Search This Blog

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Growing up in Christian Nihilism

By TJ ~

I grew up in a fundamentalist home with a father who believes the Bible is in the inspired word of God and a schizophrenic ex-catholic mother who at the time believed only 144,000 people would go to heaven, and of course our family of three, from her perspective, was unquestionably a part of this small minority. Their marriage was always on the rocks because my mother wished she had married money, and my father's philosophy is from my perspective one of Christian Nihilism. By Christian Nihilist, I mean someone who essentially believes that your body, your finances and pretty much anything in this world is of no meaning, and so for this reason he did not earn much money or take care of himself. To him, you're just waiting for death on this earth and because our lives are short and transient, we shouldn't concern ourselves with the world.

 My mother became extremely abusive if I was sick and smacked me in the face because it would trouble her financially to take me to do the doctor. It seems neither parent really wanted to work but both had a desire for money and eventually my father was convicted of check fraud to keep afloat the business he had expanded too quickly. Apparently to my mother a child was the worst thing that could've happened to her and they both married because it was the appropriate Christian thing to do. As I matured into my teenage years and finally an adult my father divorced remarried another woman. Eventually she died while abusing drugs. I still think of my father's lack of consideration for her needs because she was an alcoholic on disability who was addicted to prescription pain medication. She was extremely domineering and controlling and apparently convinced my father to write false prescriptions for her which he later ended up in prison for.

 Mind you he considers himself a Christian minister and an elder. He kept telling her Jesus Christ is the answer. Due to the many a abuses that occurred and my lifetime experiences with Christians, I've found most of them to be extremely selfish people who lack consideration for anything just, right, or true. They belittle everyone around them and have no care in regards to the feelings of others. They steal money from anyone they can including the elderly and disabled, they brainwash people into believing things that simply are not written in the Bible and they participate in strange spiritual experiences from unknown sources. According to them, anything spiritual is God, or so it would seem. I attended a strange meeting with my father where people who believed in "spiritual drunkenness" would shout boing and ding-dong throughout the entire service as well as meetings where people were supposed to fall under the power of the Holy Spirit. I fell because I thought I might embarrass someone, but it wasn't under God's power. I was too afraid to keep standing because I didn't want to rock the boat so to speak.

They also held prayer meetings where people are required to pray aloud in a group, and if I was honest I would've told them that prayer is private and it makes me uncomfortable to pray out loud in front of others as it transforms prayer from something between a person and their God into an attempt to impress others by the lengthy or perhaps noble nature of the prayer being spoken. There were also church services where the pastor would command members of the congregation to get up and write out checks to his church rather than allowing people to give freely as they chose to. I do believe I have had answers to prayer and that God exists, but you are not going to convince me that I must be a member of "Christianity" or that my doubts about Jesus being God or at times even existing means that I deserve to burn forever. God never once told me I had to be a Christian or that people went to hell for being a member of the wrong religion. I'm left with a permanent state of cognitive dissonance at this point though, having once been thoroughly convinced that the Bible is without error and that non-Christians would burn in hell. I couldn't bring myself to believe that because someone wasn't born in the American Bible belt and didn't attend a fundamentalist church that they would go to hell. Why does God care so much about religion? It is a strange sensation for me not to have a religion. No atheism, No Christianity, No Islam, No Buddhism, no pretending to know I know exactly who's going to heaven as though I were the judge of the earth itself because I have the answer to everyone's problems. I've only been to Church once in perhaps 15 years at this point, and I'm not saying I'll never set foot in a church.

 The truth is though, I really in my heart at this point believe Christianity is a cult. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it takes a convincing and charismatic pastor to convince you that it isn't a duck. Why should Christians have a corner-market on spirituality and God? Why this monopoly? No one has ever gone to heaven outside of modern Christians, or so it would seem. After all, the fundamentalists exclude the Catholics and the Muslims and everyone else whose beliefs differ. From what I've read in the Bible, Jesus didn't have much to say, and what he did have to say has nothing to do with Christianity anyway. He Himself wrote nothing, and Paul wrote the majority of the new testament outside of the four gospels. I suppose God can resurrect the dead, but I also think its possible that Christians wanted to invent a new God. So I'm a doubter, and I don't believe I deserve to fry for it.

Dear Jesus and God...

By stormcloud ~

"Dear Jesus and God,

I love you so much, thank you so much for every little thing you've done for me and everything you continue to do for me. I pray everyone has a peaceful, easy-going night's sleep and a peaceful, easy-going awakening and existence. I thank you so much for everything in existence, please be with everyone who needs you. Please wipe all of my sins away and help me to be a better person from here on out. Please help me to be everything you've created me to be. And please bless everyone who has blessed me and all others a zillion times over. I pray someday things will be the way they're supposed to be.

In Jesus name, I pray,

Amen."


Now that I actually took the time to write out what I used to pray every night before bed, I notice the excessive amounts of "please this and please that" throughout this prayer. And I find myself being rather pathetic calling out to some unknown "holy spirit" every night so I could rest easier. Knowing that nothing was as it should've been. Knowing that it may never be. I still clung onto this mustard seed of faith waiting on my mountain. But eventually I had to bury that seed in the ground and I never would've guessed realization would begin to strengthen it's roots, cracking open the seed of "faith" and breaking free from it's unreasonable claims, slowly sprouting into understanding and continuing to bloom as I type these words now. All those nights I spent, tucked in my bed, fighting off anxiety with useless prayers that only worked because I believed they would. Now when I lay under the comfort of those sheets, unable to sleep and feeling as if I can't make peace like I used to, I come to the realization that these prayers are unnecessary.

I used to use them as a crutch, saying to myself, "I know God is real, because he answers my prayers when I'm scared. He takes away my fear and keeps the nightmares away. These prayers must be the way." When merely it was my mindset that was the way. I wish I would've known that then instead of wasting all that time praying for outcomes that were usually up to chance. Now I finally understand that it's possible to fall asleep peacefully without praying to something I barely believed in. I no longer have to question why the world is full of such negativity and turmoil if it's created by the "all perfect good".

I now know that this world isn't corrupt, it's simply following the laws of nature and I only saw it as such because that's what my religion had taught me. Christianity's story was a sorry attempt at trying to show humans the difference between right and wrong without yet figuring it out themselves. And we still don't know the entirety of it. In it's purest essence, it's simply instinct and nature. What comes in and labels these actions, thoughts, emotions as good or bad are our own perspectives and opinions. One person might think it's right to go out and steal some strangers purse in hopes of obtaining money to provide for their family while the stranger and bystanders would consider it wrong. Just because the majority finds something wrong doesn't make it wrong or make it right. There truly is no right or wrong when it comes to morals. There just is. And we choose to mold and shape what is to however we see fit according to our standards. But holding other people to those same standards is what brings about the topic of control which I choose not to get into cause I've been rambling enough as is.

This is my first time posting anything like this anywhere, I'm not the best at staying on track, but my main thought I wanted to bring across to those of you going through the same things is; Prayer is not the only way to peace. I fall asleep just as easily without it, I'm able to work through conflicts just fine without it, I'm able to channel my negative emotions and thoughts into positive ones without it. Because it was never necessary in the first place. The only necessity is my will to fight for what I want. If my will is strong enough, I can make anything happen. And so can you. We all can. We just have to believe in ourselves instead of putting all our trust into something we can't see or hear. Let's put it into what we know.

So with that being said, this is what I now say before I go to bed every night.

"I'm thankful we exist."

Zzzzz

This "Christian" thing is an illusion

By FoolNoMore ~


I fell into a religious fervor or stupor fell in when I became born again 2 years ago. After I accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior, I got baptized and I began do dive deep into the bible. I watched countless of religious videos on youtube learning from different people, as well as attending a local church. I completely changed my life: No sex before marriage, no masturbation, studying of the bible, prayers to God to deliver me from my enemies and to guide me out of my dire financial situation. I ministered to non believers or lukewarm believers, telling them to have faith in the face of hardship and tragedy. I watched their situation remain the same or worsen.

i was no longer eating pork and shellfish. i was fasting with the hope of gaining more clarity, i was even starting to follow Saturday Sabbath which means not doing anything but prayer from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. I owned 6 different bibles. countless of Christians books.

I donated or tithed to so many different churches and organizations... while still barely able to pay my rent each month. All the while, watching my non religious friends or relatives living on the hog, getting financial blessings without praying to any god. But I consoled myself by telling myself that I had "true wealth" aka the love of God.

I am not ready to tell the Christians I befriended during my stupor that I am no longer one of them.At the same time, I was never able to get a good night sleep. This supposed peace of God that passes all understanding was never mine to behold,

And then something happened in my life that was so disturbing that it was like someone threw a bucket of cold water in my face. This other christian who had been pursuing me while he was engaged to someone else (yes, I know, icky) finally married his fiancee after leading me on. Though we did not have sex despite him pressuring me, i had had fallen in love with him and had heard God telling me he was the one, to just be patient, that he was confused. I 'prayed and prayed and prayed, hoping for some kind of resolution to this triangle and all I got was this so called Christian slime marrying this woman that I know for a fact he doesn;t love. I had had so many "signs" and "miracles" telling me he was the one, to just be patient and pray for his soul to return to God.

Anyway, I am glad I snapped out of it. While I was born again, I had so many questions about some of the events of the Old Testament that disturbed me, things like God ordering this jewish warrior to kill EVERYONE in that town, even women, children, and livestock. And whats up with this god requiring animals to be sacrificed to him? why such bloodthirstiness? and I was uncomfortable with the apologetic answers I got. Even some things in the New Testament gave me room for pause, for instance, Jesus' position on divorce. and let's face, the turning of the other cheek is screwed up advice.

This Christian thing is an illusion.

I am embarrassed I fell for this. I am not ready to tell the Christians I befriended during my stupor that I am no longer one of them. I am just going to slowly phase them of my life and even move to a different city. Its a waste of time explaining i no longer believe in that BS.

For the first time in years, i feel less guilt about everything. i dont have to please someone up there somewhere.and follow his 10,000 commandements. i am a pretty decent person and i have decent morals. And I will be pleasuring myself tonight. I will be going back to dating and will avoid the insipid pool of Christian men i had previously resigned myself to.

I wil not worry about next life, no one knows with certainty what it is. This life is all ive got and I will make the most of it.

Criticism Double-Standards

By MTC ~

I think we can all agree that double-standards tend to be stupid and unfair, especially in today's politically correct world. It is acceptable to criticize one group, ideology, etc., but criticize another and you're labeled an intolerant bigot.

Big example: people aren't afraid to bash Christianity (who on here hasn't done just that? LOL), Judaism, or atheism, but bash Islam and here come the insults; bigot, racist (even though Islam isn't a race, hello!), hick, etc. What is with the hypocritical double-standard? Speaking of which, many people have nicknamed Facebook "Fascistbook" because the admins will discipline you in a heartbeat (often a temporary block from posting) if you share anything that insults Islam and Muslims, even if it is totally accurate or merely meant as a joke. But FB pages like "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" are perfectly acceptable. What is the deal with that, hmm?...

In New York City and elsewhere, nobody complained about numerous anti-Semitic ads. But people did complain about anti-jihad ads! Pamela Geller had to sue in order for those ads to be allowed, and thankfully she won. Pamela Geller is a very intelligent and courageous woman and patriot, not afraid to speak about issues that must be addressed. In fact, she has a new book coming out soon titled "Fatwa: Hunted in America (you can pre-order the book on Amazon if you want; in fact it would be greatly appreciated by Pamela and her supporters)." Pamela has received death threats for what she does, even though she speaks the truth. Numerous others also receive death threats, and some have paid the ultimate price, for giving Islam the criticism it deserves and speaking out on other similar issues. Such individuals include Nonie Darwish, Dr. Wafa Sultan, Dr. Ali Sina, IQ Al-Rassooli, all of whom are ex-Muslims and grew up in Muslim countries, therefore they know what they're talking about.

If Islam is a "religion of peace," why do critics (and cartoonists who express free speech) receive death threats? If Islam is a "religion of peace," why do critics (and cartoonists who express free speech) receive death threats? Why are Muslim men allowed to date and marry non-Muslim women, but Muslim women prohibited from dating and marrying non-Muslim men? Apparently it's because the kids must follow their father's religion. But why would it matter who a Muslim woman fell in love with and/or which faith her kids followed, if Islam truly was the "religion of peace" that it claims to be? Anyone see where I'm coming from on that one?

Christianity has its fundamental nutcases, I won't deny that. But Muslim extremists have taken fundamental religion to a whole new level, and Islamic extremism is the biggest danger today. Plus like I mentioned earlier, folks aren't afraid to give Christianity its due criticism. But censure Islam, and you're a horrible person!

Truth really is the new hate speech, and freedom of speech is under attack. I served in the US Army for 3 years (2009-2012), so I defended our right to free speech. I refuse to let the sacrifices of myself, my fellow veterans, those who are currently serving, and those whose lives were given (including my own 2nd cousin whom was KIA in Vietnam) be in vain.

The Controversy over the Mythicist Milwaukee Conference

By Karen Garst ~

When I got enraged at the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, I wrote a book about why women should leave religion: Women Beyond Belief: Discovering Life without Religion. I started this blog and named it Faithless Feminist. I had always defined feminist as gender equality between men and women. Three years ago, I had never heard of third wave feminism, intersectionality, social justice warrior, atheism plus, or elevator gate. Needless to say, I have learned about all of them and more since then.

Last spring I was contacted by the folks planning the Mythicist Milwaukee Conference (MMC) and asked to help advertise it by giving out free tickets to some of my blog subscribers. I had been on their podcast and did a presentation for one of their meetups and was happy to help out. In exchange, I was given two free VIP tickets for the Saturday, September 30 event. I called one of my best friends in Wisconsin and she was interested in going with me. Cool! I will admit I didn’t pay much attention to the line-up of speakers. I did notice the movie preview of “Batman and Jesus” which looked interesting. I made my airline and hotel reservations and didn’t give it another thought.

Then a few weeks ago, the shit storm hit. It turned out that David Rubin, The Rubin Report, who was initially scheduled, had dropped out and a substitute had been made – Carl Benjamin, also known as Sargon of Akkad. I had watched a couple of his videos and some debates people had had with him. He is controversial to say the least. Several people point out the problems he had caused in the past and others called on the organizers to not put him on stage. I did attend and would like to make this report.

Freedom of speech
If the organizers of MMC wanted to invite certain people to their conference, that is their business. I can choose to be interested and attend or I can choose not to. Yes, there was an expectation that they would focus on atheism and skepticism. Their vision is “a world free from religious oppression and bigotry” and their goal is to promote “dialogue about culture, religion and freedom of thought.” But like most people, I hadn’t paid much attention to the change in speakers until I saw the Twitter and Facebook posts. I still intended to go to the event. I had non-refundable airline tickets and was looking forward to seeing my friend. I also thought it would be interesting to see what happened at the conference. Controversy can lead to the growth and advancement of a movement. We shouldn’t want to spend our time in echo chambers of only people who agree with us. Some attendees, especially well known ones, decided not to attend. I appreciate their reasoning and support any individual’s decision not to attend. There were some very good speakers at the conference including Melissa Chen, Faisal Saeed Al-Mutar, and Asra Nomani – all well prepared, interesting, and with differing views. I would in particular suggest watching Chen’s talk about what happened to the values brought on by the Enlightenment. A video of MMC will be posted here. I am going to concentrate my remarks on the debate between Sargon of Akkad and Thomas Smith as it was one of the biggest mash-ups I have ever seen on stage. Most of the opposition to the conference involved Sargon’s presence.

Sargon of Akkad and Thomas Smith
Thomas Smith was originally chosen as an interviewer of David Rubin. When Rubin pulled out, he was asked to “debate” or “interview” Sargon of Akkad. I am not going into all the criticisms of Sargon because you can find them easily enough online and even on his own channel. It is also pretty clear that MMC organizers knew all about him. They mentioned on an earlier podcast that people are tired of “god is dead” debate so they went in another direction. They also called Sargon an entertainer. I am not at all sure that he would appreciate being characterized as such. I think he sees himself as an intellectual commentator on social issues and politics.

The “debate” ended up being about feminism, social justice warriors, and intersectionality. Sargon claimed that gender equality now exists and that any difference in outcomes for people “is an indication of freedom.” He stated that “95% of CEO’s are men because they wanted to be a CEO.” In response to a question from Smith, he added that “affirmative action is discrimination.” He stated that you can’t focus on the group, you must focus on the individual. Now this is a lot to unpack in a short blog post. But it reminds me of the myth of Horatio Alger. Alger was a prolific 19th century author who wrote about how hard work and determination as an individual could get you anywhere. It is now often referred to as “the myth of Horatio Alger.”

But let’s take a look at women’s rights. Did women win the vote because they individually went to the voting booth and asked to vote? No, winning the right for women to participate in the US democracy took the combined efforts of many like-minded men and women who believed women were the equals of men. It took an amendment to the US Constitution to bring it about. How did we defeat the terrible Jim Crow laws in the US? Martin Luther King was a powerful leader, but he could not have won the civil rights battle by himself. Many, many disparate people came together to get the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed. If you want to assert your rights as an individual, you must have some rights in the first place and virtually all of these rights are gained by collective action usually for a group as a whole.

Sargon likes to brand everything he disagrees with as Marxist collectivism. Marxist collectivism is defined as “political theories that put the group before the individual.” In other words, socialism and communism. Just because people come together to achieve equal rights does not make the effort Marxist collectivism. Sargon also claims he is a “classical liberal.” If anything, he’s a libertarian. Do it on your own. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Don’t complain about the ghetto, just get out of it. How naĂŻve. For him if one person has a mountain of barriers to climb and another can just step off the curb, he calls that freedom. If we care about equal opportunity, then let’s look at what it takes to achieve equal opportunity. It’s not Sargon’s version of Horatio Alger.

I was the first person to ask a question about this debate and stated the following: “I am the Faithless Feminist. I believe that religion is the last cultural barrier to gender equality. We need to get more women to give up religion. And it’s not going to happen if there are no women on a panel that talks about feminism and intersectionality.” Sargon responded that he would try to come next time as other than a while male, thus making fun of my comment. I guess he is just an entertainer because his groupies all applauded him and laughed. I think a woman should have debated Sargon with a moderator in between.

What bothered me most about his presentation was the response of the audience. In 2016, Sargon had commented “I wouldn’t even rape you,” to a British member of parliament who had been a victim of sexual assault earlier in her life. When Smith asked him if he thought his comment was immoral, Sargon said he didn’t care. The audience cheered and clapped. Sargon had also admitted to harassing women online and to laughing at a report that a woman atheist had been murdered. The people who clapped in the audience were mostly men - young men, white men. It is this which made me the saddest. Ironically, they were doing exactly what they complained about feminism – playing the victim card. Poor us, women are taking over. Is this what an atheism/skeptical conference has come to? Next time, I’ll be more careful when I make those airline reservations.

http://faithlessfeminist.com/



Sunday, October 22, 2017

The De-conversion of a Calvinist

By John ~

My parents and grandparents were Primitive Baptists. My great-great grandfather, and his father, were pastors of a small Primitive Baptist church in West Virginia, and my dad became a Primitive Baptist Pastor later in my childhood. I grew up believing in God, predestination, election, and other doctrines of the Calvinistic Baptists.

My family didn’t just believe that God knew all things, but that he predetermined everything, down to the smallest detail, including sin. This doctrine is supported by many Bible passages, primarily from the Old Testament. I won’t take the time to reference them for several reasons: I’m tired of referencing them, few readers will look them up, and the readers who reject the idea wouldn’t be convinced by the verses anyway.

My earliest crisis of faith was related to this theology. I knew that I was a sinner, and not just because a Sunday school teacher taught me about the “badness of my heart” or original sin. I was bad for real—I got in fights, cussed, and liked pictures of scantily clad women from my mother’s catalogs. I knew that I was a sinner and deserved hell like other Christians. But, unlike some Christians, I couldn’t just say the “sinner’s prayer” and be forgiven. According to our theology, I was either one of the elect, or I was not, and there was nothing I could do about it.

As a little boy, I went to my mom, scared, sad, and angry, and asked her why God created and predestinated me to sin so that he could send me to hell; wouldn’t it have been better for him to have not made me? Even then, I saw the injustice in the belief that God creates “some for glory, and some for damnation.”

My mother gave the only comfort she had, which was to tell me that my being worried about it was a sign that I was “one of God’s people.” But what child wouldn’t be worried about the idea that they might spend eternity with fire and monsters?

I first got baptized at 15 in my girlfriend’s Southern Baptist Church. After years of feeling sorry for all those people in “other religions,” I realized maybe there was something to it. My girlfriend’s dad was the preacher (until years later when he had an affair with the church secretary), and I could understand his sermons. They weren’t about obscure verses in Ezekiel, or the finer points of predestination, but were practical. Morality, responsibility, and salvation that was available to anyone. That appealed to me. Also, my girlfriend appealed to me, and I wanted to be around her as much as possible. And I wanted her dad’s favor. So I walked the isle, answered questions, and got baptized. My conversion lasted as long as my relationship with my girlfriend, which was about a year.

I was on the rodeo team in college. Few of my friends were “good boys,” and I wasn’t the shining light in our crowd. Still, I began to embrace the beliefs of my childhood. This was comforting when I climbed on a 2,000 pound bull after watching one of my friends get knocked out or get their leg broken; nothing could happen to me unless God had predestinated it, and I couldn’t die until it was my time.

At 21, I wanted to join my parent’s Primitive Baptist church. Primitive Baptists don’t accept baptism by another church, so I got baptized again. I was born into that line, had always been considered a part of them, and it was time to make it official. It was around that age that I started reading the Bible, and I read all of it once or twice within a year, mainly concentrating on passages that supported the beliefs we already held.

While searching to prove my beliefs, though, I found plenty that contradicted them. God held people accountable. But if he predestinated everything, why were we to blame? Also, Jesus offered salvation to anyone who believed, according to the Gospels. All of this was really in the Bible. But Paul was still there, too, talking about election.

After college, I moved 300 miles from home, from family, and from Primitive Baptists. I didn’t live a Christian life, but I was still interested in theology. I kept reading the Bible, and read it through once or twice more, and spent a lot of time listening to radio preachers. They didn’t teach what my parents had taught me, and they had a much better grasp of the Bible. I read their books and commentaries, and my beliefs slowly changed.

Later I went back to college for a Master’s degree and got married. My wife was raised a Southern Baptist, and church was important to her, so we decided to join a small Baptist church we had been going to together. They asked us both to be re-baptized; my wife, because she was “too young” her fist time, and me, because I needed to repent of having been a Primitive Baptist. And so we did. I was convicted of my sin, knew that I wanted to change, and believed that this was a true conversion. We stayed in that church until we graduated and moved for work.

After several moves and lots of churches, we ended up in another Primitive Baptist church that wanted us to be baptized again, and we both reluctantly agreed. But I vowed to never be baptized again, even if it meant never joining a church again. If four times wasn’t enough, I’d never be raised in the likeness of Jesus.

When my wife and I joined the new church, the pastor noticed that I was interested in theology and the Bible, and he asked me to try to preach. I respected him, so I thought I should try. I put a lot of effort into preparing, which may have helped me do a little better than some beginning lay preachers. The pastor mistook this effort for a gift, and encouraged me more, so my “preaching” became regular.

I spent most of my free time studying the Bible and commentaries. At the time, I seemed very zealous. Looking back, I see that I was motivated to study to keep from embarrassing myself.

After three years, my company wanted me to transfer. The move would be a good one for my family (by that time we had two children). We were initially excited, but our church thought God wanted us to stay, and they warned us to be careful in making a hasty decision. A church leader even told me that I was running from my calling to preach and reminded me of what happened to Jonah. In other words, I might get swallowed by a whale.

So we prayed for God’s guidance. But, other than conflicting guidance from Christians who thought they knew God’s will, we didn’t get any. The experience was painful but taught me lessons—I shouldn’t expect God to give answers; I had to make decisions on my own. Also, many people think God is telling them something, but that doesn’t mean we should listen to them. The experience cast doubt in my mind regarding prayer.

Ultimately, we made the right decision and moved. We found a church and became very involved. I taught Sunday school, spoke at men’s groups, preached at the other Baptist churches in the area, and enrolled in seminary classes. I got up so early in the mornings to study and pray that it affected my health, and I spent so much time trying to become sanctified that it hurt my relationship with my wife and made me irritable with my kids. The time I prayed more, read the Bible more, and attended church more than I ever have before or since was the time when I was most difficult to get along with.

After a year or two of these extremes, I backed off. I didn’t enroll in anymore classes, quit preaching (despite warnings about preachers who run from their calling), and quit getting up early to study.

I started writing reviews of Christian books as a hobby. I was decent at it and before long, publishing companies were sending me free review copies of new books which, for the most part, I enjoyed. I kept that up a few years until I no longer liked the Christian books I read. I thought it was because they were poorly written (many were), or made bad arguments (many did). Outside of Calvinist theologians, few writers used any logic; many didn’t seem to think at all. But I slowly realized that the message, even when it came directly from the bible, irritated me. My reviews became increasingly negative, so I quit reviewing Christian books.

I still wasn’t concerned; I didn’t doubt my faith, though I did complain of going through a “spiritually dry time.”

My major concerns came when I started having problems with the clear teaching of the Bible. Some Christians would say that problems only arise from misunderstanding, and it’s true there’s a lot I don’t understand. But I read and studied the Bible more than the average church goer. I read all of it at least 13 times over a decade or more, and that doesn’t count the in-depth studying of books of the Bible and commentaries.

For a long time I knew that there were contradictions, but I had ways to justify them. I believed there were things I just couldn’t understand (which is true). But the more I studied, the more I saw things that were incompatible, and the old justifications weren’t strong enough. I stopped believing the Bible was perfect and inspired. That may sound small, but it was a big step in my deconversion. If the Bible isn’t inspired, what parts can we trust?

Reading and studying the Bible led me to not believe the Bible. But life experience has also taught me that many of the claims in the Bible are not true.Then, several years ago, I was listening to a sermon from the old testament about one of the many times God commanded the nation of Israel to kill every man, woman, and child in a certain city. This was from the perspective that the people were pagans and evil, and so they deserved it (even the babies). Also, since God commanded it, it had to be good. I accepted that in the past. But this time it made me angry. I could fill pages on the parts of the Bible that started bothering me, but those have been covered in other places by other people.

Although the Bible teaches that “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all,” I found it unjust that he commanded his small tribe to commit atrocities. Old Testament Priests hacked people to pieces. God “hardened hearts,” and then punished those people for being hardened. And, according to the belief of most Christians in the world, millions of people were going to hell for rejecting a gospel they’ve never heard. I realized that deep down, I believed God was unjust.

Around the time that my doubts were growing, I had a chance to take a three-week mission trip to Africa. It was a medical mission, so there would be plenty of work for me to do, and I wouldn’t have to be involved in spreading the gospel or preaching. I was excited to help real people in need, and I hoped that the trip would end my doubts and my spiritual decline.

The trip was positive and life changing, as they say, but not in the way they usually mean. It changed my world view, which had become more liberal, and became more so after the trip. I loved helping people, providing something they needed, and getting to see a different culture. But I did not like the underlying goal of trying to convert them. The trip made me hate, even more than I already did, the idea that millions of people who never heard of Jesus, or who believed differently, were going to hell. And it made me more discontent with western Christianity along with all of its money, productions, and dazzle. These people on the “dark continent” were full of love and happiness, while they seldom had shelter or adequate clothing or food. Yet we came to convert them. We could give them Bibles but were discouraged from giving them bottled water.

The Bible says that God draws near to those who draw near to him. If we seek and accept Jesus, he will never leave us. If we resist the devil, he will flee from us. If we pray for help, we will receive it. But my doubts grew stronger and stronger against my will and despite my efforts. If I wasn’t a true believer, then belief means something other than what I thought. When I began having doubts, I prayed hard and often that God would remove them. I wanted to believe. But my doubts grew, and while I was seeking Him, He drifted further away.

Reading and studying the Bible led me to not believe the Bible. But life experience has also taught me that many of the claims in the Bible are not true.

I prayed long and hard and often to overcome certain sins or faults which I never could overcome, sins that God should have wanted me to overcome. I’ve changed throughout my life because I’ve gotten older and learned from my mistakes, not because I became progressively sanctified. I prayed long and hard for guidance in different areas, and still often made the wrong choice. And I prayed long and hard against my unbelief while only seeing it increase.

If a sinner only has to believe to be saved by God’s grace, why does God allow the same person to quit believing? And if a person can quit believing and therefore no longer be saved, who is safe? Can a person choose to believe or not believe? If so, how do you fall into unbelief against your will? And if we can’t choose, why are we held accountable?

A Christian response to my questions would be that I never really believed in the first place. I thought I “truly” believed, but maybe I was wrong. I know that I wasn’t faking. But what does “belief” mean if someone can think they believe something but really, unknowingly, not believe it?

A Calvinist will also say that only the elect believe. Whether they admit it or not, that is the same as saying that God predestines the others to hell, and that in itself is enough to make me reject the whole package. If God brings people into this world to live a few years, possibly in misery, and then die only to end up in hell, I reject the teaching that he is good. Some people may praise him for sending millions to hell, but I cannot.

Others say that I must have fallen into sin and didn’t repent. If I’m guilty of rebellion for refusing to preach, or not wanting to be baptized a fifth time, or laughing at the choir, then it’s true that I don’t repent. I have been painfully aware of my struggles in other areas and I know that I’m far from a saint. But if being perfect is a requirement of keeping the faith, I don’t know anyone who would still have it. And as far as morality is concerned, since I’ve quit believing I am still “convicted” for my faults—impatience with my children, discontent, anger, saying bad words—than I was before, but I am more open minded.

In case anyone thinks my problems would be solved if I found the “right” church, I have tried Primitive Baptists, Southern Baptists, Independent Baptists, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, non-denominational, liberal, conservative, reformed, Calvinistic, hyper-Calvinistic, and anti-Calvinistic. My experience in going to all of these different groups has helped me get where I am today. When each of them teach that the others are wrong regarding their interpretation of the Bible and worship, it follows that most of them, if not all of them, are wrong, and together they do a better job of casting doubt on the Bible than all the atheists in the world.

I don’t “reject” Jesus, as I would like to be like the Jesus in the gospels. But I don’t believe that the Hebrew Bible is the word of God, nor do I believe much of what it says. I can no longer call myself a Christian, nor do I want to be associated with much of what Christianity stands for. I do not deny the possibility of a god; to do so would be arrogant. But I have examined the evidence for one, and I don’t find it compelling.

As I continue to lose my emotional bonds to the church and Christianity and am able to look at it more objectively, I’m no longer sad that I can’t believe anymore. Instead, I feel more at peace with myself, the world, and the people I love.

Religion in World History Textbooks

By Karen Garst ~

Some aspects of culture are readily apparent to everyone: we live in different countries, we speak different languages, we wear different clothes, we eat different foods, etc. However, culture also reproduces itself by means that are much less apparent, but just as powerful. Ron and Scollon and Suzanne B. K. Scollon wrote a fascinating paper on the differences in communication styles between the Athabaskan and English speakers in Canada.[1] None of his analysis involved language per se. However, the different cultural norms of these two different groups showed up in how conversations got started, who spoke first, and the pauses between speakers. He showed that the Athabaskans paused about a second and one half between speakers and the English about a second. The impact of this minor difference caused the English speaker to speak again when his one second pause had passed, not waiting another half second for the Athabaskan to feel comfortable. This is a more extreme example than the one I am going to explore in this post, but it nonetheless shows how culture can perpetuate itself in ways that we are not consciously aware of.

After reading Norm’s paper, I got the idea to explore a textbook from our local high school regarding world history. I wanted to see how religion played a role and whether there was subtle support for Christianity over other religions. After calling the high school to seek permission to review the textbook they used, I drove over and spent an hour going through World History: Journey Across Time: The Early Ages written by Jackson J. Spielvogel, PhD. It was published by McGraw Hill in New York in 2005. Here is what I found. To make reading easier, I have not indicated page numbers. If you want to check the quotes out, I would gladly provide these to you.

The textbook was well laid out and much more attractive than any textbook I encountered in my high school years in the 1960’s. It started out with a section on tools which attempted to explain how historians research their material. It indicated the following: “Historians generally find evidence in primary sources and secondary sources. Historians examine sources for credibility and truthfulness.” Let’s keep this in mind when they talk about various religions.

How dates are calculated
At the beginning of the book, the author explains the dating system that is used – BC and AD. BC is defined as “before Christ” and AD as the Latin phrase that indicates “in the year of our Lord.” He credits a monk in 500 AD as having set up the system. He further indicates that “Western nations begin their calendar on the year in which Jesus was thought to have been born.” He then contrasts that with the Jewish and Muslim calendars. From the start, this history of the world will be portrayed using the “Christian calendar.” Further, the writer assumes that Jesus was a real person that everyone knows. He does not define who he is at this point in time. This dating system colors and shapes our perception of everything that occurs in history by making the dates correspond to the mythology of Christianity. Toward the end of the 20th century, a more neutral dating system was established that uses BCE and CE to indicate “before the current era” and “current era.” While both systems are pegged to the same starting date, the second does not explicitly refer to a man called Christ. This new system is now becoming the norm. Its first use can be traced back to the 17th century. More books and textbooks are now using this system. It is interesting to note that the Kentucky School Board left the decision to local boards in 2006 when it considered the matter. There were media reports in 2011 that the Australian textbook system might change to the new system. The pushback from citizens and politicians caused them to keep to the old system. Change is never without controversy.

Gods versus gods
One of the most pervasive and subtle differences in the textbook is the capitalization of the word God. When discussing Babylonian or Greek religion (often referred to as mythology in the textbook), neither the word god or goddess is capitalized. However, when referring to Christianity, it is capitalized. A subtle way to indicate which religion relies on the “one true god.” It is interesting that the book treats all the Abrahamic faiths the same and capitalizes God for both Jewish and Islamic references as in the following - “Jews, Christians, and Muslims also believe that God spoke to people through prophets.” One cannot attribute this capitalization to references to monotheism. When the book discusses the short period of monotheism in Egypt under the pharaoh Amenhotep, it continues to refer to the single god, Aton, using a lower case “g.”

The Biblical Stories
The textbook refers to events involving the Israelites as actually happening. It denotes dates for example for Abraham – 2000 BC – and implies that the Exodus from Egypt took place and that the Israelites spent 40 years in the desert. There are no credible Biblical historians who believe that the Exodus as described in the Bible actually took place. There have been no archeological finds that would indicate a 40 year sojourn in the desert. Yet this textbook, presented in our public schools, assumes these events took place and even dates them to a specific period in history.  There is no caveat whatsoever that there is no mention of these events or people outside the Biblical record.

Ruth and Naomi
As a literary cut-out, the textbook states that “To show the importance of family love and devotion, Jewish girls learned about the relationship between Ruth and Naomi.” Ruth’s husband dies and she vows to stay with the family of her mother-in-law Naomi. What this short story misses is that someone, usually the brother of the deceased husband, must marry Ruth in order for her husband’s property to be retained. Naomi advises Ruth to basically go into the threshing floor and sit by a man’s genitals and that he will tell her what to do. She ends up marrying Boaz, the man on the threshing floor and he gets Ruth’s husband’s property. Not the best story for young girls to learn that they are simply property in a patriarchal society and cannot own anything themselves and must have a man to survive.

Promotion of the Message of Jesus
The textbook introduces Christianity by stating that “During that period, Jesus began preaching a message of love and forgiveness.” Remember when the author explained about using primary and secondary sources? There is no mention of a person named Jesus outside the Bible. Period. There is no mention of this in the text. In terms of the characterization of “love and forgiveness,” the author is forgetting the verse in Matthew 10:34 - "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” The text also states that “Jesus was born humbly in a stable, beside barn animals, in the town of Bethlehem.” The author assumes that because the Bible portrays this in Luke (note that there is no narrative of Jesus’ childhood in any of the other gospels or in Paul’s epistles), it is a fact of history.

Crusades and Inquisition
I was initially curious to see if several of the genocidal events perpetrated by the Catholic Church, primarily in the Middle Ages, would be mentioned. The book did discuss both the Catholic Church’s Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition. The Crusades are portrayed as a way to help the Byzantine Empire fight the Muslims. It describes Pope Urban II speaking before a crowd in 1095 with the people chanting, “It is the will of God. It is the will of God.” The text does not speak to its role to eliminate or bring back in the fold, the many different and opposing Catholic groups, or the fact that the Catholic Church often kept the property seized and did not return it to the Byzantine emperor. Crusaders killed thousands of people in the name of their faith. It explains the rationale for the Catholic Church’s Inquisition as follows: “Church leaders feared that if people stopped believing Church teachings, it would weaken the Church and endanger people’s chances of getting into heaven.” So it tortured and killed these people instead. The Church’s own manual stated the following: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."[2] It really didn’t matter if the person killed was guilty or innocent. The Spanish Inquisition is discussed as well but is not accurate in stating that most Jews left the country. Most of them were forced to convert to Catholicism and were referred to as conversos.[3]

Emphasis on Western Civilization
While the textbook does explore civilizations in Ancient Egypt, the Americas, China and Japan, it focuses most of its pages on those civilizations that gave rise to Western Civilization: Greek, Roman, and Europe in the Middle Ages. While my perusal was not long, I did have the index copied. There is no chapter on Russia as if its place in the world is not important. There is also no chapter on Northern Europe. It would be interesting to examine a world history book from Norway or Russia to see how they treat civilizations other than their own. I would also like to get a copy of a world history textbook from the 60’s to see if the focus of it was the same. Anyone have one?

Men to emulate
The book touts the great work of St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. There is no critical view of St. Augustine’s rampant misogyny in establishing the concept of original sin and the guilt laid upon women as a result. The author says of Martin Luther – “[He] became one of the most famous men in history.” This is the same man who said - “The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes.” 

Reviewers
On a final note, it is interesting to see where the teachers who reviewed the textbook hail from. Of the twelve listed, two were from Georgia and three were from Alabama. It does seem that Bible Belt states might have been overrepresented.

Karen L. Garst

September 2, 2017





[1] Ron Scollon and Suzanne B. K. Scollon, Athabaskan-English Interethnic Communication (Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska, 1979)
[2]  Directorium Inquisitorum, edition of 1578, Book 3, pg. 137, column 1. Online in the Cornell University Collection.
[3] Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1999), 29-31

I was a teenage Jesus

By John Draper ~

Humans discovered lust long before they invented religion, naturally, right around the time they concluded Flange A could be inserted into Slot B. Basically, the first humans lusted from the get-go, else there never would have been the second humans.

But until they invented religion, humans had no problem with their lust. Suddenly, it was sin. The Jews restricted sex six ways to Sunday—or Saturday, I guess. From the first century on, Christians were told to take their lust, smunch it into a tiny ball, and slip it under the bedroom rug. If a Muslim woman doesn’t bleed on the wedding night, the husband can accuse her of moral laxity and unencumber himself from his marital bonds on the spot—a definite mood killer.

Pretty much for the past 3,500 years, religion has been shining its flashlight into society’s backseat and chiding us to “get a move on, you two.” We hastily buttoned and zipped ourselves up, yet when religion was out of sight, we were right back at it.

Lust wins every time. Humans can’t help it.

Which, oddly enough, brings me to Jesus.

All this talk of lust was meant to bring me this pass, wherein I make a point about Jesus and in so doing make a point about scripture and in so doing make a point about the whole concept of God talking to us.

Think about this. The Party Line is that Jesus never married. That may be the case, but does even the most hidebound Baptist think that young Jesus never even considered the prospect, that he never showed an interest in girls? Humph, the Baptists concede. OK, but if he had, it would have been purely through the application of his detached intellect and will.

Really? Picture teenage Jesus sitting in synagogue. The rabbi is going on and on. A line of sweat snakes down the side of Jesus’ face. He sighs. Across the way, in the female section of the synagogue, he spies a young woman. Now, would that teenage Jesus think to himself, “Hmmm, she would be a logical choice for copulation—a perfect God-fearing mother for my children,” as if copulation were just some kind of contractual transaction?

No, young Jesus isn’t interested in lying naked with the girl as a matter-of-fact means to a righteous end. The naked togetherness is an end in itself. Lusty young Jesus desires sexual pleasure for its own sake. And that desire is autonomic. One doesn’t choose to blush. One blushes. Same with lust. We’re not as removed from our animal selves as we like to flatter ourselves in our Sunday Best. In fact, our animal self is our true self. We are animals—very clever animals but animals nonetheless.

How do I know this about Jesus? I was a teenage boy. Supposedly, Jesus was fully human. If he was a fully human boy, Jesus lusted. Saying that Jesus could have been a fully human boy without fantasizing about bare-naked girls is saying that God could make a circular square.

And here’s where I segue into the second point I wanted to make, the one about scripture. The Bible is usually wrong—Jesus being sinless, for example. Said differently, the Bible’s not constrained by the facts.

The people who wrote the New Testament had an agenda: Jesus is the Messiah, so straighten up and fly right! Remember that the first gospels weren’t scratched out until 30 years after Jesus died. Thirty! During those decades, the first believers had been tinkering with the ideas that would later become doctrine—ideas like the sinlessness of Jesus. So some of those words and actions of Jesus were tweaked to squeeze them into the emerging superstructure of orthodoxy.

Other words and events were invented whole cloth to bolster that blossoming doctrine. Take the made-up story of young Jesus besting the scribes and teachers of the law at the temple as a 10-year-old. It’s made up, because Jesus was almost certainly illiterate. Any schooling he received was just to learn his father’s trade.

So am I saying we can’t trust scripture? Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. This brings me to my third point: God doesn’t talk through a holy book. Turns out, God doesn’t talk at all. Said more prosaically, we are left without the counsel of God as we tarry on this earth. When you think about it, the fact we have scripture, written by men, is an admission that God doesn’t talk. Scripture is just us panicking in the vacuum of God’s silence.

We’re on our own. Not that there isn’t a God. It’s just that He has this thing about being inscrutable. He expects us to figure things out ourselves—hence, leeches for dropsy. If He was interested in talking to us, how about a cure for cancer? More dogma we need like a hole in the head.

And it’s a good thing we’re on our own. We can do this. Yes, lustful folks like us who undress one another with our eyes. We’ve gotten this far on our own. Surely we’ll surmount whatever shall come to confront us without the aid of holy texts.

As I said, we’re clever animals.

http://johndraperauthor.com/

Christian Womanhood

By ObstacleChick ~

Growing up in a Southern Baptist church and attending an Independent Baptist school definitely taught me ideas about women's place in society that were greatly at odds with what was going on at the time in the culture of the 1980s and even within my family's households. My grandmother, born in 1926, was one of the more fortunate children growing up during the Great Depression of the 1930s because her father had a job and was able to provide food, though not much else, for his family. My grandmother and her older sister were able to attend school, and my grandmother was a top student until she became ill. At 16 years old in 10th grade, my grandmother dropped out of school due to severe anemia, and soon after she married her sweetheart who was soon drafted into the army in World War II. At 17 years old she gave birth to her first child and soon after went to work for 18 months in a boot factory while her mother or sister cared for her child. After the war was over, my grandmother, who had regretted never finishing high school, studied and passed her GED (General Equivalency Degree) to earn her high school diploma. As an adult, she made sure to budget study time into her day with a couple of hours of reading about history, geography, archaeology, and Christian apologetics. Her subject of choice was the Bible, and she compiled a library of concordances and history books related to Biblical studies. Not wanting her studying to go to waste, she taught (women only of course) Sunday school and Women's Missionary Union. Probably a lot of what she taught was more complicated than most of the ladies were accustomed to learning, but I'm sure they learned something, and my grandmother had an outlet for her scholarly pursuits. Secretly, I always thought my grandmother was probably as well-studied as the pastor of the church (minus study of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin language).


My mother was born in 1943, graduating from high school in 1961. Her high school years were spent when the Cold War was strong, and the US Department of Education made a push for more students to take math and science courses, even girls. As my mother was a bright student with good grades, she was selected for the higher level math and science courses, often one of 2 or 3 girls in a class of boys. My mom was a National Merit Semi-Finalist and was tied for 2nd in her class with the 2 students taking a test as a tie-breaker. As she was painfully shy and did not want to give a speech at graduation, she put incorrect answers so that she would be ranked 3rd. Her guidance counselor asked where she planned to go to college, and she didn't even know that was an option. Her guidance counselor helped her with entrance and scholarship applications, and my mom ended up getting a scholarship to Middle Tennessee State University. Unfortunately, she didn't know what she wanted to do and dropped out in the middle of junior year to get married, a marriage that ended a year later in divorce. My grandfather always regretted that my mother "wasted" her education and did not finish her degree. She was unfortunate enough to be born in a time when some women were just starting to pursue education and careers, but the feminist movement was not far enough along to sweep her along with it. She thought that she was supposed to become a homemaker, but she was as ill-suited for that as she was for the teaching degree that she had tried to pursue.

Eventually, my mom worked for awhile and married again. My father didn't want kids, so he was upset when she was pregnant, and he told her that he wasn't paying for expenses related to the child. So my mother worked to save money for baby clothes, furniture, and a new washer and dryer. For a couple of years she was a stay at home mom as she had always thought women were supposed to be, but by the time I was 3 years old, my parents were separated and we had moved in with my grandparents. My mom was now a divorced mother in a conservative, religious community, and her shyness made it difficult for her to make friends. A friend at work took her to Parents Without Partners, where she met and married my stepfather and had another child within a year. It was at that point that she became a respectable member of the community again.

When I was a senior in high school, our church was offering Philosophy of Christian Manhood and Philosophy of Christian Womanhood courses to those who wanted to participate. Mrs. B, the mother of one of my classmates, wanted her daughter to take the course, so she purchased the materials for unmarried women (at least, that's what I assume it was), Challenge of Christian Womanhood. There were 6 of us girls who met at Mrs. B's home on Saturday mornings to learn what it meant to be a proper Christian wife and mother.

First it was explained that God created humans male and female with different strengths and weaknesses designed to complement each other. Males were supposedly designed to want to be leaders and protectors, with greater physical strength and analytical thinking skills than females. Born to be problem-solvers, males often relied on data rather than on intuition to make decisions. They also needed to have time on their own to "play with their toys" or to engage in recreational behaviors on their own, thriving on alone-time to "recharge". Females, on the other hand, were designed to be nurturers and caretakers, with a softer nature and lesser physical strength. Women were more intuitive thinkers, relying on emotion and "gut feelings" to make decisions. Women tended to congregate in groups and draw upon one another for strength or "recharging".

Additionally, due to the designed natures of males and females, God created distinct roles for males and females to follow to have the best type of relationship. Of course, the only type of relationship that was sanctioned by God was a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman. The man was designated the head of the family submissive only to God, with the wife being submissive to the man. A husband's role was to lead and protect the wife, and to love her and the children. He must be the example to the family of how to live a Godly life and to guide them both physically and spiritually. The wife's role was to submit to (and obey) the husband, to speak softly, to dress modestly, to take care of the children, and to praise the husband. A child's role in the family is to obey the parents at all times. These are the God-ordained roles of members of the family, designed for each person to work in perfect harmony under the laws of God. And of course, there should be daily prayer and Bible study as a family with the husband as the leader.

These teachings made me extremely uncomfortable, the kind of uncomfortable where you feel your skin crawl and your stomach lurch with a tinge of nausea. We were told that if we felt uncomfortable with God's teaching, it was due to our sinful, rebellious nature, or that we allowed worldly influences to lead us astray. Or perhaps Satan was tempting us. In any case, it certainly wasn't due to anything faulty in God's perfect design.

There were many things I felt were wrong with these teachings. First, I was the top math and science student in our grade, which requires a good amount of analytical thinking skills. If women were designed with lesser analytical skills, either I was an aberration (created wrong? nah, that isn't possible as God doesn't make mistakes) or the boys in my classes weren't using their God-given analytical skills to the best of their abilities. Second, we were told that just as a company cannot have two presidents, a marriage cannot have two leaders - there must be one designated leader, and that God had designed the male to be the leader. My problem was that a company chooses its president through an interview process in which the board will examine the credentials of candidates and find the best fit, not merely making its selection based on someone's genitalia and hormones. Simply designating the husband as the head of the family because of his birthright is the same as the "divine right of kings", and we all know how well that worked out throughout history.

We were taught that since the role of a wife was to be submissive to the husband, then it was of utmost importance that we select our mate well through much prayer and discernment. God's plan for marriage was for one man and one woman to be mated for life, so one must be very sure about the person that one selects as a mate. (Actually, it's good advice for men and for women to spend a lot of time getting to know their potential marriage partner, to select well and to understand that marriage is a partnership that requires work and attention).

At that point, I decided that if the male being designated the de facto head of the family was God's perfect design for marriage, then I was definitely remaining single.

My mom and my grandma both took this course, but their reactions were quite different. My grandma, always striving to be the best Christian wife, mother, sister, daughter, friend, and servant of God as possible, swallowed the whole package hook, line, and sinker. I know that it didn't necessarily feel comfortable for her either, because I would hear her saying, "God says that I must be submissive to my husband, so......" whenever a situation requiring wifely submission would arise. What is interesting is that my grandfather had no interest in having a submissive wife at all - he loved my grandma and respected and asked for her opinion in all matters. My grandfather ingrained in me from the time I can remember that I should NEVER be dependent on a man, and that my education came first in order to ensure that I could have a career to support myself and my children. As his daughter had (in his opinion) "thrown away" her education and ended up twice-divorced, he never wanted to see his granddaughters in the same position. Too bad he passed away before seeing that as adults, my cousin and I followed his advice.

I decided that if the male being designated the de facto head of the family was God's perfect design for marriage, then I was definitely remaining single.My mom, having married a man with severe learning disabilities that drove him to drop out of high school in 10th grade, considered herself to be the head of the family. They would discuss big decisions, but they both felt that she was the one who had more discernment regarding most matters of importance. She set the budget, paid the bills, made decisions regarding investments, large purchases, etc., and my stepdad was grateful to go along with her decisions. When I asked my mom her opinion of "Christian womanhood", she replied that we all knew that she was the one in her marriage best equipped to make decisions. So for her, that was the end of that discussion.

Perhaps this style of relationship works for some couples who strongly believe in the concepts of God-designed marriage roles. However, I see a few pitfalls with this system even for the most fervent adherents. First, it puts undue pressure on the husband to make decisions for the family. I don't know how much the men's course stresses seeking the opinion of the wife, but in the women's course it was advised that a good husband will ask the wife's opinion, though he is not required to do so. In the end, it is clear that the husband is the responsible party. Also, I do not know in what way husbands were instructed to treat their wives, or whether women were presented as having inferior intellectual skills. I do know that women were instructed to stroke their husband's egos, to never nag or publicly disagree with their husbands, to give husbands their "well-deserved" space unbregrudgingly, and to make sure the children did the same. It seemed to me that other than the pressure of sole responsibility for decision-making, men had the better end of the bargain.

Oddly enough, even though our Independent Baptist school incorporated a strict dress code with regard to male and female students, we were not indoctrinated with gender roles. It was understood that women were never to become pastors and were never to preach sermons, but teachers and administrators never treated male and female students differently in class. The only thing I can recall that was gender driven (other than dress code) was that boys were required to hold doors open for other students, regardless of other students' genders. Girls were not required to hold open the doors for other students, but we were encouraged to do so as a polite act.

Did I remain single? No, I ended up finding a man whom I respect and who respects me in return. We are partners, a team, who discuss issues and come to a consensus. He is highly analytical but also highly emotional, whereas I am less emotional. He is quicker to reach a decision than I am, as I require time to consider all facets of potential outcomes of a decision. We both understand our own and each other's strengths and weaknesses, and never do we attribute those strengths and weaknesses to gender. It ended up that he is better at teaching and nurturing children, and I am not as good in those ways. He is self-employed, and I have a secure well-paying position. So we decided when our children were little that he would be home during the day and would work at night, while I worked in the daytime and would be home with the children at night. While in some parts of the country, at-home dads became more commonplace, in our part of the country and at the time, he was unusual (and often looked with suspicion). Our family situation was never easy, but we believe that our children have benefited from the best that we can offer to them, regardless of traditional gender roles. By tenets of "Christian Manhood and Womanhood", we should have had a different life, one in which our best skills were underutilized. As an aside, we are both agnostic atheists now, though that was not always the case. But we never subscribed to traditional gender stereotypes, and our children do not either.

Prometheus, Dark Matter, and Atheism

By Ben Love ~

I’ve been an atheist for only a short time compared to how long I spent crawling in the bowels of Christianity, and thus, echoes of my former biblical thoughts still tend to resonate within my brain from time to time. That’s why, when I woke up this morning, I was thinking about the story in Genesis, chapter 2, where God instructs Adam to keep away from the Tree of Knowledge. The text actually refers to it as “the tree of knowledge of good and evil,” which might therefore be interpreted as “knowledge of right and wrong,” or perhaps even “knowledge of reality.” God informs Adam that eating from this tree will cause his death. This, however, strictly speaking, is not true, for Adam and Eve both lived for a very long time after eating from this tree. Christians will say that God was speaking of “spiritual death,” but they are adding to the context that which is not there.

In any case, the implication here, it seems to me, is that ignorance is bliss and knowledge is deadly.   

I pushed this story out of my mind and got out of bed. But as I went about my day, it kept returning to my mind. And the more I thought about this particular biblical story (the foundation upon which Christian theology constructs the entire sin/redemption doctrine of Jesus), the more I felt so relieved to no longer be a part of that flawed religion.

To wit, I suppose one could define the term atheism in a variety of ways, but I think it could be best described as acommitment to knowledge. This is because the underlying inference pervading all aspects of Christianity (and indeed most if notall human religions) seems to be that it’s un-healthy and even offensive to God to seek knowledge. It is better, Christianity tells us, to believe in a truth rather than to know a truth. To that end, there seems to be a concerted yet subtle (or, in some cases, not so subtle) effort, especially within Christianity, to steer people away from knowledge and keep them bound to the restrictions of faith. I speak not only from personal experience on this matter but also from a position of having listened closely to the stories of others. There is in Christianity an undeniable attitude—be it spoken or unspoken, depending upon which church the pulpit is to be found—that God absolutely does not want his followers seeking, acquiring, or using knowledge to make decisions. Instead, we are told that God wants his followers to trust in him, seek him, follow his lead, and keep faith even in the most trying of circumstances, even when doing so puts the believer at odds with what he knows in his heart to be right.

This is one of the primary reasons I ultimately came to reject Christianity. It’s not just that I’m a man obsessed with acquiring and understanding knowledge (although there is no doubt that my obsession with knowledge drives much of what I do in life), it’s that there is no rational reason why anyone should suspect that a Creator—whatever that may mean—would want his creations kept in ignorance. It just doesn’t compute. Asking me to believe in such a Creator, as well as to love, serve, worship, and obey such a Creator, is the same, to me, as saying the following:

God gave you this amazingly stunning brain, and it’s capable of much more than you could ever imagine. But God doesn’t want you to use it. Oh no. In fact, using it not only bothers God, it actually offends him. Yes, that’s right, it’s a sin. High-er knowledge is wicked, because the more you know, the less you’re going to want God.

I have actually had Christians say this to me. The more knowledge you have, it was said, the more you’ll learn to rely on yourself and thus be led away from the true God. My question is this: why should that be? If the knowledge in question is correct, and if God is real, then he must be the author of that knowledge, since he is, by implication, the author of everything. Reality, then, in which all knowledge is housed, is the specific design of God, the Creator. How then could any one aspect of that reality, the knowledge of which I might gain, lead me away from the Creator? If God is the author of reality, then there should be nothing about it I could discover that would keep me from him.

What’s really being said here, I think, is that even the most faithful of Christians recognizes in deep his heart that knowledge of reality sheds damning light on theistic beliefs. The more one knows, the more one comes to understand that all theistic assertions about God are erroneous. Thus, knowledge beckons us away from God because knowledge beckons us toward the real truth, that there is no God, or at least there’s no God as the Christian religion declares him to be. Knowledge, then, is viewed as the enemy of faith not be-cause it leads the faithful astray but rather because it leads them out of the bondage of faith. That’s what this religious aversion to knowledge is really all about.

As I’ve been thinking about these matters, I continue to be reminded of my favorite story from all Greek mythology, the story of Prometheus, the semi-god who committed the unthinkable by giving fire to humanity. The basic nucleus of that myth, as far as I’ve always understood it, is that Zeus and the other gods did not want humans to have advanced knowledge. Prometheus, who was not a god on Zeus’s level but rather was a Titan (and the brother of Atlas), stole fire from Mt. Olympus and gave it to the humans. To me, “fire,” which always brings light to darkness, is in this instance an allegorical personification of advanced or even forbidden knowledge; the idea here once again being that the deities want humanity steeped in ignorance, or “kept in the dark.” Prometheus obviously disagreed with that policy and risked the wrath of Zeus by committing this act of disobedience.

Zeus’s anger was indeed dreadful. As a punishment for giving fire to humanity, Prometheus was chained to a rock on a mountainside where each day an eagle came to devour his liver. Because Prometheus was immortal, however, the liver regenerated anew each day so that the eagle could re-turn to eat it over and over again, unto infinity. That, to me, seems like a pretty harsh sentence.

There are many interesting things one could take away from this story, but for me the main point is this decision on behalf of the gods to keep humans under control by limiting their abilities, or, if you prefer, limiting their knowledge. To me, this perfectly mirrors that aforesaid attitude found in Christianity, that knowledge is wicked and in opposition to what God wants for us, that God wants us kept in the dark.

I am an atheist because I will not be kept in the dark. I will be my own Prometheus, if need be. Indeed, that is my commitment to myself and to others. And if it turns out that I’m wrong and the Christian God is real and it actually washideously offensive for me to pursue knowledge, I will stand tall on Judgment Day and tell God or Zeus or whoever it is that knowing was indeed better than believing, that having the knowledge of reality was worth whatever punishment I must now endure. And… if I do get chained to some rock, metaphorically or otherwise, I’ll consider the intrusive eagle who feeds on my liver to be an old friend of mine.

Moreover, if I was going to worship a character from the ancient world, it would not be Jesus. While I still appreciate many aspects of his message as presented in the Bible, it nevertheless seems to me that Jesus intended for humans to remain in the bondage of religious faith. After all, when he said we shall “know the truth” and that “the truth will set us free,” he wasn’t referring to knowledge, nor was he referring to reason, logic, rationalism, or anything having to do with the scientific method. No, he was referring to his version of the truth, that his “Father” was the God of the Universe. The text makes this perfectly clear.

Prometheus, on the other hand, of whom I know much less in comparison to Jesus, is nonetheless someone I would prefer to base my life on (only if I had to, you understand—despite my remarks here I do remain vehemently opposed to any form of religion; I’m therefore speaking putatively). But if someone from the mythological past is to be revered, let it be the character who faced an eternal punishment to bring humans advanced knowledge, not the character who faced three days of punishment for their hypothetical sins.

“Sins are real,” says the Christian. “Not hypothetical.”

And when you ask how they can prove this, they might say, “Well, I know that God is real, so everything he said is the truth. Thus, there is such a thing as sin.” When you ask how they know their God is real, some Christians might say, “Because I know demons are real.”

I’ve always found this to be an absurd answer. Even if some sort of evil entity like a “demon” is real, how does that indisputably prove that their version of God exists? More-over, supposing that the existence of something like an “evil spirit” demands the existence of the Christian God is, to me, the same as saying, “I have cancer so that must mean I will win the lottery.” The existence of something on the left does not automatically suggest the existence of something on the right.           

But Christians, it seems, will hear none of this. Spirits, such as angels and demons, are real, according to them, be-cause the Bible says they are real. Those of us who decline to subscribe to the Bible might contend otherwise while also acknowledging that there very well could be metaphysical realities beyond what science can currently tell us—things which, when placed into a projected religious context, might be interpreted as “angels“ and/or “demons.” (It should be noted, however, that acknowledging the possibilities of me-taphysical phenomena we don’t yet understand is miles still apart from assigning hypothetical yet definitive meaning to those phenomena which we thereafter use to verify our own religious beliefs. Some Christians, though not all, are guilty of this. I submit that even those believers with the strongest of faiths should refrain from this kind of behavior as it only opens their motives to question, a result that does not help their assertions that a belief in God is well-founded.)

However, some Christians have been known to contend that the existence of hypothetical entities like angels and demons can be inferred by watching their supposed effect on human beings, much like we might observe that wind, which cannot be seen, has a visual effect on leaves, blowing them about at will. This, at first glance, seems to be a con-vincing argument. After all, it’s natural and even reasonable to assume that, as in the case of wind, there could be forces we have not yet been able to detect or quantify, forces that perhaps have some sort of effect on the world or the people therein, forces which leave a visual calling card as wind does with leaves. And yet a few things must be remembered here. First of all, to say the wind is invisible is a misnomer. Sure, it goes undetected by our eyes, but it does not go undetected by the instruments built to measure it. Use of the five senses (referred to as empiricism) must and does provide room for that which is observable through artificial help, the same way an astronomer might theorize the existence of a planet he can’t yet see by extrapolating from data suggesting that a nearby yet unknown object is having a visible, measurable effect on another object. Or take dark matter, for instance, the existence of which still falls slightly into the theoretical category but nevertheless is strongly inferred by the effect it has the other matter around it. No one can see dark matter. No one can say with 100% certainty that it is there. But the evidence, which has been proven to be dependable, strongly suggests that indeed it is there. And that’s all science really is, drawing conclusions based on what the evidence says. No one has ever seen an atom, after all; but there is so much evidence to definitively imply the existence of atoms that to not believe in their existence is just as absurd as believing in the Easter Bunny
Knowledge of reality sheds damning light on theistic beliefs
But that’s not what these Christians are doing with the existence of things like angels and demons and a spiritual realm where these entities live and wage war and interact. What they are doing is taking phenomena that, most of the time, already has a natural explanation and then stripping the phenomena of that natural explanation, whereupon they then add their ownsupernatural explanation which, oddly enough, ends up corroborating religious beliefs they already had. In other words, they’re coming to the phenomena with a pre-established prejudice on the matter, ignoring what proven science is saying about the phenomena, and then backpedaling with the data, using it to corroborate that pre-established prejudice. For instance, a young boy might be beset with some sort of neurological illness. The precedent is such that this illness is well-documented in the medical field, to say nothing of the observed and widely recognized agreement that Medicine B cures this illness 99 times out of 100. But a Christian might observe the boy’s symptoms and then cry “demonic possession!” If so, they have brought a worldview to the situation that was never needed, one that’s unequivocally riddled with unknowable contingencies and unprovable particulars. The Christian says the boy needs an exorcism. The doctors say the boy simply needs a treatment of Medicine B. I would ask anyone with a reasonable mind, which is the more likely conclusion: that 1) the boy suffers from a documented illness that has a foundation of evidence in the scientific/medical fields, or 2) the boy suffers from the molestation of an invisible, unprovable, and religiously affiliated entity?

“But I can see the demon’s effect on this boy,” says the Christian. “Just like with wind, I can see the demon having a marked, observable effect. This proves demons are real.”

Hmm, but you believed in demons before you saw the boy’s symptoms. Can you really say you’ve not brought your own prejudice to the situation? Moreover, the wind can be empirically measured, but how do you quantify the actions of some demon? What’s the protocol for documenting what demons are typically known to do, and how could you document these things without first being certain that demons exist in the first place?

“But… but what about the wind?” the Christians objects. “Someone had to document its effect, too.”

Ah, yes, but the documented effect is what was used to conclude the existence of wind after the factwe didn’t come to the situation and say, “We would like to demonstrate that invisible movements of air exist, therefore, let us start with those leaves over there.” The now-known existence of wind was the result of studying the effect. The supposed existence of demons is not a result of studying symptoms; the believer believes in demons already. Besides, no one anywhere who has studied a human brain has ever concluded that demonic possession is real. No, the existence of demons (and angels) is bias an individual brings to the situation. And whatever that is, it’s certainly not science.

Sure, you cannot see an angel and you cannot see dark matter. But the latter is postulated on the basis of impartial evidence, the former is the result a pre-established belief in the unknown.

I cannot help but feel that all of the preceding points are beyond obvious. But you can’t lead a horse to water.