I was a True Follower of Jesus

By Carl S ~

Go into a Christian church parking lot any Sunday during service. You're likely to see a few expensive cars there. (My wife informs me two males, who most likely chant, “in God we trust,” wear their guns to services.) Are expensive car and/or, gun owners true followers of Jesus? Do those married males look with lust at other women, even as they sing “I have decided to follow Jesus?” Ditto. Nope, the majority of believers are “following” the party line of their particular church, and if it doesn't fit them, they change churches. Each church leader has to not only attract new customers, but even more, hang on to the ones he or she has. Tread cautiously lest they walk away, seems to be the policy. Jesus of the gospels wasn't that way. Take it or leave it, he would say; toughen up, the way ahead is narrow and your life is cheap compared to your soul's future. If you own everything, it isn't worth it if you lose that soul.

So, just who is Jesus? Why, he's the man who walks on water, who can change that water into wine, and died for your transgressions against him, things you didn't suspect you were guilty of until you became old enough to be told you should feel guilty. Jesus is the smiling well-built man from the covers of romance novels, with his long, silky, shampooed hair and immaculate and expensive robe, which he washes in his blood to make it white again. He's every woman's gentleman, and every man's Pauline Christ. You see “him” in paintings and stained glass windows. Like “Elvis,” he's the image, not the reality. But that original image doesn't sell, and never was very appealing. Jesus has been made middle-class.

Now, the main objection non-Christians have with evangelicals, i.e., “followers of the gospels and epistles,” those fundamentalists, is that they don't practice what they preach. They think so, adamantly objecting to any suggestion otherwise. It's easy to ignore the fundamental things that apply to being a follower of Jesus. Take it from one who knows. As a teen, I joined a monastic community. Now, I'm not going to start analyzing the factors that came together to make that decision at this late stage in my life. What lay ahead was the road of hope, the challenge, the commitment, and the fact I didn't know what the hell I was getting into. Typical teen. And my enthusiasm was infectious for those already there.

Follow Jesus? Where's the list? Leave family behind. Check. Give up all my possessions. Check. Reject sex. Check. Don't make any plans for the future, God'll take care of you. Check. Be ready to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand, if you think owning them will deny you entrance to heaven. Next... Are you ready to die for Jesus? Check. Forgive or else your heavenly father won't forgive you. Hadn't entered my mind. Okay. Pray every day. Check. It's what monks do, duh! Fast and sacrifice, “take up your cross daily, and follow me.” All set. Oh, if I could have only looked behind me then, to see those millions of followers of Jesus! Where are they, even now?

To be honest, I went overboard in following Jesus. The Trappists didn't even talk to one another in those days; they used sign language. And no meat, fish, or eggs? I mean, that's tough. No TV, radio, pop music, mags or newspapers. If you're going to be “in the world, not of the world,” there's the place to be. Chastity? Now that's commitment. Aha, now you're really sincere, in close quarters with the Lord, especially chosen. Ya know what I mean? And since you're obedient to his will as spoken through his representatives on earth, you worries are over. What, me worry? Now that's security. That's peace surpassing understanding. His promises are forever for those who love him, right? If you fundamentally follow the teaching of Jesus/Paul, that's what's supposed to result.

If “Following Jesus” sounds like a cult, it's because it is.Somehow, that scenario didn't materialize. My experience of that particular road trip involving a relationship with Jesus-God slid off that straight and narrow and totaled out. And nobody blamed me for it. If I was a fundamentalist follower, there most likely would have been blame or shame in my resume, so maybe my judges either saw the inevitable, or knew damned well it demanded too much emotional involvement from any normal person to be humane. That last part might explain why nobody truly follows Jesus, or is expected to. It also explains why no clergyman quotes the demands of Jesus in re, following him. The Trappist order was “contemplative.” To give you one example of this, start to practice this habit: pick a bible text, “contemplate” it seriously by pondering what you read, consider the implications of what is claimed or said there. I did this, and that's why I'm not only an ex-Christian, but an atheist. Clergymen really want you avoid trying this. Christians aren't that serious.

The original monks were truer to being followers of the leader Jesus than anyone. Since we didn't talk in the monastery, someone would read “inspirational” books out loud during meals. Some were original histories of the monks of the desert. These are the men who abandoned the world, became hermits to fast and “pray without ceasing.“ They were there for cleansing their minds warring against their sensuality, to live in undistracted communion with Divine essence. If they felt they should castrate themselves to do so, they would. In our 20th century world, I'm sure none of us considered what the effects of such self-imposed solitary deprivations/exile/prayer-repetitions, would have on their mental state. According to the histories, they did experience apparitions. (One famous report is of an explosive all-night struggle between a devil and St. Anthony of the Desert, from which he emerged triumphant, of course. Was that “devil,” an apparition, or himself?)

Now the reason given for creating monasteries is this: If you're going to follow Jesus, you have to practice charity, and how can you do so as a hermit, with no one else around? This also had the practical benefit for the Christian church of herding men together to avail itself of free labor and obedient followers, who expect nothing more in payment than heavenly rewards. Why, they put not only their welfare, but their futures, into the hands of others standing in for their Jesus! (The serf system was adapted from the monastic hierarchy structure.) Monastic dogmas combine the asceticism of hermits with the exploitation of sincere human beings - modified, but still of use to control not only congregations, but individuals.

If “Following Jesus” sounds like a cult, it's because it is. Christians are cult members, in varying degrees. Are they hypocrites because they don't accept what he asks them to do seriously? No, they're realists. No one who isn't Christian should apologize for being a realist about the Christian cult, either.

Why “God Is Sin” Is Important

By Carl S ~

FoundationOfUnity's essay: “God is Sin,” (3/26/2017) is worthy of serious consideration. Whatever we have been told about “sin” takes on a different meaning when it's understood as distinct from morality. The author makes this distinction when he tells us, “God is sin...this is true. I know this by the definition of sin and its relationship to god. Without god, sin could not exist for sin is the transgression of god's law.” No god, no sin. On the other hand, one can be “sinful” yet moral, ethical, loving and charitable. In fact, if we consider further, doing moral acts will often entail being sinful. This understanding of god = sin denies the dogmatic propaganda of religion, which insists that without god, any immorality is permissible. But, if this god forgives everything, all bets are off, aren't they?

Why is a discussion of god and sin necessary? Obviously, believers in god consider obedience to his will as all important. Judging by their actions, they don't take their scriptures, dogmas, clerics, hell, or other divine punishments all that seriously any more, either. And they don't want to be bothered with facing these facts; or even thinking about them. But, they do insist sinning against god is serious enough to warrant hellfire. No believer truly has expectation of lightning bolts or any other individually-directed physical catastrophes befalling him or her as a result of sinning, anymore. But “God” is frequently invoked, nevertheless, as the ultimate deterrent to wrongdoing, in public pronouncements, political posturing, etc. Neither ethics nor morality in regards to one another is preached by church/state politicians except a citizen's and nation's duty to not sin against that god. By invoking the Christian god, such politicians also invoke the power of the state to punish, suppress, and deny civil rights to those whose lifestyles or words “sin against God.”

A truly 100% Christian nation would resemble an Islamic one But what is this sin all about, except what each religion defines as sins? Depending on which religion you're born into, the following are “sins:” eating pork and/or shellfish, not being circumcised, not observing holy days, not fasting on prescribed days. It is sinful to question or doubt the existence of god. All of these sins have been and are civilly punished in some places in this world. All of these sins have nothing to do with moral behavior. Why would something as simple as free speech (such as blasphemy, a sinful act), deserve punishment on the same footing as crimes like theft, assault, or murder?

Speaking one's mind about matters theological has been condemned as disrespect and disobedience to god, is sinful, therefore evil, deserving of social retaliation. How is it sin became equated with evil, since the god who is sinned against is himself the perpetrator of evil? I asked a believer, “What's the difference between immoral and sinful?” She said they are the same. I was ready with the answer, based on FoundationOfUnity's words. So, I replied, “It is immoral to murder your son. But if god tells you to kill him and you disobey him, you have committed a sin.”

How does this knowledge impact our lives? Well, a truly 100% Christian nation would resemble an Islamic one, such as Saudi Arabia. It would be founded on submission to clerical domination and whatever sect wins will punish “sinners.” This would be history repeating itself. Millions of innocents suffered and died at the hands of those who do not sin when they believe they're obeying the will of a god they themselves accept. Wherever laws punish actions harmful to humans, prior laws have punished “the sinful.” Why laws punishing those who sin against god? With real fear of the prophetic punishments of god, his obedient ones act immorally with the best of intentions. Sin is their problem, but they insist on making their problem ours. And this explains why so much of our societies are being screwed up by them. So yes, we need serious discussions about “God is sin.”

Why aren’t there more women atheists?

By Karen Garst ~

We all know that the movement called the “New Atheism” was promoted most importantly by the “Four Horsemen.” These men¾Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens¾all became very outspoken after the tragedy of 9/11. Each of them published seminal books in the first decade of the 20^th century. A survey of the 100 best-selling books on atheism on Amazon shows each of them still in the top ten today. The number of women on that list of 100 on May 8, 2017 was two. YouTube debates between Christian apologists and atheists are dominated by men, usually on both sides of the issue, including the men mentioned above. Women atheists who take to debates about religion are few and far between. Why?

If we look at the men listed above, Dawkins was a renowned scientist with many books to his name and Dennett was a philosopher with works published as well. Both of these fields, if indeed these fields gave rise to their work on atheism and I would argue they did, have been dominated by men. Data from 2011 show that slightly over 20% of faculty teaching philosophy in the United States are women.[1] Currently, even though women make up 47 percent of the total U. S. workforce, they comprise much lower percentages in the fields of science: from a high of 39 percent of chemists to just 12 of civil engineers.[2] Hopefully the new emphasis on STEM education will bring more women into the field by encouraging girls to explore the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Sam Harris is a philosopher and neuroscientist combining the fields of both Dawkins and Dennett. His first work criticizing religion was written while he was still working on his PhD. Timing is everything they say. Finally, the late Christopher Hutchins was a well-known author and columnist on a wide range of issues. He wrote over 30 books in his lifetime including a strong critic of Mother Teresa. It is fair to say that each of these authors was well positioned to write about religion. It is also fair to attribute the renewed emphasis on atheism in the 21^st century to their work.

In the United States, women atheists have been around for centuries. Annie Laurie Gaylor, in her seminal book, Women without Superstition: “No Gods-No Masters,” chronicles the contributions of 51 women freethinkers from the 18^th century to the present.[3] Thus, one cannot argue that there are no historical precedents for women standing up and declaring their atheism. Elizabeth Cady Stanton is one of the more well-known 19^th century women who not only supported the abolition of slavery, but also the women’s suffrage movement, all the while opposing organized religion. She once said, “Surely the immutable laws of the universe can teach more impressive and exalted lessons than the holy books of all the religions on earth.”[4] Suffice it to say that she received a fair amount of censure for her views on religion but probably not as much as Madalyn Murray O’Hair who was portrayed in a Life magazine article in 1964 as “The Most Hated Woman in America.” She was the head of American Atheists and was murdered along with her son and granddaughter in an extortion scheme.

Today, Annie Laurie Gaylor is the co-president of the important Freedom from Religion Foundation based in Madison, Wisconsin. She joins other women heads of organizations such as Margaret Downey, former president of the Atheist Alliance International and founder and president of the Freethought Society, Debbie Goddard, director of African Americans for Humanism, Rebecca Hensler, founder of Grief Beyond Belief, Maryam Namase, an ex-Muslim activist in London and many others. Women atheist authors and bloggers include Sikivu Hutchinson, Greta Christina, Candace Gorham, Susan Jacoby, Rebecca Goldstein, and Valerie Tarico. And the list continues, but the problem remains. A recent Pew Research study cites that 68% of the people who identify as atheists are men.[5]

I believe that they are many reasons why there are not more women atheists. The most important involves the sense of community. When a woman participates in a church, she usually does much more than attend services. She volunteers to teach the children’s classes. She volunteers to help with events. My mother-in-law is 95 and she is STILL the volunteer for potlucks for funerals at her local Catholic parish, which means they are still depending on women to volunteer to get the work done. When my father was elected deacon of my home church, Trinity Evangelical Lutheran in Bismarck, North Dakota, he came home and informed my mother that “the wives” of the deacons, because of course the deacons were all men at that time, were responsible for the flowers on the altar each Sunday. Bless my mother, she said, “I didn’t run for deacon of the church, you did” and refused to do it. She was the exception. She was, however, a Sunday School teacher and part of the Ladies’ Aid. With volunteer work come connections. Other women become your friends. Your kids play together and know each other. You live in the same community as most religious institutions are neighborhood based. And it’s not just about Sunday. You may sing in the choir. You may attend Bible Study. For some, the church is the center of their entire social life. Marsha Abelman, one of the essayists in my first book, Women Beyond Belief: Discovering Life without Religion, said that once she and her husband decided to leave the church, NO ONE in the congregation remained their friends. That’s a tough blow that many are unwilling to take. They may have lost their faith, but they are not willing to lose their friends.

Another factor is the ability to be on the outside, to be the one who is different, and to be the one who most people, at least in the United States, aren’t comfortable with. If you are an atheist sitting in a pew and have never told anyone, you are hardly going to convince another woman to leave the church. You are even less likely to take an active role in an atheist organization. It’s not easy getting the stares and comments when you announce you are an atheist. For some atheists, like ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, there are even threats to their lives. It is also not easy to take on the role of an outspoken atheist if you don’t already have a platform. When I wrote my first book, I had never participated in an atheist organization and had never published a book. I can assure you that it is an uphill battle.

Leadership also plays a role. Let’s face it, with only 5% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies headed by women and no woman president… yet, women are not always seen as the ones to stick their necks out and take the plunge. I remember an incident that occurred when I was in graduate school at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The Teaching Assistants were an organized local of the American Federation of Teachers when we went on strike against the University. During the strike, the women teaching assistants announced a meeting of women TA’s. During that meeting, a woman stood up and said, “We need to pick a spokesperson to represent us at the membership meetings.” I was astounded and answered, “Do you think the guys are picking spokespersons? We ALL need to speak up at the meetings and share our views, just like the guys.” Here was a highly-educated set of women who just didn’t get it. Yes, it was a long time ago, but life hasn’t changed that much.

Finally, many church communities provide a social safety net for members of their congregation. Sikivu Hutchinson has written extensively about this issue in her book, Moral Combat, as well as other works. According to research by the Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation, 87% of African-American women said that religion was “very important” in their lives. That compares to 79% of African-American men, 66% of white women, and 51% of white men.[6] When the parents of an African-American decide not to take their children to church, Hutchinson notes that “female relatives and neighbors often volunteer to escort children of non-practicing parents to church.”[7] Stressing the support the church communities often provide to families, she states, “With blacks comprising 25% of the nation’s poor, only economic justice can truly redress the cult of religiosity in African American communities.”[8]  

These are just a few of the reasons that men outnumber women in the atheist “movement.” But we can overcome these obstacles and create a more balanced voice for atheism. Wendy Marsman has started a podcast, Women Beyond Belief. She interviews women who have left religion. If you are a woman atheist, please consider speaking to her. She can be contacted at www.womenbeyondbelief.com. The more voices we have the more likely we are to attract more women. Remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Karen L. Garst

The Faithless Feminist

[1]https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxhcGFjb21taXR0ZWVvbnRoZXN0YXR1c29md29tZW58Z3g6NzkxYmU5NGU0NzRjNjk1Nw

[2] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/21/women-still-underrepresented-in-stem-fields

[3] Annie Laurie Gaylor, Women without Superstition: “No Gods-No Masters” (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation, 1997), 93.

[4] Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/elizabethc393721.html

[5] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/

[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/black-women-in-america/?tid=a_inl

[7] Sikivu Hutchinson, Moral Combat: Black Atheists, Gender Politics, and the Values Wars (Los Angeles, CA: Infidel Books. Kindle Edition, 2011), 32.

[8] Ibid., 198.

Broken Promises and False Hope

By Pendaflex ~

I have read and enjoyed the many testimonies on this site and I am glad to share my experience. Many of the testimonials are very well written, I am not a great writer but hopefully my experience will help some one else.

I was "saved" when I was 12 years old. Since then I have poured my life into my faith, I truly felt that I had a personal relationship with god and that he had a purpose for my life. As I got older I selected a college major based off what I thought god wanted and what I felt called to do. I also married a beautiful wonderful woman who shared my faith. I joined a church and poured all my free time into study and fellowship with others. I was asked to be a deacon of the church after about 15 years of faithful commitment to the church. Although I was young I was asked to this position because I believe I reflected a level of maturity given my devoutness and thoughtful study of the bible. I felt that if I prayed and studied that god would give me wisdom and direct me through this life and that I would serve a higher purpose. As I got older I realized that there was a ceiling to where faith can take you. I don't mean that I learned all there is to know, the bible is vast and you can study it the rest of your life and not exhaust it. What I mean is life happens and eventually you will lean on your faith and realize that there is nothing there really to hold onto but broken promises and false hope.

Most people who read this thread may think something bad happened and I am lashing out at god. On the contrary, I have a good life. I'm still very happily married to my wonderful wife and I have two amazing kids and a great job. It is hard to explain what happened to my faith unless you have been through the process which many if not most of the people who read these threads have been through so I hope what I am feeling comes across coherently.

Perhaps its best to give an example.

When I was serving as deacon an emergency meeting was called. There was a member of the church living with a man and they were not married. Both of the people were divorced and they started a new relationship with each other (neither had known each other when previously married). The pastor promptly wanted to nip this in the bud because they were living in sin. That is pretty cut and dry from a biblical point of view, you can't have martial relations outside of marriage. I was on board with the pastor's view on this. The problem came a few weeks later. After confronting them about living with each other they explained that they were in love and that when they were married they weren't Christians. They wanted to start a new life together according to the bible and be married.

The woman in this situation was in an abusive relationship before and she had to leave for her own safety. The man was a really nice guy and I was happy for them that they wanted to "do things right". The deacons met again to discuss this.

The pastor said he would not permit the marriage, at least not perform the ceremony, because the bible says they should reconcile with their spouses and any remarriage would not be biblical. I thought, no way the bible says that. The woman was being beaten and the bible says she should crawl back to her ex and reconcile in lieu of entering a Christian relationship with this other guy? To make a long story a little shorter, after many discussions and hours of study on this subject I realized that the bible is not clear on what to do. Many have strong opinions on this and as many have strong opinions the other way. It set really bad with me. Here are a group of Christians trying to do the right thing by going to the bible and seeking answers and what we got was a bunch of convoluted instructions that you couldn't make sense out of. The thing that really got me was that the self righteous pastor said that his way of looking at it was the right way and that we didn't have the right interpretation. Really, come on. I can pull up many brilliant scholars who would argue against him but god was only speaking to him and he was right? He refused to marry them, they went to another pastor and they got married.

The funny thing is that couple rejoined the church after getting married and the pastor who refused to marry them accepted them back. That is bull crap. I mean come on, if you are going to take such a stance and god is speaking to you stick to your guns. The bible says to not associate with Christians living in sexual sin. If he didn't think their marriage was valid why would he accept them back? I think he realized that his interpretation would alienate him from more than half the congregation and he backtracked.

My point here is that a Christian life is full of these vague instructions. The bible quite frankly is unclear on most things and leaves these big life decisions up to interpretation. There are many examples but that is the best illustration I can think of. The bible says that god gives wisdom if you seek it. It also says god is not the author of confusion and that if you seek the lord you will find him.

I put my faith in these promises and found that there was nothing there.

The church is full of people muddling through a bunch of nonsense and trying to make sense out of it. I just couldn't make excuses for this flimsy belief system anymore. Never mind the countless prayers that went unanswered. When you read the bible you see that Jesus converted people through his power and miracles. It says many times that people believed because of the miracles they witnessed. Where is that power now? Why aren't people being healed? Are we asked to have greater faith than the apostles who followed Jesus after they witnessed his miracles but we are given nothing to go on but vague instructions and we are supposed to follow without question?

This sounds morbid but I have a picture of a little girl in the last stages of cancer. I pull it out sometimes to remind myself of the absence of god. She is writhing in pain in the picture. Where is god? There is no healing or protection for a Christian just the sheltered bubble they create for themselves.

I have heard the same old crap, we are sinful and death is the penalty for sin. Crap, Jesus was healing people and said we would have power if we sought him. There is no power, Christians are just as powerless as the next guy, there is nothing there. The bible says that we would do greater things than Jesus, that was quoted as being said by Jesus. I can't even get a prayer answered let alone heal someone. I can't even give advice as a deacon when I turn to the bible for answers that aren't there.

I am still leaving the door open to god if he is out there but I can't any longer prop up a powerless belief system. The bible says that with the faith the size of a mustard seed we can move mountains. I poured my hope and faith into the bible but I was powerless to move a pea let alone a mountain. There is no power in Christianity outside what we as humans give it, there is nothing outside ourselves which gives power which we are not able to supply ourselves.

I have lived this for almost thirty years and it proved itself false. The bible promised many things but I was left with broken promises and false hope.

Re-Visiting Church: A Few Weeks Later

By Tania ~

On the first Sunday of April, I went to my "home" church for the first time in over two years. It was my aunt and my uncle's 50th wedding anniversary that weekend, and a part of the Sunday morning service at church was dedicated to the occasion. I wanted to be there with my family, so that is why I decided to attend.

For me, going to a special event such as this isn't usually a big deal. I've been to probably a dozen weddings, and countless funerals, bridal and baby showers, and baptismal services. I've been to hundreds of church services, at many different churches. This time, however, was quite different, because over the course of the last six years, my transition away from Christianity has also included a big step away from the church where I grew up.

I felt a bit awkward on that Sunday morning, but also pleasantly distracted and comforted by the realization that I'd be surrounded by my immediate family (who, although they do not always "get" my deconversion, do love and support me and are trying to gain a better understanding of where I'm at now), my aunt and my uncle, and my cousin (who can relate to my feelings of being "an outsider" at the church).

As planned, I wore fancy earrings and kept my hair down -- something I never did six years ago -- and, of course, I also safety-pinned the V-neck of my shirt, because it was just a tad too low, according to my "good Christian girl" background.

I entered the building with my parents and my brother's wife, and was immediately greeted with the expected, "Tania! Haven't seen you in a long time!" "How ARE you?" "Good to see you." It was nice to see some of the people again and not feel like a complete stranger in a place. And yet, it also felt superficial -- I know that a million things have happened since I last stepped foot in the church over two years ago, and my "place" there is so different now than it used to be.

I decided to stick to the "socially acceptable" thing to do in situations like this, so I smiled and kept my answers brief: "Oh, I'm doing all right...yes, still living in the same place...finally have a weekend off...crazy how time flies, isn't it?" It wasn't exactly the time or the place to launch into a big spiel about the challenges of leaving church, cognitive biases and logical fallacies, the place of Christianity in the Roman Empire, how Jesus was just one of the many dying and rising gods of the Middle East, and how the whole thing no longer makes sense to me.

As we walked into the sanctuary, a small group of people played worship music at the front. As I heard the music, sat down in my "usual" pew, and took in the surroundings, my thoughts floated, interestingly, to the kitchen table of a good friend of mine. I choked up a bit as I recalled the hours and hours during which we wondered, confessed, cried, and laughed about our similar experiences of leaving behind our religious faith. We'd talk about the challenges, the new insights, the bizarre things we no longer believe or emphasize so strongly. Sitting in the pew that morning, I thought about the many times, especially at the beginning of my deconversion, when I could open up to acquaintances or co-workers and say, "Oh, wow, you think that way, too?" I thought about those little things that really were not so little -- they helped me to realize that I was not alone or completely crazy and that I might eventually be okay.

After the introductory music, we listened to the announcements and sang some hymns (I held my hymnal open to the appropriate page, but did not sing along). The choir sang beautifully, as usual, and then the 50th wedding anniversary was acknowledged with a plaque and a special song by the choir. The sermon was based on John 9, about a blind man who was healed by Jesus. The pastor talked about people being blind -- and, especially, "spiritually blind." He talked about being receptive to the light that comes from God and the importance of abandoning the darkness that comes from all those worldly things out there. It was interesting to observe my own reaction to the sermon and to compare it to the way in which the pre-deconversion Tania would have reacted. I have learned to take things (such as this sermon) more lightly, to question authority figures such as pastors, to see the bigger picture, to decide for myself how much weight to give these ideas, and, ultimately, how to live my own life.

We had lunch in the church basement after the service, and that was all right. I mostly talked with my family, although I did chat with others here and there and made a point of talking to a couple of people I'd recently felt awkward around. My parents drove me back to Kelowna after the service, and, relieved and content, I carried on with the day.

In the years to come, I will probably always miss church and all that was involved with the church experience. Looking back on previous chapters of our lives, we can all see that there are some things that just won't ever happen again (either in a certain place, with a certain person, or with a general naivete about all aspects of life) and it can be a bit painful. I -- yes, all of us -- miss things of the past, and sometimes there is not a thing we can do to re-capture them. So, what to do? In this case, I think back on the church experience, and I smile at the memories. And then, without lingering too much on that, I pick up my phone and call my mom. I go for a long walk or a glass of wine. I check my email and reply to a message from a new friend. I go the library and pick up a book about astronomy or an issue of Scientific American Mind magazine -- things that I never would have read six years ago. I take in my surroundings -- what is here, now -- and remind myself to focus on what's real to me now. I see that I no longer need all those "church things" to feel happy, safe, purposeful, good.

So, the question now is, Would I go to my "home" church again? Probably not, or at least not anytime soon, except for a wedding or a funeral. I've got enough other things going on.

One Year Into Recovery – A Reflection

By AnonAgno94 ~

It's hard to believe - we are coming up now on one year of me departing from the born-again Christian community. And while I am not the best at maintaining an active online blogger lifestyle (apologies for not posting more regularly on here), I thought it would be appropriate to share some thoughts as to where I am now.

I came to this community here at Ex-C as a new agnostic, struggling with losing the foundation that once had the name “Jesus Christ” appended to it. Over the last few months, however, and after lengthy conversations with others with whom I have crossed paths, I will declare today that I now consider myself an atheist rather than an agnostic. Am I definite on that? No, but quite honestly with all of the knowledge I have gained over this last year on humanity and life as we know it, I cannot help but truly doubt there will be anything once my brain decides it has lived its life and needs a more permanent rest. Not relying upon some one-in-a-million afterlife can be a good way to live, I am slowly learning. It amplifies the appreciation I have for each breath that I take, for each day that I arrive home from work and can embrace my boyfriend, for each memory he and I can create and each plan we can take.

Though I am not out of the clearing yet, and quite honestly, I am not sure I ever will be, but with each passing day I grow steps and steps further from the mental abuse of conservative religion and closer towards the person I truly want to be – free, independent, and fully appreciative of what it means to be 'human.'

But I still break down sometimes. I still cannot bear the thought of being alone (my boyfriend wants to get me a dog to help me cope when he is gone on some weekends). Sometimes the thought of one day dying and never coming back completely terrifies me to where I wish, I wish that the god I had been raised to believe in, to trust in, in some good, loving form, actually existed so I could go back to believing that death would never touch me, that Christ would be my victory.

Apart from the judgmental, higher-than-thou mindset that Christianity teaches you, I at times envy the assurance so many devout believers have in the afterlife, the belief that I used to have so close to my heart.

But then I am reminded of Christianity's plague upon our nation; the influence it has over our society, over our political system (which is quite surprising honestly considering the historicity surrounding the founding of our country). Christians pride themselves on proselytizing to broken individuals, to those who are downtrodden, emotionally weak, vulnerable, and afaraid. It is when you are desperate that you truly reach out for something, anything. It is also when a figure, such as a “loving Jesus,” can weave his way into your belief system, to make you think that he is the everlasting friend, that he would do everything and anything for you, and, in fact, he already has.

I hope one day that we as humanity can alone be the true support for each other, not some false, mythical belief system. But I think we still have a long way to go before religion is truly but a memory of our species' existence, if ever. While it may not be in my lifetime, I can at least work to continue to connect with those (such as many of you who are probably reading this now) to encourage and support and remind that you are not alone and that you do not need some mythical being to tell you so but rather a physical, fellow human being. That you are not alone.

That I am not alone.

Women in Arabia before Islam

By Karen Garst ~

I have written extensively about the worship of female deities prior to the advent of monotheism. Many historians will agree there was likely a notion of a Mother Goddess or Mother Earth early in the lives of humans. Everyone knows about the later pantheon of Roman and Greeks gods and goddesses… unless you were sleeping in high school. Many other cultures had goddesses as well. Furthermore, Judaism was not the only culture to get rid of the goddesses and opt for a single male deity. Enuma Elish, the Babylonian myth, predates the Jewish tradition by at least 1,000 years. In this story, Marduk, one of the male deities, asks his fellow gods to make him the head god. If they consent, he will kill Tiamet, the goddess of the sea. Yup, they agreed and she was cut in half to separate the skies and the earth. But we often hear that females in the area where Islam started, the Arabian Peninsula, were disadvantaged, couldn’t own property, and couldn’t choose whom they could marry. These writers maintain that Islam improved their lives.

Hibah Ch[1], who has written an essay about women and Islam for my next book, quickly disabuses us of this characterization. First, the wife of Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was married to Khadija bint Khuwaylid for 25 years until her death. She had been married previously and was a very successful merchant in the Quraysh tribe. It is said that her caravan “equaled the caravans of all other traders of the Quraysh put together.”[2] Doesn’t sound like an oppressed, disadvantaged woman to me.

Even more importantly, there were women leaders of some of the tribes in the area. Examples include:

Zabibi the Assyrian queen of a kingdom in north eastern Arabia called Doumatoa, the Nabatean empress Julia Domna (170-217AD), the queen of Palmyra Zenobia (240-270 AD), the queens of the kingdom of Himyar in South Arabia, the Kingdom of Kindah in central Arabia, the Ghassanids in Syria and the Lakhmids of Hirah all between 300 AD and 500 AD.[3]

In addition to women leaders as well as women warriors (one led a war against Mohammed), Hibah tells us there were female deities as well. The society which preceded Mohammed was polytheistic. Three of the female deities that were worshipped were Al Lat, Al'uzza, and Manat. Just as the Jewish Tanakh railed against the “Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 44:18), the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam, railed against these female deities as well.

 So have you considered Lat and ‘Uzza? And Manat, the third—the other one? Is the male for you and for Him the female? That, then, is an unjust division. (Qur’an 53:19-22)

It undoubtedly took Islam a while to suppress the reverence for these female deities just as happened in Judaism. Karen Armstrong, a well-known writer about religion, states that it probably took 600 years to fully create the monotheistic religion that Judaism became.[4]

Unfortunately, after Islam was fully established, much of the evidence regarding the worship of these female deities was destroyed including all the temples of Al Lat in Taif (current day Saudi Arabia) as well as other sites in the Islamic world. There were statues and shrines to previous deities even in the Kaaba itself which became the holiest site of Islam.

Just as the laws of Judaism devalued women and established a male patriarchy, Islam also made women subservient to men in its holy writings.

Men are guardians over women because Allah has made some of them (men) excel others (women), and because they (men) spend of their wealth. So virtuous women are those who are obedient, and guard the secrets of their husbands with Allah’s protection. (Qur’an 4:34)

Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. (Qur’an 4:11)

Just as I wrote in last week’s blog post about menstruation, Islam’s holy book also sees women as unclean. Men have to undergo a ritual cleaning prior to prayer.

O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. And if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and find no water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and your hands [with it]. Indeed, Allah is ever Pardoning and Forgiving. (Qur’an 4:43)

Mohammed obviously learned from what was happening around him. Both Jews and Christians had a holy book. Mohammed wrote the Qur’an to serve the same purposes. And Christianity had spread rapidly after the fall of the Roman empire. By the late 6^th century, when Mohammed was born, Christianity was evident in most of the geographical areas bordering the Mediterranean.  

This is just a small portion of the history of Islam and its impact on women that Hibah outlines in her essay. Stay tuned for the book!

Karen L. Garst, The Faithless Feminist

---

[1] Hibah Ch is a Syrian Expatriate woman living currently in the United States, born and raised in Aleppo. She is from a conservative Muslim family. She left Islam in her mid-twenties to follow the school of liberalism. The information for this post is drawn from her essay and her references are cited.

[2] Muhammad ibn Saad, Tabaqat vol. 8. Translated by Bewley, A. (1995). The Women of Madina, p. 10. London: Ta-Ha Publishers. Accessed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadija_bint_Khuwaylid.

[3] Nabia Abbott, “Pre-Islamic Arab Queens,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 58:1 (Jan. 1941): 1-22. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/370586

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

Menstruation and Circumcision

By Karen Garst ~

Late at night a lone man picks up a piece of ivory. Near the entrance to the cave, a fire is still glowing. He cannot seem to go to sleep. He picks up a sharp flint and carves a figure of a woman with pendulant breasts and a stomach that could only mean pregnancy. The time? 30,000 years ago. Why is he doing this? Is it because women and their ability to give birth is so important to his tribe which has just lost three members on a hunt? Is he enthralled with the way a woman’s body changes during pregnancy? Does he wonder why only the women get pregnant? He finally begins to feel tired. He puts the flint down and drifts off to sleep invoking the Earth Mother who provides for them all.

Conjecture? Absolutely. Possibility? Definitely. As more and more attention is given to archeological finds of this era, it is likely that the role women played in giving birth was venerated. Because of the awesome aspect of nature – providing sustenance, having regular cycles – as well as for the devastating events that sometimes occurred, many researchers have posited the probability that the form of the first “religion” probably involved an “Earth Mother” or “Nature Goddess.”

In the Paleolithic era, our ancestors, like the man portrayed above, had already figured out how important blood was. Even before they began hunting and killing animals, they would have known that if they received an injury where they lost a lot of blood, they often died. It would be interesting to know what their first thoughts were of women’s menstrual cycles. Because they were familiar with the cycles of the moon, they also must have been aware of how closely women’s menstrual cycles paralleled their rhythm.

But what did they think of menstruation? Why did women bleed and not die? Why did older women not bleed? Why did women stop bleeding when they were pregnant? Why was a baby born with a sack of blood-soaked placenta? Remember that early on, they had no idea how sexual intercourse contributed to the birth of a child. One can debate when man had first knowledge of this, but there certainly was a time when they did not. Even as late as when Christian missionaries first arrived in Britain, they stated that the local tribes recognized no relationship with a father.[1]

Barbara G. Walter, author of many books about the worship of the goddess, states the following:

Female menstrual cycles, thought to have been established by the Moon Goddess, displayed that essence of life each month, but kept it hidden when it was occupied with creating a baby, or with providing an elder woman with her mysterious, wisdom. There is no stronger taboo in human history than the taboo that forbade men to touch or even look at this awesome blood. In fact, the very word taboo originally applied to menstrual blood and meant magical, sacred, wonderful.[2]

Even the story of Adam from the Bible has been developed from this association with blood. The word Adam itself is derived either from the Hebrew for red, or the Akkadian word for make.[3] One possible origin for this story derives “from the Mesopotamian Great Goddess who formed the first humans out of clay and brought them to life by anointing them with Her own moon-blood.”[4]

So how about men? Circumcision may well be the world’s oldest surgical procedure. One scholar believes it was practiced at least 15,000 years ago.[5] The earliest known evidence comes from an image carved on a tomb in Egypt from 2400 BCE.[6] Some hypothesize that it was a rite at puberty to mimic the onset of menstruation in young girls. Today, the procedure is coming under fire and many doctors no longer encourage circumcision of infant males. It is still an important rite in certain Hebrew sects. There was also a parasitic disease called schistosomiasis. One of its impacts was blood in the urine. From ancient times to the 20^th century, it was seen as a male version of menstruation and therefore a rite of passage for boys.[7]

The importance of these two “events”—menstruation in women and circumcision for a man—is the reversal in importance that took place when monotheism came to be the standard for the Jewish religion. A woman’s menstrual cycle, once revered with a Mother Goddess and life-giving attributes, became just the opposite—the symbol of something dirty and unclean. Just a few Bible verses will show what I mean.

When a woman has a discharge of blood that is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. Everything upon which she lies during her impurity shall be unclean; everything also upon which she sits shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.  (Leviticus 15:19-21)

If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty-six days. (Leviticus 12:5)

You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. (Leviticus 18:19)

Mortal, when the house of Israel lived on their own soil, they defiled it with their ways and their deeds; their conduct in my sight was like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual period. (Ezekiel  36:17)

I think you get the picture.

Circumcision, whose origins do not reveal the purpose of such a rite, became very important in the history of the Jewish religion. This procedure became the evidence itself of the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham.

You (Abraham) are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. (Genesis 17:11-12)

While we do not know why this tradition started, we do know its impact on women. Circumcision became the evidence of male power. Because women were not circumcised and only men were, the men became the only ones who could be priests. It was they that were closest to God. In a time where there was no such thing as separation of church and state, they held all the municipal power as well.

While the early Christian community said that circumcision was NOT necessary to be part of the church, there was no change in the power structure. Women were still seen as unclean and unable to participate as priests in this fledgling religion, except in the very early days. And lest you think that this is all old history and not the way it is today, I close with the following quotation by Mark Driscoll, founder of the Mars Hill nondenominational mega-church franchise.

Women will be saved by going back to that role that God has chosen for them. Ladies, if the hair on the back of your neck stands up it is because you are fighting your role in the scripture.[8]  

It is time for all women to leave religion. It is a mythology created by humans that justifies all sorts of constraints on women. Indeed, as I have said so many times, religion is the last cultural barrier to gender equality.

Karen Garst, The Faithless Feminist.

---

[1] Barbara G. Walker, Restoring the Rites of the Goddess: Equal Rites for Modern Women, (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000), 79.

[2] Ibid. 118.

[3] https://www.behindthename.com/name/adam

[4] Barbara G. Walker, Restoring the Rites of the Goddess: Equal Rites for Modern Women, (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000), 118.

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

[6] Ibid.

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schistosomiasis

[8] http://lineout.thestranger.com/2008/04/everclear_to_play_mars_hill_church

God, I Want A Divorce

By MTC ~

I was raised Catholic, went through an agnostic phase, then classified myself as a non-denominational Christian after "finding Jesus" again during a Baptist church service while visiting maternal relatives. Like so many others, I was devout and had such a strong relationship with God.

However, that doesn't mean there were certain teachings in the Bible and Christianity that didn't sit well with me. Then again, our Heavenly Father knows best. Bleh!

I happened to find several videos on youtube and other sources elsewhere on the Internet which gave very intriguing facts about the history of the Bible, earlier myths, etc.

To sum it up quickly, I no longer classify as any religious person. Not just the lack of evidence or newly discovered facts, but what mainly did it for me is the numerous teachings, claims, etc., in Biblical doctrine that make absolutely no sense at all if one really thinks and pays attention. Example: God is in control and everything works out according to his plan, but he gives us free will. Just how does that work? Besides, if all will work out according to his plan anyway, and you can pay a heavy price for saying "no" to God (up to and including eternal torment) then what good is free will, and prayer for that matter? Especially since we're supposed to trust and have faith in our Heavenly Father's will.

Christianity also teaches that God is all-knowing and nothing is beyond his knowledge, including the future. So if he knew Adam and Eve would disobey him and the rest of humanity would suffer and go bad, then why bother creating us? Sometimes I get the "because God gave Adam and Eve free will" response. But Heavenly Father still knows everything and saw us before we were born. Need I say more?

Speaking of which, and be warned that I'm about to mention a touchy topic...abortion. In cases of rape, the devoutly religious pro-lifers claim that it's unfair and immoral to punish the child for the sin/s of the parent/s. But yet we're being punished for what Adam and Eve did! Also, God deliberately struck King David's infant son with a seven-day sickness and then death because of his sins. And God is supposed to be merciful and just...whatever.

If he knew Adam and Eve would disobey him and the rest of humanity would suffer and go bad, then why bother creating us? Today, feminism has a negative reputation. True feminism is about the genders having equal legal rights, education and career opportunities, etc. Unfortunately many people today associate feminism with man-hating (which is misandry) and female supremacy, and I admit that there are some goons out there who think that way. But I do not associate with them in any way whatsoever. Anyway, the Bible is clearly filled with sexism and misogyny (woman-hating). One reason I've heard for Eve being created from Adam's rib (yet another Bible story that drives me nuts to no end) was for her to be at his side as his equal. His side as his equal...not his head to be over him or his foot to be under him. But nevertheless "the husband is the head of the wife (Ephesians 5:23)" and therefore the household leader and final decision-maker. And only men can be head pastors and church elders (1 Timothy 2:11-14, 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Makes lots of sense, doesn't it? *sarcasm* I don't care how anyone justifies or rationalizes it, male headship is indeed sexist and misogynistic. I quote from gotquestions.org, "It is also very important to understand that the Bible’s ascribing different roles to men and women does not constitute sexism. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God expects men to take the leadership role in the church and the home. Does this make women inferior? Absolutely not. Does this mean women are less intelligent, less capable, or viewed as less in God’s eyes? Absolutely not! What it means is that in our sin-stained world, there has to be structure and authority. God has instituted the roles of authority for our good. Sexism is the abuse of these roles, not the existence of these roles." Yeah, whatever! I also quote from christiancourier.com, "These facts do not suggest that woman is inferior to man, but they do mean (to those who respect the testimony of Scripture) that she is subordinate in rank to man." Um, hello! Inferior and subordinate are synonyms, in other words they mean the same thing!

If God put me in a subordinate rank not because of my education level, experience level, etc., but because of my chromosomes, then I want nothing to do with him. Speaking of which, there are things I've been through in my life which were supposedly God's will, or he allowed them to happen for whatever reason/s. I was an "early bloomer," starting the first signs of maturing when I was 10. Those changes are already hard and humiliating enough, but when you're that young and especially not mentally ready...you catch my drift, right? Supposedly I was an "early bloomer" because it was our Heavenly Father's will. Not only that, but he was actually the hand in having me mature that early. Is it just me, or does that make God sound like a molester? Also, I was diagnosed with autism in my early childhood. Needless to say me and my family had obstacles to overcome. We also had a rather negative experience at a famous medical center. God's will...bah! Like many other kids, I had my share of being bullied and made fun of. Some of the things other kids did and said to me were downright horrible, and to this very day I go to mental health therapy because of it (and other things too, such as the early maturing). What reason/s could Heavenly Father possibly have for me to be mistreated so badly by other children? Why didn't he protect me from those cruel kids? Don't forget, according to Christianity those same people who traumatized me do have a chance to enter Heaven so long as they repent, accept Jesus and ask for forgiveness. If that happens, what about me and my feelings? Do I no longer matter?

God loves me more than I can imagine, yet does so many things and/or allows things to happen that bother and humiliate me to no end, and drive me up the wall. Canned responses including "God works in mysterious ways" and "just trust and have faith in his will" don't do any good at all. So God, you love me unconditionally and beyond description, yet you did things in the Bible that you knew would drive me nuts, and you did and/or allowed things in my own personal life which you knew would be so traumatic, embarrassing, etc. God...I want a divorce!

Without Enthusiasm, What is There?

By Carl S ~

About those 24-hr. news channels. My wife watches them every day. I used to, especially during election seasons, until they stretched out for 18 months. What was once enthusiasm faded to interest, then disappointment, and now those channels are annoying. Time to move on. It's a madhouse out there now, more aggravating than entertaining. News commentators talk every subject to death. Wouldn't it be cool to have a regular series on TLC, The Learning Channel, about atheist families? It's the channel viewers go to to learn about lives they pretend not to care about. It's the perfect place for the evangelical prudes to indulge, without each others' knowing, their curiosity about the godless they condemn. But that's not all. I'm seriously thinking about quitting my commentaries; there's neither interest nor enthusiasm, and I put a lot of labor into them. Maybe move on to something different, somewhere?

Interests and enthusiasms make life worthwhile. When people are “trying to find” themselves, they're really looking for the interests that define themselves, which they've lost or put on the back burner for the interests of others. So, interests and enthusiasms are selfish in the way being oneself is selfish. When they're vibrant, life is also. Without them, things are pretty dull; life is contingent on having enough energy to keep it being interesting. My relatives knew this until their dying days. They went down, as is said of daredevils of the sky, “the way they wanted to.”

The last time I saw my mother was in Ohio. She was 85 years old at the time, visiting with my older brother and his wife. This was a day before she flew back to Arizona. I said, “See you next year,” and she told me that No, she was “Tired of living and I want to be with my husband in heaven.” My mom was always a positive person, tough in business dealings, tender and defensive for her kids, and flexible as hell about their life choices, no matter how “wrong” others thought they might be. But that day she let me know her fading loss of sight and taste, combined with a life she pretty much lived as she wanted to, was ready to be put away for good. Now, she has been gone for many years, along with my brother and his wife. My sister was like her mother, but she also reached that point where she said, almost every time I'd write or talk to her, “I'm tired and I want to die.” When enthusiasm isn't in the picture, time to hang things up and mellow away, yes?

My sister once got so carried away by a radio evangelical preacher that she left her seven kids behind and took a bus so she could run away with him. (He sent her home.) It gets me to thinking about something. I wonder if it's the personalities of these preachers that draw believers to be enthusiastic, and not their God or Jesus, as they claim. It's not inconceivable these preachers with their TV, radio, and mega church audiences, can be the equivalents of rock stars, movie, and television celebrity idols.

Everybody should have enthusiasm. But, as one writer noted, educational systems (religion system included), try to squelch the natural-born enthusiastic instincts of children. A Montessori educational system encourages children to develop their natural interests and enthusiasms. Such killjoys, such wet blankets! We encourage our kids to question, to use their interests for discovering how the real world works. Religious institutions exploit them to be channeled into dogmatic brainwashing. The trusting child does not question motivation. The child doesn't know what “perversion of reality” means. (Come on, how insane can a claim be: washing your clothes in blood can make them white as snow?) Think of how much progress humanity could have made without religious systems sapping the curiosity we're all born with. And can you imagine trial-and-error progress without blasphemous and obscene words? Never would happen. Only the topmost worker in a gothic cathedral could get away with that, and only by muttering to himself. But curse he did, ergo... progress. Every male knows this.

Everybody should have enthusiasm. But, as one writer noted, educational systems (religion system included), try to squelch the natural-born enthusiastic instincts of children.Governments, religions, and other institutions around the world keep trying to suppress and censor free speech and civil rights, curbing or denying enthusiasm. They want us to believe we have purposes to our lives, as long as they suit their purposes. But we're human; our enthusiasm is often at cross-purposes with their desires to control us. The bastards are pushing to make our sexual decisions for us, even forcing legislation to deny us the right to control how we choose to leave this life, for chrissakes! They'd rather have us tortured to death by whatever will inevitably end our lives and/or the hopeless medical intervention we don't want. Let it be noted: One enthusiastic purpose I have to my life is to destroy clerical power; just the opposite of what that “purpose driven life” religion wants.

The way I see it, Christian clergy and you and I take our references from the 12 o'clock hour. It's just that theirs is 12 a.m., and ours is 12 p.m. Growing up in a religion enclosure is a world of its own. The Christian religion tells us our lives begin in the darkness of midnight, and progresses to the sunrise of our own Easter. They preach that death is just the beginning of the only life that counts, since mortal life pales in comparison to it. That's perverse. When religious lives are lived under the dark filtered-by-faith-glass, we are told to grope in blind trust, to follow the leader in darkness through life's unexpected trials and tribulations. Hell, any cult has the same spiel.

If you are one of the 12 p.m. children, on the other hand, you begin living life in the clear light of day, seeing and discovering, interested, enthusing, through thick and thin. Life is a buffet, not a place where you must, under threat of punishment, deprive yourself of its opportunities, its pork, beef, and beverages, and sexual pleasures. Your life's purpose is your own, it isn't a lifelong battle waged to settle a religion's desire for revenge or for conquest. After years of living in all life offers, you get weary, tire out, and then you can go to your acceptable final rest, in peace. You’ve had your time singing in the sunshine, laughing in the rain, of splendor in the grass, and it's time to say “Good night, world.” Interesting, isn't it?

Behind the God Façade

By Carl S ~

“A mass grave containing about 800 human remains ranging in age from 35 weeks to 3 years was discovered at the former Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in Tuam, Ireland, a Catholic orphanage that closed in 1961.” - Associated Press, March 3, 2017.

Shortly before I quit going to church with my wife, I found myself after one service, alone with her pastor. He took the opportunity to ask me if I had “issues.” I told him I didn't. (But later I asked my wife what “issues” meant.) Of course I have issues. For years now. Looking back at his question, I suspect he was planning on setting up an intervention with him and other church members to “explain to a wanderer from the faith,” just to keep him in the herd. Little did he know I never was part of his flock. If he did, he might have agreed with actor Strother Martin in the movie “Cool Hand Luke,” who said, “What we have here is failure to communicate.” But then, problems all believers deal with stem from the fact “God” fails to communicate, don't they? So, “his” delegates must speak for “him.”

Maybe the “calling” to preach is only a social construct, to enable liars to have a livelihood. I suspect “lying for Jesus” or God has been so successful for the clergy it's a pleasure-giving habit, and because their unvalidated claims go unchallenged, so too must the deceptions multiply. When habitual lying becomes an addiction, won't it become self-deception? Isn't this combination similar to a gambling addiction? Probing doubt is needed to peel away religion's veneer.

Things are not what they're loudly proclaimed to be when it comes to religions:

1. Their scriptures are written with constant changing of subjects to dissuade us from investigating their claims. Ask yourself why couldn't Christianity continue as an oral tradition; why wasn't there any resurrection account written until at least thirty-plus years later? I came to this conclusion: The gospels had to be written in order to keep people from asking questions. And they were not checked for errors or veracity. Early Christianity was replete with scattered beliefs and dogmas about the nature of Jesus alone. A solution was concocted for a monopoly of power: a convention of church elders got together and voted in which “alternative facts” texts were to be “true,” and every other opinion became “heresy.” After that, anyone caught teaching anything differing from them would be punished, banished, or executed. “Alternative truth” by vote?

2. Our disagreements with clergy about their god's personal morality might arise from the same kinds of “disagreements” we have with psychopaths. Unless we are psychopaths ourselves, we can't relate to Klaus Barbie, Ted Bundy or the Inquisitors, either. Neither can we imagine what it's like to be a bishop, rabbi, pope, priest, pastor, or imam, etc., having to cover up crimes of fellow clergy, to justify physical and psychological child abuse, or the deaths of women due to denied or botched abortions. Maybe, for the same reasons, we don't see their reasons for their indifference to giving us information, or their refusals to justify their decisions. We're looking at things from a moral and ethical position and making a mistake in thinking religious authorities are also.

3. Organized religions, because they are founded and dominated by males, are all about Power. Moral sincerity is a facade. Does the Vatican, Russian Orthodox Church, Islamic religion, or any other belief system sincerely care about moral/ethical, behavior? Hasn't morality been a successful facade for all religious claims to authority? While clergy preach each believer has moral obligations, they practice a double standard for their own behavior.


4. All known dictatorial systems followed the blueprint laid down by Christianity: claims to own absolute truths and authority, suppression of facts, a strict structure of hierarchies, degradation or persecution of dissidents, absolute loyalty, and promises of rewards to those who obey. No surprise the Mafia is an outgrowth of the Catholic Church. What clergy are loyal to, answerable to, and uphold, is not to any higher power they preach, but The System. All other considerations, such as compassion, honesty, justice for those the system harms, are all collateral damage for the sake of preserving it forever. And it gets worse with each stretch of privilege giving the clergy a free pass. Unopposed, they'll grab all they can. The holiness, reverence for life, claims to moral superiority because of asserted, (not necessarily) seriously believed beliefs, is so much bullshit. Even the Mafia can relate to that. Even gang members know; it's all about power.

5. Those within the grasp of religion's power are indoctrinated to believe in a man who is invisible, but feared. Nobody has seen him, heard him, and yet he has to be constantly praised and begged for favors. As a righteous god, he is unsympathetic and cruel. We see his image when soberly reflecting on the indifference of psychopathic torturers and murderers, this fictitious god who creates a facility where he can watch humans being tortured, eternally. (Eat your heart out, Klaus Barbie.) What they share is absence of remorse, empathy for their victims, with no sense of evil in following their desires to the maximum.

Things are not what they're loudly proclaimed to be when it comes to religions6. Go behind the facade. Religions are not about morality and ethical behavior, but Power over minds, emotions, and women. Christianity sells a trade-off: forgiveness as a substitute for personal responsibility. Unlike prisons built to constrain the guilty, religions are prisons where power and control are exercised over the innocent, good, caring, humans, who don't need them. Creationism, miracles, the immovable belief in the magical power of words and manifestations are all of the same non substance: wishful appearances. Believers are not purchasing the steak, but the sizzle. Clergy are holy vacuum cleaner salesmen who tell you their product will cleanse your soul, but all they're selling is the vacuum.

7. Why do even intelligent humans buy into the facade, stay in it, even to the point of being most fearful of losing it? When we talk about common human traumas, we consider death, destruction, divorce, health crisis, betrayals, etc. But maybe the worst of all is disillusionment. This explains a lot. I say this because, of all of them, disillusionment has the longest lasting effects. The more a person commits in love, passion, time, money, and in setting aside all other things that mean the most to him or her, so much the more devastating will be the result of finding out one has been deceived all along. It's inconceivable. The most natural reaction is rejecting this could happen, this could be true. And to reach the end of one's life realizing one has been conned, has to be the greatest disillusionment. No wonder it would be avoided as exposure to the most toxic of plagues. Denying the finality of death is one of the most powerful illusions humans cling to. Hope is the very last thing to die, as the saying goes, but even at death, the believer hopes. When thinking about the persistency and defensive power of faith (which is only another word for nothing more than gambling), make note of how terrified humans can be whenever they are faced with being disillusioned. Therefore, religion thrives.

8. Religious teachings and scriptural writings exemplify what “moral” means to all those fictitious male deities, and the sellers who promote them as their profitable products, as compared to the rest of humanity. It's not realistic to agree to disagree with those whose purpose is to dominate you. Confrontation is necessary. Religious spokesmen should be revealed to have “failure to communicate,” because they only want their words heard, and avoid these facts.