Thursday, August 5, 2010
In this blog I briefly addresses the issues between Atheism and Agnosticism and explain why I call myself an Atheist.
Here I address the many questions and objection brought up from the rant against agnosticism as life stance.
I to say one doe snot know, or cannot know as an agnostic theist is absurd. To say I believe in someone I cannot describe or define in any way, and give no empirical or logical data on makes no sense.
Referenced Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith.
Will GLADLY send the book to anyone who will 1.) Read it, 2.) Pay it forward.
Also, I am now the proud owner of www.TheAtheistJourney.net
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
No religion, know peace.
"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it" John Adams
Just one of the many thoughts I gleaned after watching the documentary "Religulous" with Bill Maher. After sharing this very quote, I learned two additional details not shared by the movie. First of all, John Adams returned to a religious lifestyle later on in life and is know also for saying "We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus" (thanks to Jesse Fortner) . Second, I have come to the conclusion that most atheists are not actually anti-theism, but anti-religion ( "In the history of Ideas anti-religion does not necessarily equal anti-God" thanks to Prof. Garcia). I am anti-theism, and I will explain that in my concluding thoughts.
The real problem many Atheists have is with the manipulating, power-tripping, elitist nature of religions. I agree with their sentiments, but so do many believing theists and deists. Bill Maher's movie definitely pointed out the flaws in religion, and many have before and many have and will after.
The fault is not by the mere fact that religion is human made. I do not believe in original sin or inherent evil within mankind. I tend to think we are a wonderful species. Religion is a marvelously fantastical way for mankind to understand their world and reality. That is, of course, the original intention of religion. Examples being something as complex as explaining a peaceful feeling during the death of a loved one as the love and compassion of God and His Holy Spirit, to something as simple as connecting thunder with god slamming his fist in ager. But religion soon became a tool to be used by powerful people to manipulate the masses.
I could explain here what exactly is wrong with religion, but that's not the point I wish to make. The point I wish to make is that this argument is flawed when it comes to theism. It is equally flawed for believers to use this as a reason why atheists should consider theism.
If religion is a man-made concept, then any organized form of worship is a religion and will probably become just as corrupt as anyone else's creation and well intentions. The only way to believe in God is, therefore, for God to reveal himself. Granted, that's a large leap and for the sake of making this brief, I decided to make that leap purposefully. Before the the religious believers argue with me on this point, I'll bring it to your attention that this comes mainly from a religious institution and comes from a long-line of theistic thought. Our theologians will recognize the terminology thus: the difference between general revelation and special revelation. According to some, (thanks to Dr. Perez and other Calvinist professors) special revelation is the only way to come to a knowledge of God, specifically Jesus. They will argue that knowledge of God is apparent in creation, as says the Bible, but this is assuming that the Bible is a special revelation from God in itself. The later is unfortunate, the Bible is just as man-made and man-handled as anything else.
So, if the only way to believe God is from a special revelation and personalized visitation, the Atheist has no problem. The ball is in God's court. My JW sisters who have been visiting insist the Bible has put the ball in our court, the reasons why this is fallacious deserves another blog entry.
So, as is always my personal problem why doesn't God personally reveal himself to each and every individual if belief is so important to him? Or is it?
Just one of the many thoughts I gleaned after watching the documentary "Religulous" with Bill Maher. After sharing this very quote, I learned two additional details not shared by the movie. First of all, John Adams returned to a religious lifestyle later on in life and is know also for saying "We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus" (thanks to Jesse Fortner) . Second, I have come to the conclusion that most atheists are not actually anti-theism, but anti-religion ( "In the history of Ideas anti-religion does not necessarily equal anti-God" thanks to Prof. Garcia). I am anti-theism, and I will explain that in my concluding thoughts.
The real problem many Atheists have is with the manipulating, power-tripping, elitist nature of religions. I agree with their sentiments, but so do many believing theists and deists. Bill Maher's movie definitely pointed out the flaws in religion, and many have before and many have and will after.
The fault is not by the mere fact that religion is human made. I do not believe in original sin or inherent evil within mankind. I tend to think we are a wonderful species. Religion is a marvelously fantastical way for mankind to understand their world and reality. That is, of course, the original intention of religion. Examples being something as complex as explaining a peaceful feeling during the death of a loved one as the love and compassion of God and His Holy Spirit, to something as simple as connecting thunder with god slamming his fist in ager. But religion soon became a tool to be used by powerful people to manipulate the masses.
I could explain here what exactly is wrong with religion, but that's not the point I wish to make. The point I wish to make is that this argument is flawed when it comes to theism. It is equally flawed for believers to use this as a reason why atheists should consider theism.
If religion is a man-made concept, then any organized form of worship is a religion and will probably become just as corrupt as anyone else's creation and well intentions. The only way to believe in God is, therefore, for God to reveal himself. Granted, that's a large leap and for the sake of making this brief, I decided to make that leap purposefully. Before the the religious believers argue with me on this point, I'll bring it to your attention that this comes mainly from a religious institution and comes from a long-line of theistic thought. Our theologians will recognize the terminology thus: the difference between general revelation and special revelation. According to some, (thanks to Dr. Perez and other Calvinist professors) special revelation is the only way to come to a knowledge of God, specifically Jesus. They will argue that knowledge of God is apparent in creation, as says the Bible, but this is assuming that the Bible is a special revelation from God in itself. The later is unfortunate, the Bible is just as man-made and man-handled as anything else.
So, if the only way to believe God is from a special revelation and personalized visitation, the Atheist has no problem. The ball is in God's court. My JW sisters who have been visiting insist the Bible has put the ball in our court, the reasons why this is fallacious deserves another blog entry.
So, as is always my personal problem why doesn't God personally reveal himself to each and every individual if belief is so important to him? Or is it?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Keeping the law
There has been a common misconception amongst certain Christian circles that when Paul spoke against those who enforced "the law," he was speaking about Jews. This has furthermore been morphed into a belief that Judaism is a legalistic religion in which one must follow the law in order to be "saved."
This can not be further from the truth.
To break down what Christian often mean by "being saved," it usually refers to, ultimately, eternal life not spent in Hell. This will be an important point later on.
The real question is, is sin a black and white issue? In God's eyes, do you either obey all 613 of his laws or break one and then break all? We can not answer for God, but we can explore what His people thought.
E.P. Sanders in his book "Jesus and Judaism" craftily divides Jesus' words and our english word "sinners" into two categories: The wicked, and the 'amme ha-arets. The wicked are those who "sinned willfully and heinously and did not repent. It is often said that the wicked were 'professional sinners'" (pg 177). These professional sinners were usually those who deliberately took advantage of the common people, usually depicted as those who take inflated interest from their debtors and thus keep the poor, poor.
The 'amm ha arets, or common people, "were not irreligious. They presumably kept most of the law most of the time, observed the festivals, and paid heed to some of the more serious purity regulations."(182) These common people, those who went to church not all the time, tried their best to not lie and to give to the poor were included in God's eternal plan. In fact, no one ever thought the common people would be excluded from salvation! (189) Sanders presses this issue to even say that the uneducated, those who did not know the law, were also included in the plan for salvation!
So who receives God's judgement?
Paula Fredricksen in her article "Judaism, Circumscision, and Apocalyptic Hope" in Mark Nanos' "The Galatatians Debate" writes that even the Gentiles had a part in God's eternal plan. The Gentiles are simply cleansed from their idolatry, and are henceforth deemed "His people." ( see 246-247 especially)
So, again, who receives judgement? For the Christian it is those who do not accept the sacrifice Jesus gave so that we don't have to be bound from by the law. But I just showed that the law was never seen as so binding when it comes to salvation! If God had an eternal plan for the Gentiles, what did Jesus come to do then?
This can not be further from the truth.
To break down what Christian often mean by "being saved," it usually refers to, ultimately, eternal life not spent in Hell. This will be an important point later on.
The real question is, is sin a black and white issue? In God's eyes, do you either obey all 613 of his laws or break one and then break all? We can not answer for God, but we can explore what His people thought.
E.P. Sanders in his book "Jesus and Judaism" craftily divides Jesus' words and our english word "sinners" into two categories: The wicked, and the 'amme ha-arets. The wicked are those who "sinned willfully and heinously and did not repent. It is often said that the wicked were 'professional sinners'" (pg 177). These professional sinners were usually those who deliberately took advantage of the common people, usually depicted as those who take inflated interest from their debtors and thus keep the poor, poor.
The 'amm ha arets, or common people, "were not irreligious. They presumably kept most of the law most of the time, observed the festivals, and paid heed to some of the more serious purity regulations."(182) These common people, those who went to church not all the time, tried their best to not lie and to give to the poor were included in God's eternal plan. In fact, no one ever thought the common people would be excluded from salvation! (189) Sanders presses this issue to even say that the uneducated, those who did not know the law, were also included in the plan for salvation!
So who receives God's judgement?
Paula Fredricksen in her article "Judaism, Circumscision, and Apocalyptic Hope" in Mark Nanos' "The Galatatians Debate" writes that even the Gentiles had a part in God's eternal plan. The Gentiles are simply cleansed from their idolatry, and are henceforth deemed "His people." ( see 246-247 especially)
So, again, who receives judgement? For the Christian it is those who do not accept the sacrifice Jesus gave so that we don't have to be bound from by the law. But I just showed that the law was never seen as so binding when it comes to salvation! If God had an eternal plan for the Gentiles, what did Jesus come to do then?
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Homosexual Argument Fails
The issue of homosexuality and God/Jesus seems to have been awakened with the recent outing of Jennifer Knapp's homosexuality. At least in the circles of Christianity I am exposed to.
You can read Christianity Today's interview with Jennifer Knapp here:
Also see here, a Ministry I have close ties to which has decided to devote a blog series to address the issue of homosexuality:
In the later link, you'll find some of the fallacious arguments used by the Christian church to argue for a Bible that is completely against homosexual marriage. I will address the main arguments and why they fail here.
1.) Jewish law forbade homosexual marriage. Biblically, this is 100% incorrect. The Bible does, however, read "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Lev 18:22 The context of this verse will further my argument for why this statement is incorrect:
Lev 18:21 - Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
Lev 18:23 - Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
It is very clear that these passages are a separation form the former passages in the chapter. We have ceased talking about general sexual taboos and have entered the realm of pagan worship. The verse on homosexuality is no exception.
To further this point, there are no ancient records of homosexual covenental couples. The only records we have, thus far, on homosexual practices are in cult worship, i.e. orgies. Therefore, it is impossible for the Torah to be addressing consensual homosexual relationships as they did not exist. It is very obvious that they are addressing something different and higher than simply the sexual relationship between same sexes.
2.) Jewish law is separated into 3 parts: judicial, moral, and ceremonial. We are not obligated to follow anything but the moral. This argument is completely fabricated and nonsensical. Who separated the law into these parts? Certainly not Jesus, and certainly not any Jew! It's baseless. It may sound good, but it has no foundation whatsoever. Torah is Torah, period.
This argument is usually used to avoid those knit-picky people who point to other verses in the context of the homosexual verses. For example, Leviticus 18:19 says not to lay with a women during her period. If this is a sin on the same line as homosexuality, than men should be more conscientious of when a woman is menstruating. Or, in the context of Lev 20:13, those who curse their parents should be stoned. So the next time you see a little kid throwing a tantrum in the marketplace, get your rocks ready!
3. Homosexuality is called an abomination, and is therefore a higher standard than any of the other laws. This only holds water if 1) you know the Hebrew understanding of the word, or 2) you can validate this with extrabiblical sources and traditions that show that this was the case. I can not do either of these, and do not know Hebrew well enough to say if it really holds water. Also, Lev 11:10 reads that eating shellfish is an abomination as well. Although, I believe, this is a different Hebrew word, arguing that it's different than the Hebrew word used for homosexuality only works if, again,you know Hebrew well enough to argue this.
The best argument I've read for a biblical argument against homosexuality is found in William Webb's book. Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals.I highly suggest reading it. However, even he see the point I made in #1 and sees it as a major failing point in the argument.
You can read Christianity Today's interview with Jennifer Knapp here:
Also see here, a Ministry I have close ties to which has decided to devote a blog series to address the issue of homosexuality:
In the later link, you'll find some of the fallacious arguments used by the Christian church to argue for a Bible that is completely against homosexual marriage. I will address the main arguments and why they fail here.
1.) Jewish law forbade homosexual marriage. Biblically, this is 100% incorrect. The Bible does, however, read "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Lev 18:22 The context of this verse will further my argument for why this statement is incorrect:
Lev 18:21 - Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
Lev 18:23 - Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
It is very clear that these passages are a separation form the former passages in the chapter. We have ceased talking about general sexual taboos and have entered the realm of pagan worship. The verse on homosexuality is no exception.
To further this point, there are no ancient records of homosexual covenental couples. The only records we have, thus far, on homosexual practices are in cult worship, i.e. orgies. Therefore, it is impossible for the Torah to be addressing consensual homosexual relationships as they did not exist. It is very obvious that they are addressing something different and higher than simply the sexual relationship between same sexes.
2.) Jewish law is separated into 3 parts: judicial, moral, and ceremonial. We are not obligated to follow anything but the moral. This argument is completely fabricated and nonsensical. Who separated the law into these parts? Certainly not Jesus, and certainly not any Jew! It's baseless. It may sound good, but it has no foundation whatsoever. Torah is Torah, period.
This argument is usually used to avoid those knit-picky people who point to other verses in the context of the homosexual verses. For example, Leviticus 18:19 says not to lay with a women during her period. If this is a sin on the same line as homosexuality, than men should be more conscientious of when a woman is menstruating. Or, in the context of Lev 20:13, those who curse their parents should be stoned. So the next time you see a little kid throwing a tantrum in the marketplace, get your rocks ready!
3. Homosexuality is called an abomination, and is therefore a higher standard than any of the other laws. This only holds water if 1) you know the Hebrew understanding of the word, or 2) you can validate this with extrabiblical sources and traditions that show that this was the case. I can not do either of these, and do not know Hebrew well enough to say if it really holds water. Also, Lev 11:10 reads that eating shellfish is an abomination as well. Although, I believe, this is a different Hebrew word, arguing that it's different than the Hebrew word used for homosexuality only works if, again,you know Hebrew well enough to argue this.
The best argument I've read for a biblical argument against homosexuality is found in William Webb's book. Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals.I highly suggest reading it. However, even he see the point I made in #1 and sees it as a major failing point in the argument.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Holy Guilt
If there is one thing I miss and hate at the same time - it's the constant self-reflection and guilt found in the fervent Christian walk.
Hate because I could never quite accept who I was at that moment: pray more, love more, forgive more, worship deeper, .. the constant inner turmoil! I find it strange - yet not so strange - that the day I left Christianity, the day I ceased depression and suicidal ideation. I'm sickeningly happy, happier than I've ever been.
And yet something tugs on me when I see the deep convictions found in Christian blogs, journals, prayers, and sermons. What does the atheist have but his or herself to encourage improvement? What presses me to love my husband deeper but my own desire to do so? The Christian believes in an outer Good and Perfect being that calls them to be "holy as I am holy." Holiness being this completely unobtainable property.
But yet this creates a life long tug-of-war between the overflowing mercy of God's Grace and the call to "take up your cross" and follow Christ. One day the beleiver may be standing strong on verses that speak of their sonship and adoption into the Chosen People, and the next day mulling and cutting themselves over verses that require higher standards than they could ever reach.
How can a human being endure such constant warring? Does God really wish to do this to His people? Is this even desirable? Do we have a choice if He indeed exists?
I can say as an Atheist I've become who I could never accept I was/am, and yet inside I still hear the voice saying egotism and cynicism is not right and holy and there is something higher to reach. But yet - if I was only who I am now before I could have fought and won so many more battles. If I accepted the strength I have, the egotism, the out-spokenness I wouldn't have lost so many friends with my shyness and inability to speak my mind because of my belief that this was how God wanted me to be.
But is Atheism the answer? I doubt it. Yet if someone could surely help me see an alternative to this Holy Guilt and turmoil I'd be glad to hear it.
Hate because I could never quite accept who I was at that moment: pray more, love more, forgive more, worship deeper, .. the constant inner turmoil! I find it strange - yet not so strange - that the day I left Christianity, the day I ceased depression and suicidal ideation. I'm sickeningly happy, happier than I've ever been.
And yet something tugs on me when I see the deep convictions found in Christian blogs, journals, prayers, and sermons. What does the atheist have but his or herself to encourage improvement? What presses me to love my husband deeper but my own desire to do so? The Christian believes in an outer Good and Perfect being that calls them to be "holy as I am holy." Holiness being this completely unobtainable property.
But yet this creates a life long tug-of-war between the overflowing mercy of God's Grace and the call to "take up your cross" and follow Christ. One day the beleiver may be standing strong on verses that speak of their sonship and adoption into the Chosen People, and the next day mulling and cutting themselves over verses that require higher standards than they could ever reach.
How can a human being endure such constant warring? Does God really wish to do this to His people? Is this even desirable? Do we have a choice if He indeed exists?
I can say as an Atheist I've become who I could never accept I was/am, and yet inside I still hear the voice saying egotism and cynicism is not right and holy and there is something higher to reach. But yet - if I was only who I am now before I could have fought and won so many more battles. If I accepted the strength I have, the egotism, the out-spokenness I wouldn't have lost so many friends with my shyness and inability to speak my mind because of my belief that this was how God wanted me to be.
But is Atheism the answer? I doubt it. Yet if someone could surely help me see an alternative to this Holy Guilt and turmoil I'd be glad to hear it.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Memorials and Foxholes
On this day, May 31st, we remember those who have fallen for our country. Sadly, it seems very few know this and see it as simply another Veteran's Day. I can't number how many mom and pop restaurants I passed by today that read "we thank our Veteran's for all they do!" They're apparently quite ignorant that it's more a day to remember what our veterans did. Two different holidays.
You may ask, what does this have to do with religion and the lack thereof? A lot. I had a lot to think of today, mainly surrounding a very difficult question: What is it that causes us to be so moved by those who gave their lives for a cause such as their country? I don't know about others, but something inside me moves me to tears when I stand by the grave of a 22 year old boy who died in war. It's a feeling of reverence and thankfulness.
But why?
Certainly this is nothing new. And certainly it is nothing exclusive to Western thinking nor Christianity. Even less foreign to Atheism. I did a simple google search of "Veterans and Atheism" and was surprised to find an organization for this very same idea. http://www.maaf.info/news.html
There has also, as you'd find on that page, a long fight by this organization to deny the charge that "there are no Atheists in foxholes." For the longest time, even I bought this catch-phrase, believing that something in us still looks up at the skies when death comes knocking. This is far from true.
So then, what value is there in a man who does not believe in God and spirituality and the second-coming and all that jazz dying for his country? What value is there in an Atheist man who remembers such people dying for the country they now live in?
There is some value. For whatever reason, we evolved in such a way that caused us to be mindful of our history. For whatever reason, we remember and we record. We're sentimental, and we learn from lives we did not live but that came before us. This can easily become another philosophical debate on morality, seeing that the soldier is fighting for the ideals of his country and who's to say the other country isn't right? But I think it goes deeper than that still. This is a man, many men, thousands of men who willingly die for a cause.
Why? And why does this move us?
Unfortunately, I have no answers only emotions. I just hope it stirs the reader to think and feel as well.
For further reading, I found a article on the issue of Atheists in foxholes:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Atheists-In-Foxholes.aspx
You may ask, what does this have to do with religion and the lack thereof? A lot. I had a lot to think of today, mainly surrounding a very difficult question: What is it that causes us to be so moved by those who gave their lives for a cause such as their country? I don't know about others, but something inside me moves me to tears when I stand by the grave of a 22 year old boy who died in war. It's a feeling of reverence and thankfulness.
But why?
Certainly this is nothing new. And certainly it is nothing exclusive to Western thinking nor Christianity. Even less foreign to Atheism. I did a simple google search of "Veterans and Atheism" and was surprised to find an organization for this very same idea. http://www.maaf.info/news.html
There has also, as you'd find on that page, a long fight by this organization to deny the charge that "there are no Atheists in foxholes." For the longest time, even I bought this catch-phrase, believing that something in us still looks up at the skies when death comes knocking. This is far from true.
So then, what value is there in a man who does not believe in God and spirituality and the second-coming and all that jazz dying for his country? What value is there in an Atheist man who remembers such people dying for the country they now live in?
There is some value. For whatever reason, we evolved in such a way that caused us to be mindful of our history. For whatever reason, we remember and we record. We're sentimental, and we learn from lives we did not live but that came before us. This can easily become another philosophical debate on morality, seeing that the soldier is fighting for the ideals of his country and who's to say the other country isn't right? But I think it goes deeper than that still. This is a man, many men, thousands of men who willingly die for a cause.
Why? And why does this move us?
Unfortunately, I have no answers only emotions. I just hope it stirs the reader to think and feel as well.
For further reading, I found a article on the issue of Atheists in foxholes:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Atheists-In-Foxholes.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
