  Referring to Israel’s enemies, the psalmist gloated, “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones” (Psalm 137:9).

These are not the directives of the Geneva Convention or the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.    They are a far cry from humanistic ideals for parenting or treatment of children.    A humanistic view of children is one of innocence.  In contrast, a biblical view is one of original sin, even teaching children that they are bad.   A goal in humanistic parenting is personal growth and creativity. The primary goal for Christian parents is obedience, illustrated by the verse,  “Children obey your parents in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1), a verse that goes on to tell slaves to obey their masters.    Guidance for humanistic parents involves a variety of nonviolent methods while a biblical approach is still “spare the rod and spoil the child.”   A humanist sees a child as a full and unique human being, not an empty vessel, blank slate, or animal to be trained.  Unfortunately the devout parent takes to heart the verse, “Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6). A humanist parent respects knowledge of child development while a religious approach is limited to the Bible.

Christianity as a whole takes a dim view of children.
In the Christian view, God is a father to be revered and obeyed.   (The worship of Mary has been a way of bringing a feminine element into the religion however).  He has unquestioned authority and humans can be treated as He sees fit, as in the case of the biblical Job.  “He is the potter, we are the clay.”  As such, His people are childish forever.  They do not take care of themselves but depend on him. 

Believers live in awe of the ultimate example of child sacrifice – that of God sacrificing his own son.  Somehow, to be acceptable, they must admit guilt, accept atonement, and be grateful.  Then, because a perfect life is impossible, a cycle of guilt and repentance follows indefinitely.   This video illustrates the many Christian slogans that reveal a child-like stance and degraded self-worth.  

As the holiday season nears, another image comes up – that of the nativity family.  But why would a benevolent god require the innocent virgin Mary, a child herself,  to travel while heavily pregnant and then give birth in a shed?  How about the welfare of the baby?  Or was he also just a tool?  There are many questions that could be asked.  Because the stories of the Bible are so familiar we often don't notice how inhuman they are.  Even Jesus was quoted to say on the cross, like a hurt abandoned child, “Why has thou forsaken me?”  

Looking inward, we can ask about our own dynamics.  Has our own development stopped or slowed because of our indoctrination?   Are we still childlike in our guilt and looking for outward guidance?  Or have we developed a healthy inner adult that takes care of a happy healthy inner child?  These are viable constructs that describe aspects of personality.  The “adult” is the wise, caring part of self that can negotiate with the world and be rational in negotiating needs.  The “child” is the innocent, emotional spontaneous part of self that is most in touch with basic needs.  Ideally they relate and communicate with each other, much like a real relationship, and this can be learned.  The adult self can "reparent" the child self with ongoing nurturance.

The brain understands because the human brain works well with symbols, images, and metaphor better than words.    As a person learns to self-care this way, the hurts of the past can actually heal, and new ways of functioning can develop. Even neuroscience supports these ideas.  Self-love is not wrong or out of reach.  In real life, one can honor the child within and children all around.   The cruel legacy of religion does not have to dominate.  We can reclaim our natural, instinctual way of relating – with love, generosity, and compassion.


*Marlene Winell, Ph.D., psychologist, is the director at Journey Free, a place for recovering from religious harm

**More information and exercises on the subject of healing and personal growth after religion will be covered at the upcoming RETREAT in Berkeley, CA, January 15-18, 2016; Information: journeyfree.org.

Making Peace with Christmas

By Klym ~

A few years ago I posted an article here on Ex-C about Christmas. It was titled "The Most Miserable Time of the Year" in reference to that popular Christmas song sung by Andy Williams---only he sings the word "wonderful" instead of miserable, of course.

I have been struggling with Christmas for many, many years, and I have decided to dissect my personal history with the holiday to see if I can understand why Christmas is difficult for me. So, here goes:

I grew up an only adopted child with older parents who loved and supported me more than any one person probably deserves. My parents were my world---my dad was the most fun, playful person, with these twinkly eyes, a mischievious smile, and a fantastic sense of humor. My mom was quiet and reserved, but she also had a great sense of humor and was the best listener I have ever known. She was an extremely non-judgemental woman who truly lived the saying, "Don't judge another person until you have walked a mile in their moccassins." There's no doubt that I got my playful spirit and counseling ability from my wonderful parents.

My parents did not go to church, but as did many parents of the 1950's and 60's, they entrusted my spiritual education to the nearby southern Baptist church. They dropped me off there every Sunday for Sunday school and church, and picked me up afterwards. They were totally unaware of the crap I was being taught, and that I was terrified of hell and everything to do with the Bible. I didn't tell them how much I hated and dreaded church because I loved them and I wanted to please them. And, being a child, I figured they believed in what I was being taught. They were C & E Christians---they attended church on Christmas and Easter. They had both been baptized as adults after they married, but that was the extent of their religion. They had been married for 17 years when they adopted me and their church going days were way behind them. We did not pray before meals or before bedtime. In fact, we never talked much about religion as I was growing up. Mama did love watching Billy Graham crusades on TV though, and I watched them with her. I liked watching with mama, but I didn't care much for Billy's scary messages.

I vaguely remember being in a Christmas pageant at about the age of six. I had to memorize and recite the verses from Luke about Christmas---the King James version, of course! I recall thinking that it was funny that the shepherds were "sore afraid"--what the heck did THAT mean? My parents helped me memorize the verses and beamed with pride when I recited them at the pageant. I liked the Christmas story---I've always been an animal lover, so I was attracted by the idea of animals being around the manger.

Christmas morning was a HUGE deal at our house. The night before Christmas, my parents and I would put cookies and milk out for Santa and I would be tucked into bed with assurances that Santa was on his way. (We didn't have a fireplace, but he could come through the front door, they told me.) My parents didn't buy me much throughout the year, but they went crazy at Christmas time. They literally turned our living room into a toy store! I can remember waking up to my dad shining the bright lights of his moving camera on my face and him filming me running into the room and getting so excited about all the gifts on display around the tree.

I was terrified of Santa Claus though---I took the lyrics to "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" very literally and I didn't like the idea of him seeing me when I was sleeping and awake. I was as frightened of Santa as I was of Bible God, and even though I was a very good little girl, I always worried that I would not meet Santa's expectations.

I figured out that Santa was not real when my best friend told me during our school Christmas party in third grade. When I got home that day, I asked my mom about it and she told me that Santa represents the "spirit of giving", but that no, there is no Santa living at the North Pole with elves as his helpers. I was not disappointed to hear this---I was, in fact, relieved. I could stop worrying about him "watching" me all the time. Whew!

And so my parents and I rocked along through the years enjoying each other and never missing a Christmas morning together. Christmas was all about us being together and loving each other and exchanging gifts and eating good food. It was a magical, precious time. Part of our decorations was a simple nativity scene that we always set up near the tree, but other than that, religion was not mentioned.

When I was in my mid-twenties, my parents began going to church with me. By that time, I had left the Baptist church and was going to a liberal Presbyterian church. The three of us attended that church together for ten years. We began attending Christmas Eve services during that time, and I loved standing next to my mom and dad, each of us with a lit candle in our hands, singing "Silent Night" together. My mother had a beautiful voice, and it was comforting to hear her singing next to me. All was right with the world.

And then, on my mother's 73rd birthday, my dad unexpectedly dropped dead of a heart attack. Mama and I were totally devastated. This was in September 1991, and I don't even remember the Christmas after that, except that it was extremely hard. After losing my dad, my mom's recurring episodes of crippling depression returned, and 15 months later, she put a gun to her head and killed herself. That was on December 13, 1992--twelve days before Christmas. I don't remember that Christmas either.

After that, my husband and I began going on vacations at Christmas time. I gave away all my Christmas decorations and didn't put up a tree for many years. I still only put up a tree occasionally, when I am in the mood, which is not very often. Some years, we spend Christmas with my cousins, and it's OK. But, the joy of Christmas that I had experienced with my parents has eluded me ever since their deaths.

I've attempted to start new traditions for Christmas Day, but the bottom line is that I stopped caring about Christmas when I could no longer share it with my mom and dad. I'm childless by choice, so I don't have children (other than my cousins' children) to shop or plan for. I do buy gifts for Angel tree kiddoes every year, but that's the extent of my giving. And then when I stopped believing in Bible God, Christmas completely died for me. Maybe I should give Christmas a decent burial and let it rest in peace, once and for all. But that's awfully hard to do in our culture here in the southern USA where my neighborhood Cracker Barrel restaurant put up Christmas trees on September the first!! I kid you not. I actually talked to one of the employees there and told them to tell the manager that September is too danged early for Christmas decorations!!

I do miss the Christmases of my childhood. They seemed so simple. My stocking was stuffed with nuts and fruit and many of my toys were home-made. Mama was a great seamstress and made clothes for my Barbie dolls! My grandmother made me many beautiful, frilly dresses. Daddy built me a dollhouse out of wood. Aunts and uncles and cousins stopped by and we would visit for hours. I know now as an adult that the 1960's were a time of historical upheaval in many ways, but in my world, there was nothing but love and innocence and goodwill. Other than my mother's bouts with mental illness and attending the Baptist church, I had a near-perfect childhood.

If you have read this far, thanks for sharing my rambling memories of Christmases past. Oh, and back then, I don't remember anyone complaining of a "War on Christmas"!! There were no coffee shops with red paper cups to get panties all in a wad over. Without the internet, the world was a much smaller, more insular place, and all the Baptists believed their way was the ONLY way! Ha! (Some things never change, do they?)

So, now, Christmas is just another day of the year, and I get by as best I can. I count my many blessings---I have a loving husband; I go to a fabulous Unitarian Universalist church; I have great friends of many different beliefs; and I am healthy. I have happy memories of the holidays, which I cherish deeply. Maybe, now that I think about it, Christmas is not so bad after all?

Falsifiability is my “Savior”

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

I am reading John W. Loftus’ new book, “How to Defend the Christian Faith; Advice from an Atheist” (and enjoying it). I had to chuckle at the following in Chapter 2, where Loftus writes:

English: Flying Spaghetti Monster and a pirate...
English: Flying Spaghetti Monster and a pirate at Dragon Con 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
“There are two areas that are not up for debate, as far as I’m concerned. The first area concerns philosophical arguments that purport to show god exists. They are all such a failure that even discussing them is boring to me. That’s right, they’re boring because they’ve been reformulated and then defeated so many times by smarter people than I am that they’re no longer worth bothering anymore. I know my readers may still disagree, but I cannot take them seriously anymore.”

And, sure enough, Loftus ignores all the existence arguments. But, it occurred to me that Christians themselves provide another very interesting way to deal with the existence problem when they make so much of the fact that atheists can’t prove that god DOESN’T exist. If you’ve debated the existence question with a believer, you can count on him coming up with this objection once you’ve shown him how improbable his god is.

He is right, of course, but consider all the absurdities you get when you open that door to things you can’t prove.

(1) I have also been reading “681 Reasons Christianity is False” at www.kyroot.com. In point number 313, the author writes, “There exists a solution to satisfy both the people who claim that the universe had to have had a creator and the people who claim that there is no evidence of a supernatural force in the universe as follows: God set off the Big Bang, but the force of the explosion overwhelmed him and he died, similar to a bomb maker whose device prematurely explodes in his face.”

(2) Actually, I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Bible-god. There’s nothing in the Bible about this, of course, because Bible-god wanted to take all the credit for creation.

(3) Actually, the Devil created the universe when god was looking the other way. This explains why there is so much human suffering in the world and why the universe is so incredibly hostile to man. Think of all those natural disasters and poisonous plants and creatures which threaten man, microorganisms which can sicken and kill us, birth defects, cancer, and the fact that, as far as we know, this tiny planet is the only place in the universe man can survive, and then only on the 29% that is dry land.

(4) Actually, my god Joe is the real god behind it all (see http://new.exchristian.net/2012/11/my-god-joe.html ) Joe created the universe in seven days, created man and woman, created hell, dictated the Bible and all the rest. “But Joe also created an angel to talk to Mohammed, and led Joseph Smith to those golden plates. You see, whatever is claimed by any prophet of any god, Joe actually is responsible. That is, even if you could prove something, anything, said about Bible-god in the Bible was true, Joe could still be the real god.”

Consider all the absurdities you get when you open that door to things you can’t proveAnd so on. The possibilities are virtually endless. And every one of these hypotheses suffers from the same defect that the Christian pointed out: they cannot be proven false. That is, they are not falsifiable. A hypothesis is falsifiable only if it is capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation. Further, a proposition or hypothesis is not falsifiable if it makes no predictions that can actually be tested.

Ultimately, as illustrated above, any hypothesis which is not falsifiable is useless - and not worth believing - since it can be multiplied endlessly with absurd permutations or additional properties, all of which are also not falsifiable.

And, it becomes technically impossible to say that any of these propositions are any more or less likely than another. Consider, is it more probable that leprechauns are less than 6 inches tall, or that they all wear hats? Obviously, no probabilities can be assigned to this problem because leprechauns are not falsifiable to begin with. It is highly improbable that they exist, of course, but it’s still remotely possible that we’ve just been looking in all the wrong places to find them.

Now, the one way to falsify the proposition that god does not exist is to prove that god does exist. So, since Christians assure us that we can’t prove, can’t falsify, that god doesn’t exist, then they are accepting, by default, that god’s existence can’t be proven.

So, as Christians have correctly intuited, the propositions “god does not exist” and “god exists” are not falsifiable. Therefore the existence problem is not really worth bothering with, as Loftus states. Thus, I have decided to accept the falsifiability concept as my “savior” as it saves me from wasting my hopes, fears, time, and resources on all useless, unprovable god concepts.

Recent popular posts: