Welcome to Factonista.org

Factonista is an online freethought advocacy organization that relies on its users for content. Through international broad-based collaboration with its users, and other groups and organizations, it strives to provide timely and comprehensive news, views, reviews, and creative multimedia on issues at the forefront of everything under the umbrella of freethought

Not a member? Register | Lost your password?
Hi and welcome to Factonista. Please keep in mind we're still in BETA. We'll be fully functional very very soon. In the mean while feel free to browse around, read our articles, and participate in our discussions. If you note any bugs and feel like helping us out, forward a quick message to us here. Thanks! [close]

Posts Tagged ‘christianity’

The worldview of George Sodini

Friday, August 7th, 2009

The first thing the public wanted to know was: why? Why did 48-year old George Sodini, a gainfully employed middle-aged man with no apparent history of violence, stroll into a gym earlier this week armed to the teeth and shoot thirteen women, killing four of them, before killing himself?

Sodini himself told us, for months or even years leading up to the incident, in an online blog and video diary. His print diary was just as insightful. Yet even with a plethora of detail on their side, the experts quickly whittled away the complexity behind this man to the singular convenient trope of the modern serial killer: George Sodini hated women.

This was the media’s story, and that was all they would say about it. Sodini was a loner, Sodini was frequently rejected by women, Sodini felt hurt by all the women in his life who declined his advances, and so they had to die because of his rejection issues. In the fast-paced world of 24-hour news reporting it was important to reduce the complex psychology of a deranged loner down to an easily-digestable theme, regardless of extemporaneous details like Sodini’s deep religious convictions.

And yet the only play that Sodini’s religious convictions received in the whole discussion following his death was in online secular freethought media. Every mainstream source was so hooked up on the convenient excuse of Sodini’s hatred of women that they never bothered to ask the hard questions about Sodini’s motivations. This is doubly perplexing because Sodini himself was quite clear on this point:

Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid. People judge but that does not matter. I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them.

But of course, such truths would be confusing to the average consumer of mass media today. It simply does not comport with the current accepted social narrative that ‘religion = morality’ to think that a Christian could be both motivated to violence by religion and also be theologically correct in his understanding of doctrine.

‘Magic Words’ theology

Sodini comes from an Evangelical tradition that explicitly states that morality is irrelevant. Its apologists go out of their way to attack and ridicule those Christians who dare suggest that goodness matters. To the Evangelical, what is important is submission to doctrine, and nothing else. A man who is ’saved’ through the born again experience is in heaven guaranteed, not because they have earned it, but because they have recognized that they can’t earn it. The core principle here comes from Paul: humans are inherently filthy, perverted creatures (Paul’s word is ‘worthless’) who always fall short of God’s moral demands, so why bother trying to be good? We are so evil, in fact, that God himself had to come down from heaven and let himself be murdered on a tree just to give us the chance of some day receiving divine forgiveness.

Equipped with a “get out of hell free” card in the cheap excuse of a ‘born-again’ experience, Sodini felt empowered to do whatever he liked, whenever he liked, because he believed that his actions wouldn’t count in the long run. This ‘magic words’ theology teaches that, once you say the magic words admitting your inherent moral worthlessness and accept the human sacrifice necessitated by our worthlessness, you’re in the clear. Everything else is secondary to God, including your moral choices.

The average American is bombarded with propaganda linking irreligiosity to immorality, social deviance, and crime, so it makes sense that mainstream media wouldn’t burden them with the thought that religion could encourage immorality in this fashion. Yet this is exactly what the Evangelical mindset seeks to do: to cheapen goodness. They do this by equating value on goodness with heresy.

Sodini was indeed correct in his realization that, once he had met the minimum criteria of salvation, he was all set. Any expression of Evangelical born-again doctrine would have to agree with him, and indeed they have been agreeing with him for centuries. In his monstrous rampage Sodini has laid bare the central contradition of the American right: they preach and lecture and moralize endlessly as to how we should and shouldn’t behave, yet they are doctrinally committed to the notion that behavior is irrelevant except where it concerns submission to doctrine.

Not only that, but why has no one in the mainstream media asked if the Evangelical perspective on women poisoned his behavior as well? Theologians call the most popular conservative Christian perspective on gender roles ‘complementarianism.’ It holds that men and women have innate functions, and of course the innate function of women is submission to men. Sodini’s deeply unsatisfying relationships with women must have been truly perplexing to a Christian like him. What else to do with any element that persistently confounds your worldview except eliminate it? And so he did. Again, Christian doctrine gave him all the excuses that he needed, and yet popular media is stuck on square one, content to say that Sodini hated women without saying why his hatred would lead him to violence. For most people, being rejected by women does not lead to murder, but Sodini had religious passion on his side.

This question should have led to a sobering internal discussion among Christians as to how they can reconcile their doctrine with the social narrative that religion makes people better. The Christians should have been forced to review their scriptures and talk to their leaders and explain Sodini’s behavior to their congregations as some kind of error. But they can’t. The belief is too deeply-ingrained in centuries of Protestant dogma and apologetics. And the media prevented even a prelude to conversation by stopping everything at Sodini’s chauvanism.

If the media had the courage, and the public had the honesty, to confront this question, then we would really have something productive to talk about. Does religion cause morality? No, because they say that it shouldn’t. The Evangelical doctrines, plainly visible to the initiated but completely hidden from the public who are meant to believe that religion is about goodness rather than against it, have to be brought to light and seriously discussed. How can you be good without God?, they ask us. It’s very simple. How can you be good with God? According to the Evangelicals, you aren’t supposed to be. Sodini understood this, and it’s high time that the public realized this doctrinal monstrosity for what it is: an excuse to be evil.

Christian Sci-Fi: Rarer Than a Gay Black Republican.

Friday, January 30th, 2009

One of the big differences between science fiction and fantasy is that authors of the latter have a greater tendency towards being religious. While both J.R.R Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were Christian, many of the most prominent names in science fiction – Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, Gene Roddenberry, Robert A. Heinlein, J. M. Straczynski – are or were atheists.

Granted, Battlestar Galactica is based heavily upon creator Ronald Moore’s own Mormon faith… and Orson Scott Card is a right-wing conservative Mormon, but other than that, science fiction appears to be within the realm of secularism and really bad SciFi Channel Original Movies. And even if there are a few religious themes in some books or TV shows, until I found this episode of Space: Above and Beyond*. Let’s go through the checklist -

Grumpy, Stereotypical Atheist – CHECK

Conversion Through a Miracle (or Series of) – CHECK

What? Christmas Isn’t About Secular Rampant Consumerism!? – CHECK

Some Stupid Discussion About “Faith” – CHECK

Anyways, enjoy -

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v505582YYEAqz8k

*It’s actually a pretty good show in general in my opinion that deals with serious issues that could arise in the future, but this episode was definitely a miss.

“Behold, it was very good.”

Saturday, December 6th, 2008

“God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” —Genesis 1:31

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” —Romans 1:20

Creationists often claim that the ‘beauty of creation’ tells us something about the nature of their god; and that we atheists are ‘without excuse’ for not believing in god after looking at the world around us. The closet creationists, the IDists, also claim that such wonderful design in the universe is proof of a designer, which to them is the Christian god.

Now, let us take a look at a beautiful organism that must have been created by god. The evidence for special creation of this organism is so convincing that I am seriously doubting my acceptance of evolution.

This wonderful organism, Cymothoa exigua, simply must have been created by a loving creator! This cute little tongue-eating isopod causes degeneration of the tongue of its host fish, the rose snapper, Lutjanus guttatus, and it then attaches to the remaining tongue stub and floor of the fish’s mouth by hook-like pereopods. In this position the isopod acts as a replacement to the fish’s missing tongue, and in a marvel of god’s sheer ingenuity, gets the first opportunity to devour incoming meals.

Praise god for creating such a wonderful organism! Through this, we see that god loves parasites, is sadistic, might have been on pot, should not be messed around with, and…oh…according to Christians, must be worshiped. If you don’t worship this sadistic god, he will damn you to hell, and considering his amazing creations such as the above, this is a threat that we should seriously consider! Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord for being a loving and sadistic god at the same time! Praise the Lord for giving us such awesome creatures that helps us marvel at the beauty of his creation!

Praise our Father in heaven, the loving Creator of gruesome organisms! Amen.

Steven Baldwin Gets Punk’d By Two Local Radio Hosts

Sunday, November 16th, 2008

It amazes me too, but there actually is a right-wing Christian Baldwin brother (given that the family is known for its liberal values, who would’ve thunk it?). His name is Steven Baldwin, of Biodome and The Usual Suspects fame, and he claims that he ‘found God’ and became a batshit crazy fundamentalist who believes that Howard Dean is a puppet of the Anti-Christ and has insisted that he would leave the country if Obama were elected.

To appeal to young people who are increasingly falling away from hardcore religion, Stephen has created the “Livin’ It” Skate “Ministry” to tie something cool in with something… not so much. Not surprisingly, he’s also a complete idiot, which makes me wonder if his character in Biodome wasn’t just an act. To promote “Livin’ It”, two irreverent local radio hosts who most surely are going to hell decided to provide the Ministry with a theme song -

[youtube]fxoVYFOfM2g[/youtube]

fyi, the person who posted this video is Dr. Tae Kim of Northwestern University, who apparently is also really good at skateboarding. Where were physics professors like that in my school?

The Burial of Jesus

Tuesday, October 28th, 2008

One of the questions that we should be asking when considering the story of the burial of Jesus is: Does the account of the burial and resurrection of Jesus in the gospels match up with what is known about Jewish laws and traditions at the time?

This post will be my attempt to address this question succinctly. Onwards, skeptics!

Let us first take a look at the law concerning the burial of condemned men in the Mishnah:

They did not bury the condemned in the burial grounds of his ancestors, but there were two graveyards made ready for the use of the court, one for those who were beheaded or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned.(6.5e, f)

According to the Mishnah, since Jesus was accused as a blasphemer, he would be buried in the graveyard for the stoned or burned. The Mishnah explains further that only “when the flesh was completely decomposed were the bones gathered and buried in their proper place” (in this case, this would mean the ancestral tomb of Jesus).

It has been clearly shown according to Jewish law that Jesus could not be buried in a private tomb as he had to be placed with the criminals. The problem here is that the gospels clearly say that he was buried in a private tomb
(Matthew 27:60, Luke 23:53, John 19:41). So, does this mean that Jesus was not formally buried on Friday night?

Another interesting fact is that Jews were not allowed to bury their dead on the Sabbath or on the first day of any festival (according to the Talmud). Now, as the Mishnah requires prompt burial, Jews get around this by placing the corpse in a temporary grave before the real burial. Jesus supposedly died on the first day of Passover, and Joseph asked for the body right before the Sabbath. Therefore, there was no way that Joseph could have done all the burial rites. The only way to reconcile to gospel story of Jesus being buried in a private tomb would be if it actually refers to a temporary grave.

Now, let’s take a look at the Semahot:

Whosoever finds a corpse in a tomb should not move it from its place, unless he knows that this is a temporary grave.

By law, Joseph would have been required to place Jesus in a temporary grave. The body could not have been in Joseph’s tomb Sunday morning (where the Gospels claim the women visited it). Yes, they found it empty, but by law, by then his body would have to be in the Graveyard of the Stoned and Burned.

The story gets even more interesting when considering the myth of Jesus being raised from the dead on the third day. There is an interesting third-day pattern in the Midrash Rabbah, which is related to the Mishnah. It shows an overall third-day pattern in the current Jewish understanding of the dead.

Bar Kappara: “Until three days [after death] the soul keeps on returning to the grave, thinking that it will go back [into the body]; but when it sees that the facial features have become disfigured, it departs and abandons it [the body].”

The full force of mourning lasts for three days. Why? Because [for that length of time] the shape of the face is recognizable, even as we have learnt in the Mishnah: Evidence [to prove a man's death] is admissible only in respect of the full face, with the nose, and only [by one who has seen the corpse] within three days [after death].

From the Semahot:

One may go out to the cemetery for three days to inspect the dead for a sign of life, without fear that this smacks of heathen practice. For it happened that a man was inspected after three days, and he went on to live twenty-five years; still another went on to have five children and died later. (8.1)

Thus, in Jewish tradition, it was considered possible for a soul to reunite with its body within three days but not after that as sometime on the third day the soul realized the body was rotting, and then departed.

No, the burial story does not match up with what we know about Jewish law and ritual at the time. All I smell so far is a huge stink.

Responses to common Christian apologetic claims

Monday, October 27th, 2008

The Bible says the Earth is unsupported. (Job 26:7)
This is perhaps one of the best pick-and-choose Christian arguments, in which they single out a few Biblical verses that seemingly support modern science. Christians who make this claim seem to have forgotten to include certain verses (Job 38:4-6) which clearly state that the earth has foundations. This is in exact contradiction to the fact that the earth is unsupported. It even directly contradicts the earlier verse that Christians use to claim that the Earth is unsupported. Anyone seeking to reconcile the Biblical view to the modern scientific view certainly has more than enough passages to select from and interpret; while ignoring others that make the Bible sound like nothing more than a primitive attempt at understanding the world.

The Bible describes the water cycle in astounding detail. (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Astounding detail? This is what the verse says:
“All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.”

What is so astounding about that? The verse merely says that water returns to the source of the streams. It doesn’t mention anything about condensation or evaporation. This is merely wishful thinking on the part of anyone who deceives themselves into thinking that some sort of divine revelation happened here.

The Bible says the earth is round. (Isaiah 40:22)
The verse reads “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth”. A circle is flat and without any volume (in contrast to a sphere). Newsflash: A circle and a sphere are not the same things. Isaiah 11:12 refers to the ‘four corners of the earth’. Why don’t mainstream Christians take that as the indicator of the earth’s shape? Telling, isn’t it?

The Bible has always proven to be factually correct.
Are these verses factually correct in light of modern science?

Leviticus 11:6- Rabbits chew their cud and have hooves.
Leviticus 11:20-23- Insects are four-legged, e.g. grasshoppers.

Do I need to go on?

The Bible is historically correct and consistent.

Really? Well, that must be news because as far as I know, Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 cannot even agree regarding Jesus’ lineage. There are also historical records found in China, Egypt, etc. that show life going on normally during the exact time the global flood was alleged to have taken place. For a flood of such epic proportions, something stinks to high heaven (pardon the pun) here.

The Bible is reasonable.
Reasonable? Let’s take a look at Genesis 30:37-39. Did anyone tell you that shoving striped rods in front of animals causes them to have striped offspring? God really needs to learn a thing or two about basic genetics, don’t you think?

In Numbers 22:2-29, Balaam doesn’t seem the least bit surprised to discover that his donkey could suddenly speak. I suppose this must be because stuff like that used to happen every day in Biblical times although the Christian god has become strangely silent now.

Wait, all this is supposed to be reasonable? My bad.

Sorry, Christian apologists. You need to try harder next time.

Tracy Kerlee is What’s Wrong About America

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008

What do you get when you combine a huge steaming pile of “faith”, sprinkled with a bit of xenophobia and racism? Meet Tracy Kerlee, who is being interviewed in this video by the PBS news show ‘NOW’ -

[youtube]-4wQfQtpDAc[/youtube]

Does faith healing really work?

Thursday, October 16th, 2008

This is a follow-up to a previous post.

Ever wondered why people supposedly get out of their wheelchairs and run about on stage during a healing crusade; but no one has ever regrown an amputated limb?

There are a few possibilities:

1. God is not omnipotent. Regrowing an amputated limb is beyond what he can do. (Remember, this is the same ‘god’ who flooded the whole earth, parted the Red Sea, created humans from dust, etc). This obviously does not make sense even if you look at it from the theological side.

2. God refuses to regrow limbs due to reasons that we, being humans, are not supposed to comprehend. As the popular apologetic argument goes: We cannot understand god’s ways. Most Christians that I have spoken to love using this cop-out.

However, this runs contrary to the Bible:

(Matthew 7:7) Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

(Matthew 21:21) I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

Uh-oh. That argument doesn’t seem to work either.

3. God does not want to be too obvious. He prefers to remain silent and unseen so that people would have no reason to believe in him. In the end, he deliberately sends all the nonbelievers to hell.

4. God is imaginary, and the faith healers are simply deluded or are deliberate charlatans.

You may still wonder why so many people are supposedly ‘cured’? There must still be miracles to account for, right?

Wrong.

1. Some faith healers are plain frauds. Peter Popoff pretended to get messages from god while his wife was whispering through an earpiece backstage. She got her information from cards that the audience filled out when they attended  In the incredibly credulous atmosphere of his crusades, the audience fell for it hook, line, and sinker. This fraud was exposed in the 1980’s by James Randi.

2. Some alleged cures have involved mistaken diagnoses that required no cure at all in the first place.

3. Psychosomatic illnesses respond positively to psychological manipulation. This never works in the case of amputated limbs. This is the most logical explanation when we consider psychosomatic illnesses as opposed to amputated limbs.

4. In the excitement of an evangelical revival, the reduction of pain due to the release of endorphins often causes people to believe and act as if they have been miraculously healed (Nickell 1993).

5. The desire to be cured can relieve stress and bring about the effects of the power of suggestion; and testimonies are often exaggerated to please god, the healer, or simply to demonstrate that they are full of faith. Nevertheless, the desire to be cured can sometimes bring adverse effects. One cancer patient at a Kathryn Kuhlman faith-healing performance was asked by Kuhlman to remove her back brace and run across the stage. She claimed her cancer was cured, but then died two months later after X-rays showed that a “cancer-weakened vertebra had collapsed due to the strain placed on it during the demonstration” (Nickell 1998).

6. Some serious ailments (etc. cancer), are unpredictable and may undergo spontaneous remission.

7. Failures are sometimes blamed on the patient for not having enough faith, or too much doubt.

8. Many patients refuse to admit that they have not been cured as they are ashamed that they “lacked faith”.

9. Many cures have been attributed to the placebo effect, not divine intervention.

To fully comprehend the lunacy of faith healers, the following is an excerpt from the transcript of what Benny Hinn said on Paul and Jan Crouch’s TBN television program (Praise The Lord, Trinity Broadcasting Network, October 19, 1999).

[start of excerpt]

Benny Hinn: But here’s first what I see for TBN. You’re going to have people raised from the dead watching this network. You’re going to have people raised from the dead watching TBN. It’s not going to be a Benny Hinn saying “Stretch your hands.” It’s going to be your average teaching program, your normal Christian program that’s blessing the church. There’s going to be such power on these programs people will be raised from the dead worldwide. I’m telling you, I see this in the Spirit. It’s going to be so awesome. Jesus I give you praise for this — that people around the world — maybe not so much in America — people around the world who will lose loved ones, will say to undertakers, “Not yet. I want to take my dead loved one and place him in front of that TV set for 24 hours.”

[end of excerpt]

So far, nobody has been raised from the dead by Benny Hinn or any of the other faith healers. Wouldn’t raising someone from the dead show non-believers that there must be something to this god business after all?

The sad thing about this is that people who are desperate for a cure often put all their trust in the faith healers, and blame themselves for ‘not having enough faith’ when they are not cured. This is the main reason that faith healers are not being called out on their outrageous claims, and in the case of Popoff, for example, people are still falling for his scam even after he was exposed by James Randi. As skeptics, we need to speak out and make our voices heard, at least for the sake of the desperate people conveniently exploited by the faith healers. Humanism calls for it.

I Used to Love Jesus

Saturday, October 4th, 2008

I write a lot of negative things, and a lot of people get really pissed off at me thinking that for some reason just because I look critically at the Poster Boys of atheism and the militant sentiments that often fly off of them I for some reason am a christian apologist. That this means I’m a closet christian. That this means I just don’t understand how much religion is hurting our world. That this means I must be clueless to the fact that people in theocratic countries suffer because of religion every day. That this means I don’t understand the pain and suffering a child unknowingly goes through because of religious indoctrination. That this means I must think abortion is okay, because I love Christians.

I do love Christians. My mom, sister, step-dad, aunt, grandmother, cousins and best friend are all Christian. And I love them all, very much. I don’t support people who cut them down intellectually, emotionally and socially because of their faith. I don’t support people who don’t want to hear their side of issues, who don’t want them to be able to practice their faith or who think that talking to them is a waste of time. I don’t support the Rational Response Squad because of the horribly intolerant attitude toward religion. I am *not* intolerant of religion. I am intolerant of religion in my legislation, I am intolerant of religion controlling my decisions on birth, I am intolerant of religion starting wars, I am intolerant of religion being pushed onto children who have no choice, I am intolerant of religion in the class room, I am intolerant of my taxpayer dollars going to religious schools, I am intolerant of my gay best friend not being allowed to get married, I am intolerant of people thinking I have no morals because I have no religion, I am intolerant of the militarism that is portrayed through religion, I am intolerant of hate crimes…

I may be nice to Christians, and I may want to hear what they have to say…and I may also not want to listen to atheists bitch and moan or listen to them talk about how stupid Christians and religion is – but this in no way translates to “I’m a scared little atheist girl who is just so scared of the big scary world! I’m just not ready to tell religions to go away, and I just want everyone to get along!” … I don’t care if everyone gets along, as long as there are capitalists there is competition and as long as there is competition there is fighting. I’m totally cool with that. I just don’t care about what religious people do in the privacy of their homes.

It’s like sex… don’t force it on me or any children to do it and don’t do it in parliament or the schools or in public and I don’t care what you do. Do it in your own home, of building that YOU pay for with consenting adults.

I feel like my history has a lot to do with why I think like this, and why people never understand where I’m coming from. I am a previous evangelical Christian. I worked at a christian camp for years, where I met practically all of my friends that I was close with. I was a member of the “Clarkson Crusade for Christ” at my high school and would go to the flag pole to pray every morning at 7am. I went to church with my mom and my step dad (a minister), and at church I was an active congregation member. I sang in the church choir, I ran the 30 hour famine with over 40 students at the church, I went to retreats to learn how to further my relationship with God and I taught Sunday school classes to younger kids. I thought abortion was wrong, I thought that gays were a little off and I was against the evil media trying to put horrible ideas of sex, alcohol, drugs and consumption into my head. I wanted to travel to Africa to be a missionary, to teach others how to love Christ. I wanted to go to the honor academy in Texas so I could devote my life a youth minister. I even went to those horrible Acquire the Fire rallies in Hamilton (they mostly happen in the states) with host Ron Luce who would convince me that I was a horrible person. With my hands in the air, tears streaming down my face, I would sob to the “Lord” to wash me clean of my sins. I would fall to my knees and beg Ron Luce, Jesus and God to forgive me for being such a horrible person.

The flip side of this is that I saw the beauty and wonder in the universe, that I also saw as God’s creation. I now see the beauty and owner in the universe in science, discovery and exploration, but that’s beside the point. I felt happy every single day, because I was important to god. It made it easier to deal with horrible things that happened in my life. It made it very easy to think I was doing good in the world by praying. I felt good.

One day someone asked me “What’s so horrible about TV? The bible is more violent than the shows I watch.” …I thought that was pretty valid. When I asked my Sunday School teacher he brushed me off, I didn’t like that. So I asked “Why is there suffering if there is a God? There must be no God.”…I got an evil glare and was asked to leave the class and go back to class. When I got home that Sunday I started reading. And within a few nights decided there was nothing wrong with being gay. Soon after I decided there was nothing wrong with abortion, TV, premarital sex, and that there was probably no God. At the time I kept a live journal and wrote that on there. It got Googled and was found by my camp, I was asked not to come back. I lost all my friends. Soon I lost all my friends at school too, because they were C4Cers. I lost my faith, family and friends in a matter of 2 weeks.

The rest is pretty much – I did radio/writing/blogging/debating about religion, I found CFI and thought it was cool, I joined and now all my friends are atheist and I work there. (Only that happened over the course of like 3 years)

So now I’m left sitting in this post-Christian life, and those of you who have never been in that religious life can honesty – never understand what I’m sitting with. I have deep internalized guilt about almost everything I do. I cry so incredibly hard sometimes because I am so guilty about my life. For some reason, I think that because I’ve left religion I am a horrible person. I have been indoctrinated with the idea of heaven and hell. I am worried that I will be in hell. I have been indoctrinated to think that the abortion I decided to have was killing something that had a path in life. I still, for some reason, cling to this idea of “a right to life” for all humans even before sentience. There is absolutely no logical reason I can think of as to why, but it brings up all kinds of sad, guilty and angry emotions.

So, why have I shared this? 1) I understand what Christians feel, see and go through. I’ve been there, and for some people, it is a great thing. They need religion to cope, live and love. That’s fine. 2) The reason I am so incredibly against religion is because of what it does to children. I am a living, breathing example of a child who was indoctrinated with this bullshit and now has to attempt to deal with it in their day to day life. It rips me apart inside.

Hopefully this little rant can give people a little more insight into how I think, and why I write what I write. I am a critical person who takes criticism poorly. I am support of religion that says in the private life, because I know how much comfort it offers people. I am against religion being pushed on, taught to and slammed into children and confused teenagers. But to those who aren’t doing it? I refuse to call them irrational, I refuse to call them stupid and I refuse to attempt to take down their support base. As Voltaire said “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it.” I will also fight to the death to keep religion off of women’s bodies, out of children’s minds, out of science and out of politics. That is why I work where I work. …I spend every waking hour that I’m not at school at the Center for Inquiry promoting secularism, freedom of expression and proper political strategies.

I don’t think the poster boys are elitist. I just don’t think they understand me, religious people or what I stand for. So I don’t support them. The next person to tell me it must be “easy” for me to be an atheist in Canada… really needs to reread this. This is by far the hardest thing I’ve ever had to go through in my entire life, and I would not wish it upon my worst enemy.

What would a 21st century democratic theocracy look like?

Friday, September 5th, 2008

Last month, I wrote about how tired I was that so much of this year’s election coverage has been about which of our two leading American presidential candidates loves Jesus more. This remains the case-I still don’t care whether Barack Obama’s old reverend subscribes to liberation theology or not, I still don’t care whose version of Christianity John McCain claims to believe, and I really, genuinely, honest-to-whoever do not care whether or not Joe Biden is a practicing Catholic. In fact, the thing that I love most about Joe Biden is that he is actually about policy and not oblique piety; his is a refreshing turn from political rhetoric that has large devolved into a contest of conservative Christian buzzwords (”values voter” and “culture of life” are my favorites) and infantile political gimmicks designed with the religious in mind.

That being said, what does interest and concern me is the fact that just about everybody else in the country does seem to care about this stuff.

It is simply an unavoidable truth of our political circumstances (and a rather unpleasant truth at that for secular voters) that strong religious beliefs form the perspective through which a great many Americans view their prospective leaders. The normative American cultural assumption is that the Bible is the obvious foundational source of goodness (note its most popular colloquial appellation: “the Good Book”), and so candidates’ political stances are vetted as much by their congruence with Biblical values as they are with their actually being a good or a bad idea. In fact, on this pattern of “reasoning,” several very bad policies have persevered exclusively by their religious appeal, such as the so-called “Mexico City policy” and abstinence-only sex “education.

And yet these policies persist, despite the fact that both examples above appear so brutally stupid that one most wonder whether they were designed with failure as an objective. This leads one to wonder: what is it about our political discourse that permits stupidity to be tolerable, even virtuous, to many American voters? Why is it that three candidates for helmsman of the world’s most powerful battleship-of-state would be permitted to publicly admit to being evolution deniers and not simply laughed out of our discourse?

I think that the answer to this question is what may sound like a contradiction: that the United States can be said to be in the softcore stages of a democratic theocracy. By this term I do not just mean any theocracy that permits voting (since even Iran allows its citizens to choose a President, though the Supreme Leader is appointed), but rather, a democratic theocracy would be any state where certain religious values are so endemic in a society’s values and customs that little to no legal framework whatsoever is even necessary. To be more specific, I think that a modern democratic theocracy has three relevant, salient features:

  • A de facto state religion is already in place, so no overt de jure state religion is necessary. One of the principles of a true democratic theocracy is that there need not be any legal strictures requiring high officials to be of a particular religious persuasion, as is the case in totalitarian states like Iran and Vatican City, because the voting popular electorate does all of the enforcing on its own. It would be wildly paranoiac of me to say that this is exactly the case in the United States in every instance, but even the most optimistic observer must concede that this is the case in many instances. The religious demographics of the United States Congress, for example, help to draw this picture: somewhere from 12-16% of Americans call themselves “not affiliated” with any religion, but only about 2% of Congresspeople decline to declare a religious affiliation (even atheist Peter Stark calls himself a Unitarian). The Presidential demographics are even more appalling; only one non-Protestant Christian has ever been elected President, both of the current likely candidates are fighting furiously for the votes of the devout, and who among us would doubt that both candidacies could be imperiled by even a very minor slight of religion-based public policy? Why does Obama feel the need to quote the Bible when advocating the elimination of poverty, which any half-witted humanist knows is a good idea without particularly caring whether or not the Bible approves?
  • “Religious police” are not necessary because the religious body politic is fiercely self-policing. Again, nobody in the United States is going around killing their neighbors for picking up sticks on Sabbath, but we do have our own, peculiarly American ways of enforcing extremist religious values. Public criticism of any religion’s favorite metaphysics is obviously strictly off-limits for elected officials (even if such metaphysics are absolutely, demonstrably loony- note that the few politicians who do oppose teaching creationism in schools often do so on grounds of “keeping religion out of the classroom” rather than the factually appropriate “creationism is unscientific gobbledygook”), but this rule is more appropriately applied on the social level. People with sexual inclinations towards the same gender are essentially terrified into hiding the truth about themselves because they have good reason to fear such things as expulsion from their families, the obliteration of their good standing in certain communities, lifelong subjection to vitriol and venom from near and afar by the religious, and of course alienation from many religious communities. Where does this peculiar hatred of the homosexual come from? What logical reasons would we have for hating the gay, the secular, and the science teacher if not for our fellow citizens who place metaphysics above reason?
  • A nation’s values, especially the value of its electorate, are inextricably congruent with explicitly religious values. Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, the ACLJ, the aggregate of American bishoprics, and their counterparts across the spectrum of American Christianity do such a fine job of telling voters how to vote, who to vote for, and why the Bible says you should vote this way for this person, that official regulations forbidding formal religious tests for high office are useless. Creationist think tanks like the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Science Evangelism are so good at deceiving the public into thinking that there is some kind of “controversy” about evolution within the scientific community that the United States (one of the most savagely anti-evolution nations in the world) can maintain a majority popular stance in favor of young-earth Creationism despite having public schools that are required to teach the exact opposite. This is particularly effective where lax homeschooling standards permit parents to feed whatever garbage pseudoscience they desire to their children because there is often little to no real accountability for students who never learn how to think differently from their parents. Also unlike nearly every other wealthy liberal democracy in the world, the United States is afflicted with a massively revisionist historical complex wherein the Puritans, a cult of totalitarians who left Europe only because they weren’t permitted to brutally oppress their children in the manner they desired, can be portrayed as devout victims of injustice who went on to found an (explicitly Christian) nation with the help of a loving creator-god named Jesus. No other national history so ruthlessly corrupts reality as to build what could only be called an official founding-mythology plagiarized unabashedly from another theocracy’s playbook.

I do not for a moment believe that the United States is at risk of becoming the next Iran. I do not entertain even an inkling that formal oppression of the non-Christian is around the corner (which is to say that I am nowhere near as paranoid as many of the religious are!) and I have never, ever feared that my open secularism would ever threaten my personal well-being. What I do fear, however, is that the socially normative Christian sense of entitlement is growing- we have always seen it in our politics, and far more scarily, in our military. Our government, at least by the letter, is formally intolerant of theocracy, but our society seems to thirst for it. The majority opinion wants God and his Creation Week taught in our schools, the majority opinion wants God on our money and on the lips of our children and politicians day and night, the majority thinks that I will be on fire forever after I die.

If I could ever be accused of paranoia, it would be for the opinion that society appears to me to be becoming more tolerant of hatred, prejudice, and bigotry than the ongoing liberalization of formal government policy in respect to religion would suggest. With the economy turning sour and the evangelicals letting their old frustrations about government fester at the prospect of a Democrat sweep this fall, I can only wonder what the next step in our social development will be. Will we finally permit our values to be congruent with the values of our secular republic’s government? Or will the religious majority let its anger and its devotion mix and grow until things become even worse for those whom it is already bad? Do we really want to let the best-armed members of our population (our military) be the most uniformly convinced that Jesus is the only one to build either a life or a state? I do not.

I worry about my country. Even as you and I get to watch the meteoric rise of a unified, highly-motivated secular movement in the United States, we also get to watch its backlash use our success as rallying cry. Perhaps I worry needlessly, but I wouldn’t be slinging words like “theocracy” and “religious police” around if I didn’t think that we were in a real danger of having to fear some of our religious neighbors far more than we will ever have to fear our religious leaders.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are going digital- and why we should care

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008

Taken at face value, virtually the entire Gospel account of the life of Jesus reads like a deeply disturbed and unbelievable fantasy. An itinerant Rabbi wanders a Roman backwater spouting a bizarre, remarkably un-Jewish eschatology, he offers a litany of incomprehensible parables as substitutes for real teachings, and cooks up completely new interpretations of the Prophets for any who will listen. He sprinkles his vision of the world’s fiery demise, a notion that has no parallel anywhere in Jewish prophecy, with cherry-picked snippets of familiar Jewish scripture in an attempt to substantiate his wild-eyed sermons and harsh condemnations of local authorities and foundational Jewish religious traditions. He dwells in a nightmarish psychosis where demons spread madness and infirmity across the land, spur his enemies against him, and war endlessly with the coming Kingdom of God; despite being mentioned only twice in all of pre-Christian canonical Jewish scripture, demonic invaders are the cornerstone of his moral cosmology. Meanwhile, he is followed by a band of twelve disorganized, unconfident, illiterate peasants who are so dissatisfied with their themselves that they are willing to abandon their livelihoods and their families often at the beckoning of a single sentence to travel with a virtually unknown exorcist on his journey to warn all Israel about their collective impending doom, and the terrestrial holy paradise to follow that is less than a generation away.

At the end of it, this cultish streetcorner pencil-peddler, this hapless and much-despised gadfly declares himself king of all Israel, is deserted by the courts who probably viewed him as but a novelty until Rome grew weary of his quaint nationalism, and is murdered on a tree before the eyes of his own family. The executioner, a cynical, barbaric tyrant by the name of Pontius Pilate, is presented by later chroniclers as a weak-kneed incompetent who is almost dissuaded from his legal duties by his wife’s fever dream, and his flagging cult is revived only when his followers append a confusing and purely theological resurrection narrative (a staple of Greek mythology that is virtually unheard of in Jewish scripture) to his untimely, undignified demise.

This story is historical gobbledygook. It is riddled with anachronisms, theological meddling, latter-day Gospel appellations to the historical record, and general myth-making of every stripe. How are we to make sense of this story, which is the only documentation that exists of the beginning of the world’s most successful religious tradition? Who is this Jesus? Where does he come from? How could such a person’s ideas find any traction in Israel, a waning society of squabbling political parties whose corrupt elders openly collaborate with the Roman occupiers and whose economy is so upended that five thousand would gather at the promise of a single bucketful of fish? For centuries, we appeared doomed to swallow the whole, improbable story on the basis of the most dreaded word in the secular skeptic’s vocabulary: faith.

But nearly two thousand years after the deserts of Judah gave us the question, they gave us the answer. Starting in 1947, a network of caves near the bleaching rubble of an old Jewish installation at Kirbet Qumran has yielded to us a priceless treasure. A number of documents belonging to an enigmatic sect of aesthetes called the Essenes were revealed to scholars and archaeologists, and the story they tell is remarkable.

According to the thousands of recovered pages of what have come to be called the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Essenes were a secretive cult of world-rejecting Jews who broadly tarred all non-Essene Jews as “Convenant-Breakers” and whose scribal obsessions included the architecture of the Jewish Temple, preserving the Jewish canon, and augmenting it with elaborate tails of a cosmic, light-versus-dark struggle that will one day consume all the world. One of their most interesting documents tells of an anonymous “Teacher of Righteousness“, a deeply pious elder locked in endless struggle with a “Wicked Priest” who reinterprets the Prophets and speaks in riddles.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are about as fragile as one would expect 2,300-year-old parchment paper to be, are finally being preserved digitally. No longer will a provincial tribe of scholars horde them to themselves; now we can all see them for ourselves in their original form. We don’t have to buy expensive translations of them or rely on this or that redaction edition: we can read them for ourselves.

Hopefully, the parallels between our itinerant apocalypticist and the theology of the Essenes is clear. The in-group/out-group politics, the fierce condemnation of contemporary political authority, the frequent calls to utterly abandon all material possessions, the demons, the Prophet exegesis, the impending apocalypse, it’s all there. But, why should we care?

Given that one of the chief motives of the modern secular movement is a rational investigation of history, we must realize that the Dead Sea Scrolls’ value to the investigation of Christianity is incalculable. Rather than being awed (even persuaded) by the staggering growth of what started as the “Jesus cult,” we now instead know that this was a perfectly normal theological mutation of a highly similar group of religious fanatics whose religious beliefs needed only a little fire and brimstone to kick-start a global enterprise. Instead of dismissing Jesus as mere madman, we see that instead his teachings were based on a perfectly rational interpretation of religious ideas that far predated Christianity, and in a way that maybe prove even more impenetrable than the Christian-pagan comparisons made by Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price.

We can learn so much about the character of the disciples who, at first blush, look simply nuts. Fictional or not, we could never understand how anyone could even plausibly mistake their behavior for realistic until we understand that world-rejection may have bordered on the commonplace in ancient Israel. Jesus himself is revealed as the mouthpiece of a far vaster underground countercultural movement; rather than let him be buried in the nonsense about virgin births and wandering stars cooked up by Hellenized followers decades after the fact, we see that he would have made perfect sense in the vocabulary of his contemporaries.

Most importantly to our inquiry, we understand that he was not by any stretch the first of his kind. Similarities to the Apollonius or Mithra cult no longer need to be stretched since we have nearly a perfect match between the Gospel Jesus and the Teacher of Righteousness. Christianity is revealed not as God’s complete overthrow of history, but rather as a mere sect of a sect, merely a new strain of a mutant, dissenting form of Judaism.

The Dead Sea Scrolls will be online soon in their original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. And we, as secular inquirers whose thirst for understanding of religion vastly outmatches that of most of the religious themselves, have no greater prize. Once endangered by Middle Eastern strife, exposure to air, and the slow rotting of time, they are now immortalized in a free, open form for everyone. The Scrolls may be safe, but their secrets will never be safe again. And that is a victory for free inquiry.

Is Jack Chick going senile?

Sunday, August 31st, 2008

If you have ever been accosted in the subway, on a bus, or in an airport by a disheveled evangelist passing out little credit card-sized comic books about Jesus, or if you have ever been browsing through books about science, religion, or atheism at your local bookstore and suddenly a little booklet entitled “This Was Your Life” falls out of God is Not Great or The God Delusion, then you have experienced the work of famous Christian evangelist Jack T. Chick firsthand. Perhaps you have read some of his delicious works on evolution on the internet, or read some of the parodies of his anti-Dungeons and Dragons screed “Dark Dungeons.” Almost a billion of these booklets have been distributed by missionaries and evangelists ever since Chick started writing, drawing, and printing his own tracts decades ago, and odds are that if you haven’t seen one yet, you probably will in the future.

Chick’s online catalog has dozens of different tracts, but it is unlikely that you will see any of his recent works in the outstretched hand of your friendly neighborhood evangelist. Chick, who is now 84, has not been producing works of the same “quality” as his most famous tract “This Was Your Life” for years. In fact, given the complete ridiculousness of some of his most recent tracts, it may be time to speculate on whether Mr. Chick is in fact in a state of mental decline.

Chick’s first tract, “Why No Revival?,” is a lucid, by-Christians-for-Christians story of a young man who is turned on to Jesus by an anonymous evangelist and who then undertakes a career of “reviving” Protestant churches that have gone astray, much to the chagrin of the demons who try to tempt him off the path of piety throughout the story (his second tract, “A Demon’s Nightmare,” is almost exactly the same story). “This Was Your Life,” which Chick’s site claims has alone sold almost a hundred million copies worldwide, is an almost entirely scriptural appeal to existential terror of death, and to find Jesus before it’s too late.

His most recent tract, by contrast, is a garbled mess. “First Bite,” which was released the day before this writing, is the almost incomprehensible story of a Satanic coven that is waiting for some kind of demonic anti-messiah named Igor. Igor is born, raised by “dragon masters, grand lodge leaders and ‘9 unknown men,’” and when he comes of age, Satan himself tells the coven that little Igor has to have his “first bite” of human flesh before he can take over the world (why this is the case is not made clear). The coven just happens to pick an innocent young evangelical Christian woman as the victim, Igor moves in for the kill, the woman shouts some Bible passages at him, and then Igor’s fangs magically disappear, he converts to Christianity, and the coven goes into panic-mode when Satan shrugs and says he was lying about Igor all along.

The tract before that, “Who Is He?” appears to be a normal Chick tract: it is a scripture-filled general summary of evangelical theological beliefs about who Jesus was, replete with straw-man unbelievers who say things like “Jesus was Buddha’s cousin” and a filthy, tattooed biker who says that Jesus was a “hoax.”

This tract, however lucid it appears to be, is suspiciously bereft of new material. As someone who has been collecting these tracts for some time, I notice that it has almost no illustrations that have not appeared in previous Chick tracts, and even its story arc completely breaks the Chick formula: in most Chick tracts, there is the wise servant of Jesus and the confused, laughably gullible or uninformed nonbeliever, and often there is a third character (usually either a demon, a scientist, or a Catholic) who tries to lead the gullible non-Christian astray. The stories are usually tug-of-war fables that end up with somebody in hell, somebody in heaven, and a hasty message about how to find Jesus. “Who Is He?” has none of that. Even “This Was Your Life” has the wise angel and the duped unsaved man, whereas “Who Is He?” has no actual characters, dialogue, or particularly useful message of any kind “Who Is He?” is mostly just a regurgitation of previous Chick material, both visually and textually, and so it is quite likely that Chick himself did very little “new” work on this one.

Like “First Bite,” Chick’s third-to-most-recent tract, “There Go the Dinosaurs,” provides strong evidence that all is not right in Chick’s mind, or certainly at least that the quality of his writing and drawing has diminished significantly. “Dinosaurs” is, like “First Bite,” completely incomprehensible and incredibly childish. It tells the story of the last dinosaur (whose thoughts we can read in little bubbles) who tries to hide from a vaguely Middle Ages-ish tribe of hunters by (and this is not a joke) hiding her head in a cloud. The story moves gracelessly into a laughably unsubstantiated tirade about evolution (but only after the inexplicable exclamation that the “dino-burgers” eaten by the hunters took “36 trips! to scavenge from poor Ms. Dinosaur’s corpse) and then closes with the familiar “Heaven or Hell? – Your Choice” page about how to find Jesus.

Of his last three tracts, two are complete messes and one is recycled, and may not even have been written by Chick himself given the oddities in its narrative structure. Has this once-great evangelist, who claims to have saved millions of souls worldwide, simply lost his touch? Or is he in a genuine state of decline?

Jack Chick is 84 this year. The quality of his writing is down, his new stories (when he does write stories) are so incomprehensible and so silly an objective observer would be tempted to view them as parodies. There is nothing in his last three tracts that is even plausibly mistakable for the familiar, modern-day, real-life stories of Christians and unbelievers duking it out for spiritual control of the undecided. Instead, all that is left is an old man telling stories about vampires and dinosaur hunters. His advanced age and diminished creative capacities lead me to believe that it won’t be long before we see the final Chick tract, and we have certainly seen the last legible, new one.

A first-hand experience of a healing crusade

Saturday, August 30th, 2008

I recently attended a ‘healing crusade’ where people expected Jesus to somehow cure their illnesses while children die of starvation in Africa.

Did it convince me that something supernatural was going on? No.

Granted, nobody was literally smacked on the forehead like what happens during Benny Hinn’s crusades, but it was a painful experience to sit through. The room was packed with true believers, and I felt exasperation overwhelming me. It took every ounce of effort not to start screaming and yelling at everyone to simply open their eyes to the deception that they have willingly entered into.

On the other hand, I felt pity and rage at the same time. I felt pity for the sick who attended desperately seeking a miracle. I felt pity for the children whose parents chose to drag to the healing crusade instead of receiving medical care. It was indeed a heart-wrenching sight to see the disabled, the deaf and the blind with looks of longing and hope on their faces as they ‘surrendered their fates’ to their particular version of a deity. I was filled with rage at the people who could even consider feeding tantalizing, false hopes to people who are desperately seeking a miracle just to propagate their own convictions. I felt rage looking at the entire system of self-deception and suspension of disbelief. With pity and rage alternating inside me, I took my seat among the true believers.

It started off with a few worship songs to supposedly ‘bring the presence of god into this place’. The songs were repeated over and over again, bringing about an almost hypnotic effect which some in the audience took as a sign that the ‘holy spirit’ was present. If the Christian god is the omnipotent, omnipresent, all-knowing deity he is portrayed as being, why would he need to be alerted to the fact that his followers needed healing? Couldn’t he have just healed them without having to be told to do so in a special ceremony? The ‘invocation’ also sounded a lot like pagan practices of invoking ‘spirits’. Another interesting question is that if god/his spirit/the holy ghost is omnipresent, why did he need to be specifically channeled into the hall? Why did they have to start the crusade with the act of ‘bringing god into this place’? Is it just me, or does something not quite add up?

The epitome of the phrase ‘fleecing the flock’ was displayed when the collection basket was handed out with calls to ‘give back to god what he has done’. In the first place, nobody had been healed yet, so what would be the rationale for that statement? However, the true believers gave, and they indeed gave! By the time the collection basket arrived at my row, it was full enough to line an evangelist’s pocket or two.

Next came the preaching. The preacher claimed that everyone wants to believe in a god. Many people do want to believe in a god, but saying that everyone wants to believe in a god was an overgeneralization. I guess he also missed the memo that wanting to believe in something doesn’t make it so.

He then claimed that he has ‘evidence’ to conclusively ‘prove’ the existence of one true god. First, he asked the crowd how many people have only one biological father. When the audience raised their hands, he continued with ‘Since nobody could have more than one biological father, it is only possible to have one god as well. It is impossible to have more than one god, as it is impossible to have more than one biological father.’

Yes, that was his great theological proof of monotheism. Voila!

I have to admit that I was more than a little disappointed.

After the great theological ‘proof’ of god, it was time for the ‘worship Jesus or burn’ threats. The usual evangelical stock-phrases were spouted: Now that you have proof that there is only one true god, it is your obligation not to worship false gods. You must choose Jesus, because if you don’t, you will end up in hell, and hell is not a place you want to go to. You want eternal life! You don’t want to end up in hell! You don’t! You don’t! You don’t! You don’t! You don’t! Hell is an absolutely terrifying place! You DON’T want to go there! ACCEPT JESUS!!

The same thing was repeated over and over again until I nearly fell asleep, but I was jolted awake in horror when I saw the true believers around me simply lapping it up. After attending evangelical crusades, trust me, horror movies pale in comparison. The horror of again realizing that around the world, millions of people are buying into this dogma would be more than enough to cause sleepless nights.

Next, we were promised that Jesus would work miracles and that through the miracles; we would see that he is the way to God. We were also told that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit would work the miracles not only to heal the sick, but to also ‘show the truth’ to the non-Christians.

You must be wondering what ‘miracles’ Jesus worked that night. And I have to say, Jesus was really disappointing, or more likely, a no-show. There were a few headaches, stress and depression cases ‘cured’, in addition to a kid’s cough, a slight pain in the foot, a mild ankle injury, ringing in the ears, and pain ‘disappearing’ from various parts of the body. Nobody got out of their wheelchairs and walked despite the repeated calls to ‘Get up and walk.’ No blind people suddenly saw, the deaf didn’t suddenly hear, the mute didn’t suddenly talk, and the disabled didn’t suddenly recover. Most importantly, no amputated limbs were re-grown by God.  Although that would be the most convincing ‘evidence’ that faith healing actually could have something to it after all.

One case was especially heartbreaking, as it was self-deception in the highest degree. A cancer patient who had undergone several rounds of chemotherapy claimed that she felt a decrease in the numbness in her right side. She also felt that the cancer had been ‘reduced by 90%’. How would this be possible to determine without a medical check-up? Despite the patient’s obvious credulity and willing acts of self-deception, I felt really sorry for her. Would she stop her chemotherapy treatments because she feels that her cancer is all but gone? I would never know, but somehow I hope that somewhere along the line, her skepticism kicks in. The anger and pity coursing through me when she gave her testimony at the front was indescribable.

Another sad part is how the crowd clapped and cheered at the end of each testimony, seeing the testimonies as a confirmation of what they so desperately want to be true. When it was time for the altar call, around forty people went up to the front to ‘accept Jesus’. Is skepticism dead among most members of the human species? Superstition claimed more members that night, and I am afraid that we may never be able to compete with the numbers superstition claims all over the world everyday if we are not willing to stand up, speak up, and be counted. Being an appeaser simply would not do.

I know this sounds pessimistic, but perhaps you had to be there on that fateful night.

Ultimate Christian Wrestling

Friday, August 29th, 2008

This was just too hilarious to pass up. First there was Bibleman, the fundamentalist Christian superhero. Now meet Ultimate Christian Wrestling, the fundamentalist Christian wrestling federation.

Seriously though – I may not be any connoisseur of wrestling, but these people are pretty good; they even have the chairs-and-ladders-being-used-as-weapons thing down:

Now all we need is a fake plot with a powerful and amoral wrestling industry mogul to turn this into a man-drama.

A Christian critique of Scientology

Wednesday, August 27th, 2008

We’ve all heard about this strange new religion, this almost science fiction-like organization that worships its dead founder, blames all misfortune on some invading ‘force’ that came into our world millennia before any of us were born, demands money from all of its followers, has a long history of harassing and persecuting apostates, and has an obsessive fear of modern medical science, particularly where psychiatry is concerned. Today I sat down with one of these Christians and talked to him about Scientology.

“Scientology isn’t a religion, it’s a business,” he told me. “Look, it has a strictly-regulated hierarchical structure with a small leadership core- a secretive board of directors, an executive director, a bunch of subsidiaries and underlings that have to do everything that the layer of leadership above them tells them to do. I’m just glad that the College of Cardinals had the good sense to elect a Pope with the courage to stand up to all these New Agey, postmodern cults.”

“Off to a good start,” I muttered.

“And look at their ridiculous cosmology! Why would anyone believe that a superpowerful galactic overlord named Xenu flew a bunch of DC-8s around the galaxy millions of years ago? And all Scientologists are required to accept this by a certain stage of their development within Scientology. Obviously, the truth is that there is one God whose name is Yahweh, who comes in exactly three parts (not two or four), and who had exactly one son named Jesus who died for our sins two thousand years ago and if we don’t surrender to him by telepathy, we’ll be on fire forever.

“That’s just Church doctrine,” he told me. I nodded and scribbled furiously.

“And then they talk about these engrams,” he continued with a scoff. “I mean, come on. Who’s going to believe that all misfortune is because of some outside magical force invading our universe millennia ago? Sin is because of us, not because of some ambiguously powerful, external “Enemy” blasting evil at us! That just wouldn’t make any sense. Why would a loving God let engrams into the world in the first place?”

“Um, maybe we should talk about something else. I mean, what about the endless harassment of apostates? They do that, right?”

“Right, exactly. No matter who you are, if you’re an apostate from Scientology, they will hunt you down. They will harass you, they will harass your family, they will cost you your job, sometimes they will even threaten you with violence. Wait, hold on, I’m getting a text message.” My Christian friend paused and looked at his vibrating cell phone, then pumped his arm in the air and yelled “Praise Jesus!”

“What happened?” I asked him, curiously trying to peer over the screen of his phone.

Webster Cook just got impeached. Ex-Catholic blasphemer got exactly what he deserved. Anyways, what was I saying?”

“Something very, very sad.”

“Oh, yes, that’s right, apostates. But I mean what’s worse is Scientology’s opposition to modern medical science. They treat psychiatry like it’s some kind of pernicious, evil force, and certainly as if it were unscientific. Psychiatry might be completely misguided, but I think that Scientology is just spouting propaganda about its moral intent.”

“Wait, did you say ‘completely misguided?’”

“Well, yeah, I mean, how many psychiatrists do you see who treat the real cause of mental illness?”

I raised an eyebrow. “Which is?”

Demons.” He nodded sternly. “At least, most of the time. OK, at least some of the time.”

“Heh, yeah, I gotcha.” I was busily drawing a profile of John Travolta on my paper. “At least you guys don’t believe in superpowers.”

“Right. The Scientologists think that you can control even the salinity of your own body, and can do other magical things relating to your health, just by believing. They even have silly little magic devices called E-meters to help diagnose your potential for magic powers.” He smiled and rearranged his rosary bracelet. “They should come to some of my weekly meetings to see the real power of the Lord.”

“Um… and what is that, exactly?” I asked carefully, bracing myself for a sneezing fit. “The ‘real’ power of the Lord, I mean.”

“Speaking in tongues, healing by laying on hands, casting out demons. You know, real miracles.” He gave another rather self-assured nod. “Anyways, the biggest shame is how much money they make people pay to be a Scientologist. At least our tithes are voluntary.”

“But what about indulgences?”

“Oh, we stopped those a long time ago,” he said with a blissful smile. “Don’t you know anything about Church history?”

Finally, I just sighed, set down my pencil, and rested my forehead in my palm. “OK, look. You guys ask for tithes, Scientology charges a fee. You guys believe in magic healing, Scientology believes in superpowers. You guys harass your followers and reject medical science, Scientology will kill you, ruin you, or at least let you go insane by denying treatment to the mentally ill. I know you’re a Catholic, but imagine how much worse some of the parallels would be if you were a Christian Scientist or something? You guys love to rail on the evils of cults and dangerous religious groups, but can’t it be said that you guys are just a softcore form of Scientology? Your beliefs are just as ridiculous. Your rituals are just as bizarre. The only difference is that Scientology is better at using courts and cronies to silence critics.”

“You know, there’s a word for people like you.”

“What’s that?”

“Suppressive person.”

The moral of the story is this. Christians worship a man who said “before you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye, pay attention to plank in your own.” And their eyes may be awash in sawdust, but Scientology will kill you for reading this.

Where Do Atheists Get These Crazy Generalizations From?

Tuesday, August 19th, 2008

Click on comic for larger version.

ID: Failing at theology and at science

Thursday, August 14th, 2008

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. [The Wedge Strategy]

Despite their religious motivations, what the IDists don’t seem to realize is that ID actually damages Christian doctrine. OH NOES!!

God-of-the-gaps (Behe/Dembski)

Michael Behe’s version of intelligent design posits a god that tinkers now and then with his creation to design “irreducibly complex” structures such as the bacterial flagellum and the human eye. The idea that god is a tinkering mechanic does not hold water in light of the Biblical doctrine that god is actively involved in the world at all times. Behe’s theology is one where god resides in the gaps of human knowledge, and that god can and should retreat every time a scientific discovery is made. Behe is claiming that the study of nature by material beings would somehow destroy faith in a god, and asserts that science is superior to religious faith.

Behe’s creator is one who lies back for long periods of time, merely appearing to design one complex structure or another. The extension of William Paley’s idea of a watch requiring a watchmaker and design requiring a designer does not work in the case of Behe’s arguments, as his criteria for detecting design is merely what has not been explained by science at the time.

Behe has placed his religion in conflict with science as his argument leads to using ignorance as a reason for belief in god. This god-of-the-gaps theology ultimately undermines religion by shrinking the role of god as science marches on, and affirms the notion that religion has been disproven by the mechanisms and tools of science. When you look for god in things that science has not explained or what you think science has not explained, all you get into is a big pile of trouble.

God as a tinkering mechanic (Johnson)

Philip Johnson posits a god or an ‘intelligent designer’ which intervenes at specific moments in history to create organisms separately without any evolutionary history whatsoever. While traditional Biblical creationists claim that the earth has to be younger than 10,000 years old, Johnson accepts an old earth but rejects the common ancestry of all life due to what he claims are gaps in the fossil record.

Johnson’s view is based on the idea that god is a magician who interferes sporadically in the natural world. However, if we were to look at traditional Christian doctrine, it is theologically inconsistent because god is said to be always active in the natural world. Johnson’s ideas not only rests on a misunderstanding of punctuated equilibrium and the nature of the fossil record, but also lends a disservice to his god by casting doubt on the supposed creator’s competence.

When we look at the vast number of species that have gone extinct, we wonder why Johnson sees a necessity for an all-powerful god to perform “failed experiments” in the course of creation. Explaining design that gives an appearance of evolution and the necessity of extinction cannot be tested, disproven or investigated, and would contradict the nature of god that is revealed in his own Bible.

As we have seen, ID fails as a science and as a theological standpoint. Therefore, ID is an epic failure.

Africans told to be more Christian

Wednesday, August 13th, 2008

Clearly the solution to starvation, poverty and AIDS in Africa is more prayer. Or at least that’s what Matthew Kyei, National President of the Rosicrucian Fellowship of Ghana says.

He expressed worry that even though Christianity was introduced into Ghana many years back, crime and sin continues to plague the society.

He said despite the existence of Christianity in Africa, the continent lagged behind in development and attributed this to selfishness, fear, animism, brutalities and moral degradation instead of worshipping God in faith and in deed.

I’m pretty sure a good ol’ dose of sceptical rationality is what they need, not further intellectual road blocks.

Personal relationship with Jesus?

Tuesday, August 12th, 2008

Rick Warren: Christianity is not like other religions because it is a personal relationship with Jesus. Christianity teaches that Christians will have a personal relationship with Jesus in a process of ‘falling in love with him’.

Here comes the fun part: I am going to refute Warren’s assertion using the Bible itself.

There are various passages that speak of how one is required to repent of sins and believe that Jesus was resurrected and is the only way to the Father to be saved. The act of believing in Jesus is a far cry away from actually having a personal relationship with Jesus, and here we shall see that nowhere in the Bible is there such a mandate for this personal relationship dogma. As far as the Bible is concerned, this doctrine is simply made up by evangelical Christian theologians.

Let us now take a look at John 15: 1-13.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here, we can see that being a Christian involves a vague spiritual union with Jesus, but nowhere in there is the ‘personal relationship’ which is much touted by modern Christianity even seen. Warren’s “carrying on a continual conversation with Jesus” seems ridiculous in light of scripture. The Bible does not even say anything remotely like what Warren claims, yet he sums up Christian worship as having this very relationship (which is notably absent from the Bible)!

Next comes John 10:1-16, in which Jesus says that his sheep recognize his voice, while those not of his flock turn a deaf ear:

1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. 6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. 7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

These verses again have nothing to do with a personal relationship with Jesus and talking to him on a daily basis. These verses simply depict the reception and rejection of the gospel, where the non-believers are likened to Satan’s flock as opposed to the Christians of Jesus’ flock. Let’s take a look at John 10:14 in particular, as most Christians will pull out this verse haphazardly to save their precious doctrine. What this verse really means is that Jesus’ followers will be able to distinguish him from the false teachings and teachers that were earlier mentioned in John 10:8. It has nothing to do with the personal relationship that Warren so desires.

Christians will usually point out Revelation 3:20 next. Is this the saving grace for Warren’s assertions?

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Sadly (at least for Warren and his followers), it falls short yet again. By itself, the verse sounds promising. It shows not only Jesus talking with you, but also eating with you! However, when put in context, the verse is contained in John’s letters to the seven churches, and the letters are regarding the events of the End Times, not a personal relationship with Jesus.

But, what about the whole context of the letter to Laodicea? Doesn’t the whole letter hint at a personal relationship with Jesus? Am I the one now following Warren’s cue at taking Bible verses out of context? Well, let’s take a look at the scripture:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

What this letter really says is that Jesus is calling on those within the city, hoping that they will hear him so that they can be led to salvation. These events will take place just before the End Times, and all this has clearly nothing to do with having cozy personal conversations with Jesus. The supper that Jesus promises is not some one-on-one Warren-like meeting, but the Marriage Supper of the Lamb at the End Times:

Revelation 19: 7-9:

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. 9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Even further on, in Revelation 19: 17-21, Jesus is not even hinting at wanting a personal relationship with Christians at all. He is merely inviting his flock to witness and indulge in the slaughter of the non-believers and the beast:

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

I have clearly shown that these gory details are nothing like Warren’s “falling in love with Jesus” and conversing daily with Christ. Even better still, I am relying solely on the *Bible (albeit without Warren’s back-and-forth hopping using about 15 translations) to show that Warren’s whole premise of “real Christian worship” is not founded upon anything in the Bible. There is simply no basis in scripture for claiming that Christianity entails having a personal relationship with Jesus, therefore, one of the most popular Christian slogans has been refuted using the Bible itself.