The Holy Apostate

Bonus Blog: CHRIST-mas

2009-12-15T08:41:00.002-07:00

For the last few days, I've been wishing people a happy Hanukkah. This is partly because I thought it would be fun to celebrate a different cultural holiday this year, but mostly because it is actually Hanukkah (at the time of this writing, it is the fourth day).

The reactions to my holiday greetings have been wonderful. I tend to get a somewhat defensive smile paired with a large "Merry Christmas". I live in a particular bastion of Evangelical Christianity. And though Colorado Springs was not the first to notice "The War on Christmas", the city has readily taken to arms to become one of the causes greatest warriors. This is the city, after all, that hosts James Dobson and Focus on the Family who make an annual list of businesses to boycott because they choose "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".

So I thought I was doing good. Instead of offering up a generic holiday greeting, I was offering a specific greeting for a specific holiday. It is my intention to wish people a Merry Christmas when that holiday comes around, but I also plan to give out greetings for Kwanzaa, Winter Solstice, Yule, Boxing Day and Festivus when their particular days roll around.

However, this does not seem to be enough. It seems I am still a "secular progressive" bent on destroying the entire fabric and foundation of American life.

This is why I am going to make up for it now by posting an advertisement for this

I hope it helps.

Myth vs. Genesis

2009-12-04T08:29:00.002-07:00

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it
or whether he did not
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
—The Rig Veda

For as far back as we have written accounts and recorded history people have sought explanations for what we can call "the big questions". Queries such as "why are we here?" and "where did we come from?" demanded answers. The answers and explanations given became what we now know as myth. Mythologies were used by the ancients to not just explain how things came to be, but also to give instruction on morality and cultural history as well as the societal roles of class and gender.
As the world has gotten smaller and isolated tribes and people groups became more and more aware of each other, an interesting thing was noticed. These creation myths, or cosmogonies if one wants to be really fancy, were very similar. In fact, outside of minor societal and cultural differences, many of these myths were almost exactly the same. Scholars have spent several years speculating as to why this is. Theories range from the psuedo-spiritual (humans have a collective subconscious which speaks to us through dreams and myths) to the more practical (these ideas seem to make the most logical sense to the unscientific mind). Whatever the reason, it is very clear that the ancient explanations for how we got here was close to a unanimous consensus.

Enter Genesis. Traditionally written during the same time that the Mayans were building their pyramids, the Hindu were writing the Rig Veda, and Dick Clark was turning ten; the book is an account of the beginnings of all things. There are many people (maybe even you) that believe this book is a historically accurate account of God's creation and should be absolutely taken literally. But should it be taken literally, or is it simply another version of the creation myths that are found in so many other cultures?

In the beginning was Chaos (and something very similar to Kevin Costner's Water World).

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."- Genesis 1:2

"In the beginning nothing existed, only darkness was everywhere."- Apache creation myth

"Before the heavens and the earth came into existence, all was a chaos, unimaginably limitless and without definite shape or form"- Japanese creation myth

One large recurring theme in cosmogony myths is the transition from chaos to order. This is usually marked by the universe being covered in darkness and water. It is here that God (or the gods) step in and begin separating the sea from the sky, the land from the sea, the light from the dark and so on. In other words, God brings order to the chaos and creation has begun (Genesis 1:1-24).

You want me to marry that guy without a belly button?

"The LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'." Genesis 2:18

"Anishnabe found himself alone on earth. The Creator told him to give everything a name, and he did this, accompanied by a wolf. He discovered that only he, among the many species, was alone, without a mate, and he was lonely."-Potawatami creation myth

In the Nordic tradition the first couple is named Ask and Embla. The Japanese called them Izanagi and Izanami. In Mayan myths the people were created out of corn. The Egyptians believe that humans were born out of the tears of the god Re. How silly of them to not believe the truth that Adam was born from dust and Eve his rib.

It's a man's world.

"The man said, 'The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.'"-Genesis 3:12

"It is the woman's fault. In turning round the Pillar, it was not right and proper that the female Deity should in speaking have taken precedence of the male" -Japanese creation myth

In addition to explaining how the world was made, the ancients also had need to explain the way that their societies operated in the way that they do. For patriarchal cultures, such as the above mentioned Hebrew and Japanese, this included an explanation as to why the man was in charge and not the woman. For the Japanese, the first two children born of the first couple were lifeless and deformed. When they asked the gods why, the gods answered that it was because woman was the initiator of the sexual relationship. Thus they reversed the roles, man initiated, and the world became populated properly. Likewise, the biblical account gives reason for why woman should not be the decision maker of the family (a reason still given by many Jewish and Christian pundits). The Genesis story also accounts for such mysteries as the pain of child-birth, why we must toil to grow crops, and even why the snake has no feet (Genesis 3).

Furthermore...

Due to space restraints on this blog, only these few examples were given. However, there are many more things to consider. For example, the beginning of the world always had its geographic center amidst the storyteller's cultural hub (It was South America for the Mayans, Norway for the Vikings, and between the Tigris and Euphrates, or the present day Middle East, for the Hebrews). Or the fact that God destroys the earth through means of a great flood is present in several, if not most, cultural myths that remain to us today. In fact, there are many other similarities between Genesis and general mythology that are readily available for anyone with some spare time and a library card (or internet connection).

So, what should be made of this? Is it possible that Genesis had it right and every other culture has simply plagiarized the account and made it their own? Sure, it's possible. But perhaps it is more likely that the writer(s) of Genesis were not recording history at all, but were just explaining the world as best as they could in light of their knowledge and culture. Much of the ancient Jewish writing that has survived to us shows that Genesis was considered as more of an allegory than literal truth. Perhaps it is time for us to do the same.

What do you think?

2009-11-13T12:41:00.002-07:00

As I have still been busy
As I am (honestly) researching some great stuff for the blog.
I thought this week there would be a small diversion.
Here are two poems from an upcoming book that I am self-publishing.
Enjoy. The blog (should) resume next week.

With Eyes Closed

God spoke to me and said
to see me, child
you must close your eyes.
I created reality
but it denies my existence.
I filled your head
with questions
I will never answer.
to be one with me
you must deny the me
within you.
just close your eyes
take a step off the cliff
and trust I’ve given you wings.

Confession

the last time i prayed,
really prayed,
i was surrounded by
books
of reason and science
and i said,
out loud i said,
standing on my couch
my face towards heaven,
i said to God:

"i want to believe in you.
i do.
but you've got to give me something.
for logic
the natural world
and even my own
experience,
all betray you."

then i waited.
in silence i waited.
even now i wait.

how restlessly i sleep
on cold hard facts.

Medical Marijuana

2009-10-27T09:24:00.002-06:00

A few days ago, I received an e-mail from a good friend, asking what my opinion was concerning the Bible and medical marijuana. The following is my response to him. I have posted it as a blog because I think it would be great for him to get more than my secular viewpoint and opinion, and because it seems like a worthy topic of discussion. If anyone else has an idea or question for the blog, please let me know. I promise we will discuss (almost) anything. I'm even open to the occasional guest writer.

But now, without further ado, is medical marijuana a sin?

First, my disclaimer. It is my belief that the Bible is more often a blank slate than proper source of doctrine. By this, I mean that people (including me) tend to find verses to justify what they already believe as opposed to having their beliefs changed by what they read. This is especially true when it comes to an issue (like marijuana) that simply did not exist in biblical times. People did not smoke pot when the bible was being written, so the writers of the scripture had no idea to address it. All one can do is infer a doctrine based on what the scriptures have said about its cultural equivalent and hope that they are not adding to much bias to such a doctrine.

So what is the cultural equivalent? Is it wine? If so, the bible seems tolerate intoxicating beverages as long as it is done in moderation and as long as one is not "led astray" by it.

However, I am not sure that marijuana, even in recreational use, is the same as wine. It is much more mild and less self-destructing. Plus, the question has to do with medical benefits which does change the context entirely, doesn't it?

Some biblical scholars make the claim that verses like Galatians 5:19-21, which says "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." condemn marijuana use because "the word translated "sorcery" is the Greek word pharmakeia, from which we get the English word "pharmacy." The primary meaning is "the use or the administering of drugs" (usually associated with sorcery or idolatry)." However, wouldn't this condemn all pharmaceuticals?

The apostle Paul answered a similar query about meat sacrificed to idols (see 1 Cor. 10) and concluded that just because something was used in a pagan ritual does not make it unclean in and of itself. In other words, medicine is okay as long as you are not using it as a part of your worship of idols.

Which brings us to our final point of discussion: legality. The primary difference between marijuana and other, slightly intoxicating, forms of medicine is that marijuana is illegal (if you don't believe me take some vicodin or oxy-cotin and get back to me). now the scriptures do say that we must "obey the laws of the land" (though people always forget that when they are running late and no traffic cops are around). But this is becoming less and less of an issue as medical marijuana is becoming legalized in more and more states.

Does anyone else have any thoughts?

Bonus blog: Weber asks some questions

2009-10-22T10:28:00.002-06:00

It has been almost two weeks since a new blog has been posted on here.
This is primarily because I have been slightly busier than I normally am, but also because I have just taken a slight break from these topics for the sake of my sanity.

Think season breaks on television shows.

Nonetheless, I am not going to leave you, my dear imaginary readers, with nothing.

Which is why today I will give the reigns to someone else, and let Andrew Lloyd Weber do the questioning.

Be grateful that I didn't give you Joan Osborne.

The blog will be back at full speed next week. Thank you for your patience.

Prayer

2009-10-07T11:07:00.005-06:00

"Prayer is more than meditation. In meditation, the source of strength is one's self. When one prays, he goes to a source of strength greater than his own." —Madame de Stael
"A man does not serve God when he prays, for it is himself he is trying to serve" —Thomas Paine

"We got to pray just to make it today"
—MC Hammer

As humans we are prisoners of our experience. We can never perceive anything outside of our five senses, we can never see through any eyes but our own. Does this mean that nothing can exist outside of our perception? No. But it does mean that we cannot truly know whether or not there is something beyond us. That is, unless this something that exists outside of our sensory periphery can, and does, impact things within it. For people of faith, prayer is precisely this. Prayer can be defined as the ability to influence or change one's empirical existence by means of calling upon something (or someone) that is beyond it.

So if prayer works it can actually be a measurable proof of God. Which is why several studies have been done to test its effectiveness. So does prayer work?

Many studies have proved inconclusive. The main problem with them being what is known as the placebo effect. It has been frequently proven that simple positive thinking can prove to be quite beneficial in regards to medical care. In fact, studies have shown that 50 to 70% of people put on a placebo show significant improvements. Is this all prayer is? If that is the case, then aren't people healing themselves with prayer?

To be certain, scientists began doing "double-blind" research tests, where neither the patient nor the doctor knew what patients were being prayed for. The most "scientifically rigorous" study of this kind, which took place over a decade and involving over 18,00 patients, showed "[p]rayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery...And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested." (you can read more here).

But what of the mass amounts of anecdotal evidence for the effectiveness of prayer? What of the accounts of people like George Mueller, Reese Howells, and other "heroes" of the faith? What of the countless stories of believers who say that God has answered their prayer? The problem with these claims is that it is hard to prove causality. Hindsight has a way of creating destiny. For example, think of the person who reads their daily horoscope. When they read in their morning paper to "be wary of strangers", they have "proof" that the horoscope predicted the future when the guy at the gas station short changes them a nickel. In other words, they were expecting something to fit into that prediction and thus found something that did so. Perhaps when you pray for a new job and three months later you find one, it is not God that answered your prayer, but just that you have found something to fit into what you expected would happen. These anecdotal evidences of prayer are only proof to the people who already believe and thus, do not need proof.

In the Sixties, activist Abbie Hoffman gathered a large group of hippies around the pentagon to levitate it with their minds. The stunt was to prove the power of transcendental meditation and help end the Vietnam war. They sought to prove in the realm of our experience what could not be proven. If they set out to simply "raise the consciousness" of the people working in the pentagon, there would no way to tell them that they were not a complete success. Likewise, as long as God and his effect on our lives remain in the unseen and measurable aspects of our life there is no way to prove He does not exist. It is when we say that He works in provable ways is when one has cause to doubt.

Until we have record of someone praying for a missing limb and the limb grows back, then prayer still exists solely in the realm of faith and should be treated as such.

Life.

2009-09-30T08:43:00.003-06:00

“Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living, and, above all, those who live without love."
—J.K. Rowling, through the mouth of Albus Dumbledore

Yesterday was the memorial service for my good friend and first love, Emily. And as I am still in the process of grieving, I felt that the type of blog that normally appears on here to be somewhat inappropriate.

Instead, I'd like to draw attention to one thing that we can all agree on. The one Truth that we know for certain:

Life is a precious and fragile mystery. Regardless of our present viewpoint (whether Atheist, Christian or anything else) the fact that we exist and are conscience of our existence is a highly improbable and wondrous thing.

And it not just that Life exists that makes it so wondrous, but that it is filled with beauty. Our daily lives are filled with so much art and light and smells and tastes that we can sometimes take them for granted. And people, too. We are relational beings. So much so that the importance of community can often be forgotten due its vast availability.

I encourage you today to remember.

Perhaps this explains it better:

(facebook readers click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNVPalNZD_I)

Enjoy your lives today. The blog will continue as usual next week.

Sex!

2009-09-11T08:59:00.003-06:00

Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.
—Butch Hancock

Abstinence makes the Church grow fondlers.
—A Bumper Sticker

True love waits.
—True Love Waits.

I have long been hesitant to write a blog on the topic of sex. This is partly because I am aware of the stereotype that us non-believers killed God and created evolution just so we could have sex with whomever we please (as well as watch R rated movies and say cuss words). I am also aware of how clear the lines seem to be drawn on this issue. For Christians, sex is only appropriate within the marriage bed (and sometimes it's even a little iffy there). Growing up in Church, one thing that I never questioned was the biblical view on sex. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Period. Even after I left the church (and my promise ring) behind, I never really challenged the authority of that position. However, there are a few things worth discussing on this topic.

1. Is the Christian view of sex psychologically healthy?

Bertrand Russell, the noted logician and Atheist, said that the way "Christians attempt to enforce [sexual morality] upon the young is extremely dangerous to mental and physical health, and causes in those who pick up their knowledge by the way of 'improper talk', as most children do, an attitude that sex is in itself indecent and ridiculous". The truth is sex is a very natural part of our humanity. The desire for sex is not chosen but thrust upon us at puberty. To give out a blanket condemnation for these natural feelings, as many in the church have been prone to do, can cause a lasting sense of guilt and shame, as well as give sex a feeling of "dirtiness" that can last long after marriage. Consider St. Benedict, who was praised by the early Church for rolling in thorns and nettles until he bled to "drain the poison of temptation from his body." Or think of St. Augustine who taught that sex should only be used for reproduction and never for pleasure. Or perhaps the young married who has been told that sex was forbidden and dirty all of her life until to find that is now holy and expected of her. Remember your own tears as a fifteen year old as you were consistently unsuccessful in your battle against lust. When the only sexual ethic one is taught is "don't touch until you're told" it does a good deal of damage to a beautiful an integral part of our humanity.

2. Is the Christian view of sex being practiced?

St. Augustine, one of Christianity's most influential theologians as well as the creator of much of the Christian sexual ethic, once said to God, "I had entreated chastity from you and had prayed, 'Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.' For I was afraid lest you should hear me too soon, and too soon cure me of my disease of lust which I desired to have satisfied rather than extinguished." It seems Augustine was not alone. Statistics show that the teens which are exclusively taught a "abstinence only" form of sexual education lead the way in terms of abortions, teen pregnancy and STDs. Statistics also show that those who take some sort of "purity pledge" to not engage in intercourse until marriage often still take part in either oral or anal sex(which, in spite of what Bill Clinton might think, is still very much sex). A large part of this problem is that in biblical times a women was married off soon after she reached puberty. Due to cultural and educational changes people are now getting married later and later. As a result more and more young Christians are finding it harder to resist temptation and reconcile their beliefs with their natural, hormonal desires. This also has an effect on marriage. Many young Christians rush into marriage before they are ready, only to have a "license for sex". This premature commitment can certainly account for at least some of the reason why the divorce rate is higher in the church than in the secular world.

3. Is the Christian view of sex biblical?

Nowhere in the Bible is premarital sex ever condemned. Nowhere. Much has been said about adultery and there was definitely an expectation for women to be virgins when they were married, but both of these laws deal more with the Old Testament view of women than they do marriage as we understand it now. Marriage, as it is now known, is a fairly recent invention. It was only until the late Victorian age that people began to marry for love, and even then it was confined to one's class and social stature. In the O.T. women were considered property. A woman's virginity was a proof of ownership. Which is why if a man took a woman's virginity (even through the force of rape) he had to compensate her father (the owner) for the money that he would have gained by selling her off in marriage. Likewise, adultery was viewed as a sort of trespassing and resulted in only the woman's death because she was now "unclean". One big exception to this biblical example is the Song of Solomon. The book of lyrical poetry describes, in somewhat graphic detail, a pair of young lovers in rapturous sexual ecstasy. The book contains mentions of both oral sex and the female orgasm. There seems to be a sense of the divine within the sexual union. A perfect picture of the way God intended marriage to be, with one minor problem: the couple is not married. In the eighth chapter of the book (the seventh verse) the brothers of the woman discuss what to do with their sister on the day she becomes engaged. This is, of course, after several chapters of sexual intimacy.

By no means does this blog cover all of the myriad views that Christians hold toward sexuality. Nor does it even fully convey the views that it does express. This is a big issue. This blog is simply being purposely provocative to create a conversation. To quote one of our time's greatest philosophical rap groups Salt n' Peppa: Let's talk about sex, baby.

Bonus Blog: Stitches

2009-09-07T00:48:00.002-06:00

I don't think I have ever found a song that sums up my relationship with God better than this. This is from David Bazan's new album Curse Your Branches. Actually, almost the entire album is dedicated to the sort of thing discussed on this blog and is done so with much more eloquence, humanity and honesty than I could ever imagine. I think it's a great listen for believers and skeptics alike. Pick it up.

The video is from a live performance. I'm sorry about the dog barking.

If you are reading this on facebook, you can find the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VX67lI-l8k

Here are the lyrics:

My body bangs and twitches
Some brown liqour whets my tongue
My fingers find the stitches
Firmly back and forth they run
I need no other memory
Of the bits of me I left
When all this lethal drinking
Is to hopefully forget about you

I might as well admit it
Like I even have a choice
The crew have killed the captain
But they still can hear his voice
A shadow on the water
A whisper in the wind
On long walks with my daughter
Who is lately full of questions about you

When Job asked you a question,
You answered, "Who are you?"
To challenge your creator
Well if that one part is true
That sounds a bit defensive
Like you have not thought it through
Enough to have an answer
Like you bit off more than you could chew

A re-introduction

2009-09-01T11:01:00.002-06:00

If you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire...
—Nietzsche

I used to be quite the Christian
pleasing the Lord, my ambition
but some books that I've read
made me confused in the head
so a search for the Truth is my new mission.
—a limerick I made up this morning

This last weekend I got into an argument with a street preacher. This alone is nothing particularly out of the ordinary as I seem to get into religious discussions no matter where I go. What made this specific encounter different is that I made a confession. In the midst of discussing the validity of the Bible, I let it drop that I used to be a Christian. "In fact", I told them, "I used to be a street preacher just like you. I did it for years." They asked a few skeptical follow-up questions to prove I was for real and then became somewhat incredulous. "Then what happened to you?" They asked.

Of course, this was not the first time I have been asked such a question. In fact, since I have started writing this blog, it seems to be one of the most frequent questions I'm asked—the other most frequent question is whether I dress like Austin Powers on purpose. The answer to this one is no. It is just a unfortunate coincidence with my glasses and eyebrows—Thus, I've today decided to briefly account how I got to be how I am and what my purpose is for writing about the things that I do.

I was raised in a Christian home. My parents pastor a pentecostal church. At fourteen I became very serious about the faith myself. I devoted myself to it. I preached my first sermon at fifteen. I enrolled in an intense discipleship/bible school program when I was seventeen. As Paul says, I was a "zealot of zealots". By this, I mean that I considered myself a staunch defender of the faith. I would typically spend the first two to three hours of my day in prayer and bible study. I would spend most weekends on street corners in downtown Dallas trying to win people to the Lord. I was an interim-children's pastor, and an associate youth minister. I spent a year as an inner city missionary. My faith was not only very real to me, it was the core of me. The foundation and motivation for everything that I did. I was a true believer.

The questions arose in the third and final year of the bible school I was in. I had long held issues with the way Christians behaved and with some doctrines that were being taught in churches. I noticed that every Sunday in almost every church, a preacher would stand at the pulpit, make the claim that his church preaches the Bible and the Bible alone, and then preach something radically different from what every other Bible preaching church was saying. I realized that the Bible relied heavily on interpretation, but whose interpretation was right? I began to study. I studied church history, I studied theology, I studied the scriptures. Each question only led to more questions. I found no answers to fit my orthodoxy.

At the same time, I noticed how segregated the church was. I noticed there were poor churches and rich churches. White churches and black churches. Republican churches and more republican churches. I also noticed how outsiders were treated. People of other faiths, political views and especially people of other sexual orientations, were often mocked openly from the pulpit. Intellectualism was disdained and doubt was commonly dismissed. I saw how this was not new, but held true to the Christian traditions past down since before Augustine.

My questions and restlessness grew over time. I sought God, but could not find him in all of the mess. The more I dug for Truth, the more the fundamental things that I was taught seemed to unravel. Many of the claims that I held did not seem to hold up to scrutiny. It seemed to me that if Truth were truly absolute then it would be unshaken by my questions. But things were shaken. So I dug deeper; I shook more. In the end, after several years of existential and spiritual angst, I stopped believing in God altogether.

So here now is this blog. For the last few years I have been an agnostic but still very much a seeker of an absolute Truth; whether it exists and whether it can be known. I am aware that the Truth is not comfortable, and that the Truth might not make me happy. The idea of a divine being who loves me and has a plan for me is comforting, but if it is not True then it is ultimately meaningless. The idea that there is no God and I am in control of my own morality is enticing, but again if it is not True than it is not a wise way to live. I want the Truth, wherever it might land.

I began writing this blog to make public my search. To ask again my questions about God. To engage others, from any and every spiritual vantage point, in a respectful conversation about these issues. It is my sincere hope that you will disagree with some of the things I say. It is even more my hope that you will be willing to discuss your disagreements with me.

Let's ask questions. Let's dig deeper. Let's find some answers.

Women 2:Electric Boogaloo

2009-08-21T11:53:00.002-06:00

Woman was represented as the door of Hell, as the mother of all human ills. She should be ashamed at the very thought that she is a woman.
-History of European Morals, vol. II

Just when...a man needed a bit of peace and privacy in his own home, who should start spouting texts and interpreting God’s word in his own home, women...It was well known that with a woman, a dog and a walnut tree, the more you beat ‘em the better they be. Equally “natural” was the duplicity of women. According to proverbial wisdom they were saints in the church, angels in the streets, devils in the kitchen and apes in bed.
-Sheila Rowbotham, speaking of the prevalent attitudes toward women in colonial Massachusetts.

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
-The Apostle Paul, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NASB)

Last week, this blog briefly examined the scriptural view towards women in regards to their identity and role in society. The conclusion reached was that the bible is somewhat unclear, and perhaps even contradictory, towards this subject and is forced to rely heavily on outside interpretation. The response to the blog from Christians was largely a cry for context. It was said that certain passages of scripture—specifically those from the Apostle Paul—can only truly be understood when viewed through the lens of the time and culture that they were written in. For example, Paul’s admonition that women remain silent in church (1 Tim. 2:11-15) was due to the fact that women at the time were uneducated and illiterate and tended to disrupt the teaching by asking their husbands questions. The argument being that Paul didn’t intend this passage as doctrine for all women but was speaking to a specific group. The fact that this explanation is questionable—only 8 to 10% of the world was literate at that time, which means that the husbands would probably be just as confused and barely more informed then their wives during church—is, in the practical sense, irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that, whether the bible condones it or not, women have been greatly abused and oppressed by the hands of religion and that is the topic addressed today.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell has said that, “[t]he Christian ethics inevitably, through the emphasis laid upon sexual virtue, did a great deal to degrade the position of women”. He explains that since men are the writers of moral code, women were made out to be the temptress. Instead of taking responsibility for man’s own lust and depravity they focused the blame on their object of desire. Russell goes on to say, “[s]ince woman was the temptress, it was desirable to curtail her opportunities for leading men into temptation; consequently respectable women were more and more hedged about with restrictions, while the women who were not respectable, being regarded as sinful, were treated with the utmost contumely”. This is the reason behind the burkas and head-scarves in the middle-east. This is the attitude behind the rape victims who “had it coming” because of the way they dressed. This is the logic behind the amazingly crude and forward propositions for casual sex that my female friend is berated with from Christian men simply because she is not a Christian and, therefore, must be “up for it”, while their Christian girlfriends are held to a higher standard and expected to remain “pure”.
Of course, to blame the oppression and mistreatment of women entirely on the church is unfair. It has only been within the last hundred years that the sciences have conceded that women do not, in fact, have smaller brains then men. Women have truly been beaten down and marginalized by most cultures and belief systems for the vast majority of human history. But at the same time, this is largely where one can find great fault with Christianity as a whole. It is not the fact that Christianity is so different that causes an issue, but the fact that it is so much the same.

It was only until several years after the rise of feminism that people started to look into the historical context of what Paul has said. Why was no one (except maybe a small minority) boldly discussing such things in the 1950’s, or even better, in the 1450’s? Why was it that the second and third generation of Christianity (who had a considerably better idea of the bible’s historical context) did not write treatises explaining why Paul wrote the way he did? Imagine how much better the world would now be if people of faith had taken an egalitarian view of gender from the beginning. Instead, it seems that the church simply followed the cultural norms of the secular world and was actually reluctant to change until there was a great deal of outside pressure. This seems to be true of not just women, but also issues of civil rights, slavery, environmentalism, the plight of the impoverished in developing countries, and many other issues.

Christianity has long claimed to be a people “in the world, but not of the world”. They are a people set apart. A peculiar people with peculiar beliefs who have set themselves against the spirit of the world. This is certainly true in regards to language, dress and other cultural idioms, but what of the larger picture? What of the important issues of social justice and equality? Does the Church at large live up to its own claims?

What do you think?

Women

2009-08-09T10:35:00.002-06:00

God created man with a broad chest, not broad hips, so that in that part of him he can be wise; but that part out of which filth comes is small. In a woman, this is reversed. That is why she has much filth and little wisdom.
-Martin Luther

I listen to feminists and all these radical gals—most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men—that's their problem.
-Jerry Falwell

It is further the duty of the wife toward her husband to keep herself as attractive after marriage as she was before marriage. Many times the wife is to blame for the husband's seeking another companion.
-God's Plan for Sex, Marriage and Home Life (copyright 1953)

In his book How Would God Vote: Why the Bible Commands You to be a Conservative, David Klinghoffer uses several bible references to explain that men and women were given control of separate domains. Men have been given control of the land and have been ordered to tame it. Thus, us men are responsible for the work force; for hunting and gathering; for bringing home the bacon. Women have been given control of the home and all of the decisions that exist within it. This means that women have complete executive powers over such things as the color and fabric of the living room curtains, and which brand of juice boxes to give to the kids. It is when these domains overlap—when women enter men's magisteria of work—that things start to go haywire. Marriages dissolve, societies implode and, worst of all, women become unfulfilled with their lives because they are not living up to the destiny that they were created for.
Klinghoffer's explanation, if one remembers, has actually been the prominent view of women through most of history. It is only because of a somewhat recent cultural shift that this belief now seems out of place. Over the last century, women have joined the workforce in droves, demanded equal pay for their work and have largely transformed the way in which home life is viewed. The idea of separate domains and roles for men and women seems to now be a bit outdated.

However, one of the major claims of Christianity is its timelessness. The bible is purported to be true and unchanging, regardless of cultural shifts and changing societal views. In other words, if the standards and lifestyles that were opposed on women in the 50's were biblical, then they should still be strictly upheld by Christians now, even if they are not popular. This brings up the most essential question of our discussion: What does the Bible actually say about women and their role and purpose in life?

This is where the true debate begins, as the Bible can be somewhat unclear as to its position on the subject. For example Proverbs 31 speaks of woman who buys real estate and makes fabric to sell for profit. But some have argued that the woman described here does this all from her home and solely for her family's interest. The book of Judges talks greatly of Deborah, a female judge, while at the same time much of the Old Testament law seems to view women as little more than property.
The New Testament definetly has occasions where it takes what can be considered as a more progressive view of women. The apostle Paul makes several references to women pastors and leaders in the early church—though much of the names in these passages have been altered to the masculine form in many current translations—and wrote in Gal. 3:28 that there is neither "male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". These passages can certainly be used to advocate gender equality. However, Paul also says that women should be silent in church (1 Cor. 14:34-36, 1 Tim. 2:11-15), and also submit to the rulership of man (1 Cor. 11:3, Eph. 5:22-24, and Col. 3:18).

I am fully aware that there are several different intrepretations as to what the above mentioned passages of scripture mean. Which, I suppose, is my point. One of the earliest problems that I had with Christianity is that the bible is often used as a blank wall that people project their own political ideas and prejudices onto. It is ambiguious enough to mean whatever we intrepret it to mean. Is this the case in regards to women? Does Christianity simply conform to its sorrounding culture and societal changes? Or have I just missed entirely the passages that lay out clearly the role of women in home and culture?

What do you think?

Of Homosexuals and Christian Sign Holders.

2009-07-29T13:28:00.003-06:00

This past Sunday was the gay pride parade and festival in my hometown of Colorado Springs, Co. A lot of Christians bring large signs to this event every year. This year I decided to bring a sign of my own.

Colorado Springs is widely held as one of the most Christian conservative towns in the nation. It is the home to such large Christian ministries as Focus on the Family, Young Life, and Compassion International. It was also the stage of the rather large Ted Haggard scandal that rocked so many headlines a few years back. The scandal, if you remember, involved a very successful and outspoken evangelical pastor and his involvement with a homosexual prostitute. All of this said, it is really no surprise that a gay pride parade is going to stir up a little controversy. Over the past several years, it has been expected to see at least a handful of people walking around the perimeter of the park where the event is held, holding large signs which read things like "God hates fags" and "Sodomites go to Hell". My sign said something a little different.

I arrived early on Sunday morning, just as the festivities were getting started. There were several drag queens in full get-up. A lot of both men and women very scantily dressed. There were gays and lesbians of all ages, colors and social standings displaying absolutely no fear of public affection. And then there was me, in a nice shirt and slacks, holding my sign and smiling silently. A lot of people at first simply took me as a protester. One person flipped me off and uttered a few choice words at me. It was then that his friend hit him on the shoulder and said, "read the sign, idiot". His jaw dropped as he read it, tears filled his eyes and a large smile filled his face. He came up to me and gave me a hug. "Thank you", he said. My sign, in simple black letters, said "I am sorry for the way Christians have treated you". My day had just begun.

I walked around the park for a couple of hours, showing everyone I could my sign. The response was overwhelming. Many people came up to hug me or shake my hand. More than a few people cried. Three pastor's kids approached me, one of which had been completely disowned by his family, they all said that this was a great thing. That they accepted my apology. I thought about the old adage that says to love the sinner but hate the sin. I wondered if, from these people's perspectives, if they could tell the difference from what was being hated.

After a few minutes someone stopped me and asked, "why are you doing this?" I told them that having read the Bible, I realized that for every verse of scripture that we can find to condemn homosexuality there are at least two more explicitly commanding people of faith to love people, especially those that we consider "sinners" and "lost". I said that Christians cannot justify acting immorally just because we perceive immorality in others. Whether or not homosexuality is wrong is irrelevant, what I am addressing is the fact that Christians are commanded to love and we have failed at that, not just towards the gay, lesbian and transgender community but towards a lot of minorities in this country. She smiled, said "God bless you" and shook my hand.

The one thing that I found most surprising from the reactions I received was the way the gay community came to the defense of Christianity. "Your sign should say some Christians", one person said, "the majority of Christians are really great, loving people. It's just a few of them that are really hateful". I smiled and said, "You're right, but the problem is that those few loud people presume to speak for all of Christianity, which is why I presume to speak for all Christianity when I apologize for them."

The Christian Protesters showed up around half past noon (I figured they had to go to church first), with all of their signs and bibles in tow. Being a bit of an antagonist, I somehow found myself standing next to them with my sign. I smiled. They scowled. We said nothing for some time. After about forty-five minutes, I approached one of the sign holders. "Can I ask you a question?" He smiled a certain braced, defensive smile and said "Absolutely. What's on your mind?" I said, "I was just wondering if you guys have big signs condemning greed that you hold outside all of the banks?"
"No, no we don't."
"What about big signs saying that rebellion will send you to hell that you hold outside all of the highschools?"
He laughed, "No, we don't have those either."
"But sin is sin, right? God doesn't discriminate? All sins are equal?"
"Of course, sin is sin. God hates all of it."
"Doesn't it seem like you are kind of picking this one particular sin out? That maybe these signs represent hate and bigotry, instead of just the gospel?"
"No, listen," he said, "all we are doing here is just trying to provide an alternative lifestyle to the ones that these people are living. We are not saying that they are any worse than anyone else. Look at me, I was an adulterer. I cheated on my wife for several years, and I can tell you that I was going to the exact same Hell. I needed to wake up, I needed to turn to Jesus."
"And can I ask what turned you around? Was it a big sign that someone was holding?"
He laughed and said no.
"Was it something a little more relational then?"
He smiled and said that, actually, a friend of his invited him to church.
"That's very interesting", I said. I looked at his sign, it said "Turn to Jesus" in big red letters. "Can I ask you about Jesus?", I asked.
"Absolutely!"
"Jesus hung around with a lot of sinners. He even had dinner with prostitutes and tax-collectors, didn't he?"
"He did. Jesus was a friend of the sinner."
"Do you think he'd be here at the parade today?"
"I do. I really do."
"Do you think he'd be holding a sign?"
The man said nothing. I went on.
"One of my favorite stories is the one about Jesus and the woman at the well. Do you think that woman would have talked to Jesus if he was holding a sign?"
The man still said nothing.
"Sir, the only thing we really disagree on right now is approach. The apostle Paul said that he was all things to all people. He didn't change his message at all, but adapted the way that he presented it to the culture he was addressing so that they could understand it and receive it better. And I'm sure that once you make up a sign that condemns pride and vanity and hold it up outside of the beauty parlor, people might take you at face value, but until then, the gay community will really only see these signs as symbols of hate and prejudice and not the love of Jesus."
The man smiled and said "It was really good talking to you."
I smiled and said, "It was great talking to you. Sir, I know that we've already established that sin is sin and God does not discriminate. However, I don't think that's completely true. I think God might hold Christians to a higher standard. I think he might view the way Christians have treated non-believers as the biggest sin to happen here today."
"You know, I could not agree more."
I walked away, still holding my sign.
As I walked away, I looked back and noticed that there was one less sign up than there was before.

Satan

2009-04-24T08:02:00.002-06:00

My father is a somewhat fundamentalist, pentecostal pastor. This is one of his favorite jokes that he tells from the pulpit:
A little kid is on her way to church one Sunday morning and notices the Devil is sitting outside of the church crying and looking horribly sad. "What's wrong, Devil?" the little girl asked. "Naw, you wouldn't understand" replied the dark lord, his eyes almost as red as his skin from crying. "try me" replied the little girl. "Well, it's just that all those people in that church there keep blaming me for stuff I didn't do."

Okay, I never said it was a funny joke. It is an excellent way to get our conversation started though.
Who or what is the Devil? Exactly what power does he have?

The first we hear of the Devil is in the book of Job. That's right, he is never once mentioned in Genesis. The snake, according to the first Hebrew writers was just a snake. In Job, a character is introduced to us as Satan. Here is what the passage found in the first chapter of Job says (from the NKJV):
⁶ Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan^a]">[a] also came among them. ⁷ And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”
⁸ Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?”
⁹ So Satan answered the LORD and said, “Does Job fear God for nothing? ¹⁰ Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. ¹¹ But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!”
¹² And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.”
So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

In this passage Satan (which is Hebrew for adversary) is listed among the sons of God and is allowed into the high court of God. Furthermore, it seems he had a task to fulfill for God. Many believe that Satan's job was to walk to and fro among the Earth to be the eyes and ears of God on Earth. This makes perfect sense when you consider that God asks Satan to consider Job. And though yes, it is true that Satan provokes a bit and tells God to take away Job's hedge of protection, it does not seem that these are two arch-enemies fighting over souls. In fact, if that were so, we would have to say that God was tricked or deceived by Satan. Also, Christians frequently say God not allow any sin or impurity in his presence, but here is the embodiment of evil in the high court of Heaven. No, God is clearly in control during this story and Satan is following orders. This seems to be true in every other story that mentions Satan in the Old Testament as well(see 2 Sam. 24:1 and then 1 Chron. 21:1).

The Jews were the creators of Monotheism and as such thought that both good and evil came from the same source. God blessed. God punished. That was it. There was no war of good and evil. God ruled all.

But the Jews were conquered a few times and some new ideas started to meld with their old ones. One of these new ideas was the Persian belief in dualism. The idea that there were two ultimate forces, one good and one evil, and they competed for our souls and well being became a popular one and is still very popular today. In other words, Satan got a huge promotion.

The scripture that is most commonly used to define the devil is Isaiah 14:12-17 which says:

¹² “ How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer,^a]">[a] son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
¹³ For you have said in your heart:

‘ I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
¹⁴ I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
¹⁵ Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.
¹⁶ “ Those who see you will gaze at you,
And consider you, saying:

‘ Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
¹⁷ Who made the world as a wilderness
And destroyed its cities,
Who did not open the house of his prisoners?’

This passage (which I am only bringing up because I know it would be brought up in the discussion boards) when placed in context is not about Satan at all but about the king of Babylon.

The Bible tells us that there is only one God and he is in charge of everything. Where then does the idea of the devil as we know him come into play?

We don't believe they are equals but we act as if they are.

At the end of the 19th century there was a man named Andrew Carnegie. He was one of the richest men of all time and a great philanthropist. He had a great desire to be loved and cherished by everyone. Which is why he employed Henry Clay Frick, a man who had no such need to be loved, to carry out the insanely unethical business practices that made Carnegie as rich as he was. Frick got the blame, but Carnegie was in control. He not only allowed such things to go on, but often insisted upon them.

Is Satan God's Henry Clay Frick?

Does he exist at all?

How much power do you think he has?

A continuation of the discusssions created by the comments...

2009-04-10T09:51:00.003-06:00

Santa Claus exists.

It's true. I say those words and immediately the image of a jolly fat man in a red suit appears in our brain. Everyone of us who is reading this has a shared perception of Santa. Santa exists even though he is not real.

Quarks exist.

They largely exist outside of our perception. We cannot see them or feel them but they exist. In fact, Quarks existed before we even knew what they were.

Existence is a tricky subject.

We know that things can exist inside of our perception that are not actually real. Things like unicorns, hallucinations and my attractiveness can all be perceived with great detail, but they do not conform to what we could call the greater or more uniform reality of the world.

At the same time, we know that our perception is extremely limited. I cannot see ultraviolet light nor can I hear extremely high frequency sounds by my naked senses alone. There is almost certainly much that exists outside of our natural senses and perception.

God exists, but is God real?

We can conceive of God. We can sometimes even perceive him through our emotions. Some people even claim to hear God talking to them. None of this proves He is any more real than the acid tripper's pink elephant.

In the end we are confined to our perception. We can never see outside of ourselves, we are stuck with the small view finder created by our five senses.

Can God exist outside of our perception? Absolutely.

But how can we know for certain whether or not He does?

Furthermore, how much does it matter if He does or not?
If God exists outside of our perception (which, in fact makes up the whole of our reality) does that mean we can never know or experience Him?
How important can something really be to us if we can have essentially no knowledge of it?

What do you think?

2009-02-23T14:18:00.004-07:00

Jesus may have been illiterate.

This is a belief that is held by many scholars today.
But others say that Jesus may have actually been part of Galilean bourgeois, highly educated and well-versed in many different cultures and worldviews outside of his own.
But then again, Jesus could have been a Buddhist; spending years twelve to thirty-three studying under some enlightened stage.
All of the movies that I've seen argue that Jesus was actually British with lovely teeth and even nicer hair.
I've even heard some well reasoned arguments that Jesus never lived at all.

We don't know.

The problem here is that Jesus never wrote down a word himself. He has always relied on others to speak for him.

When I talk to Christians (or really when they talk at me) about the issues of faith and doubt, a subject that invariably comes up is how one should not rely on man (who is imperfect and harmful) but God (who is allegedly pretty cool). I am usually quick to agree with Christians on, at least, the first half of this point. Humans have a tendency towards power grabs and manipulation. And even when they are not so Machiavellian, they can still be disappointing and unreliable. There are largely nothing but problems when people put their faith and trust in the Ted Haggards and Jerry Falwells of the world.

But what are we left with when we take out the human equation? Jesus never spoke for himself. He always relied on humans to deliver his message.

So here is the question: If humans are inherently untrustworthy how are we to trust them with the truth concerning God?

Or, even more importantly, whose version of God do I trust? I personally would love to believe in the super happy, friendly Jesus who loves me all the time and wants to buy me ice cream; but what if the Fred Phelps type is right and Jesus is angry, very angry and caused 9/11 and Katrina to punish us for our being too tolerant? There is certainly plenty of scripture to justify both world views.

Will the real God please stand up?

I know that a lot of people will argue that this is where faith comes in to play, but faith in what exactly? Faith in whom? My version of God? My interpretation of scripture? Does it really come down to me believing what ever doctrine about God and the Bible sound best to me? Isn't that called Moral Relativism? Is there no way of discovering the actual capital T Truth?

So, now this opens up to you. Especially to those of you who believe. Who do you trust? Why?

How do you know that God is who you think He is?

Bonus Blog 4

2009-01-22T23:02:00.000-07:00

Bonus Blog 3

2009-01-21T08:34:00.004-07:00

Due to the fact that this is the first week of a new semester
and my birthday is on Friday (I will celebrate the birth of my own personal savior)
and other more personal reasons, We will again not have an official blog.

Instead I present to you this:

(if you are reading this on facebook you won't be able to see the video. Sorry)

The discussion will resume in full on Monday.

Have a great weekend everybody!

Hell

2009-01-14T08:42:00.003-07:00

When I die I will go to Hell.

According to most Christian traditions the moment that my heart stops beating on this earth will be the exact same moment that my soul will enter into unimaginable torment, pain and anguish.

Not just for a year either. Not for ten years. Not even for a thousand years or a million years. I will be in Hell for eternity. No escape. No relief.

Think about that for a second. Eternity full of pain for millions and millions of people. How exactly does this fit in with the whole "God of love" motif?

One of the more common responses that I have heard (and given) to the question is that Hell was not made for us. It was designed to punish the Devil and his angels. This argument does not mean much to me. In spite of what Hell may have been intended for, it has become used for something else. We could argue that Auschwitz was originally intended to be a day care, but that does not change what actually happened there.

Is Hell therefore a place of punishment? Possibly. According to author David Mills, there are three commonly held reasons for punishment in general. These are:

1. As a deterrent. "If you don't stop talking in class you will go to detention."

2. As separation. "You are not allowed to go to the party with the others because of your bad action."

3. As redemption or reform. "You will sit in detention and think about what you've done. Maybe next time you won't do it again."

Does Hell exist as a deterrence?

No. At least not a very good one anyway. It is widely established by the Hell believing Christians that the vast majority of our world will end up in Hell. The threat of Hell does not seem to convince many to change their ways. What it does do is cause many of those who do believe to live in constant fear of slipping up. How many of us who grew up in the Christian faith became terrified every time we did something wrong? I certainly know that I did.

Also, should something be said about the tactics that God is using to get people to obey him? He created an eternal place of fire and torment simply to scare us into believing in Him? How does that work for our free choice? How does that work for God being good and righteous? To say "follow me or face Hell" is something that we might expect from our history's worst dictators, not from a righteous God.

Was Hell created as a separation?

This reason seems a bit more likely. One of the biggest arguments for Hell is that God is holy and simply cannot allow sin into His presence. Thus, all of us unrepentant sinners must be "cast out." We can't go to the party. But do we have to go to Hell? Was there no other place that God could imagine to serve as a place of separation? Could we not go into a place of non-existence? Or heck, couldn't we just stand outside the gates of Heaven, looking in through the window at all the fun the believers are having? Wouldn't that be torment enough? Apparently not. Not only are we cast out from the presence of God, we must burn as well.

When we say that God is holy and cannot allow any sin into his manifest presence, it seems that we are saying "Sorry, kid. Rules are rules. God can't make any exceptions to them." As if this lets God off the hook. Again, many Christians say that God doesn't want to send anyone to Hell. But he has to because of their sin. Well, who was it that came up with this rule? Was it not God? He created Hell and set the standards of who would go there. Knowing full well where the majority would end up.

Was Hell created for rehabilitation?

No. There can be no redemptive purpose for Hell because there is no way out. Ever. It does not matter if the inhabitants suffer remorse. It does not matter if they call out to God for mercy. They will burn in Hell forever. Hell has no redemptive benefit, socially or spiritually, to anyone at all.

The punishment will not fit the crime either. You drop a hammer on your foot and say the Lord's name in vain in reaction and you will be in Hell for just as long as the person who killed their own children.

Not only that, but most Christians believe that it takes far less to be sentenced to Hell. All one really has to do is to not acknowledge Jesus as your personal savior.

This means that if you are one of the millions that are born in India to Hindu or Muslim parents, chances are you will burn in Hell for more than a million years.

If you were born in some indigenous tribe in Africa that has never seen outside human contact, you will burn in Hell for more than a million years.

If you are an earnestly pious Jew who loves God with all of your heart you will burn in Hell for more than a million years.

So why did God create Hell? What is its purpose?

Does Hell line up with what we know and understand about the Christian God? Or was Hell the result of man's most depraved imagination?

What do you think?

Intellectual Honesty

2009-01-01T08:58:00.005-07:00

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves... For myself, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."

- Aldous Huxley in Means and Ends, 1937

I was first told this quote in Sunday school. The lesson had something to do with the pratfalls of Atheism. I was told that the reason why people advocate evolution and don't believe in God is because they do not want God to control their lives. They want to do whatever they want to whomever they want without any consideration to the bible or its laws.

I think about this a lot.

Is that true?

Is there something hidden beneath all of my rational beliefs and reliance on science? I am willingly blinding myself to the truth just so I can occasionally have sex and watch R rated movies?

Yes. At least to a certain degree.

No one can either prove or disprove the existence of God. We just don't know the answer. But unlike other unanswerable questions; such as do aliens exist, and is Tupac really dead, the question of God demands a decision. We have to make a choice to believe one way or another because our morality and worldview is largely dependent upon this choice. You will live differently if you believe in God than if you don't.

So how does one come to decide on such a thing?

How did you?

Somewhat more importantly, how much do our presuppositions get in the way of our discovery of truth?

Do I have reasons not to believe in God that transcend unbiased rational thought? I do. But I am aware of them and try not to let them factor into our discussions or my personal seeking. I want to know the Truth, if such a thing exists, and I want to know it whether or not I like what I hear.

Being aware of my bias, I know that the topics I choose for this blog will tend to favor an Atheistic worldview. Which is why I want Christians to come up with topics for discussion and even be guest writers themselves (e-mail me if you would like to take part).

I think we all (Christian, Atheist and everyone else) could stand to have our worldviews challenged. I think we all could have our motives questioned a little more.

So let's talk. What do you believe? Why do you believe it?

Christmas

2008-12-25T09:50:00.002-07:00

For as far back as we have history, possibly even before God created the world six thousand years ago, there have been celebrations around the last week of December.

The Norse celebrated something called Yule, the Romans called their celebration Saturnalia. These were festivities centered around the winter solstice. The longest and coldest night of the year had passed and now spring would soon be starting its slow journey back to the surface. People would often slaughter their fattest cows at this time so they wouldn't have to feed them during the winter. There would be a huge feast with friends and family. Garlands and laurels would be hung around the house. A large evergreen would be placed in the center of the house as a reminder that the death of winter was not permanent and new life was on it's way.

But of course, these ancient people did not understand seasons they way we do now. Not knowing about the Earth's rotation around the sun, they resorted to more supernatural explanations. They believed that the sun was a god. A god who obviously died every year at the solstice, the darkest day of the year. Realizing that the days start becoming longer soon after this, they reasoned that the sun god was born anew. This was the day that they celebrated. For the Roman empire this day was December 25th. The day when the light of the world was born.

But meanings have a way of changing over the years.

During the first century, when Christianity was rapidly growing in popularity, such pagan festivals began to be frowned upon. Christian leaders did not want their converts worshiping another god or gods, but found that these end of year celebrations were still very popular. Thus in about 98 A.D., it was decreed that December 25th was the day that Jesus was born (this posed no real theological problem since the Bible gives no specific date of Jesus' birth). Soon, all of the traditions and rituals that were once hold for the sun god Mithra were now being performed in the name of Christ. Christmas was born.

But it seems that since the dawn of the department store and political correctness Christmas has undergone a new change. In fact, many have claimed that there is a war against Christmas happening now within our culture. James Dobson, head of my town's Focus on the Family, has been leading Christians to boycott any store that wishes people a "happy holiday" instead of a "merry Christmas." Various Fox News pundits are livid that some schools have changed from "Christmas break" to "winter break." And there has been much debate by many people as to whether or not a manger scene is inappropriate at government buildings. Even today I was sent a somewhat angry and defensive greeting that told me I was going to receive a "merry Christmas" whether I was offended by it or not.

This time of year is a time of celebration and being close to the one's that you love. It shouldn't matter whether or not someone is celebrating in a different way than you. Nor should it make one angry when a cashier gives them a greeting that is neutral and unbiased against the myriad ways that people are choosing to celebrate. After all, who would Jesus boycott?

I sincerely hope that everyone who reads this today is near someone that they love and is enjoying their time together. If you are Christian, than I hope your advent season is full of wonder and thanksgiving. For the rest of us, I hope you all have plenty of food and wine. Especially wine.

Merry Christmas, Solstice, Hanukkah, Kwanza, Festivus and whatever else!

Intelligent Design?

2008-12-23T06:06:00.002-07:00

When it comes to the origins of the universe, and specifically what is taught about it in our public schools, the majority of Americans take a very democratic approach.
A 2005 Harris poll showed that 55% of Americans would like for theories other than evolution (creationism and intelligent design) to be taught in school. Only 12% insisted on evolution only.

And why not, really? It makes sense. If there is more than one theory on the matter, we might as well hear both of them out and then make the decision for ourselves as to which one we believe. It is only fair.

However, it would seem that these Americans are not truly being honest, here. No one, as far as I can tell, is advocating that the ancient Norse cosmology be taught in schools today. Nor are there any serious attempts to teach flat Earth theory or Spaghetti Monsterism. No one really believes that just because a theory exists it should be taught as viable science.

Which, of course, brings us to the point of our discussion. Now, it should be said here that my knowledge of science goes little further than what I remember from Bill Nye and Dr. Wizard. Plus, the fact that several books and scholarly debates exist on evolution vs. intelligent design give good evidence to suggest that there is far more to this issue than we will be able to cover in such a small space. Thus, this post will try to focus on the basics of the issue and their philosophical implications.

The core tenet of intelligent design (or I.D.) is its argument that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Believers in this theory are usually quick to point out that they are not creationists, but scientists who argue that all of our best observations of the universe point to evidence of design.
The problem, as far as I've been able to tell, is that I.D. presents itself more as a rebuttal than research. Proponents of I.D. seem to spend most of their time pointing out the flaws of evolution. The fact that there are still gaps and unknowns in evolutionary theory seems to be their greatest proof of a designer.

The evidence of design itself is usually shown to be nothing more than a matter of presuppositions. There are certainly things about the universe and our planet that are baffling to the human mind. Just the fact that life can exist on this planet is really amazing. It is not hard to see how one could believe that all of this was purposefully designed. However, there are natural explanations for almost everything in the universe. And since Ockham's razor dictates that the simplest explanation is the best one, we have to acknowledge that the natural explanation is the best. The only reason to add a designer into the equation is because we want one in there.

Speaking of presuppositions, Many creationists and I.D. advocates claim that the only reason why the vast majority of scientists adhere to evolution is because they refuse to acknowledge God, because they want to live free from his commands. I personally would think that the desire to win the Nobel prize and be forever memorialized in textbooks as the person who proved Darwin wrong would be enticing enough to let go of my desire for R-rated movies and the occasional bout with causal sex.

Lastly, I don't understand how Christians can advocate for I.D. It goes clearly against a literal interpretation of scripture. It allows for a much older earth than most Christians believe. It doesn't even necessarily claim that there is a God. Notice that they never use the word creator. It is also some ambiguous impersonal designer who sets things in motion and then walks away. Is this the God that Christians want to believe in? Is it possible to even discuss spirituality from a scientific perspective? Am I completely missing the point?

What do you think?

Bonus Blog 2!

2008-12-16T12:24:00.002-07:00

At the time of this writing it is now Tuesday afternoon and I still have not written my Monday night blog. This, of course, is horrible offensive and simply will not do. However, since I am experiencing a horribly busy week and really have no time to write any sort of decent conversation starter, I will instead give you this video. Which does not really have much to do with anything, but I think it's funny and deals a little with what this blog is about. I hope you enjoy.

New blog will be up by Monday. Please check out the last few weeks' topics and comment on those if you haven't already.

Gay Marriage

2008-12-08T18:09:00.003-07:00

Before we begin our discussion, I have to say that this blog was almost late again. I had a tooth break the other day and a shard of said tooth was constantly jabbing into my tongue. It was a large amount of pain and was distracting enough to keep me from my duties as a gadfly. Luckily, however, I have a wonderful sister-in-law who works in the dental industry. She took care of the pain and I am extremely grateful. Thank you again, Courtney.

So how's this for a segue: Gay Marriage has been like a broken tooth that jabs painfully at the tongues of many Christians over the last several years. The seems to be especially true as the nation is still reacting from California's prop 8. This is a very large issue.

I would like to note at this point that this blog is about same-sex marriage, not homosexuality in general. It is not my intention to discuss what the bible says about Homosexuality. Nor am I concerned about the rather large number of people who call themselves Gay Christians or how some churches are now completely accepting of the gay and lesbian community (though after some discussion with Nick, we might discuss these things at a later date). Today we are just talking about marriage. And really, when you think about, that's all that most Christians talk about these days as well.

So why marriage? Why is this taboo? What is it about this particular issue that causes people to be so emotional, and in some cases, violent?

To be honest, I don't really know. I am not a homosexual and am very unmarried. I just don't see two men or two women marrying each other as that much of a problem. Which is why I am curious to hear your thoughts in the ensuing discussion.

But here are a few thoughts to get us started:

Christians frequently talk about preserving traditional marriage. What exactly is that?

Historically, marriage has most often been used as a business arrangement between two families. It wasn't considered an institution of romance and love until the Victorian period. From a biblical standpoint, marriage is even more confusing. Wives in the Old Testament were frequently considered to be little more than property and many of our greatest heroes from the bible had multiple wives. Is this what Christians are referring to? How do you define traditional marriage?

The divorce rate among Christians is now higher than it is in the secular world. Shouldn't the Church work on that particular plank in the eye before they tell the rest of society how to live?

Keeping Gay marriage illegal will probably not alter the behavior of very many homosexuals. I'm not certain, but I doubt that there are Californians who were really planning on becoming gay, but sadly did not, all because prop. 8 passed. Which raises a question. The Bible does not condemn gay marriage, it condemns homosexuality. This means that if God is real, lots of people might go to Hell for their lifestyle, whether or not it is sanctioned by law. Why then are Christian's wasting their time on a issue that, eternally speaking, does not matter?

Which brings me to my last point. Someone eating cheesecake does not threaten my goal to lose weight, unless I really, really want some cheesecake. Is it possible that the reason so many people feel that gay marriage poses a threat to their marriage is because they want the cheesecake? Or is Ted Haggard, writer of much anti-gay legislation, just an anomaly?

What do you think?

Coming Soon:

Intelligent design?

A very Atheist Christmas!

Intellectual Honesty!

The Atheist's Nightmare

2008-12-01T19:09:00.004-07:00

Due to finals and the recent holiday, last week's blog was a few days late. Since the conversation from the last post is still ongoing, and since I am a little OCD and desperate to get this blog back to it's Monday night/Tuesday morning schedule, here is a bonus blog:

The Atheist's Nightmare.

What do Atheists have nightmares about?

The ramification of being alone in an infinitely large universe?

The possibility that Hell is real and we are condemned to it?

A dream where that one night stand you had a year ago now has a kid who looks just like you?

No. According to Growing Pain's Kirk Cameron and Australia's most annoying evangelist Ray Comfort, when Atheists wake up screaming in the middle of the night, it is because of this:

Sure, the banana originated in Malaysia and would not have been known to Adam, Eve or anyone else in the Bible;

And sure, the banana actually had to become domesticated by farmers over hundreds of years to make it the eatable fruit we have now;

But I know it still keeps me up at night.

What do you think?

Coming Soon:

Gay Marriage!

Intelligent Design?

Special Christmas Edition!

Is the Bible the Basis for Morality?

2008-11-26T16:29:00.003-07:00

Some four hundred years or so before Jesus, there was a bald, pug-nosed man named Socrates who asked very annoying questions. One of these questions went something like this: Are certain actions good because God approves of them or does God approve of them because they are good?

Good question.
There are over six hundred direct commandments and laws that can be found in the Bible. Not to mention narrative accounts and poetry that are full of people making moral choices. Many, if not most, Christians believe these laws and stories to be the gold standard of moral action. It is the book by which we all should live. I have personally been told that if I just lived according to the Bible, even without believing in God, my life would be infinitely better.

To be sure, the Bible has some really great stuff in it. Love your enemies. Pray for those that hate you. Feed the poor and take care of widows and orphans. Be full of "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" Gal. 5:22-23. My life would certainly be better if I practiced these things. In fact, most of the time I do.

But there are some other things in the Bible as well. Some border on what we would now consider to be ridiculous. Such things like: Do not plant two kinds of seed in the same field or wear clothing made of two or more kinds of fabric (Lev. 19:19). Or any woman that is on her period is unclean, and anyone who touches her or sits where she has sat is also unclean (Lev 15:19-20).

Then there are portions of the Bible that are cool with slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46,Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2).

The Bible is also in full support of genocide and often commands it (see: the entire books of Joshua and Judges, Exodus 34:11-14, Leviticus 26:7-9).

Of course, my favorite is Leviticus 20:9, which commands that you stone to death any child that curses their parents.

"Unfair!," one might cry. "Most of those scriptures are in the Old Testament." True, but Christians have no problem with the Old Testament when they use it to condemn homosexuals. Plus, 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that "All Scripture is God-Breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Which means that passages of the Bible like Ezekiel 23: 20 which says "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." has just as much of a right to be taught in Sunday school as anything else.

The list goes on and on, but I think that we are starting to get the point. Rape, cold-blooded murder, Genocide and slavery are all things that we abhor as being immoral. But how can we say that if these things are in the Bible? If the Bible is the standard of our morality, the way in which we decide whether or not something is good or bad, Why don't we see all of these actions as good and moral? Why choose to Love our enemies instead of destroy them? How do we choose which action is the moral one?

Are certain actions good only because they are in the Bible? Or does the Bible approve of some actions because they are good? Is it possible that there is another source of our morality that does not come from a Book?

Coming up:

Intelligent Design?

And our special Holiday edition:

Let's Keep Christ Out of Christmas!

How "Godly" is God?

2008-11-17T22:43:00.000-07:00

I usually think to think of myself as more of a Spock than a Kirk or McCoy. Even headed, rational, not easily angered or overly emotional. But there are times when I lose it. There are times when I experience what my old church calls "righteous indignation".

One of my more recent experiences with such rage happened this last September. I was watching some Christian television (as I am known to do from time to time) and I happened upon a documentary about 9/11. In it, there was a young man who told the story of how his grandma "was awoken by the Lord" that morning and called him to tell him not to go into work that day. Of course, this young man worked at the World Trade Center and decided to heed his grandma's advice. God saved him. God saved him? Him? God stepped into space and time to intervene on behalf of this one person. Which is great. Except for the fact that Three thousand other people, many of whom were surely Christians, died horribly tragic deaths at the same time.
It's not just this guy either. Check the news after any major tragedy or national disaster. There is always somebody being interviewed with a similar story. God saved someone's daughter from a flood. A married couple were "miraculously" the only survivors of a plane crash. Praise God. Isn't he good?

This is not a discussion about the problem of pain. This is not about why people suffer and why God allows bad things to happen (though I am sure we will discuss this soon). The question at hand is this: why does God intervene on behalf of only some people instead of helping the masses? Why does he heal some people of cancer instead of giving the world the cure? If suffering and pain have a purpose (and God must have a purpose since he allows it) why alleviate it in some people?

Consider this: You sit down to a wonderful dinner with your family. The food smells fantastic and you are eager to dive in and chow down. Before you can do this, however, you bow your head to say grace. Perhaps it is a memorized prayer, maybe it is something just off the cuff, but the gist usually goes something like "God is great, God is good and we thank Him for our food." At the same time that this scenario is happening, there are literally millions who are dying of starvation. Does God not love them? When we attribute our food, or material wealth, as a blessing from God, don't we also cast blame on Him for his lack of blessing in other parts of the world?

Christians love to credit God for when good things happen. God just seems to go crazy helping people find their wallets and car keys and jobs and lost pets. But these same people seem to be strangely silent when tragedy strikes. We never want to blame God for sickness, for hurricanes, for pointless death. But how can one exist without the other? God may not have caused these disasters to happen, but by choosing to not intervene when He is able certainly casts some blame on to him. Especially when He does intervene sometimes for no clear reason at all.

How can we call this God good? By whose standards are we deciding this?

When I was in bible school, I visited the father of a friend of mine in the hospital. He was dying of cancer. Not according to him, though. He believed firmly that God had healed him. This man, this father of several children, was a pious and God-fearing man. He had full faith and trust that God would perform miracles on behalf of those who loved and worshiped Him. We prayed for this man beside his hospital bed. We thanked God for his benevolence and mercy. We praised Him for healing this father. A week later I attended his funeral. Albert Camus once said, "Since the order of world is regulated by death, perhaps is it better for God we do not believe in him." Perhaps this is true. Perhaps I do God a service by not believing in Him, for otherwise He would have to answer for the indiscriminate cruelty that is represented in his silence for some and his attention towards others.

Coming Soon:

IS the Bible the Basis of Our Morality?

Gay Marriage!

Intelligent design?

Abortion: A Major Mess Over a Mass of Nerves?

2008-11-11T08:42:00.000-07:00

As my fingers find themselves settling in over the home keys, I feel my heart begin to race. Abortion is a heated topic. An extremely heated topic. And much more complicated than either side of the debate would like to admit. The issue has become especially sensitive in the light of our most recent election. Here in Colorado, A very heavy Anti-Abortion amendment to the state Constitution was voted down. Nationally, A Pro-Choice President will be sworn into office soon. Emotions have been heightened by these results. Which is precisely why it is important to discuss this as best we can.
So let's stop wasting time and get into it shall we?

A few months ago, The Swiss Government wrote a Bill of Rights for plants. I'm Serious. Check out the story here: . The Panel who authored this Bill of Rights agreed that, "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Under this Bill of Rights, it could become considered murder for one to pick a flower.
I don't think that I am alone when I say that this is absolutely absurd. But I bet I am also not alone in seeing where I am going with this. Just because something is alive, does not mean that it is a life.
There must be something that separates humans from flowers. Humans are self-aware. Humans are sentient. We are a life. Plants are none of these things. They grow, but they do not know they are growing or why that matters.
The question is which category does a fetus fit into? It certainly looks human (it has fingernails!) but has it reached the point of being self-aware? At what stage does a sperm became Human?

The Pro-Life Argument:
The majority of the Pro-Life side of the debate seem to be believers in some sort of God. And not just any sort of God, but a God that is presently active in every human life. This is important to note, as this presents the main thrust of their argument. Which can be summed up pretty well through this clip:

Or, in other words, Pregnancy and Human life does not happen haphazardly. It results from the intentional will of God. As The prophet Jeremiah said "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart" -Jeremiah 1:5. Christians believe that every person that has ever walked this Earth was known by God and created for a purpose. Thus life has begun before the sperm even meets the egg. Every fetus is full of intended potential. Which is why abortion is considered murder. Abortion cuts short the purpose that God had for that life, as well as the lives of all whom it would impact.

The Pro-Choice Argument:
Abortions are horrible things. No one will deny that. I know of no one who gets excited by the prospect of it. But is abortion murder? I don't know. I can't even pretend to know. I hope I never have to make that decision. I feel emotionally overwhelmed by the prospect of it. But here is what I wonder about the issue:

An estimated six out of ten pregnancies end in miscarriage, many times before the mother even knows she has conceived. What was God's purpose for those children?

Is existence always better than non-existence? What if that existence consists of poverty, parents who do not want or love you, or a crippling developmental disease? Is it conceivable that it would be better to have never lived at all?

Many opponents of abortion are for capital punishment. Some are strong supporters of the wars that are country is presently involved in. Is life not sacred for criminals and soldiers? What about civilian casualties and the falsely convicted?

I don't have answers to these questions. Which is why I now open up the table for discussion. What do you think? What questions do you have? What points and ideas have I missed entirely?

Let's discuss. Again with the respect and dignity that all thinking people deserve.

Coming Soon:

How "Godly" is God?

Is the Bible the True Basis for Morality?

The Believer's Choice: Where we will discuss whatever the Christian readers suggest.

A proper Introduction

2008-11-08T09:36:00.000-07:00

This blog is my feeble attempt to facilitate a conversation about God, religion and ethics. I consider myself a moral agnostic (no, these things are not contradictory). I believe in right and wrong. I believe that there is such a thing as absolute Truth. I do not believe that Christianity is the source of either of these things.
But here's the deal: I could be wrong. I know I could be wrong. In fact, sometimes I find myself trying very hard to prove myself wrong. I like the idea of God. I would love to believe that He exists. The problem is that there is very little to no evidence of such a being. As of now, I believe that the existence of God is not True. Thus I started this blog. To explain why I believe what I believe. To challenge believers to prove me wrong.

After all, does not the Bible say in Jeremiah 29:13 that if we seek God we will find Him if we seek Him will all of our hearts? And does not it also say in John 14:6 that Jesus Christ is Truth? Should not my search for truth lead me directly to God? The Truth should not be shaken by even the hardest of my questions. The Truth should not only stand to Scrutiny, but actually be confirmed by it.
Christians seem to love to talk about C.S. Lewis (someone we will talk a lot about on here, I am sure). Lewis was an Atheist who, as the story goes, tried to prove God false. Not only did he fail in his endeavor, he became one of the greatest defenders of the Christian faith in the last century.
I feel that I am a sort of a Anti-Lewis. I started out trying to prove that God is real, but the more I investigate the less I believe.

So come on all of you Christians, Atheists, and everyone in between. Let's discuss these things that really matter. And let us do it with respect and dignity, with the utmost of scrutiny and most importantly intellectual honesty.

Any one want to chime in?

Coming Soon:

Abortion!

How "godly" is God?

The Moral Unbeliever!

Hello, my name is Ryan

2008-11-07T17:10:00.000-07:00

I am an agnostic.

A non-believer.

An apostate.

I am also a student of the bible and philosophy.

A seeker of truth.

These are my labels. This is who I am. This is my blog.

A more elaborate intro will be coming soon.