You're Kidding Me!

By Carl S ~

My beloved brought up something about Einstein after we’d watched the ten part TV series, “Genius.” She said, “He wasn't a very nice man. He neglected his family, especially his wife. And yet he found time to have sex with other women.” I pointed out he was human, that even psychopaths and the mentally-impaired have sex-drives. I mentioned a conversation I once had with her pastor's wife. “I have this book,” I said, “about medical pioneers whose work saved millions of lives. But they were not the kinds of people you'd want to know.” The pastor's wife was disappointed. Looks like she didn't notice her own people-saving Jesus wasn’t a pleasant individual, either.

Maybe Einstein's obsession with finding solutions for the deepest questions humans have always asked was connected with his sexuality and his attraction to intellectual women. (Physics was his lifelong mistress.) Maybe he had no choice but to be uniquely himself; if he was different, he couldn't discover what he did. It brings to mind one man's question to Sigmund Freud, as he thought of becoming his patient: “If my devils depart, will my angels also leave?” I think about this. I've met individuals who've been converted to a religion, ”turned their lives around,” and it's kind of scary. I've found them without the color and vibrancy and nastiness that made their personalities. Sure, they felt good, but at what cost? Did they have any choice than to choose what they did? That question was prompted by watching another program.

Last night the series, “Big Pacific” aired on PBS. I'm completely fascinated by the variety of organisms in the oceans: Fish that resemble seaweed, rocks, bones, and even sand. Combinations of organisms. Shape-shifters. Bio-luminescence, etc., etc. Crabs living near vents spewing toxins lethal to all other life forms. So, too, land and sky organisms are of infinite variety, human individuals included. Organisms visible only under a microscope have killed billions of humans. Everything known came from simple life forms beginning billions of years ago, changing through evolution and chaos! None had a choice of what forms they became, did not ask to come into existence, or to perish.

Aren't human brains unchosen? Isn't every brain different, varying from genius, to savant, to imbecility in its abilities, in intensity or insensitivity of social skills, intensity of or lack of emotions, presence or absence of a moral compass? Many claim without proof genius is a “gift” of God or gods. Clergy and theologians claim “conscience” is “evidence” for the existence of God. If so, how to explain the brains of psychopaths, which are selfishly conscience-free? Psychopaths lack empathy or love for others; those who kill are without the emotion of remorse. What about mothers who don't have maternal instincts and can't force themselves to feel the love for their children they are told they should feel? It makes sense if brains are created, damaged, or altered by natural forces alone. Nature, whether in organisms, weather, or the universe, is moved by blind natural forces using “what's there,” adapting. Adapt, depart, or perish. These rules also apply to religions that reject evolution.

Perhaps even the Universe and history have no choices. Millions of religiously-raised people mention the “Plan” or “plans” of their deity. Perhaps this god has no plan, no choice, either. If so, then the history of Earth, all progress and set-backs on it, every natural and man-made misery and disaster, (famine, plagues, earthquakes, etc.), all joys and disappointments, all the wars and tortures and executions of “infidels” resulting from creeds and sects, are supported by their deity's cosmic silent assent. The plan also means thousands of years of living in ignorance were necessary for humans to learn powerful, obvious facts (which millions still reject because of created “human nature”). Millions believe the plan continues past the world's ending, to include “predestination”: most humans will go to eternal torture after they die. This begins with their pre-birth, pre-embryonic stage. That's the all-wise plan? I prefer “the blind forces of nature” explanation. No kidding.

The Error of Associating Fascism with Atheism

By Ben Love ~

I want to address an issue that seems to be cropping up now and then in my ongoing dialogues with Christians. It doesn’t happen often, but sometimes I will encounter those Christians who use the atrocities committed in 1930s and 1940s by Nazi Germany as evidence that an atheist government, devoid of belief in God, will run wildly evil and will, well… fuck everything up for everyone. The record on this matter, however, might not be as clear as these Christians want it to be. Indeed, any brief student of Nazi Germany’s history can, without much effort, discover several pieces of evidence that not only connect both the Lutheran Protestant Church and the Roman Catholic Church to the doings of Hitler’s Third Reich, but that also indicate indisputably that Adolf Hitler believed that the Christian God specifically was on his side and that he, Hitler, was actually doing the work of this God.

Consider the following quote taken from Mein Kampf, the manifesto written by Hitler himself: 

“…today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” So, to which “Lord” is Hitler referring? He tells us in a speech he gave in Munich in 1922: “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior… In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian, I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”

“We’re convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement…”

Clearly, Hitler was referring specifically to the Christian God when he made these statements. Hitler even identifies himself as a Christian in this excerpt, an awkward matter of which many Christians are either unaware or, more likely, simply indifferent to.

What’s even more interesting is that Hitler was not at all silent on the topic of atheism. In this next quote, taken from a speech he gave in Berlin in 1933, Hitler makes mention of his loathing of the philosophy of atheism, a loathing which is documented elsewhere:

This clearly does not indicate, as some Christians would like us to believe, that National Socialism in Germany was an atheistic movement. On the contrary, National Socialism was an openly theist movement fronted by a self-professed Christian. And it was clear that Hitler, as the head of state, was speaking on behalf of the government he epitomized.

The facts are quite simple: the more one looks into the matter of the Third Reich, the more one comes away finding that it was not atheism fueling Nazism; it was theism! These National Socialists, of which Hitler was merely the spokesman, made it perfectly well known that their openly hostile discriminations against the Jews were rooted in Christian ideologies, passed down over the centuries, implicating the Jewish people in the execution of Jesus Christ and religious crimes against humanity.

Therefore, let us hear no more about how atheism was at the heart and soul of Nazism. It simply isn’t true.

However, I would be remiss not to mention that Joseph Stalin’s communist regime in the Soviet Union was indeed atheistic. It’s obvious from the mountain of evidence that Soviet Socialism was rooted in an absence of belief in God and complete intolerance of all religions. However, I would advise the reader to be wary of automatically connecting the atrocities of Stalin’s regime to those atheistic ideas undergirding it. Atrocities have been committed by humans of all societies and ideologies since the beginning of time. Nations have engaged in malevolent behavior throughout recorded history. We have no shortage of evidence for similar crimes being committed by numerous Roman emperors, European kings, the popes of the Crusades (who were most certainly not atheists), and Napoleon’s troops as they ravaged across Europe, to say nothing of the institution of slavery, which has existed for millennia and continues to exist today, even in nations where theism reigns supreme in the culture and in the government. In fact, let us not blind our eyes to the fact that the United States, a nation ostensibly erected upon openly theist principles, has itself been involved in slavery and other egregious crimes against humanity.

In any case, whether atheism was to blame for the many atrocities committed by Stalin’s socialist regime is a matter for the evidence to determine, but it could never be asserted that theism hasn’t slept in the same bed. For evidence of this, consider what ISIS is doing in the world today. What is ISIS if not hostile, militant theism? Consider the Crusades, which were essentially just crimes of unrestrained slaughter committed by Christians carrying the flag of Jesus Christ. Consider the oppression of the Native Americans by white Christians. The obvious truth is that humans, regardless of what they believe or don’t believe, are capable of both good and evil. I’ve met Christians with terrible values. I have met atheists with model values. Likewise, I’ve known atheists who are quite heinous, while some of the Christians I know are incredibly loving people. The point here is that atheism without humanism is just as dangerous as religion without love.

In short, the Christians should not get the “easy out” of blaming the horrors of the twentieth century on atheism. Theism played its role equally, as it always does.

From Fundamentalism to Atheism - a 40 Year Journey

By ObstacleChick ~

I was raised in a Southern Baptist family where my grandfather was a deacon (at one time chairman of the deacons) and my grandmother was a Sunday school teacher and Women's Missionary Union teacher. I'm not entirely sure what my grandfather's feelings were about the church, but he was very active and loved the people. He did a lot of pro bono work in the community as well, fixing the air conditioners, freezers, refrigerators, etc., of people who couldn't afford to call a technician. My grandmother LOVED learning and studying, and her subject of choice became the Bible. She had a small library of Bible history books, concordances, archaeology books, etc., and she spent a couple of hours each day studying those books and putting together lessons. She loved teaching and studying, anonymously gave money to community members in need, and always felt like she wasn't good enough morally/spiritually/etc. as her religion proscribed. In another time and place, I believe my grandmother would have been a university history professor. My mother was a divorced working mother who had more education than her parents but worked in a secretarial job living a life that was lonely and unfulfilling. She spent some time away from church but eventually started going again after her divorce, probably seeking some sense of meaning. She felt like an outsider as a divorced mother in a conservative community, but it was the community readily available to her. She was painfully shy, so finding other friends was difficult. Eventually she remarried, had another child, and brought her husband and child to the church. My great-grandmother who lived with us could barely read, and the only book she ever tried to read was the Bible, which I thought was odd because with its archaic language how could she possibly understand it? As her eyesight worsened she eventually gave that up along with the crocheting and sewing which she enjoyed.

For many years, we attended church 3 times a week as a family - Sunday morning and evening, and Wednesday evening. I went to Vacation Bible School in the summer. When I was entering 5th grade my family sent me to a conservative Christian school which was even more fundamentalist and strict in doctrine than the Southern Baptist church. I was indoctrinated 6 days a week with fundamentalist Christian teaching. At school we had Bible class 3 days a week and chapel services twice a week, with science being taught through the filter of young earth creationism. Each year there was a week-long Bible conference (think old-school revival meetings) at school that we had to attend. Our Bible and science curricula were provided by Bob Jones University Press, and our regular textbooks (math, English, etc.) were about 20 years old. There were strict rules for students and faculty with regard to dress and conduct, with some conduct rules applicable outside school as well. For example, one year there was an edict that any students seen attending a local roller skating rink would be suspended for a week. My sophomore year 3 boys were expelled for being at a party where there was drinking (another student heard the boys talking about the party and turned them in). Two girls were expelled for teen pregnancy and expunged from the yearbook (one homecoming queen who became pregnant was expunged from the yearbook and there was a fake crowning of a homecoming queen after the fact - just a photo, no ceremony or court, with the replacement girl having to borrow an appropriate dress for the photo). Teachers were not allowed to attend movie theaters on threat of being fired, and all newer teachers were required to have attended Bob Jones University, Pensacola Christian College, or another conservative Christian college deemed appropriate by administration. One good thing that I can say about the school is that despite the obvious fundamentalism, I was never once discouraged (as a girl) from pursuing academic excellence. I graduated as valedictorian and was encourage in my endeavor to attend a top-20 secular academic university (they probably wanted to be able to say that their students could be accepted into top universities).

Doctrinal points taught at church and school:

• Inerrancy of the Bible
• God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent
• Virgin birth of Jesus
• Divine nature of Jesus
• Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 3 in one)
• 7 day Creation story taught as fact
• Adam and Eve's fall from grace
• Original Sin (every man is born into sinful nature which he cannot escape without atonement)
• Death and resurrection of Jesus
• Jesus' resurrection as price paid for man's original sin
• Eternal damnation in hell as human price for man's original sin
• Salvation through man's confessing sins and accepting Jesus as personal Savior
• Heaven as reward for salvation
• Great Commission - Christians are to go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit
• One's goal is to live a Christ-like life, to have a personal relationship with Christ through prayer and Bible study, and to spread the word to others.

Other things I learned at church and school:

• Catholics are not real Christians because they do not have a true conversion experience, "worship" Mary and saints, and value the Apocrypha as part of Scripture.
• Sex is only between a married man and woman - everything else is sin.
• There is no difference between sin through thought or through action.
• All other religions are false, incomplete, and/or influenced by Satan
• All people are condemned to eternal torment in hell after death if they are not "saved", even those who have never heard of Christianity.
• It is the fault of the Christian if they do not share their "witness" and someone dies and goes to hell.
• "Once saved always saved"
• Once saved, your life belongs to Christ and you must submit and serve and love him and him alone
• Women can teach other women and children but must never be in a position of teaching or authority over a man
• Wives must submit to their husbands, and husbands are to love and guide their wives
• Husbands must submit to Christ as Christ is the head of the church
• Children must submit to their parents
• Christians must be in the world but not of the world (secular movies, magazines, rock music, etc., must be avoided to retain one's Christian purity)
• Christians have the responsibility to tithe to the church
• Alcohol is forbidden
• Tobacco is frowned upon but not expressly forbidden
• Dancing is forbidden
• Homosexuality is a sin and a lifestyle choice because God doesn't make mistakes
• Temptation is everywhere so many situations should be avoided - Satan will put things in our path to tempt us
• Christians can question religion but be careful because Satan will tempt you with lies - all answers should be sought during prayer and Bible reading, and discussion with the pastor
• God can answer prayer with "yes", "no", or "not right now", and only time will show the difference between no and wait
• Everything that happens is God's will, but it is possible for humans to make choices outside God's will
• God's will can be found through prayer and Bible reading
• Communion is the remembrance of Christ's suffering, death on the cross, and resurrection

My mom told me that when I was a very young child, I questioned everything. At five years old, I questioned Santa Claus so much that my mom gave up and admitted that he wasn't real (but don't tell the other kids because they still believe). At church, I would question the Bible stories. For example, when learning about Jonah in the belly of the whale, I asked how did he breathe in there and was told by the teacher that God took care of Jonah. Every story I questioned, but soon learned to keep my questions to myself because teachers never had answers beyond "God took care of it". I pestered my mother to death about these things as a child. She didn't have answers either, but she introduced the idea that probably a lot of those stories were allegories and parables that were told to teach a lesson and weren't actual events. Of course, this went against what our church taught and certainly what the Christian school taught.

When I was 12 years old, my family started pestering me to "get saved", "make a profession of faith", and "be baptized". I didn't really want to, mostly because I dreaded going down front at the end of service altar call and having to stand there with the whole congregation coming to shake my hand. But they kept bringing it up so I decided to bite the bullet, pick a Sunday, and get it over with. To be honest, it was such a relief to have it done, especially after the baptism was over. And whenever I questioned whether I was actually saved or not (which I often did during Bible conference or chapel at school) I'd just say the prayer again to make sure. I must have been "saved" a couple of dozen times, just to make sure it stuck.

During school, I had problems with a few things that we were taught. The biggest was dinosaurs. We were taught that dinosaurs were all killed in Noah's flood which is why none survived, but if that was true, why didn't Noah take any on the ark as he was supposed to take a pair of each animal? Then I was told that after the Flood, the weather/climate changed and the dinosaurs couldn't survive the climate. They also taught us that carbon dating was faulty science and the concept that dinosaur bones, the earth, etc., were millions of years old was a lie. Further, we were taught that God created the world with the appearance of advanced age. Someone else may have mentioned that "day" in the Bible was figurative, and that with God, a "day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day" so maybe the creation week was a lot longer than 7 times 24 hour days. None of this added up, and I marveled at how they tried to have it both ways. (When I went to college, I just avoided Biology or any science that might teach evolution, and I certainly avoided any conversations that included evolution because I was embarrassed at my ignorance of evolution - I had to learn it own my own as an adult).

I also had a big problem with God damning people to hell who had never even heard of Jesus and salvation - that just seemed extreme and wrong. Of course, we were told that it was our fault, not God's fault, that he was being a just judge in the situation. But I thought, why should we all suffer for Adam and Eve's choices - if we were damned to being born into a sin nature from birth, and were damned to hell if we did not repent, then what chance did we ever really have? And why didn't God just start over? If God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, why didn't he just start over when Adam and Eve made the wrong choice? Of course, the answer was that God wanted us to choose him, that he didn't want creatures to serve him who had no choice. But I couldn't reconcile "free will" with humans being part of "God's will" or "God's plan". That is, do we or do we not actually have a free will, and how much of our actions are controlled by God? Additionally, I didn't think it was fair that people who had never heard of Jesus were automatically damned to hell, and we were told that those people were our fault if we did not devote our lives to witnessing to them.

Additionally, no matter how hard I tried, how much I prayed or read the Bible, I never heard God speaking, guiding, or answering me. Whenever I brought it up, I was told essentially that I wasn't doing it right - that there was some sin or unresolved issue that I needed to address through prayer and Bible reading. I would try and try, but I never could hear God's voice. People talked about feeling God's presence, hearing God's answers, having a personal relationship with Jesus, and I never had that. It was always my fault for some reason, and I stopped bringing it up so as not to be reminded of my fault.

My first major faith-shattering event was in college (fortunately I went to a secular top-20 university - am amazed to this day that I was admitted with my Christian school credentials but my ACT and SAT scores were high). I took a History of Christian Thought course where the professor explained to us that there were many texts that were considered for acceptance into the Bible, but only some were canonized. The Apocrypha, which I was taught was false Catholic text, was canonized. Being taught as a Fundamentalist that the canonized Scriptures were the inerrant word of God, I felt like Martin Luther and the Protestants made a great error and lied to us all by excluding the Apocrypha, which were canonized Scripture. Fundamentalists taught that God guided those who wrote and canonized Scripture, yet Fundamentalists were willing to exclude canonized books from the Bible. Either you believed these men were inspired by God, or you did not - you can't have it both ways where most of the books were properly selected but these others were a mistake.

College was a big turning point for me socially as well. Having been in a restrictive environment and then going into a free environment was a big adjustment. Freshman and sophomore year, I was very judgmental of college students doing what normal college students do - partying! I found a local church to attend most Sundays, and while it was a "more liberal" Southern Baptist church, at least it was not the Fundamentalist Independent Baptist genre like my school. I joined the Baptist Student Union and met a few friends, who by college standards were still pretty conservative, but many were "liberal" and "partiers". Junior year I stopped going to the Baptist Student Union because I got mad at them, and I started hanging out with some other friends from different backgrounds. I found out that Catholics weren't so evil and bound for hell after all. My church attendance lessened.

Moving to New Jersey with so many people from diverse backgrounds was interesting as well. Many people were only marginally religious, some not at all, while other groups were very devoted to their religion of choice. I tried going to Catholic church for awhile because I was dating someone who had been raised (marginally) Catholic. But I decided I couldn't convert because part of conversion required that one declare that they believe all the tenets of the Catholic church, and I couldn't do that. Eventually we settled on a Congregational United Church of Christ, which was light on hellfire and heavy on inclusivity and community service. I even became a deacon (God forbid, as women were not allowed to be come deacons in the church of my upbringing). It was good for awhile, but there were very few members our ages and very few children. As our kids became more involved in sports, we stopped going, mainly after a trip to Mexico.

My second major faith-shattering event was in 2007 when my family visited the Mayan ruins at Chichen Itza. We learned about the Mayan gods, and about the ball game where the winner had the honor of being sacrificed to the gods. There were many situations where virgins or children or other people may be sacrificed to the gods, usually in hopes of good crops, or rain, or any of a variety of reasons. Those being sacrificed would be given copious amounts of alcohol, loaded with jewelry and adornments, and then tossed into a deep pit of water. It struck me like a lightning bolt the realization that this so-called pagan culture with its false gods was no different from Christianity in that blood sacrifice - death - was required to appease the god/gods. This realization shook me to the core, and soon my family and I parted from church (during college I started attending non-fundamentalist "liberal" churches that taught being a good person, no hell fire and sin). I only talked about it with my agnostic (now openly atheist) husband because it was such an earth-shattering realization. The foundation of my religious belief had been irreparably shaken.

I also had a big problem with God damning people to hell who had never even heard of Jesus and salvation - that just seemed extreme and wrong. For nearly a decade I avoided thinking about religion. Then I started examining it as an outsider would, pondering doctrine, looking at other religions, comparing different beliefs against the Fundamentalism that I had been taught. I started saying that I was "taking a break from religion". Eventually, I became angry and sad that my restrictive schooling had kept me from learning complete science and had steered me away from seeking truth. Additionally, our school offered courses that were labeled "AP" (advanced placement) but were never told that there were actual AP tests that we could have taken for college credit. We were also on a lower track for math instead of the advanced track culminating in calculus that honors students in public schools could take. Again, I still am amazed I was admitted to a top university despite these shortcomings.

I remember a time soon after moving to New Jersey when a client of my husband's invited us to a BBQ/pool party at their house. It was fun, but after a couple of hours we were surrounded by a group of 20-somethings who were sharing their Bahai faith with us. They even brought out a book to show us pictures and to tell us of the prophet Bab who had survived a firing squad (over 700 bullets and not one hit him). Afterward, my husband and I were surprised that we were the subjects of proselytization. I felt what it must feel like when fervent Christians "witness" to others. I mentioned that the story of Bab sounded crazy and far-fetched, but realized that it was certainly no more crazy and far-fetched than a virgin giving birth to the son of God who performed miracles, died on a cross, and was resurrected from the dead.

When looked at from the outside, all religious stories sound farfetched like fairytales. I suppose ancient cultures that developed gods had to make sure their god/gods were bigger, badder, stronger than the gods of other cultures. Looking at the God of the Old Testament, he sure was a mean, nasty character.

It took awhile to get over the fear of eternal damnation in hell. Even withdrawing my children from church and not wanting them to be indoctrinated, even slightly, with religion came with no small price of mental torment. I would wonder, what if I'm wrong, what if I'm responsible for not leading my kids to "salvation". But I chose to rely on my powers of observation and reasoning and to return to the questioning nature I had as a child. Weighing the evidence, I decided to shed the fear and to finally admit to myself the truth - that I am an atheist.When examining why I believed in Christianity, it came down to fear of hell. That was it. I did not "love" God or Jesus or Holy Spirit, I did not have a personal relationship with God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, I could not reconcile the things about Christianity that seemed like myth or fairy tale, and I came to realize that I was relying on "God of the gaps" to understand things that we do not yet understand through science - and it is adequate sometimes to say "I do not know yet". My husband and teen children are atheists without having to go through this long, arduous, painful process, and I am glad to have chosen to spare my children this journey. We teach them to give to others, to be compassionate, to uphold values of honesty, truth, integrity, good character, all without the accoutrements of religion. We encourage them to learn about other religions, but neither has expressed interest in joining - they are merely intellectually curious.

About 3 years ago, my mom, who knew she was dying of cancer, told me that she wanted to make sure that her children and grandchildren were "saved" and that she wanted be assured that she would see them in heaven. I side-stepped the topic by telling her that we would all be fine. I truly believe that we will as I no longer believe in the heaven or hell taught by religion. I finally feel free.

Venting from a Not-so-religious place, but still believing that God Exists

By Chelsea Blinston ~

I started by saying my pseudonym is a girl's name, and yes, I can associate with things more attributed to the opposite gender because I'm free to do so and also curious about gender. But I identify as male, currently. I'm in my middle 20s and just started going to college 30 minutes outside of my original town where I live now. So, deal with this intro, because I wanted to get that explanation about my pseudonym out of the way.

For the last 10 years, my anxieties, fears, and negativity kept getting worse, and being brought up Catholic, I incidentally grew colder to God along my path. I do not question the existence of God/gods, but all I can argue is that I don't think he's really perfect, or maybe even malevolent sometimes. I agree with some points on another guy who posted his story here about hating gods/God. I really have anxiety about dealing with the end of the world or very large-scale catastrophe on that sort of level in my lifetime. Wanting to live a long Earthly life is very important to me, my heart tells me this no matter how strong the narrow-minded preachers or lay-men are about the "Heavenly vs. Earthly" doctrines.

There are some things that I can't bother letting go of. Even though I have contention for any religious type of fundamentalism, assholes they are or not, I only feel like my fear is becoming more and more validated by them every day by recent events worldwide. It's more because I hate them being politically active and seeking "fundamental" (pun sort of intended) legislative change even if others don't agree. That doesn't mean there isn't a slight chance that they will be right about the end of the world someday. Those recent events all happening over weeks, not thoroughly convinced that they are only coincidence. Also includes the man-made disaster threat by way of Kim Jong Un in North Korea.

The “Real Christian” Mystery

By Carl S. ~

Clear the fog, part the curtain. What's going on? Mention an immoral act of a Christian, and you'll get, “He wasn't a real Christian.” The argument is, if that person really believed, he wouldn't have done it. This leaves a lot of examples of Christian behavior dangling. Real Christian denials of, and wars against, human rights, are ongoing. Aren't “virtuous and justified” crimes committed by real Christians? (Should Christians appalled by Christian behavior re-define themselves as Jesusites?)

When Protestants killed Catholics and vice versa, which were the real Christians? Did real Christians save the Jewish people or did real Christians kill them? Are Christians of the Western churches, or Eastern Orthodox Christians, the real ones? After all, don't they disagree on what each maintains are soul-life and soul-death-deciding matters of faith? Which are real Christians, the executioners or the heretics they execute? Is a real Christian a peacemaker or a soldier for Christ? Is a real Christian for or against abortion?

Does a real Christian believe that Christ-God forgives anything, that no matter what wrong or evil a Christian does, “I'm sorry, God” will guarantee a clean conscience? Or does being a real Christian mean not committing offences in the first place? Do real Christians believe in or deny the divinity of Jesus? Do they embrace those amongst them who think differently or, following the command of St. Paul, cast them out from their companionship and declare them “anathema?” In any congregation, who are the real Christians, who aren't, including the pastor? Do real Christians believe “in God we trust,” while they wholeheartedly support the largest military/security intravenous system of any country on Earth?

Why does the difference between a real Christian and a non-real Christian question come up?Why does the difference between a real Christian and a non-real Christian question come up? Do church leaders arbitrarily define the differences? Do they decide who is “spiritual,” who's not? By what right do they judge? Can they agree on what “spiritual” means? Every religion sells itself as “spiritual” and “revelation-founded.” But “spiritual experiences” and “revelations” are in the minds and emotions of individuals. Mass spirituality is emotional manipulation; religion is social and political manipulation.

The most impressive churches, temples, and mosques are built from stone to last forever, but their ruins prove otherwise. They are constructed to be representations testifying to impregnable faith. Closer examination reveals faiths are dogmatic fantasies resembling more a cubist or surrealist painting than permanent structures. There is more personal “spirituality” in a symphony by atheist composer Shostakovich, writing under political repression, than in houses of worship.

“Everything begins in mystique and ends in politics.” - Charles P'eguy. “Grandiose ideas are made ordinary with the passage of time and become fodder for a power struggle among idealogues and pedants.” - Alex Ross.

Let's consider these words as they apply to religion: Everything that begins as holy becomes political. Religions become political over the passage of time and become fodder for power struggles among ideological factions. All religions end up becoming commercialized political power struggles. All begin as peaceful, become political, and then attempt to dominate society. This pattern is historical and universal.

Everything religions begin in mystique becomes boringly ordinary and ends in politics. That's the mystery of real Christianity, to which real Christians belong.

Creator? Maybe. God of the Bible? Don't think so.

By Anushka ~

Hello. I am originally from India. I grew up in a Gulf country. I came to England when I was 16. Now I am 28. I was a Christian all my life. My church in England taught me that according to the Bible God will guide you, tell you what is going to happen in the future and offer you protection from physical harm. All you have to do is read the bible verses according to your need and that need will be fulfilled. Even Joyce Meyer teaches this. I can confirm that there are bible verses according to all such needs. I have read them a lot of times every day. Okay, no one harmed me physically. But, God did not guide me nor did he warn me about the future. You have no idea how much Bible I read everyday.

The more I went to church, the more I listened to Joyce Meyer, the more I read the bible, the more I talked to my crazy Christian friend over the phone about God and my choices, the more messed up I became. I didn't go into drugs or alcohol or sex. But, I felt sorry for the wrong people and helped them emotionally over years. Did they get fixed? No. They are still Christians. They were just using me to moan and not do anything about their problems.

My mum was one of them. She used and still does use fear of god and bible verses to try and scare me into obedience.

I started doubting the Bible a few months ago.

Question 1: Pastors do heal people physically nowadays. But, not every single person gets healed physically after pastors pray for them. Why?

Question 2: A lot of the pastors that speak say that their message is guided by the Holy Spirit, God wanted them to give that exact message, those exact bible verses on that specific day. Where is this God when girls are getting raped? Why don't the Holy Spirit tell these pastors about what is going to happen to these girls? So, rapes can be avoided if pastors get warning from God.

God doesn't tell pastors about bomb blasts. The God who guides pastors about the message they have to speak in front of an audience doesn't tell the pastor,t "There is going to be a bomb blast in this place. Inform the police." Why? So, doesn't that mean the pastors are lying or they just have been conditioned to believe that whatever they feel like preaching is coming from the Holy Spirit?

I live with my parents. They are still Christians. My brother is not a Christian. Every Saturday evening, 2 Christian (one of them Pentecostal) families come to my house for a prayer meeting. The Pentecostal guy preaches every Saturday and most days, he says that the Holy Spirit wanted him to speak about a particular passage. I used to believe that.

But, his sister's husband fell from a building and had brain injuries and broke his bones. Why didn't God warn either the sister's husband or this guy who preaches in my house about the accident? Doesn't God care?

I stopped praying. But, that fear of hell is not going away. A small part of me still believes God will put me in hell because I stopped believing in Jesus and the Bible.

I still believe in a God, in a creator. But, it might not be the creator described in the Bible.

Why the Old Testament is so silly

By John Draper ~

Back when I was a Christian, it was important to me to always have the Word of God close at hand. So I would keep a “pocket Bible” on my person. No telling when a well-formed female would cross your path, exciting your animal instincts. Funny thing—those pocket Bibles were never the full Bible. They were just the New Testament and the Psalms.

Why is that?

Most Christians have learned to ignore most of the Bible—that is, the Old Testament. It’s just so bloody and harsh—over the top. Not to mention hokey and boring. Sure, they pay it lip service. For example, they may tell themselves that the Old Testament focuses on the justice of God as opposed to the love of God. (Somebody had to teach those sinners a lesson.) But not even fundamentalists try to live by the Old Testament, not really. Maybe a verse here and there that they can use to bolster some point about Jesus but, for the most part, they live to the east of Malachi.

Check out believers’ refrigerator magnets. They tell all. You’ll see lot of magnets with “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13) and “God causes all things to work together for good for them that love Him” (Rom. 8:280) and, of course, “He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters” (Psalm 23:2)—not so many with “Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:1) or “A woman who gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. If she gives birth to a daughter, she will be unclean for two weeks.” (Lev. 12:1-5).

So the Old Testament is relegated the closet and extracted only in dire need, like that oil painting of a pony your grandmother lovingly bestowed on you.

So how do we explain how God could have a hand in anything as preposterous as the Old Testament?

The most common explanation for why the Old Testament seems so primitive, so indecent—so dissonant with the New Testament—is progressive revelation.

What people who hold to this view are saying is that God purposely limited how much of His nature/characteristics He displayed to the Israelites—probably because they weren’t “ready” for it.

That seems like a real ham-fisted way to go about things to me.

In essence, God would be implanting a distorted understanding of Himself and His designs in the Jews’ brains. This faulty perception would be amended when Jesus showed up—but the problem is that the Jews would be lost. In essence, God set up the Jews to reject Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.

Think about it. Why would God mislead the Israelites like that?

That’s like somebody insisting something until they’re blue in the face and then turning around saying, “Well, you just weren’t paying attention to what I meant!” Don’t you hate that?

Progressive revelation doesn’t work because by default the people on the earlier end of the revelation would take that revelation as final, so they would get all sorts of wrong-headed ideas wedged into their brains. In fact, final revelation is redundant. Why would a revelation be provisional? At least, it if was provisional, it should come with a warning, something like This revelation will lapse in 1,000 years.

Also, progressive revelation just doesn’t match the Old Testament text. The Old Testament takes itself very seriously—so the Jews did, too.

For example, there’s nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that the sacrificial system was just symbolic—a “type” of the better sacrifice of Jesus that would come later. A religious Jew in the first few centuries would have said that was nonsense—which is what a lot of them did in fact say to Christians would asserted this point of view. Still do. Read the Old Testament. It’s pretty clear. Those slaughtered animals really did take away the Israelites’ sins.

There’s nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that the sacrificial system was just symbolic—a “type” of the better sacrifice of Jesus that would come later.We get all tied up in our underwear because we’re trying to defend the untenable assertion of divine revelation. Progressive revelation is just something we cooked up to explain away all the stupid stuff in the Old Testament.

Isn’t the Occam’s Razor answer more satisfactory? The reason the Old Testament is ridiculous is that it was written by flat-earthers. God would really say that a woman will be unclean longer if she gives birth to a female child? Really? Doesn’t that sound more like something someone with a trouser snake would say?

Believers go to such lengths to prop up scripture, progressive revelation being just one example, ignoring the obvious truth that the Bible is just the words of men. So much is riding on scripture being God’s word to us—because we know that God’s not speaking clearly to us in any other way. If God isn’t talking to us through the Bible, does that mean He doesn’t care about communicating with us at all?

Uh, yep.

God does not reveal Himself except through the universe He has blanketed around us—and we use reason, not faith to unpack those revelations. Scientific evidence becomes our scripture. There is no supernatural realm where God lives and hordes His secrets. Whatever God is, He is utterly natural. He is the ultimate reality.

Bottom line: The Old Testament is bunk.

Well, the believer grudgingly says, I don’t really spend any time the Old Testament. I’m a New Testament Christian.

Sorry. That doesn’t work. The New Testament is every bit as unreliable as the Old Testament, just in a different way.

Paul and Nicaea – Creating a Religious Domination

By Carl S. ~

The majority of those raised to be believers in Christianity assume what they are taught was originally and universally accepted to be truth, without opposition. Not so. Also, because of their placement in the Christian bible, most believers assume the gospels were written before the epistles of St. Paul. Also, not true. This is important to know, as epistles influenced the “Gospel of John,” for instance. Ask any Christian, “Who wrote the gospels?” and you'll hear, “Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.” Truth is, as any credible biblical scholar will admit, no one knows; those names are merely titles. We might wonder how evangelicals, trying to alter or destroy our laws, telling us how to live our lives, can refer to “revealed truths,” while remaining ignorant about the origins of them. How many of them know their St. Paul created the religion they preach?

Consider the Council of Nicaea: Christian or not, everyone seems to be ignorant when it comes to the Council of Nicaea, which may very well be the most important event in Christian history. I wanted to look into this, to go where the churches won't, to see if we can find out why they don't. A book, “Decoding Nicaea” by Paul F. Pavao, looked intriguing, so I bought it. The book is political, mainly state-church fusion politics. The author is “a teacher at Rose Creek Village, a Christian community,” who ”has studied early Christian history for over 20 years.” If you read page v, “about the author,” he makes it obvious he is very biased. He is fond of quoting Christian authors, not those who criticized his religion. He likes Tertullian, (famous for: “It is impossible for a man to return from the dead, therefore it must be true.”) Mr. Pavao has no credentials as a historian, has no Phd or D.D. Nevertheless, he is thorough. Any quotes I list here are by the author, unless otherwise stated.

Before the Council, early Christian teachings about the nature of God, Jesus, the Spirit, what salvation means, etc., etc., were all over the place. Some names: Arianism, Patripassianism, the Gnostics, the Monatists, Ebionists, Cathari, and Paulinists; every opinion, given the available fantasy-worlds of the times. Add to this, many gospels. How could anyone know what's true? And it didn't look promising if factions came to blows over differences of opinions. (In fact, they did. Wars were fought over them.) Emperor Constantine wanted unity, and this included unity of belief. Hence the Council, a collection of bishops, to decide by vote what was true, what wasn't. They came up with 20 canons. One result of their votes led to those disagreeing with them being labeled “heretics,” who were subsequently persecuted and killed. Even those who disagreed with their decisions paid lip-service, as they do today.

(Interestingly, the original diversity of Christian beliefs didn't go away. Arianism was, “revived by Charles Russel in the 20th century.” Gnosticism, which the Council condemned, is permanently infused in the Christian faith.)

Note: The author cites one Council decision, Canon no. 12, in which “the punishment for joining the military is even more severe than for denying Christ without being persecuted.” On this, he quotes Justin: “We who formerly used to murder one another do not only refrain from making war on our enemies but also, so that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.” To this, Mr. Pavao adds: “You will find nothing contrary in any writings of the church prior to Nicaea.” Are the Quakers closest to the first Christians?

Now, I read Christianity created conditions where, for the first time in history, members of the same religion killed one another. If the insane account of Exodus ch. 32, v. 27- 28 is true, it wasn't the first time. [“And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.”]

This book is dense, at 460 pages. You might find it mind-boggling. On the other hand, you can skip around to find what interests or intrigues you. What you won't find in its pages is evidence, from any sources, for its faith claims; evidence of Bible-god’s existence, evidence of any “spiritual” entities or effects. The apostolic “tradition” referred to by the author is no more valid than any other products of the imagination of competing religious opinions.

And what of Paul's opinions? St. Paul's imagination was his greatest joy! He couldn't get enough of preaching it as “revealed” answers to every situation and problem on earth! Paul became the merchandiser of his own bizarre imagination, dispensed by his salesmen ever since. His product is like McDonald's Kids Meals, meant to hook children into become loyal customers the rest of their lives. Some of Paul's “children” are still dealing with nagging consciences, religious doubt, because they can't reconcile the real world with his!

Every authority on the nature of God, Jesus, salvation, true faith, etc., every single member of the Council and apologists, are pursuing with utmost fervor and employing spirito-babble to answer their versions of an ancient question. That question: “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Except there is no chicken or egg. If you don't believe this, read some of the many apologetical/theological dissertations in this book (as on pg. 416, from Arius: “ There is full proof that god is invisible to all beings.” Full proof via invisibility? Like Carl Sagan's Invisible Dragon “proof?” Even a god cannot experience the world like a man, without a body!) They are arguing for, defending, and asserting mightily, imaginary figures and worlds. There is no evidence for these “articles of faith,” they're opinions, just as true as the opinions of those they reject or condemn.

So, “truths of the faith” were finally decided by votes, of men only. Of course, those men were only interested in Ultimate Truths of God? Sure. Oh no, not power! What the Council of Nicaea achieved was an agreement stating their opinions were to be the law of the land, enforced by state power. The bishops were feathering their own nests, building a church-state empire. This strategy worked. Their empire outlasted kingdoms. And today, Christianity still tries to regain those “good old days.”

A Heartfelt Reply

By Tania ~

Recently I received an email/sermon from a somewhat-young-to-middle-aged person in my circle of friends and family members. The email arrived in my inbox not completely out-of-the-blue, because we’d talked briefly on the phone about a week before and we generally do keep in contact somewhat regularly. But the intensity of the message was a surprise to me. I read it a few times, my thoughts ranging from, “This is a joke! Right? This must be a joke!” to “Oh, wow, so this is the mindframe with which this person is operating,” to “It seems that my decision, months ago, to back away from this relationship still seems to the best decision for now.”

The writer of the email started off strong, asking if I still have certain virtues in my life. The writer knows that I used to be a Christian, and now I am not. (During the past several years, the writer has brushed aside my efforts to explain my reasons for leaving religion.) He/she then mentioned that he/she thinks I am a good person and that I do good things for others, but it is in vain because I am doing these good things with the wrong intentions (I don’t know how this conclusion was reached). The writer went on to say that he/she is concerned that I have been placing too much emphasis on things such as reasoning, human interpretations, science, and other such things. The message ended with a reminder that our lives are fragile and weak. There was a brief sign-off, but no “Have a nice day!” or “Talk to you soon :)”

Sigh. Pause. What do I do with this?

I kept my reply brief. I know the tendencies of the writer to become critical and defensive, and I know that it is useless for me to launch into a long explanation about how I choose to live my life. I sent it and tried to forget about the whole thing, but for me, it’s not so easy to just move on.

Here’s what a lengthy, heartfelt reply might have looked like:


Dear _____,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I wish, though, that instead of sending me a sermon, you would have at least replied to my lunch invitation a few weeks ago and also many invitations over the last several years. I have been slowly learning to stop asking, because it hurts me too much to hear “No” or to be ignored almost every time, for no reason that I can understand. We could have caught up on each others’ lives. Did you pass that exam? Are you taking time off this fall? Any good books on the go? You could have seen my new apartment. Maybe the Handy-Man would’ve dropped by and you could get to know him a bit more. Maybe you could’ve looked at the photos on my fridge and seen a tiny glimpse of my world.

You asked me if I still have the virtues of grace, mercy, love. Yes, I do. No, I don’t live them out perfectly in every moment of my life, but I’m sure we’d all be hard-pressed to find someone who does. People mess up. People hurt and get hurt. People need to redeem and be redeemed over and over. My desire to be a good person did not go out the window just because I no longer believe in virgin births and resurrections from the dead. I do “good deeds” because it makes me happy and it makes other people happy. It seems like the natural thing to do in most cases, and I don’t feel like I am “going out of my way.” People help me, and I help people — it’s often that simple.

I know that many times over the past couple years, I mention the things that I’ve learned — that the moon is 384,400km from Earth and has a diameter of 3,474km, or that so many animals migrate every year (my favourite migration: the wildebeests!), or that the Laurentide ice sheet covered much of Canada several times in the past. I talked about how cool it was to go to the Deutsche Museum when I was in Germany, and how eye-opening it was to visit Pearl Harbour in Hawaii and the new Human Rights museum in Winnipeg. In your email, your remarks implied that I am placing emphasis on “studying and knowledge” instead of on such things as love and mercy. The mental gymnastics to make sense of this are too challenging for me, so let me just say that these things can all co-exist. They don’t cancel each other out. I guess back when I was a Christian, I also saw things in such a polarized way — either you love Jesus and are filled with good “Christian” virtues, or you study science and become a cold and hard person — but I no longer see it that way.

You reminded me in your email that our lives here on Earth are “weak and feeble.” I know. I am very well aware of that fact. Remember how I used to do bedside vigil for people in the last stages of their lives? Maybe I didn’t tell you about those conferences I went to with other volunteers from the hospice society? Remember when my friend Pat died and I’d spontaneously burst into tears in the days afterwards? Oh, I am so aware that all of us — me, you, everyone — live without guarantees of next year, next month, next week. That’s a scary and beautiful thing about our relationships and all of life.

I am trying to understand why you sent me a sermon, why you seem to pick apart my character and my life. I am trying to understand why you’ve seemingly been avoiding me in real life for quite a while now. Maybe you are struggling with your Christian faith — with doubts, questions, “sin.” Maybe you’re worried that my departure from religion is contagious. Maybe you have a lot of anger about something else, and it’s just directed at me. Maybe you’re waiting for me to get back on the right path (whatever that is, in your opinion).

Psychology and self-improvement articles that I’ve read recently suggest that this is not about me and my supposed problems, but about you and whatever’s going on in your world. They suggest I focus on other things and quit wasting my time and energy on something that isn’t about me in the first place. My psycho-therapist friend reminds me that, despite what Christianity might have taught me, I’m not always to blame; she reminds me that I don’t always have to “go the extra mile” and that relationships are two-way streets. The Handy-Man pats my arm and says, “Put it on the shelf and leave it alone for a while.”

So, I guess that’s what I do now — I put this on the shelf, or at least into the “delete” folder in my email account. With my attempts to be loving and gracious and merciful, and also with my thrist for knowledge and my fascination with how this big ol’ world works, I try to brush aside your words. I back away for a while, instead of trying yet again to explain myself. I wait for time to heal, and I wait for people (myself, included) and circumstances to change. Maybe in a few months, I send you a joke or a “Happy 2018!” card. Maybe if I rent a car someday, I’ll call to let you know I’ll be driving through your town. Maybe we’ll meet for a quick lunch and see where the conversation goes.

For now, I must run. I’ve got books that need to be read and a cup of coffee with a shot of Bailey’s just waiting to be consumed.

Take good care,

Tania K

My Journey

By Jim B ~

From the mid 50s to the early 60s my education was in Catholic seminary environs. Giant stepping forward in time over some very slow progress, to Easter Sunday, 1982, the UU minister at the church I went to that day titled her talk, “The Myth of the Resurrection”. I don’t remember any of the content of her talk, probably because it was still such a shock to my emotional being at the time, no matter how intellectually I was was in the process of coming to the same conclusion about the concept. Since that time, the emotional shock from the idea of that talk’s title has diminished quite a bit, and the intellectual conviction of its truth has moved ahead accordingly, probably by inverse correlation.

I eventually joined that congregation ten years later, beginning my reveling in a community where the word “god” was mostly absent (and the word “sin” was totally absent). The minister at that time brought Secular Humanism to my attention. I put that on the back burner, simmering, until a little over a year ago, when I formally joined the American Humanist Association (while still attending UU for the community). I quickly learned how much I was in harmony with Humanist beliefs, convictions, etc.

In one of the weekly emails from the AHA was an article by Dr. Valerie Tarico. I have much enjoyed reading her articles, one group in particular is her eight parter on “Christian Belief through the Lens of Cognitive Science”. And in another one of her articles she had a link to exchristian.net.

So now one of my latest gratitudes is to her and to the many people who maintain and write for this site.

During this period I have also come across other sources that have provided me with affirming and advancing thoughts. A very learned one is Daniel Dennett’s work, “Breaking the Spell”, a marvelous philosophical presentation on the human history of religion. Another is a PBS airing of a two part Frontline documentary, “From Jesus to Christ: the First Christians” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/watch/ , watch the clips of Paula Fredriksen followed by Dominic Crossan in Part Two, the last ten minutes or so in the first half hour)*. To complete the human attraction to the number three, is a book titled “Man Made God”, by Barbara Walker, a sort of anthology of myths from around the world.

These and many others I have used to further decrease my emotional fear of retribution and replace it with letting in so much evidence of how much christian belief is based on the myths and allegories from so many centuries and so many similarities in those myths among global cultures. I was quite “gaga” listening to Dr. Crossan’s thoughts about what he thinks the gospel authors were trying to communicate versus how they’re being interpreted today. The historical discrepancies in what’s been handed down to us are just too blatant to have ever been intended as actual historical fact. Whatever it took to “exhort the troops” was fair game (perhaps a precursor to “poetic license”?).

Another growth path is in my feelings of gratitude for living during the era when the concept of god is on the wane - the present US political upheaval being a manifestation of the principle that for every action there’s a reaction. I hope I live to see the follow up synthesis, but at the moment I’m somewhat skeptical.

So now I have come to feel something that a rather small but growing minority also feels, that the concept of god(s) has been quite a figment of the human imagination.

*Postscript: See the recent news about a (possible) fourth to fifth century CE Latin text by one Fortunatianus of Aquileia saying virtually the same thing as Profs. Crossan and Fredriksen. Even if its authenticity is questionable, the content is apropo no matter what its origin.

Onward Humanist Soldiers

By glebealyth ~

Whatever your take on Brexit. Whether you approve of the recent UK election results. One recent statistic shows younger people in Britain voting with their feet as far as religion is concerned.

The latest British Social Attitudes Survey's extended data on religion or belief is showing that 71% of 18-24 year olds in Britain are non-religious. The overall figures tell us that 53% of the British population is non-religious, rising to 58% in Scotland. Only the over-65s show a majority as religious.

Britain's national, established church, the Church of England, now has more pupils in its state schools, who are forced to pray every weekday, than it has worshipping in its churches every Sunday. Humanists UK discussed these "revelations" on Sky TV recently, on Sky News.

There is hope for our nation that we will, at least in a generation or two, see the end of the established church and a stop to the privileged position of the 26 bishops in our upper legislative chamber. Although the CoE is fairly innocuous, it still controls 20% of our schools.

There is little hope for established religion when those upon whom its future depends are rejecting it to the extent that the CoE, for example, is followed by only 3% of 18-24 year olds. I see a bright future for Britain, one in which the population is not deprived of the benefits of the expansion of knowledge , of science and of technology, simply because books from 2,000 years ago were written by people who did not know how the world works.

Why did God decide to punish me?

By Dontknow ~

First of all, I do not know what to believe. But here's my story. I didn't grow up in a Christian home per se. I remember going to vacation bible school and to church at times but not all the time. I do remember both parents being baptized (they were in their 30's). What I mostly remember about my childhood was the two of the fighting, verbal abuse and physical abuse by both of them. I remember getting spankings as a child. I have one sister who I despise she is 47 yo and I am 45 yo. Okay, now getting to some of my point. Wouldn't a loving, caring, all-knowing God know that as a child I didn't need to see or hear my parents fighting? Wouldn't God know I hated seeing and hearing that shit. It was scary and guess what because of them and yes, I blame them I picked up some of their bad habits. Monkey see-Monkey do.

So fast forward, for the most part I believe I turned away from evil things (smoking, drinking, worshiping Satan, etc). I made good grades in school, didn't cause any problems, etc. Got a good job and stayed at the same job for many years. Then I met my future husband. I dated him for 4 years and didn't live with him while dating. I finally married him. We were married a little over 5 years and he was killed in a car accident this June 2017. Again, I am 45 yo, he was 55 yo. Both of us not young but no really old either. Now, do you think I believe a good, loving, caring God would look down at my life and decide for me I no longer need my husband? It angers me. We did not have any children however, he had a son from a previous marriage. He didn't even get to see his son before he died. How is that fair or just? How is that loving? He didn't even get ti see his mom and dad (who have out lived him/they are in their late 80's), he didn't get to see his brother or sister either. I mean, if it were up to me it would be more meaningful to see your loved ones before you die. But oh, no he was taken away. Just like he vanished. I don't get it.

I don't believe he or any of my other family who have died are in Heaven dancing or looking down watching over me. I prayed fir signs of assurance that he is okay. Nothing.

On top of losing him soon I will be faced with losing our house (since he was the bread winner), he made a mistake on our taxes and I owe them 10,000 dollars, and his ex-wife still wants the child support payments to continue rolling in. Their son is 17 and will receive SS benefits and my husband was paying almost $2,000 a month for child support. Believe me, God didn't bless us with money and I didn't get a windfall when he died. I have no money to pay all these things but somehow, I suppose to believe that God will provide for me? How? This is all loving or to make me a better person?

Okay one last thing. The one sister I have that I said I despise in the first paragraph. She has never suffered, never paid her dues in this evil world. All I can say is it is another example that God can't be loving. We were both to the same parents but she was "blessed" with a husband, a child, a nice home and money and the bitch doesn't have to work. Never has. It is like this she would be considered more "pretty" than me, "nicer" than me, etc by others but she was born to the same parents! So why did God decide to punish me? Does this make sense.

I must be crazy.