The Avalanche of My Atheism

My continuing journey to atheism….  Journey.  That is what I was going to title this segment but looking at it I realize that it sounds so trite; an overused metaphor.  But what to change it too?

 My Road to Atheism?

 My Train Trip to Atheism?

 Avalanche?

 As my former religious beliefs broke and crumbled from under me and fell into the abyss I struggled to keep my balance amid the avalanche of failed ideas and beliefs.

 Hmmm, I don’t know.  Keep the trite journey or go with the melodramatic avalanche?  If anyone has any ideas I’m open to them.

 Anyway, at this time I was still a Christian, a liberal Christian who did not take the Bible literally and who supported evolution.  My parents knew this and although they were more conservative in their beliefs they were fine with mine since they still included such core beliefs as an omnipotent, omniscient God, Jesus as his son and our savior, the resurrection of Jesus, and the triune God.

 However even though my more liberal interpretation of the Bible had allowed me some breathing and comfort room I still had more questions.  I found myself still thinking about Christian beliefs and what they mean.   Specifically I found myself asking questions about salvation and about how people chose their religious beliefs. 

 As part of my questioning I had started to read about other religions – Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.  I also started to read about the people who followed those other faiths.  In doing so I began to ask, why are these people going to Hell? 

 For the most part they had the same morals I did.  They were concerned about their family, friends, and neighbors.  They tried to, and for the most part did, live good and decent lives.  I did not see any difference in morality between the different religions and Christians. 

 I knew that we all fall short by God’s standards of perfection and so none of us deserve eternal salvation except by his grace.  Fine.  However does this mean that they deserve eternal punishment and pain?  Does that mean that the Buddhist who raised a good family, helped his neighbor, tried not to hurt anyone deserved eternal Hell – the same as a Hitler or Stalin?   That Gandhi is suffering eternal damnation next to Pol Pot in Hell? 

 That did not strike me as the actions of a just and loving God.

This struck me as especially true given the fact that the vast majority of people stay within the religious traditions of their family or society.  It is the one we are raised up in, the one that surrounds us, the one that we perceive as normal.  The way we are brought up provides the lens through which we view the world.  It is a lens that can only be changed with great difficulty or in times of great trouble.

 Given this, then how could a just and loving God condemn someone who was brought up a Muslim to hell?  Even though he may know about the Bible it does not normally speak to him in the same manner that the Qur’an does;  just as the Qur’an does not speak to the Christian heart in the same manner as the Bible.  How reasonable is it then to expect someone raised in another religion to become a follower of Christ and be saved.

 It happens, but not for most.  Most follow the faith of their parents.  And for those who do not they do not all wind up Christian.  You have Christians converting to Judaism, to Islam, to Buddhism, to atheism.    Conversions are relatively rare experiences. 

 To base salvation, to base sending someone to hell for eternity on this basis – well, I was again having problems with my faith. 

And this didn’t even consider all of those who died without even hearing of Christianity of Jesus.  Who died without ever having the opportunity to read the Bible.  What about them?  Were they condemned to hell too? 

 My breathing space was gone and I was again suffocating on the avalanche of questions threatening once again to bury me in the rubble of my beliefs.

An Almost Christmas Blog

I had meant to do a really cool, incisive, and illuminating blog about Christmas and atheism. It was going to deal with how we manage to take the emotional meaning behind Christmas that Christians use myths to convey and  turn it into a secular recognition of those emotions and hopes.

In addition it was going to have some really funny bits of humor interlaced about how despite being atheists we love Christmas Carols and Christmas music, especially the older, more religious ones, especially if they are done right with modern music – Mannheim Steamroller, Transiberian Orchestra and so forth.

This would be closely followed by a discussion of our favorite Christmas movies such as A Christmas Carol (George C. Scott version), A Christmas Story, and the Grinch. And some of our least favorite ones. However I instead find myself way behind on blogging – unexpectedly high orders at work combined with vacations at work leading to unexpectedly too many 12 – 14 hours days and Saturdays.

Tie that in with family Christmas gatherings – well this blog will just have to wait till next year. But in the meantime – to those few discriminating readers and those not so discriminating readers who happen to come across this while exploring –

A belated Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a Fun Filled New Years.

Scared Straight for Jesus

Another blogger, Ekklesia A.D., posted a variation of Pascal’s Wager on his/her blog the other day. I tried to comment on it but my comments haven’t been approved so I’m blogging about it instead.

Pascal’s Wager as it is often used by Christian apologists, states that atheists have nothing to lose by believing in God because if God exists, then they have eternal life and if there is no god, then no harm no foul. Therefore, the apologists say, atheists might just as well go ahead and believe since they have nothing to lose.

To an atheist, there are a number of things wrong with this proposition. First of all, let’s assume for the sake of argument that there IS a deity out there somewhere, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent dude who has the power to sentence you to an eternity in hell if you don’t believe in him. Furthermore, let’s assume that this Omniscient Super Deity Dude is a jealous kind of guy who gets really pissed if you worship the wrong dude.  In fact, this dude gets so pissed that if you worship the wrong dude, you’re going to spend an eternity in hell as well.

If this is the case, it’s probably a darned good idea to make sure that you are worshiping the right dude. After all, you can spend a lifetime worshiping Jehovah, but if Odin is actually the top deity, then Odin might send you to hell for all eternity for getting it wrong.

Therefore, if you are going to believe in Omniscient Super Deity Dude, you’d better make sure you bow down to the right guy because if you aren’t, you’re going to hell.

Now Christian apologists are sure they are worshiping the right guy, but what if they are wrong? If it’s Ra instead of Jehovah, and if Ra happens to be the jealous type of guy, then there’s a whole lot of crispy Christians sitting in hell right now.

That brings up another point about this wager. If Omniscient Super Deity Dude is going to sentence people to an eternity of torment for simply not believing in him, then isn’t it contingent upon him to make darned sure that it is possible for us to believe? I mean, supposedly he loves us and all that stuff, but when it comes right down to it, he doesn’t play all that fair. He expects us to believe without actually giving us any evidence that we can grab onto about his existence.

Now apologists will tell us that the evidence is there but first we have to believe in God. If that isn’t a bunch of hooey, I don’t know what is! If Omniscient Super Deity Dude TRULY loves us and truly wants us to believe in him, then he should understand that some of us need something physical in the way of evidence. We need some real, honest to god miracles. You know, like the kind they used to have in the olden days. Like when Zeus impregnated Danae with a shower of light instead of the way most men impregnate women, or when Balaam’s donkey spoke to him or when Buddha and Jesus walked on water.

The trouble is that the things today that people claim to be miracles can be explained by non-miraculous means. We’ve gotten a little more sophisticated and many of us are no longer convinced that someone can cure blindness by spitting in someone’s eye, a la Vespasius.

What we need is something that is irrefutable, that can’t be explained any other way. For instance, supposed I were to walk outside my house tonight and look up in the sky and see that someone had rearranged all the stars so as to spell out the words, “Howdy y’all!”

Or suppose that my brother-in-law were to be brought back to life and his legs restored. Seeing as how he died more than ten years ago and at the time of his death was a multiple amputee, it would be pretty hard to argue against that being a miracle.

Or if Omniscient Super Deity Dude really wants people to believe in him, why doesn’t he send someone back from Hell to tell us how awful it is?

A popular intervention program for juvenile delinquents in the late 70’s and early 80’s was Scared Straight. In this program, cocky juvies were introduced to hard-core convicts who told them how awful life was in prison. Supposedly the youngsters were so terrified at the prospect of serving as Bubba’s permanent boy toy that they gave up crime and went on to live happy, productive lives.

So if Omniscient Super Deity Dude REALLY wants us to believe in him, why doesn’t he send back some hellions to scare us straight? Say Adolf Hitler, for instance. I think that many people would agree that if there is a hell, Hitler has a special little crematorium reserved just for him. We know that he could be a very mesmerizing speaker, so think how effective he could be at converting people to believe in Omniscient Super Deity Dude if the Dude were to bring him back and let us hear him tell about the horrors he’s endured for the last sixty-some years.

The beauty of this idea is that it should be possible to get a sample of Hitler’s DNA, so us skeptic types could verify for ourselves that it really is him. This could be a win-win situation for everyone– us skeptics get to hear from someone who has actually suffered the agonies of Hell, Omniscient Super Deity Dude gets a whole bunch of believers, and Hitler gets to actually do something good by saving a few souls from eternal torment.

I mean, if Omniscient Super Deity Dude is going to damn people to an eternity of hell for not believing in him, it’s contingent upon him to provide the evidence necessary to allow us to believe. Otherwise Omniscient Super Deity Dude doesn’t play fair.

But that’s a topic for another blog.

An Atheist Thanksgiving

One of the annoying things about Thanksgiving (other than the fact that all the stores are ignoring it and going directly to Christmas {I like my holidays one at a time to fully savor and enjoy them}) is the way some Christians refer to atheists and Thanksgiving.  I heard it again on a Christian talk radio station today.  Paraphrased, it goes something like this:

I am always amazed (amused is sometimes used too) that atheists celebrate Thanksgiving.  After all, who are they thanking?”  This is usually followed by amused laughter and you can just feel them shaking their heads about the poor confused atheists.

As usual, this shows a total lack of understanding of how atheists view the world.  So I thought I would try to correct this by showing how at least one atheist views Thanksgiving.

This atheist is thankful that he had two loving parents who brought him up.  Who taught him how to care for others by their examples.  Who promoted independent thinking and respect for those who disagree.

This atheist is thankful for his wife of 29 years.  A beautiful, intelligent, fun woman who has supported him through good times and bad, who taught him to be a better father and a better man.

This atheist is thankful for his two daughters who have made him more aware of the wonders of the world by them seeing and experiencing it for the first time.  They have provided joy and humor and companionship to my life – along with a healthy dose of frustration, annoyance, and … well normal parenting stuff.  The good though vastly outweighs the frustrations of parenthood.  And both have made me proud of them.

This atheist is thankful for all the people who make this country, the United States, what it is – from our founders who wrote the Constitution, to the politicians who implemented it and amended it as needed, to the free press and to those who freely express their views, to the men and women in the military to defend us against outside enemies who would destroy or changed our freedoms.

No need for God here.  Just people.

Christians, Does the Cross Mean Nothing To You?

According to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia the cross is NOT a Christian symbol. According to him, it is a symbol of the resting place of the dead. Others have made the same claim when faced with protests about displays of the cross on government lands. Attorney Kelly Schackleford of the Liberty Legal Institute says it is a secular war memorial and not a religious symbol. Judge Andrew Napolitano on  Fox & Friends said that the cross is a secular symbol meaning honor, duty and recognition.

At issue is a cross mounted in the Mojave National Preserve in California as a Veterans Memorial. The cross  stood there for 60 years, undisturbed until a group asked if a Buddhist shrine could be erected near the cross. The Park Service denied the request, and  Frank Buono, a retired ranger from the Preserve  has filed suit against the cross. Buono, a Catholic, felt it was wrong for the government to allow the celebration of one religion over another on federal land.

There have been all kinds of twists and turns in this case as efforts have been made to transfer the cross to private property in an attempt to invalidate the court ruling against the Park Service, but what really bothers Buono now is the argument that the cross is not actually a religious symbol.

Yes, indeed. Mojave cross supporters are so determined to save it that  they are proclaiming loudly that it is not a religious symbol, that it does not represent Jesus Christ or Christianity and that it is merely a secular symbol of sacrifice.

Okay, I am not a Christian so it’s not hard to tell where my sympathies lie in this case, but for those of you who are Christians, just answer me this- what does the cross mean to you? Are Scalia, Shackleford and Napolitano right when they claim that it’s not really a religious symbol but a secular one? Does this truly reflect your belief about the cross?

Note, I’m not asking how you feel about the Mojave cross, or whether you support it or not. I’m asking how you feel about the cross itself. Many Christians wear the cross as jewelry, on necklaces, lapel pins, bracelets and rings. Many of them even have it tattooed on their bodies. So are you okay with Scalia et al saying that the cross you so devotedly wear around your neck doesn’t actually represent your love and worship of Jesus Christ?

In Matthew 25: 30-35, Jesus says that Peter will deny him three times: “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” Then, in Matthew 26: 69-75:

69 Now Peter sat outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came to him, saying, “You also were with Jesus of Galilee.”

70 But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are saying.”

71 And when he had gone out to the gateway, another girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.”

72 But again he denied with an oath, “I do not know the Man!”

73 And a little later those who stood by came up and said to Peter, “Surely you also are one of them, for your speech betrays you.”

74 Then he began to 6curse and 7swear, saying, “I do not know the Man!”

Immediately a rooster crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” So he went out and wept bitterly.

Now you’ve  heard a justice of the highest court in the United States say that the cross is NOT a symbol of Jesus Christ. Tell me why those of you who claim to worship, love, and follow Jesus Christ are not up in arms at the betrayal of the very symbol of what you believe to be Jesus’ sacrifice to save you all.

If I were a Christian, I would say that once again, Jesus’ followers are betraying him.

Secular symbol indeed.

Moral God, Biblical Inerrancey – Take Your Pick

If you have lived any length of time at all you will have noticed that life is often not a simple step by step progression. Instead it is a mash of different thoughts, questions, actions, and events going on at the same time. So too with my journey to atheism.

As I was struggling with my questions about the morality of God I also started to look into the creationism/evolution debate. I have a great respect for science and couldn’t understand why science could be so wrong. I figured that there must be something that they were ignoring in order to conflict with Genesis so badly. So I started reading.

I went to Christian book store (walked actually since I didn’t have my drivers license. It was a 3 mile walk. Of course I remember it being a 9 mile walk but I am at the age where my memories tend to exagerrate things a bit) and bought several books on the debate. I don’t remember all of the authors although I do know that Gish and Morris were among them. I remember the book store owner being impressed and wishing me good reading.

Then I went to the library and checked out several books about evolution. I really do not remember the titles although there were several about paleontology as well as evolution itself. I especially concentrated on books about human evolution.

Once I got home I started reading them. Now I will not go into the details here but instead give the results. Creationism lost. Very quickly and easily lost. Much to my surprise and dismay I found that their facts were often out of date, frequently incomplete, and more often than I liked just plain wrong. So obviously wrong that a little more care should have made it blindingly obvious to the writer.

What most concerned me was the creationists use of others words – or rather their misuse. When they quoted scientists they usually gave a false impression of what the scientist was actually saying. Going back and reading the whole of what the quote was a part showed this to be true in the great majority of the time. A deceptive and dishonest tactic by people calling themselves Christian. It was very disillusioning.

However it did not make me an atheist.

It, along with my problems with the morality too often shown by God in the Bible, did though crystallize my thinking. I realized that you could either have a moral God and a universe understandable through reason or you could believe in a literal interpretion of the Bible. You could not, rationally, do both.

Of course this brought us to the claim that if the Bible is not all literally true then you cannot trust it. I realized now that this is complete hogwash. Our lives are filled with things that are not completely true – TV, movies, books, magazine articles. Yet we usually manage to sort out what is true and what is not. In fact a little reflection shows that even the literalist does this in regards to the Bible.

For example, slavery. Nowhere is slavery condemned. Modified and made more humane, yes. But nowhere condemned. Yet now you will not find any Christians for slavery and the great majority would cite their Christian beliefs as a reason why not.

Another example: Selling your daughter as a servant to make some extra money.

Exodus 21:7-10 (New International Version)

 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

I do not imagine that most Christians would consider that moral today. But it was then. And was never changed by Jesus in the New Testament.

Final example (although many more could be provided): Stoning your disobedient and rebellious children.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (New International Version)

18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Again this has changed. And again there is nothing specifically stating that these and many other verses in the Old Testament can be ignored. In fact, with reference to the stoning of the son you find Jesus saying this:

Mark 7:9-10 (New International Version)

9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[a] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’[b] and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’[c]

Yet despite Jesus’s backing of killing children who curse their mother and father I do not believe that many Christians would consider that moral today, although earlier in Christianity this statement might not be true. Calvin, for example, agree with the harsh penalties for anyone who curses their mother and father. In short then, even literalists were picking and choosing and interpreting the Bible.

The modern Christian morality is defined at least by how much we depart from the Bible as it is by our following the Bible. This is an implicit acknowledgement of what I had just come to realize that, again, you can believe in a moral God, you can believe in a literal Bible, but you cannot believe in both.

So how does this work then? How to pick what to believe and what not to? This actually breaks down into two problems – what morality should we be taking out of the Bible and what about miracles?

In regards to morality, what the literalistsm- and indeed most Christians - will say is that Jesus’s coming and his atoning death changed the rules for us. That we need to take a look at the whole thrust of his mission and the direction of it to see what is still true and not. At the time I had no problem with this view of how to chose which moralities to take from the Bible. 

A slight preview of my changing thoughts on this though is that I now see the way that Christian morals are decided brings up the question of God’s changing morality.

- So it was moral to stone rebellious sons then but now is not?

- So it was moral to have slaves then and now is not?

- So it was moral to kill men, women, and children of a town and not leave any living then, but now its not (see Joshua)?

Doe’s Gods morality change over time? Does this mean God changes over time?

As I said, at the time these questions did not come to me. However they would later.  

 In regards to miracles, just as you had to look at the whole to decide what the true “Christian” morality was so too did you have to look at all the evidence , both in the form of natural laws and actual physical evidence, to decide what passages to take as true miracles and which as metaphors. 

Let me illustrate my thinking at the time (and it is still the current thinking of many liberal Christians) by referencing  the creation story, the story of the flood, and the tower of Babylon. All three violate known physical laws. In addition to violating known physical laws they also have massive amounts of evidence against them. Given that, the Christian – who values his God given ability to reason – will then understand that this part of the Bible is a metaphor or allegory meant to illustrate some aspect of humankind’s relationship with God and not meant to be taken literally (even if earlier people who were not as knowledgeable as we are now may have taken it as so). And that Christian will then try to understand what is meant by those passages in terms of his relationship with God.

Now, when you get to the resurrection and the miracles of Jesus – yes, those violate known laws of nature. However we have no evidence, other than the violation of the physical laws of the universe, that this did not happen. Unlike the creation, flood, and tower of Babel stories. If you believe in God then we know that he could violate the laws of nature he created if he so wished. If God does exist then this would be possible for him. Again, note that this is different from the creation story, the flood story, and the tower story where we have actual physical evidence that these events not only conflicted with known physical laws but also did not happen.

While Jesus and his miracles violate the laws of nature, we have no physical evidence that they did not happen. This is where, for the intelligent Christian, faith comes in. Due to his own personal experience of God he believes in God’s existence. Therefore he believes in Jesus and his resurrection. That person will not try to claim objective proof for it but will take it as an article of faith that it did in actuality happen.

If this person is a scientist he will admit it cannot be proved and will not try to do so. But while he only looks for natural laws in his work as a scientist he will believe in the miracles and resurrection of Jesus as a person and as an article of faith, not science.

This process of deciding which miracles to believe in and which not is actually just a variation of how Christians deal with morality in the Bible.   Just as you had to look at the whole to decide what the true “Christian” morality was so too did you have to look at all the evidence , both in the form of natural laws and actual physical evidence, to decide what passages to take as true miracles and which as metaphors. 

This is where I was for a time – having faith in God and Jesus,  in our God given ability to reason, and in our God given sense of morals, but not in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

A Christian, With Urgent Questions

Deuteronomy 13:6-20 (New International Version)

 ⁶ If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, ⁷ gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), ⁸ do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. ⁹ You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. ¹⁰ Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. ¹¹ Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

 ¹² If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in ¹³ that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), ¹⁴ then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, ¹⁵ you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, ^[a] both its people and its livestock. ¹⁶ Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. ¹⁷ None of those condemned things ^[b] shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, ¹⁸ because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.

2 Chronicles 15:12-13 (New International Version)

¹² They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul. ¹³ All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.

As I started to re-read the Bible with my new found sensitivity to the moral issues posed by God’s action I grew more and more concerned.  Yes many of these were in the Old Testament – but they were still decreed by God.  Does God’s morality change over time?  Is what is wrong right in one time and circumstance and wrong in another?  Is what is wrong for most right for a few? 

 I had been taught that God was perfect and unchangeable, that his morals had the force of unchanging laws.  That his morality was perfect and higher than humanity’s.  Yet here were acts decreed either directly or sanctioned by God, that would be considered grossly immoral if done by any government or group of people now.

 Now at this time I was still Christian and would remain so for  more than a year.  I did not go directly to atheism because of these questions.  Instead I looked for answers that would resolve them.  And being the bookish and rather shy (actually very and painfully shy) person that I was at this time (I am now only mildly shy) then I looked for those answers in books and articles. 

I  read and considered  all the standard justifications for the actions of God in the Old Testament.  And, unfortunately, found them lacking.  Some examples: 

 Justification:  For Joshua, that the inhabitants of the land were sinful and full of wickedness even to the point of sacrificing their children. 

 Response:  Fine. That is justification for conquering them – but to kill all even those who did not participate.   What of those who disagreed with their religion – kill them too?  To kill the children and babies?  To save the children from sacrifice you kill them?   It also did not address the seeming pettiness of God as he orders all the gold and silver be given over to him.  

 Justification:  For  Joshua – that all of the cities were offered peaceful treaties but rejected them. 

Response:  The same objection as above in regards to killing them all.  But again note that in Joshua 11:20 God hardened the hearts of those in the cities so that they would reject peaceful treaties because God wanted them exterminated – to the last man, woman, and child.   

Justification:  For Deuteronomy and the killing of those family members who believed differently than you do.  This was a special case for people who had dedicated themselves to God. 

 Response:  So there was no free choice?  No free will?  No one allowed to change their mind?  If so they should be killed?  I tried to apply that rule to modern day religious movements and governments and did not see that being accepted by human society as a justified and moral reason for killing someone.  Sorry, that did not hold up either. 

 Justification:  The New Testament changed the nature of the covenant.

Response:  Then God’s morality changes with the times?  Morality is not constant and unchanging?  That killing whole groups of people was right and moral at one time but not now?  Sorry, that didn’t hold true for me either.  It would mean a rather large change in God’s nature that did not sit well for me. 

 I could find no good justification for God’s actions as depicted in the Old Testament.  I could find no way to resolve the conflict between my belief in a moral and omnipotent God who cared for all of his children and a literal reading of the Bible.  My concern grew that I might find myself standing against God due to morality.   A rather ironic potential stance. 

 I also had to ask myself did I really want to pursue the questions.  Could I just take it on faith that there were answers and that God would answer those questions in heaven?  But I had problems on this.  Mainly how do I know which religion to have faith in? 

 Every religion has difficult questions.  And I know that for me at this time and most Christians the fact that these difficult questions exist for these other religions – Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and others – and could not be adequately answered was a reason to reject them.  Yet if taking faith as the answer to the unanswered questions I had about God’ morality then why would not the same answer hold true for other religions. 

 So my question really came down to – Do I go ahead and take it on faith and have faith that my faith is correct or do I continue to pursue answers to my questions  and follow wherever they lead me?  Even if they lead me to reject a moral God or into some version of nihilism (short preview – I am not a nihilist and do believe there are good bases for morality even with an atheistic viewpoint;  or even because of being one, but that comes later)?

 I decided to have faith that there are answers that I could find that would allow me to remain a Christian, or that if there were not that I could deal with whatever I did find. 

Next more questions on other aspects of Christianity – and a start of my first answer.

Crisis of Faith

I am reading Bloodwork by Michael Connelly. The main character in the book is a former FBI profiler, Terry McCaleb, on medical retirement from the Bureau after a heart transplant. It’s a good book and I’m enjoying it. One of the very minor storylines involves religion– McCaleb becomes involved with the sister of the woman who donated the heart that was transplanted into him. The sister, Graciela, is deeply religious. McCaleb is not; he tells her that the many tragedies and horrible crimes he saw while he was in the Bureau have convinced him that there is no god. It drives a wedge between them, because her faith is important to her and she wants him to accept her faith.

I was very worried about where this was going, because this kind of thing happens again and again in fiction, movies and television. As an atheist it drives me nuts because the assumption that so many people make is that I am an atheist because I have lost my faith or because of some traumatic event or events that turned me away from god. They cannot accept that there is rationality behind my lack of religious beliefs.

The thing is, there are a lot of people who claim to be atheists, but they really aren’t. They have lost their faith because of life events, and should more accurately be called  lapsed Christians. They’ve not really thought about what it means to be an atheist. They are hurting. Once they stop hurting, they will probably pick up the faith and move on. I have absolutely no problem with that– I’m not opposed to Christians or Christianity. I just really dislike the implication that the only reason I am NOT a Christian is because I am having a crisis of faith.

To my great relief Michael Connelly ended without having his character having his faith “restored.” At the end of the book, McCaleb tells Graciela that he has faith in HER, and she has to decide whether that is enough. It was a nice distinction on his part- and one that people everywhere, Christian or atheist, make all the time.

Christians and Atheists

When I started this blog I had intended to add one post a week detailing my journey from Christian to atheist.  However, as often happens, life intervenes and I am behind.   I do intend to have my next post on this done this week, barring any more life interventions.  In  the meantime I came across this and thought it relevant to the purpose of this blog.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0510/p13s02-lire.html?page=2

Again this blog has two purposes.  The first is to educate those atheists who had not really thought much about their atheism.  The second is to educate Christians about what atheism actually is.

 

 

The Unwelcome Revelations of Joshua

Joshua continued to raise moral questions about God as depicted in the Bible. I think it interesting that moral considerations were what caused me to first question the Bible. Christians claim that God and the Bible were the foundations of morality and that without them we would all be immoral hedonists. Yet here I was questioning the morality of what I was reading in the Bible.

Joshua 6:15-21 (New International Version)

15 On the seventh day, they got up at daybreak and marched around the city seven times in the same manner, except that on that day they circled the city seven times. 16 The seventh time around, when the priests sounded the trumpet blast, Joshua commanded the people, “Shout! For the LORD has given you the city! 17 The city and all that is in it are to be devoted [a] to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute [b] and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent. 18 But keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it. 19 All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the LORD and must go into his treasury.”

20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

Joshua 8:24-27 (New International Version)

 24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed [a] all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua.

Joshua 10:28-40 (New International Version)

28 That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.

 29 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Makkedah to Libnah and attacked it. 30 The LORD also gave that city and its king into Israel’s hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.

31 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Libnah to Lachish; he took up positions against it and attacked it. 32 The LORD handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army—until no survivors were left.

34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish.

36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it.

38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron.

40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.

Joshua 11:18-21 (New International Version)

18 Joshua waged war against all these kings for a long time. 19 Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. 20 For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

21 At that time Joshua went and destroyed the Anakites from the hill country: from Hebron, Debir and Anab, from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua totally destroyed them and their towns.

 

The story of how the God had hardened Pharaoh’s heart so as to prove his might had raised moral qualms. Reading Joshua turned those moral qualms into full fledged moral high anxieties.

How could a moral God condone the killing of all the inhabitants to the last man, woman, and child? Even to the last cattle, sheep, and donkeys at times. And be more concerned with keeping the gold, silver, bronze, and iron for his treasury rather than the human lives being killed.

And again, as with the Pharaoh, God hardened the hearts of the rulers of those cities so that they would not establish a treaty with the Israelites. God purposely wanted to kill every man, woman, and child in those lands – exterminate them without mercy – so that he could give the land to the Israelites.

This was not a God that I knew. Or wanted to worship. In fact a genocidal God is one I would feel morally bound to oppose – and I really didn’t want to think about that for long. Being well motivated I looked for a way to explain these verses and to reconcile them to the just and loving God that I thought I was worshipping.

Some said that the people in those lands were utterly wicked and deserved to be killed. But the Bible does not state that. There is no mention that these people were any more wicked than any other land. Besides does that really justify the killing of children and babies? Of the old and frail? Of the slaves, the helpless?

I knew the answer to that for any mortal government. NO! So how could it be moral for God to do so? After all wasn’t he the source of our morality?

Some said that this sort of behavior was standard for the times. I will agree with that. However wasn’t one of the purposes of God to improve the morality of man? To raise him up to God’s higher moral standards? Or does God’s morality change with the times? I had thought that God’s morality was timeless and eternal.

Some then brought up the practical problems of caring for that many children and babies. But couldn’t a God who was performing miracles – such as making the sun stand still – for the purpose of killing people not also perform miracles to enable the saving of innocent lives?

Then there is the issue that all of use were supposed to be God’s children, children that God loved so much that he sent his only son to save us from eternal damnation. That meant that all of those he ordered killed were his children too. Children who would never be saved. As would all of those living in other cultures and civilizations around the Israelites.

Just as with the Egyptians, there is no attempt to show anyone other than the Israelites the truth about God. For a God concerned with the welfare of all his children he seemed very … parochial.

Next: Still a Christian. But One Searching For a Moral God.