Punctum Saliens

Of all the miracles in the gospels, there are only six where Jesus says “Your faith has made you well” (or something like that). What did Jesus mean by this rarely spoken phrase? Something about the people involved in these miracles was special, different from the rest.

I can imagine that the attitude of most of the people whom Jesus healed was similar to my attitude when I take Excedrin for a headache. It worked last time and the time before that and the time before that. It’ll work this time, too. I mean, when you see a man healing person after person of affliction after affliction day after day, how hard is it to believe that if you ask him to heal you he will be able to? Most of the people were in it for the physical healing and that’s it. They simply believed that this man called Jesus was able to heal. Now, that’s not to say that this type of healing is not life-altering. If I had been blind since birth or if I had just died and Jesus healed me, I’d be fairly likely to follow him around town as a convert to whatever he was teaching. Healing can be life changing, no doubt. But of the people whose faith was instrumental in their healing, not one of them is on record as becoming a devoted follower of Jesus.

The one miracle of the six that I find most interesting was also found most interesting by 75% of the gospel writers. (I also find it very interesting that John does not record any of these six miracles nor does he record Jesus ever saying “Your faith has made you well.”) The miracle to which I refer is the healing of the woman with the hemorrhage (Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:24-34, Luke 8:42-48). To paraphrase, a woman who has been afflicted with an incurable hemorrhage for 12 years gets it into her head that if she merely touches Jesus’ clothes that she would be healed. I find this fascinating because this was not Jesus’ regular modus operandi. The laying on of hands was the usual healing method. Furthermore, this woman was not going to ask Jesus if she could touch his clothes — she was just going to do it. Now, the moment she decides to put her plan into action seems a most inopportune time. A crowd is around Jesus, pressing against him, so much so that no could figure out who it was that had touched him. So, imagine a woman who was most likely rather frail from being sick for 12 years pushing her way through a crowd, getting stepped on, elbowed in the ribs, pushed and bumped, all in order to do something she had never seen done before but which she is convinced will heal her. Why did she not just ask Jesus to heal her? Why did she choose that particular time? Who knows. All we know is that it worked!

But let’s look at how it worked. Jesus did not touch her. Jesus did not give his healing power to her. Instead, he felt that his power had gone out of him. Jesus didn’t give — she took — his power. Jesus, in this case, was more of a medium than a source of power. This woman transformed herself with God’s power and used Jesus as the conduit or medium to take that power. I think this particular miracle is the most illustrative of the phrase “your faith has made you well.” This was all her. Jesus was more of a bystander in this one. Yes, of course, it was his power that healed her and it was her touching his clothes that healed her and he knew all along who had touched him. But she did this with no precedent for her method and no sane reason to think it would work.

And so, I think this is what Jesus meant by faith. It’s not believing that something you’ve seen happen before will happen again. It’s not believing that Jesus has the power to heal physical afflictions — of course he does. It’s not believing that Jesus can use that power to heal — of course he can. That’s all belief and not faith — I believe that Excedrin will help my headaches. Faith is knowing that the power Jesus had is available to you for the taking and can transform your life.

This woman was constantly bleeding — her life-force had been ebbing away for 12 years. She needed to be transformed in order regain her life and her vitality and she knew exactly how to effect that transformation. This woman was going to touch Jesus’ clothes, be healed, and leave! She wasn’t planning on sticking around. Jesus, himself, was not what was important to her. The power of Jesus was what she wanted. The faith that made her well was not faith in Jesus but the faith that this transformation was possible; the faith that this mundane, life-force-sucking world is not all there is.

So I’m reading Thomas Merton and D.T. Suzuki on Christian and Buddhist mysticism. I am really feeling a connection with mysticism and how it allows for more than one answer even when the multiple answers appear contradictory. But I’m also feeling very frustrated and … hopeless. I don’t have time for mysticism! I’ve got too little time to deal with my normal, everyday life let alone work on attaining enlightenment. I’m lucky if I get an hour of meditation in a day. It’s especially difficult because the only time I can really meditate is when my daughter takes a nap — late night meditation has not been going well lately. So I’ve got to be ready when she goes to sleep because she sometimes sleeps an hour or less. So, unless I’m “on the cushion” toot sweet, I have to stop “in the middle.” Plus, an hour a day seems trivial and worthless compared to the Desert Fathers who left society to find God. Most of them still had issues years later so how the hell am I supposed to get anywhere still immersed in society and meditating an hour a day?

Where is the get-it-now answer to my problem? Where is the infomercial that promises results before I can finish giving my credit card number? It’s right here, all around us. It’s called mainstream Christianity! The fast-acting and long-lasting solution. Get saved right now and you’re saved forever — and they really mean forever! This is the greatest delusion that Christianity perpetrates on the “lost” but it’s also why it’s so popular — it’s easy.

In a way, it’s too easy. But it’s also the most difficult thing. (paradox — love it!) It’s easy because all you have to do is “believe in Him” and you “shall not perish but have eternal life.” But, at least for me, it’s the most difficult thing because what I have to believe is unbelievable and amazingly incomplete! They make it sound simple. “Accept Jesus Christ into your heart.” In Billy Graham’s column, his answer to every single problem was to accept Jesus into your life. But what the hell does that mean??? No one tells you that. And that’s the great delusion — this one time act, according to them, which can be done in a moment of weakness or desperation or terror, is enough to counterbalance a lifetime of doing the most rotten, despicable, awful, repugnant, evil, vile things imaginable. Salvation, to them, is not a life-long process. It’s one single, solitary, isolated, independent act.

Sure, you’re supposed to grow in your Christian life but how much can you really grow going to church a couple hours a week? At least my parents drug us to church twice on Sundays plus Wednesday nights! And if you don’t make any progress well that’s ok, too, because God’s grace is sufficient and as long as you confess all your shortcomings and you really promise to try harder then it’s all hunky dory. All you really have to do is read your Bible and pray. Well, and look the part. That’s the most important thing — nice suit and tie on Sunday morning to cover up all that you don’t want the rest of them to see.

And there’s sermons on the fruits of the Spirit and how to have the faith-filled life and all that jazz. But those are offset by sermons on eternal security and how Paul even had trouble doing what was right. A little coaxing to keep moving and grow but a lot of reassurance if you just can’t quite do it.

So, go ahead and buy into their delusion if you want to. Convince yourself that going to church on Sunday morning and reading the “feel-good” passages in the Bible are enough. Keep a stiff upper lip during the really bad times so no one knows you have doubts. But that’s not what I’m doing. And I may not get very far in this lifetime but at least I’m trying to do something that means something — to me, at least.

Well, it’s like what working for the government used to be. And it’s like what being a tenured professor used to be. In other words, you couldn’t get fired. The ultimate job security. You could sit around and do enough to just get by. And nobody cared a whole lot.

And that’s what Christianity is like. Once you “accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your own personal savior” you’re on easy street. Sure you should go to church and you should read your Bible and you should pray. But, hey, it’s not works that save you. It’s God’s grace. You don’t deserve anything at all from God so going to church or not going to church isn’t going to change anything. Yeah, yeah there’s all that talk about the Fruits of the Spirit and your faith is demonstrated by your works. But really, in the end, all you have to do is “accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your own personal savior.”

Most Christians who do go to church and read their Bibles just end up listening. They listen to the “feel good about yourself and your life” sermons and they listen to encouraging words and rationalizations for why they’re believe what they’re told to believe. How much do they really work at their salvation? How much do they really grow in their relationship with Jesus?

And this is what I was whining about in my last post. Mainstream and Fundamentalist Christianity is all about getting people to believe. What happens after that doesn’t matter because all you have to do is believe. It’s so freakin’ easy that anyone can do it! Which is the attraction. You don’t have to be a monk or in a convent or work at it full time. You don’t have to quit your day job and all your extra curricular activities. Go to church on Sunday morning and you’re good to go. A Wednesday evening prayer meeting (does anyone do that anymore?) once in a while for a little extra credit. From day one, you’re good to go. Accept Jesus Christ one minute, die the next, and you’re being ushered past the pearly gates into your own private mansion on your own private cul-de-sac of gold.

But what about the mystical versions of religions? The mystics have to work. And work hard! A lifetime of meditation, contemplation, introspection. And what happens if a mystic dies the day after she takes up mysticism? Well, she gets to start all over again next time around. Meditation — training the mind — is extremely difficult. But that’s how the mystic encounters God. It’s not an instant conversion type experience.

But there are those of us for whom the easy way out does not work. We desire a much more intimate relationship with God — more intimate than hearing about him while sitting in church on Sunday. More intimate than just reading what he’s said in the past. More intimate than talking to the wall and pretending he’s listening. And so, because we desire more, we must work more. And so, I’ll get back on “the cushion” tomorrow and meditate again. Take the good days with the bad. I’ll think about true mystics like Suzuki, Merton, Eckhart, Wilber, etc. who were/are much further along the path than I’ll ever be in this lifetime and I’ll be envious of them. I’ll even bitch and moan a little bit about it but I’ll still get back on the cushion tomorrow.

So, I’m trying to meditate again. And it’s hard work! Lately I’ve been fighting my body more than my mind. I get fidgety and I just can’t talk myself into staying still. I’m not giving up — no matter what — but it’s still frustrating some most days.

And then I start thinking about how I have a lifetime of meditation ahead of me. A lifetime of sitting and working on quieting my mind. A lifetime of working hard to focus and try and reach the next level, get past the next koan. A lifetime with no assurance of achieving kensho. I read what some of the Christian mystics write and they don’t see themselves very far along the path and that’s all they do! How can I, a non-monk regular working Dad, supposed to make any progress?

And then I start thinking about fundamentalist, evangelical, literalist Christians. Believe in Jesus and you get into heaven. Live a 100% sinful, evil life and repent at the last moment and get into heaven. Simply accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior and get into heaven. It just takes one act of simple belief and your problems are solved. Sure you need to live your life in a certain way but the act of believing seals your fate. It’s so simple a caveman could do it. After you “do it,” even if you fail and sin and stumble, a simple confession makes it all right as rain again. Read your Bible, pray, go to church and you maintain your status of “saved.”

It’s all so simple and all so unfair that I cannot “simply” believe.

Bertrand Russell, in an essay titled Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?, writes:

… Perhaps we might … ask ourselves whether we have any evidence of purpose in the universe apart from the purposes of living beings on the surface of this planet.

The usual argument of religious people on this subject is roughly as follows: “I and my friends are persons of amazing intelligence and virtue. It is hardly conceivable that so much intelligence and virtue could have come about by change. There must, therefore, be someone at least as intelligent and virtuous as we are who set the cosmic machinery in motion with a view to producing Us.” I am sorry to say that I do not find this argument so impressive as it is found by those who use it. …

Then again, considered as the climax to such a vast process, we do not really seem to me sufficiently marvelous. Of course, I am aware that many divines are far more marvelous than I am, and that I cannot wholly appreciate merits so far transcending my own. Nevertheless, even after making allowances under this head, I cannot but think that Omnipotence operating through all eternity might have produced something better. … So far as scientific evidence goes, the universe has crawled by slow stages to a somewhat result on this earth and is going to crawl by still more pitiful stages to a condition of universal death. If this is to be taken as evidence of purpose, I can only say that the purpose is one that does not appeal to me. I see no reason, therefore, to believe in any sort of God, however vague and however attenuated. (emphasis mine)

And I’ve heard others object on similar grounds with something like: “I just can’t believe in a God who would …” and fill in “condemn millions to Hell” or “let little children suffer” or “allow such evil to exist.”

But, I wonder. Does God have to do what WE want him to or think he should? We try to hold God to some “moral” standard that seems right to us. We accuse God of not acting to eliminate evil — should be easy for him, no? After all, God is an omnipotent, omniscient, awesomely powerful being so he should be able to erase evil from the world!

But … God is an omnipotent, omniscient, awesomely powerful being. What gives us the right to hold him accountable for anything he does or does not do? Russell makes the same claim — “I am aware that many divines are far more marvelous than I am, and that I cannot wholly appreciate merits so far transcending my own” — and then claims to be able to see beyond his own limitations — “Nevertheless, even after making allowances …”

But is seeing beyond our own limitations really possible?

The second line of objection I mentioned above can basically be labeled as double standards. God says one thing and then does another. A God of love condemns people to Hell. A God of love allows suffering and evil. God says “Thou shalt not kill” and then kills. God says not to be jealous and then calls himself a “jealous God.”

Here is one example of a double standard that every single person in the world has taken part in — and in most cases, on both sides.

Little Johnny is five years old. He can’t vote, drink, drive, or serve in the military. He must be in bed by 8:00. He should not swear, fight, yell, hit, be selfish or stubborn, or tell lies — even tiny white lies. He must always be polite, share, say “please” and “thank you.” He must eat all his broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and beans. He should not date, make out, watch porn, or have sex.

Little Johnny’s dad, however can vote, drink, drive, and serve in the military. He does not have to be in bed by 8:00. He can swear, fight, yell, hit, be selfish or stubborn, and tell white lies. He does not always need to polite, share, say “please” and “thank you.” He can throw his broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and beans in the garbage if he wants. He can date, make out, watch porn, and have sex (all on the same night, if he wants).

Is this a double standard? Dad tells Johnny to not lie and then tells white lies to Johnny’s mother about how that dress makes her look. Dad tells Johnny to not be selfish and then misses Johnny’s school play because he was too busy. Dad tells Johnny not to swear and then calls Bush a dumb $%&@#$%&!.

Yes, this is a double standard but Johnny’s dad can get away with it because he’s an adult and he’s Johnny’s dad. Now, I submit to you that the gap between God and us is a tad bigger than that between a parent and child. So, if Johnny’s dad is not held to the same standard that Johnny is, then why should God be held to the same standard that we are?

We experience tragedy. Whether it’s a hurricane, an earthquake, the early or unexpected death of a loved one, a mass shooting, or a terrorist attack which kills dozens or hundreds or thousands … we experience tragedy. And we have, as a race, experienced tragedy for thousands of years (or longer, depending on your viewpoint). So, I wonder why tragedy still takes us by surprise. Why are we always left reeling and searching for answers when bad things happen? Why do we not have the answers; or at least an inkling of an answer?

It seems that instead of seeking meaning in a tragic event we try to figure out who is to blame. It’s all God’s fault or the President’s or this agency’s or that company’s or that person’s or the Devil’s. As long as we can blame someone and focus on bringing that person to justice or bad-mouthing him or her long and hard enough we can get past the event and get on with our lives. But by doing this, we don’t learn a damn thing! Which is why, the next time something bad happens, we are dazed and confused all over again.

I think that it is religion’s place to give us reasons for tragedy. After all, religion lives with ideas about God and evil and morality and the after-life and the before-life. And religions have been trying to explaining the unknowable to us for as long as we can remember. So why, after thousands and thousands of years of religion, haven’t we gotten an answers that can be used in the real world? Why does tragedy still knock us off our feet?

Some of it, of course, is probably that we are not listening because we’re too busy blaming. But if our religious leaders have the answers, why are they not making us sit down and shut up and listen? And if they don’t have the answers, why not? Did the religious leaders of long ago have the answers but they were lost? If no one ever had the answers, then what good are the religions we have?

Maybe it’s time to be open to new religions or further evolve our current religions so that we can get the answers we need so desperately.

Reading this post and the subsequent comments about Jerry Falwell was like listening to a bunch of 2nd graders bicker. “Was not” “Was to” “Not” “To” “Not” …

Basically the anti-Falwellians were complaining about how intolerant he was. The pro-Falwellians then criticized the anti’s for being intolerant hypocrites. All which reminded me of something I’ve been mulling over on the back burner of my mind for a while:

What does it mean to be tolerant? Can you be tolerant of those who are intolerant?

If I have a migraine, I can either tolerate the pain or I can take something to make the pain go away. The latter is not the same as the former.

If there is someone who holds beliefs different from mine, I can either tolerate that person and his/her beliefs or I can (try to) convert her/him to my own beliefs. The latter (attempted conversion) is not the same as the former (religious tolerance).

Christian Fundamentalists are — by self-definition, I would say — an intolerant bunch because of the exclusivity of their beliefs. It’s kind of like having someone claim that 2+2=5. You can tolerate that belief all you want but that person really is wrong and in need of correction. That’s how the Christian Fundamentalist feels. Everyone else really is wrong and in need of correcting. Jesus said “I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life,” after all. Tolerance is no more an option here than with arithmetical errors.

And that’s their belief. And so we, non-Christian-Fundamentalists, who are all for tolerance and religious pluralism, should respect that belief and be tolerant ourselves and let them believe what they want, no?

Of course we should, BUT …

But what if they don’t keep their beliefs to themselves? What if they try to make me do something I don’t want to do or try to stop me from doing something I do want to do by getting legislation passed or influencing the government or getting elected to political offices? What if they don’t just practice their religion on Sunday but bring it to work with them on Monday? And what if they let their crazy religious ideas influence how they act?

What if they try to pass anti-abortion laws to prevent me from having an abortion even when I believe that abortion is my decision and my right? I mean, if they are against abortion then they shouldn’t have one. But to tell me what I can and can’t do is not right. Doesn’t it make more sense — isn’t it being more tolerant — to not have anti-abortion laws? That way, everyone can follow their own beliefs.

Or what about homosexuals and same-sex marriages? Same deal applies.

So, what if they don’t play well with others? How can we be tolerant of them when they are so intolerable?

…

Well, unfortunately, I don’t have the answer … yet. Comments, anyone???

Different aspects of Christianity are handled differently. Some are considered “well defined” by the Bible. Some are “assumed true” even though we cannot fully comprehend them. Some are “tolerated” as paradoxical since both the one and the other hands are found in the Scriptures. And some are left as “things not to be asked” or “ill-posed” questions.

Topics such as the Trinity, Baptism, the existence of Evil are debated between Christian and non-Christian but also between Christian and “Christian”. Some Christians even go so far as to claim that certain beliefs about these topics are “wrong enough” as to bring the holder’s status as a “true Christian” into question. But everyone points to Scripture as the basis of their belief so it really comes down to interpretation.

I’ve read elsewhere and been taught that it is hermeneutically correct (and, indeed, necessary) to not base any doctrine or theological stance on certain Scriptures that put forth an idea which is opposed, and more voluminously so, elsewhere. So, there are “orphaned” verses, so to speak, that are not part of any doctrine, dogma, theology, etc. Well, at least “mainstream” doctrine, dogma, theology — however that is defined.

If these verses are to be ignored and treated as irrelevant to any disucssion then why are they part of the Scriptures? Remember that we are talking about the inerrant, inspired Word of God. Are they artifacts of a dead-end plot point? Are they remnants of God’s first draft of theology — a first draft that didn’t quite “work”? Or, are they glimpses of alternate “theologies” which are valid but other than the “popular” ones touted by our theologeans.

Might these alternate theologies mesh better with world views other than our own, Western Christian view? And if they do, might that not lend some credence to them? And if that be the case, can we really dismiss then as “wrong”?

Just a thought …

Why do we believe what we believe? I think that it’s because the beliefs we choose to believe are the ones that “work” for us. That is, there is something about the belief that attracts us. The belief makes “sense” to us. The promised results of believing are manifested. This is also the exact way that I word my main reason for leaving the Fundamentalist Christianity in which I was raised from the womb: it just didn’t “work” for me.

Christianity does work for some people — my parents, for example. They see God’s hand everywhere and feel God’s presence. They live “by the grace of God” through all their physical problems. They are not disillusioned by God’s “testing” them with yet another difficulty. And many people are converted to Christianity because it just makes sense — people like Lee Strobel and Ravi Zacharias. It just plain works for them. And that’s great. More power to them. But just because it works for you doesn’t mean that it will work for me no matter how hard I try.

I have seasonal allergies. I’ve had them my whole life and everywhere I’ve lived. Some years it’s not too bad and other years it is bad. Sometimes the only thing that gets me through is to overdose on allergy medicine, crank the AC to arctic conditions, sit down with my head tilted slightly back and go to sleep. When I’m in this condition, the worst thing possible is to be around someone who does not have any allergies. They just don’t understand what I’m feeling and can’t believe that all I want to do is sleep all day and all they want to do is go outside and do something. They just can’t sympathize or empathize. That’s how it is with Christians for whom Christianity really works. “If it works for me then it’ll work for anyone” … “You just have to hang in there” … “You can’t blame God or the church or your family” “God will see you through” … and on and on.

This is one reason I don’t think that Christianity can be the one and only true religion. It is unrealistic to force every person from every culture to believe the exact same thing and have those beliefs be alive and meaningful. Why do you think there are different cultures to begin with? The anti-pluralist Christians who say that everyone must be a Christian (and especially their flavor Christian) are a lot like Captain James T. Kirk who zooms around the universe telling everyone he meets that their brand of society and government is wrong and they need to be a democracy — just like his society. Democracy just doesn’t work for everyone the same way. And neither does religion.

For proof, I show you ol’ J.C. himself. Now many Christians will say that Jesus did not break from Judaism but only fulfilled the Old Testament and the prophecies. But it seems pretty clear to me that the Old Testament concept of God was not “working” for the Jews anymore. The Old Testament concept of God was not helping them cope with their current situation with the Romans. They needed something different. And that’s exactly what Jesus brought them. A new concept of God — the same God, so to speak, but a different way of approaching him and a different way of worshiping him. Something new that “worked” for them. So, if Jesus brought something new to a people for whom the old religions were not working, then how can you possibly think that 2000 years later the same Christianity should be expected to work for us?

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.