I've been thinking about something over the past weeks. I have written twice about the impact that Christian thinking has on one's perception of humanity. And, obviously, I believe that perception is quite negative and exaggerated...and ultimately unhealthy.
But, this negative perception extends beyond mankind. Radical Christians tend to describe this entire world in that light. There is a tremendous focus on reaching the point of being freed from this world and living in a better one...to the extreme of describing this world as a place they cannot wait to escape.
When I speak with young earth creationists, they usually speak of the idea that we are descendants of non-human primates with utter disdain. Why is it so disgusting to think we are related to all other species on earth? I think that is very beautiful and in no way is an insult to humanity. I don't believe this makes us less "special." I have never seen a species, whether plant or animal, on this earth that is not beautiful in its own way. Many radical Christians have no problem trashing this earth and consuming its resources since they hold the planet itself in disdain. They have little regard for issues related to animal cruelty since they don't place much value on non-human animals. And, in the end, they miss out on the joy and even elation brought on by one's discovery of the tremendous beauty and value in this world.
How sad. There is so much in this world to embrace and enjoy. I recall Richard Dawkins stating in a video that many people say, "Isn't there more to life than this?" Dawkins gave his reply, "How much more do you want?" as the camera showed immensely beautiful pictures of oceans, mountains, and other scenes of almost unfathomable beauty.
I am happy to call the earth my home. I am happy and thankful to be a part of it. I find great peace, beauty, and a sense of belonging in accepting that I am a part of and related to all living things on this planet. I am in awe of the wondrous events that have occurred on this earth during the billions of years that life has been here before I arrived...and to understand that I am ultimately a product of those very events.
I enjoy my life so much more as an ex-Christian than I did as a Christian. I feel more at peace. I find more beauty in my daily life. I feel more satisfied and fulfilled. I experience more genuine, long lasting happiness. I am more optimistic and hopeful. I recall being pushed to weep at the altars for "the lost," believing the preacher when he explained that non-Christians were in turmoil and emotional agony and that they never felt true peace. Now, I see that I was the one in need of a changed perspective.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
An email I received from a friend
A friend of mine that has gone back and forth between being a Christian and non-Christian for years sent the following message to several of his Christian friends. This addresses a point I've made before, but I thought since it was coming from someone else, we could re-address it with the way he explains it:
"I am trying to fit a circle into a square. No matter how hard I try to ignore some things, there are elements of "being a Christian" that I have never been able to force myself to believe, and I believe other things that go completely against the Christian belief system.
+ I do not believe in creationism
+ I do not believe the earth was created in seven days.
+ I do not believe in the Jonas/Whale story
+ I am completely confused by contradictions in the Old Testament
+ I don't believe that being gay is a choice
+ I don't understand "Speaking in Tongues" and don't believe in it.
+ I feel church is a place that puts money over people.
+ I have never had a prayer answered in a way that it was undeniably God
+ I do not believe that I am going to heaven, no matter what I do.
My low self esteem is ironically, not helped by the Christian faith. So much of it talks about how we are never worthy enough for what Jesus did for us. It is a constant parade of talking each other down and making each other feel completely worthless. "We are worthless sinners without the Blood of Jesus!!" Well, I for one, don't like feeling worthless, don't like being told I am worthless, and don't like the idea that the only reason I am not worthless is because of something else and not because of my own spirit and willpower. I never understood how we are to be filled with the joy of Christ when we are constantly being told what useless pieces of shit we are."
Thoughts? Responses?
"I am trying to fit a circle into a square. No matter how hard I try to ignore some things, there are elements of "being a Christian" that I have never been able to force myself to believe, and I believe other things that go completely against the Christian belief system.
+ I do not believe in creationism
+ I do not believe the earth was created in seven days.
+ I do not believe in the Jonas/Whale story
+ I am completely confused by contradictions in the Old Testament
+ I don't believe that being gay is a choice
+ I don't understand "Speaking in Tongues" and don't believe in it.
+ I feel church is a place that puts money over people.
+ I have never had a prayer answered in a way that it was undeniably God
+ I do not believe that I am going to heaven, no matter what I do.
My low self esteem is ironically, not helped by the Christian faith. So much of it talks about how we are never worthy enough for what Jesus did for us. It is a constant parade of talking each other down and making each other feel completely worthless. "We are worthless sinners without the Blood of Jesus!!" Well, I for one, don't like feeling worthless, don't like being told I am worthless, and don't like the idea that the only reason I am not worthless is because of something else and not because of my own spirit and willpower. I never understood how we are to be filled with the joy of Christ when we are constantly being told what useless pieces of shit we are."
Thoughts? Responses?
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Maybe I'm too far removed at this point...
I was a Christian for many years...one of those totally sold out, radical, freaks for Jesus kind of Christians. And yet, I've noticed lately that I have a very difficult time relating to many Christians.
I've recently had a couple of discussions with some Christians I don't know directly, and in both conversations, the only evidence they provided to support their argument was what the Bible said.
It wasn't even so much that they were using the Bible in their defense. It was that it was the only thing they were using in their defense. And not only that, but that they believed that was sufficient. In one conversation, I was questioning a specific moral value that many Christians hold that I believe is immoral. I brought up many good points and asked several questions, evaluating that particular moral value. They did not feel the need to even address my points or answer my questions at all. The Bible said A was wrong, thus, A was wrong...period.
It seems that there is a mentality that God, in whatever way a Christian sees him, is above our evaluation. That what he says goes, no questions asked. And even if what he says seems bad, it still means he is good and perfect.
One guy kept repeatedly referring to everyone that does not believe in the Bible as atheists. He finally answered my point that there are other options besides Christianity and atheism. He said that to him, there was not. There was "for Christ" and "against Christ." And any religion or idealism that was "against Christ," was exactly the same.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around this. And yet, I know I once believed the same way. I can't imagine just believing everything a book says without evaluating it first to see if it even sits right with my own moral values. I can't imagine considering a moral issue without stopping to think about it thoroughly from many different angles before making a decision about it. I am seeing that for years, I was denying myself access to my own internal moral compass...which, by the way, seems far more advanced than that of the primitive people that wrote the Bible. I am so glad I have learned to have some faith in myself and my ability to be a good person.
I have been considering through this...I believe I am a more moral person since I left Christianity. People have questioned if people can be good without God or have claimed that religion pushes people to be more moral. I have found that for me, it made me less moral. It lead me to do, say, and believe some things that I now believe are not only not right, but actually outright morally wrong. This makes me wonder if religion does benefit people, morally speaking.
Because if morals come from religion, how did the morals get instituted into religion in the first place? At some point, someone had to start the religion...what source was there besides their own moral understanding to infuse the religion with? And does it really benefit people to just accept the moral understanding of that person and to refuse to question any of it? What if that person's moral understanding is incorrect on some issues? How would we ever improve if we lock ourselves into one kind of understanding and refuse to consider other possibilities?
Perhaps religion does not make people more moral. Perhaps it actually holds a society back from moral progression.
I've recently had a couple of discussions with some Christians I don't know directly, and in both conversations, the only evidence they provided to support their argument was what the Bible said.
It wasn't even so much that they were using the Bible in their defense. It was that it was the only thing they were using in their defense. And not only that, but that they believed that was sufficient. In one conversation, I was questioning a specific moral value that many Christians hold that I believe is immoral. I brought up many good points and asked several questions, evaluating that particular moral value. They did not feel the need to even address my points or answer my questions at all. The Bible said A was wrong, thus, A was wrong...period.
It seems that there is a mentality that God, in whatever way a Christian sees him, is above our evaluation. That what he says goes, no questions asked. And even if what he says seems bad, it still means he is good and perfect.
One guy kept repeatedly referring to everyone that does not believe in the Bible as atheists. He finally answered my point that there are other options besides Christianity and atheism. He said that to him, there was not. There was "for Christ" and "against Christ." And any religion or idealism that was "against Christ," was exactly the same.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around this. And yet, I know I once believed the same way. I can't imagine just believing everything a book says without evaluating it first to see if it even sits right with my own moral values. I can't imagine considering a moral issue without stopping to think about it thoroughly from many different angles before making a decision about it. I am seeing that for years, I was denying myself access to my own internal moral compass...which, by the way, seems far more advanced than that of the primitive people that wrote the Bible. I am so glad I have learned to have some faith in myself and my ability to be a good person.
I have been considering through this...I believe I am a more moral person since I left Christianity. People have questioned if people can be good without God or have claimed that religion pushes people to be more moral. I have found that for me, it made me less moral. It lead me to do, say, and believe some things that I now believe are not only not right, but actually outright morally wrong. This makes me wonder if religion does benefit people, morally speaking.
Because if morals come from religion, how did the morals get instituted into religion in the first place? At some point, someone had to start the religion...what source was there besides their own moral understanding to infuse the religion with? And does it really benefit people to just accept the moral understanding of that person and to refuse to question any of it? What if that person's moral understanding is incorrect on some issues? How would we ever improve if we lock ourselves into one kind of understanding and refuse to consider other possibilities?
Perhaps religion does not make people more moral. Perhaps it actually holds a society back from moral progression.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Jesus taking our place
Suppose you moved to another country you knew little about. And you learned that in this country there is only one judge in the entire court system. You are curious about this, so you decide to attend a court trial...a major one, too...a murder trial. The evidence presented is overwhelming, and a guilty verdict is inevitable. The suspect is sentenced to life in prison, which is, according to that nation, the fair and just sentence for such a serious crime.
But, then, a very close family member of the judge steps forward and admits that he loves the murderer very, very deeply and cannot stand the thought of the murderer spending the rest of his life in prison. He offers himself in the man's place, saying he will carry out the life sentence so the murderer can go free. The judge agrees to this offer, explaining that it doesn't matter if the actual murderer carries out the sentence...as long as SOMEONE carries it out...then, justice will be served.
Ideas of love and sacrifice aside...would you leave that court room believing that the decision was just? Would you believe that judge was even remotely familiar with the concept of justice?
The emphasis in Christianity is so heavily on Jesus paying the price (death) for our sins. What kind of a judge is God? Does punishing an innocent man really justify our sins? Why would it?
But, then, a very close family member of the judge steps forward and admits that he loves the murderer very, very deeply and cannot stand the thought of the murderer spending the rest of his life in prison. He offers himself in the man's place, saying he will carry out the life sentence so the murderer can go free. The judge agrees to this offer, explaining that it doesn't matter if the actual murderer carries out the sentence...as long as SOMEONE carries it out...then, justice will be served.
Ideas of love and sacrifice aside...would you leave that court room believing that the decision was just? Would you believe that judge was even remotely familiar with the concept of justice?
The emphasis in Christianity is so heavily on Jesus paying the price (death) for our sins. What kind of a judge is God? Does punishing an innocent man really justify our sins? Why would it?
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The Issue of Hell
Hell is a place of eternal torture. It lasts forever. If you end up there, it will never, ever stop. For ever and ever, you will cry out for mercy and relief, but you will receive none. It is worse than any pain you could possibly experience here on earth. And it lasts forever.
I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard these words spoken to me. I recall one particular night at youth group during which we all went outside and sat around a huge bonfire. Our youth pastor preached about hell. He dared us to imagine what it would feel like to jump right into the fire and to imagine what it would be like to have that feeling relentlessly forever and ever. It scared the crap out of me.
Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps scaring the crap out of people is the reason the concept of hell was incorporated into religion in the first place. If you can scare the crap out of people with a concept, you can use that concept to cause them to greatly fear leaving the religion.
Does the concept hell really make sense? It is said that hell is a place where the sinful are punished. First, what is the purpose of punishment? Is it to get revenge or to get back at a person? Or is it to teach? Does a good parent discipline simply because they want to get back at their child for what the child has done or to teach the child not to repeat that behavior again? Most people would agree with the latter.
So, what is the purpose of hell? How can it be a teaching experience if there is no possible opportunity to escape? Why would someone punish somoene for a wrongdoing without giving them a genuine opportunity to make things right after they had come to see the error of their way? Why does there have to be a point in which it is "too late"?
Secondly, I am quite convinced that there is no crime actually worthy of hell. Hitler must be one of the worst men to have ever been a part of modern society. And yet, if we're going to talk about what someone "deserves," I don't think his acts are worthy of a literal hell that last for all eternity. While he did do horrible, horrible things, that suffering would barely hold a flame next to the horror of trillions of years in hell followed by trillions more and trillions more and so forth...just never ending.
It seems to me that hell is a place in which people are punished far beyond the severity of their crimes. And it is a place that serves no real purpose...well, besides scaring the crap out of people.
I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard these words spoken to me. I recall one particular night at youth group during which we all went outside and sat around a huge bonfire. Our youth pastor preached about hell. He dared us to imagine what it would feel like to jump right into the fire and to imagine what it would be like to have that feeling relentlessly forever and ever. It scared the crap out of me.
Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps scaring the crap out of people is the reason the concept of hell was incorporated into religion in the first place. If you can scare the crap out of people with a concept, you can use that concept to cause them to greatly fear leaving the religion.
Does the concept hell really make sense? It is said that hell is a place where the sinful are punished. First, what is the purpose of punishment? Is it to get revenge or to get back at a person? Or is it to teach? Does a good parent discipline simply because they want to get back at their child for what the child has done or to teach the child not to repeat that behavior again? Most people would agree with the latter.
So, what is the purpose of hell? How can it be a teaching experience if there is no possible opportunity to escape? Why would someone punish somoene for a wrongdoing without giving them a genuine opportunity to make things right after they had come to see the error of their way? Why does there have to be a point in which it is "too late"?
Secondly, I am quite convinced that there is no crime actually worthy of hell. Hitler must be one of the worst men to have ever been a part of modern society. And yet, if we're going to talk about what someone "deserves," I don't think his acts are worthy of a literal hell that last for all eternity. While he did do horrible, horrible things, that suffering would barely hold a flame next to the horror of trillions of years in hell followed by trillions more and trillions more and so forth...just never ending.
It seems to me that hell is a place in which people are punished far beyond the severity of their crimes. And it is a place that serves no real purpose...well, besides scaring the crap out of people.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Brainwashing is harmless...wait...what?
I was just talking with someone online that admitted she was attempting to brainwash her kids by taking them to Sunday School. I was pretty surprised that she so openly used that terminology. She defended this by saying it was for their good, and she asked me what harm there is in raising your kids by brainwashing them to follow your beliefs?
I was taken aback by such a question. Isn't the answer obvious? There is something wrong with attempting to brainwash children! In such a case, parents are teaching them what to think, not HOW to think. They are teaching them to just swallow what is put in front of them instead of being skeptical until all of the available evidence is looked over. They are teaching them to blindly follow rather than question. They are teaching their children to make decisions about an issue before investigating it and educating themselves on it.
One of the best gifts you can give your children that will help them to succeed and to truly benefit the world is the ability to think critically. Indeed, those who have had the greatest positive impact on our world shared this one quality.
I was taken aback by such a question. Isn't the answer obvious? There is something wrong with attempting to brainwash children! In such a case, parents are teaching them what to think, not HOW to think. They are teaching them to just swallow what is put in front of them instead of being skeptical until all of the available evidence is looked over. They are teaching them to blindly follow rather than question. They are teaching their children to make decisions about an issue before investigating it and educating themselves on it.
One of the best gifts you can give your children that will help them to succeed and to truly benefit the world is the ability to think critically. Indeed, those who have had the greatest positive impact on our world shared this one quality.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Why is evolution important?
Someone recommended the Nova documentary, "Judgment Day" to me the other day. I spent some time viewing it over the past couple of days. Many would probably be uninterested in this documentary because they feel that views regarding evolutionary theory are unimportant and irrelevant to their lives. But, the reality is quite to the contrary.
I could now go into the beauty and elegance that I sense as I view the world through the lens of evolution. I could explain the peaceful connectedness I feel with the earth that my understanding of evolutionary theory has given me. But, I admit these experiences are entirely subjective and would not necessarily be experienced by others.
There is another issue, however, regarding views about evolutionary theory that indeed does affect everyone quite profoundly. Evolutionary theory is largely at the core of a big problem that exists between American society and the field of science. It represents a distrust of the field of science that ought not be there. Scientists are often visualized as the mad professors conducting heinous experiences in their basements or as conspirators joining together to cause great harm to people. For this reason, people often feel threatened by scientists and the advancements they are seeking to make.
People have always been very slow to accept scientific discovery. People were killed for suggesting the world was actually round rather than flat. Convincing people that infectious agents and genetic errors are the driving force behind disease rather than sin or demons has been no small accomplishment. The largest "new" scientific discovery being fought against is the theory of evolution. I use the term "new" lightly in that it is 150 years old. But, the overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory is quite new when compared to the length of human history.
The evidence for evolutionary theory is indeed overwhelming. And yet, roughly half of American citizens reject it. It goes against the way they have always thought about how human beings came to be, and many feel threatened by this. The rejection of evolutionary theory pushes the idea that scientists are not out to do good and are happy to trick and deceive people. After all, why else would they say something is true if there is no evidence that it is? It also pushes an undeserved disrespect for the scientific process and the scientific method. This affects the funding available for many areas of important research and even affects the kinds of research that are legally allowed to be conducted.
But, getting down to business, why does this matter? Why does it matter if someone wants to believe that evolutionary biologists are conspirators out to destroy man's belief in God and that the stories in the first couple of chapters of Genesis are true? Isn't this a harmless belief? I contend that it is not harmless.
Science has provided so much for us. For many of us, it has saved our lives. I would not be alive right now were it not for a medication science developed about 10 years ago. When we read about human history and the large and frequent plagues of terrible and terrifying diseases that regularly swept across the globe, it becomes clear how few of us would actually be alive if it weren't for scientific advancements. A friend of mine has a 9-year-old son living with leukemia. If he had been diagnosed with leukemia 20 years ago, he would have already died a painful death, leaving his parents in devastation. Instead, because of science, he is receiving treatment that offers him a 90% chance of a full recovery. Computers, etc. have dramatically increased our ability to keep in touch with loved ones that we would have otherwise been forced to be distant from for years at a time. It allows us to travel to places in the world that we otherwise would have never even known about.
Science has done so much for us. And yet, people approach it with great fear and distrust. I remember Sarah Palin making a negative comment about useless scientists doing research on fruit flies and many people, including those who couldn't even stand Sarah Palin, echoed their support of this criticism. They didn't know that we are learning so much about our own genes and genetic disorders and cures for these genetic disorders through this research on fruit flies. Anti-evolutionists charge scientists with questionable motives for advancing evolutionary theory, casting doubt in roughly half of Americans as to the sincerity of almost all scientists and the validity of the scientific method in spite of all that these scientists and the scientific method have provided for them.
This baseless idea inhibits scientific research that can save lives and improve the quality of life for hundreds of thousands...and eventually, millions upon millions...of people. It is in our grasp to develop means of giving everyone an organ transplant that needs one long before they have to wait on very long waiting lists while severely ill, hoping they get one before they die. Diabetes, various forms of cancer, and autoimmune diseases (an area that covers a very large number of disabling diseases) could be a thing of the past. But, getting support, funding, and even permission to conduct these studies has proved difficult due to the distrust in science that many people hold that is spread to others and confirmed through the anti-evolution sector. It is literally costing lives. This is an issue that matters.
I could now go into the beauty and elegance that I sense as I view the world through the lens of evolution. I could explain the peaceful connectedness I feel with the earth that my understanding of evolutionary theory has given me. But, I admit these experiences are entirely subjective and would not necessarily be experienced by others.
There is another issue, however, regarding views about evolutionary theory that indeed does affect everyone quite profoundly. Evolutionary theory is largely at the core of a big problem that exists between American society and the field of science. It represents a distrust of the field of science that ought not be there. Scientists are often visualized as the mad professors conducting heinous experiences in their basements or as conspirators joining together to cause great harm to people. For this reason, people often feel threatened by scientists and the advancements they are seeking to make.
People have always been very slow to accept scientific discovery. People were killed for suggesting the world was actually round rather than flat. Convincing people that infectious agents and genetic errors are the driving force behind disease rather than sin or demons has been no small accomplishment. The largest "new" scientific discovery being fought against is the theory of evolution. I use the term "new" lightly in that it is 150 years old. But, the overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory is quite new when compared to the length of human history.
The evidence for evolutionary theory is indeed overwhelming. And yet, roughly half of American citizens reject it. It goes against the way they have always thought about how human beings came to be, and many feel threatened by this. The rejection of evolutionary theory pushes the idea that scientists are not out to do good and are happy to trick and deceive people. After all, why else would they say something is true if there is no evidence that it is? It also pushes an undeserved disrespect for the scientific process and the scientific method. This affects the funding available for many areas of important research and even affects the kinds of research that are legally allowed to be conducted.
But, getting down to business, why does this matter? Why does it matter if someone wants to believe that evolutionary biologists are conspirators out to destroy man's belief in God and that the stories in the first couple of chapters of Genesis are true? Isn't this a harmless belief? I contend that it is not harmless.
Science has provided so much for us. For many of us, it has saved our lives. I would not be alive right now were it not for a medication science developed about 10 years ago. When we read about human history and the large and frequent plagues of terrible and terrifying diseases that regularly swept across the globe, it becomes clear how few of us would actually be alive if it weren't for scientific advancements. A friend of mine has a 9-year-old son living with leukemia. If he had been diagnosed with leukemia 20 years ago, he would have already died a painful death, leaving his parents in devastation. Instead, because of science, he is receiving treatment that offers him a 90% chance of a full recovery. Computers, etc. have dramatically increased our ability to keep in touch with loved ones that we would have otherwise been forced to be distant from for years at a time. It allows us to travel to places in the world that we otherwise would have never even known about.
Science has done so much for us. And yet, people approach it with great fear and distrust. I remember Sarah Palin making a negative comment about useless scientists doing research on fruit flies and many people, including those who couldn't even stand Sarah Palin, echoed their support of this criticism. They didn't know that we are learning so much about our own genes and genetic disorders and cures for these genetic disorders through this research on fruit flies. Anti-evolutionists charge scientists with questionable motives for advancing evolutionary theory, casting doubt in roughly half of Americans as to the sincerity of almost all scientists and the validity of the scientific method in spite of all that these scientists and the scientific method have provided for them.
This baseless idea inhibits scientific research that can save lives and improve the quality of life for hundreds of thousands...and eventually, millions upon millions...of people. It is in our grasp to develop means of giving everyone an organ transplant that needs one long before they have to wait on very long waiting lists while severely ill, hoping they get one before they die. Diabetes, various forms of cancer, and autoimmune diseases (an area that covers a very large number of disabling diseases) could be a thing of the past. But, getting support, funding, and even permission to conduct these studies has proved difficult due to the distrust in science that many people hold that is spread to others and confirmed through the anti-evolution sector. It is literally costing lives. This is an issue that matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)