Tell Ol' Pharaoh, Let My People Go

I went to my parent's church for its 50th anniversary. My mom's one of three charter members who are still alive.

They drag my nephew to church. My sister couldn't care less I don't think but my mom insists and my sister would probably be miserable with herself if she ever expressed anything but acceptance toward my mom's religious antics.

It was probably a good experience for the kid in some sense. He met some other little guys, although he's still such a spaz I think he has trouble making a lot of friends. He hung around me during the church event as much as he physically could. I'm not great with kids and he's an obnoxious one so I get my fill of him fairly quickly. And it doesn't help that they're filling his head with garbage, either.

I'll explain. He went off to children's church during the service. The pastor talked about several things, one of which was the parting of the Red Sea. After the whole thing ended, the kids are loosed and my nephew comes back to me. He's talking about "pharaoh", and clearly his group talked about that stuff as well.

So, he asks me "did pharaoh die?" And I said yes, everyone did eventually. He said how, I said I don't know, probably old age. (Yes, I know a common idea is that pharaoh drowns with the Egyptian soldiers as the Red Sea closes in on them, but historians have found no actual indication that the Egyptians kept Hebrew slaves in the first place, so the chances that a man died amidst an aquatic miracle seem pretty slim to me. And I'm not sure if the Bible verses explicitly state that he drowns.)

He tells me that pharaoh died (and forget me if I get this a little wrong) when my nephew knocked him in the head. I think he actually called this a "great mission". He also claimed he exploded someone's lucky watermelon and I think that had something to do with Egypt too. He starts telling me how he's always been 6 years old and he was around back then and he's like God and he killed pharaoh.

So, I know I'm a buzzkill, but I have a few problems here, both general and specific.

First off, generally speaking, it's clear a six year old is not getting a lot out of these stories. They may as well have taught him Dr. Seuss. It's just a different flavor of silliness, one at least intentionally designed to make children think and have fun, as he clearly wants to do.

I mean, here's this six year old blaspheming God by claiming that he himself is like God. Does God care? Well, of course he should! That's a capital sin! The only way God doesn't care is if he realizes the kid is too young too understand what he's saying... and if that's the case, there's my point proven!

Also, I dislike a lot of these stories being taught to small children. They're almost all about death in some way or another. God killed Egyptian children and animals simply to prove to them that he was serious. (I happened to write about this.)

Here we have my nephew saying he killed someone. And he thinks it's a good thing. I get it, cops & robbers, Ninja Turtles, etc... kids will talk about killing bad guys once in awhile. But, really. Teach my kids that the settlers killed the Indians, and I'm alright with it. Teach my kids that this is okay and God was pleased, and we have a problem. If the world gets flooded, yay, God took care of a few of the animals! Rainbow time. If Samson kills hundreds of people in a fit of rage, sweet!

The worst part is the "great mission" line. Again I'll mention Jesus Camp, because the scary lady in that actually said that she sees how Muslim kids will kill themselves for Islam and she wants kids that devoted to Christ here. If the kid were a little older, a little dumber and thrown into a bad situation, this kind of thought is the potential for bad things to happen.

I'll bridge all this together somewhat. The pastor was talking to us about how the Hebrews hesitated to go through the Red Sea, but 40 years later, they crossed the Jordan River without complaint.

He was saying how awesome this one verse was, verse 11.

Joshua 14:
10 "Now then, just as the LORD promised, he has kept me alive for forty-five years since the time he said this to Moses, while Israel moved about in the desert. So here I am today, eighty-five years old! 11 I am still as strong today as the day Moses sent me out; I'm just as vigorous to go out to battle now as I was then.

He was ranting about "this guy's the alpha dog" and "I hope I'm like that when I'm 80!"

Now, notice verse 12:

12 Now give me this hill country that the LORD promised me that day. You yourself heard then that the Anakites were there and their cities were large and fortified, but, the LORD helping me, I will drive them out just as he said."

So, yeah! God freed us from slavery, let's go to places where other people already live, kill them, and take their land. After all, it's all God's land. If he wants to kill them and give it to us, then they are surely forfeit. Sounds a bit like those Indians.

Interestingly, a few minutes later the pastor was talking about the greatest commandment: love the Lord, and love your neighbor as yourself.

So I guess the Israelites kick themselves out of their own homes and kill themselves. That's a hell of a prayer retreat if you ask me.

Oh, wait. Jesus didn't come to deliver the "greatest commandment" until centuries later. These guys were pre-love.

Another thing the pastor was talking about was how they originally had to cross the Red Sea, but it parted first. Then they had to cross the Jordan, but they had to get in BEFORE it would part.

He said God will do things differently each time, and you'd better learn to obey. They were thirsty, and Moses struck a rock, which sprang forth with water. Later, they were thirsty again, but God told him to talk to the rock, not strike it. He struck it again. God was mad. He never does things the same way twice, apparently.

Amazingly, this story matches perfectly with the greatest commandment. The first time, God tells you to go strike your neighbor. The second time, he says to go speak with them. Please keep in mind this is the same God whose perfect moral character is forever unchanging. He literally wants you to go kill everyone who isn't like you in one part of the book, and go preach to and show love to everyone who isn't like you in the other part of the book. I dare you, I dare anyone to justify this to me. Really justify it. If you can't, how can you possibly believe or accept it?

What really struck me about this little point was how he didn't talk about it at all. He applied the fighting spirit to moving forward as a church, growing and reaching the community. It's just so easy to gloss over the idea that what is being described is unjustifiable.

If I were a Christian and I went and killed a godless man and moved into his house, would I deserve to go to jail? I know these folks at the church would never want to see that happen now. But they've trained themselves not to think about it, not to worry about barbarism and evil as long a it's in the context of Bible stories.

And I know where it all started. It started with little kids, being numbed to atrocity via watered down stories they could not understand.

And where do I come in? Well, I stay out of it. If my nephew asked me why I don't go to church, or if I believe in God, I would probably answer honestly, but I'd try to skim the topic a bit. I know he wouldn't understand. I know he's not capable of having the conversation with me about how there's not evidence, or how not everything about God is good. And I know even if I tried, even if I just said something like "not everyone believes in God", that might be too much for some of them. That might be "rocking the boat", or disrupting his "spiritual walk" (despite the clear demonstrations of the fact that he has none yet).

And that's fine to a degree. I mean, I know what he's capable of, and what he's not. That's why I'd prefer not to go there in the first place. And that's why I think they're not doing anyone any good by going there themselves.

Of course you'll believe in God if you've never heard anything to the contrary and you're too young, uneducated and obedient to think of a reason otherwise.

I don't mean to insult religion by saying this, but I think any kid who hasn't figured out Santa isn't real isn't old enough to understand religion. Even if God IS real, if you want to grasp the concept as presented, you need to be able to tell the difference between an age-old, life-changing story, and a recent commercial bastardization of an otherwise obscure figure. Otherwise you're just a parrot, reciting a belief in God, ghosts, UFOs, chupacabra, Barack Obama's promise of change, and anything else you hear.

But they won't do that. They do not value the process of free and unfettered choice. Very few of them do, anyway. It's a powerful, time-honed system of social pressure. Make good Christian children. They don't care about the other side. They don't care about truth.

I left the faith because it was dead to me, but then I gradually learned the importance of freedom and of truth, and in doing so I came to despise the nature of organized religion. I despise the pressure thrust upon me by the social machine. I despise that the people who claim to hold the truth do not want to speak of it with me. I despise the use of fear and authority to silence open inquiry and progress.

If Hell exists, it is that moment, frozen in time, where one forfeits their critical thinking.

The God of the Bible is false. I will continue to prove this. That is all.

Love, III

I love you. Whoever you are, whatever you've done, I love you. I love you as much as possible, in the purest and most sincere way, so much so that I can do nothing but love you. I am love.

(Not really, but let's say I am.)

How will I treat you? The best possible way? Showering you with gifts and praise and joy? But no, if I love you, I can't just let you be evil, because evil does not love, but love demands love. Love is so great that if you do not love, I, in loving you, have a problem with you.

And you all just happen to be pretty damn evil.

The Problem: I made you evil.

It was necessary to make you evil. Why? Because love requires free will, and free will creates innate evil, because only I am love.

I made you something that was evil, and even when I send my followers to convince you to do good, it is I who will again make you evil all the same:

Exodus 4:

21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Exodus 7:

3 But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites.

Exodus 9:

12 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.

Exodus 10:

1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD."

20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.

27 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was not willing to let them go.

Exodus 11:

9 The LORD had said to Moses, "Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt." 10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.

Exodus 14:

3 Pharaoh will think, 'The Israelites are wandering around the land in confusion, hemmed in by the desert.' 4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD." So the Israelites did this.

5 When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, "What have we done? We have let the Israelites go and have lost their services!"

I am good, but you, who I make evil, are evil. No matter how many times I reveal myself to you, I will choose to keep you evil. I do this not to show you the way, but to show the way by you.

Incidentally, in the process, I killed all of your firstborn. Men, women, children, babies, because of you. (This was out of love, as are all of my actions.)

But, in giving you "free will", wherein I harden you into evil, I am not to blame, and you are.

Romans 9:

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

The Answer to the Problem: I made you evil because I am good.

This is the nature of my love. I am love. Oh, and do not forget Malachi 1:

2 "I have loved you," says the LORD.

"But you ask, 'How have you loved us?'

"Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."

I also hate. Perhaps I forgot to mention that.

Yes, I love and I hate. This is the nature of my love. I hate, and I will take everything away from those I hate; I will lift them up high only to destroy them and show that I am good and they are evil. They are evil because I have made them evil, hardened them evil; I have made them evil to show my goodness, because I am good, because I am love.

You will come to love me if I choose for you to love me. I know you, have known you from the beginning; I know what you could be, and I know what you will be. With that in mind, I have shaped your life and shown you what I will, and denied you what I will.

Lest we forget Matthew 11:

23And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

I know what will make you believe in me and love me. It differs between each of you. I will choose what each person will or will not see, knowing whether or not it will convince them. Though I wish for all to love me, some I will not show what is needed; others I will show the same deeds where it will not help. In my love for you, I will select your fate.

Romans 8:

28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

2 Thessalonians 2:13:

But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

The fact that you are puppets is inescapable. For you to claim that you are free is to be made by me to say so. I control you because I love you. Specifically, I love some of you, and hate others of you; I hate those I have made evil, and love those who I have made to love me.

Matthew 13:

40"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

I will burn all but those I have chosen. All others exist to be destroyed as an example of my glory. This is because I am love. This is the nature of love. To doubt this is to not know love.

Do you know love?

.

.

.

Forever shall I act at Thy command;

Alpha began, as will omega end.

I pray Thee, then, with Thy almighty hand,

In worship may Thou bring my knees to bend.

Wealth, Charity, Poverty and Oddity

Matthew 26

⁶While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, ⁷a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

⁸When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. ⁹"This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor."

¹⁰Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. ¹¹The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. ¹²When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. ¹³I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

Found this on Wikipedia. It's very interesting. Jesus felt this woman was incredibly important. Why? Because she was honoring him, is my guess. Jesus was only here for a short time, so perfuming his body for burial was necessary.

I can sort of get that, in some sense. Not so much the part about why it was superior to feeding the poor. Well, yes, actually. Jesus could feed the poor by breaking food apart into many pieces. Jesus could feed the poor by blessing them so that they will be fed somehow. And, Jesus could feed the poor by, well, commanding his servants to sell their possessions and feed the poor.

But, when we look to Luke 18...

22And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

This seems likely to be why his disciples complained about the perfume. Jesus had commanded thusly and they understood that. So, why the exception in the case of the woman?

Perhaps because Jesus simply needed to be prepared for death. But why would an all-powerful and all-loving God, come in the flesh to save our souls, care about perfume on his corpse?

Treating dead bodies with chemicals seems to be an important and age-old human tradition. During this time period, it was perhaps better understood why perfuming was appropriate. This may have been a hint toward his resurrection, as well.

In any case, we have here a teaching about expensive valuables being sold and the money given to the poor. However, in honoring Christ, an exception is made wherein it is more righteous to honor he who will not always be with you, rather than serving the poor, who will always be.

This presents some interesting issues. First off, does it mean that even though we are to give to the poor, it is never going to put an end to poverty? Wouldn't ending all poverty be best? Or, perhaps ending all richness would be best? The rich, after all, are unlikely to get into Heaven, and are not perfect in deed for as long as they will not give up their wealth in God's name:

24Jesus looking at him said, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! 25For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

I always wonder how Republicans can be so duped by the religious right-wingers as to believe that capitalism and the extravagant wealth that comes from it are good, and that taxing them heavily is wrong (despite what we know about taxes) while socialism is bad. I'm not a socialist myself, but I would think if I believed in Christ, I would have a certain amount of respect for the view, if still not sharing it.

The poor will always be with you, and the rich must give away their possessions. Interesting cultural landscape this seems to describe.

One thing I'd like to point out here, which I think is pivotal, is this idea that the use of valuables, of niceties, of extravagance, in honoring Christ; specifically, wherein you are to help the poor, but it is less important than honoring Christ with your possessions. What does this sound like?

The Pope, bless his heart, helps the poor by living in a castle. The history of Catholicism, which, like it or not, is part and parcel to the history of Christianity (that and 1500 years of poor people who had never read the Bible, then some Protestants near the end) is laden with the bilking of the poor, the hoarding of wealth, the depriving of education and liberty, and the exalting of holy men who we "will not always have". The poor are perpetuated by superstition, ignorance and religious authority. To this day, dirtbags fleece people in the name of God while preaching to be fighting poverty. They, too live in extravagance.

If you are a Christian, and this doesn't upset you - make you want to fight to put an end to it - I have no respect for you. If Jesus were real, this is one of the guys he would have thrown out of the temple.

Yeah... think about it.

Belief in Belief

Do I go too far? Do I not go far enough?

I talk, sometimes to myself. I talk, until even I get tired of hearing it. What are we social animals if we do not talk? And do we not stand to gain so much by seeking to know? Talking is our tool to exchange ideas. I talk, because I seek to know.

I know what I know. I know what I don't know. If someone knows something I don't, I want to know. If I know something they don't, why the hell don't they want to know?

Religion is a presumption of knowledge without possession of knowledge. A certainty without certainty. A faith in faith. A belief in belief.

Why do I oppose it? Because I make sense of what I see. If I see problems, I address them. What could be more important than filtering out misconceptions and developing a more accurate understanding of reality?

To believe in God, one must believe that belief is an ideal state. If one were to determine that belief were not an ideal state, they would attempt to establish factual certainty instead.

If we are here to love God, and God would have us believe in him, rather than know factually of him, then it can be determined that our purpose is belief, not knowledge. Knowledge may serve a purpose in this process, but it is secondary to faith.

Take the example of children. Jesus repeatedly advises us to be like children: not necessarily knowing, but trusting all the same. Adhering to an authority. Being led. This is not negative in this context. It is positive. Just like children don't understand the ways of adults, adults don't understand God. We are not meant to. We cannot.

So, why is this? What is the importance of believing in an invisible God rather than knowing an apparent God? They say God is evidenced by the world around us. What would a world not created by God look like? Chaos? Suffering? Imperfection? We see it now. Is this because we sinned? Wouldn't God know what would happen to this world if we sinned? He created it intricately and all-knowingly.

So, this is the world created by a God, who knew it would fall into disrepair because of our sins. He still expected us to see his perfect hand in this imperfection, to the point where we would believe in him without seeing him because of this world, this reality.

Again, what would an imperfect world NOT created by God look like? Terrible disasters? Slaughtered children? Dog-eat-dog survival? Fear? Hate? Confusion? Would it look any different?

This imperfect world is our evidence. These books, these prayers, these songs, these stories, these ideas, these feelings. These are what we make our choice by. Belief, not certainty. Why?

Because we can love him that much more, by trusting without seeing? Why is this true with God, but not with other people? When we look at thousands dying in Haiti, we may frown or sigh. When one child we know suffers or dies, we are devastated, traumatized. We are equipped to care for what we know, what we see. We cannot fathom God the way we cannot fathom Haiti, because we are social and personal animals.

But God has a personal relationship with us, despite a lack of physical interaction. So many questions. Why does the world exist? Why isn't he in it? Why aren't we just minds interacting with him? If this world is so evil, so destined to be evil, why did he create it? How did the world become evil just because man did?

And why is this the better way? Why is believing the better way? We'll love him more? Is this really true?

We'll see.

Prayer Warriors, Zionism and Dissent

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=MgdZgBwMjIc

So, my mom is a prayer warrior. Granted, I don't believe she's part of the movement being described in this video, at least, not wittingly or comprehensively. However, her beliefs definitely match up with it. She thinks Gog and Magog are Russia. She watches Jack Van Impe and his computer-animated wife, Rexella. (Crazy or no, Jack at least gets small nod from me for discouraging the idiocy of Pat Robertson.)

She prays demons out of territories, or strongholds. These, curiously, can be either in someone's behavior, or in a geographical location. My mom prints out lists of Indian burial mounds, because demons can take over these spots. (Those awful savages and their evil spirits, ruining this great country even in death!)

My mom drives around, praying for specific streets. Sometimes she feels strange things, and God calls her to pray them out. She watches the news like a hawk (and watches hawks like they're news, incidentally - she loves spotting birds of prey while driving) to see places she's prayed for, to see if crimes are stopped, or if there are places that she needs to start praying for.

In her mind, she's had too much successes, uncovered too many things, seen too many things resolved with such timing, that she is convinced her powers are real, and that there is no room for coincidence here. She keeps a book of answered prayers. She's got some five thousand of these. Of course, Jesus is known well for his ability to turn 2 and 5 into 5000. A look through the book will reveal things like "meeting went well," "[person x] getting better" and the like.

A few importants points of contention:

1. OBVIOUSLY, things have a way of resolving themselves. Praying for something to go well implies the average life is full of frequent misfortune, disaster and inability to come to terms. While bad things do happen, it's hardly requiring of a miracle for people to hold a business meeting where they discuss business successfully.

2. Human beings have immune systems and the ability to repair damaged organs or tissues, which resolves many of their health problems during a short or medium-term timespan. In other cases, humans require medical help from doctors, specialists, medicine, treatments and regimens. To credit God for one's medical successes is an unfounded notion. Maybe you can attribute that one in a million cancer situation to him, but good luck arguing with the overall statistics.

Seriously, if you give people the choice of the doctor or the witch doctor, you know what they're going to pick, and if you don't, God help you when you get sick. To think that the boom of life expectancy and quality of living in the first world in the past hundred years is simply God's mercy, and not the power of modern medicine, you need to do some serious thinking on the topic.

Even if God were responsible, you can hardly demonstrate this, because people who claim answered prayers are often in the middle of medical treatments. Who can say what cures them? At least the scientific angle can be tested and repeated.

It pains me to even have to say all this. It's so obvious. But, it bears repeating.

Denominations (cults) who refuse their children medical care for religious reasons are murderers. Anyone who prays first and dials 911 second is a fool. Yes, I will stand by that.

3. Perhaps the simplest, and most important point is that, when I asked my mother whether she'd be willing to compare her answered prayers vs her unanswered prayers, she didn't need to give it any thought. "No." I think she said that she's prayed for too many things to keep track of. Of course, she KEEPS TRACK OF the successes.

The level of delusion here is blatant. You cannot simply provide a delicious and hearty loaf of whole grain bread as your proof. The process of separating the wheat from the chaff IS your proof, not the result! That is flat-out doctoring, obscuring, selecting.



...All that being said, I'll reiterate that while people believe some crazy stuff, I'm not under the impression that these evangelicals are directly dangerous in the way that some militias or radicals may be - but, their movement could play a part, even if small, in influencing people to such ends, inadvertently or in the shadows.

Fear is the oldest tool in the book for social and political engineering. Religion knows it intimately: execution, torture, fire and brimstone, all under the veneer of infallible leadership, divine mandates, and benevolent intentions. If some people start pushing for the end times, religious leaders, who may very well believe what they're saying, will see it as a suitable means to cow people into belief.

Religion doesn't simply make people evil. That would be a gross generalization and misuse of words. Dogma, moreover, religious or secular, doesn't simply make people evil. What happens is that dogma dillutes and tints reasoning. People will become more likely to be led down a path that won't make sense; they may attack science in the name of truth, attack freedom in the name of their rights, or attack innocents in the name of righteousness.

And what about these end times? I'm definitely going to need to study the Scoffield Bible at some point. Its influence has become far too large. Its footnotes have become doctrine, their implications dogma. (And what it's interpreting is the zaniest pile of babbling mess this side of North Korea.)

If the human world ends, it's because earth can no longer sustain us, which may or may not, but probably will be our fault. Swearing by an old book that reads like an acid trip is so meaningless. Groups can't even agree on what it means, because it is either symbolic or inane. So, a creature with seven eyes and four wings crawls out of the sea and eats a little book (I'm calling this stuff off the top of my head, so please forgive me if I miscount the number of eyes on a fantasy creature.)

Ugh. Alright. I've said enough about the text, but let's address the consequences of the beliefs. Why do people want to bring Armageddon?

1. It's supposed to happen. Yes, chaos and death are inevitable, so might as well get them over with, because I want to see Jesus.

2. We deserve it. We are filthy and detestable creatures who have gone too far, and it has to happen to us based on our own behavior.

3. It's humane to get it over with now. Every generation that passes will be more and more people, proportionately, going to Hell (by any reasonable evaluation of global religious trends, anyhow.) Let's end the suffering.

I'm not saying all Zionists believe all three of these. Any single one of the three is plenty hurtful on its own. Name anything besides religion, or I suppose some spiteful incarnation of nihilism, which would see such good in the end of the world on an unproven assumption that there's a greater meaning behind it. This is a hurtful view.

This harkens to my Love, II post wherein I talk about the notion that love, as far as I can tell by the Bible, is power, and authoritarianism, and punishment and death. The world must end because of love. What a backwards, stupid claim. (And yes, I'm the one making it, but if my interpretations are wrong, I'd love to know.)

Now that you're all asleep, I'll close by talking about dissenting in regards to Christianity. Is America founded in the godly tradition of dissent?

Well, Hebrews 13:17 tells us: Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Hmm...

So, when those revolutionaries threw all the tea into the harbor and refused to pay their taxes, they were following Christ, right?

Well, Mark 22:18-21 says: But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax."

They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

"Caesar's," they replied.

Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Wow, how confusing. It's almost as though all the American, Judeo-Christian, capitalistic, free speech, free religion, patriotic rhetoric is a bunch of hypocritical bullshit. But that can't be right, can it?

Oh, friends. It pains us.

But, anyone who claims to be joining a militia to take back their country in the name of The Lord God of Israel, come to earth in flesh as Jesus Christ, is a complete tool who doesn't know how to read, or, if they do, cherry picks what they want to read. God puts leaders in place, including bad ones. Jesus advocated peaceful resistance at times, otherwise no resistance at all.

Look at his Apostles, for crying out loud. They were killed, but they did not kill. They served and they suffered for their service. When Peter cut off the ear of a guard who was trying to take Jesus away, Jesus healed the ear. If Jesus was fine with being carted off to be killed, Jesus is fine with "freedom" being carted off to be killed. He would not have you turn a blade on another man.

Of course, I can't blame people completely, because the Bible is contradictory as well. Matthew 10:34-36 tells us:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

Some might be quick to say that this isn't literal, and that Jesus spoke metaphorically. Well, it'd be nice if he would've been more clear. (The reasons why he wasn't are obvious from my perspective, but at any rate.) Look at how Israel used the sword to glorify God and tell me modern day radicals who are itching for religious conflict have zero basis for their views Biblically. The proof is in the pudding, of course, so we'll just have to judge history and current events as they go.

(Interestingly, the word "sword" appears in 406 verses in the NIV Bible. "Love" appears in 697. Nice save. Curiously, here's the final use of each: sword and love, both from the aforementioned, lovely Book of Revelation.)

I'm running out of things to say on the topic, and that's always a good time to think about quitting. At some point I'll get back to Love. It'll be good.

The Bible and Slavery

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

This is a nice site, in general. Perhaps a bit inflammatory, but it could be worse. I'm sure I'll talk more about this later.

Love, II

The issue of love is yet unresolved on this blog. What is love? What is its relevance in the matter of the existence or nonexistence of God?

Let us look to 1 John, chapter 4 (emphasis added):

7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

13We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. 16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. 18There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

19We love because he first loved us. 20If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

This blog feels so easy when I can just copy-paste verses. The challenge now is analysis. Luckily, this part is easy too, because The Bible is very specific: God is love.

So, to understand love is to understand God. Great! Let's kill two birds with one stone, then, and figure out what love is according to 1 Corinthians, chapter 13:

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Well, that's God, then. God is all of these things. Though, obviously, I wouldn't be here if I didn't have some issues with these notions. Let's make this even easier, since God is love:

God is patient, God is kind. God does not envy, God does not boast, God is not proud. God is not rude, God is not self-seeking, God is not easily angered, God keeps no record of wrongs. God does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. God always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Frankly, this is sounding pretty ridiculous now. God is patient? Let's see...

pa-tience
-noun
1.the quality of being patient, as the bearing of provocation, annoyance, misfortune, or pain, without complaint, loss of temper, irritation, or the like.

2.an ability or willingness to suppress restlessness or annoyance when confronted with delay: to have patience with a slow learner.

3.quiet, steady perseverance; even-tempered care; diligence: to work with patience.

Seriously, read the Old Testament, then try to tell me God bears provocation. God is as likely to kill you with bears for provoking him.

One can make an argument that God is patient with Israel, as it continually falls short of his expectations. All the same, there are times when God gets really super pissed and needs to be talked down, like in Exodus 32:

9 "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."

11 But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "O LORD," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.' " 14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.


Moses appears more patient than God in this example. He also accuses God of planning to commit evil, an allegation God does not deny. While God relents at Moses's behest, this creates no shortage of problems:

1. God wished to perform an evil act in his anger. (Love is not easily angered, love does not delight in evil.)

One could argue God would not delight in this evil, but that would only alleviate part of the problem. Additionally, if there is objection to the accuracy of the word "evil" in this verse, I can't really help that - Christianity has had thousands of years to deal with such issues in this infallible text. I'll look into the Hebrew someday, but dammit Jim, I'm not a translator.

The fact that God didn't ultimately perform this act suggests that not performing it was the loving thing to do - God wouldn't have done the unloving thing. Perhaps it was his love-bond with Moses that made him spare them, not his love-bond or lack thereof with his people. This is akin to how God will let you die of cancer, but if you petition him in proper love he will (probably) save you.

So, does your love for someone determine what you'll do for/to them, or is their love in return what determines what you'll do? Food for thought. We will certainly come back to this topic.

2. God was going to destroy these people, rather than give them a chance to repent and move forward. (Love always protects, always trusts.)

It appears that Moses had more trust in his people than God did. But, I suppose God is cheating in this case, because he knows the hearts of men. Why would he trust in them? I'll spare you the full dictionary entry this time, but trust entails confidence. He who knows the truth of reality trusts the truth in perfect knowledge. (Of course, there's the issue of early OT God lacking omniscience, but that's its own topic.)

I contend that the word "trust" is categorically irrelevant concerning God. He either knows the Israelites will come around and obey (making his tantrum pointless,) or knows they won't (and therefore he wouldn't trust that they would.)

Continuing that note, I'm going to jump forward a bit here and attempt to knock a few of these out of the air, by saying that:

3. God exists outside of space and time. (I would certainly savor to hear an argument otherwise - please bring supporting data!)

The relevance of this goes beyond omniscience and trust: God would not need "an ability or willingness to suppress restlessness or annoyance when confronted with delay," as per the definition of patience. God is timeless, permanent, unchanging (supposedly.) Such a being is not "waiting" for anything.

Beyond that, God caused all things to begin, knowing how they would unfold. The beginning is as the end. It is all his will, his work. If I could do that, I don't imagine the word "delay" would factor into things in the least. God isn't just a boy sending away his box tops and waiting six to eight weeks for his x-ray glasses - God is the glasses, and the box tops, and the Postal Service, as it were. "Delay" is moot. "Patience" is moot. Massless space has no size, or color, or shape. Timeless beings have no patience and no need of it.

To round things out before I move on, I really need to say it. God? Persevere? How could he not? "Well, I'm all-powerful, but I guess I'll give up." Perseverance is nigh-meaningless when there is no difficulty at hand, against which to, you know, persevere. The only difficulties God faces are self-imposed: an adversary he created, and the hearts of those who he gave the freedom to reject him. To persevere against your own machinations is... well... I don't know if I want the word duplicitous here, or hypocritical, or unproductive, or pointless, or retarded.

So! Let's address this "love does not envy" stuff. Do not forget that God is a jealous God by his own words. Jealousy and envy... there is a difference of sorts, but it is somewhat lost in our language compared to the Hebrew.

We need to understand God's jealousy for what it is, then. It is described in terms of God's reactions to our not honoring him, or serving other Gods, or having idols. God is jealous for our devotion and faithfulness. If we worship elsewhere, we are betraying him (or at least, the Jews were betraying their covenant to him - not that they necessarily agreed to it in the first place.)

The penalty in this covenant for... well, almost everything, is death. Holy Sharia Law, Batman! Love kills you if you worship something besides love. I'd hate to see what hate would do.

It is unacceptable for you not to reciprocate God's love. That is the nature of his jealousy. Does this constitute as God wanting what he does not have? Envying? That's hard to say, really. We're not given specific and detailed insight into this jealousy. Suffice to say, if humans steal from one another out of envy, this is envy gone wrong. If love would kill in jealousy that which does not reciprocate, I would say that is jealousy gone wrong. It's wrong to steal, and it's wrong to kill. What you want is irrelevant, unless you're God.

God lives by a different standard. God is entitled to be loved. God must be loved. God has the right to want your love and to punish you for not giving it. It's that simple, and our feelings on the matter are insignificant.

One problem: love is not self-seeking.

Whoops. Tell me: if I loved you, and you didn't love me, but I demanded that you love me, was jealous for your love, could not tolerate that you would love someone or something else instead of me, and I took actions to punish you for not loving me, would that be self-seeking? If God is love, isn't facilitating his own desire for us to love him back self-driven?

Oh, sure, he gives us a choice: burn or bliss. Why do we need to make this choice at all? Why does he get to put us on the spot? Love is authority; it must be in order to make sense of all this. Why does he get to judge and punish? Love is justice.

Love is a demand. Love is an absolute. Does this sound like the way you use the word love? Does this comport to how you live your life?

Don't think this is just some obscure fire and brimstone stuff, taken out of context. This is how Jesus preached. This is the ideal, that you would be a child, seeking and submitting to your parent figure, or else you were branches cast into fire.

Love asserts. Love expects. Love needs, and love cannot tolerate refusal. Love is pretty hardcore like that.

Absolute love is absolute power and absolute justice. Everything must necessarily, fundamentally gravitate around love.

But, love doesn't envy, and love isn't self-seeking. Why seek, when you are everything, and whatever isn't part of you is nothing?

Love is kind, as well. This is for your sake, obviously. You need to be punished. Love is a full and intimate knowledge and embrace of what you are - and if what you are is evil, love must exponge you. But, love keeps no record of wrongs, of course. You can never be good enough for love, but it won't hold anything against you (except all that evil - that's why you repent, duh!)

If you can't see my point here, I'm establishing the basis that love must be all of these things, otherwise God cannot be love. Some people will say that God is all-loving and wants you into Heaven, but he's also all-just, and must send you to Hell if you don't repent. I think this misstates the scenario - if God were all-loving, he could not possibly do anything that would compromise perfect love. If God were all-just, he could not compromise perfect justice. The only way to reconcile these two is that they must be synonymous. To love someone is to hold them to justice.

This concept is expansive - nothing God is can be unless it is love. If God had any aspect of his being that was not a full and complete manifestation of nothing but love, God would not be love. God would be a being with love in him, but that love would exist independently, and it is necessary in this case that God be love itself.

God's creation of the universe was not a creative side or a productive side of his being - it was love. Love creates and produces.

God's punishment and forgiveness are not cruelty or justice - they're just love, pure and simple.

God cannot be any more or any less than love itself. And before God created time, space, man and earth, before he made anything at all, he was. Love is the root of all existence.

The totalitarianism of this sentiment is horrifying, especially considering that Yahweh is not the only god to lay claim to it; the notion that love is the root of all existence, however, is a nice sort of idealistic thought. Very anthropocentric, but nice.

We desire love, acceptance, purpose, meaning, understanding and fulfillment, and we desire it in the context of humanoid socialization. It's reassuring to look to the sky and see what feels like human authority. Of course, real human authority (the kind that walks and talks) is quite able to make use of this process for its own purposes. The power of a spiritual figure can be both comforting and controlling, a means to liberate or to oppress.

There is also a harsh reality all around us which we must face, and a good way to find solace in this pain and death is in assuming that it, too, must be the work of this god figure.

It is in this way that we have come to terms with a universe that is neither good nor evil, ascribed to it both traits based on our own need and circumstance, and in the case of the God of the Bible, reconciled this good and this evil as "love".

Perhaps I haven't made a strong enough case today. Perhaps this idea of love still seems compatible with this God to most believers. Fair enough, but I'm not done yet. I will continue this line of thought, and I will demonstrate its fundamental flaws as best I can.

Until then, I pray to God that we will all think for ourselves.

.
.
.

What folly! O, cruelest irony,
That men, driven in the name of love,
Declare themselves from earthly bondage free
And ever owe their servitude above!

Love

I am going to Hell. I will suffer for all eternity for my defiance of The Lord God. Some might argue on my behalf because I once believed, but I object to this. If this place exists, I would most certainly go there because I blaspheme the Holy Spirit, which is an unforgivable sin. Furthermore, may salvation was probably done incorrectly, considering what's become of me now.

Even if I were for some reason to not go to Hell, countless people similar to myself will. But, let's assume I'm one of them for the sake of discussion. If you're a Christian, you should probably consider some of the implications and ramifications of my fate.

One simple, curious fact of my current reality is this: no one tries to save me.

There's no shortage of reasons why this might be:

In the case of my parents, I can only wonder why they dragged me to church for so long if ultimately they want to leave me to make my own choices and actions. In their case, I'd say they've given up in the face of a situation that they have no idea how to handle. This happened essentially the very moment I revealed my nonbelief; their lack of effort speaks volumes.

It could be that people respect my beliefs and wish for me to hold them freely and comfortably. While some might appreciate this thought, it befuddles me. If I knew you had a time bomb buried in your body, I would strive to convince you of it until I knew that it was surgically removed. How much greater is my peril? This is my eternal fate! It seems selfish or cowardly not to confront me with this matter for my own good, and out of your love for me.

I understand some atheists want to be left alone. I'm not one of them; I would rather be proselytized. I would hope it wouldn't be condescendingly, not because I want to be treated gently, but because I like to think I've found friends who are not condescending people. My view is that if people request to be left alone, they should be (the law being on their side in such matters,) and if they seem to resist a topic, it shouldn't be pressed beyond what is deemed comfortable or worthwhile by the presser, at risk of the relationship; yet, if people have no aversion to a topic, and there is some relevance of the topic to them, it is better engaged than not.

Penn of Penn & Teller, outspokenly critical as he can be, recounts how touching the gift of a Bible was (please don't buy me a Bible.)

A subfactor of this possibility is that the Christians with whom I share company may simply not be the evangelistic sorts (barring, curiously, my mother, the ministry veteran, but her behavior could be documented and analyzed in such volume of text that its anomaly status here is best ignored.) Perhaps they don't talk to anyone about Christ, let alone their atheist friend. It's possible they don't enjoy talking about faith, or only enjoy it in key contexts with other faithful at regularly appointed times or places. It can be hard to enjoy daily life in "the world" with God on your mind, and this creates a duality of nature that churches struggle to address.

This fair-weather fire for God, which I accredit to things like sanity and the necessary compromises of living in a world of observable reality, is something I find preferable to fundamentalism, yet in a sense shallow and hypocritical as well. Some might wonder how I can disbelieve in God, but most of them are halfway there.

Another interesting possibility is the idea that some don't believe Hell exists. I mean, there are lots of interpretations of Christianity, but this one's steering pretty hard against the established norm. Godspeed, new age friends, and watch your backs.

Yet another possibility is that people assume I, a former professing Christian who is knowledgable and experienced in this religion, have made my choice and understand my own situation; it is up to me to rectify my own mistake because only I can renew my relationship with God. I find this logic wanting.

If a married couple separates, the husband and wife must be the ones to willingly choose to reconcile with one another, but the fact that the matter lies between the two does not divorce others from the situation in the least. After all, wouldn't a friend want to encourage them to work out their problems? Wouldn't they share stories of their own marital difficulty, or suggest sources of help or guidance? A bubble won't solve your problems; quarantining is a prevention, not a cure.

I think the final main reason (though many further could exist, and/or any combination of the above) is that the idea of talking to me about my faith seems like an unpleasant idea.

It could be because I'm so damned smart that the mere thought of engaging me intimidates others, or I could seem so stupid that engaging me would be fruitless.

I could seem so depraved and god-hating that nothing can get through my thick outer husk of chitinous sin.

I could be so enlightened that people think trying to help me find a God I don't want won't matter (though in this case the literal Hell probably isn't among their concerns) because I'm well along my way in my own 'personal journey' or some other mystical shit.

Maybe I seem condescending and degrading of their religion, and so to avoid stirring up more of my bad words, they'd rather leave the hornet's nest alone.

Maybe people aren't confident in their faith in the first place. Their own doubts and struggles render them a poor candidate to encourage anyone else to believe, and doing so could even put them at risk of losing their faith.

In any case, the idea of talking to me could seem like a difficult, painful, fruitless, predictable or uninteresting experience; in a nutshell, negative.

This could be because of my own character flaws, or a misconception of them, or the flaws of others. I don't know. For now I think I've exhausted the possibilities.

Suffice to say, I don't see many good reasons why this doesn't happen. I suppose I could be more candid about my desire to talk. I suppose I could do a lot of things other than write on this blog. But, it'll always be better than nothing.

For Christians, I guess the question to ask should be "what is love?", "should I love everyone?" and "does love require evangelism?"

.
.
.

Simmering, upon itself inert,
In blessing, ever more the wasted.
Loudly crackle, foul concoction, burnt;
O, how He above abhors to taste it!

Emptiness and Engagement

February saw no activity except for the very beginning. Empty month.

I think I had let things boil up to the point of talking to Mark. Maybe after that I ran out of steam, or had no further goals set, or just got lazy or took a break. I don't know how to best describe it.

I'd like to get back into the swing of things, but... what are the things?

I don't know anyone who wants to talk.

I have things I want to say, so maybe I'll start posting again once in awhile, but...

Empty.

If there's no engagement, no direction, things will be a bit empty. Maybe that's just the zeal I picked up with the idea of real exchanges with others. I don't know.

I guess the next thing I talk about could be how people don't want to engage. After all, it'd been dwelling on my mind for awhile. I even had a half-finished rant/post or two about it.

Why engage?

Because I'm a human being, and we go mad if we don't interact.

I don't do a lot of interacting in general. Part of that's my fault. I'm not great at it.

I've given it some time, so maybe I ought to head to church now. I didn't want to do it right away, to force it, but there's been plenty of cooldown.

Maybe I should engage. It's nice, perhaps too nice, of me to not want to break up their Sunday School formula, to not intrude on their unchallenged sanctuary. I still don't want to do it intentionally, but if it's organic, if they seek it out as well, I shouldn't worry over it too much.

It's not just about closure. It's about moving forward. Who am I and what do I want to do next? It's a good question to ask and to consider.

Being awesome is incredibly frustrating.

The logic circles around to the same answer every time. If religion makes people happy, should I really want to take that away from them?

But what really makes people happy? Good food, warm houses, health, entertainment, enlightenment, love and care make people happy. Religion, too, can make some people happy, or at least that's what they say. But it also makes others miserable.

And it stands in the way of future happiness. Garbage, by replacing education, threatens our ability to advance. Our ability to advance is necessary to help take care of the growing population, to combat new diseases, to end conflicts and to keep the planet inhabitable.

It's not just that. Our social, cultural, societal ills. We need to understand them to fix them. Believing God will take care of it is not a viable solution. Believing God will take care of it sometimes leads to the problem itself.

This can all be demonstrated. I am and always will be willing to demonstrate it. To show the harm and encourage true and unbiased understanding. But no one really wants to hear it. They like their religion. Who am I to take it from them? Should I really want to do it?

The logic circles around to the same answer every time.

I keep telling the wall, but the wall won't come down.

Does truth elude us, or do we elude truth?

Today I arranged my meeting with the pastor of Morning Star Baptist Church. Putting aside the curious name my former church chose to give itself when they moved to a new building, it's a very nice facility which I've hardly explored to its fullest. This was perhaps the second or third time I've ever set foot in it. Those times I was there for mere moments. This time I spent several hours in it, in the pastor's office.

It was a nice office. A large cove of books was etched into the wall, looking to be more spacious than his closet. My mom did tell me he's an "information junkie". A clock that turned out to be an hour fast gauged the blur of time as we talked. A comfortable sofa accomodated me, but my comfort wouldn't come until I found myself in my words. Folding my arms this way or that didn't do much for the slight trembling I had for awhile. My coat was right behind me but I wasn't cold.

I didn't have trouble getting my words out, though. Trying to think of what I wanted to say next was my only problem, but I suffered it no more than usual, and it was hardly debilitating. To run out of things to say is to get out everything you had to say.

That isn't to say I said everything I intended, but some of the ideas and arguments I prepared were for a more aggressive speaker. This man wasn't here to fight. I was ready to fight, but it wasn't my goal. My goal was to establish myself, my views. I did so. I'm proud of myself.

One of the first things I said to him was about the Ireland anti-blasphemy laws. I said that it's fundamental to free speech and free religion that you be able to criticize someone's ideology. We agreed there. I pointed out that I do sympathize with European Muslims who have seen anti-blasphemy protection be extended toward Christianity and Judaism but not Islam. While no one should have these protections, I can't fault Muslims for wanting equality in the matter.

I then told him about my concerns about the church. He helped me put things into perspective. I know I'll go back sometime, but for now just talking about it made me feel as though I wasn't running. For awhile I've been trying to figure out who I want to be in the world, and who I choose to be if I visit my former church will be a part of that. He suggested I downplay myself, that I needn't lie. I don't like his particular suggestion of wording, though. Saying I'm "on a journey" that led me away from the church does give me an idea to start with, but I want to be able to define my disbelief in a way that accentuates it, maybe breaks it into swallowable and efficient pieces, but doesn't mask it. That's something I'll think about for awhile.

He told me he wants me to come to church as I am, and if I don't believe, that's ok. He implied I could come on Christmas and Easter, for example. Or that I could always come to him with questions or insights after his sermon.

I don't see myself doing that. I want to move beyond the subservience of church attendance. Sitting down and talking with him directly was so much more meaningful than my old church days had ever been. Seeking understanding through agreement and disagreement, to me, is infinitely more special than bowing in accordance to the status quo, or to God.

Pastor Mark might study a lot or have certain valued insights or abilities that have led him to lead this church but as a human I look to him as an equal, not a superior. He doesn't act superior; indeed he was very polite, patient, considerate and attentive to me, but that he is the chief, nay, sole speaker in the assembly of the church bothers me. I may choose to sit quietly and listen to you rather than speaking myself, but the arbitrary, unilateral method of preaching steers me away from it.

Of course, I believe in the merit of having speakers. I suppose it's that my viewpoint isn't one that's genuinely regarded or voiced within a church. Maybe I've taken a step toward changing that.

I'll go back someday to see the people I left behind, when I feel I'm ready to present myself.

In the meanwhile, we had a good discussion. He agreed with me on the topic of faith vs. fact. I am glad he's not someone who claims God is demonstrably proven. That's something I want to get people away from. I contend that there is no such thing as "spiritual fact" as far as humans are concerned, and I'll continue to refine my arguments against it. Someday they may appear here.

I talked to him a bit about my mom, and how I'm trying to go easier on her, because I understand her pains and frustrations, like worrying about me going to Hell, and having an aversion to fighting. What I didn't say, though, was that religion renders her less capable of discussing openly in this way, and she is not unique in this regard. This I see as a fundamental flaw in putting feeling over fact, which is the mode of operation of religion. Oh well. I didn't go just to argue with him.

I'd say the toughest question I asked him was regarding God's invisibility. Why is it important, nay, vital, that God test our ability to believe in him rather than reveal himself? My question came out differently than that, and I talked about how God does reveal himself in the Bible. He was silent for a moment, and said it was a good question. In answering, he said that even if people could see God they still might not believe, among other things. He also talked about how God reveals himself through creation and through his word... I guess I should say I expected this answer. It seemed to me like you need faith not only in God but in the invisibility of God.

I didn't grill him on this. I accepted what he said by telling him that it at least fits with what he believes, but that I can't believe that. I still think this question is fundamental and I can't accept the idea that it's its own answer; that you have to believe in belief. It seems thematically impressive yet it's circular and impotent as an answer.

We talked about James Randi and Peter Popoff, Pat Robertson and Todd Bentley, Jean Paul II and Benedict XVI. He seemed disappointed in the behavior of fraudsters, and said that while he rarely criticizes specific people, he does teach people to understand the idea of Christ's message and to see people who are going against Christ's ways. Of my critiques of these men, he said you don't have to be a Christian to smell a rat.

I worry that con men will continue to succeed if Christians don't speak up about them. I believe in naming names. Highlighting examples. Asking tough questions. Demanding good answers. It's not Christians alone that fail at this, but the American media and the American people. But I worry that religion plays a big part of this. A notable minority of the country would not question Sarah Palin's motivations or qualifications because they believe in her spiritual character and convictions. I think that says a lot by itself.

We talked about God healing amputees - or rather, not doing so. This played back into the idea of faith vs fact. On the topic of faith, he mentioned faith in a loved one. It made me think about why we have faith vs. knowledge in our personal relationships. We can't put strict definitions to words like "love" or "friendship" so we must use faith to bridge the gap between the implied definition of the word and the functional dynamics of the relationship it attempts to describe.

He really liked what I said about faith and fact. I'll try and recall it accurately. Ah, yes. He was talking about doubts, and how doubt is part of faith. What I said was, "Faith without doubt isn't faith; it's either knowledge or ignorance."

I mentioned the difference between faith and belief to him, too. He didn't have much to say on it but I think he agreed. Belief is your idea that something is real. Faith is your trust that it will stay true to you. You can have faith in your wife, but belief in your wife is irrelevant. I think I can accept faith, since I have faith in others which I can't prove, but I can't accept belief in God because it's unfounded and irrational and even self-refuting, depending on the interpretation of God. If God started granting my wishes, I could have a justified belief that he's real, but it would still be on faith that he loves me - I have a reason, but I can't be sure. He could just like giving me gifts for the heck of it. I can accept that faith, but not the belief in between.

The church is doing some classes. One is being led by one of my old youth pastors. It's about children who hit adulthood and stop going to church, and they're using a book by Ken Ham as their basis, so that's always fun. I tried to explain to the pastor my perspective on that issue. The silence, the difficulty expressing one's religious views to their family and the family's lack of interest in the matter. This explains both the deterioration of the faith, and of the confusion parents experience when that faith finally breaks. I don't know if the book covers all of that stuff, but I have my doubts. He said he appreciated my views on it.

It's just so obvious from perspective. I sat in that church and watched my bored friends and their lackluster faith. It was obvious nine out of ten were dragged there by their parents with no interest in their feelings on the matter, just as I was. This sort of ignorant "get them in the building and they'll do the rest on their own" approach to indoctrinating children with Christianity is part and parcel to why churches are withering.

I talked to my mom about this a bit today and she said how the older generations came from an age where almost everyone went to church, and those who didn't still felt like they were supposed to. Well, these old folks deserve what they've reaped, my parents included. I only wish more of my age group were more vivacious in thinking for themselves rather than just fizzling out into intellectually uncurious agnostic ambivalence. I know that you can't know some things, but it's nice to figure out what you can and can't. Still, if we must, we can at least take things one step at a time.

Finally, one of the most important things I think I did was explain where I'm at to him. I don't want to come off as someone who's looking for answers from God. I don't believe God exists. If he does, he knows where I live, and he's got some splainin' to do. I'm still interested in his alleged institutions, though. I tried to make it clear that I don't feel a longing for these feelings of God, but I do want to know what approach I'd like to take from here on out, and talking to the pastor was helpful in shaping those thoughts.

I tried to present myself as I am - as someone who has considered as many possibilities as I can. I could be wrong. I could be something other than I think I am, or reality could be different than it appears to me. But I'm not afraid of confronting these possibilities. That's why I went in to talk. I want to be someone who can confront my pasts and problems. Someone who's confident in who I am and what I think. I think that's who I am now. And I think he could see that.

I told him what he already knew. Christianity is about feeling. If I were to revert to it, it would be on feeling. I don't feel a need for that feeling and I can't think my way to it.

He was open to the idea of talking to me again. He said I was "very wise", "considerate", "amiable" and "articulate". I really appreciate that. I warned him if I talked to him again I might be more oppositional, though I attempt to distinguish Christians from Christianity. He pointed out that you can't separate the two completely, which is true. I didn't have much of a reply at the time, besides agreeing, but I think if you choose to attach yourself to something, you assume a vulnerability. The only way to never be offended is to become like water, like a mental Bruce Lee.

I like the man. I think he genuinely cared about me and wished me the best. I know he'd love to have me turn over a new leaf, join his church and all that jazz. Not happening. I appreciate that he didn't try to sell it to me, but he did make it clear it was available.

But if we continue to talk, I'll hit him with full force. He demonstrated what seems to be his main basis of belief - his evidence, his assurance. I disagree, but since he wasn't using it as his focal point, I didn't get too deeply into it. I'm beginning to see things in more and more interesting ways. I'm examining the understanding of words like "love" and "truth" to see if they have any absolute values. I think that understanding is a vital part of both love and truth.

I understand his reasoning. But I see something fundamental about taking apart his beliefs and finding every flaw I can. The pursuit for truth is not discourteous in the bluntness and thoroughness of its refutations. It is courteous because acknowledgement is a form of respect and to acknowledge all aspects and thus all flaws is a most sincere honesty.

Someday I'll define absolutes for you as best I can. It won't be perfect. But it's a curious line of thought that fascinates and challenges me. I think I can get at what God "could be" - and why he isn't.

Don't wait on it, though. The road there is long and I have a lot of stops on the way. The debate's not over; it's only beginning.

Delays

Going to have to delay pastor thing. Wacky sleep and my crazy grandmother have disrupted my timing and the pastor's not in on Fridays.

I can't let delays turn into not doing it. I'll try to get it together next week.

Tired. Sleep.

Now play dead. Roll over. Good Canaanite.

Matthew 15
21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

I remember in Sunday School learning about Jesus, the healer, and Jesus, the preacher, and Jesus, the savior... I don't remember Jesus the racist or the jerk.

Funny thing, when you read the Bible without rose-colored lenses.

Ranting on pastor, church, Lee Strobel, books, and the Gospels

So, I'm going to go talk to the pastor next week, I've decided. I'll call maybe Monday or Tuesday and try to figure out when he'll be available.

Topics will include my own faith experiences, my concerns regarding "coming back" to right the wrongs of my departure, and my doubts of faith in an attempt to understand and to challenge his position.

As far as my faith is concerned, I do plan to limit it. I don't feel I could possibly tell him everything, but I can attempt to summarize. My loss of faith is still a story I haven't told here. It will be told, and it will be thorough and interesting, I promise.

As far as "coming back" goes, I might want to visit the church. I want to discuss the nuances of the situation with him. I want to educate the pastor as to the intimidation and emotional distance created by churches toward atheists as well.

There are a lot of stories and tidbits I could share regarding atheistic clashes within the family or church structure. I'm sure anyone reading this blog has either exprienced or at least heard of something like it.

My biggest concern if I visit is, how can I balance what I want (to face my fears, to be true to myself, to share myself with others, and to voice my positions and challenge the establishment) with what I do not want (to give the wrong impression, to cause unnecessary distress, to disrupt planned activities like Sunday school lessons with debates or evangelism.)

I've said it before, perhaps not here but definitely to my mom and others, that if I attend church, I have three options: participate insincerely, challenge and thus disrupt, or obstain from involvement. Even obstaining is insincere as well as unnecessary. I refuse the idea that I avoid or hide from Christian messages or dogma, as I've heard them my whole life and still indulge them on occasion, but all the same, there's no reason to attend church regularly and listen to their side indefinitely.

There comes a time where they grow redundant, uninteresting, and pointless to someone like me. That time came years ago. And besides, it's not as though they'd want to listen to me with equal time and courtesy as I'd be expected to listen to them at church. If they did, I'd gladly join an exchange of that sort, but I'm not expecting that.

I'll cut straight to the pastor. Skip the chain of command, skip the people who might just dodge or defer me anyway. I've grown bolder like that, and he's not really in a position to deny me. This is a rite of passage, of sorts.

I've got my general gameplan, but I am working on some things. I'll need to write out basic counterarguments to the arguments I expect from him, but I don't want to overprepare, as trying to hold to specific notions could see me derailed and appear to be underperforming. One thing I've been readying for is Lee Strobel's "Why would they die for a lie?" spiel. My mom described this pastor as young, an "information junkie" and "used to talking to people like you." With that information and considering the sorts of arguments I have against the faith, I have a hunch he might use this one.

If anyone's unfamiliar with it, you can find both a demonstration and a rather amusing refutation here.

Additionally, ProfMTH on YouTube made a rather detailed video series examining the particulars of this argument.

A quote from the first link at Conversational Atheist speaks to my problem: "There are so many ways to tear apart this ridiculous argument that choosing the most effective becomes problematic." One can simply watch any number of debates between atheists and Christians, regardless of one's stance on the matter, and see that atheists have a wealth of options to launch as their primary attacks. Some, like Christopher Hitchens, have streamlined it into a somewhat redundant, though timeless, "best of" line of arguments, but these, like all things, are subject to individual interpretation.

That's one of the reasons why I say I shouldn't overprepare. If I focus my preparations on the idea that God cannot be logically proven based on the evidence around us, the pastor might focus on a "God must be personally experienced" line. It isn't that personal experience would defeat me, not by any means, but if I overprepare for the wrong topic I run the risk of underperforming. Adaptability is most important, and I think that as long as I am loosely comfortable enough with the general gamut of arguments and lines of thinking, I should be able to orient my innate opinions and insights to accomodate the entire discussion.

I do, after all, consider myself to be something of a shrewd layman. I lack expertise, but I attempt to adapt to details as they are presented. One of my greatest heroes is James Randi, a man who is not a scholar, but who has paid attention.

On the topic of religion, which claims that feelings and beliefs take precedence over thought and reason, it is apparent to me that while education can be useful, if religion is truly meant for the participation of all mankind, then it can be assessed by people of all walks and persuasions. There is a bit of a catch, in that if religion is true, one need not be well-learned to understand that truth, but if religion is false, one might need a certain degree of learnedness to understand that falsehood. I see it as my place to slip through the cracks in that potential premise.

I can't help but expect Pascal's Wager. I really like to think we're beyond that, but I can't say. At least it is easily destroyed.

I hope I'm not presented the "historical Jesus" AS EVIDENCED BY SO MANY HISTORIANS HOW CAN YOU DENY IT. I'm not in the mood to have to read a bunch of biased books, then read even MORE books to refute the original books, in a field where I don't have any training. It feels like a drawn-out fetch quest. Besides, if this is a matter of personal faith in a god who wants to reveal himself to you, why would it require the examination of historical details which were not available to the people who founded or expanded the religion for the majority of its life?

I'm starting to get off-topic from my original off-topic tangent, but someday I hope to make a YouTube video about my mom's book collection. It ties into the historical stuff in that I can't grasp why, if Christianity were true, people need to read all these contemporary books about things like prayer, healing, keeping your faith, arguing with atheists, proving Christianity... these books aren't the true and perfect word of God, like the Bible is supposed to be, so why is it that they have to exist, to claim the ability to do what The Bible apparently can't? I get why, in that it's all false, and that it's a mix of hypocrisy, profiteering, delusion and cognitive dissonance that facilitates the abundance of these things, but... well, I guess that covers it, then.

Right now I'm reading through the Gospels. I've got some hunches and curiosities I'll indulge while refreshing my memory and preparing for the context of the discussion to come. I may post some interesting verses, or reveal the machinations of my plots and studies this weekend. I also have plenty of stuff I still need to talk about, so expect some or any of that soon.