Deliver Us From Evil

I have had many worthwhile discussions with Demian Farnworth of the Christian blog Fallen and Flawed. Our most recent exchange began with his description of writer A.N. Wilson's reconversion to religion.

I found several of the statements made in Farnworth's analysis to be provocative. Perhaps the most intriguing statement I found was this claim:

Materialism can not adequately explain our complex world. Christianity, on the other hand, as a working blueprint for life, can.

Since a substantial portion of my deconversion from Christianity has hinged upon the exact opposite argument - that while Christianity cannot adequately explain our complex world, naturalism can provide a working blueprint for life, to paraphrase the structure of Farnworth's claim - I was intrigued to see a discussion of this argument from a viewpoint distinct from my own.

I decided to enter the fray, and set my naturalistic beliefs side by side with Christianity, and attempt to compare which view could actually better explain the complexities of our existence.

I made a brief argument against Christian theism via the origin of suffering.

Traditionally, almost all Christians have interpreted the text in the Genesis creation stories to imply that their god originally created a paradise on Earth, and that only the disobedient sin of Adam and Eve introduced suffering into our world.

If suffering is inherent in the nature of the world, and not brought into the world by the transgressions of humanity – if the evil that happens in the world cannot possibly be the direct result of a Biblical Fall as depicted in Genesis, then traditional Christianity is falsified. Do you agree?

I have found that suffering persisted in our world for an incredibly long time before the first existence of humanity, therefore I believe it is impossible that humanity is the direct cause of evil and injustice in our world, and that therefore almost all types of Christianity are either absurd or implausible.

Here's an excerpt from Demian's reply, which he made shortly after my original comment:

Second, your argument for naturalism hinges on suffering existing before man. I don’t quite understand that. How could suffering exist before mankind? And how do you know? Furthermore, how do you define suffering in terms of naturalism? In other words, if the natural state of things is beast eat beast, how can you say “that’s suffering?” How are you defining suffering, that’s really what’s at stake.

Those are good questions. How should suffering be defined? How could suffering exist before humanity? Here's a hint to what I believe, courtesy of YouTube satirist Edward Current:



At the end of the video, Current's character states:

"You know, it's almost like, here on Earth, it's every species for itself.

Humans don't get any special treatment at all, do they?

It's because life evolves - through natural selection, not Intelligent Design."

My Deconversion Story

This is the story of my deconversion from Christianity. I originally posted this account on the Forum of the blog "Unreasonable Faith". I hope you'll enjoy it.

I have been raised as a Christian, having attended services for most of my life at a small ELCA Lutheran congregation. I was baptized as a baby, and I was confirmed around the time I entered high school. I attended Sunday school, Bible studies, and church camps. I sang in the choir and I was an acolyte, usher, and greeter.

However, despite my active involvement in the church, I had not thought much about the basic essentials of my beliefs. I had read large portions of the Bible (I still haven't gotten myself to read it all - I've been meaning to do it), and I prayed often, but while I grew up, I was never confronted by any serious challenges to my perspective. I had friends who went to other churches, but I didn't really know anyone who was non-religious. I had this default assumption that there was a God, and that most of things I had been told in church were true.

I was never really one to question authority, and I enjoyed church greatly, and I had a lot of friends there at first. I wish I had a higher voice so I could sing "I Wander As I Wonder" in the proper key. That hymn is eerie, and that is why it was always one of my favorites.

Many things happened to me when I was in junior high and high school. Several rifts developed in my church, attendance lowered, and we had some pastoral changes. I also first learned that some of my friends were atheists or agnostics. It actually shocked me at first -- I grew in a fairly conservative community. Every time I drive on the highway, I spy a large billboard which declares "Trust In The LORD With All Your Heart". I thought to myself, 'atheist?! I don't believe that.'

But I didn't really know them that well, so I shrugged it off.

When I was a junior in high school, one of my closer friends let me know that he is an atheist when we were discussing religion. I started debating (casually) with him and his friends about religion during our study hall period. I was the Christian, and there were two others who were atheists.

Some of the questions he asked made me reflect for a bit, but I wasn't very phased. I didn't have a literal interpretation of the Bible, and I accepted evolution, so we actually agreed on a lot. I wasn't affected by a lot of the arguments he used in the areas that we agreed. However, looking back on the experience, I think if my friends had spent more time on how those points specifically apply to religion, I would've been more receptive. But I also realize that they didn't want to push me too hard, because we were friends, and they didn't want to ruin our friendship, which I also appreciate and understand.

He did ask me why God would create homosexuality and condemn it in the Bible? I didn't know - I was unsure. I didn't think he would. My friend referenced Leviticus, and I pretty much ignored it, I have to admit. I could've been more open-minded.

He also wanted to know if I didn't take the Bible literally, how did I *know* which parts were metaphorical and which were not? I gave an answer I had already heard, that the Holy Spirit guides the believer in the interpretation of the Bible. If I were my friend now, I would've emphasized the divisions in church history. I do remember that my friend emphasized the corruption of certain church leaders, but I always brushed these criticisms away by saying that God's church was for imperfect people, as everything human in this world was imperfect. Maybe I would've been more receptive if he had argued specifically that the existence of so many divisions on interpretation and meaning of scriptures, which accord with cultural practices, makes it supremely unlikely that the texts are divinely inspired. However, that is a complicated argument and hard to fit into a 25-minute study hall period, and I know that when atheists talk to Christians, the harder they argue, the more militant or harsh they seem. I know this can be the case, so I can again understand why my friend didn't press me harder, and I do appreciate his willingness to put our friendship ahead of mere ideological differences.

When I was a senior, my English teacher exposed me to existentialism - I started reading Camus and Sartre. However, I maintained that this was fully compatible with my Christianity, and in retrospective, I don't think that this was a contributing factor to my deconversion.

I also began reading a lot of Vonnegut when I was in high school. I read Player Piano, Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse Five, and Slapstick. Those are all excellent, and I also read Vonnegut's brief essay autobiography, the title of which I cannot recall. I <3 Billy Pilgrim! But I hated the ending of Cat's Cradle - I despised it. It was so irredeemably depressing and gloomy. Somehow, Slapstick was the most amusing and intriguing book of the four, though it seems to be the least popular and the least well-known. There are many excerpts about tribal and community ties which really hit home what it means to be part of a group of people with the same feelings and the same beliefs. I think that book did lay some of the groundwork for my later epiphanies.

Finally, last year I was a freshmen in college. The summer before I left, I had to arrange a schedule of coursework. I was trying to fill my schedule with general education requirement classes, and I wanted to take World Politics very badly. Instead, my counselor stuck me with Forms of the Sacred, a class on Eastern religion. This would prove to be quite fateful.

The second or third week of school, we also had an activities fair. I was out walking after lunch one day, and I strolled along the path in the main common area to visit the booths for all of the clubs on campus.

I spied a banner for a non-religious group. Intrigued, I stumbled over to the display, and asked the volunteer about the nature of the club. I was told that this was a new club for discussing religion, which would primarily be focused on atheists and agnostics. Since I had discussed religion with my friends in high school, I added my information to the mailing so I could stay in contact with the club.

So two or three weeks afterward, I am sitting in my religion class, nonchalantly scribbling notes. We're talking Hinduism, and my professor is going off on a tangent. My ears perked up. The tangents were what made that class - I loved my professor's sense of humor and offbeat commentary.

So anyway, he's talking about all of the different religions in the East, and how they relate, and he casually lets out that some scholars speculated that there might be a link between the proto-religions of the East and some of the western religions. Normally, that would just be an interesting tidbit, a typically inane musing which may fascinate those students who are paying attention.

But that careless slight, that unintended observation -- it struck me. I really had an existential crisis. I felt a surge of doubt paralyze me at that very moment; thoughts of "what if this (my beliefs that I had grown up with) isn't true??!!"

"What if this isn't true?!"

Doubt. I was struck by doubt. Nagging, overwhelming, unceasing, terrifying doubt.

I suddenly realized that I had no idea why I believed what I did.

That was the beginning - that was the day I quit believing in "faith".

And of course, one of the first ever meetings of the atheists and agnostics organization was scheduled later that very week. So I went, not knowing what would happen. All I knew was uncertainty.

So I went. The chairs were arranged in a circular fashion. One of the first things that occurred, since everyone was just getting to know each other, was that each individual in the circle was supposed to say a little bit about themselves: what year they were in, where they were from, something cool about themselves, and if they were an atheist or agnostic, when they became one.

I was one of the last people to be reached, so I got to hear almost everyone else's accounts first.

I was quite nervous at that moment, I must admit. I really didn't know what to say -- I hadn't really reached out to anyone by that point. When I first told my Catholic roommate that I was going to go to the meeting, he looked at me with suspicion because I had already told him that summer that I was a Christian. I told him that I was a Christian, but that I was going anyway because I was interested in the group.

It was sort of a fib. I wasn't sure anymore if I was a Christian or not, because of the doubt that I was experiencing at that time.

Finally, it was my turn to speak. I related my year, where I was from, my hobbies, and my name. Then I stammered something like this:

"Well, I'm not really sure what I believe right now. I was raised as a Christian, but since I've gone to college..."

My brain fizzled. What was I going to say?

"I think my faith has..."

I couldn't say anymore, but I took my hand and made a downwards motion.

In the days before the meeting, I had begun to do some additional research about religion, and I continued this after I returned from the meeting.

Every time I examined my old beliefs, they made less and less sense to me.

The Bible seemed incomprehensible to me. I started asking a lot more questions about it that I couldn't answer. The evidence for a historical Jesus who did the things the Bible claimed was less than I would have liked to believe (I had never actually thought about whether he actually had existed and did the things the Gospels said he did.) It seemed there was too much cruelty and suffering in the world. Evolution and naturalism seemed to be performing spectacularly. Christianity was failing miserably. Everywhere I turned, it appeared that the answer could be better explained if there were no all-good, all-loving, interventionary god.

Finally, there was one particular area that seemed to be the nail in the coffin for my prior religious beliefs.

All the other religions in the world. I had heard Krishna call for grace - I had heard Buddha call for compassion in the wake of suffering - I had heard creation stories which sounded more plausible than the ones I heard growing up. "There was a time when there was neither nothing, nor something". That's a real creation story.

Frankly, Christianity became just another religion, just another faith, and just another mythology. People who believed in other religions seemed to be just as moral as Christians. People who were Christian based their moral ideas on the same principles that non-Christian people used.

And almost all of the so-called religious experiences claimed were more similar than they were different, no matter what the religion.

I remember reading of Near Death Experiences where Native Americans saw a vision of a great chief, where some Hindus saw a great bureaucracy in the sky, and Christians saw heaven and hell.

And even if that weren't enough, I began reading about neuroscience. I became convinced that there is no such entity as the soul. If I needed yet another nail in the coffin, that was definitely it.

The experiments demonstrate that when the brain is harmed, all of the things which have traditionally been identified with the soul are damaged.

What is the soul? Isn't the soul the essence of who you are? And what is the essence of who you are? When the brain is damaged, the essence of who you are changes irrevocably. So when the brain is damaged, is your soul damaged, or is your soul the brain? But we know what happens to the brain when you die -- it rots. So much for the after-life? How can you have a soul to be judged without the brain? It's not plausible.

Lastly, I was already an agnostic atheist for many months before I read "The Evolution of God", but it really cemented many of the conclusions which I had already reached. The evidence which emerges from the sections about political influences on the Old Testament, why the Israelites came out of Canaan and not out of Egypt, and why Paul sold Christianity the way he did in the days of the early faith really make it difficult for me to revert to Christianity or any religion similar to it.

I am an agnostic atheist. I believe that most, if not all, of the gods ever worshiped by humanity are implausible. I do not know if there are ultimately any gods or higher powers. However, I live as if there are none.

Even if there are gods or higher powers in or outside of the universe, I believe that I am living more deeply in communion with them by not adopting a set of beliefs which I am 99% sure are false, and by trying my best to live a moral life based on empathy and respect.

I know that I have prattled on at great length, but I thank all of you for sharing in my journey and my experiences. Thank you.

An Indifferent Universe: The Original 'Original Sin'

Here's a thought experiment:

"Sin is the fault of humanity, but it had to be that way, and fortunately, we still have free will.

How do I know this to be true?

Well, for hundreds of millions of years, various animals and plants endured enormous levels of suffering before humanity existed. So it is difficult to claim that the direct actions of humanity are responsible for suffering in our world. However, one could say that suffering was predetermined for humanity. Essentially, it must then be our fault that the suffering of the world was predetermined for us. So everything's our fault (even if it's not), and we still have free will (even if we don't). Christianity makes complete sense."

Obviously, I'm being sarcastic here.

We can now determine that there was never a Paradise - that there was never an Eden - and that the "original sin" of humanity is merely our own existence in an indifferent universe. Sure, Christian tradition can try to pin the blame on a species which only arrived on Earth during the most recent instant of geologic time, but the growing evidence across nearly all disciplines of science can easily refute such a bold and unsupported assertion.

How can I prove that the only reason a god would permit evil is to bring about some other end? How can I know that this is not the only possible world that it is feasible for a god to create? I most likely cannot fully prove either of these things to you; what I may be able to demonstrate adequately is the incoherence of Christian dogma when its doctrines are contrasted with the harsh, vivid realities of our existence.

A Memorandum to God (Part One)

MEMORANDUM

DATE: ∞

TO: God

FROM: Teleprompter

SUBJECT: Doubt

I hope you are well, whoever or wherever you may be. My friends and family have urged me to contact you over some pressing issues I have encountered. I hope that I am not wasting your time. Here are some of my questions for you:

1. "Your followers call you the judge of the world. You are expected to love justice and fair play. You’re expected to loath all ill treatment of one person by another. A corrupt judge who has no interest in seeing right triumph over wrong is, by biblical standards, a monstrosity.

Moreover, a judge who is found to be living a double life–one condemning criminals and one condoning his own crimes–deserves no such respect, honor or admiration."

- paraphrased from statements made by Demian Farnworth, Christian apologist

So why do you allow so much injustice in your name? Why have you allowed your followers to mistreat women, gays and minorities? Why do you allow wholesale slaughter of tribes with differing theological views?

Why do you condemn those who murder in the Ten Commandments yet simultaneously order the genocide of thousands at Sihon (Deuteronomy 2:34), Bashan (Deuteronomy 3:3), Jericho (Joshua 6:21), Ai (Joshua 8:2), Libnah (Joshua 10:30), Lachish (Joshua 10:32), Eglon (Joshua 10:35), Hebron (Joshua 10:37), Debir (Joshua 10:39), the Negev (Joshua 10:40), and the northern royal cities (Joshua 11:14)? Why did you allow the destruction of the Anakites (Joshua 11:21-22)? Why did you order the total decimation of the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1-2)?

Why did you harden the hearts of the kings of some of these cities so that you could wage war against them so that your followers “might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy” according to your commands (Joshua 11:21)?

(NOTE: this project is an ongoing series; I will devote each installment to a new question; once again, thanks for your participation!)

(SECOND NOTE: part of the opening section to this essay is a paraphrase of commentary written by Demian Farnworth on his blog Fallen and Flawed; you can read the essay in which his statements originally appeared here. The paraphrase was borrowed for rhetorical comparison.)

Encounter with a Proselytizer (Part Two)

I apologize for the length of time which has elapsed since Part One. Thank you for waiting!

I received a phone call when I was at home several days later from the pastor of the church which handed me the brochure about Jesus.

I struggled to think of something coherent to say to the preacher on the other end of the line. Here I was, talking to him directly. What was I going to say? Was I going to make a fool of myself?

I told the pastor that I had been handed the glossy bulletin, that I had read it, and that I decided to call the included number to discuss some questions I had about the information in the brochure.

For my first question I stammered, "What does your church think about the Bible?"

He relayed to me the teachings on Biblical inerrancy: that everything in the Bible is truth, and that the Bible is internally consistent. The preacher also mentioned that his church exclusively uses the King James Version of the Bible.

I asked him why the church uses the King James Version? He replied that the King James Version used direct translation from the "original" languages of the Bible. I did not proceed further with this because I am not knowledgeable enough about the history of the Biblical documents to contend with his claims.

Another angle which my conversant preacher had emphasized about the Bible was that it contains God's messages. It was given to humans, but God had written it ahead of time, so the Bible was God's perfect word to humanity.

I decided to ask the pastor about certain tenets of Biblical morality. I discussed certain acts of genocide and crime in the world today: Serbia/Kosovo, Rwanda, etc.

Did he agree that these acts were wrong? Yes, he did.

I then cited the book of Joshua: the slaughter of the various tribes of Canaan whom the Israelites supposedly displaced.

If the Bible condones an act of terror that we agree is untenable, then why should I follow its teachings as a moral guide?

The preacher directly informed me that the slaughter of these peoples was really the work of God, not the Israelites, and that they were really evil, anyway.

I asked the pastor, "If God told you to murder someone, would you do it?"

He retorted that he would never murder someone, but if God murdered someone, he would understand why God did it.

Just as God slaughtered many of the Canaanites for their immoral ways, God could similarly "send judgment" to many Americans today for the current state of our immoral society.

But the bottom line, the preacher reasserted, is that Jesus saved us, and God sent the Bible to us. The real important point is whether I believe that or not.

"Do you believe in God?" he stated sharply.

"I don't know," I answered.

"You don't know? But the Bible is God's Word!" the pastor responded. "This book talks about Jesus and why he came, so Jesus was either telling the truth or he was a liar. Do you believe what the Bible says about Jesus?"

"What if the people who wrote the Bible made up the stuff that Jesus said?" I inquired.

(My query was ignored and previous assertions were repeated.)

"How can you not believe the Bible?" he asked incredulously. "It contains the words of Jesus. Do you believe them?"

"I could write a book about President Obama and say that he said something, but that doesn't mean he said it," I retorted.

My acquaintance was not amused by that comment. He abruptly ended the conversation.

"Look, if you don't understand this about the Bible, I can't even talk to you."

I thanked the preacher for the discussion, and hung up the phone.

Maybe I should've used some other analogy besides Barack Obama...my second thought was Harry Potter...never mind.

Some conversations are doomed to futility.

Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part Four)

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is the final installment of the series, part four of four.

For the last time, here we go again:

19. Psalms 34:20 - "He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken."

In my previous installment, I discussed not only Psalms 34:20, but also Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12.

At that time, I had the following remarks about this passage:

Psalms 34:20 is a song of praise, and makes no specific mention of a Messiah; it's also another Psalm of David. The verse is clearly a figurative reference to the righteous man who obeys the Lord - not one of his bones will be broken. It's anything but obvious that this passage is about Jesus, or even a Messiah.

For those reasons, it is apparent to me that Psalms 34:20 is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus - in my mind, it hasn't even been established that this is a prophecy at all, especially a messianic one - and that can be said for many of these passages.

It is highly likely that the only person who will believe that all of these passages are obvious references to Jesus is someone who has been thoroughly indoctrinated into the Christian faith. If there is a God, then God gave us rational minds -- and we should not be afraid to use them. I will reject Jesus before I reject truth, if the truth of Jesus cannot be established. Alas, this is what I have done - and yet I am accused by some of "exalting intelligence above God". Funny, I thought using what you were given was an act of worship....

20. Zechariah 12:10 - "They will look at Me whom they pierced."

The full text of this verse from my NIV Bible:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit (footnote: Or the Spirit) of grace and supplication. They will look on (footnote: Or to) me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son."

There's really no way to tell if this is a messianic prophecy or not. At best, this passage is vague and ambiguous.

The surrounding passages describe events concerning the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem - this is not exactly an ideal comparison to a Jesus-like figure.

Let me just say, like most "prophecies", it's a stretch to say that this passage really means anything at all. I doubt that anyone will be convinced by my summaries that these are not valid or genuine prophecies. I hate to be this cynical, but let's admit it, most people believe what they want to believe. It doesn't matter if the passage doesn't even say anything about a Messiah - people have been trained their entire lives to see the Messiah in that text, who am I to dispute such a strong intuition, even if it is the result of indoctrination?

Demian, I fear what you are going to say next - you'll say that I don't see Jesus in this text because I'm not a believer. And technically, that may well be true. But I believe that there is no reason to see Jesus in this text.

Let it not be said that there is no level of evidence that would compel me to believe in Christianity - that is not true. If there were prophecies that were unabashedly, explicitly, specifically about a Messiah - and Jesus fulfilled these impeccably, then I would definitely reconsider my position. But that is not the case.

Yet again, I see no reason to accept that this passage is a valid prophecy of Jesus.

21. Isaiah 53:9 - "They made His grave with the wicked, and with a rich man at His death, although He had done no violence and had not spoken deceitfully."

Thankfully, this is our final Isaiah 53 passage. I have spoken both in previous installments of this series, and in the comments section on your blog, giving reasons why it is obvious to me that Isaiah 53 refers to Israel, rather than a Messiah. For those reasons I have already carefully articulated, it is apparent to me that Isaiah 53 is not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

22. Psalms 16:10 - "For You will not abandon me to Sheol; You will not allow Your Faithful One to see the Pit."

Why couldn't this passage be referring to David? My NIV footnote on this verse says: Or your faithful one instead of "Holy One".

Eh, it doesn't really make much difference. It's ambiguous and unclear at best, manipulation at worst. Those who want to believe will believe it, I guess.

I am not convinced that this passage is a valid prophecy of Jesus - like so many other passages from Psalms, there is no specific mention of a Messiah, and it just seems to text the words that are there, and to twist the meaning of the original text.

23. Psalms 68:18 - "You ascended to the heights, taking away captives; You received gifts from people, even from the rebellious, so that the Lord God might live there."

What does this passage even have to do with a Messiah or with Jesus?

Yes, Jesus is said to have ascended to heights. So is Harry Potter.

Taking away captives? Okay, this could be stretched to say that Jesus is taking away captives from sin, or Satan, or whatever...but this passage doesn't mention a Messiah. It's a song of praise to Yahweh. Why put a Messiah into the text when there's no reason to do so?

Since this passage is so nebulous and incoherent, I strongly suspect that it is not a valid or genuine prophecy of Jesus.

24. Psalms 110:1 - "The LORD declared to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool."

Once again, this is another one of the passages from Psalms (and Psalm of David, according to the notes in my NIV Bible) which appears to apply more to David specifically and contains no explicit mention of a Messiah.

Every single one of these "prophecies" is either flat-out contradictory with Jesus's narrative as portrayed in the Gospels, vague, mischaracterized, misapplied, misread, ambiguous, or is in some other fashion unimpressive and unconvincing. The best prophecies of the 24 are merely ambiguous and vague; the worst, manipulative and deliberately distorted. It is sad that these "prophecies" are considered the foundations for a robust prophetic portrait. Suffice it to say, I'm not convinced.

Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part Three)

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

His list includes 24 prophecies which he believes indicate Jesus as the Messiah.

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is part three of four.

They say the third time's the charm. Here we go again:

13. Isaiah 53:4 - "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted."

Yes, Isaiah 53. I am familiar with the details of Acts 8:26-39, where Philip convinces the Ethiopian eunuch that Isaiah is referring to Jesus in this passage.

I assert that Isaiah is not talking about Jesus in this passage, but about Israel. Why have I reached this conclusion?

From Isaiah 41-Isaiah 53, the servant is consistently identified as Israel.

Isaiah 41:8-9 (NIV) - "But you, O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend,
I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you"

Isaiah 42:18-19 (NIV) - "Hear, you deaf; look, you blind, and see!
Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one committed to me, blind like the servant of the LORD?"

Isaiah 42:24 (NIV) - "Who handed Jacob over to become loot, and Israel to the plunderers? Was it not the LORD, against whom we have sinned? For they would not follow his ways; they did not obey his law."

Isaiah 43:1 (NIV) - "But now, this is what the LORD says -- he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel"

Isaiah 43:10 (NIV) - "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he."

Isaiah 44:1-2 (NIV) - "But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen.
This is what the LORD says -- he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen"

Isaiah 44:21 (NIV) - "Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you."

Isaiah 45:4 (NIV) - "For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name"

Isaiah 48:20 (NIV) - "say, "The LORD has redeemed his servant Jacob."

Isaiah 49:3 (NIV) - "He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.""

Therefore, I feel comfortable concluding that the servant of Isaiah 53 is not Jesus, but Israel, as is apparent throughout this section of Isaiah. It should be clear that this is not even a messianic prophecy - unless one rejects what the text actually says, repeatedly - it is clear that this passage portrays Israel, not Jesus, as the suffering servant. The misapplication of this passage strongly suggests that this is not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

14. Isaiah 53:7 - "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth."

Another Isaiah 53 passage? I can't believe there are still two more Isaiah 53 passages listed after this one.

By any honest accounting, shouldn't text from the same place be counted as only one prophecy? This problem also occurs with Psalms 22 and Psalms 69. There are really only fourteen or fifteen "prophecies" on this list, but the fuzzy math has made it appear that even the vague and misapplied prophecies which are listed here are more numerous than they really are.

I just provided a rather lengthy list of examples from previous chapters of Isaiah to demonstrate why the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel, rather than Jesus, so I will repeat my arguments here. However, I will conclude that for the same reasons listed in my previous post, it seems highly unlikely that this passage is a valid prophecy of Jesus.

15. Psalms 22:18 - "They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots."

My NIV Bible notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

I've already covered Psalm 22 before in this series. Again, there are no specific references to a messiah and the text appears to be about David.

I believe that this is an example of retroactive application from the Gospel writers to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, and John 19:23-24 all specifically depict soldiers casting lots for Jesus' clothing. John even mentions in the text that this happened so that the prophecy from Psalms 22:18 might be fulfilled. A footnote in my NIV text indicates that a few late versions of Matthew 27:35 included a direct reference to Psalms 22:18.

The passage from Psalms 22 is not directly linked to a messiah, but it appears that the Gospels were written to make it appear that Jesus did something that is linked to "prophecy" - even though Psalms 22 is clearly not of prophetic nature. For those reasons, it seems most plausible that Psalms 22:18 is not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

16. Isaiah 53:12 - "He submitted Himself to death."

Only two more Isaiah 53 passages after this one - we're almost done!

Again, I have provided a lengthy list of examples which demonstrate why the author of Isaiah is referring to Israel, not Jesus, as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Given the context of the reading, it is implausible to claim that the passage applies to Jesus.

For the reasons I have previously mentioned in this post, it is apparent that Isaiah 53 is likely not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

17. Isaiah 53:12 - "He bore the sin of many and interceded for the rebels."

How hard are they even trying? This passage is from the same exact verse as the previous "prophecy". Fuzzy math, indeed.

By this point, I believe that my position on the servant's identity in Isaiah 53 is crystal clear, and it should not have to be repeated why it is apparent to me that Isaiah 53 is not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

Only one more Isaiah 53 passage after this - we're getting closer!

18. Exodus 12:46 - "You may not break any of its bones."

This verse is similar to Psalms 34:20 and Numbers 9:12. John 19:31-36 claims that prophecy was fulfilled in this manner.

However, Exodus 12:46 clearly refers to the Passover meal, not to Jesus:

Exodus 12:43-45 (NIV) - "The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "There are the regulations for the Passover: "No foreigner is to eat of it.
Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him,
but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it."

Now, I know enough about the Bible to see where apologists might make the comparison that Jesus is the Passover Meal, etc. However, there are some major problems for the Jesus narrative if this is the interpretation justifying this passage as prophecy:

1. Only the circumcised could share this Passover. Paul states explicitly in Romans 2:26-29 (NIV) - "If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as those who are circumcised?
The man who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.
No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code."
According to Christian tradition, Jesus served as a sacrifice for the circumcised and the uncircumcised alike. It presents a major problem to identify him with a Passover meal that is exclusively for the circumcised.

2. This passage says nothing specific about a Messiah.

Psalms 34:20 is a song of praise, and makes no specific mention of a Messiah; it's also another Psalm of David. The verse is clearly a figurative reference to the righteous man who obeys the Lord - not one of his bones will be broken. It's anything but obvious that this passage is about Jesus, or even a Messiah.

Numbers 9:12 is also a reference to the Passover, and shares the same problems as Exodus 12:46.

For all of the reasons I have listed, it is apparent that none of these three passages is a valid or genuine prophecy of Jesus.

Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part Two)

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

His list includes 24 prophecies he believes indicates Jesus as the Messiah.

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is part two of four.

Here we go again:

7. Isaiah 50:6 - "I gave My back to those who strike me, and My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard; I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting."

The version of Isaiah 50:6 from my NIV reads "I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting."

It seems apparent to me that the figure identified in Isaiah 50 is the author of Isaiah himself, not Jesus. Isaiah 50:4 states that "The Sovereign LORD has given me an instructed tongue, to know the word that sustains the weary."

Furthermore, Isaiah 50:7-9 affirms:

"Because the Sovereign LORD helps me, I will not be disgraced. Therefore, I have set my face like flint, and I know that I will not be put to shame.
He who vindicates me is near. Who then will bring charges against me? Let us face each other! Who is my accuser? Let him confront me!
It is the Sovereign LORD who helps me. Who is he that will condemn me? They will all wear out like a garment; the moths will eat them up."

Is it true that the Gospels portray Jesus as not being disgraced, as not being put to shame, as not being charged or accused? These things may very well be true of Isaiah, but if the Jesus narrative is to remain coherent, these things can absolutely not be true of Jesus.

Because the context of Isaiah 50 implies that the statement is made by Isaiah, and because the statements themselves seem to fit Isaiah well, and not do seem to correspond with the accounts of Jesus from the Gospels, it seems more likely than not that Isaiah 50 is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

8. Psalms 22:16 - "They pierced my hands and my feet."

My NIV Bible notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

As you may have discerned by now, I have a high level of skepticism for claims of prophecy which originate from David's exclamations, because it seems apparent to me that it is futile for Biblical interpreters to associate a sinful figure such as David with the supposedly sinless Jesus (especially with regards to verses like Hebrews 4:15).

Further, the footnote under this verse in my NIV suggests "Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Syriac; most Hebrew manuscripts / like the lion,", rather than "pierced". Also, none of the New Testament writers cite this verse as a reference to Jesus's crucifixion. At best, this verse is highly controversial and ambiguous, and it's not clear at all that it even references a messiah. Once again, I am quite doubtful that this verse is a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

9. Psalms 22:1 - "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me."

As I just wrote immediately above, my NIV Bible notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

Do I have to repeat what I just said about my skepticism of conflations of the figures of David and Jesus, while one is portrayed as a sinner and the other is portrayed as sinless? The longer I do this, the more it becomes apparent that the authors of the Gospel are purposely trying to write Jesus into previous texts. What else can I say? There is no specific reference to a messiah in this chapter. For those reasons, it seems clear to me that this passage is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

10. Psalms 22:7-8 - "All who see me sneer at me; they separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying, "Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him; let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.""

Four of these prophecies are from Psalms 22. I understand, you think Psalms 22 is a messianic prophecy.

Clearly, I think this verse is referring to David, as is this entire chapter.

Again, there is no obvious reference to a messiah in this verse or in this chapter. It is ambiguous at best.

Again, I think it is extremely foolish to conflate the figures of a sinful David and a sinless Christ.

For those reasons, it is apparent to me that Psalms 22:7-8 is not a prophecy of Jesus.

11. Psalms 69:21 - "They also gave me gall for my food and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."

My NIV notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

My objections to conflating the figures of David and Jesus should go without saying by this point, Demian. But here is a great example of why I am so skeptical of such claims:

"You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you." - Psalms 69:5

We have already covered this, of course. But I wanted to remind you that it seems a direct contradiction to identify Jesus with a foolish sinner, as the author of this passage is portrayed.

Be honest. Is Jesus supposed to be a sinner? If not, how can this be a valid prophecy?

Furthermore, it is ambiguous and doesn't even specify a direct reference to a messiah. It's about David.

It is apparent to me, once again, that this passage is not a prophecy of Jesus.

12. Psalms 22:14 - "I am poured out like water; and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within me."

Crikey, not another passage from Psalms 22. (In case you haven't noticed by now, a Psalm of David.)

One last time:
1. No specific reference to a messiah is contained in this passage, making it highly ambiguous at best.
2. It's problematic to compare the sinful David and the supposedly sinless Jesus (to say that both figures are the same) because of verses like Hebrews 4:15.

For those reasons, it is apparent that Psalms 22:14 is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part One)

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

His list includes 24 prophecies he believes indicate Jesus as the Messiah.

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is part one of four.

Here we go:

1. Psalms 69:2 - "Those who hate me with out cause are more than the hairs of my head."

My NIV Bible indicates that this is a psalm of David. I am skeptical of this passage because in verse 5, the writer declares that "You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you." So if Christians want to suggest that the figure who is hated without reason and who has enemies without cause is Jesus, then should they also suggest that Jesus is guilty and has committed folly? For those reasons, it does not seem likely that Psalms 69:2 is a prophecy of Jesus.

2. Psalms 2:2 - "The things of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed."

At first, there were elements about this chapter that made me feel that it could be a convincing messianic prophecy, but after performing some comparative analysis on differing versions of the text, I have concluded that this is at best an ambiguous and unclear passage, and not a strong prophecy of Jesus - in fact, it may not even refer to a messianic figure.

Here's the text of Psalms 2 as found in my NIV:

"Why do the nations conspire (footnote: Hebrew; Septuagint rage) and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One (footnote: Or anointed one).
"Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters."
The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
"I have installed my King (footnote: Or king) on Zion, my holy hill."
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son (footnote: Or son; also in verse 12); today I have become your Father (footnote: Or have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.
You will rule them with an iron scepter (footnote: Or will break them with a rod of iron); you will dash them to pieces like pottery."
Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

For comparison purposes, here is the text of Psalms 22 from a Hebrew-English Bible based on the Masoretic Text which I found at mechon-mamre.org:

Why are the nations in an uproar? And why do the peoples mutter in vain?
The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together, {N}
against the LORD, and against His anointed:
'Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.'
He that sitteth in heaven laugheth, the Lord hath them in derision.
Then will He speak unto them in His wrath, and affright them in His sore displeasure:
'Truly it is I that have established My king upon Zion, My holy mountain.'
I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.'
Now therefore, O ye kings, be wise; be admonished, ye judges of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled. {N}
Happy are all they that take refuge in Him. {P}

In the NIV version, there are several things which give the verse the appearance of referring to a Messiah:

1. The use of the phrase 'Anointed One' as distinct from the LORD.
2. The capitalization of words such as 'Son', 'King', and 'Father'.
3. The use of the phrase 'Kiss the Son' and the reference to taking refuge - this does sound like something that could be a plausible reference to Jesus.

However, in the comparison version of Psalms 22,

1. 'anointed' is used instead of 'Anointed One'.
2. 'king' and 'son' are not capitalized; I have begotten thee is used instead of 'Father'
3. The term 'Do homage in purity' is used instead of the phrase 'Kiss the Son', and the text generally does not seem to refer to taking refuge in a Son, but rather to taking refuge in the LORD generally.

It seems more plausible that 'son' in this chapter refers to King David, or to Israel itself, rather than to Jesus. Especially since verse 6 mentions that the king will be installed on Zion, and Jesus specifically claims that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), it seems most likely that Psalms 2 is not a prophecy of Jesus - though I would certainly like to question whoever oversaw the compilation of the NIV text on their interpretation and rendering of Psalms 2.

3. Psalms 41:9 - "Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me."

My NIV Bible denotes this chapter as a Psalm of David.

Verse 4 of Psalm 4 indicates that the psalmist has "sinned against" God. Once again I ask, do Christians want to associate Jesus with the figure of a Psalm who has openly admitted his sinful behavior? This is in direct contradiction to Christianity's claim that Jesus is without sin. For those reasons, it seems most likely that Psalms 41:9 is not a prophecy of Jesus.

4. Zechariah 13:7 - "Strike the shepherd and the sheep may be scattered."

What exactly is this supposed to be a prophecy of?

In this verse, God says "I will turn my hand against the little ones." What does that have to do with Jesus? Yes, knowing my Bible, I can guess that you're going to say that it's a reference to the apostles fleeing after the crucifixion of Jesus - but to me, that's a definite stretch in this context, because in this verse, it is God himself who is doing the striking and the scattering, and turning his hand against the little ones. This doesn't seem to have much to do with Jesus, and the context of this verse does not fit coherently with the Jesus narrative at all. For these reasons, it seems probable that this verse is not a prophecy of Jesus.

5. Zechariah 11:12-13 - "I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!" So they weighted out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD."

The author of Matthew 27:9-10 references this verse, but attributes it to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Oops?

Also, this passage is ambiguous at best. God is depicted here as telling Zechariah to throw the money at a potter; Judas is depicted as giving the money to Caiaphas, who is said to have bought a potters' field. Besides that, this passage says nothing about a messiah. It appears that the author of Matthew tried to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, but ended up not only citing the wrong prophet, but mangling the prophecy in the process. For those reasons, it seems doubtful that this passage is a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

6. Micah 5:1 - "With a rod they will smite the judge of Israel on the cheek."

My version of Micah 5:1 reads "Marshal your troops, O city of troops (footnote: Or Strengthen your walls, O walled city, for a siege is laid out against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod."

What do "a siege is laid out against us" or marshaling troops have to do with Jesus? It seems more likely that this verse refers to an earthly ruler of Israel. Micah 5:4 claims that in the days of the promised ruler Israel "will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth." Yet as I noted earlier, Jesus is on the record as saying that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), so it seems unlikely that he would marshal troops or prepare for a siege, or restore the kingdom of Israel, as the figure identified in Micah 5:2 is described as doing. For these reasons, again, it seems unlikely that this passage is a genuine prophecy of Jesus. This may be another attempt by the Gospels writers to make it appear that Jesus fulfills prophecy, but is clear that Jesus does not match the figure of the powerful earthly ruler described in Micah 5.

"Considering the Bible and Christianity Without A Prior God Belief Is Meaningless"

"And, I concur; considering the Bible and Christianity without a prior God belief is meaningless."

Commenter MS Quixote raised this point in the midst of a discussion on the blog Daylight Atheism.

I have seen this point raised so many times that I feel it is necessary for me to address this point directly, once and for all, on record.

First, what exactly does it mean to consider the Bible and Christianity?

I state here that I am assuming that what I mean by "considering the Bible and Christianity" is that I am considering whether I believe the spiritual claims are true. If this can be said more precisely, please let me know how I can summarize this in a more accurate way.

I assume that MS Quixote wants to know if the claims of the Bible and Christianity are true, and that he assumes that other people want to know if the claims of the Bible and Christianity are true, and that this is what he means when he says "considering the Bible and Christianity".

I hope I have made correct assumptions in determining what each of us is trying to accomplish when we consider the Bible and Christianity, because those assumptions are fundamental to this exercise.

In the comments section of the original entry by MS Quixote, I noted that Muslims do approach the Bible and Christianity with a prior god belief, but they still have different god beliefs than Christians.

MS Quixote was gracious enough to recognize this, and amended his statement to say that one needs a Christian god belief before considering Christianity and the Bible in a meaningful way. At least, I hope this is what he meant to say, and that I have correctly stated his position.

In suggesting an experiment with MS Quixote's line of reasoning, I am providing the following counter-examples for comparison:

"And, I concur; considering the Qu'ran and Islam without a prior belief in Allah is meaningless."

"And, I concur; considering the Book of Mormon without a prior belief in the revelations of Joseph Smith is meaningless."

"And, I concur; considering the Bhagavad-Gita without a prior belief in Krishna is meaningless."

I wonder if MS Quixote would have any objections to these lines of reasoning if he encountered them in a discussion from a fellow theist, albeit one of a different belief system than his own?

If Christianity can be a properly basic belief, then can Hinduism also be a properly basic belief? Can Islam be a properly basic belief? What about Mormonism?

According to the basic tenets of these religions, not all of them can be true. Therefore, if one can say that the followers of all of these religions have properly basic beliefs, one can say that out of a large number of the people who have properly basic beliefs, many of them have properly basic beliefs that are wrong.

I believe that this circumstance should give anyone who defends religious belief with the notion of "properly basic belief" a moment of pause.

If a large number of people who have properly basic beliefs about a subject are wrong, then one should acknowledge that having a properly basic belief alone is not good enough as a standard for one to be confident of one's conclusions about a subject.

The idea that only consideration of Christianity with a prior belief in the Christian god can be meaningful does not account for the way human beings actually believe in things and acquire beliefs about the subject of religion. I have given counter-examples of patterns of belief in other religious belief systems to demonstrate where I believe that this argument is deficient.

Lastly, there are probably many areas where I have said something that is not as precise as it could be, or I have said something which is a mischaracterization or a misinterpretation, or I have not been clear enough in articulating my ideas. I openly acknowledge the possibility of errors, and if someone can identify them, I will gladly revise my statements. I freely admit that I am a relative novice in discussions of religion and philosophy, but I hope to learn as much as possible as I increase in experience and practice, and to continue a civil and productive discussion of belief and knowledge and "life, the universe, and everything".

Is God Deceiving Us? Evolution and Sound Decision-Making

Alvin Plantinga asks how we can have confidence in our conclusions if we reach them via a brain that is hardwired not for truth, but for survival purposes.

However, if our brains are not hardwired for truth, then what are they hardwired for? Are they hardwired for deception?

Humans are notoriously susceptible to both optical illusions and hypnosis.

If Plantinga is willing to admit that our brains are not hardwired for truth, then what is he acknowledging about the feasibility of a designer? Were our brains purposely set in motion to be deceived?

What is the best explanation? Would a benevolent god really have hardwired our brains for survival but not truth -- deception but not reality?

The god of the Bible may want our attention, our loyalty, our love, and our devotion, but such a god does not want us to perceive it clearly, if Christian and other theistic claims are to be accepted.

This would imply that any such god is either indifferent or malevolent.

If human beings are not wired for sound decision-making, then who could blame Adam or Eve for their transgresion in the Genesis story? Who could blame Lot's wife for looking back at the burning city? If human beings were intentionally wired for deception, then we are really the victims of the divine, if the apologists' claims are to be accepted.

A God who does not want human beings to see the truth is the inevitable result of this line of reasoning, and clearly possesses unacceptable consequences for many commonly-held religious beliefs.

Under this scenario, the Biblical god would be every bit as guilty of deception as Satan himself.

Believing in Belief

I have interacted with many evangelical Christians over Internet blogs and forums. One common claim I have heard is that I was never really a Christian.

If you have read my story on this blog, you'll recall that I was raised as a Christian and deconverted because I decided that the evidence for its validity was severely lacking.

But was I an actual Christian? At first, this question annoyed me greatly. I believed that this claim was nonsensical and absurd at best, and that it was a stinging personal insult and rebuke at its worst.

However, I have now realized that the answer to this question is not entirely black and white. Of course, that conclusion alone should not surprise me. Few things in our existence are entirely black and white.

What shocked me is the realization that I may not have been an actual Christian before I deconverted.

I am trying to remember what exactly it was that I believed in during this time. Did I believe in a higher power? Did I believe in the Bible? Did I believe in the community of my church congregation? Did I believe in the power of faith or belief itself?

Why do these questions matter? These questions are critically important because they attempt to define what Christianity is, and in doing so attempt to determine what exactly it means to be a Christian (or to be a religious person of any persuasion) in today's environment.

I did believe in a higher power. I prayed to my God before meal times and before I fell asleep at night and while I was in church services. Did I believe in the Bible? Yes and no. I had not read all of it. I believed that some of its claims were figurative and that some were literal. I don't think this made me any less of a Christian. I viewed the creation story in Genesis as figurative while acknowledging the reality of evolution, though I fully embraced its claims about Jesus and his supposed sacrifice for humanity. I believed in the eternal existence of heaven and hell, though I had no idea who would end up in each place (I had not made up my mind about universalism or other approaches, but I knew that the Bible said that Jesus was the only way, and I could never get past that reality).

However, as much as I believed in the technicalities of Christian dogma, I also believed strongly in its pragmatic aspects. I believed in the power of faith. I had faith in my government and my society and my family and my friends -- and in God. I also believed in the power of the community in my church. I knew that they were basically good people. I saw my church as a positive influence in my life and as a positive influence in my community.

A nagging question pervades my thoughts: did I really believe in Christianity or did I believe in being Christian? Did I have a belief or did I believe in having a belief? Was I part of a belief community or was I a believer? I don't know the answer.

I don't know if I really was a Christian before I deconverted.

However, if I was not really a Christian, than most of the people in America who proclaim Christianity as their religion probably are not Christians, either. Of course, this assumes that there is an objective definition of what a Christian is, which is probably not accurate.

The major question is this: what do you believe in?

Do you believe in belief? Do you believe in community? Do you believe in faith? Do you believe in charity? Do you believe in good works?

Do you believe in Christianity because it provides an outlet for your other beliefs which you already have, or do you believe in it because you are a sincere follower, you've thought about it at length, and you really do believe that its claims are accurate?

It appears that many people in the world practice Christianity not because they have extensively researched the issues and determined that it is better than all the other religions and spiritual traditions in the world, but because it provides a framework for their other beliefs about themselves and the world which they have adopted from society and family and tradition.

And of course, the same thing is more than likely true for Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and practically every other religious tradition on the planet.

I am tired of asking and answering "what" questions about religion. Now I am much more fascinated with the "why" questions. Why do people believe? Why do individuals believe a certain way?

Was I ever a Christian? Maybe not. Is anyone ever a Christian? Maybe not. Have you ever been a Christian? Maybe not.

Do you believe in a book? Do you believe in a revelation? Do you believe in belief?

Religions often try to be none of these things and all of these things at the same time, for everyone. The whole process of examining religion just confirms my opinion that the religions of our world are human-originated social constructs and not divine manifestations.

Dear Christian

I am inclined to believe that atheists will never be able to conclusively prove that the generic “god” does not exist. I can’t foretell this, but it seems that there are too many obstacles and unknowns to justify such a belief.

However, I believe that I am fully justified to not believe in the god of the Bible, the god of the Qur’an, the god of Joseph Smith, the god of Scientology, and many other gods which we know of now.

In all likelihood, I cannot disprove the existence of these gods. But there are things of which I know now which to me make it highly unlikely that any of these gods would exist.

Is evolution true? Then I cannot take the Bible literally.

Is the Biblical revelation, and more importantly, the interpretation of Biblical revelation, inconsistent? Then I cannot take the Bible (or most forms of Christianity) seriously.

Is the mind a product of the brain? Then I see no reason why I should believe in the concept of the “soul”.

A metaphorical interpretation of the Bible is more or less fine until I start to doubt the coherency of Christian dogma. But the incoherency is more or less defensible or avoidable until I doubt the existence of the “soul”.

Then I must proceed in doubting the premises of Christianity, due to this continually evolving set of circumstances.

If, once I begin to doubt the premises of Christianity, I cannot defend them, nor convince myself of their meaning or relevance or application or even existence, then I cannot in good faith profess Christianity as my religion, and then I feel compelled to move on to something else.

I am not here to insult or denigrate you.

I just want to express my beliefs, my experiences, and my struggles. I want to illuminate the discussions of religion and faith and skepticism. I want to contribute to our knowledge. I want to engage others in intelligent, calm, rational argument.

I am sure that you want the very same things that I do.

What Is Love? Examining Biblical Claims (Part One)

This post is the first in a series of posts where I'll be critically examining Biblical claims.

The Text:

1 John 4:16-18 (NIV) -- "And 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. In 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. There is no fear in love. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

vs.

Isaiah 8:13 (NIV) -- "The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread"

Jeremiah 5:22 (NIV) -- "'Should you not fear me?' declares the Lord. 'Should you not tremble in my presence?'"

Hebrews 10:31 (NIV) -- "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Conflicting Claims:

The Biblical god is love. The Bible itself declares that "there is no fear in love"; yet the god of the Bible declares himself as "the one you are to fear" and "the one you are to dread".

Furthermore, the Bible declares that "the one who fears is not made perfect in love". However, Bible readers are exhorted numerous times to "fear" their god. While an argument may be made that "fear" referenced in some verses has a different definition than the "fear" referenced in other verses, I am confident that the explicit inclusion of terms such as "dread" and "tremble" should illuminate for us what kind of fear to which the text is referring, if the translation I have in front of me is has an accurate translation (it's NIV). So, the Biblical audience is repeatedly urged to fear their god, but those who fear are not made perfect in love, which their god is claimed to be. Is the Biblical god a god of fear or a god of love? According to the texts, the Biblical god is alternately both a god of love and a god of fear. However, the verses are clear here that fear is not a sound basis for love. Fear is not what love is. But the Biblical god is presented as a being to be feared, whom one should dread and also tremble in its presence.

But Aren't You Rejecting Love?

I believe that there is a greater love outside the contents of this book than there is within its contents. Yes, fear does nothing to grow or enhance love for one another. However, the Biblical god relies upon coercion and fear. Why not love for love's own sake?

Much of the Old Testament (and the rest of the Bible) was written by people who had a different understanding of the world than we do today. At that time, violence and bloodshed was a critical part of survival. Fear meant protection. Fear meant safety. Fear meant respect. The world was a much different place for those who wrote the Bible than it is today. One can imagine why people living in such fearful times would associate "fear" with "power". There's no real harm in acknowledging that our world has changed in the last few thousand years, and that our moral standards have also changed in the process. I agree that love, with a solid foundation in human empathy, is a powerful and worthy quality. I also agree that extreme levels of fear are counterproductive in preparing the groundwork of love.

I Miss My Church, But Not Religion (Part One)

I miss my old church, the way it used to be. The way it was when I was a little kid.

It's at times like these I remember 1 Corinthians 13:11, when a passage attributed to Paul instructs people to put away childish things.

Now, it may very well seem out of place for an atheist to mention a Bible passage in his blog about atheism. I understand that -- but the context of this entry is my Christian childhood, so please take that into consideration before you condemn me.

Anyways...

I remember a lot of things about my old church as it was when I was growing up. I recall sunday schools and vacation bible studies. It was fun for me because there were all these kids in one place -- and the activities were always very structured. I was one of those children that thrived on structure and I was deathly afraid of having to interact with others on my own initiative. I didn't know how to interact. I was kind of developmentally delayed - not talking until I was in preschool and so forth. It took me years to become something other than a social pariah.

I loved going to church. It gave me purpose -- it gave me meaning. And most of the time, this had little or nothing to do with religion. It was just another place to be, another thing to do. It was a safe place for me, a place where I could be myself.

The elderly ladies of my church always lavished their attention on me when I was a child, and often times there were other kids which with I made friends and spent time doing things.

At one time in my life, my church was a very stable place for me emotionally, and it came as quite a shock when it ceased to have that role in my life, and practically became a destabilizing influence on me.

For much of the time which I attended, my church seemed to be cursed in one aspect or another. Whether it was the succession or absence of pastors, the reoccuring inability to pay the bills every month, or the steady flux of congregants who left our church due to job relocation or a change of denominations, it seemed that things were just going badly. In spite of this hardship, I still felt that it was a good place for me and it was an institution worth serving.

My earliest memory of church is tagging along with my mother to services and trying to follow her fingers through the lines of the hymnal book as we sang songs. I remember staring at the images of the cross, the ceiling lights, and the pulpit, wondering in awe what it all meant. I've always had an appreciation for the beauty of a church, even though the cost of that appreciation has been the decreased comprehension of many a sermon throughout my childhood.

Around age six, I had an enthusiastic, energetic sunday school teacher who was the first person to motivate me to be Christian. Of course, I had no idea what anything meant -- it's just that she was the first person to instill in me the idea that "Jesus loves you". She was a wonderful and engaging person; a wonderful teacher of children. I had a lot of difficulties in my life at that age, and her patience went a long way toward my early devotion to Christianity. Few people took the positive messages of Jesus of Nazareth more to heart than she did. Even though I no longer share her beliefs, I will be ever grateful for her benevolent and kind influence over my childhood.

I still didn't think about religion very much at that point. I did manage to progress slowly and purposefully. By age eight, I could follow along in the services without getting lost. I could sing songs without losing my place in the hymnal book. I was becoming a competent churchgoer.

It was at the age of eight that I first received the Holy Communion. I had to take a few classes on it, but I still had no idea what any of it meant. I think the Roman Catholics have a superior idea by waiting longer for the administration of Holy Communion. This is a reflection of my agreement with Richard Dawkins that it's unfair to force religion on children who have no way to properly analyze its merits or disadvantages. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to take children to religious services, as long as you don't push the faith on them aggressively.

After I received my first taste of communion (grape juice and a wafer - even most of the adults wouldn't drink the alcohol. After trying the communion wine as an adolescent, I don't blame them. I never touched the stuff unless we ran out of grape juice)...

After I received my first communion, I received my first personal Bible. It wasn't the Child's kind, containing mostly illustrations and only minimal substantive details -- it was the genuine article, Nehemiah and Colossians included.

I am a child of the spring. I have a birthday that is fairly late in the academic calendar year, so as a consequence I was also younger than most of my school classmates - which never seemed to help my social insecurity, unfortunately.

In April of that year, I had received my very own Bible from my parents, as a mark of my growing maturity in the Christian faith. That summer would become a very pivotal time in my life in terms of my relationship with Christianity.

After school ended for the year, I joined my church's youth group and attended a Christian summer camp for the first time (though I only went for three days instead of the full week since I was such a young tyke at such an unfamiliar place.)

I was more involved than ever before with Christians. We played games and ate food and did fun things; sure, we talked about faith a little bit, but it wasn't anything I hadn't experienced before. I'm not sure if I took the part about religion seriously or not. Sure, I didn't know what any of it really meant, but my faith had still become a major part of my life.

When I was nine, I finally opened that Bible my parents had given me the previous year. Unfortunately, I skipped to the end and read that just as children as prone to doing. (Who doesn't want to find out what happens at the end, right? I mean, imagine following Christianity for years, reading the entire Bible, and then finding out that Satan wins in the end. What a bummer that would be.)

Unfortunately, the first book I read from start to finish was "Revelations". Naturally, it scared the complete sh*t out of my nine-year-old self.

Of course I knew I was sinful - I'd disobeyed my parents before; I'd even acted up in school a few times (though I usually just quietly did what everyone else was doing).

At the age of nine, I had my first thought that this hell thing was actually real, and that I could actually go there. It was my first experience with a vengeful god.

At around that time, my mother was thinking about leaving our church. I mentioned all of the troubles our congregation had been experiencing. She was just tired of dealing with all that went awry. She put a lot of effort into supporting that church, and I think she was really burned out by it.

I thought we should stay. To my childish eyes, I didn't see a lot that was wrong with it, and it still meant a lot to me emotionally.

In Defense of Atheism

The following is a lengthy letter which I composed to respond to critics of atheists and atheism on another blog.

I have omitted the handles of those to whom I responded to protect their identity.

"Hi all…
(a): You said that there cannot be morality with a god. I disagree.
Let me ask you something: does your god declare something to be good because it is, or is something good because he declares it to be that way? If your god declares something good because it is, that means that there is a form of morality above and beyond your god, and therefore he could not be all-powerful or all-good. If something is good because your god declares it to be that way, then all of your god’s morality is subjective. Then how do you know that what your god does really is good?
Let me ask you something else: Who is more moral? An atheist who jumps in front of a speeding car to save a child, or a Christian who jumps in front of a speeding car to save a child? The atheist, who believes that there is no life after this one, is willing to sacrifice everything, but the theist believes that he will be rewarded in the next life for his actions. Isn’t the person who is willing to do something good without being rewarded more of a moral person? Are you really a moral person if you have to threatened with eternal punishment or bribed with eternal reward to do the right things?
(b): You said that if atheists were true atheists, they would have nothing to demonstrate or protest about.
I disagree. Atheists are not protesting something which we don’t believe in. If this were the case, I would feel sorry for atheists. However, you have been mislead. Atheists are protesting the actions of Christians and other theists. We protest the discrimination against atheists and other non-religious people in the United States and around the world.
Also, you say that atheists “don’t know god and hate him”. Do you even know any atheists? (b), atheists don’t believe in any gods. There’s nobody for us to hate. We do condemn many of the actions of religious people which with we disagree. However, it would be silly for us to hate something in which we do not believe. Also, I know a great deal about religion. I used to be a Christian; I was for most of my life so far. Then I asked myself “what if it’s not true?”, and then I examined the evidence for Christianity and for other religions, and I found it to be severely lacking. I enjoyed my time as a Christian. I tried to live my life according to those beliefs as best I knew, and I still think that there is a lot of good moral lessons in Christianity and also in other religions such as Buddhism and Jainism and Islam, and I try to live by my own interpretation of morality. You have to admit, almost all Christians do this, too. Do any of you take the Bible 100% literally? No? Then you are doing what I am doing. You live your life according to the sections of the Bible that you think are moral, and you disregard the other sections.
(b): Do you know what the First Amendment means? It means that our government cannot give preferrential treatment to any religion or to religion. That means that the atheists have every right to place a sign on public property if the government is allowing Christians to place a sign on public property. It’s entirely Constitutional.
(c): You say that an atheist “is the worst kind of moral vermin”. Hmmm….
I’m not sure how you can justify that statement. You’re the one who “mocks” atheists and insults us, too. I don’t insult theists just because I disagree with them on theological questions. Most of my friends and relatives are Christians. I respect them for who they are, even if our beliefs differ. Do you remember the Gospel passage where Jesus of Nazareth says “let the one who is without sin cast the first stone”? It’s John 8:7, if you want to look it up. Better yet, look up Matthew 7:5. “First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”. Your own beliefs condemn your vicious treatment of atheists and other non-believers. As I said earlier, most atheists know a great deal about religion. We’re not atheists because we know nothing about it; most of us have done our research and decided that it just didn’t seem to be true, or that there was enough evidence to prove its claims.
Also, you ask “what is good?” “what is morality?” “how can atheists explain the presence of good in our world, or morality, or both?”
My sense of morality is grounded in the human empathy I share with my fellow human beings. You ask if rape is just a matter “of human reproduction”. I would not want my daughter or sister or mother to be raped. It’s hardwired in our personalities that rape is wrong. We don’t like rape because we know it’s consequences, and we sincerely don’t want it to happen to others. Are there psychopaths who don’t share this hardwiring? Yes, and this is why we have police and a legal system. My basic code of morality is that I should always minimize both actual and potential suffering, while always maximizing both actual and potential happiness. It’s based on the Golden Rule, it’s based on our shared human empathy. Good is what increases our happiness and reduces suffering; evil is what decreases our happiness and increases our suffering, both in actual and potential quantities.
Also, I am not a “Social Darwinist”. You’re right to say that evolution inherently says nothing about morality. It is a description of the natural world, not a proscription for how we ought to behave as human beings. However, there are some things that have been developed by evolution in part such as our basic human empathy that do help tell us what is moral and how we should live as human beings.
(b): You wrote that a “moral atheist is an oxymoron” and asked why an atheist would do anything for his or her offspring, and why an atheist would even bother to have children.
(b), the only inherent difference between us is that I believe in one fewer deity than you do. That’s it. Atheists feel the same natural love towards other human beings which Christians and other theists do. I believe strongly that love is its own reward. That’s one reason why atheists have children. Is all of your satisfaction from being a parent contingent on the circumstance that there happens to be a deity in control of everything? I believe that atheist parents take as much pleasure in the mental, moral, and physical well-being of their children as theistic parents do. I am too young to have any children, but from what I have witnessed, there are many intrinsic rewards for parenting, and I’m not sure what believing in a god has to do with the benefits of raising children.
You also write that a “true atheist” would be “entirely self-absorbed”. Why? Atheists have the exact same incentives for loving others that theists do, apart from belief in a god. As I said earlier, our love and compassion for other human beings is based on our empathy, that is natural to all human beings, and which all of us share. Belief in a god has nothing to do with how we treat our fellow human beings. It is a non sequitor.
I agree with your basic assessment (taken from Geisler and McDowell), that there is one ultimate moral code. It is one based on our shared human empathy. This is why all of those cultures share some of the same values, and it has nothing to do with belief in a god or any particular religion.
(c): you say that atheism is “parasitic” on “theistic morality”. No, I disagree. I think “theistic morality” is parasitic on our natural human empathy and the concepts of morality which societies around the world have deduced from it, with or without your particular religion. People who are pagan, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Aborigine, Native American have all deduced these moral truths without the aid of Christianity. I believe that this is powerful testimony for those who say that belief in any god or in any particular god is necessary for morality. Some of the most moral religions in the world are thoroughly atheistic, such as Jainism. The Jains have some of the most powerful doctrines of non-violence in the world. You will struggle to find a religion that has a less violent history. Yet they have no god. I have studied Christianity as a former Christian, and I have studied many of the world’s other religions. Please try to explain away the existence of so many people who do not believe in a god or in your god who live such a moral life. Your premise is strongly called into question by their existence. Research Jainism. Research Buddhism. Both are strongly moral in their traditions and guidance, and both are inherently atheistic. Also, many societies in today’s world that have the lowest crime rates are predominantly or have very large numbers of atheists. Look up the statistics for Japan or countries in Scandinavia. Large numbers of atheists, but very low crime rates. There is no causation between morality and religious belief. None. Your argument is flawed. Atheists can be just as moral as Christians or other theists.
I have no quarrel with any of you, on a personal level. You have suffered because people have told you things that weren’t accurate about atheists and atheism. I came here, to your website, to help set the record straight. I am sure most of you are good, reasonable people. Even though we may disagree on theology, I hope that we can respect one another as people, even if we do not respect each other’s beliefs or lack of beliefs.
There are so many more things I wanted to say to you, and so many errors I saw on this website that still need to be corrected, but I have other things and committments which I must do and which I must keep. I encourage all of you to think for yourselves. Don’t take what I say or what anyone else said for granted. Check my facts. I easily could have misspoken about something. Think for yourselves. Thanks for listening to what I have to say.
I hope you have more positive experiences with other atheists in the future. Peace."

What are your thoughts on this? How did I handle the situation? Is there anything else I should have said? Is there anything I did say that I shouldn't have said? Is there something I could've said better?

Thanks for your opinions.

I Am An Atheist (Part Two)

As a college freshman, I was enrolled in a world religions course. We examined many of the eastern religions (such as Jainism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism) and discussed many of the fundamental qualities of faith, the sacred, and belief itself.

It was in this context that my strongest initial doubts about my faith and my religious beliefs arose. All of these religions shared many of the same fundamental tenets, yet all of them made claims of exclusivity.

I thought about my own religious beliefs in relation to the ones I had been learning about. Why was I a Christian?

Then I began to see how religions could have evolved from one another. This cast even more doubt onto my already beleagured faith. I considered how the human mind works in accordance with religion. I considered how societies interact with religion. If I had born in India, would I be a Christian? If I had been born in Turkey, would I be a Christian? If I had been born in China, would I be a Christian?

Then I looked at the claims specifically made by Christianity in this growing context of doubt.

I began to wonder, what evidence is there for any of the things happening in the Bible that it says happened? I began to do some research on the subject, and I found no compelling evidence that Jesus even existed...let alone that many of the Old Testament events themselves were historically accurate. Add to this the confusion and plagarism found in the Gospels, and the disputed authorship of Paul's letters. My Christianity just no longer made any sense to me.

But most of these things were still secondary. It was not my exposure to other religious beliefs that was the underlying challenge to my own faith (though it was a pivotal experience that led to my current views). My primary challenge was my nature.

Once I began to doubt my religion, I could examine why and how I felt the way I did, the reasons for why I acted the way I did, and the reasons why other people acted the way they did. I saw the universe as explainable by natural causes.

I told you earlier, that I spent a great deal of time thinking...especially thinking about human nature. My atheism is one of the results of the culmination of this thought process.

I saw how it could have been possible that humans could have invented religion, and why people would believe in it. My religion lost its lustre.

So one day I say to myself (after a few intense days of doubt): Maybe I am an atheist.

Should I call myself that? Would it be appropriate?

If I can live for one day while calling myself an atheist...one day, two days, three days....

Maybe I am an atheist.

I can no longer believe in Christianity. Also, I decided that I no longer believed in the supernatural, because that didn't make sense to me anymore, either, just like Christianity no longer made any sense. So I no longer believed in any religions.

I am an atheist. I am not going to use any other terms. As I see it, the only way to eliminate the negative connotation of the word is to change it by the force of our ideas. So for now, I am prepared to embrace its usage.

I am an atheist.

"Jacob wrestled the angel, and the angel was overcome." -- Bullet the Blue Sky, U2