Surviving religious trauma and dealing with anxiety

By Dan Pazmino ~

I left Christianity about two years ago, but the effects of leaving the faith have only begun to erupt.

Like many people the study of the science and my life experiences started to discourage my desire to continue to the affliate with the faith. I was very involved in my non denominational church which really advocated the idea of "Gods will for your life". The church constantly wanted me to take a path I had no desire in exploring. Being in the children's ministry/ being in the prayer band. When all I wanted to do was make music and art.

It was very hard dealing with this especially when on many occasions I was told I should give up art.

This amongst the idea that my church community didn't really seem authentic and that Gods will wasn't really becoming a reality started becoming way too much. I did so much for God and there was no return not even what I thought Gods will was going to be. (Going to a Christian college and becoming a missionary).

When I stopped going to my church I noticed two things, that all the people I thought were my friends where never actually there for me in real life, and when they found out I wasn't going back that I was being shunned even more. This disgusted me, and made me want to be even less part of it. I continued in the faith personally until not being able to find any community that I really connected with.

Starting college was so lonely. I had lost my whole church community, most of my highschool friends went out of state and on top of that I moved out of my parents house. In that time I noticed the relationship I had with God started to shift to the relationship I had with men. I tried to fill that void with men and it only resulted in a huge disaster. I did things I never thought I would do, and began to feel slutty and wrong in the eyes of God. Really something that was the result of having such trust and expectations for the guys I was with and ending up being really heart broken and abused by these relationships. By the last relationship things where so bad that I was in such a stage of depression and under lying anxiety I decided to go meet a counselor from my school.

On top of this my doctor had prescribed me a light anti - depressant that didn't sit well with me, and then an anxiety pill which I continue to take. The medicine has really been the only thing that keeps me sane, I notice I am getting better but it hasn't been with even more difficulty. Such as the fact that I moved back in with my family, who are devote Catholics and my brother who is a fundamentalist and a street preacher. A lot of the things he says sound really stupid and I can't help but laugh but a lot of things hit straight to the bone. Like things about sex before marriage and birth control an hell/ the consequences of not repenting.

I'm usually able to tell myself those things are not true but at some point I have 10% of me that feels like maybe it's true. The fact of having him always around is even more traumatic. He's like a judge that constantly makes me feel like I'm not good enough. He gives me dirty looks and reads his bible loud and talks about hell every single day. It's such a toxic environment and it's so hard to have people not really understand how that feels like and understand why it's so traumatic.

I constantly hear people be like you just have to not listen but it's like how much of that can you put up with. I can constantly feel my anxiety increase everytime im in the house but it's hard because I can't really leave because that would mean not being able to continue go to college without the financial support of my parents. It even harder to have my parents take sides with him because they sort of agree with his beliefs. Lastly I've really been struggling with terrible nightmares and restlessness , something I never really dealt with as a Christian.

These are things that are tough because you don't really know how to make them go away, when you start to associate your illness with your lack of faith. Like I kind of prayed to have these problems go away in the morning and somehow I felt better which was so crazy. But the weirdest thing was like feeling anxiety just a little time after that because I felt I wasn't Godly enough to be asking for prayers from God it's crazy.

Idk what to do, I feel like I want to have a relationship with God but I can't without establishing what I really think is right and wrong, which I feel like I still associate with Christian morals. I would really like to hear how people have progressed in their spiritual life despite their past. Luckily I've found a way to study in Texas this semester so I won't be in this environment anymore, But it's still a healing process.

Luck to all of you healing ❤️

Reverend Avery

By Carl S ~

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”- Lewis Carroll

“One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh.” - Robert A. Heinlein

Pastor Avery was not in a very good mood. His wife was still upset from their latest argument, and he now realized why. It was out of character for him to admit he was wrong. On top of that, he was reading “forbidden” books, and, since he had never liked being deceived, he wasn't too happy with his superiors, either. He wasn't looking forward to the monthly bible study for his trusting group of kids.

“Welcome, boys and girls. There are words we use every day when talking about God and his Word. Today, I'm going to tell you what they're really all about, so get out your paper and pencil. First of all: Some people even today believe there is more than one god, so they might think their gods created other worlds than our own. That's their problem. We know that God created our Earth and everything in it, just as we see it today. And after all, ours is really the only world that matters right?

“Okay. God made the stars, which were much smaller then, and filled the sky just above the Earth. They have been moving further and further away from Earth ever since. Although one stayed around long enough to lead the wise men to Bethlehem, then left, like a stray lamb, to join the others. They'll be back again, but they’ll shrink, 'cause they have to fall on Earth when it’s destroyed, according to Revelation. See how simple that is?

Back in biblical times, when men were truly receptive to revelations from God, and wrote of them, Heaven was much, much, closer to Earth than it is now. Therefore, Jesus, his mother, Elias and Mohammed, easily floated up to it. Since then, Heaven has moved so far away that it can't be seen with our strongest telescopes. It'll be back at the end times, when God's faithful will ascend into it.

God made the dinosaurs, and they lived in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. Scientists will tell you this isn't true, but they're wrong, because they're rejecting the Bible-word of God. God placed fossils everywhere on Earth, which only seem to be billions of years old, to confuse smarty-pants scientists, who are wise in the wisdom of the world, which is the same thing as foolishness to him.

Some of you want to know more about the Garden of Eden. Now, the Garden of Eden isn't very big, because nobody has been able to find it. Eden was the original Paradise, where nothing died,; not even fruits or vegetables. Wolves, hyenas, lions, etc., all carnivores, had nothing to eat. Not even Purina wolf, hyena, lion chow! Nobody ate, because eating meant something or somebody had to die.

Because Adam and Eve and all living things were commanded to “increase and multiply and fill the earth,” there was a problem: since nothing died before sin, things would get very, very crowded in the garden, right? The place wasn't expandable. How to accommodate them all? He hadn't figured on creatures taking his command seriously.

God came up with a solution: Something would have to happen to bring death into the world. He set up a fruit-tree trap for those first humans, telling them 'death' would be the result of eating its forbidden fruit. But 'death' didn't mean anything to them, because they had no experience of anything 'dying.' Maybe they thought 'death' was a positive, desirable, thing to experience? When a friendly serpent told them they'd get knowledge of good and evil if they ate the fruit, since they had no experience of “evil,” it might have sounded like a benefit they were missing out on. Who wouldn't be tempted, as this fruit became curiouser and curiouser? And so, being only human, they took the bait. The Bible tells us what the results were: not only would things die, thus preventing overcrowding, but they would have to exit the Garden! Wow. Clever, our God.

Now that 'sin' was in the world, all of God's authorities have been telling you what 'sin' means. So I will, too. Sin is physical, and we inherit it from our parents. Sins are passed down through the generations, as genes. This explains why God curses a man's children even into the third generation, for sins he commits today. I call this, 'Immoral Ontogeny.' Write that down. Now, Catholics teach Jesus' mother was an exception to sin; they say her womb was free of immoral-ontogeny, because it had to be 'immaculate,' meaning sterile, for Jesus. 'Why?' Jesus spent his entire life living in a sinful, dirty, germ-filled world! Catholic beliefs really are silly, aren't they?

Yesterday a young man asked me, “What happened to the dinosaurs, and why?” Well, God became displeased with them, destroyed them with an asteroid, and only their small offspring, like crocks and birds, survived. Maybe, too, the Earth wasn't big enough to keep all of them around? God only knows. Later on, God became angry and disappointed with humans too, and destroyed them, saving just a handful of them, who, strangely to our reasoning but not to God's wisdom, still carried and passed on the sin-genes.

Much later, God sent his son, Jesus, to atone for 'sins.' Maybe he thought humans would abandon sins if they started off with a clean slate. That's about as easy to do as to live in the world without getting dirty. But we aren't “the boy in the bubble,” are we? Jesus didn't get rid of those physical genes of immorality! And it looks like “redemption” didn't do the trick, since those nasty old sins keep propagating, like any organisms. What did God start, in that Garden? Since then, his people have to go around constantly telling everyone what's sinful, telling them curiosity about what we preach is temptation to be avoided. They're due to our sinful nature of being human, and will damn us to Hell. I'm stuck with the job of having to tell everyone the road to Heaven is straight and narrow. ( I won't tell them, some of God's reps have believers walking a tightrope with Hell gaping below).

Well, we've run out of time. Next week I plan to talk to you about how a woman is responsible for sin and death coming into our world. I'll tell you what very holy men, saints, have said; women tempt men to disobey God through their wiles, by dragging each male down to his basest instincts. Maybe I'll reveal why some holy men think Satan is a woman. Or I might not. Right now, I'm thinking about matters non-spiritual, like apologies, chocolates, and flowers. Good night.”

Note: Some of the doctrinal teachings attributed to “Reverend Avery” are fabricated, while others have been recorded and repeated, as told by ministers of the Bible. Can you tell the difference? How easy it is to make theological stuff up without evidence, and isn't it all without evidence?

Think or Thwim

By Carl S ~

Would you prefer to think or believe? Which is more important to you, believing stuff, or finding out what's real, no matter how much effort it may take? Are you by nature a doubter, unwilling to accept without question what people claim? Are you a searcher, or an acceptor? Do you find more pleasure in discovering new facts about reality, or would you rather go along with "common sense," despite your doubts? Think before you answer.

Over the years, I’ve tried to help people in their predicaments, i.e., another name for religions. Looking for comparisons, I've used being placed on a tightrope over hell, on which believers are told they have to walk. (Perhaps you have a few of your own.) At the moment, one idea comes to mind that sounds close to home. I'll copy an idea initiated by Lewis Carroll, in his poem, "Jabberwocky." He would combine words to make one word which, oddly, seemed to make sense. I'm going with "Thwim" a combination of "Theology" and "Swim." Believers all over the world who prefer not to think about what they believe, ..."thwim." As long as there have been gods, theologians have been thwimming for them, explaining them, making excuses for them, and performing miracles in their names. And ever since, all believers have been thwimming for the theologians' gods. Oddly, "in the thwim," they have to swim against the tidal flow of evidential reality. Fighting against the tendency to thinking is strenuous exercise.

Rather than thwim alone, believers tend to occupy belief-boats, where they oar away on the troubled waters created by their theologians. (To be fair, most of them are born on the boat, and don't know any other environment.) Theologians' shills are required in the boats, to urge the oarers on. This is encouraged also, by the fact some of the belief-vessels are highly elaborate, impressive, or baroque, ergo they create the image of being very important. But no matter how ornate the chamberpot, it's still a chamberpot. And be aware: no matter what the religion, it's the same boat.

For the individual believer, thwimming involves using any possible maneuvers, methods, and contortions of mind to stay afloat. On or off the boat, no notice is posted: "Thwimming is hazardous to your mental health." But it ought to be. Thwim is founded on superstition and fears. Believers cling to the message: "Don't look back; something may be gaining on you." That "something" is doubt.

who dare to thwim alone have been warned by the fearful on board: "Don't listen to those who will lead you astray, telling you to think, not thwim. Thinking may lead to doubt and doubt will lead you to a safe port, the tempters will say. This is what they'll tell you, but trust us when we warn you: all ports are unsafe outside the waters. Cover your ears and say, ‘I can't hear you.' Reasoning and searching are Sirens luring you to destruction. Thinking and doubt? Avoid them; there's no other choice; it's either thwim or drown."

It's much easier to go with the traditional better-safe-than-sorry theological flow than to swim against its current. The current may take believers over the waterfall into the rocks, but thwimmers not only fear to look back; they won't look at that possibility, either. Even if they could imagine plunging over, they'd take that risk, together.

The powers of the thwimming fear-mongers do their utmost to prevent anyone from thinking and doubting, by preaching that doing so will lead to discovery and ultimately, perdition. (Ignoring them, fearless explorers do take their chances, though.) "Your free will will take you over the edge of the physical as well as the immortal world," they used to warn.

Doubt is the suspicion that what you've been told may not be true. Those who doubt are free.

Once you stop thwimming, start thinking, stop being afraid of your doubts and give in to them, and keep investigating outside the thwim, something eventually happens: like the first creatures of evolution exiting the water onto firm land, a whole new world of possibilities opens, a world in which to change, to become many forms most wondrous. There is freedom in which to run and leap, walk, and fly! You may have been born and raised in the thwim waters, but your real freedom as a human being is outside them, thinking, investigating, and discovering the universe itself. Think.

Recovering from the Mental Abuse

By AnonAgno94 ~

I spent the first 17 years of my life being a Catcholic. At 17 I was brought into the non-denominational Christian culture and was "born again." I spent the last five years, then, meeting fellow Christians, exploring the different sects of Christianity, studying and writing worship music, and reading the Bible daily. In all of my times, both good and bad, I always believed that I had "god" looking out for me.

I was taught

• to be fully and completely dependent on him and nobody else.
• that if I was feeling anxious, I just wasn't trusting "him" enough.
• that if I was still single, then I had to wait for "him" to bring the right one in.

When I did start dating my secular humanist boyfriend, of course religion would come up frequently in our discussions. They were never heated discussions, though if we hit points of strong disagreement, I remember at times feeling that Christian mindset of, "Well, he doesn't believe, therefore he just doesn't understand."

Flast forward to the present -- I'm now a somewhat-closet agnostic who's skeptical of any sort of idea that cannot be grounded in reality with evidence. Though the transition out of religion has not been an easy one. When I was still a Christian, I would often tell my boyfriend, "If I didn't have "god," then I would have no purpose of living." But of course, Christians constantly brainwash each other to believe ideas, like how "god" is their everything, "god" is their life purpose, "god" is the reason they are alive.

What, then, would happen if you take "god" out of the equation?

When I stopped believing, I was amidst several huge transitions in my life -- starting my first, corporate full-time job, moving states, moving in with my boyfriend, being away from close family and friends for the first time. Add "losing religious identity" to that list, and you can bet I pretty much fell apart for a few months while trying to transition into my new life. I found myself breaking down regularly, being terrified of simple daily tasks such as driving due to my intensified fear of dying without the hope of a lifelong-promised "eternal life."

And purpose. Christianity, particualarly the hardcore, Bible-believing sects, drive the purpose of living for "god" and "god" alone deep into one's mind. Especially when you are preached to and "saved" during an extremely difficult emotional time (speaking from experience). Your source of hope, love, purpose, everything then comes from "god" and "god" alone.

Losing purpose was probably the hardest, and still is. It's only been about 6 months since my separation from religion. I still could not tell you what my purpose is.

During the initial stages of my deconversion, I would often tell my boyfriend and if it weren't for him, I doubt I would even be alive, that if anything ever happened to him, I would have no purpose of living. And then it dawned on me yesterday upon self-reflection of this thoughts, mostly past thoughts but sometimes recurring -- Christianity programmed my brain to have such a dependence on someone, something, else, that without it, I'm not sure I know how to be fully dependent on myself for once. I mean, I've never had to depend on myself. In fact, religion told me otherwise -- don't trust yourself because you're sinful; don't rely on yourself -- you need to let "god" have full control.

I remember once reading an article that equated a person's relationship with "god" with that of a human, significant other. For some reason, this complete dependence on an imaginary being is completely okay in today's culture, but complete dependence on another person is unhealthy. I mean, think about it. What if you knew someone whose boyfriend/girlfriend (let's call them Person A) treated their partner (Person B -- your friend) in the following ways:

• told Person B that they should not hang out with anyone outside of their way of thinking/religious way of life
• demanded Person B's constant and complete dependence on them
• demanded Person B's time, money (10% of every check, minimum), and even thoughts
• outlined a list of "do's" and "don't"s and would punish Person B (or deprive them of blessings) if they "disobeyed"
• constantly reminded Person B of their faults (aka sinful nature) and expecting them to "turn away" from several human tendences (being homosexual, having premarital sex, etc.),
• when Person B makes a mistake/falls to sin, Person A demands that they show "true repentance" in order to be taken back into their "loving graces." Otherwise they'll make their eternity a "living hell."

I could go on and on, but I think you catch my point.

It's no wonder my mind has reached the "dependent" depths it has -- it's been trained to do so my entire life.

I joke with my boyfriend, now that I am an agnostic, and say, "How did you even date me back then?" And he'll respond by saying, "Honestly I felt like your belief made you a victim and that it wasn't your fault." He also, knowing the depth of my belief, knew that if I ever did lose religion, it would be beyond difficult to overcome.

He was right.

The Good News

By Carl S ~

I was unable to sleep. When I woke up at 3:40 a.m., I went on the internet to find the most recent news. It was fascinating. There's a man who cures blind people by asking them to close their eyes, then he touches their eyelids, and they can see. There are many testimonials of this, many cures. He also has raised the dead (at least six have been reported in the last two days alone), and goes about feeding hundreds of people from the bits of food found in his pockets, which multiply as he hands them out. Those who benefit from his blessings, and his followers, are sworn to secrecy, and for good reasons.

He was interviewed, his face hidden by a small panel, and asked the source of his miraculous powers. Very softly, he said, “Jesus Christ said, ‘Those who follow me shall do even greater works than I have done.' I take him at his word, and that's why I can do them. Some people say they don't have enough faith to do greater works than Jesus himself; but I have enough. It's simple. You just have to have faith in Jesus.”

This is the simple message of the worker of miracles. Why doesn't he reveal it to the world? Why does he remain hidden? Is it because he's not an establishment Christian? According to his followers, “he's gotta be a threat to the churches. They'd condemn him as a false prophet, or kill him.” He doesn't fit their standard of a man of God, a saint, since he lives openly with a prostitute, and he cusses nastily, for beginners.

Some of those who know him personally phoned in to the program, saying they're absolutely sure he's Jesus. One woman said, “Now didn't Jesus in the gospels have Mary Magdalene, the prostitute, as a close companion, and haven't things changed since those days? So, yes, I believe he is. Isn't Jesus one of us, not like those ministers of the gospel with their expensive Armani suits? And didn’t he use some bad words condemning the Pharisees then, and shouldn't he go after the likes of his priestly hypocrites now, like the Falwells, Swaggerts, and Pat Robertsons? And no wonder the evangelicals would be after him, if he takes away their money!” The program director said, “This man fulfills the prophesies about Jesus in the gospels,” and then he read them out, saying, “Take that, you unbelievers!” Still, everyone affected by “Jesus” is worried about what might happen to him. Meanwhile, this does not deter him one bit from working his miracles, which become more impressive every day.

During the program, operators were taking calls from people reporting miracles worked by him, right then, just by hearing his voice on the program! Go Fund Me raised over 143 thousand dollars for his mission. I was enthused by everything, and inclined to offer my financial support. Then I remembered: at that ungodly hour of the day, humans are more suggestible and vulnerable to persuasion. Suddenly, the program started breaking up, then disappeared. Maybe it was hacked by a priest somewhere. (I'm joking.)

After that, I went back to sleep, even after such exciting news. My wife woke me at 8:30. I couldn't wait to tell her everything I remembered about the broadcast. She said, “Haven't you heard about all the “False News” going around? There are people making up all kinds of stuff and broadcasting it, so don't believe everything you see or hear, no matter how authentic or honest it appears to be. Don't be gullible. The National Enquirer and other rags have been handing out false “information” for years. Don't you know about urban legends?” I asked her how anyone can tell the difference from the real truth. I added, “And who are you to tell me to be careful? Isn't “False News” a perfect description of the Gospels?”

Disgusting

By Carl S ~

There's a lot in Nature people find disgusting: Bugs, phlegm, dogs eating their vomit, etc., etc. It's all part of life. Science is down in it, curiously investigating. When it comes to science, everything is fair game. Science regards nature as neither good nor evil. For that reason alone, religion rejects it. But a scientist is only the child investigating the world to find out how it is and works. Examples: Science researches the gut genome, extracts biological juices from ugly, reflex-gagging organisms, and experiments with fecal implants, which involves taking shit from one person's body and putting it into another person's! Yuck. Science doesn't forbid questioning or doubting. Religion has to. Religion claims all human life is sacred, often so rabidly as to forbid contraception! But you will never hear a clergyman protesting the execution of a man on the grounds that he won't be able to procreate in the future. To science, there is no “miracle” of birth, human or otherwise, and, though life is possible, it is not “sacred” just because it begins.

Unlike science, religion classifies everything as good or evil. Thus, whatever disgusts the spokesmen for God, Allah and the gods, they label as evil. At the least, we'd call them prudes, at most, sex-obsessed. Women have been declared as “unclean” after having a baby, (perhaps due to the sight of afterbirth). Men had been forbidden to have sex with women in their periods. Disgusting. Homosexual, and even heterosexual intercourse, they've declared sinful and repulsive, those men who regard those who abstain from sex as “pure.” If the sight or experience of a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage is disgusting to a cleric, (and you), imagine how that person thinks about an abortion by choice. Some will label this choice as evil, equivalent to murder, but a potential human is not a sentient being. Abortion is just another disgusting part of living we need to adjust to.

Abortion. It's a “hot button issue” with Christians, atheists, ex-Christians, etc., all of whom are exploitable for religiously supported political gain. And it's one primary reason why prejudiced individuals are voted into office by them. A few years ago, our local newspaper editor, a strong supporter of free speech, wrote he would not publish any more letters on the subject, after so many of them came in responding to just one, an “anti.” That letter claimed, “God is pro-life.” My repose to this obvious Baptist was that, according to his bible, God drowned children, babies, and pregnant women in the Flood. And don't his gospels tell him that Jesus said of Judas, “It were better that man had not been born?” Perhaps someone mentioned “God” is the greatest abortionist, since many pregnancies end in miscarriages.

I often receive petitions from Catholic and Christian anti-Planned Parenthood organizations. Every single one of them lie. They lie to young people who they trained to trust them, for support; kids who are gullible enough to believe the unborn are “babies.” And I think it's because they hope no one will check up on their lies and will go with their emotions instead. Letters to the editor are good examples of how people respond to abortion arguments: instead of addressing the issue, they attack the writers personally. I have to wonder: If they had the power, would they kill pro-choice supporters just as they killed women as “witches” in bygone days? One woman said, “2,700 babies per day are killed in America.” Where did she get that from? She went on to quote Mother Teresa's, “The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” What about civil wars, starvation, terrorism, or racism? Oh saintly stupidity! And her concern is? That we are not adding 2,700 more children per day to our population?

Because such an issue is so emotionally explosive and heavily laden with ignorance, and so many good, educated, and caring people are being attacked because of it, those are reasons why it must be discussed. So, in the interests of rationality, Let's take a deep breath and settle in...

I'll start out in a totally non-threatening way, by talking about my family. My sister was born in 1926. When my mother became pregnant the following year, my father thought they couldn't afford another child, and after talking to his friends, came home one day to tell her they knew someone who could perform an abortion. My mother was vehemently opposed to such a suggestion. But my father respected her enough to leave the decision up to her, and that's the right thing to do. So my oldest brother was born. When he became an adult, she told him about that time, for which my father paid the penalty of hearing from him ever after in their arguments, “You wanted to have me aborted.” Over the past few years, I've thought about unwanted children raised in households by mothers who followed their faiths and had them in spite of their feelings. These children often lived with women without motherly instincts, and it shows. My oldest brother felt rejected by his father, all his life. And so, when I think of pro-choice or pro-life, I always have to ask, “What kind of life are we choosing for a potential human being?” Is it moral to have a child born to a couple who don't want it? Is it moral to force them to?

There was another son after him, then I came 11 years later, and I have no doubt I was unexpected, as well as my brother 5 years later. So, in the matter of abortions, I have to ask myself, “So what if I hadn't been born?” and, “Do I have any purpose, as I'm told I should have?” Well, I don't see any purpose for my existence any more than for my non-existence. Ninety-nine and ninety nine tenths of the population on Earth doesn't know I exist, so what's the point?

Human life [...], just because it is a product of nature, does not make it sacred." If I had not been born, so what? You wouldn't be reading this from me, but so what? Maybe you'd prefer to ignore me. There wouldn't be an “I” to ask questions; there would be no “I” to know the answers. Would my wife and friends, etc., be better or worse off if I never existed? Wouldn't they be just as happy, sad, or fulfilled?” It probably wouldn't make any difference. I don't think I'm that important. What about others, if they too were unborn? Well? Is society better, neutral, or worse off because Mozart, Beethoven or Bach came into existence? What about St. Paul, Mohammed, Ramses II, Columbus, Luther, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Assad? Serial killers? (I'm not impressed with the Duggars, either.) People who argue strongly against abortion use the first examples cited to justify their stance, and avoid all the others.

Abortion or not, it's a toss-up, a “to be or not to be,” and, like other choices, is never up to the fetus or “unborn.” I am 110% for human rights, fight for them, and support charities that make life better in every possible way for those who are here, living, after being born. It's good to free people from religions, to get them to laugh at religious absurdities, to lighten up and not be pinched into hatred, judgmental attitudes, and narrow interpretations of human nature. Human life as potential in itself, just because it is a product of nature, doesn't make it “sacred.” When you use a word like “sacred,” you're elevating it to an untouchable subject, one which I'm inclined to call fetal-worship. Having babies isn't “sacred;” almost anyone can make a baby. Although, raising a kid for the next 20 years takes what my mother called “the patience of a saint.”

The Catholic clergy had a policy, most likely still in effect: “If it comes to a choice between the baby and the mother, save the baby. She's lived her life. The child will have the opportunity to live its own.” How insensitive and disgusting. Are they thinking, “Another saint in the future?” What if the “baby” chooses to live a life of crime, or self-destructs with drugs? I say to them: ”Listen you sick bastards, she's my wife. Get the fuck out of the way! What about her right to live?” Maybe they believe women exist to be baby making factories, but I cherish them just for themselves. Their decisions and personal consciences count, period. As for the religions who won't accept this, let them look in their holy books for their God's take on abortion. The subject's so hot even he won't get involved. But he does command others to kill infants. That's their God's definitive answer to the “sanctity of life.” How disgusting.

Where is the Magic?

By Thomasina Belle ~

A colleague of mine was telling me about seeing an illusionist. She was blown away by his tricks: sawing a man in half, cards appearing out of nowhere, escaping from a tank after being submerged in water in a strait jacket for three minutes, etc. She said her husband couldn’t enjoy the show because he was just trying to figure out the mechanics of it all. She agreed with me when I remarked that even though nowadays it’s easy find out the man-made secrets of magic, it’s still amazing to see. I think it makes “magic” even more amazing, just knowing about all the complicated work involved behind the scenes, and how our brains are still deceived into seeing something they’re not.

It is so much like our journey from religion to the other side. For most of my life I believed in “magic.” Even when seeing a magic show, I thought something supernatural was going on. I believed in ghosts and demons and angels. I believed in a supernatural “savior/magician” who was watching my every move, knew all of my thoughts and was making stuff magically happen in my life. It was the ultimate comfort knowing the magician was in charge of the show and I could be disappointed, satisfied or elated at the performance; but in the end it was he who was performing, not I. Sometimes I still miss that. I want my invisible friend by my side who’s “got my back.”

I'm asking myself, "Is the magic gone?" It was who I was, and I’m asking myself, is the “magic” gone? My invisible friend has disappeared. How ironic. It’s just little old me now, and I’m performing the show. But am I really alone? In one sense, yes, but the magic is still be there, more than ever. My thoughts are freer. I can wonder at the universe. I can appreciate other cultures without judging them for not being Christian. I can investigate formerly forbidden information without feeling guilty. I am free to question anything. The universe, the cosmos is so unspeakably vast and varied and fascinating. It’s not limited by a man-made book. That is magic. Human beings are capable of ultimate beauty and ultimate ugliness. That is magic. I can train myself to be calm in any situation. That is magic. I can make a difference in others’ lives by my kindness and compassion. That is magic. The magic is everywhere. And it’s here, not up in “heaven.”

I can appreciate life in a better way, without the superstition, mysticism and fear. I can appreciate it for what it really is: a beautifully mysterious wonderful existence that’s not limited by a god and his book. And that’s magical.

Male Authority

By Karen L. Garst ~

After the recent selection of Donald Trump as president-elect of the United States, many people have tried to fathom how most of the polls were inaccurate in predicting his victory. Richard Dawkins tweeted that pollsters got it wrong because the people they were talking to simply “were ashamed to admit they were Trump supporters.” Sarah Haider added that “when political correctness takes over—you don’t know how people actually feel.” These statements go a long way to explain how the predictive polls were inaccurate. But more important than the inaccuracy of the polls themselves is an interesting fact revealed by the final election results—52 percent of white women supported Trump, while Clinton received 94 percent of the votes of black women.

Who are these white women? Why did they vote the way they did? Are they simply opposed to reproductive rights for women? Unconcerned about family leave? Oblivious to health care programs like the Affordable Care Act? Blind to the future student loan debt of their children? It is very likely that these women are highly religious. The Pew Research Center has identified that 81 percent of those who identify as white, born-again Evangelical Christians voted for Trump. Nearly 90 percent of Republican women voted for Trump. We can infer that a large number of the white women who voted for Trump were Republican and religious.

But is it just that these women identify as religious, or is there a stronger aspect of religion at work here? Is there a reason they might be less likely to support a woman candidate for president and to vote against policies that might be in their self-interest? Yes. I believe it is the legacy of worshipping a male deity and the psychological impact of this on very religious women, particularly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.

The move from worshipping a goddess or a pantheon of gods containing male and female gods to a single male deity is well documented. Author Karen Armstrong maintains that the move in early Judaism to eliminate worship of other gods may have taken 600 years.1 Although Catholicism elevated the role of the Virgin Mary and female saints, perhaps to appease women, the Protestant Reformation eliminated any reference to these women. Martin Luther had a particularly pernicious view of women. “Take women from their housewifery and they are good for nothing.”2

With a sole male deity and men as priests, rabbis, and imams, it was rare for women to even question the power of male leadership until the 19th century. In Fundamentalist or Evangelical households, the impact of the worship of a male deity is still pervasive and its impact on women manifold. First, there is a strong emphasis on sin. Ann Wilcox, one of the women who wrote about her upbringing as a Fundamentalist in my book, Women Beyond Belief: Discovering Life without Religion, states that people are taught not just that they commit sin, but that they ARE sin. This doctrine was emphasized throughout the history of Christianity by such notables as St. Augustine, who lay the responsibility for the cause of sin—carnal lust—squarely on Eve and therefore all women. Second, as stated in 1 Corinthians 11:3, the father is the head of the earthly home and thus rules over women. Fundamentalists still cling to this prescription today as in the statement— “a woman's ideal fulfillment is usually motherhood.” Marsha Abelman, another essayist, was raised in the Church of Christ. She writes that her father had complete control. She recently told me that if her father would have sexually abused her, there would have been no one to deny his right to do so. Third, love in marriage is defined as obedience to the husband. Fundamentalists state this plainly—“the husband being the head of the wife and authority over the children.” Ann recounted that her mother talked back to her father once and he immediately grabbed her and told her to stop. She never did it again.

Who are these white women? Why did they vote the way they did? Winnell has been a pioneer in addressing the impact of this type of Fundamentalist upbringing. She coined the term Religious Trauma Syndrome (RTS) to describe “a recognizable set of symptoms experienced as a result of prolonged exposure to a toxic religious environment and/or the trauma of leaving the religion.” The psychological impact explained in Winnell’s book, Leaving the Fold, mirrors Ann Wilcox’s experience to a tee. Even after a period of thirty years away from her religious experience, her mind “was still being assaulted with irrational fear for disbelieving.”3

Is it any wonder that women, strongly under the influence of the type of Fundamentalist religion that teaches that women are sinful, men are in charge, and their job is to obey, voted for Trump? Wasn’t he the epitome of the man in charge during his campaign? Over and over he used the language of male power. Nearly every statement he made was couched in terms that HE would be in charge and HE would make things happen. He rarely talked policy. He rarely cited specifics. “Let’s Make America Great Again!” He rarely talked about working with other politicians or any team whatsoever which might have diminished his perceived power. His language was the same that these white Evangelical women had been hearing from their earliest moments as children of controlling fathers, every day in their homes as wives, and several times a week at church.

When I fall asleep at night, words come unbidden to my brain. I start to recite a children’s prayer I learned long ago—“Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep….” Even though I have now been an atheist for decades, my brain still replays that veneration of a male god. Imagine how amplified this focus must be for women who attend church every Sunday, most often with a male standing in front of them pronouncing faith in the one true male god. Every song, every ritual, every doctrine does nothing but emphasize this maleness.

It would be interesting to see a psychological study on how Fundamentalist women, more liberal Christians, and atheists would rank male and female leaders. A comparison of these three groups might reveal the deep psychological impact that religion has, particularly on women.

In the meantime, there are resources to help people recover from religion, especially the toxic, misogynistic Fundamentalist ones. Recovering from Religion has now established a hotline for people to call in and talk with an individual who can help them. Ex-Christian.net also has resources for people who have left Christianity. And there are many others.

But what is our role as individuals? We cannot sit idly by while people are indoctrinated into believing that women are not the equals of men. If you are uncomfortable talking to religious people, get the new app Atheos. It is a guide to help people have “non-confrontational discussions about gods, religion, faith, and superstition.” Be open about your views. Every person needs a model to emulate. Remember the small African-American boy looking up to President Obama in the White House? He now knows marginalized people can be anything they want. Let’s all be models to show how great it can be to leave religion behind. And maybe someday elect a female president!

Karen L. Garst, PhD, editor of Women Beyond Belief: Discovering Life without Religion and blogger at www.faithlessfeminist.com

1 Karen Armstrong, The Great Transformation: The Beginning of our Religious Traditions (New York, NY: Knopf, 2006), 45.

2 Leonard Shlain, The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: Male Words and Female Images (London, England: Penguin Press, 1998), 329.

3 Karen L. Garst, Women Beyond Belief: Discovering Life without Religion (Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2016), 30.

Where did that that name YHWH come from?

By Karen L. Garst -- The Faithless Feminist ~

The Biblical Tetragrammaton, the Hebrew Name for God the Father. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Unless you are Jewish or took a course in religion during your lifetime, you may not even know what the letters YHWH stand for. No worries. It is the name of God written in Hebrew in the Torah or, as Christians call it, the Old Testament. The word is composed of all consonants because the written Hebrew alphabet has no vowels. I’m sure you have seen those posts on Facebook where they ask you to read a jumbled sentence with letters out of order. Most of the time, you can still discern what it means. It’s like that in Hebrew. While there are some markers that can assist you, there are no written vowels. Sometimes this name for god is written out Yahweh so you know how to pronounce it. This is the name that morphed into the word Jehovah in English. The King James Bible used the word Jehovah extensively, but now most translations use the word Lord. Whew! That was a long intro. But this post is going to address the larger issue of where the original word may have come from. This is tied up with the theories of where the Israelites came from originally. And no, they were not there from the Garden of Eden onward.

Why is this important? Finding evidence for the origin of the Israelites places them in an historical context. It also links them to surrounding cultures of the same time period. Will this convince someone that Judaism was just one of many religions competing for people’s hearts and minds? Who knows. I remember that during my first religion class at Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota the professor discussed the different oral strains contained in a linguistic analysis of the writings of the Old Testament that showed evidence of different writers. Looking back, I think it was the first chink in the armor that convinced me this book may have been written by ordinary men, not dictated by a supernatural power.

Not surprisingly, there are many competing theories regarding the origin of the Hebrews: the Bible states that Moses led the Hebrew people out of slavery in Egypt and another popular theory claims that the Israelites were Canaanites all along who had simply moved from the coast where invasions were endangering them to the relatively empty highlands.

The problem with the first theory is that archeologists have found no evidence in the Sinai Desert for a sojourn that the Bible says lasted forty years. Also, the Egyptians were excellent record keepers. If they had imported and enslaved thousands of Hebrews and brought them into Egypt, trust me, they would have written about it. The second theory is interesting in that it is believed a loose confederation of tribes likely did invade Egypt during the 13th century BCE and also disrupted tribes in the Levant, i.e. the areas off the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean. References have been found during the reign of Ramses II of Egypt that mentions these “Sea Peoples.”

Andre LeMaire in his book, The Birth of Monotheism, puts forth compelling arguments, however, for a third hypothesis—an origin in the area of Midian. This ancient land was located on the Arabian Peninsula to the east of the Red Sea. The association of this land or set of tribes referred to as Midian or Midianites is plentiful in the Bible. Below is a partial list of references. Interestingly, Midian is also mentioned frequently in the Qu’ran. See here for a more complete list.

Midian is the son of Abraham. (Genesis 25:1-2)

Joseph was sold to the Midianites. (Genesis 37:28)

Midian is where Moses spent forty years in exile. (Exodus 2:11-15)

Moses married Zipporah the daughter of Jethro, the priest of Midian (Exodus 2:21)

LeMaire’s hypothesis rests on the following references.

1. The Mesha Stela is a basalt slab erected about 810 BCE by Mesha, king of Moab. It was made to give thanks to the Moabite god Chemosh for delivering his people from Israelite rule. Line 18 mentions cultic objects of YHWH. This is one of the earliest references to the Israelite God. Because the Amarna Letters (14th century BCE – correspondence between Egypt and areas it controlled including Canaan) do not mention YHWH, Lemaire believes that this deity arose between these two dates.

2. Biblical place names include areas in the Sinai Desert where the Midianites lived. “YHWH came from Sinai, and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran.” (Deuteronomy 33:2). “The mountains quaked before YHWH, the One of Sinai.” (Judges 5:4-5) Early male gods in many early religions are associated with mountains, lightening, and thunder. YHWH comports with this common cultural theme. The word Sinai has meanings as a desert and a mountain and Seir is a mountain. And Moses is said to have received the ten commandments near Mt. Sinai.

3. An inscription of Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep III (c. 1390-1353 BCE) refers to “Shosu of YHW.” The Shosu are believed to be a southern nomadic people that the Egyptians encountered and battled with. The Shosu are also mentioned in conjunction with Seir, similar to the biblical references above. Thus YHW could be a place name and could also be associated with a deity of the same name.

4. Moses married a Midianite woman. Because the Israelites battled with the Midianites, LeMaire believes that this reference is good evidence that he did marry a Midianite. If the writers had invented his wife’s origins, they probably wouldn’t have made her come from one of their enemies, given the “founding father” nature of Moses.

5. LeMaire further claims that this YHWH was one of the deities of the Midianites. He posits that the marriage of Moses, the later leader of the Israelites, to a Midian wife, caused him to adopt this deity.

While this evidence is not conclusive and other scholars have suggested alternatives, LeMaire makes a compelling case for the association of YHWH with the Midianites. It is YHWH who becomes the lead god and then the only Israelite god.

This slow rise of monotheism, not only with the Israelites but with other cultures as well, is difficult for most Jews and Christians to accept. However, there are multiple references in the Bible itself that attest to their first concept of this god YHWH simply being one of many gods. Here are just a few of the references.

“YHWH is greater than all the gods.” (Exodus 18:10-11) Why would this need to be mentioned if he were the only god?

“God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.” (Psalms 82:1) It is as if he is the chair of the board of the gods.

In addition to starting out as one god of many, the objects associated with this new god YHWH are very similar to those of other peoples of the region: an altar, a stela, and a sacred bush. There is more to tell about Moses, particularly his rescue from a basket of reeds (similar to Sargon of Akkad), but I will leave that for another post.

http://www.faithlessfeminist.com/

A Skeptic's Reading List

(or "Christmas gift ideas for the skeptic on your list"!)

By Tania K ~

Up until a few years ago, I thought that I would always wear the "Christian" label. I never doubted that all the components of my religious faith would be a huge part of my life until, well, the Lord called me Home. When that faith began slipping away from me, my world felt like it was shattering. I was fortunate enough to have a co-worker, a hairdresser, a landlord, and a bunch of other people who listened to my angst, who calmed me down, who made me realize that I was going to be okay. There were also some very helpful websites (like this one!!) and many videos on Youtube.

And there were the books...oh, there were many, many books. I would visit the library's website and order books that I never imagined I'd ever read. I'd stay up late at night, reading, reading, reading. I'd slip the covers off the books (so that nobody could see the supposedly "bad" titles) and sit in Tim Hortons, consuming glazed cinnamon rolls and coffee and trying to figure out what happens now?

Here is a list of books that I've read and loved during the last several years. Some of them helped me as I began navigating life away from my religious faith. Some opened my eyes to concepts in psychology that were completely new to me. Lately, I've been reading about the absolutely fascinating events of history -- 100 years ago, 5000 years ago, 541 million years ago, 13.8 billion years ago. And of course, some Mitch Albom and some hippos helped lighten the load.

Happy reading to all!

Books about doubting your religious faith, leaving your faith, and starting over

Faith Shift: finding your way forward when everything you believe is coming apart -- Kathy Escobar

Still: notes on a mid-faith crisis -- Lauren Winner

When We Were on Fire: a memoir of consuming faith, tangled love, and starting over -- Addie Zierman

Girl at the End of the World: my escape from fundamentalism in search of faith with a future -- Elizabeth Esther

The Divinity of Doubt: the God question -- Vincent Bugliosi

Spiritual Envy: an agnostic's quest -- Michael Krasny

Faitheist: how an atheist found common ground with the religious -- Chris Stedman

Books about leading a fulfilling life outside of religion

With or Without God: why the way we live is more important than what we believe -- Gretta Vosper

Religion for Atheists: a non-believer's guide to the uses of religion -- Alain de Botton

The Good Book: A humanist/secular bible -- A.C. Grayling

Humour

Heidegger and a Hippo Walk Through Those Pearly Gates: using philosophy (and jokes!) to explain life, death, the afterlife, and everything in between -- Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein

Psychology

The Belief Instinct: the psychology of souls, destiny, and the meaning of life -- Jesse Bering

History

Guns, Germs, and Steel: the fates of human societies -- Jared Diamond

Sapiens: a brief history of humankind -- Yuval Noah Harari

Mankind: the story of all of us -- Pamela Toler

A Short History of Progress -- Ronald Wright

Miscellaneous

Mom, Dad, I'm an Atheist: the guide to coming out as a non-believer -- David G. McAfee

Have a Little Faith: a true story -- Mitch Albom

Faithful

By Carl S ~

We often hear of the “faithful,” but what does that designation mean? Isn't it just another word for something we're supposed to respect, a word everyone takes for granted we understand? Each December, what should be our neutral-regarding-religion media let flow a torrent of entertainment saturated with Christian propaganda. Secular programming and motion pictures frequently include hymns such as, “O come all ye faithful.” Who are the faithful?

Depending on which cleric you ask, the faithful are those who follow the gospel teachings of Jesus, the dogmas of a particular church, Mohammed, the visions of Joseph Smith, the interpretation of “Christ” by the apostle Paul, etc., etc., “faithfully.” (They won't, but we must include Jim Jones, Buddha, and televangelists.) The faithful stick with what they believe in, no matter what. Let's see when actions speak louder than attestations. Are they faithful?

Does being faithful have anything to do with virtue or morality? It depends. If we think about fidelity to the perpetrators of the Inquisition, of the oath of obedience to Hitler, the patriotism of “my country, right or wrong,” or of absolute dedication to cult leaders, we have our answer.

The themes of loyalty and betrayal dominate the novels of author John LeCarre', and with good reason: they are fascinating. Without the betrayal by Judas, according to Catholic doctrine, there would be no redemption. Here is a case of a man being faithful to his mission.

The word “faithful” is commonly used in reference to a sexual relationship. One might say it's a morally ambiguous one, since there has to be an agreement between the parties involved as to what is meant by “faithful” to begin with. Some couples have open marriages; in others, it's understood there will be other lovers at times. The wife of Aldous Huxley allowed his affairs with young women, to, she said, enhance his creativity. The marriage between actress Patricia Neal and Raoul Dahl (the Willy Wonka author), became the subject of a scandal when it was revealed he had an affair while Patricia was recovering from a major stroke. Although he was a major contributor to her recovery due to his persistence, we can doubt the public forgave him. And yet it's understandable how a man would rationalize he shouldn't put his needs aside and deny pleasure to himself and another because his spouse is incapacitated. (By the way, I and my male friends would not accept this)

ISIS and Islamic terrorists are faithful, as were those who murdered and tortured for their Christian faiths.Are most married Christians faithful to their spouses? What of married pastors, who preach fidelity to marriage vows? After all, in the presence of their church community, they do promise to “forsake all others.” Do the followers of Jesus forsake family to follow him, as he told them to? Do they sell all they have and give the proceeds to the poor to faithfully follow him? They tell us the same Jesus said, “He who looks upon another woman with lust commits adultery in his heart.” There are millions of Christian men and clerics of all faiths who are watching internet porn right now. Ergo, according to Jesus, aren't they unfaithful to their spouses? Aren't most of the faithful not following their “inerrant” bible commands whenever they cheat, assault and kill, their fellow believers? Don't Roman Catholics practice birth control and even have abortions, thereby being unfaithful to their church's teachings? Aren't most believers faithful to one all-encompassing belief: that their God will forgive anything they do, no matter how evil it is?

So, what of “the faithful?” When clerics of every religion speak of their “faithful,” don't they mean their “dependables?” (Aren't the faithful themselves depending on the cleric’s sermons and songs being entertaining?) Surely, they're regular attendees and contributors to their houses of worship money-baskets? They are the ones who can be counted on to show up to pretend to believe, and counted on to believe themselves virtuous in pretending. Aye, aren't they the same ones who can be counted on to vote for politicians and policies the clerics prefer? The faithful can be depended on to defend clerics and other spokesmen of their god, when they've committed adultery, child molestation, or any other crimes. And the faithful will faithfully, like their god, always forgive.

The next time you hear the song, “Oh come all ye faithful,” think about these things. Realize that ISIS and Islamic terrorists are faithful, as were those who murdered and tortured for their Christian faiths. They were/are, also, “joyful and triumphant” in doing so. Never regret divorcing yourself from religious beliefs. Doing so isn't betrayal, but saving yourself from a destructive marriage.

Supposing

By Carl S ~

Let’s suppose you know what evangelicals and fundamentalists are thinking. Even then, individuals can surprise you, as anyone would be surprised when finding someone acting “unlike himself.” You would expect a person who preaches morality to you will recognize its opposite and reject it. On the other hand, you may personally have a suspicion of what one writer called “a neurotic appetite for lies” involved when that person unthinkingly chooses what is blatantly opposed to what he alleges to believe. Evidently, such people make such exemptions by obeying “authorities” they trust to know better. So, a group-think mentality, shepherded by these authorities, replaces personal conscience and responsibility. This overrides moral considerations. Now, all of this sounds dry and academic - until it becomes active. (Consider the Third Reich.) Let's take it from here...

Now, evangelicals and fundamentalists have elected their man. Let's suppose they expect he'll advance their desire to dominate government decision-making for their advantage. This expectation is to them, very promising: after all, their proclaimed superior “faith” is just another word for “hope,” and it's hopeful expectations they're buying from him. They’re hoping their man will reverse legislation their authority-spokesmen have been opposing for decades, for one thing. They're also hoping he will make this nation “Christian, truly under God.” They're scared of and can't handle the social advances made over the last decade. They have a neurotic appetite to accept lies.

Now, they’ve succeeded, and they're preparing to congratulate themselves with hopes: No more abortions (although Christians have the most abortions), imprisonment for miscarriages, and more success in tearing down the wall separating church from state. Hopefully, they expect unopposed government support for sectarian schools. Hopefully, government will back-burner the “rights” women have been seeking, which they believe are incompatible with the will of God for women.

This “Christian” nation will engage in one final major war, with its “Onward Christian soldiers” and Israeli soldiers battling “infidel” Islamic fighters.Let us suppose their choice is not the person they believe he is. This makes perfect sense. After all, they have faith, and unquestioning faith is a habit not easily put aside. The faith of Christians is founded on hearsay and blind trust, as opposed to reasoning and questioning. Faith-matters, defined by one believer as, “too deep for my understanding,” are left to the apologists and clergy, who are believed in, also, as a matter of faith, a.k.a., hope and trust. But if the hope-purveying trusted ones are deceived, so are their followers. They can all become stuck in the fly-paper of irrational beliefs. They're also stuck with their choice. What, really, is this man's game? Does he secretly despise them, and has only used them to gain power, and will thwart their goals? Nobody knows the answers to these questions, but it's possible.

Christians who buy into the imminent End Times, who equated the departing president with the Anti-Christ, may find themselves rethinking their choice. Suppose their choice is the actual Anti-Christ? They'd better re-read Revelations, since he has the forewarned qualifications of deceiver, liar, divider of nations, as well as his own, and is a divider within Christianity itself.

This is the ultimate hoped-for future of Christianity and Islam: This “Christian” nation will engage in one final major war, with its “Onward Christian soldiers” and Israeli soldiers battling “infidel” Islamic fighters. Then, Israel will accept Christ, and when nuclear weapons are employed, the real End Times will come and our world will be completely destroyed. Then, they the faith-filled will be “enraptured” into their heavenly kingdom. (Note: Many will be happy to see them depart, under any circumstances.) Hopefully, their chosen national leader will vastly disappointment them. Those of us who care hope he fails to live up to all their hopes – for humanity's sake.