Monday, July 26, 2010
2008 ARIS Report on Atheism in the U.S.
The ARIS report found in 2008, 34.2 million Americans (15.0%) claim no religion and 1.6% explicitly describe themselves as atheist or agnostic. It's so ironic how Evangelical Christians act as if atheism is their main foe when in actuality there are very few of us in this country. Who are they really fighting? Most likely they are fighting among their own denominations, other religions, and/or believers of a higher power.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Sex and the Single Evangelical
What do single Evangelical and conservative Christians do with sexual needs and desires? They can't lust, masterbate or have any sex outside of marriage. Are they doomed to marry for sex? How can something so normal be so wrong unless you sign a piece of paper legally binding you to another person?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The Benefit of Belief
Believing in something beyond the self can have a beneficial psychological impact, even if the belief is false.
Just having a perspective to view life is helpful even if the perspective is incorrect. Religion gives people a perspective to judge the world. Sometimes it helps, but ultimately it suspends certain areas of growth, reason and compassion because religion is based on assertions that can not be verified or demonstrated.
Take for instance the view of homosexuality in the Bible. There is nothing rational about the Bible's view on Homosexuality, but some Christian people accept such an ancient prejudicial view simply because it is written in their Bible. Why do we tolerate such discrimination in the name of religion? Because too many people believe the Bible it truth from God.
I think religion mirrors the fear people have toward the unique, unknown, or different. Why is homosexuality condemned in the Bible? My guess is because it was different and not the norm, so people used their religious mythology to justify their fear and discrimination. After all, isn't God made in the image of people? In other words, the view that God hates homosexuality is really an irrational based on human irrational reasoning not ultimate truth. Yet this false belief is perpetuated in the modern world in the name of conservative religions. Does this aspect of religion have any bases in fact, science or rationality?
The Old Testament mirrors ancient views of morality and ethics. Some ideas are helpful and rational and some are irrational and hurtful. Take for instance the Old Testament view that if a woman is raped and she doesn't scream loud enough then she is also guilty and deserving of death. The punishment for not obeying the 10 commandment are equally barbarous. The remedy for not obeying the commandments is death. In fact, death is often the chosen form of punishment in the Bible. Not obeying the Sabbath was death. The first four commandments have nothing to do with morals, or eithics yet this is the best an all knowledgeable god could do for humanity.
Another modern Evangelical perspective, I believe could use some tweaking, is the concept of marriage. We seem to believe it is an all or nothing type of system. What is marriage? Is marriage only to one person until death? Is marriage a relationship only with the opposite gender? Is marriage the only way to successfully raise children? Is marriage necessary to be happy? Is marriage the only morally acceptable means for a couple to live together?
How about we define marriage so that it maximizes our potential thereby maximizing the relationship. How about we take a rational and individual approach to marriage, rather than trying to shoehorn everyone into the same belief? How about we let people tailor make their marriage to benefit themselves and each other?
Jesus supposedly asked if man was made for the Sabbath, or was the Sabbath made for man. I would like to ask the same question about marriage. Was marriage made for man or man made for marriage? Maybe marriage can be a fluid relationship where people learn to grow and change toward self awareness, honesty and confidence. Maybe the end result is that people learn to be authentic and relational without artificial barriers.
A religious belief system can help if you believe it, but it is inevitably a matter of faith, or simply put... irrational claims. It can not be tested and it is unrepeatable, therefore it can not be proven nor disproved. The only proof religion has are its own writings. It is a psychological fact that having something to hold onto emotionally comforts people especially in vulnerable times. A belief system can compel us to act either compassionately, or contemptuous.
Just as an abused child clings irrationally to an abusive parent for fear of being alone, so, it seems, the religious person seemingly clings to a belief in a god.The challenge today is to determine if what we believe is rational, accurate and helpful. It's time to let go of dogma, prejudice, false hope and fear and forget what we want to believe. It is time to have the courage to seek the truth no matter where it may lead us.
By Bill Jeffreys
Just having a perspective to view life is helpful even if the perspective is incorrect. Religion gives people a perspective to judge the world. Sometimes it helps, but ultimately it suspends certain areas of growth, reason and compassion because religion is based on assertions that can not be verified or demonstrated.
Take for instance the view of homosexuality in the Bible. There is nothing rational about the Bible's view on Homosexuality, but some Christian people accept such an ancient prejudicial view simply because it is written in their Bible. Why do we tolerate such discrimination in the name of religion? Because too many people believe the Bible it truth from God.
I think religion mirrors the fear people have toward the unique, unknown, or different. Why is homosexuality condemned in the Bible? My guess is because it was different and not the norm, so people used their religious mythology to justify their fear and discrimination. After all, isn't God made in the image of people? In other words, the view that God hates homosexuality is really an irrational based on human irrational reasoning not ultimate truth. Yet this false belief is perpetuated in the modern world in the name of conservative religions. Does this aspect of religion have any bases in fact, science or rationality?
The Old Testament mirrors ancient views of morality and ethics. Some ideas are helpful and rational and some are irrational and hurtful. Take for instance the Old Testament view that if a woman is raped and she doesn't scream loud enough then she is also guilty and deserving of death. The punishment for not obeying the 10 commandment are equally barbarous. The remedy for not obeying the commandments is death. In fact, death is often the chosen form of punishment in the Bible. Not obeying the Sabbath was death. The first four commandments have nothing to do with morals, or eithics yet this is the best an all knowledgeable god could do for humanity.
Another modern Evangelical perspective, I believe could use some tweaking, is the concept of marriage. We seem to believe it is an all or nothing type of system. What is marriage? Is marriage only to one person until death? Is marriage a relationship only with the opposite gender? Is marriage the only way to successfully raise children? Is marriage necessary to be happy? Is marriage the only morally acceptable means for a couple to live together?
How about we define marriage so that it maximizes our potential thereby maximizing the relationship. How about we take a rational and individual approach to marriage, rather than trying to shoehorn everyone into the same belief? How about we let people tailor make their marriage to benefit themselves and each other?
Jesus supposedly asked if man was made for the Sabbath, or was the Sabbath made for man. I would like to ask the same question about marriage. Was marriage made for man or man made for marriage? Maybe marriage can be a fluid relationship where people learn to grow and change toward self awareness, honesty and confidence. Maybe the end result is that people learn to be authentic and relational without artificial barriers.
A religious belief system can help if you believe it, but it is inevitably a matter of faith, or simply put... irrational claims. It can not be tested and it is unrepeatable, therefore it can not be proven nor disproved. The only proof religion has are its own writings. It is a psychological fact that having something to hold onto emotionally comforts people especially in vulnerable times. A belief system can compel us to act either compassionately, or contemptuous.
Just as an abused child clings irrationally to an abusive parent for fear of being alone, so, it seems, the religious person seemingly clings to a belief in a god.The challenge today is to determine if what we believe is rational, accurate and helpful. It's time to let go of dogma, prejudice, false hope and fear and forget what we want to believe. It is time to have the courage to seek the truth no matter where it may lead us.
By Bill Jeffreys
Sinful Thoughts
I recall being a young Christian and sitting in church, when all of a sudden, I'd have these intrusive sinful thoughts. Come to think of it, I had these thoughts even as an older Christian. I remember contemplating why I never seemed to be able to get rid of them. I even recall quoting scripture to take every thought captive. I was good at getting on my knees and confessing to God all my sins every day. I strove to humble myself so as to please the All Mighty and be a good Christian.
Battling sin is such a big part of the Christian life in which almost every sermon I ever heard mentioned this in one form or another. Even though we are saved by grace, sin abounds continually in the Christain life. The Apostle Paul even wrote about how he continued to sin, and toward the end of his life, he called himself chief among sinners.
Is this really good, to think of yourself as a sinner saved by grace? Is it helpful to constantly flog yourself over your failure to be a pure and holy believer? I can answer only for me. Since I deconverted for good two years ago, I don't have intrusive thoughts, I don't worry about being something I am not and I don't feel like such a failure in need of a good confession and deliverance to feel better. I also don't see every negative thing in my life as some form of punishment from God or a life lesson to teach me how much I need His grace to succeed.
I actually feel free to love my nieghbor, or not. I feel free to be myself without fear of screwing up, because when I do screw up I have to answer to myself and not a quiet, invisable god. My own conscience and/or my family, friends and coworkers are pretty good mirrors of my actions. I can no longer hide behind my religion or use my prayerful confession as a defense against changing. Not that I did that much when I was a Christian, hide behind my religion or confession. I've just heard other Chrisitians use this way too many times as an excuse not to go and make amends for their wrongs.
To be sure, I am much more content then I ever was as a Christian. I've also found that not focusing on your sinful failings means you have that much more energy to focus on the helpful things in your life. Life also makes a lot more sense to me when morals are based on reason rather then bronze age writings that include far too many accounts of genocide, rape and irrationality in obiedence to God's will. I am no longer plagued by sinful thoughts, or the need to constantly humble myself, and guess what? I am still the same loving, forgetful, everlearning and thoughtful person I always was. I just feel a whole lot better and freer then I ever was trying to rest in the supposed grace of God.
Sincerely,
Bill
P.S. Sin is a theological term. You can't find it anywhere else except in religious writings. Meaning, in my opinion, sin is a term ancient man used to describe why things are not perfect, or why imperfect people needed dead animal blood to appease their god. Jesus became the dead animal blood that covers all believers. His mystical blood is the atonement until God gives them a perfect mind and body. I guess this means that dead Christians will live forever and never have a sinful thought again. I'm much happier not having them now.
Battling sin is such a big part of the Christian life in which almost every sermon I ever heard mentioned this in one form or another. Even though we are saved by grace, sin abounds continually in the Christain life. The Apostle Paul even wrote about how he continued to sin, and toward the end of his life, he called himself chief among sinners.
Is this really good, to think of yourself as a sinner saved by grace? Is it helpful to constantly flog yourself over your failure to be a pure and holy believer? I can answer only for me. Since I deconverted for good two years ago, I don't have intrusive thoughts, I don't worry about being something I am not and I don't feel like such a failure in need of a good confession and deliverance to feel better. I also don't see every negative thing in my life as some form of punishment from God or a life lesson to teach me how much I need His grace to succeed.
I actually feel free to love my nieghbor, or not. I feel free to be myself without fear of screwing up, because when I do screw up I have to answer to myself and not a quiet, invisable god. My own conscience and/or my family, friends and coworkers are pretty good mirrors of my actions. I can no longer hide behind my religion or use my prayerful confession as a defense against changing. Not that I did that much when I was a Christian, hide behind my religion or confession. I've just heard other Chrisitians use this way too many times as an excuse not to go and make amends for their wrongs.
To be sure, I am much more content then I ever was as a Christian. I've also found that not focusing on your sinful failings means you have that much more energy to focus on the helpful things in your life. Life also makes a lot more sense to me when morals are based on reason rather then bronze age writings that include far too many accounts of genocide, rape and irrationality in obiedence to God's will. I am no longer plagued by sinful thoughts, or the need to constantly humble myself, and guess what? I am still the same loving, forgetful, everlearning and thoughtful person I always was. I just feel a whole lot better and freer then I ever was trying to rest in the supposed grace of God.
Sincerely,
Bill
P.S. Sin is a theological term. You can't find it anywhere else except in religious writings. Meaning, in my opinion, sin is a term ancient man used to describe why things are not perfect, or why imperfect people needed dead animal blood to appease their god. Jesus became the dead animal blood that covers all believers. His mystical blood is the atonement until God gives them a perfect mind and body. I guess this means that dead Christians will live forever and never have a sinful thought again. I'm much happier not having them now.
Hostility Blinds Us from Truth
It is an interesting fact that the when we take a stake in an argument we often shut down open minded thinking. Our minds seem to have a need to seperate us into a "for" or "against" stance, which only serves to divide us against one another and keep the truth from being understood. Sent-ts'an wrote, "If you want truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease." My ability to remain calm often dictates my ability to remain reasonable. More importantly, my ability to keep my perspective accurate and my assessment honest keeps me fair and thoughful, but I do this best when I don't take sides on every occasion.
The outcome of such "for" or "against" thinking is that it keeps us from insight, understanding and truth. We see this divided thinking in religion with all the many different religions pitted against one another. We see it within a particular religion with its many different sects and denominations. We see it within our country through its divided political parties. And we see it within marriages when they end.
I have been afforded enough time in my life to have once, been for religion, and now skeptical of religion, for one political party and now another, to have been married then divorced. I'm moving toward another path, one where I don't have to be "for" or "against". I try to just be assertive and honest. I share my feelings and thoughts with the hope that the other person will work with me toward a solution and not against me. Of course I don't believe I will change them. I simply hope that my authenticity will allow me to remain true to my intent.
I realized long ago that we can't change people, we can change only ourselves. I don't strive to be right, I strive to understand. I believe this approach helps me remain reasonable even when the other person isn't. Personal change depends on our ability to take responsibility for our lives and make an honest and accurate assessment of life each and every day, especially when a major even shatters our dreams. Simply taking a stance against, or for something with the undesired result of blinding ourselves to truth both personal and real need not be the outcome. We need not be divided and fighting if we seek to understand rather than take sides.
Sincerely,
Bill Jeffreys
The outcome of such "for" or "against" thinking is that it keeps us from insight, understanding and truth. We see this divided thinking in religion with all the many different religions pitted against one another. We see it within a particular religion with its many different sects and denominations. We see it within our country through its divided political parties. And we see it within marriages when they end.
I have been afforded enough time in my life to have once, been for religion, and now skeptical of religion, for one political party and now another, to have been married then divorced. I'm moving toward another path, one where I don't have to be "for" or "against". I try to just be assertive and honest. I share my feelings and thoughts with the hope that the other person will work with me toward a solution and not against me. Of course I don't believe I will change them. I simply hope that my authenticity will allow me to remain true to my intent.
I realized long ago that we can't change people, we can change only ourselves. I don't strive to be right, I strive to understand. I believe this approach helps me remain reasonable even when the other person isn't. Personal change depends on our ability to take responsibility for our lives and make an honest and accurate assessment of life each and every day, especially when a major even shatters our dreams. Simply taking a stance against, or for something with the undesired result of blinding ourselves to truth both personal and real need not be the outcome. We need not be divided and fighting if we seek to understand rather than take sides.
Sincerely,
Bill Jeffreys
Follow the Evidence... Not the Belief!
Seems to me that a belief, as used by religious people, is a collection of assumptions which cannot be verified and logically reconciled to the external world? In my opinion, people often believe what they have been taught, and fortify this stance in their mind, no matter how much it stands in direct opposition to their experiential life.
Sometimes people assert that they found the truth after a long rational search for the truth. The irony of stating, I found religion, after a rational and thorough research of all the religions, evolution and philosophies is not lost on me. No one can process all the major religions, understand them in their lifetime, unless maybe they made it their life's work. Believing in things like floating axes, talking snakes & donkeys, the earth standing still for 24 hours, dead people coming back to life, ect. are far outside any use of the word rational and in my opinion, reasonable.
Evidence is often interpreted to fit a person's beliefs. The belief holds supremacy and must not be contradicted. In many cases, people bolster a personal belief, in which they are emotionally involved i.e. going to a church, baptizing, confession, reading their holy books, going to their schools, marrying under their codes, believing in their creeds, etc, so attempting to resolve directly experienced contradictions often leads to creative rationalizations which are produced to reduce experiential dissonance.
A clear example in my own life was my belief that homosexuality was a moral wrong. I didn't have this view until I was introduced to it via a biblical education. I wasn't show evidence that homosexuality was immoral, I was taught that it was wrong based on writings in both the Old Testament and the New Testament (neither of which use science, or vetted evidence to prove the claims). All through my five years of accredited Christian college, five years of accredited seminary/graduate school and decades of church attendance, I was never introduced to any science that explained why being a homosexual was dangerous, unethical, immoral or psychologically harmful.
Rather, I was given information that it led to pedophilia, or moral corruption, damnation to hell, demonization, being turned over to Satan for purification or torment, worldly thinking vs. spiritual thinking, corruption of children, porn addiction, aids, death, unhealthy views of relationships, personal unhappiness, destruction of society and the family unit, and so on.
When I was a pastoral counselor, I counseled a Christian man who struggled to live a heterosexual life style even though he was attracted to men. He claimed he was unhappy and the source of his homosexuality was probably based on sexual abuse between him and an adult male when he was a minor. Nevermind that he was also abused by an adult female teacher in high school.
He eventually died of aids, but before that happened, I spend many an hour listening to him and counseling him. I even went to his hospital bedside on more than one occasion. Even though he had lesions on his body and was wasting away in bed, I hugged him and cared for him. I prayed with him and did what I could to encourage him to look to Jesus. In the end he kept to his anti-homosexual faith. He died believing this because our common faith demanded it. At that time, I thought I did everything I could to be God's hand in his life. My intent to help him was about as pure as I could humanly achieve with a religious faith such as mine. I was doing what Jesus wanted me to do...love the sinner, but not the sin.
Years later I eventually re-examined my views on homosexuality. I can honestly say, that no where is there any science that proves being gay leads to any of those things I was taught to believe. I have gay friends who come from great families, don't have abuse in their background, and don't feel any cognitive dissonance about being gay. In short, I can't find, an across the board, basis for asserting that being gay is a negative lifestyle.
I often think of the famous line used by soldiers in war crimes, "I was just following orders". Yeah, I was just following my beliefs sir. I had good intent ma’am. I was taught to be prejudiced based on a set of beliefs from both Jewish history and Christian history. I find it tragic that I didn't really help this man find peace. I contributed to his dissonance and unrest. I gave him false hope and strung him along with beliefs I couldn't possibly know to be correct or rational. I wish I knew then what I know now!
I no longer believe that homosexuality is immoral or dysfunctional; I assert that it is neither. I can't find evidence that proves being gay contributes to social ills, or personal dysfunctions anymore than I can prove that being heterosexual contributes to illegitimate children or family system dysfunctions. Trusting in a belief is more akin to faith. It is trusting something to be true without proof and it leads to interpreting evidence according to the belief. The wonderful thing about being a skeptic is that I don't have to believe or have faith. I get to examine the evidence and seek the truth no matter where it leads me. Didn't Gil Grissom's character say, "We gotta follow the evidence, even if we don't like where it takes us?"
Sincerely,
Bill Jeffreys
Sometimes people assert that they found the truth after a long rational search for the truth. The irony of stating, I found religion, after a rational and thorough research of all the religions, evolution and philosophies is not lost on me. No one can process all the major religions, understand them in their lifetime, unless maybe they made it their life's work. Believing in things like floating axes, talking snakes & donkeys, the earth standing still for 24 hours, dead people coming back to life, ect. are far outside any use of the word rational and in my opinion, reasonable.
Evidence is often interpreted to fit a person's beliefs. The belief holds supremacy and must not be contradicted. In many cases, people bolster a personal belief, in which they are emotionally involved i.e. going to a church, baptizing, confession, reading their holy books, going to their schools, marrying under their codes, believing in their creeds, etc, so attempting to resolve directly experienced contradictions often leads to creative rationalizations which are produced to reduce experiential dissonance.
A clear example in my own life was my belief that homosexuality was a moral wrong. I didn't have this view until I was introduced to it via a biblical education. I wasn't show evidence that homosexuality was immoral, I was taught that it was wrong based on writings in both the Old Testament and the New Testament (neither of which use science, or vetted evidence to prove the claims). All through my five years of accredited Christian college, five years of accredited seminary/graduate school and decades of church attendance, I was never introduced to any science that explained why being a homosexual was dangerous, unethical, immoral or psychologically harmful.
Rather, I was given information that it led to pedophilia, or moral corruption, damnation to hell, demonization, being turned over to Satan for purification or torment, worldly thinking vs. spiritual thinking, corruption of children, porn addiction, aids, death, unhealthy views of relationships, personal unhappiness, destruction of society and the family unit, and so on.
When I was a pastoral counselor, I counseled a Christian man who struggled to live a heterosexual life style even though he was attracted to men. He claimed he was unhappy and the source of his homosexuality was probably based on sexual abuse between him and an adult male when he was a minor. Nevermind that he was also abused by an adult female teacher in high school.
He eventually died of aids, but before that happened, I spend many an hour listening to him and counseling him. I even went to his hospital bedside on more than one occasion. Even though he had lesions on his body and was wasting away in bed, I hugged him and cared for him. I prayed with him and did what I could to encourage him to look to Jesus. In the end he kept to his anti-homosexual faith. He died believing this because our common faith demanded it. At that time, I thought I did everything I could to be God's hand in his life. My intent to help him was about as pure as I could humanly achieve with a religious faith such as mine. I was doing what Jesus wanted me to do...love the sinner, but not the sin.
Years later I eventually re-examined my views on homosexuality. I can honestly say, that no where is there any science that proves being gay leads to any of those things I was taught to believe. I have gay friends who come from great families, don't have abuse in their background, and don't feel any cognitive dissonance about being gay. In short, I can't find, an across the board, basis for asserting that being gay is a negative lifestyle.
I often think of the famous line used by soldiers in war crimes, "I was just following orders". Yeah, I was just following my beliefs sir. I had good intent ma’am. I was taught to be prejudiced based on a set of beliefs from both Jewish history and Christian history. I find it tragic that I didn't really help this man find peace. I contributed to his dissonance and unrest. I gave him false hope and strung him along with beliefs I couldn't possibly know to be correct or rational. I wish I knew then what I know now!
I no longer believe that homosexuality is immoral or dysfunctional; I assert that it is neither. I can't find evidence that proves being gay contributes to social ills, or personal dysfunctions anymore than I can prove that being heterosexual contributes to illegitimate children or family system dysfunctions. Trusting in a belief is more akin to faith. It is trusting something to be true without proof and it leads to interpreting evidence according to the belief. The wonderful thing about being a skeptic is that I don't have to believe or have faith. I get to examine the evidence and seek the truth no matter where it leads me. Didn't Gil Grissom's character say, "We gotta follow the evidence, even if we don't like where it takes us?"
Sincerely,
Bill Jeffreys
If God Is Our Father...
Why would a super loving and intelligent being want to make acceptance, or belief in it difficult? Why is faith important? Do you want your children to have faith in you, but you never talk to them, they never see you, or touch you?
Are you comfortable with allowing them to read a book of strange stories which tell of your orders to kill children and their parents, but later it tells how you love everyone who believes in you and how you burn everyone who doesn't?
Does that make them prove their love for you? Would you use this on your children as a test to ensure that your children love you?
Are you comfortable with allowing them to read a book of strange stories which tell of your orders to kill children and their parents, but later it tells how you love everyone who believes in you and how you burn everyone who doesn't?
Does that make them prove their love for you? Would you use this on your children as a test to ensure that your children love you?
The Message of Christ
Try as some scholars might, Jesus was not a moralist for the sake of being moral. A moralist is a philosopher who specializes in morals and moral problems, or someone who demands exact conformity to rules and forms. He did not develop a doctrine of Heaven and Hell, or the Trinity. Man developed those doctrines and so many more. Man continues to change, adapt and align his/her notion of what the Bible is supposed to mean. Jesus was not interested in being a Democrat or a Republican and he definitely never preached killing people, or going to war as a means to protect the innocent.
If anything, he was about equality, the rights of women, living peacefully and not judging your neighbor, but rather being kind to them and forgiving them as his Heavenly father was forgiving toward you. He never told us to lay up our treasures in gold, barabonds, cash or property. If anything he was about sharing, giving and helping...like the story of the Good Samaritan. You might call him a socialist, but definitely not a capitalist.
His message was clear...the apocalyptic end is near and people need to live morally because that is what the kingdom is going to be like. There is going to be an equality of all people, no oppression, no war and you should start implementing those qualities in the present. Christianity's message today is different. It's mixed with self gain, power, control, influence, gaining knowledge, discrimination, money and politics. Obtaining wealth, justifying war and preventing personal choice and defining ethics based on religious notions feels more in line with todays Christian leaders then with Jesus's simple message.
Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher he literally believed the end was near. If we look at the historical context we know that He was not speaking metaphorically. It was common among the Jews, of that era, to believe that an apocalypse was near. John the Baptist believed the end was coming, so did the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is filled with all kinds’ apocalyptic thinking. The Apostle Paul literally felt and believed that Jesus was coming back right away; he believed Jesus would be a cosmic judge and the earth would be reformed. This is the historical context.
Most people read the Bible as a devotional book. They don't look at it historically. They don't compare the Gospels side by side when the read them. Just try and make the resurrection story into a chronologically accurate and conforming script for your next church play. I guarantee that you won't be able to if you stick to the literal scriptures. Our perception of Jesus and God is greatly influenced by what others say, what preachers tell us, what pop religion books write, what we see on T.V. and what ideas we want to feel and believe that help us anchor our inner-self and ground our sense of reality in life.
Jesus was wrong about the apocalypse coming and so were his followers. We can go back every decade, up to the 1st century, where this idea started, and find Christians believing that He was returning in their lifetime. It is a pop cultural phenomenon today and you can find predictions every decade which, of course, never come true.
Jesus, if he ever existed, taught us some good ideas about peace, forgiveness and love, but mixed with his message are many distortions from his followers (i.e. women can't hold spiritual authority over a man, etc) including the thrust of his message, which was, get used to living like I say, because the Kingdom is coming very soon. Believers today are more likely to believe in what their culture teaches about Jesus verses what history teaches us about Jesus.
Sincerely,
Bill Jeffreys
If anything, he was about equality, the rights of women, living peacefully and not judging your neighbor, but rather being kind to them and forgiving them as his Heavenly father was forgiving toward you. He never told us to lay up our treasures in gold, barabonds, cash or property. If anything he was about sharing, giving and helping...like the story of the Good Samaritan. You might call him a socialist, but definitely not a capitalist.
His message was clear...the apocalyptic end is near and people need to live morally because that is what the kingdom is going to be like. There is going to be an equality of all people, no oppression, no war and you should start implementing those qualities in the present. Christianity's message today is different. It's mixed with self gain, power, control, influence, gaining knowledge, discrimination, money and politics. Obtaining wealth, justifying war and preventing personal choice and defining ethics based on religious notions feels more in line with todays Christian leaders then with Jesus's simple message.
Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher he literally believed the end was near. If we look at the historical context we know that He was not speaking metaphorically. It was common among the Jews, of that era, to believe that an apocalypse was near. John the Baptist believed the end was coming, so did the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is filled with all kinds’ apocalyptic thinking. The Apostle Paul literally felt and believed that Jesus was coming back right away; he believed Jesus would be a cosmic judge and the earth would be reformed. This is the historical context.
Most people read the Bible as a devotional book. They don't look at it historically. They don't compare the Gospels side by side when the read them. Just try and make the resurrection story into a chronologically accurate and conforming script for your next church play. I guarantee that you won't be able to if you stick to the literal scriptures. Our perception of Jesus and God is greatly influenced by what others say, what preachers tell us, what pop religion books write, what we see on T.V. and what ideas we want to feel and believe that help us anchor our inner-self and ground our sense of reality in life.
Jesus was wrong about the apocalypse coming and so were his followers. We can go back every decade, up to the 1st century, where this idea started, and find Christians believing that He was returning in their lifetime. It is a pop cultural phenomenon today and you can find predictions every decade which, of course, never come true.
Jesus, if he ever existed, taught us some good ideas about peace, forgiveness and love, but mixed with his message are many distortions from his followers (i.e. women can't hold spiritual authority over a man, etc) including the thrust of his message, which was, get used to living like I say, because the Kingdom is coming very soon. Believers today are more likely to believe in what their culture teaches about Jesus verses what history teaches us about Jesus.
Sincerely,
Bill Jeffreys
The White Jesus
In the early 90's I went to Salt Lake City Utah for military training. While I was there I decided to visit the Mormon Temple. Of course, one can not enter the actual temple unless you are Mormon, but you can enter the visitor center. I was impressed with the grandeur of that center. I also recall the giant paintings of Moses and many other patriarchs and saints. What stood out the most was the race of each of those Biblical figures. They were white Caucasians with blue eyes and some even with blond hair.
If you don't know your Biblical history, you may find it shocking to know that most likely all of the people in the Bible were dark skinned, middle eastern, black haired people. You may find it interesting that Moses' wife was probably black. She wasn't like the wife in the 10 commandments movie with Charlton Heston.
If I were a minority in this country, I might find it insensitive to see a white Jesus picture hanging in my church. Why do people accept such a false image of Jesus? What else do they accept that isn't accurate or might be misleading? That’s the question you should be asking yourself. What is the image of god, or Jesus you carry in your mind? How do you know it is accurate? I’m talking about the whole concept not just his picture.
All of us draw our images of god from our fund of knowledge. The problem with this is that we don’t often know whether our source is accurate. I may claim that my concept of God is Biblical, but so does every other person who believes in God, yet why are Christians always trying to improve their understanding of God? Why are there so many books trying to help you see the “right Jesus”?
When I was a Christian counselor and minister I was always helping people see how loving and forgiving God was. I usually met people who often saw God as angry, vengeful, or all about convicting us of sin. I personally had a concept of God that was of mercy, compassion, and forgiveness, etc. So, out of my belief and fund of knowledge, I usually went about trying to convince them that Jesus was all about the good stuff and only sometimes about punishment. After all, the Bible does teach that God disciplines those He loves.
What I failed to acknowledge, and I experience this with Christians today, is that the Bible is very very very clear about God ordering the death of innocent people, children, women, the elderly, and even animals (simply as a sacrifice to a religious alter). It is very counter culture about many things from homosexuality to personal choice and freedom. We tend to skim over facts that don't fit our theology.
However; it's not just religion we skim over. We do it with our spouses, children, politics, other religions, governments, other cultures, races and so on. We often see what we have been taught to see, what we want to see, or what we feel is accurate. Are feelings an accurate indicator of truth?
What would the consequence be if we didn’t learn to dispute what we believe? We might all be racist, homophobic, believe atheists are immoral hedonists, believe in a 6,000 year old earth, live in denial and avoid self discovery, be selfish and self-centered, and purely ethno-centric, etc. We wouldn’t have a scientific method for uncovering truth, or rational decision making models to help us make reasonable decisions. We would believe in Bigfoot, the Lockness Monster, alien abductions and whatever people say about others, and on and on.
In my search for the real Jesus, I came to realize that some things are obvious... once pointed out, but other aspects of my belief were deeply ingrained and not so obvious. I think we can all agree that Jesus was not a blond, blued eyed white guy with Brad Pitt features. What have I learned? What did I learn? I can not accept one person’s concept of Jesus, God, Allah, my neighbor, other races, gay people, cultures or anything without first vetting the facts. To determine if the facts are objective I need to vet them with a rational system.
I can’t read the Bible selectively or devotionally. I need to read it historically and in context and I need to read the origin of the Bible and the Jewish concept of God. I also need to understand it in its original language. I also need to understand the culture of it’s time and the religions that came before Christianity. But most importantly, I need to put aside my own bias, or my need to support my own conclusions before I can look at any fact objectively.
If you are Chinese, Mexican or German would you settle for someone telling you about your culture who had never been there, didn’t speak the language and never read about your history in the original language?
Maybe Jesus was Black, Mexican, Iranian, Swedish or Irish. How do you know what he looked like, taught, thought, or did? If you tell me the Bible said so, I have to ask, which Bible, which theology, which denomination, which church, which parent, which neighbor, which school taught you these facts? Did you ever stop and question? Are you sure that your motivations were objective when you did question? How do you know you weren’t motivated out of a personal belief or need rather than for objective reasons? Did you search other religious claims as thoroughly as the Christian claims? If you didn’t research other religions why not? Was it because of your cultural upbringing, family of origin, etc?
In conclusion, I’d like to challenge you to be a leader, in your own life, rather than a follower of others. Let’s teach our children, and remind ourselves, to question and never ever just accept what someone says is true without first vetting it on our own. Let's teach people to use reason and not supernaturalism, or conjecture to determine truth. Jesus may have been white, but to believe this I’d have to ignore a lot of cultural and historical facts. Is this the kind of reasoning we want to pass on to our future generation? Is this the story you want people to write about you? When you eventually climb to the top of the ladder of life, let's hope you don't discover your ladder was leaning against the wrong wall.
Cheers,
Bill Jeffreys
If you don't know your Biblical history, you may find it shocking to know that most likely all of the people in the Bible were dark skinned, middle eastern, black haired people. You may find it interesting that Moses' wife was probably black. She wasn't like the wife in the 10 commandments movie with Charlton Heston.
If I were a minority in this country, I might find it insensitive to see a white Jesus picture hanging in my church. Why do people accept such a false image of Jesus? What else do they accept that isn't accurate or might be misleading? That’s the question you should be asking yourself. What is the image of god, or Jesus you carry in your mind? How do you know it is accurate? I’m talking about the whole concept not just his picture.
All of us draw our images of god from our fund of knowledge. The problem with this is that we don’t often know whether our source is accurate. I may claim that my concept of God is Biblical, but so does every other person who believes in God, yet why are Christians always trying to improve their understanding of God? Why are there so many books trying to help you see the “right Jesus”?
When I was a Christian counselor and minister I was always helping people see how loving and forgiving God was. I usually met people who often saw God as angry, vengeful, or all about convicting us of sin. I personally had a concept of God that was of mercy, compassion, and forgiveness, etc. So, out of my belief and fund of knowledge, I usually went about trying to convince them that Jesus was all about the good stuff and only sometimes about punishment. After all, the Bible does teach that God disciplines those He loves.
What I failed to acknowledge, and I experience this with Christians today, is that the Bible is very very very clear about God ordering the death of innocent people, children, women, the elderly, and even animals (simply as a sacrifice to a religious alter). It is very counter culture about many things from homosexuality to personal choice and freedom. We tend to skim over facts that don't fit our theology.
However; it's not just religion we skim over. We do it with our spouses, children, politics, other religions, governments, other cultures, races and so on. We often see what we have been taught to see, what we want to see, or what we feel is accurate. Are feelings an accurate indicator of truth?
What would the consequence be if we didn’t learn to dispute what we believe? We might all be racist, homophobic, believe atheists are immoral hedonists, believe in a 6,000 year old earth, live in denial and avoid self discovery, be selfish and self-centered, and purely ethno-centric, etc. We wouldn’t have a scientific method for uncovering truth, or rational decision making models to help us make reasonable decisions. We would believe in Bigfoot, the Lockness Monster, alien abductions and whatever people say about others, and on and on.
In my search for the real Jesus, I came to realize that some things are obvious... once pointed out, but other aspects of my belief were deeply ingrained and not so obvious. I think we can all agree that Jesus was not a blond, blued eyed white guy with Brad Pitt features. What have I learned? What did I learn? I can not accept one person’s concept of Jesus, God, Allah, my neighbor, other races, gay people, cultures or anything without first vetting the facts. To determine if the facts are objective I need to vet them with a rational system.
I can’t read the Bible selectively or devotionally. I need to read it historically and in context and I need to read the origin of the Bible and the Jewish concept of God. I also need to understand it in its original language. I also need to understand the culture of it’s time and the religions that came before Christianity. But most importantly, I need to put aside my own bias, or my need to support my own conclusions before I can look at any fact objectively.
If you are Chinese, Mexican or German would you settle for someone telling you about your culture who had never been there, didn’t speak the language and never read about your history in the original language?
Maybe Jesus was Black, Mexican, Iranian, Swedish or Irish. How do you know what he looked like, taught, thought, or did? If you tell me the Bible said so, I have to ask, which Bible, which theology, which denomination, which church, which parent, which neighbor, which school taught you these facts? Did you ever stop and question? Are you sure that your motivations were objective when you did question? How do you know you weren’t motivated out of a personal belief or need rather than for objective reasons? Did you search other religious claims as thoroughly as the Christian claims? If you didn’t research other religions why not? Was it because of your cultural upbringing, family of origin, etc?
In conclusion, I’d like to challenge you to be a leader, in your own life, rather than a follower of others. Let’s teach our children, and remind ourselves, to question and never ever just accept what someone says is true without first vetting it on our own. Let's teach people to use reason and not supernaturalism, or conjecture to determine truth. Jesus may have been white, but to believe this I’d have to ignore a lot of cultural and historical facts. Is this the kind of reasoning we want to pass on to our future generation? Is this the story you want people to write about you? When you eventually climb to the top of the ladder of life, let's hope you don't discover your ladder was leaning against the wrong wall.
Cheers,
Bill Jeffreys
Thinking About My Former Faith
When people finally ask why I left Christianity, I often discover that their first response is to try and poke holes in my story. In my opinion, most deeply religious minded people aren't asking to understand you, they are looking for reasons to disprove you, to distance themselves from your reasons, or confirm their own suspicions. This is called confirmation bias. It is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs.
There are many control mechanisms in religion which seem to work at keeping you from questioning your faith. The biggest is the threat of hell, or simply punishment from Allah, God, or whichever supernatural being you believe in. Belonging to a community, like a church can keep you from challenging your beliefs because the threat of losing the community is too great. IMO even the Bible is full of statements that are control mechanisms. Consider the verses that condem you if you rely on reason, conventional wisdom or question the ways of God. Consider the insults like, "a fool says in his/her heart there is no god".
What I've noticed in people of faith is their inedibility to acknowledge their own doubts, or their refusal to consider that they could be wrong. This is the case with any form of brainwashing. Lest I be misunderstood, I also consider being born into your culture a form of brainwashing.
We adopt cultural beliefs often without questioning their worth, truthfulness, or helpfulness. We see things only from our cultural perspective and lack the ability to understand how another culture could see things differently. This often lends itself toward ethnocentric kinds of thinking. An ethnocentric view is the belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group. Nationalism is another form of brainwashing, which I consider as lacking the ability to question one's own government.
If my friends and I had been born in the Middle East we may very well be arguing about faith in Allah vs. faith in Jesus Christ. The brain is an amazing organ with quite a few capabilities, but one thing it struggles to do is consider multiple viewpoints, facts, ideas and information at once. It tends to draw on the previously formed templates and funds of knowledge it has in its store house. That is why people can make decisions that someone else, someone with more knowledge or different cultural understanding, etc. thinks is absurd or puzzling.
Religious believers are no exception. They draw their understanding of their god from whatever sources they previously studied, were taught, or acquired from their family, or culture. It reminds me of the Dunning-Kruger effect "...which is an example of cognitive bias in which people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the meta-cognitive ability to realize it." "They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own abilities as above average."
* Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
* Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
* Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
* If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can
recognize and acknowledge their previous lack of skill.
(cited from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
I'm not suggesting that religious believers are incompetent, just controlled by their religious beliefs and the need to believe in them, which makes it hard to acknowledge their own lack of understanding. It also makes it hard to understand why someone would not believe as they do.
Religion gives people a feeling of control, sense of understanding by which to evaluate the world and a sense of hope after death. In my opinion, believing in something beyond the self can have a hugely beneficial psychological impact, even if the belief is fallacious. Predominant among the reasons for belief in a given paranormal claim is ‘credo consoles’, believing because the belief comforts or satisfies a need.
James Randi said, "What makes skeptics special is not what they believe in, or what they DON'T believe in, but that they're always willing to change their opinions in the light of new evidence". I'm the farthest thing from being an angry ex-Christian who just wants to avoid being accountable for my actions. My past anger at religion, which my brother can attest too was about feeling & realizing that I had been duped and realizing how much time I wasted chasing after a ghost. Kind of reminds me of the show Ghost Hunters. They run all over the world chasing ghosts at haunted houses but they never find any. I am constantly amazed that the show is still going strong year after year even though they never see, or find a real ghost. Do you see the parallel?
For all the good religion does, it also does harm by preventing otherwise rational people from discovering what really works in life, what is accurate and what is really helpful. Consider the prejudice religion has against homosexuality. There is absolutely no evidence that being gay is harmful, yet, the three Abrahamic religions teach that it is immoral and being homosexual is worthy of eternal hell fire and damnation. Many religious people even try and convert homosexuals to heterosexuality simply based on their faith, not based on evidence, or scientific research.
If religion was just about love, acceptance and helping people it would be a truly powerful force of good, but it's not. Believing in any of the Abrahamic faiths comes at a price, both personal and societal. Consider the belief that God answers prayer. How many prayers have you made? How many have been answered by a god? I recall a recent study about prayer and non-prayer. The study concluded that people who prayed for everyday situations counted just as many answers to their prayers as the person who never prayed and just wished that things would go a certain way. In other words, there is no significant increase in fulfillment of a religious person’s prayers vs. a non-religious person's wishes.
I heard Dan Barker, a former Evangelical minister, say that nothing fails like prayer. That was true in my life and I continue to observe that result in the lives of my Christian friends. Just think of all the Christians, Muslims, and Jews who are losing their houses during this economic mess. Does anyone see a difference between their economic problems and the non-believers? You'd think that all those religious people, who are loved by their God, would have miraculous answers to their financial needs in a statistically significant way which would be observable by the world, or at least the local news.
Prayers work when we believe they work, meaning, people tend to see what they want to believe. I’ve never seen a documented miracle like an arm re-grow as a result of prayer, or a developmentally disabled person suddenly become un-disabled. In all my studies, observations of debates (pitting one religion against another or an atheist against a person of faith), I've never really discovered anything that proves that any one god, or religious claim is superior to another, or that any one religion is truer than another. They all rely on faith; meaning a belief in something that no one can prove or demonstrate. Even the holy books people claim as actual words from their god are clearly a hodge podge of writings from ancient and modern man.
Yes, I know what the apologists claim. I read most of them and took under-graduate and graduate classes at Christian schools, so I know the arguments. I even remember the feeling I had when I was in those classes. I recall thinking to myself, wow, these smart college professors are really telling me the truth, because they are college professors and they wouldn't be duped. Wow, now I really have proof that what I believe is real and true. Wow, I am never going to doubt anything in my Bible or faith ever again. Wow, was I duped! I later learned that what my college apologetics professor believed, regarding a young earth was actually bizarre and very right wing extreme in the Christian faith world.
When I was in seminary, my professor believed that his god used evolution to bring about creation. He even brought in a Christian scientist who worked in a secular institution to talk about how faith and science can co-exist. He too believed in evolution as a mechanism that his god used. He gave evidence and made it seem bizarre that any Christian would dispute the evidence for evolution. I asked him many questions about the evidence against an old earth and what I had been taught about dating methods and how I had been taught at my Christian College that they were wrong and so on. I even brought up the famous, carbon dating of a live mollusk, which according to my college professor was dated at something like 33,000 years old. Or how does evolution work if the laws of thermodynamics contradict it (they don't). He explained all that in very rational terms and totally discredited my previous education.
All apologetics boil down to one thing, the Bible says it happened and we believe the Bible is the word of our god. You know, its funny when Christians talk about their beliefs, they come across completely confident that their version of Christianity is absolutely true, yet even Christians don't agree that the Bible is inerrant, or that faith is all that is necessary to enter heaven or what Jesus' central message was and on and on. I remember my Bible professor teaching me in college that a person really needs an education to read and interpret the Bible correctly. I remember thinking, why is God's word so hard to understand? Why didn't He make it clear and easily understood? Christians don't agree on eschatology, Christology, theology, doctrines and even church policies and proceedures, etc.
In my studies on how the Bible came to be, I quickly realized how I'd never really looked at the process of how Christianity came to believe in Jesus' divinity. I just assumed they always had thought of Jesus as divine. Apparently, early Christian's never fully agreed on the divinity of Christ. In fact, they went to war over it.
Starting in the 4th century and continuing on in the 6th century, the civil war, regarding the diety of Jesus, was causing problems for Emperor Constantine. Arius, a Christian priest from Egypt believed that Jesus was at some point non-existent, but created by God. This philosophy was called Arianism. "Arius taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally. He taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by (and therefore inferior to) God the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist." (M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, Volume 7, page 45a.)
Long story short, as I understand it, Constantine gathered the major players, got a majority opinion and commanded that all books questioning Jesus' divinity be burned and anyone found keeping them would be put to death. The counsel also voted on a host of other things like when was Easter to be celebrated (They basically changed the Jewish version of events to a Christian one) and they did away with castrating yourself. Jesus became fully divine and equal to God the Father based on a vote.
The beliefs, holy writings and organizations of religions are exactly what we'd expect if they'd all been made by men.
There are many control mechanisms in religion which seem to work at keeping you from questioning your faith. The biggest is the threat of hell, or simply punishment from Allah, God, or whichever supernatural being you believe in. Belonging to a community, like a church can keep you from challenging your beliefs because the threat of losing the community is too great. IMO even the Bible is full of statements that are control mechanisms. Consider the verses that condem you if you rely on reason, conventional wisdom or question the ways of God. Consider the insults like, "a fool says in his/her heart there is no god".
What I've noticed in people of faith is their inedibility to acknowledge their own doubts, or their refusal to consider that they could be wrong. This is the case with any form of brainwashing. Lest I be misunderstood, I also consider being born into your culture a form of brainwashing.
We adopt cultural beliefs often without questioning their worth, truthfulness, or helpfulness. We see things only from our cultural perspective and lack the ability to understand how another culture could see things differently. This often lends itself toward ethnocentric kinds of thinking. An ethnocentric view is the belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group. Nationalism is another form of brainwashing, which I consider as lacking the ability to question one's own government.
If my friends and I had been born in the Middle East we may very well be arguing about faith in Allah vs. faith in Jesus Christ. The brain is an amazing organ with quite a few capabilities, but one thing it struggles to do is consider multiple viewpoints, facts, ideas and information at once. It tends to draw on the previously formed templates and funds of knowledge it has in its store house. That is why people can make decisions that someone else, someone with more knowledge or different cultural understanding, etc. thinks is absurd or puzzling.
Religious believers are no exception. They draw their understanding of their god from whatever sources they previously studied, were taught, or acquired from their family, or culture. It reminds me of the Dunning-Kruger effect "...which is an example of cognitive bias in which people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the meta-cognitive ability to realize it." "They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own abilities as above average."
* Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
* Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
* Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
* If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can
recognize and acknowledge their previous lack of skill.
(cited from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
I'm not suggesting that religious believers are incompetent, just controlled by their religious beliefs and the need to believe in them, which makes it hard to acknowledge their own lack of understanding. It also makes it hard to understand why someone would not believe as they do.
Religion gives people a feeling of control, sense of understanding by which to evaluate the world and a sense of hope after death. In my opinion, believing in something beyond the self can have a hugely beneficial psychological impact, even if the belief is fallacious. Predominant among the reasons for belief in a given paranormal claim is ‘credo consoles’, believing because the belief comforts or satisfies a need.
James Randi said, "What makes skeptics special is not what they believe in, or what they DON'T believe in, but that they're always willing to change their opinions in the light of new evidence". I'm the farthest thing from being an angry ex-Christian who just wants to avoid being accountable for my actions. My past anger at religion, which my brother can attest too was about feeling & realizing that I had been duped and realizing how much time I wasted chasing after a ghost. Kind of reminds me of the show Ghost Hunters. They run all over the world chasing ghosts at haunted houses but they never find any. I am constantly amazed that the show is still going strong year after year even though they never see, or find a real ghost. Do you see the parallel?
For all the good religion does, it also does harm by preventing otherwise rational people from discovering what really works in life, what is accurate and what is really helpful. Consider the prejudice religion has against homosexuality. There is absolutely no evidence that being gay is harmful, yet, the three Abrahamic religions teach that it is immoral and being homosexual is worthy of eternal hell fire and damnation. Many religious people even try and convert homosexuals to heterosexuality simply based on their faith, not based on evidence, or scientific research.
If religion was just about love, acceptance and helping people it would be a truly powerful force of good, but it's not. Believing in any of the Abrahamic faiths comes at a price, both personal and societal. Consider the belief that God answers prayer. How many prayers have you made? How many have been answered by a god? I recall a recent study about prayer and non-prayer. The study concluded that people who prayed for everyday situations counted just as many answers to their prayers as the person who never prayed and just wished that things would go a certain way. In other words, there is no significant increase in fulfillment of a religious person’s prayers vs. a non-religious person's wishes.
I heard Dan Barker, a former Evangelical minister, say that nothing fails like prayer. That was true in my life and I continue to observe that result in the lives of my Christian friends. Just think of all the Christians, Muslims, and Jews who are losing their houses during this economic mess. Does anyone see a difference between their economic problems and the non-believers? You'd think that all those religious people, who are loved by their God, would have miraculous answers to their financial needs in a statistically significant way which would be observable by the world, or at least the local news.
Prayers work when we believe they work, meaning, people tend to see what they want to believe. I’ve never seen a documented miracle like an arm re-grow as a result of prayer, or a developmentally disabled person suddenly become un-disabled. In all my studies, observations of debates (pitting one religion against another or an atheist against a person of faith), I've never really discovered anything that proves that any one god, or religious claim is superior to another, or that any one religion is truer than another. They all rely on faith; meaning a belief in something that no one can prove or demonstrate. Even the holy books people claim as actual words from their god are clearly a hodge podge of writings from ancient and modern man.
Yes, I know what the apologists claim. I read most of them and took under-graduate and graduate classes at Christian schools, so I know the arguments. I even remember the feeling I had when I was in those classes. I recall thinking to myself, wow, these smart college professors are really telling me the truth, because they are college professors and they wouldn't be duped. Wow, now I really have proof that what I believe is real and true. Wow, I am never going to doubt anything in my Bible or faith ever again. Wow, was I duped! I later learned that what my college apologetics professor believed, regarding a young earth was actually bizarre and very right wing extreme in the Christian faith world.
When I was in seminary, my professor believed that his god used evolution to bring about creation. He even brought in a Christian scientist who worked in a secular institution to talk about how faith and science can co-exist. He too believed in evolution as a mechanism that his god used. He gave evidence and made it seem bizarre that any Christian would dispute the evidence for evolution. I asked him many questions about the evidence against an old earth and what I had been taught about dating methods and how I had been taught at my Christian College that they were wrong and so on. I even brought up the famous, carbon dating of a live mollusk, which according to my college professor was dated at something like 33,000 years old. Or how does evolution work if the laws of thermodynamics contradict it (they don't). He explained all that in very rational terms and totally discredited my previous education.
All apologetics boil down to one thing, the Bible says it happened and we believe the Bible is the word of our god. You know, its funny when Christians talk about their beliefs, they come across completely confident that their version of Christianity is absolutely true, yet even Christians don't agree that the Bible is inerrant, or that faith is all that is necessary to enter heaven or what Jesus' central message was and on and on. I remember my Bible professor teaching me in college that a person really needs an education to read and interpret the Bible correctly. I remember thinking, why is God's word so hard to understand? Why didn't He make it clear and easily understood? Christians don't agree on eschatology, Christology, theology, doctrines and even church policies and proceedures, etc.
In my studies on how the Bible came to be, I quickly realized how I'd never really looked at the process of how Christianity came to believe in Jesus' divinity. I just assumed they always had thought of Jesus as divine. Apparently, early Christian's never fully agreed on the divinity of Christ. In fact, they went to war over it.
Starting in the 4th century and continuing on in the 6th century, the civil war, regarding the diety of Jesus, was causing problems for Emperor Constantine. Arius, a Christian priest from Egypt believed that Jesus was at some point non-existent, but created by God. This philosophy was called Arianism. "Arius taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally. He taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by (and therefore inferior to) God the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist." (M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, Volume 7, page 45a.)
Long story short, as I understand it, Constantine gathered the major players, got a majority opinion and commanded that all books questioning Jesus' divinity be burned and anyone found keeping them would be put to death. The counsel also voted on a host of other things like when was Easter to be celebrated (They basically changed the Jewish version of events to a Christian one) and they did away with castrating yourself. Jesus became fully divine and equal to God the Father based on a vote.
The beliefs, holy writings and organizations of religions are exactly what we'd expect if they'd all been made by men.
The National Day of Prayer
President James Madison proclaimed a day of prayer. He later said such proclamations are not appropriate. "They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion."
Thomas Jefferson also opposed declarations of national days of prayer by the Federal government.
Almost of the NDP events are conservative Christian. It is not the most inclusive event. The danger is one of establishing a national religion or religious trend. The NDP does not represent every American.
Please keep religion and it's practices out of government, and tax payer funded institutions. We have freedom from religion in this country. I don't want any religion telling me how to live, or teaching my children its vaules. Those things should be taught at home and practiced at home or at a religious organization. If you open the door to one religion, you open the door to all of them!
Bill
Thomas Jefferson also opposed declarations of national days of prayer by the Federal government.
Almost of the NDP events are conservative Christian. It is not the most inclusive event. The danger is one of establishing a national religion or religious trend. The NDP does not represent every American.
Please keep religion and it's practices out of government, and tax payer funded institutions. We have freedom from religion in this country. I don't want any religion telling me how to live, or teaching my children its vaules. Those things should be taught at home and practiced at home or at a religious organization. If you open the door to one religion, you open the door to all of them!
Bill
A Question of Morals
People often interpret their emotional response, to a moral question, as an indication that their feelings justify their belief. It is the other way around. Their beliefs justify their emotional response and cause their behavior.
A recent study demonstrated that people need time to respond morally, because morals are not internal traits as much as internal decisions. They were able to circumvent the participant’s morality by stopping their ability to think about the moral dilemma. Forcing someone to make a quick decision without thinking about is a sure fire way to make them do something they wouldn't normally do.
Why is peer pressure so powerful, because peer pressure doesn't allow the individual to debate the issue, let alone think about the consequences of their actions? The psychology of groupthink probably contributes to peer pressure.
"Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas"
In my observations, I've recognized that individuals often do things in groups that they wouldn't do on their own. They don't want to upset the group so they put aside their objections or questions in order to fit in. I've never seen a church that doesn't do this to some degree. People want to fit in so they stop asking critical questions. Those that do question are often rejected and ostracized from the community.
Churches by nature are not places where truth is debated, tested, or the morality of a belief vetted. Churches are places where people reinforce the groupthink. I used to believe I went to church to discover truth. That was the farthest thing from the truth. LOL! I went there to re-enforce what I believed.
Much of the debate that I see in this country about morality, politics and religion is about us vs. them. It is not usually a collaboration of people trying to discover what really works, or what we can prove objectively, nor is it about taking responsibility for our mistakes. It is about dividing into teams which shut down open minded thinking.
In my opinion, religion, ideology, political parties don't seek truth. They make truth in their image. They reinforce their beliefs and agenda. I always tell people, just because you feel something doesn't make it true, or right. Truth needs to have objective facts which can be tested; otherwise we run the risk of believing that our habits and beliefs are the truth. David Hume said something about the fact that our habits become our truths. I agree. People often interpret custom, or the way it's always been done, as truth.
I remember watching the Reverend Rick Warren on TV. during the California voter proposition to define marriage as between a male and a female. The interviewer asked him why he believed marriage needed to be defined in California as between a man and a woman. His answer was marriage has been between a man and woman for 5,000 years.... My thought, at the time, was so! What kind of logic is this? People often appeal to custom or tradition in their attempt to justify their reasons.
What does all this have to do with morals? Morals are more then a set of does and don'ts. They are means to evaluate what is acceptable in the eyes of an individual, family, society, culture, nation and the world. Morals stem from beliefs whether they are rational or not. My point is simple. Morals need to be based on what we can prove does no harm and allows people the libery to live life as they choose. It should not be based purely on custom, habit, religion, politics or ideology.
Bill Jeffreys
A recent study demonstrated that people need time to respond morally, because morals are not internal traits as much as internal decisions. They were able to circumvent the participant’s morality by stopping their ability to think about the moral dilemma. Forcing someone to make a quick decision without thinking about is a sure fire way to make them do something they wouldn't normally do.
Why is peer pressure so powerful, because peer pressure doesn't allow the individual to debate the issue, let alone think about the consequences of their actions? The psychology of groupthink probably contributes to peer pressure.
"Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas"
In my observations, I've recognized that individuals often do things in groups that they wouldn't do on their own. They don't want to upset the group so they put aside their objections or questions in order to fit in. I've never seen a church that doesn't do this to some degree. People want to fit in so they stop asking critical questions. Those that do question are often rejected and ostracized from the community.
Churches by nature are not places where truth is debated, tested, or the morality of a belief vetted. Churches are places where people reinforce the groupthink. I used to believe I went to church to discover truth. That was the farthest thing from the truth. LOL! I went there to re-enforce what I believed.
Much of the debate that I see in this country about morality, politics and religion is about us vs. them. It is not usually a collaboration of people trying to discover what really works, or what we can prove objectively, nor is it about taking responsibility for our mistakes. It is about dividing into teams which shut down open minded thinking.
In my opinion, religion, ideology, political parties don't seek truth. They make truth in their image. They reinforce their beliefs and agenda. I always tell people, just because you feel something doesn't make it true, or right. Truth needs to have objective facts which can be tested; otherwise we run the risk of believing that our habits and beliefs are the truth. David Hume said something about the fact that our habits become our truths. I agree. People often interpret custom, or the way it's always been done, as truth.
I remember watching the Reverend Rick Warren on TV. during the California voter proposition to define marriage as between a male and a female. The interviewer asked him why he believed marriage needed to be defined in California as between a man and a woman. His answer was marriage has been between a man and woman for 5,000 years.... My thought, at the time, was so! What kind of logic is this? People often appeal to custom or tradition in their attempt to justify their reasons.
What does all this have to do with morals? Morals are more then a set of does and don'ts. They are means to evaluate what is acceptable in the eyes of an individual, family, society, culture, nation and the world. Morals stem from beliefs whether they are rational or not. My point is simple. Morals need to be based on what we can prove does no harm and allows people the libery to live life as they choose. It should not be based purely on custom, habit, religion, politics or ideology.
Bill Jeffreys
Soul Mate
Someone I am getting to know, mentioned the idea of a soul mate. I have heard this term before and thought about it's implied meaning. Sometimes people think there is just one person out there whom they can bond with. Someone who is meant for just them. Someone who was destined to be their completion, or their souls only real bond to another, hence the idea of a soul mate..
When I was a xtian I thought god put my wife and I together, she was kind of a soul mate to me. It was an utter failure. If by soul mate, one means a person who shares your values, has similar feelings about life stuff and connects with you on many levels, I agree. I think there are soul mates out there who make us feel good about knowing them and spending our precious life and time with them.
I remember a movie about a photographer who was married, but through a number of circumstances he met another woman in a small town he was photographing. They ended up becoming, what I have described in my second paragraph. He felt as if he had found his soul mate. They were so utterly in sync that they felt as if they were meant to be together. It was a unique relationship and one not many people approved of, because he never left his wife, but one I think many people can understand, even if they don't agree, and more importantly, people can feel how powerful that kind of love is.
There are people whom we connect with, who make us feel special and accepted. People who feel similar to us and who share common values, and as a result of knowing them we find ourselves happy when they are near.
In my opinion, your soul mate can be anyone even a close friend. Maybe even your dog. :)
Sincerely,
Bill
When I was a xtian I thought god put my wife and I together, she was kind of a soul mate to me. It was an utter failure. If by soul mate, one means a person who shares your values, has similar feelings about life stuff and connects with you on many levels, I agree. I think there are soul mates out there who make us feel good about knowing them and spending our precious life and time with them.
I remember a movie about a photographer who was married, but through a number of circumstances he met another woman in a small town he was photographing. They ended up becoming, what I have described in my second paragraph. He felt as if he had found his soul mate. They were so utterly in sync that they felt as if they were meant to be together. It was a unique relationship and one not many people approved of, because he never left his wife, but one I think many people can understand, even if they don't agree, and more importantly, people can feel how powerful that kind of love is.
There are people whom we connect with, who make us feel special and accepted. People who feel similar to us and who share common values, and as a result of knowing them we find ourselves happy when they are near.
In my opinion, your soul mate can be anyone even a close friend. Maybe even your dog. :)
Sincerely,
Bill
My Thoughts on the Life Changing Power of Religion
Most people view the architecture of life rather simply. This life is a process of purification, or separation for the next world, the real world. This life is like a boot camp, do it right here and you will reap the rewards in the next life, or fail here and find yourself separated from everything good. Most people believe in eternal life, a god or life force. Most people base their entrance into the good life based on what they do now, or how they treat people in this life, fundamentalist Christianity does not. In fundamentalist Christianity there are no second chances in the next life and what you believe now is everything and if you really believe, good works will follow.
We can’t really judge a fundamentalist Christian by his or her actions. Have you ever tried? Tell me what you hear. Usually I get answers like, just because I am saved doesn’t mean I’m perfect, or we all have a sin nature to deal with, or I am redeemed but still battle with a heart that wants to do evil, etc. In my experience, one can never pin down this type of Christian when they have committed a wrong. Do I mean that they don’t apologize or take responsibility? No, I don’t necessarily mean that. What I mean is that they are no different than any other religious believer or non-believer.
Are they less likely to get a divorce, struggle with greed, lust, gluttony, bigotry, selfishness, unfaithfulness, anger, etc? In my humble opinion, the answer is no. When I was a Christian I struggled with some of these things. I found that all my friends and parishioners did too. Yes, some had come from a life of drugs or crime and they had stopped this behavior, but they still struggled with other internal and external issues. They still ate too much, said hurtful things, lusted after another, looked at porn, got divorced, spent too much money, failed to tithe at least 10%, lost their temper or acted selfishly toward their family, spouse or friend.
Is there really any difference? I don’t see it. What I do see is people who often had no direction in life because of childhood neglect, or abuse find something to help re-parent them. I also saw people who were substance abusers find support and acceptance in a community which helped them stay safe and sober. I found people who grew up in church doing one of three things, rebelling against it, embracing it, or going with the flow. Did any of these later converts demonstrate a greater spirituality or morality? I couldn’t tell other than they seemed a bit naive and sheltered. They struggled with the same stuff. Did I see miraculous demonstrations of faith; no.
What sets fundamentalist Christians apart from everyone else? In my opinion it’s simply their rigid beliefs. They are plagued with the same issues everyone else is, but they strive to prove that they are different. They often try to appear more moral, ethical and honest.
With the rise of the internet and access to so much news I got tired of reading about pastors, youth ministers, Sunday school teachers, deacons, boy scout leaders, priests, church leaders and the like getting caught for thefts, sex offenses, domestic violence, fraud and other such immoral behaviors. Quite honestly, I don’t see any greater sense of compassion, love, fairness, mercy, honesty, accountability faithfulness or anything that sets them apart from other religions or lack thereof. Do you?
When I went through training as a sex offender specialist for the state I was introduced to the typical sex offender profile. It was supposed to help me prevent, capture or simply be aware of the sex offenders on my caseload. I was still a Christian at this time and I was discouraged when I learned that the typical profile is a church going, 40 something, white, educated male. Really, church going? I remember thinking to myself, how is it that we Christians, who have the Holy Spirit in us, are not able to discern this kind of evil, or immoral behavior in our churches? Why can’t we prevent any kind of immoral action in our Christian church families if we have God in us and on our side? Didn’t we pray for God to keep our children safe?
Like most religious people, I didn’t really have an answer that totally fit these questions. I sort of believed that without Christ in their lives people were doomed to be immoral and blind to the truth as I knew it. I kind of had this image that people were all sinners waiting to be punished for their sin unless we Christians could introduce them to the life changing love of Christ. Today I understand that people are people and no matter what they believe there isn’t any supernatural character, or ability to avoid being Homo sapiens and all that this entails. We are a mix of both primitive and sophisticated mental drives and motivations. We know that our character isn’t fixed and people, even highly religious people can do terrible things given the right circumstances. My faith in Christianity to make people better in some tangible way, or any religion is nil for that matter. As much as I longed to demonstrate that I was different, when I was a believer, I found that I wasn’t. If given enough time, I saw the same flaws, or different ones in my Christian friends, leaders and people I admired.
Do any religions truly change our fundamental make-up? None of them do in my opinion. In so much as you count changing lifestyle habits or addictions, or healing emotional pain, or making positive self improvement as proof, then I guess you can claim something, but hardly supernatural. Frankly, every religion claims these things and can easily demonstrate those claims. As a counselor & and as a parole and probation officer, I help people make changes all the time without any religion. Do I still know Christians who are obese, lie, lust, overspend, neglect their spouse, etc? Yes I do. Are they an example of the supposed power of Christ; absolutely not! Do I wonder if they are aware of how clearly evident their lack of power, lack of proof, lack of abundant life, or even lack of personal change is apparent to me and everyone else? I think at some level they are aware, but to admit it is another thing. If they do admit it, they find ways to rationalize their behavior as some personal failure on their part, thereby excusing the power of their god from transforming their lives.
One of the reasons I left Christianity is because I discovered that religions, faith, love of Jesus or a spiritual life in Christ didn’t really change people or me. I was just as blind to my faults as the next person when I was a believer. Education, self examination, hard work and the assistance of caring people help me change. Even after giving up religious beliefs, I still continue to change based on these same factors. I’m not the fool who’s wisdom is darkened by my lack of belief in a god and I’m not the pagan hedonist who thinks of nothing but his own pleasure at the expense of others.
I’ve changed some of my values, and I’ve learned to be much more open minded, but since leaving the fold, I find myself learning more about me, my family and people then I ever did as a believer. I am more accepting of some things and more tolerant then I was as a Christian. I find myself free of the false guilt and shame I struggled with as a Christian. I don’t mean that I no longer feel guilt for a wrong done, or shame over a thoughtless act. I simply mean that I no longer worry about trying to be all things to all people trying to prove my changed nature, or demonstrate why we Christians are full of love and grace. I no longer worry about trying to be perfect or holy, always in the back of my mind wondering if I am loving people as God would, because I’m supposed to help people find the love of Christ. I no longer find myself having to befriend people I wouldn’t ordinarily befriend. I am no longer driven to do things against my will because God is watching. I am myself and I love, or like people for my own reasons, which are mostly based on being treated respectfully, honestly, compassionately, mercifully and so on. I find that even if we don’t agree on every issue, I can find friendship based on mutual respect and care. I find that relationships are much more important than religion. Some of my Christian friends don’t talk to me simply because I no longer believe. I have even received insulting references to being a fool because I don’t believe in their god.
I really do wish life continued on long after death, but I just can't find any reasonable evidence that it does. I wish there was a loving kind power, or personal god that cared for us and helped us in this life and the next. I just don’t see this anywhere except as claims in the minds of believers and in their books. This desire for a caretaker is a longing that seems embedded in our DNA and quite possibly as a result of thousands of years of human development and our need to explain the mysteries of life and feel special.
Life is a journey in my opinion, but one that ends at some unknown point in time. I don’t believe it is eternal. I don't believe in a personal god, or otherwise and I don’t believe there is a judgment for wrongs done by a supreme judge, even though this goes against my own human desire to see justice. Life is what we make it and for whatever reason, I intend to keep learning, loving and taking account for my actions if only just to grow personally and connect more deeply with those I love and care about. I intend to be honest with my love and transparent with my faults and fair to people I don’t know.
Personal change can come from any number of methods and be beneficial even if the method isn’t perfect. Does religion change people for the better? In some ways I believe it does; however some of those changes come with additional luggage and at a price. It’s a cost that is far too great when it excludes people based on sexual orientation, traps people in irrational thinking and isolates them from both self awareness and the ability to question their beliefs. For me life is the freedom to be yourself without having to be something for an invisible and unknowable god always hoping you are hearing him or obeying his will. I don’t believe life is a process preparing us for the next one. I believe living is the destination and one we can relish with great joy if we live in the moment. Life is amazing and I intend to enjoy it as much as I possibly can. Of course life isn't fair and no one hands us meaning. We live the hand we are dealt and we do the best we can to make life meaningful by doing things that are meaningful to us.
The reality is, that in the end, we get old, sick and die, or meet our end unexpectedly, so why make it harder believing in things that don’t really change people as promised and don’t have any evidence to support a life transformed full of power. Reality showed me a different picture then what I was taught to believe, what I hoped for and what I wanted. As hard as reality is, it’s far better in my opinion to meet reality head on verses looking through a set of religion colored glasses. I have yet to find these so called transformed people who don’t judge, are full of love, impartial, honest, ethical and are unified in mind and spirit, let alone heal the sick, walk on water, move mountains and do greater things then Jesus is supposed to have accomplished and promised his followers. If I ever find evidence of such people I will be sure to let you know.
Sincerely,
Bill
P.S. If you are a Christian and reading this, please don't take away from this the idea that I am bashing you as a person. I tend to seperate people's beliefs from who they are in character, and personality. My friendships with some of my Christian friends is based on our mutual care for each other and our respect for one another. I don't have to agree with someone to be their friend, but I do have to respect them.
We can’t really judge a fundamentalist Christian by his or her actions. Have you ever tried? Tell me what you hear. Usually I get answers like, just because I am saved doesn’t mean I’m perfect, or we all have a sin nature to deal with, or I am redeemed but still battle with a heart that wants to do evil, etc. In my experience, one can never pin down this type of Christian when they have committed a wrong. Do I mean that they don’t apologize or take responsibility? No, I don’t necessarily mean that. What I mean is that they are no different than any other religious believer or non-believer.
Are they less likely to get a divorce, struggle with greed, lust, gluttony, bigotry, selfishness, unfaithfulness, anger, etc? In my humble opinion, the answer is no. When I was a Christian I struggled with some of these things. I found that all my friends and parishioners did too. Yes, some had come from a life of drugs or crime and they had stopped this behavior, but they still struggled with other internal and external issues. They still ate too much, said hurtful things, lusted after another, looked at porn, got divorced, spent too much money, failed to tithe at least 10%, lost their temper or acted selfishly toward their family, spouse or friend.
Is there really any difference? I don’t see it. What I do see is people who often had no direction in life because of childhood neglect, or abuse find something to help re-parent them. I also saw people who were substance abusers find support and acceptance in a community which helped them stay safe and sober. I found people who grew up in church doing one of three things, rebelling against it, embracing it, or going with the flow. Did any of these later converts demonstrate a greater spirituality or morality? I couldn’t tell other than they seemed a bit naive and sheltered. They struggled with the same stuff. Did I see miraculous demonstrations of faith; no.
What sets fundamentalist Christians apart from everyone else? In my opinion it’s simply their rigid beliefs. They are plagued with the same issues everyone else is, but they strive to prove that they are different. They often try to appear more moral, ethical and honest.
With the rise of the internet and access to so much news I got tired of reading about pastors, youth ministers, Sunday school teachers, deacons, boy scout leaders, priests, church leaders and the like getting caught for thefts, sex offenses, domestic violence, fraud and other such immoral behaviors. Quite honestly, I don’t see any greater sense of compassion, love, fairness, mercy, honesty, accountability faithfulness or anything that sets them apart from other religions or lack thereof. Do you?
When I went through training as a sex offender specialist for the state I was introduced to the typical sex offender profile. It was supposed to help me prevent, capture or simply be aware of the sex offenders on my caseload. I was still a Christian at this time and I was discouraged when I learned that the typical profile is a church going, 40 something, white, educated male. Really, church going? I remember thinking to myself, how is it that we Christians, who have the Holy Spirit in us, are not able to discern this kind of evil, or immoral behavior in our churches? Why can’t we prevent any kind of immoral action in our Christian church families if we have God in us and on our side? Didn’t we pray for God to keep our children safe?
Like most religious people, I didn’t really have an answer that totally fit these questions. I sort of believed that without Christ in their lives people were doomed to be immoral and blind to the truth as I knew it. I kind of had this image that people were all sinners waiting to be punished for their sin unless we Christians could introduce them to the life changing love of Christ. Today I understand that people are people and no matter what they believe there isn’t any supernatural character, or ability to avoid being Homo sapiens and all that this entails. We are a mix of both primitive and sophisticated mental drives and motivations. We know that our character isn’t fixed and people, even highly religious people can do terrible things given the right circumstances. My faith in Christianity to make people better in some tangible way, or any religion is nil for that matter. As much as I longed to demonstrate that I was different, when I was a believer, I found that I wasn’t. If given enough time, I saw the same flaws, or different ones in my Christian friends, leaders and people I admired.
Do any religions truly change our fundamental make-up? None of them do in my opinion. In so much as you count changing lifestyle habits or addictions, or healing emotional pain, or making positive self improvement as proof, then I guess you can claim something, but hardly supernatural. Frankly, every religion claims these things and can easily demonstrate those claims. As a counselor & and as a parole and probation officer, I help people make changes all the time without any religion. Do I still know Christians who are obese, lie, lust, overspend, neglect their spouse, etc? Yes I do. Are they an example of the supposed power of Christ; absolutely not! Do I wonder if they are aware of how clearly evident their lack of power, lack of proof, lack of abundant life, or even lack of personal change is apparent to me and everyone else? I think at some level they are aware, but to admit it is another thing. If they do admit it, they find ways to rationalize their behavior as some personal failure on their part, thereby excusing the power of their god from transforming their lives.
One of the reasons I left Christianity is because I discovered that religions, faith, love of Jesus or a spiritual life in Christ didn’t really change people or me. I was just as blind to my faults as the next person when I was a believer. Education, self examination, hard work and the assistance of caring people help me change. Even after giving up religious beliefs, I still continue to change based on these same factors. I’m not the fool who’s wisdom is darkened by my lack of belief in a god and I’m not the pagan hedonist who thinks of nothing but his own pleasure at the expense of others.
I’ve changed some of my values, and I’ve learned to be much more open minded, but since leaving the fold, I find myself learning more about me, my family and people then I ever did as a believer. I am more accepting of some things and more tolerant then I was as a Christian. I find myself free of the false guilt and shame I struggled with as a Christian. I don’t mean that I no longer feel guilt for a wrong done, or shame over a thoughtless act. I simply mean that I no longer worry about trying to be all things to all people trying to prove my changed nature, or demonstrate why we Christians are full of love and grace. I no longer worry about trying to be perfect or holy, always in the back of my mind wondering if I am loving people as God would, because I’m supposed to help people find the love of Christ. I no longer find myself having to befriend people I wouldn’t ordinarily befriend. I am no longer driven to do things against my will because God is watching. I am myself and I love, or like people for my own reasons, which are mostly based on being treated respectfully, honestly, compassionately, mercifully and so on. I find that even if we don’t agree on every issue, I can find friendship based on mutual respect and care. I find that relationships are much more important than religion. Some of my Christian friends don’t talk to me simply because I no longer believe. I have even received insulting references to being a fool because I don’t believe in their god.
I really do wish life continued on long after death, but I just can't find any reasonable evidence that it does. I wish there was a loving kind power, or personal god that cared for us and helped us in this life and the next. I just don’t see this anywhere except as claims in the minds of believers and in their books. This desire for a caretaker is a longing that seems embedded in our DNA and quite possibly as a result of thousands of years of human development and our need to explain the mysteries of life and feel special.
Life is a journey in my opinion, but one that ends at some unknown point in time. I don’t believe it is eternal. I don't believe in a personal god, or otherwise and I don’t believe there is a judgment for wrongs done by a supreme judge, even though this goes against my own human desire to see justice. Life is what we make it and for whatever reason, I intend to keep learning, loving and taking account for my actions if only just to grow personally and connect more deeply with those I love and care about. I intend to be honest with my love and transparent with my faults and fair to people I don’t know.
Personal change can come from any number of methods and be beneficial even if the method isn’t perfect. Does religion change people for the better? In some ways I believe it does; however some of those changes come with additional luggage and at a price. It’s a cost that is far too great when it excludes people based on sexual orientation, traps people in irrational thinking and isolates them from both self awareness and the ability to question their beliefs. For me life is the freedom to be yourself without having to be something for an invisible and unknowable god always hoping you are hearing him or obeying his will. I don’t believe life is a process preparing us for the next one. I believe living is the destination and one we can relish with great joy if we live in the moment. Life is amazing and I intend to enjoy it as much as I possibly can. Of course life isn't fair and no one hands us meaning. We live the hand we are dealt and we do the best we can to make life meaningful by doing things that are meaningful to us.
The reality is, that in the end, we get old, sick and die, or meet our end unexpectedly, so why make it harder believing in things that don’t really change people as promised and don’t have any evidence to support a life transformed full of power. Reality showed me a different picture then what I was taught to believe, what I hoped for and what I wanted. As hard as reality is, it’s far better in my opinion to meet reality head on verses looking through a set of religion colored glasses. I have yet to find these so called transformed people who don’t judge, are full of love, impartial, honest, ethical and are unified in mind and spirit, let alone heal the sick, walk on water, move mountains and do greater things then Jesus is supposed to have accomplished and promised his followers. If I ever find evidence of such people I will be sure to let you know.
Sincerely,
Bill
P.S. If you are a Christian and reading this, please don't take away from this the idea that I am bashing you as a person. I tend to seperate people's beliefs from who they are in character, and personality. My friendships with some of my Christian friends is based on our mutual care for each other and our respect for one another. I don't have to agree with someone to be their friend, but I do have to respect them.
Let's Talk About Love for Awhile.
I read some of the emails allegedly written by the Governor Sanford and his girlfriend from Argentina. A few sentences stood out to me as I read thru them. Gov. Sanford speaks of an emotional bank account full of love. I remember someone else who used this term back when I was a Christian. It got me thinking, is there such thing as a bank account of love? What is love in this context?
Is love a feeling? Is love a commitment? Is love grace, mercy, empathy or unconditional acceptance? Love in the English language simply means a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. Among other definitions it means sexual affection and intercourse or simply a term of endearment never implying any sex or physical attraction.
Love is a complex issue and one that seems unique to the individual because it is based on their motivations. When we do anything, even love someone, we draw from whatever is stored in our minds and what is stored in our mind is a catalog of information and facts based on our education, experiences and self knowledge. It is these items that form our beliefs about love and consequently our feelings, motivations and eventually our actions, behaviors and attitude.
When we say I love you, what are we saying? In reality, meaning the day to day meanderings of your average person, saying I love you probably means you are important to me even if I don't feel anything so intense as sexual attraction, physical desire or I'm ready to throw myself under a bus for you. It probably is a simply expression of endearment that let you know you are not alone. When you are feeling attraction coupled with trust, I love you probably means I want you to know how good you make me feel. When you are in the middle of passionate sex with someone you trust and are attracted to, it probably means keep going because this feels really good.
How do we really love someone? I Corinthians 13, which is a letter written presumably by the Apostle Paul, tells us many attributes of love from his point of view. The list states that love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, and it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres. Love never fails.
I think this is a good list detailing love, but honestly, these are actions and not feelings or at least the absence of certain emotions like envy, and pride or being easily angered. So in retrospect, the author of this letter is telling us that love is prohibiting certain emotions and acting out behaviors like kindness, trusting, protecting, and persevering.
We can learn just as much by what a person doesn't say as by what they do say. The writer never says love is a feeling of sexual desire or physical attraction. The writer never says love is getting married or having children. The writer never says love isn't possible with more than one person. The writer never says jealousy is a part of love. This last one is ironic considering God is a jealous god, according to ancient Jewish writers (the penalty for straying from God in those days was death). Is jealousy a good or positive emotion in any relationship? In essence, love as defined by this Biblical writer, is mostly, if not entirely, about actions and behaviors or the lack of some of them.
I have to agree with this writer. I find meaningful love to be an attitude, which translates into certain actions and behaviors that facilitate good will toward people or a person. Can everyone love according to this definition? Can a psychopath love according to this definition? Can a mentally ill person or low functioning person love? You be the judge.
If love is the greatest of all commandments, as is attributed to Jesus, then some people can't love because of mental or organic birth defects and some people, meaning psychopaths can love even if they feel no emotion like affection, remorse, empathy or guilt. Do you need emotions to love someone? If so, what happens when those emotions cease to exist in a relationship?
As I am sure that you know, emotions come and go and sometimes for no discernable reason. Do we always feel positive emotions toward people in our lives? Is it possible that positives feelings simply are not love, but the byproduct of our thoughts, and beliefs? Seems to me that love is an attitude created by our beliefs and thoughts and these translate into behavior.
Having an affair isn’t about love in my opinion as much as it is about capturing emotions that make us feel good or escaping boredom, and/or depression. Falling in love isn’t about noble values as much as it is about being physically and sexually attracted to someone. Jealousy isn’t about love as much as it is about fear and insecurity. Sex isn’t about love as much as it is about the feel good chemicals that release in our brain from sexual stimulation and orgasm. We all remember those first pangs of attraction and desire. They are powerfully good feelings and sex can feel similar to them. The best sex, in my opinion, happens between two people who trust one another.
When feelings of good will or emotional attraction no longer exist in a relationship it can usually be boiled down to our thoughts. Sometimes mental issues like organic depression take away feelings, but mostly our belief and/or thinking, is the cause of our diminished feelings. Sexual attraction or just being horny has as much to do with biological cues that seem to be motivated by visual attraction to body shapes, contours and the subtle exposure of those body parts, and of course facial characteristics. Yes, I know, women are often aroused by more than visual stimulation; however studies show that women respond just as much if not more, to visual signs as do men. For women, the next level is often more about the emotional connection which they seem to translate into trust and trust allows for a much deeper form of intimacy that men seem to be in short supply of.
Can you love someone who isn’t physically attractive to you? Can you love a partner who no longer can have sex with you because of a physical limitation? Do you need sex and sexual attraction to be happy, stay married or remain in a relationship? Is sex with someone other than your partner or spouse a deal breaker? If you could no longer have sex would you let your spouse or partner have sex with someone else even if they loved you and didn’t want to leave you? I think we need to ask ourselves these questions rather than stand for ideals and values that may not work.
Considering that about 60% of marriages fail in this country. What does that tell us about the state of commitment, marriage, and our ability to live up to these values? Please don’t blame divorce on a lack of morals or an evil selfish society lacking in a god. Divorce among Christians is far higher than among atheists. Muslims have a much lower divorce rate then Christians. The suicide rate among Muslim countries is also very low compared to the U.S. What does that tell you?
There are many biological components to attraction, bonding and mating. Many different types of chemicals are released during attraction, sex and touch. These chemicals are powerful in that they shape our thinking and influence our feelings. The research shows that it takes about 18 months for all those chemicals to subside and go back to normal levels. In the mean time, who you bonded with, moved in with or married may not be your ideal mate. Unfortunately many people, under the influence of attraction and sex chemicals, didn’t really pay attention to the aspects of their partner that bothered them. Sometimes it’s too late to back out and people stay together often out of responsibility or practicality rather than mutual trust, values, attraction and respect. The love is gone so to speak. Those feelings of lust and sensuality may never come back if there isn’t a deeper connection then those initial chemical markers released during the honeymoon period.
In reading Governor Sanford’s alleged emails to his girlfriend, I see some of the same issues that plague us all. He is stressed, unhappy (even though he has much and attained much), middle aged and wondering if he will ever feel those powerful feelings of sexual attraction again i.e. love. Governor Sandford forcefully abandoned principles and values that he espouses just to be with his girlfriend even to the point of leaving his wife and children on Fathers Day. His actions should tell us something about how powerful attraction is.
I think we all long to feel overwhelmed with those powerful feelings of attraction and sexual desire. They make us happy and pleasure is what motivates the human race according to Freud. We all hope to be unconditionally loved and made to feel secure, but we know that no relationship is perfect simply because we are not perfect. Love is not a feeling of attraction, sexual satisfaction or simply a commitment to some moralistic value system. Neither is love simply a choice. I certainly don't want someone saying they love me simply because they choose to. It's as if choosing to be nice is another word for love. If that were the case wars would cease, divorce would never happen and sex would be boring. Love is as much about an attitude of the mind that respects both oneself and others.
Love is about being honest, secure with simply being yourself, emotionally transparent with people you trust, authentic, kind, open minded, gentle, compassionate, empathetic, reasonable, not giving up and always treating people as you yourself would wish to be treated. It is about reaching deep down and finding what really matters and forgetting about trying to possess another or control them to simply make your life feel safer or secure. In my opinion, we don’t need a bank account of love collected by good deeds, we are better off being true to ourselves and authentic with others.
Bill J.
Is love a feeling? Is love a commitment? Is love grace, mercy, empathy or unconditional acceptance? Love in the English language simply means a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. Among other definitions it means sexual affection and intercourse or simply a term of endearment never implying any sex or physical attraction.
Love is a complex issue and one that seems unique to the individual because it is based on their motivations. When we do anything, even love someone, we draw from whatever is stored in our minds and what is stored in our mind is a catalog of information and facts based on our education, experiences and self knowledge. It is these items that form our beliefs about love and consequently our feelings, motivations and eventually our actions, behaviors and attitude.
When we say I love you, what are we saying? In reality, meaning the day to day meanderings of your average person, saying I love you probably means you are important to me even if I don't feel anything so intense as sexual attraction, physical desire or I'm ready to throw myself under a bus for you. It probably is a simply expression of endearment that let you know you are not alone. When you are feeling attraction coupled with trust, I love you probably means I want you to know how good you make me feel. When you are in the middle of passionate sex with someone you trust and are attracted to, it probably means keep going because this feels really good.
How do we really love someone? I Corinthians 13, which is a letter written presumably by the Apostle Paul, tells us many attributes of love from his point of view. The list states that love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, and it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres. Love never fails.
I think this is a good list detailing love, but honestly, these are actions and not feelings or at least the absence of certain emotions like envy, and pride or being easily angered. So in retrospect, the author of this letter is telling us that love is prohibiting certain emotions and acting out behaviors like kindness, trusting, protecting, and persevering.
We can learn just as much by what a person doesn't say as by what they do say. The writer never says love is a feeling of sexual desire or physical attraction. The writer never says love is getting married or having children. The writer never says love isn't possible with more than one person. The writer never says jealousy is a part of love. This last one is ironic considering God is a jealous god, according to ancient Jewish writers (the penalty for straying from God in those days was death). Is jealousy a good or positive emotion in any relationship? In essence, love as defined by this Biblical writer, is mostly, if not entirely, about actions and behaviors or the lack of some of them.
I have to agree with this writer. I find meaningful love to be an attitude, which translates into certain actions and behaviors that facilitate good will toward people or a person. Can everyone love according to this definition? Can a psychopath love according to this definition? Can a mentally ill person or low functioning person love? You be the judge.
If love is the greatest of all commandments, as is attributed to Jesus, then some people can't love because of mental or organic birth defects and some people, meaning psychopaths can love even if they feel no emotion like affection, remorse, empathy or guilt. Do you need emotions to love someone? If so, what happens when those emotions cease to exist in a relationship?
As I am sure that you know, emotions come and go and sometimes for no discernable reason. Do we always feel positive emotions toward people in our lives? Is it possible that positives feelings simply are not love, but the byproduct of our thoughts, and beliefs? Seems to me that love is an attitude created by our beliefs and thoughts and these translate into behavior.
Having an affair isn’t about love in my opinion as much as it is about capturing emotions that make us feel good or escaping boredom, and/or depression. Falling in love isn’t about noble values as much as it is about being physically and sexually attracted to someone. Jealousy isn’t about love as much as it is about fear and insecurity. Sex isn’t about love as much as it is about the feel good chemicals that release in our brain from sexual stimulation and orgasm. We all remember those first pangs of attraction and desire. They are powerfully good feelings and sex can feel similar to them. The best sex, in my opinion, happens between two people who trust one another.
When feelings of good will or emotional attraction no longer exist in a relationship it can usually be boiled down to our thoughts. Sometimes mental issues like organic depression take away feelings, but mostly our belief and/or thinking, is the cause of our diminished feelings. Sexual attraction or just being horny has as much to do with biological cues that seem to be motivated by visual attraction to body shapes, contours and the subtle exposure of those body parts, and of course facial characteristics. Yes, I know, women are often aroused by more than visual stimulation; however studies show that women respond just as much if not more, to visual signs as do men. For women, the next level is often more about the emotional connection which they seem to translate into trust and trust allows for a much deeper form of intimacy that men seem to be in short supply of.
Can you love someone who isn’t physically attractive to you? Can you love a partner who no longer can have sex with you because of a physical limitation? Do you need sex and sexual attraction to be happy, stay married or remain in a relationship? Is sex with someone other than your partner or spouse a deal breaker? If you could no longer have sex would you let your spouse or partner have sex with someone else even if they loved you and didn’t want to leave you? I think we need to ask ourselves these questions rather than stand for ideals and values that may not work.
Considering that about 60% of marriages fail in this country. What does that tell us about the state of commitment, marriage, and our ability to live up to these values? Please don’t blame divorce on a lack of morals or an evil selfish society lacking in a god. Divorce among Christians is far higher than among atheists. Muslims have a much lower divorce rate then Christians. The suicide rate among Muslim countries is also very low compared to the U.S. What does that tell you?
There are many biological components to attraction, bonding and mating. Many different types of chemicals are released during attraction, sex and touch. These chemicals are powerful in that they shape our thinking and influence our feelings. The research shows that it takes about 18 months for all those chemicals to subside and go back to normal levels. In the mean time, who you bonded with, moved in with or married may not be your ideal mate. Unfortunately many people, under the influence of attraction and sex chemicals, didn’t really pay attention to the aspects of their partner that bothered them. Sometimes it’s too late to back out and people stay together often out of responsibility or practicality rather than mutual trust, values, attraction and respect. The love is gone so to speak. Those feelings of lust and sensuality may never come back if there isn’t a deeper connection then those initial chemical markers released during the honeymoon period.
In reading Governor Sanford’s alleged emails to his girlfriend, I see some of the same issues that plague us all. He is stressed, unhappy (even though he has much and attained much), middle aged and wondering if he will ever feel those powerful feelings of sexual attraction again i.e. love. Governor Sandford forcefully abandoned principles and values that he espouses just to be with his girlfriend even to the point of leaving his wife and children on Fathers Day. His actions should tell us something about how powerful attraction is.
I think we all long to feel overwhelmed with those powerful feelings of attraction and sexual desire. They make us happy and pleasure is what motivates the human race according to Freud. We all hope to be unconditionally loved and made to feel secure, but we know that no relationship is perfect simply because we are not perfect. Love is not a feeling of attraction, sexual satisfaction or simply a commitment to some moralistic value system. Neither is love simply a choice. I certainly don't want someone saying they love me simply because they choose to. It's as if choosing to be nice is another word for love. If that were the case wars would cease, divorce would never happen and sex would be boring. Love is as much about an attitude of the mind that respects both oneself and others.
Love is about being honest, secure with simply being yourself, emotionally transparent with people you trust, authentic, kind, open minded, gentle, compassionate, empathetic, reasonable, not giving up and always treating people as you yourself would wish to be treated. It is about reaching deep down and finding what really matters and forgetting about trying to possess another or control them to simply make your life feel safer or secure. In my opinion, we don’t need a bank account of love collected by good deeds, we are better off being true to ourselves and authentic with others.
Bill J.
Bashing Former President Carter & Using the Race Card
It seemed odd that former President Carter credited racism as a reason for the objections to Obama’s policies. Then again, I've learned not to dismiss an idea simply because it doesn't fit my preference. Racism isn't as easy to identify as it is often portrayed. Even the person being discriminated against may not know that it is happening. It is equally possible that, due to the ever present reality of racial tension and past abuses, people overuse this unfortunate, but true fact of American life. It could be, that the kind of racism former President Carter is speaking of is, the kind of racism where a white man sees a black man with a pretty blond girlfriend/wife and feels something less than positive.
Racism can be as simple as a visceral reaction or as blatant as a white hood. People don't want to admit racism when it might reflect poorly on them or distract from what they are trying to accomplish. Is it possible that racism plays a part?
Openess to change and new ideas seems to breed fear and most conservative thinkers, according to the research I've seen, and the conservatives I've witnessed, are not very open to change or new ideas. Everything needs to be laid out for them, from what to believe in, which party to support, to how the world will eventually end. Their thinking tends to be moralistic, and anyone who doesn't fit their moral view is suspect or worse, vilified.
To be sure, all the strange accusations about Obama, from questioning his place of birth to his religious affiliation are based on irrational and unhelpful thinking. This line of unreasonable thinking is usually rooted in fear not evidence. As much as people want the same things, like peace, strong families, a strong economy and good government, many people differ on how to achieve this. The end goal usually isn't the problem. It is the method and fervor people utilize with which to achieve what they believe to be correct. It is the source of these beliefs people should question before we even consider the method, fervor or behavior.
Fallacious thinking occurs when both right and left ideologically thinking groups pick sides over facts. They prefer their way of thinking verses accurate or helpful thinking. People don't really care to find the truth as much as they want to prove the other person or group wrong. This is because people like to feel good about themselves and no one wants to be wrong simply because it feels bad when we are wrong or make a mistake. If we allow our pride to rule it will degenerate into an us versus them argument. One tribe pitted against another. Truth, accuracy or helpfulness is rarely associated with this kind of tribal attitude.
In the scheme of things, racism most likely plays a part, but racism is hardly the heart of the problem. It's the irrational and unhelpful beliefs furthered by fear and anxiety. It's thoughts and ideas people harbor when they are confronted with something new and uncomfortable. It's the refusal to consider another alternative. It's the refusal to believe that my beliefs could be wrong, but more importantly, it is the narcissistic refusal to believe that "I" could be wrong.
Carter was considered a fool back in the 70's when he tried to warn our country about dependence on foreign fuel. Now look at us. He may be a fool, or he could be a brilliant prophet.
What's the old saying, "Even a prophet is without honor in his own town?"
Peace!
Bill J.
Racism can be as simple as a visceral reaction or as blatant as a white hood. People don't want to admit racism when it might reflect poorly on them or distract from what they are trying to accomplish. Is it possible that racism plays a part?
Openess to change and new ideas seems to breed fear and most conservative thinkers, according to the research I've seen, and the conservatives I've witnessed, are not very open to change or new ideas. Everything needs to be laid out for them, from what to believe in, which party to support, to how the world will eventually end. Their thinking tends to be moralistic, and anyone who doesn't fit their moral view is suspect or worse, vilified.
To be sure, all the strange accusations about Obama, from questioning his place of birth to his religious affiliation are based on irrational and unhelpful thinking. This line of unreasonable thinking is usually rooted in fear not evidence. As much as people want the same things, like peace, strong families, a strong economy and good government, many people differ on how to achieve this. The end goal usually isn't the problem. It is the method and fervor people utilize with which to achieve what they believe to be correct. It is the source of these beliefs people should question before we even consider the method, fervor or behavior.
Fallacious thinking occurs when both right and left ideologically thinking groups pick sides over facts. They prefer their way of thinking verses accurate or helpful thinking. People don't really care to find the truth as much as they want to prove the other person or group wrong. This is because people like to feel good about themselves and no one wants to be wrong simply because it feels bad when we are wrong or make a mistake. If we allow our pride to rule it will degenerate into an us versus them argument. One tribe pitted against another. Truth, accuracy or helpfulness is rarely associated with this kind of tribal attitude.
In the scheme of things, racism most likely plays a part, but racism is hardly the heart of the problem. It's the irrational and unhelpful beliefs furthered by fear and anxiety. It's thoughts and ideas people harbor when they are confronted with something new and uncomfortable. It's the refusal to consider another alternative. It's the refusal to believe that my beliefs could be wrong, but more importantly, it is the narcissistic refusal to believe that "I" could be wrong.
Carter was considered a fool back in the 70's when he tried to warn our country about dependence on foreign fuel. Now look at us. He may be a fool, or he could be a brilliant prophet.
What's the old saying, "Even a prophet is without honor in his own town?"
Peace!
Bill J.
Are You On the Fringe?
How do you define a fringe belief? You compare it against the majority fringe belief. Any belief that ultimately relies on my "feeling it is true", or "I have faith it is true", is a fringe belief and not just because it isn’t the majority opinion. When humanity believed the world was flat, was it? How about those fringe round worlders now?? All too often we interpret our feelings, thoughts based on intuitive and personally specific knowledge. This rarely leads to accuracy. Just as viewing the world thru our belief system rarely leads to accuracy in interpreting the facts.
Being on the fringe, in my opinion, is all too often defined by what the majority doesn't accept as truth, doesn't believe is accurate, or it simply doesn't find it acceptable in their culture, nation, work site or family. I'm on the fringe simply because I don't find any universally acceptable proof that anyone's god exists even though 84% of the U.S. population believe in a supernatural god. So much for the claim of persecution of religious believers by non-believers.
The truth is supposed to set you free, really? That's not what I see happening with believers and by their own admission. Truth or accuracy will set you free, but the key is "if" it is truly accurate and helpful information. Let's stop trying to make something fit if it doesn't work. I can't tell you how many people I see trying to live up to beliefs that only serve to cause confusion, depression, anxiety, shame and guilt.
My thought is, if it's broke don't keep using it. Look for something that works. The simplist answer is usually the correct one, not the one about invisible beings acting and or failing to act in our daily lives. Personally I think anyone who believes in supernaturalism is on the fringe. Maybe they are right. Time will tell. As for me, I plan on staying on the non-theist fringe only as long it's accurate. I'm not possessed to stay anywhere if it's inaccurate and unhelpful. I'm also not offended if people seek to understand why I don't believe.
Cheers,
Bill
Being on the fringe, in my opinion, is all too often defined by what the majority doesn't accept as truth, doesn't believe is accurate, or it simply doesn't find it acceptable in their culture, nation, work site or family. I'm on the fringe simply because I don't find any universally acceptable proof that anyone's god exists even though 84% of the U.S. population believe in a supernatural god. So much for the claim of persecution of religious believers by non-believers.
The truth is supposed to set you free, really? That's not what I see happening with believers and by their own admission. Truth or accuracy will set you free, but the key is "if" it is truly accurate and helpful information. Let's stop trying to make something fit if it doesn't work. I can't tell you how many people I see trying to live up to beliefs that only serve to cause confusion, depression, anxiety, shame and guilt.
My thought is, if it's broke don't keep using it. Look for something that works. The simplist answer is usually the correct one, not the one about invisible beings acting and or failing to act in our daily lives. Personally I think anyone who believes in supernaturalism is on the fringe. Maybe they are right. Time will tell. As for me, I plan on staying on the non-theist fringe only as long it's accurate. I'm not possessed to stay anywhere if it's inaccurate and unhelpful. I'm also not offended if people seek to understand why I don't believe.
Cheers,
Bill
Tragedy in the Life of a Christian
Every day Christians accept tragic events because it is God's will to either cause it, or allow it to happen. This arbitrary view of God's action or inaction is accepted as fair or just. Sometimes it is interpreted as a means to improve one's character or devotion to God. This of course, makes no sense if God is love and promises to protect his children and give them only good gifts when they ask in His name. If also makes no sense if you are a parent. One does not intentionally inflict horrific pain on one's child to teach them character. Neither does a loving parent watch their child be abducted by a pedophile.
Then how does tragedy fit into the concept that God is love? The answer is, it doesn't! The reality of a horrific loss, like the death of their child, means that even Christian parents are at the mercy of either life or their God, even if it causes great pain and loss. It means the child is at the mercy of child molesters, murderers, robbers, tragic death, etc. with no guarantee of protection.
No amount of prayer, promises, or action on the part of a parent or their part can guarantee God's protection against life's tragedies, because there is no rhyme or reason that we can understand or predict. The Bible's words are no guarantee against horrific pain and loss. How do we know this? We know this because Christians lose children, loved ones and family to horrific accidents or criminal acts just as much as the next person. I have personally witnessed the loss of children, as experienced by my Christian friends.
Even after their loss, I have seen their prayerful pleading requests to raise their child from the dead, as taught in their Bible, practiced to no avail. The tragedy of this kind of belief system that either justifies horrific loss or believes it was purposely done to improve one's character is in itself tragic. The tragedy of being told that enough faith, even a very small amount, is all that is required to heal or restore someone, yet they can't even muster that to save or resurrect their child is immoral in my humble opinion. No one should have to accept this type of belief system, let alone teach it to others.
It is unfortunate that people choose to believe this form of intellectual bankruptcy. It is even more shameful that people teach these beliefs and insist that this is the best a loving God can do. If the very definition of God is love, as according to the Gospel of John, then I would expect much more from a loving creator then to allow evil to arbitrarily and sometimes purposely befall his children, much less create such a world knowing full well the results.
Sincerely,
Bill J.
Then how does tragedy fit into the concept that God is love? The answer is, it doesn't! The reality of a horrific loss, like the death of their child, means that even Christian parents are at the mercy of either life or their God, even if it causes great pain and loss. It means the child is at the mercy of child molesters, murderers, robbers, tragic death, etc. with no guarantee of protection.
No amount of prayer, promises, or action on the part of a parent or their part can guarantee God's protection against life's tragedies, because there is no rhyme or reason that we can understand or predict. The Bible's words are no guarantee against horrific pain and loss. How do we know this? We know this because Christians lose children, loved ones and family to horrific accidents or criminal acts just as much as the next person. I have personally witnessed the loss of children, as experienced by my Christian friends.
Even after their loss, I have seen their prayerful pleading requests to raise their child from the dead, as taught in their Bible, practiced to no avail. The tragedy of this kind of belief system that either justifies horrific loss or believes it was purposely done to improve one's character is in itself tragic. The tragedy of being told that enough faith, even a very small amount, is all that is required to heal or restore someone, yet they can't even muster that to save or resurrect their child is immoral in my humble opinion. No one should have to accept this type of belief system, let alone teach it to others.
It is unfortunate that people choose to believe this form of intellectual bankruptcy. It is even more shameful that people teach these beliefs and insist that this is the best a loving God can do. If the very definition of God is love, as according to the Gospel of John, then I would expect much more from a loving creator then to allow evil to arbitrarily and sometimes purposely befall his children, much less create such a world knowing full well the results.
Sincerely,
Bill J.
Gospel Contradictions
Gospel Contradictions:
Here is a short list of contradictions, but it's by no means the full list. I borrowed this from another blog and it's listed at the end of this list.
1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?
3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.
4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.
5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.
6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.
7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.
8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.
9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.
10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.
11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.
12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21
13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.
14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.
15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.
16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.
17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24
18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."
19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.
20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.
21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.
22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."
23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.
24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.
25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.
26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.
27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7
28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.
29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.
30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5
31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.
32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22
33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17
34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51
35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.
37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.
38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14
39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16
40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31
41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13
42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.
From:
http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm
Here is a short list of contradictions, but it's by no means the full list. I borrowed this from another blog and it's listed at the end of this list.
1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?
3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.
4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.
5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.
6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.
7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.
8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.
9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.
10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.
11) When did the fig tree keel? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment.
12) Was John the Baptist Elias? "This is Elias which was to come." Matthew 11:14 "And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21
13) Who was the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 The father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 :23 The father of Joseph was Heli. Christians shall try to LIE and tell you that one is the heritage of Mary and the other Joseph. This is utter bullshit, the Hebrew and Greek cultures NEVER regarded the bloodline of the mother. They were patriarchal societies which only concerned themselves with paternal lineage.
14) How many generations were there from the Babylon captivity to Christ? Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations, Matthew 1:12-16 Thirteen generations.
15) Matthew 2:15, 19 & 21-23 The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 & 39 The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.
16) Matthew 5:1-2 Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. Luke 6:17 & 20 Christ preached his first sermon in the plain.
17) John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. Mark 1:14 John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee. John 1:43 & 3:22-24
18) What was the nationality of the woman who besought Jesus? Matthew 15:22 "And behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation, and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."
19) How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. Luke 18:35-38 Only one blind man.
20) Where did the devil take Jesus first? (Matthew 4:5-8) The Devil took Jesus first to the parapet of the temple, then to a high place to view all the Kingdoms of the world. (Luke 4:5-9) The Devil took Jesus first to a high place to view the kingdoms, then to the parapet of the temple.
21) Can one pray in public? (Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul encouraged public prayer.
22) If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen? Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." 1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."
23) Who did Jesus tell the Lord’s Prayer to? (Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 & 7:28) Jesus delivered the Lord’s Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. (Luke 11:1-4) He delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount.
24) When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.
25) The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.
26) In 1 Corinthians 1:17 ("For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…" Clearly one of these people is wrong, either way, it’s a contradiction.
27) When did Satan enter Judas? Satan entered into Judas while at the supper. John 13:27 Satan entered Judas before the supper. Luke 23:3-4 & 7
28) How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Jesus’ mother) went.
29) Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.
30) There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5
31) How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.
32) The Holy Ghost bestowed at Pentecost. Acts 1:5-8 & 2:1-4 The holy Ghost bestowed before Pentecost. John 20:22
33) Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17
34) Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51
35) Can all sins be forgiven? (Acts 13:39) All sins can be forgiven. Great, I’m happy to know God is so merciful, but wait (Mark 3:29) Cursing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
36) The Elijah mystery: (Malachi 4:5) Elijah must return before the final days of the world. (Matthew 11:12-14) Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah. (Matthew 17:12- 13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come, and everyone understood him to mean John the Baptist. (Mark 9:13) Jesus insists that Elijah has already come. (John 1:21) John the Baptist maintained that he was not Elijah.
37) Who purchased the potter’s field? Acts 1:18 The field was purchased by Judas. John 20:1 The potter’s field was purchased by the chief priests.
38) Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14
39) Who bought the Sepulcher? Jacob, Josh 24:32 Abraham, Acts 7:16
40) Was it lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death? "The Jews answered him, we have a law, and by our law he ought to die." John 19:7 "The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John 18:31
41) Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man." John 3:13
42) Is scripture inspired by God? "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16 compared to: "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment." 1 Corinthians 7:6 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:12 "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord" 2 Corinthians.
From:
http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm
The True Christian and The True Atheist
I think most atheists are people who simply don't have faith in super-natural entities. I know this is a general description, but I just want to point out that being an atheist is a very broad term. It's not a religion or a belief system. Of course there are atheists, or non-believers, if you will, who go out of their way to offend people with outlandish statement or personal attacks against believers. There are plenty of people who lose perspective and offend people without thought or concern. There are certainly many people who call themselves Christians, the Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind, who go out of their way to offend people as well. Every religious belief or ideology has offensive people. This should tell us something about the power of the belief or the lack there of.
Based on recent national poles, most people in the U.S., about 84%, believe in a supernatural entity. I am not one of those. I don't believe in any supernatural people or things. I used to believe in the paranormal, the Christian god and the devil. I don't anymore. By definition I am an atheist, but not someone in opposition to you as a person.
I know atheists who are spiritual people. I know people who just can't be sure that anyone's claim of a god is correct and since we can't measure a god in the natural world, they choose not to believe in any one god. A person's claim that a god, or God exists is impossible to prove and any evidence they use is usually tied up in historical claims, dogmatic assertions and/or personal experiences.
A person can claim anything and say they have evidence to support their claim, but the key to accuracy is reliable object evidence. Another way we test beliefs is through measurement. Can the belief or claim be evaluated, demonstrated, repeated? In other words, the claim has to pass the test. In most cases we don't even bother testing claims if they seem outlandish. Take for instance the idea of Santa Claus, no one accepts this story as true, but why? People dismiss the story for any number of reasons, and I'm sure most people understand it to be an impossible proposition that some guy knows everyone and travels the entire world one night a year giving away gifts. But why are some stories readily dismissed where as others are not. Santa Claus was made to be a story, but more importantly it doesn't offer security or hope, so it's not a belief system as much as it is a story with the moral implication that niceness is rewarded. Religions, on the other hand, are all about hope and security and these two things are essential psychological needs. Of course, which religion a person selects is often rooted in the culture of origin. Being born in white Christian America I was extremely likely to adopt a white Christian belief system, which I did. What are the chances of a white American, living in a segregated white community, suddenly converting to Islam? I propose that any belief or conspiracy that proposes to give people an edge in life is potentially believable no matter how outlandish it may seem to some. People crave control and control equates with security even if the belief tells them to give everything away and preach the "truth".
I like to look at people not for what they believe or what they don't believe, but who they are as a person. Good people have flaws and biases, but good people often put aside these things to show compassion rather than follow a creed or set of rigid beliefs. They see the person, not the belief system. They evaluate a person's merits by their actions not their beliefs or creeds. Good people are reflective and capable of intellectual empathy. They are concerned with evaluating the results of theirs and the other person's beliefs. Good people don't marry their ego to their belief because they understand that unknown claims or untestable belief are uncertain. They are able to work with doubt and uncertainty.
Because certainty is the key to ultimate security and the fulfillment of hope, people who espouse certainty are, or have become incapable of intellectual empathy. Doubt is converted into a lack of faith and doubt can not be allowed because uncertainty is intolerable.
On a more practical note, the biggest problem for me are people who judge others for things they themselves don't live up to. If one espouses a value laden system such as religion then it appears to me that one ought to live accordingly. This seems to me one reason why people develop fundamentalist leanings and literalistic interpretations of religious writings. They follow their line of thinking to it's logical conclusion. If the Apostle Paul condemned homosexuals to hell then it is logical to assume that nothing has changed no matter what else is said or quoted. Paul never recanted his belief and he is the alleged author of most of the New Testament. Why is homosexuality still questioned in a societies which possess the power of reason and understanding? If homosexual sex is practiced in nature, and does not interfere with the development of society then why do people still fight against it? The easy answer is because majority religions believe authors like Paul who claim divine inspiration and because the institutions of those religions confirm Paul's divine inspiration.
Moderate religious institutions that, for what ever reason, change their views about written inerrancy of their holy book/s will inevitably change their religious values and beliefs. It appears that when they do, those changes mirror societal values. We see this when slavery was once accepted practice by the majority religion, but know eschewed by all. Who changed this fundamental societal norm in early America? It was not the church as a whole, but modern societal
Good people develop helpful values not values that are exclusive. In general, people are people, meaning they do all the things people do no matter what they believe.
It's my opinion that any system of ideas, values or beliefs can be beneficial even if the main belief is itself fallacious. The saddest thing about much of Christianity, in this country and abroad, is the belief that the kindest person can be destroyed by their god simply for not believing.
2nd part...
My second comment is about the true Christian. Does anyone really know who is a true Christian? The short answer is no. As soon as someone does a bad thing, the others back away and claim he or she wasn't a true Christian. I've seen the restoration of fallen ministers and priests. I dare say I don't think a person in the position of trust, who violates that trust, should be returned to their former position, but that's just my opinion.
We all hold certain ideals about the true friend, the true professional, the true pet, the true spouse, but are they realistic or simply what we feel helps us feel good? Personally, I used to think a true Christian was someone who believed the basic tenets of the faith and modeled certain behaviors I held in personal esteem.
One glitch I see in the Christian religion, is the part where anyone can do evil or bad things, ask for forgiveness, repent and be accepted by their god into paradise forever. If on his death bed, Hitler said the sinners prayer, according to Christians, he would live with them in heaven. Is this a good thing? Do you really want a Christian Hitler waltzing around with you for eternity while the unbelieving Jews are in hell or snuffed out by their god?
I used to think forgiving was supreme, but I don't anymore. I don't mean I am a bitter unforgiving person. I just mean I don't see the need to forgive a child molester, a dictator, a dirty politician, a dirty cop or a violent criminal, or someone who steals an elderly person's life savings, etc.
A person getting on with life doesn't require forgiving these kinds of people. I don't agree with Christian doctrine regarding forgiveness. I wouldn't let Hitler into heaven if he asked forgiveness. That is just an example, but I'm sure we could think up a ton more bad, evil people to make my point.
A true Christian is impossible to peg since their theology or doctrine could be impeccable, but they don't live up to my, or your personal ideals, unless it's all about believing the right thoughts in your head about Christ? No one really can say what a true Christian is because as soon as you start to describe one you will get all manner of disagreements and arguments from other Christians and non-Christians.
Honestly, I think we should focus on good deeds, watch our biases, be kind, apologize when we wrong someone, obey the law, and love our friends and families and simply be reasonable not dogmatic. As a matter of fact, I would like to believe in a god. I truly would. I don't like the Christian God or a literal interpretation of the Bible anymore. I would like to see god, any god, do something normal just for once in my life, like sit down with a reporter on TV and share it's divinity with the rest of us.
I tend to believe that people assume who is, and who isn't the true Christian or atheist. If I may be so bold as to suggest, I think we judge other people based on some type of internal narcissism rather than honest thoughtfulness. We are quick to find ways to separate us from them.
The Christian can't be determined by what Bible they read, how many times they go to church or how often they pray. Christians are incognito just like the rest of us non-believers, as well as people of other faiths. We can only judge or evaluate a person by who they are not what they believe in. As soon as one of us falls short of our beliefs, ideals or values there will be plenty of others willing to point out the fact that he or she wasn't a true, whatever they are supposed to be, and then, with all humility, suggest that they are the real deal.
Sincerely,
Bill Jeffreys
Based on recent national poles, most people in the U.S., about 84%, believe in a supernatural entity. I am not one of those. I don't believe in any supernatural people or things. I used to believe in the paranormal, the Christian god and the devil. I don't anymore. By definition I am an atheist, but not someone in opposition to you as a person.
I know atheists who are spiritual people. I know people who just can't be sure that anyone's claim of a god is correct and since we can't measure a god in the natural world, they choose not to believe in any one god. A person's claim that a god, or God exists is impossible to prove and any evidence they use is usually tied up in historical claims, dogmatic assertions and/or personal experiences.
A person can claim anything and say they have evidence to support their claim, but the key to accuracy is reliable object evidence. Another way we test beliefs is through measurement. Can the belief or claim be evaluated, demonstrated, repeated? In other words, the claim has to pass the test. In most cases we don't even bother testing claims if they seem outlandish. Take for instance the idea of Santa Claus, no one accepts this story as true, but why? People dismiss the story for any number of reasons, and I'm sure most people understand it to be an impossible proposition that some guy knows everyone and travels the entire world one night a year giving away gifts. But why are some stories readily dismissed where as others are not. Santa Claus was made to be a story, but more importantly it doesn't offer security or hope, so it's not a belief system as much as it is a story with the moral implication that niceness is rewarded. Religions, on the other hand, are all about hope and security and these two things are essential psychological needs. Of course, which religion a person selects is often rooted in the culture of origin. Being born in white Christian America I was extremely likely to adopt a white Christian belief system, which I did. What are the chances of a white American, living in a segregated white community, suddenly converting to Islam? I propose that any belief or conspiracy that proposes to give people an edge in life is potentially believable no matter how outlandish it may seem to some. People crave control and control equates with security even if the belief tells them to give everything away and preach the "truth".
I like to look at people not for what they believe or what they don't believe, but who they are as a person. Good people have flaws and biases, but good people often put aside these things to show compassion rather than follow a creed or set of rigid beliefs. They see the person, not the belief system. They evaluate a person's merits by their actions not their beliefs or creeds. Good people are reflective and capable of intellectual empathy. They are concerned with evaluating the results of theirs and the other person's beliefs. Good people don't marry their ego to their belief because they understand that unknown claims or untestable belief are uncertain. They are able to work with doubt and uncertainty.
Because certainty is the key to ultimate security and the fulfillment of hope, people who espouse certainty are, or have become incapable of intellectual empathy. Doubt is converted into a lack of faith and doubt can not be allowed because uncertainty is intolerable.
On a more practical note, the biggest problem for me are people who judge others for things they themselves don't live up to. If one espouses a value laden system such as religion then it appears to me that one ought to live accordingly. This seems to me one reason why people develop fundamentalist leanings and literalistic interpretations of religious writings. They follow their line of thinking to it's logical conclusion. If the Apostle Paul condemned homosexuals to hell then it is logical to assume that nothing has changed no matter what else is said or quoted. Paul never recanted his belief and he is the alleged author of most of the New Testament. Why is homosexuality still questioned in a societies which possess the power of reason and understanding? If homosexual sex is practiced in nature, and does not interfere with the development of society then why do people still fight against it? The easy answer is because majority religions believe authors like Paul who claim divine inspiration and because the institutions of those religions confirm Paul's divine inspiration.
Moderate religious institutions that, for what ever reason, change their views about written inerrancy of their holy book/s will inevitably change their religious values and beliefs. It appears that when they do, those changes mirror societal values. We see this when slavery was once accepted practice by the majority religion, but know eschewed by all. Who changed this fundamental societal norm in early America? It was not the church as a whole, but modern societal
Good people develop helpful values not values that are exclusive. In general, people are people, meaning they do all the things people do no matter what they believe.
It's my opinion that any system of ideas, values or beliefs can be beneficial even if the main belief is itself fallacious. The saddest thing about much of Christianity, in this country and abroad, is the belief that the kindest person can be destroyed by their god simply for not believing.
2nd part...
My second comment is about the true Christian. Does anyone really know who is a true Christian? The short answer is no. As soon as someone does a bad thing, the others back away and claim he or she wasn't a true Christian. I've seen the restoration of fallen ministers and priests. I dare say I don't think a person in the position of trust, who violates that trust, should be returned to their former position, but that's just my opinion.
We all hold certain ideals about the true friend, the true professional, the true pet, the true spouse, but are they realistic or simply what we feel helps us feel good? Personally, I used to think a true Christian was someone who believed the basic tenets of the faith and modeled certain behaviors I held in personal esteem.
One glitch I see in the Christian religion, is the part where anyone can do evil or bad things, ask for forgiveness, repent and be accepted by their god into paradise forever. If on his death bed, Hitler said the sinners prayer, according to Christians, he would live with them in heaven. Is this a good thing? Do you really want a Christian Hitler waltzing around with you for eternity while the unbelieving Jews are in hell or snuffed out by their god?
I used to think forgiving was supreme, but I don't anymore. I don't mean I am a bitter unforgiving person. I just mean I don't see the need to forgive a child molester, a dictator, a dirty politician, a dirty cop or a violent criminal, or someone who steals an elderly person's life savings, etc.
A person getting on with life doesn't require forgiving these kinds of people. I don't agree with Christian doctrine regarding forgiveness. I wouldn't let Hitler into heaven if he asked forgiveness. That is just an example, but I'm sure we could think up a ton more bad, evil people to make my point.
A true Christian is impossible to peg since their theology or doctrine could be impeccable, but they don't live up to my, or your personal ideals, unless it's all about believing the right thoughts in your head about Christ? No one really can say what a true Christian is because as soon as you start to describe one you will get all manner of disagreements and arguments from other Christians and non-Christians.
Honestly, I think we should focus on good deeds, watch our biases, be kind, apologize when we wrong someone, obey the law, and love our friends and families and simply be reasonable not dogmatic. As a matter of fact, I would like to believe in a god. I truly would. I don't like the Christian God or a literal interpretation of the Bible anymore. I would like to see god, any god, do something normal just for once in my life, like sit down with a reporter on TV and share it's divinity with the rest of us.
I tend to believe that people assume who is, and who isn't the true Christian or atheist. If I may be so bold as to suggest, I think we judge other people based on some type of internal narcissism rather than honest thoughtfulness. We are quick to find ways to separate us from them.
The Christian can't be determined by what Bible they read, how many times they go to church or how often they pray. Christians are incognito just like the rest of us non-believers, as well as people of other faiths. We can only judge or evaluate a person by who they are not what they believe in. As soon as one of us falls short of our beliefs, ideals or values there will be plenty of others willing to point out the fact that he or she wasn't a true, whatever they are supposed to be, and then, with all humility, suggest that they are the real deal.
Sincerely,
Bill Jeffreys
Life is Ironic
I met two Jehovah's witnesses the other day. They came to my door, a man and his mother. They were nice and we talked for 45 minutes. The man called me an interesting person. I don’t know if that’s good, but at least we had an engaging and respectful discussion. His mother was sweet. I felt compelled to be gracious because I believed she believed she was sharing something very important with me. I remember those days of knocking on doors and sharing my faith, hoping to convince but one person to say the sinner’s prayer with me and come to church.
About every other week, I am asked to accept a Watchtower magazine in downtown Portland. Occasionally a Mormon comes to my door or rides by on his bike. Even less often, an Evangelical Christian comes by to chat about how God is so good and wouldn’t I want to know Him? I honestly cannot recall a Catholic or someone of the Jewish faith stopping by to win me over. For that matter, of all the religions that have come to my door, they are usually made up of the three I have already mentioned. When I was an Evangelical Christian, I believed all religions except mine were mistaken and unbelievers were going to hell. Now I just think they are all mistaken, but none are going to hell -- or heaven for that matter. It's ironic, for most of us, how life, perspective, beliefs and values change with age. What I was once ready to die for and live for, now means very little to me.
I was reading the results from a Pew survey the other day. It showed that half of all American adults change religions during their lifetime, most before the age of 24. The reasons Americans drift away are many and researchers stated there was no discernable pattern. One would expect the recent disclosure of sex abuse scandals among religious leaders to play a part, or the claims of science over religion, but in truth people just drift away for much more mundane reasons.
Apparently, it's not a carefully thought-out process when leaving one religion for another. Much of the time it's as simple as a move to a new community, marrying someone of a different faith or finding a religion that fits better. Some simply leave because they like the minister at another church.
As I mentioned in a previous posting, I fit in with the 16% of people in this country who do not affiliate with any religion. Among those 16%, about a third probably believe in a god or just haven't found the right religion yet. I can honestly tell you that I didn't intend to become a non-believer; it just seemed a natural evolution of sorts. I've always been someone who followed a train of thought to its logical conclusion. In my mind, logically, if God loves us and wants us to know His love, then why would I sit on my butt and not spend my life’s blood telling everyone about Him? At the young age of 11, I dedicated my life to serve God as I understood Him. This is why I became so dedicated to my faith in the first place . . . I follow the thinking to its inevitable conclusion. I don’t care to just know it, I want to live it.
I was watching TV the other day and a commercial for The 700 Club got me thinking. Kurt Warner and his "search for truth" was the headline. I started thinking about the "search for truth" phrase. I've heard this many times in religious meetings and testimonies. I used to talk about truth and the search for it when I was a Christian. But what does the search for truth really mean? If truth is objective, as I always assumed, then how come I called my Christian beliefs truth?
My simple observations of people like Kurt Warner, and people who claim to seek the truth, have led me to believe that the search for truth really means the search for identity, security, purpose, hope and ultimately a belief system one can invest in. If I step back and look at my reasons for becoming a Christian, I notice that these issues definitely motivated me. I called it truth, but it wasn't objective, or something I could prove that got me into religion. What I found was more about my personal needs at that time in my life. Later I went to a Christian College to learn more about my faith. I studied the evidences of our faith, or what they call apologetics, which was supposed to help me understand why my belief is the truth. What I learned served to strengthen my faith and continued to inspire me to know my god and share the truth with whomever would listen. I was receiving confirmation of truth by well known Christian leaders and it helped me feel even more confident, secure, loved and hopeful. I found meaning and purpose and it inspired me. It gave me what I lacked internally -- or what I thought I lacked.
Does anyone really believe that other religions function differently? Maybe a few take a broader approach and are more accepting of different religions, but most seem to believe they have the right truth and the only truth. Why are their truths so compelling to them and not to you? I think this is due to a number of factors, the same factors which motivated me to accept Christianity -- like my need for confidence, security, purpose and love, but also because of the culture I grew up in and my friends and family. Our needs motivate us to search for something that will empower us, and our environment directs us to choose what is available and familiar. It's a simple reality, but it is an undeniable fact: just as many people change religions for mundane or practical reasons. People often become religious believers for the simple need to gain identity and feel empowered in life.
Love makes us feel secure, gives us hope in dark times and drives home this simple message: when we are loved, we have meaning and this type of meaning and identity empowers us to deal with the unknowable, uncontrollable and uncertainty that comes with being human. When I worked with survivors of childhood sexual abuse, the question ultimately voiced, in some form or another was "Am I loved?" With love comes value and most of us know the power of feeling valued. It takes away fear and anxiety and it gives us the power to overcome the shame we feel for not measuring up to what we think we should be. Our many failures, insecurities or wrongs done to us often lose their hold over us when we feel loved, cared for, purposeful and needed. In my opinion, many of our gods have failed to remain in the human psyche because they lacked the power of the current gods to meet these basic human needs.
The power of our current religions does not lie in the articulation of evidence, or a well thought-out rational outline of all the evidence proving one or the other religion is true. It is in its message of love, personal meaning, togetherness vs. aloneness, hope for a better future and justice for the wicked. It is also about reward for obedience and service. In the afterlife, according to my former Christian beliefs, everyone will have healthcare, value, purpose and probably no more 9 to 5 jobs followed by dinner in front of the TV, followed by bedtime, then up again to repeat the cycle until retirement. Even the lowliest of believers will be blessed with abundance. What's not to like about this idea of right thinking and obedience equals an eternity of happiness and punishment for bad people?
In my opinion, our nature is to seek community and protect it at all costs and sometimes to our own detriment. Our biological and sociological development seems to have produced in us a tribal instinct to belong to something greater than the one. Being part of a tribe certainly had its benefits just as it does today; we just call it something different. Our modern world gives us options we never had in our historical development as a species. Our creative mind stands apart from the instinctual drive of animals, but our own developmental instincts still drive us even when our cognitive abilities challenge us. Some of us still find meaning in embracing our tribal instincts or ancient practices, as I think they should, if we truly developed that way.
Eventually I came to question what I felt was true because it didn't actually make me feel secure anymore. I lost hope when I realized that truth was not what I had invested my life in. I found solace in leaving the realm of faith, but I didn't find anything to replace it, at least not in the religious sense. I am, by some definitions, an atheist, but lest you write me off as an angry exchristian aching to pick a fight, I still value anything that brings us together. I am often amazed when religions of a different stripe get along or agree to work together. I do question their sincerity, simply because my experiences as an Evangelical Christian always taught me to doubt the other person's faith, to see them as someone fooled by the enemy or as a future prospect for conversion. I was friendly or loving because this is what Jesus wanted me to do. I did this to reach people with my version of the truth and eventually convert them to it.
We can not dictate life on our terms, but religion, at the least, gives us the illusion of control by giving us hope, meaning and the belief that we are loved. Religion seems a human tendency to find meaning in the unexplainable, to find love that doesn't fail us, and to find security in an otherwise insecure world. Leaving this system of thought wasn’t easy for me. I found it unnerving at times, vague, and directionless. I left my security, my concept for living and my reason to love. I was a man without a god.
Psychologists tell us that we go through many stages of change in our lifetime. With the help of neuroscience, we know that our brain also changes over time. One of the biggest changes occurs when our pre-frontal cortex reaches full development around 23 years of age. For this reason we know that adolescents cannot reason as well as adults, because they lack a fully developed brain capable of the higher functions we adults have. If I am correct, most people are taught religion before this development in the brain takes place. I certainly was taught religion at an early age and had no trouble believing that a god existed.
I also find it interesting that the majority of people who changed religions did so before the age of 24. I’d be interested to know if this switch coincided with the brain's development of higher reasoning faculties in the pre-frontal and frontal lobes. Certainly the law takes into account the capacity of a child or adolescent to understand the consequences of her actions as opposed to a fully developed adult. Science understands that a child and an adolescent can not fully comprehend or process information as efficiently as an adult brain, and limitations in judgment, reasoning, organization and impulse control are to be expected.
Not so in religion. We teach our children to believe without evidence, without solid facts or proof of what we call truth. I used to think that I went to church to find truth when in actuality all I was doing was reinforcing my beliefs, conforming to the groupthink and confirming my own religious biases. As a former minister, I regularly heard my fellow clergy talk about our need to focus on the children because they were easier to reach with the Gospel. We never considered the science behind it. We just did what worked best and got people into the kingdom. If you look back at your own religious development or concept of God, I’ll bet you developed some sense of God in childhood or adolescence. I doubt you suddenly woke up one day and thought “I believe in God”, or sat down and did a thorough and reasonable study to find God. Most likely you developed this concept in your youth or through the pairing up with someone you cared about or who cared about you. We don’t come to God out of reason. That much is obvious if we are truthful or care to admit it. We find God through a much more powerful drive; one I like to think is rooted in instinct rather than reason.
With age comes change. Change in perspective, change in friendships, change in employment and yes, even change in which god we worship or religion with which we side. We change both physically and mentally and our values shift with time, experience, friendships, influence and practicality. Finding what matters deep down and what appeals to your gut is one way to search for truth, but truth be told, that is how teenagers often make judgment calls and decisions. It’s why teenagers often make poor choices without a loving adult mentoring them (and even with a loving adult mentoring them they still manage to worry us to death!)
For me, religion became yet another way to find definition, but certainly not truth. One cannot boil down faith to something as objective and scrutable as truth. No, in the end one must simply trust that what one believes is true even if it is based on a gut-level sense of rightness. Mix in some prayerful requests seemingly answered by God, or a measure of good fortune, or a spiritual experience you can’t explain and you have personal evidence of God’s existence. Even this measure of faith is hardly capable of moving mountains as foretold in the New Testament. But faith is not about holding a book to the promises of power and miracles. No, faith is something deeper than reason. Faith is something that I no longer possess, not unlike a child who grows up and (at first somewhat sadly) leaves his toys behind.
I assert, much to the chagrin of my Christian friends, that faith is far easier, in my experience, then non-belief. Losing a support system made up of Christian friends, church, theology, family, employment and my marriage came at a very high cost. Learning to re-evaluate life, purpose, friendships, family relationships, hopes, goals, and employment is scary and not something my Christian friends can relate to. I suspect that they can't fathom a born-again Christian leaving a good god unless there is a flaw within the Christian. The easiest assumption is that the exchristian is a bitter person or angry over some perceived hurt. Although anger and hurt can happen, it speaks of a shallow understanding over why someone they knew and cared about would drop all they aspired to be. It's an easy way to avoid the deeper questions or the honesty required to be a good friend.
I’ve changed and I can’t go back. I tried for years, following my departure from ministry, to continue believing in my original faith or at least in a god, but I am more or less a skeptic of all things faith-related or supernatural. Nothing and no one was capable of holding me back from exploring all that I doubted or questioned. At first, leaving the ministry, and the community of friends I relied on, made me feel terrible, guilty and lonely. But eventually my departure helped free me from the biases and groupthink I had grown accustomed to. I was free to evaluate my marriage, my family, my faith and my direction in life. I stopped looking for things to confirm my beliefs and started looking for reasonable alternative explanations for life. Thinking back, from my former Christian perspective, I’d have said my departure from the fold was the worst thing that could have happened to me, but today I am glad it happened.
I like to think my departure from faith was as a positive step, a step toward personal responsibility, and a step toward discovering who I am without the thoughts of someone’s religion intruding into my mind. For a time I wandered, aimless and lost, but I eventually realized that life goes on with or without a belief system. In spite of my own seemingly instinctual desire to establish security, meaning and hope, I decided to see where life takes me without relying on any belief system. I decided to make my own path, discover what I really love and make choices based on their own merit, and not the interpretation of someone else’s ancient history.
Like it or not, life brings change. You never know what life will do, or where you will end up, but one thing you can be certain of... change is inevitable. It may be a surprise where you end up, it certainly was for me. Life is the greatest irony, it is the incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. It's in the gap between expectations and reality that personal truth is found, and it's often where the deepest lessons of life are learned.
Sincerely,
Bill Jeffreys
About every other week, I am asked to accept a Watchtower magazine in downtown Portland. Occasionally a Mormon comes to my door or rides by on his bike. Even less often, an Evangelical Christian comes by to chat about how God is so good and wouldn’t I want to know Him? I honestly cannot recall a Catholic or someone of the Jewish faith stopping by to win me over. For that matter, of all the religions that have come to my door, they are usually made up of the three I have already mentioned. When I was an Evangelical Christian, I believed all religions except mine were mistaken and unbelievers were going to hell. Now I just think they are all mistaken, but none are going to hell -- or heaven for that matter. It's ironic, for most of us, how life, perspective, beliefs and values change with age. What I was once ready to die for and live for, now means very little to me.
I was reading the results from a Pew survey the other day. It showed that half of all American adults change religions during their lifetime, most before the age of 24. The reasons Americans drift away are many and researchers stated there was no discernable pattern. One would expect the recent disclosure of sex abuse scandals among religious leaders to play a part, or the claims of science over religion, but in truth people just drift away for much more mundane reasons.
Apparently, it's not a carefully thought-out process when leaving one religion for another. Much of the time it's as simple as a move to a new community, marrying someone of a different faith or finding a religion that fits better. Some simply leave because they like the minister at another church.
As I mentioned in a previous posting, I fit in with the 16% of people in this country who do not affiliate with any religion. Among those 16%, about a third probably believe in a god or just haven't found the right religion yet. I can honestly tell you that I didn't intend to become a non-believer; it just seemed a natural evolution of sorts. I've always been someone who followed a train of thought to its logical conclusion. In my mind, logically, if God loves us and wants us to know His love, then why would I sit on my butt and not spend my life’s blood telling everyone about Him? At the young age of 11, I dedicated my life to serve God as I understood Him. This is why I became so dedicated to my faith in the first place . . . I follow the thinking to its inevitable conclusion. I don’t care to just know it, I want to live it.
I was watching TV the other day and a commercial for The 700 Club got me thinking. Kurt Warner and his "search for truth" was the headline. I started thinking about the "search for truth" phrase. I've heard this many times in religious meetings and testimonies. I used to talk about truth and the search for it when I was a Christian. But what does the search for truth really mean? If truth is objective, as I always assumed, then how come I called my Christian beliefs truth?
My simple observations of people like Kurt Warner, and people who claim to seek the truth, have led me to believe that the search for truth really means the search for identity, security, purpose, hope and ultimately a belief system one can invest in. If I step back and look at my reasons for becoming a Christian, I notice that these issues definitely motivated me. I called it truth, but it wasn't objective, or something I could prove that got me into religion. What I found was more about my personal needs at that time in my life. Later I went to a Christian College to learn more about my faith. I studied the evidences of our faith, or what they call apologetics, which was supposed to help me understand why my belief is the truth. What I learned served to strengthen my faith and continued to inspire me to know my god and share the truth with whomever would listen. I was receiving confirmation of truth by well known Christian leaders and it helped me feel even more confident, secure, loved and hopeful. I found meaning and purpose and it inspired me. It gave me what I lacked internally -- or what I thought I lacked.
Does anyone really believe that other religions function differently? Maybe a few take a broader approach and are more accepting of different religions, but most seem to believe they have the right truth and the only truth. Why are their truths so compelling to them and not to you? I think this is due to a number of factors, the same factors which motivated me to accept Christianity -- like my need for confidence, security, purpose and love, but also because of the culture I grew up in and my friends and family. Our needs motivate us to search for something that will empower us, and our environment directs us to choose what is available and familiar. It's a simple reality, but it is an undeniable fact: just as many people change religions for mundane or practical reasons. People often become religious believers for the simple need to gain identity and feel empowered in life.
Love makes us feel secure, gives us hope in dark times and drives home this simple message: when we are loved, we have meaning and this type of meaning and identity empowers us to deal with the unknowable, uncontrollable and uncertainty that comes with being human. When I worked with survivors of childhood sexual abuse, the question ultimately voiced, in some form or another was "Am I loved?" With love comes value and most of us know the power of feeling valued. It takes away fear and anxiety and it gives us the power to overcome the shame we feel for not measuring up to what we think we should be. Our many failures, insecurities or wrongs done to us often lose their hold over us when we feel loved, cared for, purposeful and needed. In my opinion, many of our gods have failed to remain in the human psyche because they lacked the power of the current gods to meet these basic human needs.
The power of our current religions does not lie in the articulation of evidence, or a well thought-out rational outline of all the evidence proving one or the other religion is true. It is in its message of love, personal meaning, togetherness vs. aloneness, hope for a better future and justice for the wicked. It is also about reward for obedience and service. In the afterlife, according to my former Christian beliefs, everyone will have healthcare, value, purpose and probably no more 9 to 5 jobs followed by dinner in front of the TV, followed by bedtime, then up again to repeat the cycle until retirement. Even the lowliest of believers will be blessed with abundance. What's not to like about this idea of right thinking and obedience equals an eternity of happiness and punishment for bad people?
In my opinion, our nature is to seek community and protect it at all costs and sometimes to our own detriment. Our biological and sociological development seems to have produced in us a tribal instinct to belong to something greater than the one. Being part of a tribe certainly had its benefits just as it does today; we just call it something different. Our modern world gives us options we never had in our historical development as a species. Our creative mind stands apart from the instinctual drive of animals, but our own developmental instincts still drive us even when our cognitive abilities challenge us. Some of us still find meaning in embracing our tribal instincts or ancient practices, as I think they should, if we truly developed that way.
Eventually I came to question what I felt was true because it didn't actually make me feel secure anymore. I lost hope when I realized that truth was not what I had invested my life in. I found solace in leaving the realm of faith, but I didn't find anything to replace it, at least not in the religious sense. I am, by some definitions, an atheist, but lest you write me off as an angry exchristian aching to pick a fight, I still value anything that brings us together. I am often amazed when religions of a different stripe get along or agree to work together. I do question their sincerity, simply because my experiences as an Evangelical Christian always taught me to doubt the other person's faith, to see them as someone fooled by the enemy or as a future prospect for conversion. I was friendly or loving because this is what Jesus wanted me to do. I did this to reach people with my version of the truth and eventually convert them to it.
We can not dictate life on our terms, but religion, at the least, gives us the illusion of control by giving us hope, meaning and the belief that we are loved. Religion seems a human tendency to find meaning in the unexplainable, to find love that doesn't fail us, and to find security in an otherwise insecure world. Leaving this system of thought wasn’t easy for me. I found it unnerving at times, vague, and directionless. I left my security, my concept for living and my reason to love. I was a man without a god.
Psychologists tell us that we go through many stages of change in our lifetime. With the help of neuroscience, we know that our brain also changes over time. One of the biggest changes occurs when our pre-frontal cortex reaches full development around 23 years of age. For this reason we know that adolescents cannot reason as well as adults, because they lack a fully developed brain capable of the higher functions we adults have. If I am correct, most people are taught religion before this development in the brain takes place. I certainly was taught religion at an early age and had no trouble believing that a god existed.
I also find it interesting that the majority of people who changed religions did so before the age of 24. I’d be interested to know if this switch coincided with the brain's development of higher reasoning faculties in the pre-frontal and frontal lobes. Certainly the law takes into account the capacity of a child or adolescent to understand the consequences of her actions as opposed to a fully developed adult. Science understands that a child and an adolescent can not fully comprehend or process information as efficiently as an adult brain, and limitations in judgment, reasoning, organization and impulse control are to be expected.
Not so in religion. We teach our children to believe without evidence, without solid facts or proof of what we call truth. I used to think that I went to church to find truth when in actuality all I was doing was reinforcing my beliefs, conforming to the groupthink and confirming my own religious biases. As a former minister, I regularly heard my fellow clergy talk about our need to focus on the children because they were easier to reach with the Gospel. We never considered the science behind it. We just did what worked best and got people into the kingdom. If you look back at your own religious development or concept of God, I’ll bet you developed some sense of God in childhood or adolescence. I doubt you suddenly woke up one day and thought “I believe in God”, or sat down and did a thorough and reasonable study to find God. Most likely you developed this concept in your youth or through the pairing up with someone you cared about or who cared about you. We don’t come to God out of reason. That much is obvious if we are truthful or care to admit it. We find God through a much more powerful drive; one I like to think is rooted in instinct rather than reason.
With age comes change. Change in perspective, change in friendships, change in employment and yes, even change in which god we worship or religion with which we side. We change both physically and mentally and our values shift with time, experience, friendships, influence and practicality. Finding what matters deep down and what appeals to your gut is one way to search for truth, but truth be told, that is how teenagers often make judgment calls and decisions. It’s why teenagers often make poor choices without a loving adult mentoring them (and even with a loving adult mentoring them they still manage to worry us to death!)
For me, religion became yet another way to find definition, but certainly not truth. One cannot boil down faith to something as objective and scrutable as truth. No, in the end one must simply trust that what one believes is true even if it is based on a gut-level sense of rightness. Mix in some prayerful requests seemingly answered by God, or a measure of good fortune, or a spiritual experience you can’t explain and you have personal evidence of God’s existence. Even this measure of faith is hardly capable of moving mountains as foretold in the New Testament. But faith is not about holding a book to the promises of power and miracles. No, faith is something deeper than reason. Faith is something that I no longer possess, not unlike a child who grows up and (at first somewhat sadly) leaves his toys behind.
I assert, much to the chagrin of my Christian friends, that faith is far easier, in my experience, then non-belief. Losing a support system made up of Christian friends, church, theology, family, employment and my marriage came at a very high cost. Learning to re-evaluate life, purpose, friendships, family relationships, hopes, goals, and employment is scary and not something my Christian friends can relate to. I suspect that they can't fathom a born-again Christian leaving a good god unless there is a flaw within the Christian. The easiest assumption is that the exchristian is a bitter person or angry over some perceived hurt. Although anger and hurt can happen, it speaks of a shallow understanding over why someone they knew and cared about would drop all they aspired to be. It's an easy way to avoid the deeper questions or the honesty required to be a good friend.
I’ve changed and I can’t go back. I tried for years, following my departure from ministry, to continue believing in my original faith or at least in a god, but I am more or less a skeptic of all things faith-related or supernatural. Nothing and no one was capable of holding me back from exploring all that I doubted or questioned. At first, leaving the ministry, and the community of friends I relied on, made me feel terrible, guilty and lonely. But eventually my departure helped free me from the biases and groupthink I had grown accustomed to. I was free to evaluate my marriage, my family, my faith and my direction in life. I stopped looking for things to confirm my beliefs and started looking for reasonable alternative explanations for life. Thinking back, from my former Christian perspective, I’d have said my departure from the fold was the worst thing that could have happened to me, but today I am glad it happened.
I like to think my departure from faith was as a positive step, a step toward personal responsibility, and a step toward discovering who I am without the thoughts of someone’s religion intruding into my mind. For a time I wandered, aimless and lost, but I eventually realized that life goes on with or without a belief system. In spite of my own seemingly instinctual desire to establish security, meaning and hope, I decided to see where life takes me without relying on any belief system. I decided to make my own path, discover what I really love and make choices based on their own merit, and not the interpretation of someone else’s ancient history.
Like it or not, life brings change. You never know what life will do, or where you will end up, but one thing you can be certain of... change is inevitable. It may be a surprise where you end up, it certainly was for me. Life is the greatest irony, it is the incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. It's in the gap between expectations and reality that personal truth is found, and it's often where the deepest lessons of life are learned.
Sincerely,
Bill Jeffreys
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)