Monthly Archive for February, 2007

More on The Blasphemy Challenge

Published
by
Ken
on February 13, 2007
in atheism, belief, christian fundamentalism, christianity, fundamentalism and religion
. 0 Comments

After an anonymous commenter (apparently he or she is not afraid of the Holy Spirit but is afraid if me) called me a moron in response to my post about the The Blasphemy Challenge I decided to do a little more investigating. Yes, I admit that I did not read very much on TBC’s website (tsk tsk). But I went back and viewed their very brief FAQ. Here are some more comments …

Why do you care?

It isn’t just adult Christians who are indoctrinated with the frightening ideology of Christian belief. In fact, most Christians are indoctrinated as children. These children are told that they must believe the following: That 2000 years ago a man died, stayed dead three days, rose from the dead and then flew into the air above the clouds– and right now this man is with them as their invisible companion and savior from Hell, if only they will submit to him. If this bizarre theory were not religious in nature, teaching it to children would probably be considered child abuse.

Personally, I don’t see anything frightening at all about what TBC’s FAQ says Christian children must believe. And this is not all that bizarre when you look at any religious belief. It’s also not at all bizarre when you compare it to the fairy tales and myths that are routinely believed by children. Things like “Santa Claus is watching you to see if you are naughty or nice” and “he knows when you are sleeping”. That is closer to child abuse than the Christian tenets listed above. TBC is missing the whole point — in my opinion. It’s not the Christianity that is the enemy — it’s the Fundamentalism.

How will The Blasphemy Challenge help?

Religious dogma has one chief means of support: Our unwillingness to criticize it in public. If we talked about religion the same way we talk about science, history or other fields involving truth claims, dogma would wither in the light. The Blasphemy Challenge, by addressing a truth claim of Christianity, is intended to provoke this sort of conversation.

A couple points here. First, how is asking people to blaspheme “addressing a truth claim?” The only way to determine that the “truth claim” is false is to demonstrate that the expected outcome does not happen. The only way to demonstrate that the expected outcome does not happen is to wait until all the people who blasphemed are dead and see if they ended up in Hell or not. But, anyone who blasphemed who was not a Christian would be in Hell anyway so there would still be no proof that it was the blasphemy that put them there. So, the only real test would be to have a Christian blaspheme and then see if that peson ended up in Hell. But I doubt that a true believer would want to blaspheme unless, of course, they would be willing to lose their eternal soul in the hopes of saving others. So, clearly this experiment is far from scientifically valid. If only the Bible said that anyone who blasphemes would be immediatley struck by lightning. Now that would be a verifiable result. But, alas, that is not the case.

Second, I think people have been criticizing religious dogma a lot longer than TBC gives them credit. But criticism is very different in the scientific community and in the religious community. If anyone has ever criticized a Christian Fundamentalist you know what I’m talking about. They do not take criticism well and usually it just makes them cling to their beliefs with more tenacity and close their ears and minds more tightly. Pissing off the Fundamentalists is not the way to get them to talk to you. I will guarantee that no “conversation” will be provoked by this.

Is it true that you are targeting young people with this campaign?

Yes. As young people are the most vulnerable to religious indoctrination, we feel it is important to reach them with the concept of challenging the doctrine they are told to unquestioningly believe.

In my opinion, Brian Flemming is as fanatical about being not Fundamentalist as the Fundamentalists are about being Fundamentalist. (Again, I saw the movie and these are my opinions. And these are opinions from someone who was in a situation very very similiar to Flemming’s.) Just because you don’t like Fundamentalism is no reason to trash all religious beliefs. If you don’t like Fundamentalism, then attack Fundamentalism! Don’t attack religion in general.

The FAQ talks about “religious indoctrination” and battling this by “challenging the doctrine” that Fundamentalists preach. But TBC is not about challenging any doctrine. TBC takes one idea out of an entire religion — an idea that it’s impossible to prove is wrong — and tries to base a new “anti-religion” on it. This is “religious indoctrination” of a different kind but it’s still indoctrination. “Don’t believe anything!” is as bad as “Only believe this!”.

Isn’t this just “fundamentalist atheism”?

That is a remarkably stupid question. The Rational Response Squad encourages people to inquire, argue, reason and doubt — not to believe something because they are told to. Free inquiry is the opposite of fundamentalism. The Blasphemy Challenge may be activist in nature, but it is hardly fundamentalist.

Again, I saw the movie and in my opinion the movie was very fundamentalist atheist. I got the impression that the movie was all about throwing out Christianity in its entirety and not about questioning your beliefs. TBC talks about free inquiry but also seems to say that you can’t believe the Christian dogma even if you want to. I’ll give my opinion one more time: It’s not Christianity that’s the enemy — it’s the Fundamentalism. Yet I see TBC attacking Christianity.

What does it mean to “believe”?

Published
by
Ken
on February 13, 2007
in belief, christianity and religion
. 0 Comments

I was thinking today about the creed I am writing on my What I Believe page and while I was jotting down some notes about God and Jesus and whatnot, the thought hit me: “So what?” I’m writing down all these ideas that are somewhat Christian but include ideas from other religions and I say that I’m trying to figure out what I believe but so far they are just ideas … thoughts. I don’t really believe these things because I don’t see them impacting my life. And I think that is the criteria for real belief — John 3:16 style belief.

If I really, truly believe something then that belief will be evident in what I do in my day to day life. If I really, truly believe in the sanctity of marriage then I will not have an affair no matter what opportunities present themselves. If I really, truly believe that by eating right and exercising daily I will feel better, look better, and live longer then I will eat right and exercise daily.

But I can “think” or “know” something without it impacting my life — and this is not, in my opinion, John 3:16 style belief. For example, I do not actually eat as well as I could (although I don’t eat poorly) and I don’t actually exercise very often even though I sometimes wish I had more energy and was a little thinner. So I can think or know that exercise has benefits but I really don’t believe it; otherwise I’d be on the cross trainer instead if sitting on my ass writing this.

So you say that you believe in God and Jesus and yada yada yada. But how does this belief impact your life? What do you do — every day — because of this belief? You say you believe in the virgin birth and in Jesus’ resurrection and that the Bible is the Word of God. But unless this belief affects the way you live your life every day, it’s merely intellectual knowledge like knowing the capital of Montana is Helena.

The Blasphemy Challenge

Published
by
Ken
on February 12, 2007
in atheism, christian fundamentalism, christianity, fundamentalism and religion
. 3 Comments

I stumbled upon The Blasphemy Challenge tonight. I saw the movie The God Who Wasn’t There and felt it was very … juvenile. Now I don’t mean this in a condescending way. What I mean is that Brian Flemming is in the same place that I was 20 years ago. I, too, was raised Fundamentalist Christian and made a break from it. And after my break I thought everything that even smelled Christian was hogwash, naive, and just plain stupid. But in that 20 years “away from it all,” I’ve grown to see that I was not rebelling against God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit. I was rebelling against Fundamentalism. And there is a huge difference. I will never rejoin the ranks of the Fundamentalists but I am no longer anti-everything-religious. I hope that Flemming and everyone who participates in the Blasphemy Challenge grow up to see the difference.

And as far as the Blasphemy Challenge goes … what’s the point? If these people are so sure God doesn’t exist then it’s pointless to do this. They might as well be denying The Great Pumpkin.

Check out the “Special Little Teapot”

Published
by
Ken
on February 11, 2007
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

This MBH is my favorite one so far.

Christians and Money

Published
by
Ken
on February 11, 2007
in christianity, jesus, money and wealth
. 0 Comments

In my posts No Christian should have a bank account or an IRA and Blogger Solves World Problems. Details at 11:00, was I exaggerating? I think that if you literally do what Jesus preached (and I mean literally as in the Bible is literally true and is literally the fully inspired, inerrant word of God and the Bible is literally absolute truth) then no, those were not exaggerations. But given how we interpret the Bible today (see my post The Bible and Society — which conforms to which?) I doubt we should be expected to take anything Jesus said as literally applying to us today since we are so far removed from the social situation of his time. But I would like you to think about a few things in light of Jesus’ generic commands of loving one another, helping one another, yada yada yada.

  • Should there be multi-millionare Christians? Is being a a plain old millionare not enough? Think about how much good those millions would do in the name of Jesus.
  • Should a Christian sock away 15% pre-tax in a 401(k) yet only tithe 10% (and often much less) post-tax?
  • Should a Christian drive the top of the line Mecedes sedan? The E-Class is pretty darn nice and think about how much good those tens of thousands of dollars would do in the name of Jesus.
  • Should a Christian have a basement full of stuff and a Public Storage space and a PODS full of stuff gathering moths and rust? Imagine if you sold everything you didn’t use or, better yet, didn’t buy it in the first place?
  • Should Christians take six-figure vacations or have six-figure weddings? Are they really necessary?
  • Should Christians work 60-70 hours a week and not have time to spend with his/her family let alone give of their time for others?

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Published
by
Ken
on February 11, 2007
in bertrand russell, christian fundamentalism, fear, fundamentalism and why i am not a christian
. 3 Comments

Motivated by Evangelical Anxieties 1: Is Christianity a Religion of Fear? on the Internet Monk I got back to and finished a post I’ve been working on. Bertrand Russel, in Why I am not a Christian, has this to say about fear and religion:

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing — fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of these two things.

Looking back on my experiences growing up, I can now see that there was a lot of fear. At the time, it was “just the way things were.” Fear was a necessary part of Christianity. Fear kept us in line. Fear was a great motivator. Here are some things that had a large fear-factor for me:

Communion: The Protestant communion we took once a month (you know, the trays of cracker niblets and Welch’s siplets passed around while we sat in the pews) was preceeded by a dire warning (at least it seemd dire to me then) to not be “unworthy” or some unnamed but horrible punishment would be executed on you. So, I spent the entire “quiet reflection” time before each course confessing all the sins I could think of so I would be worthy. For me there was no “In Remembrance of Me” — Jesus was the farthest thing from my mind. I was worried about my eternal soul.

Blame and Punishment: Every sinful act had to be assigned to a specific sinner and said sinner had to feel the consequences of said act. Most of the time, as a child, these consequences consisted of various objects being applied with a non-zero force to my sometimes bare ass. And by every sinful act I mean every. For example, while I was in Junior High School I twice lied about what I had for lunch. The first time I was severely warned. The second time I was spanked on my bare ass with a piece of wood. This was to punish my horrendous lie of saying I had a PBJ sandwich for lunch when I really just had a milkshake. Talk about being scared straight!

Fate of my Eternal Soul: I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal saviour when I was three. Then again when I was in elementary school. Then again when I was in Junior High. Then again when I was in High School. I was sure that I hadn’t done it right or that it didn’t take or that I had screwed up so badly that my salvation was taken away. For whatever reason the strength, power, and help that a Christian was supposed to receive from God just wasn’t there for me so I assumed that I must not have been a true Christian. And there’s no motivator quite like the fear of spending eternity with your hair on fire and TMJ from gnashing your teeth 24/7.

Failure: But despite my doubts about my salvation, I didn’t talk to anyone because that would be exposing my failures to everyone. And if I learned anything from my parents it was to hide all the uncomfortable feelings from everyone. I was expected to be a certain way and I played the part pretty well. It was just too scary to admit to anyone that I was faking it. And there would be consequences to pay and I just didn’t want to face them.

Things I was taught that were based on the fearful idea of “better safe than sorry”:

One Shot Deal: This life is the only chance you get. At the end of this life you are either going to Heaven (which is über good) or to Hell (which pretty much sucks). If you die tonight or tomorrow, that’s it. So, you should believe in Jesus Christ right now because you never know what will happen.

The Rapture: Jesus is coming back to earth again but this time as a “thief in the night.” Suddenly, everyone who is on the right side of the dogmatic fence will be gone — leaving behind the clothes they were wearing, the cars they were driving, the planes they were flying. Then Heaven help the rest of us. No one knows when it will happen. There are signs in the Bible but they are vague and probably every age could come up with a contemporary interpretation. It’s all meant to scare you into believing “just to be safe.”

The Tribulation: Ok, you say. Let the rapture happen and then I’ll believe. Sounds reasonable. But I was taught that there’s no free lunch here. There’s a catch to the wait and see strategy. You see, if anyone has heard about Jesus before the rapture it will not be possible for them to be saved after the rapture. Once again it’s “better safe than sorry.” I have no idea where the Biblical backup is for this position but that’s what I was told.

What makes a Christian a Christian?

Published
by
Ken
on February 10, 2007
in christianity, jesus and money
. 2 Comments

Most Christians probably thing that it’s what you believe that makes you “Christian.” But there’s a lot in the New Testament that talks about what you do. Works demonstrates your faith. Love is above all. We are to emulate Jesus. So, I’m wondering what’s more important: The spirit of Christianity or the letter of Christianity.

The early church of, say, 34 A.D. would have to be — almost by definition, one could say — the definition of Christianity. And, yes, perhaps the majority of Christians today believe the same things the early church did. That is, the dogmatic points are, perhaps, the same. But the … how should I say it … degree or intensity of belief seems to me to be very different because of what Christians do today compared to what Christians of 34 A.D. did.

For example, I think the typical sermon in the typical church on a typical Sunday morning today would be, at best, a distant cousin to the typical sermon in 34 A.D. The apostles and early church were preaching Jesus in public and baptizing in public and speading the gospel to everyone. Today, Christians are huddled inside their churches with the doors closed and may or may not welcome strangers but probably don’t even talk to them beyond a possible “Hello.” Gone are the days of public baptisms. Gone are the days of public sermons. And how often is the gospel preached on a Sunday morning from the pulpit? Probably very rarely because there are no unbelievers there!

The early church did amazing things to help one another — they were a real family. But today, it may not be at all uncommon on a Sunday morning to find a very wealthy Christian sitting right next to someone in serious financial trouble or even in poverty. Is there any assistence given? Is there even an acknowledgement of the need? I doubt it. Yet the early church members were having “everything must go” yard sales and giving to anyone in need.

And what of Christ — the namesake of Christianity. I imagine that the early church were very busy doing the things Jesus preached when he was on earth. The humility, the love, the giving, the helping. Quite the contrast to the Christians of today who are too busy driving to church in their $70,000+ cars and wearing their designer labels and who are too busy condemning the sinners of the world for their murdering abortions, deviant sexuality, godless liberalism and who are too busy trying to protect their business, political, personal image. They are too busy to hear what Jesus said they should do and only hear what everyone else should not do. Too busy to act like a Christian on Monday and help out a Christian in need. Too busy giving a little of their lot and not noticing the poor Christian giving a lot of their little.

Too busy being their version of a Christian to be Jesus’ version of a Christian.

One of my favorite movies is The Name of the Rose. The main reason I love this movie is the subplot of why all the various Christian sects are converging on this one abbey. They are all there to discuss the very important question: “Did Jesus own the clothes he wore?” To me, the various answers and rationalizations argued by the attendees is much less interesting than the question itself. That the question needed to be asked at all is what is meaningful. They were not discussing whether Jesus owned a one-hump or two-hump camel. They were not discussing whether Jesus wore designer labels or knock-offs. They were not discussing how much Jesus socked away for retirement. They were discussing whether Jesus owned or simply borrowed one of the most basic necessities of life — his clothes.

So I wonder: even though Christians today may share a handful of beliefs with the early church, is dogma enough to really be Christian?

The problem is “organized” religion … or is it?

Published
by
Ken
on February 1, 2007
in religion
. 2 Comments

I’ve actually heard people, well one person that I can remember, say this out loud — “The problem is organized religion”. And I sort of think the same way. But only sort of. I am currently not “affiliated” with any religion. Aside from the Kansas City Friends of Jung, I’m not a member of any church, temple, synagogue, congregation, gathering, meeting, club, circle, group, or troop. And I really don’t see myself participating in any “organized” religion in the near future.

The problem is that I also don’t participate in any religion. Period. And that’s something I need to change.

If we are going to condemn “organized” religion as the root of all evil then unorganized religion must be the holy grail. If “organized” religion is causing physical and psycological harm to the world then there must be another form or type of religion that is good. Otherwise we would leave off the “organized” adjective and just say “religion”.

Is it really the “organized” part that we don’t like or is it really the “organizers”? Or is it the dogma? Is it really possible to have a religion that is not “organized”? Weren’t the apostles “organized” in the early Christian church? What would a non-organized religion look like? I mean, it seems to me that Wiccans, Pagans, Animists, etc. are really all rather organized. They have books and meetings and levels, don’t they? Is it really just power-hungry, money-hungry authority figures that we abhor? Are there no power-hungry Wiccans?

Maybe I just don’t understand the definition of “organized” when it comes to religion.

So, I’m asking everyone who is against “organized” religion — and not just “religion” — to let me in on their secrets and explain their good-for-me religion. What spiritual practices to you do? How do you worship? Do you worship alone or in a small, unorganized group? How did you find your religion? What do you call your God? What happens after you die?

These are serious questions and I am petitioning serious answers. One of my goals for 2007 is to start some kind of spiritual practice. I don’t think it will be going to church but it has got to be something. I’ve been bad-mouthing other people’s religious beliefs far too long without having any of my own.

It’s time to starting doing … something.