Skip to main content

Died For My Boring Trivial Sins?

By Carl S ~

Maybe you've had my experience. I attended elementary school, and one day the teacher found a note calling him some kind of a pig. Since nobody (naturally) owned up to writing it, the class was told to stay after class, to ferret out the writer. Now, the strange thing was: I personally felt guilty for that note, even though I knew nothing about it; so guilty that, right after class, I went straight home, a mile's walk away. My mother got a phone call asking where I was. She told them I was home and asked why they called. Now, we've all heard the saying, “If you're innocent, you have nothing to be afraid of,” but I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. She brought out that adage. Now, most parents would send the child back to face the music. Not my mom. She asked, “Did you write it?” I told her. “No, and I'm not going back.” She believed me and backed me up. Later on, the perpetrator confessed. But 70 years later, I still wonder: why did I feel guilty for something I didn't do? And in the years since then I've wondered why innocent people walk into police stations and confess to murders they couldn't have possibly committed, since the available evidence contradicts their claims.

This enigma came to mind again while reading a James Agee book, “The Night Watch,” a novel about a 12 yr. old boy who, with his buddies, spends the entire Thursday night into Good Friday morning in a chapel, in a “vigil,” praying and thinking about what he has been indoctrinated to believe. Many of his “God-offending” thoughts he counters with repentant prayers; but at other times he has to admit that, in spite of what he has been told is wrong, he sees no point in feeling guilty about them. Since I spent a few intermittent years between Catholic and public schools, I'm familiar with the emphasis on guilt in parochial education. And I suspect all s.o.p. religious childhood “educating” follows the same guilt saturation to one degree or another. Not only do I see this approach as damaging (for sensitive kids), but worthless when the child starts growing up and realizes there is no god around to punish the guilty. My observations of Christian behavior lead me to conclude they don't feel guilty about many of their actions, especially cheating.

It was only after I left school when a priest told me “Jesus died for you.” I was supposed to feel grateful for this. Was I also supposed to feel guilty? Had I missed something while I was in public school instead of parochial, something about “you're personally guilty for his death because you've sinned?” (I'd even forgotten all about the thing where every human is guilty at birth!) Now, true believers may swear on a stack of bibles this is the way things are, God-wise. But, they put their emphasis on being “not perfect but forgiven,” and go on their merry way. Guilt is a serious matter to me; not easily brushed aside so blithely. I seriously try to make decisions I won't require feeling guilty about. Sure, being human means making mistakes, like wrong and stupid decisions. And it's easier to say to some disembodied fantasy-god figure or his unaffected agent, “forgive me, Lord,” rather than apologize to the person you've hurt or damaged. Those human to human guilty feelings I can accept. They’re real.

But don't attempt to tell me or try to indoctrinate my children into accepting guilt because you say a god came out of the skies to die for their “sins.” I've heard the story invented by a man who invented his own sacrificial man-god/original sin creed out of his own imagination - a man who couldn't even form a physical relationship with a woman. The “historical Jesus,“ he knew nothing of. That Jesus was executed because of his blasphemy and opposition to religious authorities, not for redemption. (He couldn't even redeem himself.) Paul's imaginary creation who died for you, for mankind, because of an imaginary sin scenario, deserves a reality-check eraser, a laser-blade burning away that carbuncle. Feel no guilt at the demise of this guilt.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro