It happened in Europe.
It happened in Australia.
It is happening in America.
Recently the Southern Baptist Convention (the largest evangelical denomination in America) released membership data that isn’t encouraging. A trend of decline has developed and it isn’t only being seen in the SBC. Ed Stetzer has the data and is an honest insider with great analysis.
Normally with reports such as these or as we anecdotally realize that local churches are struggling we are quick to blame outside influences.
Prayer removed from the public sphere.
Declining morality of young people.
Non-traditional marriages and families.
Playing the victim card may have made for a great sound byte or rallied people to a voting booth, but it has turned evangelical leaders into one dimensional caricatures. The encouraging thing is that a new generation of leaders is emerging who seem to be less interested in placing blame and more interested in moving forward. Leaders like Stetzer, but also Alan Hirsch, Dave Ferguson, Gabe Lyons, among others are looking for ways to lead the church forward.
At the heart of much of this change is to push the church towards engagement and missional practices.
There are still very influential evangelicals who are working from the bygone play book of cable news and political involvement. This will be obvious in the coming months as the GOP candidates jockey for the evangelical voting “bloc”.
Despite this it seems evident that these practices are not gaining the desired effect. I am hopeful about the missional shift and have seen it work in several different contexts because it mobilizes the local church instead of turning it into an enclave.
The local church may continue to see it’s influence decline, but I would rather engage than blame.
Facebook
GooglePlus
MailChimp
RSS
Pinterest
StumbleUpon
Twitter
“The Slow Death of the American Church” Praise God! Seriously. Maybe if they die there will be more Jesus in the Body. I grow tired of the synagogues trying to pass themselves off as the Church, which is His body.
–From a morally declining young person with more righteousness than probably the lot of them.
As flawed as they are, I still believe that the local church is the best and only hope for the world.
Then you are a fool
I agree, Josh. Just as family morals begin at the dinner table, a healthy community begins at an alter in your local church.
That may be the single most depressing sentiment I’ve heard all year.
it can be depressing until you see the redemptive potential through engagement
It’s depressing because you’re furiously trying to squease morality out of some outdated text . Claiming humanity , or in this case a community . Cannot moraly thrive without the influence of some all knowing father figure wagging it’s finger at us from avobe the clouds .
Praise the almighty Lord Satan!!! -666
And good riddance! It’s about time the US caught up with the rest of the world.
I think that the biggest cause isn’t a “fault” of anybody, but the rapid growth in the past few years of the Internet, and the easy availability of information. “Declining morals” or “lack of prayer” or “non-traditional families” aren’t destroying faith. Education, rational thinking and information are destroying faith. Religion preys on those that seek an easy explanation for how the world works. When an accurate explanation is presented, the dogmatic garbage doesn’t stand a chance.
I consider myself a thoughtful and well educated Christian. The stereotype might fit some, but don’t assume that all are simpletons who avoid critical thinking.
I don’t think he meant to say that all Christians are “simpletons”. The truth is that an increase in education is correlated with a decrease in religiosity, and this trend has been seen in many countries. The reason for that is that when almost everything has a natural explanation, few people find the need for contemplating a supernatural explanation. When science explains, the need for blind belief is removed.
You might consider yourself a thoughtful and educated Christian (and, for all I know, you might was well be), but let me assure you that you are not the majority.
Sorry. “Christian” and “critical thinker” are mutually exclusive. For one, it’s heresy and blasphemy to question Christianity, so you can’t, by definition, be both. Also, if you were actually a critical thinker, you would quickly find out that Christianity is a whole bunch of made up nonsense and that Jesus as portrayed in the Bible likely never even existed. After coming to that conclusion, how could you maintain any shred of integrity and still call yourself a Christian?
The belief (and it is a belief) that Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist is a fringe idea at best. So it is your rant that is nonsensical and without integrity.
I doubt the idea that this alleged Jesus was pure invention will be fringe in the future. Richard Carrier, for example, makes a very compelling argument that Jesus is purely mythological.
I think you’ve got that backwards: you make the claim that Jesus existed in the form you claim, so you have to prove it. FYI: citing the bible isn’t going to cut it.
St. Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Francis Collins, N.T. Wright, Anthony Flew for that matter: none of them think critically? Talk about self-righteousness of unbelief!
Thanks Josh for bringing the statistics to a public forum here. It is deeply saddening if not totally surprising.
You might be a critical thinker, but you are not applying critical thinking to your religion properly if you are. That’s right, I said it.
GREAT NEWS ! The end of organized religion. No more funny hats, and lies of a non existent GOD. All wars are started by religion, power and money.
Let the people be free….
Or were wars started because flawed human beings were after more power and money and then cherry picked scripture verses from their religious texts to explain their actions and desires?
There’s a big difference from religion starting all wars and it being used after the fact to justify greedy thoughts and actions of sinful men.
Christian kings and popes started many wars. Christian kings and popes tortured and killed many heretics, “witches” and gays for centuries. These good christians also tortured and murdered thousands of Jews and imprisoned them in ghettos. If christian mythology fails to inculcate decency in christian leaders and in the average believer, then what good is it.
Lots of shameful and despicable things have been done in the name of Christ. I don’t think anyone is trying to deny or hide these horrific things.
Unbelieving dictators have also done everything you’ve described.
Indeed, totalitarians–whether they be christian totalitarians such as the nazis or atheists such as stalin’s soviet union–commit terrible crimes.
I find acts done by christian authoritarians far more sinister because it seems that ideologies rooted in religion are longer lived. The inquisition, for example, began in the 12th century and lasted until the papal states were eliminated by the unification of Italy in the mid nineteenth century. On the other hand, the soviet and Franco atrocities didn’t survive as long and very very few people make the apologies for them whereas christians often defend the brutal Christian behavior.
Life began to get a bit fairer and a little less brutal with the movement towards secular democracy.
Well, I for one, find violent atrocities committed by totalitarian regimes equally repulsive whether religion or faith is used as part of the manipulation or not. The Crusades were a disaster, and many Christians would and do acknowledge that.(Although to lump Nazism, particularly that of Adolf Hitler, in with Christianity is a real stretch.)
Klaus Schloder, who was a Lutheran minister as well as a trained historian, wrote what still is the definitive book on the relationship between the nazis and christians: The Church and the Third Reich.
He makes it very clear that many christians, particularly protestant clergy, supported Hitler. He also makes it clear that Hitler would not have been elected without christian.
I don’t know why you would find this odd. In the US there more than a few christians who advocate for a christian theocracy where men and women have traditional roles and gays would be put to death.
I don’t doubt that “Christians” voted for Hitler. “Christians” have also voted for Obama and Bush who continue to pull the lever for slaughtering of innocents in the Middle East.
My point is, why is it that you hold the Christians who voted for him responsible for his actions but not the non-Christians (of which there were certainly plenty).
Another problem that you overlook with your simplistic analysis is that there is a difference between a nominal, traditional Christian and one who arrives there after a religious/theological/spiritual search and who takes it very seriously for other purposes than oppressing people.
I hold christians more responsible for Hitler for a number of reasons.
1. As Klaus Scholder demonstrates, the volkish movement was a form of christianity; it is the foundation of nazism.
2. A change in christian philosophy emerged in the 1920s Germany–political theology–which argued that a strong government advocating christian religion was necessary and good. The nazis were considered the proper vehicle for this.
3. The political theological christians highly influenced protestant clergy, many of whom embraced nazism and admired Hitler.
4. Hitler himself advocated for a strong christian nation purged of Jews.
5. As Steigman-Gall argues in his “The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity,” most of the leading nazis were very devout christians.
6. The catholics, although more resistant to nazism, lost credibility when the church signed a treaty with the nazis guaranteeing that the vatican would oppose no nazi assault on Jews.
To sum, volkish movement based in christianity, a protestant clergy who supported and advocated for nazism, christians who embraced Hitler, Hitler who advocated for a strong christian nation, a nazi hierarchy composed of devout christians, a catholic church that was indifferent to Jewish persecution, and an antisemitism and homophobia akin to traditional christian hatred of Jews and gays. I think this makes a pretty strong case that nazism is one expression of christian totalitarianism.
Just in case you are misinterpreting this chart.
It doesn’t pictorially represent the decline in church attendance, or religiosity. Those trends would be much more shallow.
This chart shows only that the growth of religion fell from 1960 on – but it was still growing, just at an ever decreasing rate.
In around 2004, it hit zero (no growth) and currently is about -0.04%. Whatever is being measured (church attendance, I suspect) contracted by 0.04% in 2008. That’s so small a contraction, it may well be in the noise and ‘fudge’ of the data collection methods.
If the trend continues, then we can say we have a satisfactory decline in “churchisity”.
This chart currently doesn’t show that at all – merely suggests it might be in our best future.
for a more detailed analysis done by a professional in the SBC I refer you to the link in the original post.
I think part of the reason for the decline of religion in the USA is the constant war that fundamentalists seem to have with everyone else. We live in a society that is more open to new ideas, and what we hear from religious fundamentalists is how we’re all going to hell for supporting socialized medicine, for not protesting our friends with “God Hates Fags” signs, and the countless other acts of intolerance that some churches lecture to their congregations. Jesus taught social justice and for us to love one another. With that in mind, I think the people holding up these signs and the people opposing socialized medicine have far more to fear and had better hope that Jesus forgives them.
The crazy folks at Westboro Baptist are in no way representative of any Baptist denomination or of practicing Christians on the whole.
Yes, but you still ‘believe’ the same basic ideas. They just follow all of them. Everything they say is in the bible, period. If you are a christian, you should defend everything that is said in your holy book.
Hey Jimbo, might want to read the holy book again. “God hates fags” is not in the bible.
You’re right. Your god just condemns them to an eternity of torment. Either that or you haven’t been reading the same book.
Doppleganger, God condemns no man to Hell. Every person chooses their own eternal destiny.
Guy,
Nobody elects an eternity of suffering. The christian bible is very clear that in christian mythology, it is the christian god that judges and determines who goes to hell. It is not a discussion; it is a judgement.
Jim I think is a matter of semantics. Guy is affirming God’s judgment, but our choice in the matter. We can choose to be found in God’s favor through the redemption of Christ.
That’s the historical orthodox understanding.
Bit of a chicken and egg situation though.
Hi Josh,
Thank you for the reply.
It seemed to me that Guy was attempting to make the christian god seem merciful and kind by arguing that people choose their destiny, which may include a path to hell. My opinion is that an agent that judges someone and sends them to a place of eternal torture cannot be considered kind. I would argue that an agent that tortures those it disfavors is vindictive. Given that one of criticisms of the Bush administration was its application of torture, it seems to me that many Americans have a morality evolved past christian sensibilities.
You had mentioned that westboro is not definitive of other baptists. However, in a blog posting preceding this one, baptist clergy were said to be solidly anti-gay. Since the baptists agree on a divine punishment and they agree that being gay is a sin, don’t they agree with westbo
sorry, didn’t mean to post when I did.
. . . don’t most baptists agree that out gay men or women will be eternally punished?
I am not writing this to be contentious. However, when you wrote that christians who hate gays are a minority, that just doesn’t ring true and your own blog posting seems to contradict it.
Your opinion on both gays and hell would be interesting.
Thanks,
Jim
Hell:
In the “church world” there was quite a stir recently on Rob Bell’s book Love Wins, which I reviewed here. In short I do believe in hell, just not convinced that we fully understand it. Don’t buy into the idea of eternal torment in terms of fire and pitchforks, but of the idea of eternal separation from God. Which means this is something we choose in the here and now and catch glimpses of. If we choose to be with God we are seeing bits of heaven, if we choose to distance ourselves we experience moments of hell. Now this obviously breaks down because there are plenty of very content atheists and very miserable Christians. It is because there are glimpses and not full realities that we cannot fully understand it.
It bothers me deeply that there will be people who will be separated from God.
Homosexuality:
Our darkest nature as humans (and in my own life) tends to manifest itself sexually. Lust, objectification of people, adultery, pornography, etc. are outpourings of our deviant selves and tend to cause quite a bit of damage to ourselves and those we love. The ideal as intended and created I believe is monogamous, committed, loving, heterosexual relationship/marriage. Therefore when we stray from this we miss the ideal. This includes homosexuality but is not limited only to this nor is homosexuality more of a sin than others. Homosexuality is not what was intended just as adultery, lust, and other misgivings are.
What pains me is that no matter how I answer this question someone is going to be hurt by it. Having homosexual friends I recognize how easy it is to communicate judgment on their lifestyles when mine are just as sinful and destructive, but more accepted.
In terms of eternal punishment for homosexuals it depends. The way I understand it morality is not the gatekeeper to heaven. Sin keeps man separate from God, and only God through Jesus can reestablish that connection that leads to heaven. I fully believe there will be homosexuals in heaven. Having sexual sin of any kind is an obstacle to connecting with God, but all sin is an obstacle. Thankfully these obstacles can be overcome, because Jesus has already done so when he walked out of the tomb.
That may sound like another page in the Christian myth, but it is very true to me.
I don’t elevate the book itself over the person of Jesus Christ. I recognize that is a simplistic statement, but I don’t believe the Bible itself should be worshiped. In contrast to a Muslims view of the Koran.
People smarter than me call this issue a “Flat Bible” for instance if you read everything literally you would still have stoning, dietary laws, among other things. Not viewing the Bible as flat means that you look at things through the lens of Jesus Christ. Still a matter of interpretation, so humility and community are key.
Josh, every anti-gay rally I have seen has large numbers of christians with posters quoting Leviticus calling for the death to gays. I’ve seen many posters quoting Romans and using this to justify anti-gay hatred. Every anti gay christian group uses the bible to defame and dehumanize gay people. American evangelicals went to a very christian Uganda and developed the “kill the gays bill” that is very popular among those peaceful and ever so loving christian Ugandans.
In my experience, Westboro represents christians fairly well.
I have also seen many Christian counter protesters in the face of Westboro type protests. Here on this blog I posted this: http://wp.me/p1odPb-yf about how a church reacted to WBC protesting them.
There was also a large petition against the Ugandan bill that Christians put together.
We have crazies in the tribe, but you can’t judge everyone by a small sample.
Josh,
That small number is large enough to defeat gay marriage.
As Kevin Phillips points out in American Theocracy, the number of more progressive christians is decreasing while the number of evangelicals is increasing.
The crazies are not a small minority.
It is one thing to defend the few decent christians there are, it is quite another to lie about the number of christians who really are hateful bigots, racists, and pro right wing politics.
Jim: while I won’t disagree with your point, what you’re not seeing is that Christians are also at the front of every fight against injustice. Ponder the roll of Christians in harboring Jews during the Holocaust. Dietrich Bonhoffer is just one name that sticks out. Last I checked, MLK was a pastor, leading the Civil Rights movement. Frederich Douglas was a person of faith. To get even more contemporary, Wendell Berry has been on the forfront of battles for whole foods and against big corporations that rape nature. Shane Claiborne continues to fight for equity in inner city Philly and for peace on the international stage. So yea, Christians, like Muslims or Hindus or Atheists, are not monolithic entities that can be pinned into one corner.
The Jews of the 1930s would not have needed the help of a few good chistians if the majority of christians hadn’t elected Hitler into office. The definitive scholarship on the ralationship of nazis and christians is Schloder’s, The Churches and the Third Reich. He makes clear that many protestants, particularly protestant clergy, strongly supported Hitler.
I don’t think it is honest to look at the few decent christians who helped Jews and to dismiss the actions of the multitude of christians who enjoyed persecuting Jews.
I also don’t think it is honest to look at MLK as an example of the goodness of christianity when it was christians who enslaved Africans and it was a very christian white south who wanted to keep African Americans segregated, poor, uneducated, and brutally oppressed.
The actions of the few do not vindicate the actions of the many.
I do not in any way “dismiss” the role of Christians who participate in disastrous acts like the Holocaust. It was sad and real. I just acknowledge that an honest look includes those who fight the injustice.
As for MLK, it was not “just Christians” who enslaved Africans. It was whole pluralist societies and nations, and to suggest that all of them were Christian is pure fiction.
Few more names to add here: Bishop Tutu in South Africa. William Wilberforce in England. Need I keep going? There is a story that you are telling about Christianity that is a half-truth. I conceding the whole truth. For years and years, people have done awful things in the name of Christ, while others have done great things.
The same would be true, again, for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc.
The point I made and that you ignored is that believers have done atrocious things. Their religion did not instill a moral compass. If, as you pointed out, christians acted no worse (and by extension, no better) than others, then what is the advantage of christian religion?
One other point on MLK, his tactic of peaceful resistance was developed through his friendship with Bayard Rustin (a gay man) who was strongly influenced by Ghandi (a Hindu).
I did not and do not ignore that Christians commit atrocities! I fully acknowledge that you are correct on that point and have throughout this whole discussion.
Your point about the gay man and the Hindu plays into my point. There is good and evil found both inside and outside of the Christian religion. I have no desire to deny that.
As for “what is the advantage” question, first of all refer to the above comment a few up and secondly it boils down for me to an issue of what is really true historically and spiritually. Surely we would disagree with our conclusions, but if I did not believe that Christ lived, taught, was persecuted, died and resurrected than I would not be a Christian.
The evidence that there was not a historical Jesus is coming under very interesting scholarship. Richard Carrier offers the best scholarship on the subject.
I don’t for one moment believe that rational scholarship would change your mind. Faith is, after all, belief without evidence.
However, for those who are interested in a rational analysis of christianity, there is very good reason to believe that this alleged Jesus is pure myth. It is the only thing that makes sense to me given the number of contradictions in the new testament, that there is not one eyewitness account of this alleged person, and that the earliest writings (Paul’s) don’t discuss the history and life of Jesus.
You neglect to mention that the most credible Jewish historian of that time–Josephus–mentions Jesus in his writings.
“It happened in Europe.
It happened in Australia.”
Yes it did, and look at them now. The most secular countries (Germany, Skandinavia, GB) are doing terrific. The economy is booming, the countries are peace loving, the academia there are excellent, scientific and social progress is rampant, the educational and health systems are running like well oiled machines… I could go on. Fact is, the one thing that is good about religion – i.e. the sense of community and belonging – can be achieven without religion altogether. Other than that, religion adds nothing good to a society and should go the way of the dinosaurs. I, for one, take hope from the above statistics.
Ha. I’m a Finnish atheist, and I can assure you that at least the British and the Finnish would use some other term than “well oiled machine” about their health care systems. Sure, coverage is a lot better than in the US and some parts of the system work highly efficiently, but we’ve got our share of problems. Also, the recession hit here like everywhere else. The Finnish and Scandinavian economies are quite dependent on export, and when the world stops buying, we definitely feel it (with the exception of Norway, they’re sitting on an oil well). That said, I agree with your point. Compared to the rest of the world, Northern Europe doesn’t seem to do too badly.
I attended my 15-year-old nephew’s confirmation in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (the “state” church) this past weekend. As you’d expect for a rich, bureaucratic state church, the service was held in a large, mostly empty, absolutely beautiful modernist church building designed by a world-famous architect (Alvar Aalto). The service itself was the hairiest ball of nonsense I’ve heard in a good while, with the pastor constantly referring to how God created everything and how He controls he weather etc. etc. She could have taken any other angle on the subject matter, but she seemed to be completely fixed on talking almost nothing but the most nonsensical Christian metaphysics the whole time.
The confirmation is nearly always preceded by a week-long camp for the teenagers at some nice spot, in this case on an island in the Åland archipelago. The pre-confirmation schooling is very popular with the kids for the shared camp experience (put 15-year-old boys and girls on a summer camp away from home for a week or more and you can guess what happens). When the festivities were done, my nephew said “now I can turn all atheist”, and he probably wasn’t the only one.
Honestly, the churches and the superstitions they peddle can’t disappear soon enough. “Declining moral values” my foot, people are starting to place the value of human rights and the dignity of a life lived in accordance with personal liberty over the arbitrary restrictions imposed by impractical and baseless religious drivel. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
Excellent Jeff, well said!
The line about “declining moral values” was intended to describe the typical excuse for decreasing church involvement, and that these flimsy excuses aren’t worth much.
What test can I do to prove a god exists? There is not one because god doesn’t exist.
Many times people claim to have seen Elvis since his ‘supposed’ death yet so many of us continue as nonbelievers. Pity that we can’t all accept it on faith.
People are just learning that morality does not come from any god, but from society!
thats why the bible support the slavery, but society do not acpet it, or stoning, or any crazy nonsense, society decide what is better for everybody,
you can see in some Islam commanded countries where the holy book laws are followed, they ofter are pictured as monsters and crazy, just because they proper follow their holy book, Christians do not, they have to cherry pick what can still be valid today from a book full os wrong morals so it can live inside the today rational society!
In the age of reason, Sheeps are evolving to men, and the blind sheep are too scared to deal with it, so thats why all the hate preach of now days, (helping even more to get people out of churches! )
some interpretations of the Bible supported slavery. It was a tool to support an agenda.
With all the new comments I have to approve, I am guessing that many are visiting this site for the first time. To those new folks let me be clear about two things.
I am a Christian and a Pastor. I firmly believe in the local church warts and all.
You are more than welcome to comment here no matter your beliefs or lack thereof. Just be civil.
I am glad religion is declining. Here in the US the Christian Right is all about the destructive, vengeful, warrior god of the OT. It is very dangerous in my opinion. What is the difference between that and any other authoritarian mindset they rail against? Not much I say. If there were such a thing as True Christians, they would not be them. I’m tired of the hateful crap that comes out of them. Sure not all Christians are like that but if they don’t speak out against it they are, in effect, supporting it.
The irony is that the people who are promoting the positive humanistic values that Jesus taught though not original to the Bible, are the secularists and non-believers. What’s up with that? Might they actually be the True Christians?
The level of ignorance and intolerance in this country is depressing.
I am an atheist. I believe in the golden rule. It does not require a belief in gods.
Pastor Josh – I understand that you will stand by your beliefs regardless of the comments here or anywhere, but I believe you’re sincere in your desire to keep the critical thinking portion of your brain open. I appreciate the direction you’re encouraging in this blog entry, moving away from blame, that is surely a sign of rational thought. When I consider the many good things that happen in this world that the religious attribute to God, I analyze the claim and recognize an inescapable conclusion… there’s not a single claim that could not have happened without a supernatural influence. I see the good being influenced by the innate good and desire for safety and acceptance in ‘humans’, plain and simple. When you really think about it, an attachment to this idea of an all loving, all powerful God who knows what’s best for each of us and has a plan for us, acts as a sort of crutch. Some people will wait around for a confirmation from above and be stunted until they either imagine one came, or make up their own minds, pretending it came from god, before they’re able to move forward in life. Then, instead of gaining strength and confidence from their accomplishments, they give all the credit to god and feel helpless without him. I, being an ex-christian and atheist, of course see things differently now. I notice such a difference in my ability to tackle the obstacles in my life, I know that I am worthy of being happy with who I am despite my flaws. And when bad things happen, knowing that I’m not being punished or tested by some seemingly unfair god is liberating. I don’t have to wonder anymore why god seems to be answering others prayers but ignoring mine… and if you’re honest, you know everyone wonders the same… when they’re alone, struggling and begging god for help… the response is nothing unless from your own mind. The world makes so much more sense now. I really notice a difference in my critical thinking skills now… there is no fear and no arrogance.
I wish you the best
Wish you the best as well, and thank you for your candor and civility.
Doubt is a reality. No matter how deep my faith is, there will always be moments of doubt. I have seen (as I am sure you have as well) Christian leaders who push folks to ignore the doubt, personally I believe that in honestly embracing our questions faith can deepen and mature.
No matter where you stand in terms of theism I hope that fear would not dominate and that arrogance would not be all that was put forward.
Honest question: In relying fully on rational thought and logic how does hope manifest in your life? What is the source of your hope?
I do not want to walk on merjen’s answer but I would like to say that no human being can be rational 100% of the time. To be human is to be irrational. It takes effort. We are emotional creatures which might be one reason that theism is so prevalent.
Ok, so is there a place for faith, of any kind, in the life of non-theists? Where would I apply this supposed precious virtue? In one discussion I was involved in, someone made some nice arguments saying things like they had faith that the sun will rise, but another person came back and really put this in perspective for me. There is a difference between ‘faith’ and ‘reasonable expectations based on evidence and experience’. Saying you have faith that the sun will rise sounds nice and all, but the beauty and hope that I see in the rising of the sun is still there without calling it faith. Some theists feel that atheists are missing out on something profound or precious without faith in our lives. But isn’t faith really just optimism and ‘hope’ when you take it out of the religious context? So in that sense you could say I do have faith. What theists need to recognize is that we really do see, feel, appreciate and celebrate all the same beauty in life that they do. Just because we see the world for what it is, without adding some higher purpose to it all, doesn’t take away from the awe and inspiration it gives us.
If god is the source of your hope, what do you get from it while here on this earth? I don’t want to belittle you by suggesting all your hope lies in a life after this one, but it’s hard not to wonder that. For you, a prayer might be your way of expressing hope. But I do not see prayer changing anything except a from a personal perspective. Let’s look at natural disasters… like say, a fire. The recent fires in AZ came within 7 miles of my parent’s property and my mother (being religious) asked me to pray for them. Now that’s a nice thought and all (and I didn’t say all this to her out of respect)… but I thought, what exactly does she expect it to do? Stop the fire? Did not countless people pray for the families with houses that did burn down? So why ‘hope’ that prayer will save your house? When I really stop and take in all the history of how fires effect humans & this earth… there has never been a single time when the fire just magically stopped. Fire has and always will take its natural course until it either runs out of fuel or human intervention stops it. Prayer or no prayer. And don’t give me that crap about god working in mysterious ways, please.
See, my hope lies in human nature. But I have the benefit of not being disappointed by false hope in the impossible. Bad things happen out of pure accident, natural consequences or through the actions of humans. The same rules apply for the good things that happen.
As we both know, theists interpret the bible in countless ways. Some take it literally preaching hellfire and brimstone. Others like to pick and choose, taking only the feel good parts. But ultimately, proof offered for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god starts with the bible. Because of the history behind it, the many, many contradictions and the faulty translations, it is obvious to me the bible was written by man as a means to control the masses and gain power over them by eliciting fear if you disobey and reward if you comply (so obviously a man made concept). So for me the bible lacks credibility and any proof one offers needs to come from something else and be much more convincing than subjective “feelings”. You can white wash the source of your beliefs all you want, you can come up with all sorts of inspiring ways to worship and spread your message, but just because it feels good doesn’t make it true. Consider for a second how the Christian message has evolved over time, as people have become more civilized and advanced, churches have changed their methods to appease the whims of society. Humans are amazing creatures; they can be convinced of anything. You could say that these warm and fuzzy interpretations come from hope, hope that there is an all loving god, hope that humans will learn to treat each other with love and respect, hope that all who can give of themselves will, hope that the evil doers in the world will get what’s coming to them, hope that your life will mean something, or possibly hope from the preacher that he/she will gain a larger congregation with a more palatable message… which in turn brings more tithing, you can’t deny that. Humans have been trying to figure out the natural world since they evolved enough to think, and since then have created countless gods to explain the unknown. Because of the advancements in knowledge in all areas, the human race has been able to replace all early mans archaic explanations with scientific ones. There is not one single rational/scientific explanation that has ever been replaced with a supernatural one. I don’t see that trend reversing, ever.
I have hope for the future of the human race to evolve past ignorance, bigotry, intolerance and discrimination. I don’t see any religion making that happen, UNLESS the adherents decide to sway from the bible and pass it off as a new kind of Christianity. But then why call it religion? Isn’t it just human thought and rhetoric coming up with new and better philosophies on how to get along in this world? You either believe in the bible fully, or you don’t. When you start making up your own philosophies, it’s no longer based on the bible and can no longer be attributed to a god. I give humans enough credit to know what is good for themselves and for society, I do not believe our morality comes from god. Hope without an attachment to a god is much more rewarding because it’s based in reality, with that it gives me motivation to take action and make my hopes and dreams a reality… instead of relying on god to do it for me… which, never. ever. happens. Anything that I have ever done to make my life better happened because of my own efforts.
Peace and love to you and yours,
Jen
How has that “evolving” away from bigotry, hate, and violence worked so far throughout history?
Chris,
You wrote,
“How has that “evolving” away from bigotry, hate, and violence worked so far throughout history?”
When scientific medicine took off in the 19th century, doctors were still heavily influenced by many christian biases. For example, gays were considered mentally ill. It took years and years, tons of controlled, peer reviewed research, but ulitimately the research showed that a gay orientation is not a mental illness. Rational research helped us evolve away from that bigotry.
So I would answer your question that evolving away from bigotry is going fairly well in those places and institutions that question religious “truth” and use science to understand behavior.
And yet, slavery is still blatant throughout the world. War continues to detonate innocents everywhere. Racism plagues our systems. The notion of family is a laughingstock, so kids grow up with little stability and guidance. Gaps between rich and poor are astronomical. Our food system poisons us every day. I could go on and on.
But I have a hunch you’re going to conveniently blame all that on Christians.
But no, evolutionary processes are never going to lead us to the Utopian dream.
I never argued that humans are capable of a utopia. But as the move to secular democracy has shown, humans are capable of improvement.
I’m not aware a blatant slave trade. That just seems a ridiculous accusation.
Yes, the gap between rich and poor is increasing. Perhaps the right wing christians who vote in right wing republican politicians have something to do with this?
Science and rational thought have done much to expel the biases (many born out of or justified by christianity) about women, non whites, the poor, and gays. I have benefitted from this and am grateful that being gay is no longer stigmatized. However, if many christians had there way, I’d be imprisoned or killed.
With rational government and rational thought we have a better chance to improve than by religion.
You should probably look at sex trafficking if you don’t think there is a slave trade. Or the wages and conditions of third world workers for Western companies.
As for your blaming Republicans for the problems in the world, that is what I expected. (You might check the religion, however, of the Democratic president.)
Blatant slavery was the legal slave trade from the mid 1500s to the mid nineteenth century. It was out in the open. It enslaved thousands of people every year. Are you going to tell me that eliminating chattel slavery wasn’t progress because of a much smaller illegal trade in sex trafficking?
As to the problems of the world and the Republican party: this is the party that destroyed the economy, wants to eliminate SSI, to decrease medicare, to give tax breaks to the richest Americans, and who is supported by a large number of evangelicals. Do you expect me to believe that there isn’t a relationship between the problems the US is facing, the republican party, and evangelical christians?
meant mid 1400s.
And, by the way, I noticed that you just dismissed the change in how gays have been treated. The change was due to rational research that had a hard time overcoming a very wildly held christian antipathy towards gay people.
How come you avoided that?
Do you not consider the change in opinion about gays progress?
You ask how “evolving” away from those things has worked out, I say slowly but surely. You’re not suggesting it would happen better and faster if we all adhered to religion, are you?
This will be my last contribution to this because frankly I think these conversations are much better suited across from each other at tables looking into each other’s eyes.
As for the answer to your question, I do not think we will “evolve” toward a better and more peaceful world and nor do I believe “religion” will take us there.
What I do believe is that brokeness is all around and that the Creator has invited us into the redemption of all that, and I am glad to play a part in that.
Jim, I did not mean to “avoid” anything you said; we have just covered so much ground it is hard to respond to it all. Gays have definitely been mistreated by both Christians and non-Christians and it is sad and wrong every time it happens. It seems as if you’ve been deeply wounded in some sense by Christians and I am sorry for that. Wish I could heal those wounds. I would encourage you to get to the point where you do not hold all Christians responsible for what a few did to you. Same would hold true for those Christians who were involved in Naziism like our above conversations. The writer of this blog and I are flawed people to be sure, but we just also aren’t the vicious vulture that you describe when you think about Christians. There are many others of us out there.
As for the Republicans (I am definitely not one, by the way), sure I hold them partially responsible for the brokeness in our economy, for the broken relationship between humans and the environment, for the innocents that continue to die in wars abroad, etc. But I also hold democrats partially responsible for those things, as they, too, have decision-making power and have gone wrong at many different points throughout history (Obama promised a pull-out in the Middle East and instead escalated in several countries). I also hold myself responsible for these things because I continue to make many of these mistakes myself as a Christian and political independent. As I sit here online, I’m using energy from a source (oil) that both rapes nature and is running out, despite the fact that the world economy is married to it. I’m in Starbucks, where I just threw away my plastic lid, which will someday probably kill a fish in the Pacific Ocean. Yes, alas, I’m implicated and responsible for the way this world turns out. And yes, in 2012, I will vote with a torn heart, knowing that no matter who I choose will be far from the ideal and will make decisions according to who gave him the most money on the way toward election.
It is a broken world, painfully so. I am a part of that brokeness, but also (hopefully) a part of the redemption. That is what it means to be a Christian. We believe in resurrection, hope out of chaos, healing where there is sickness, peace where there is war and violence. Yes, we fall short, and yes, we pray toward the day when things will be made right.
And yes, in arriving at this worldview, I look at the evidence, and then take the “leap” that Kierkagaard describes in drawing my conclusions. I fully concede that where I land takes me beyond the evidence and rationality that I start with. Much like you, though you arrive in a different place than I do, your conclusions start with their own assumptions and draw conclusions beyond what we “know.”
I wish you the best Jim (and Merjen).
Hope is often found in collective action. I just saw a great documentary on FDR and was deeply moved. The New Deal came about because poor, scared people formed a political coalition and elected politicians who would enact rational useful policies to help the average and below average person. These included legalizing unions, social security, and the WPA.
The ability of people to organize rationally gives me hope.
For me, the flip side of this is the damage done by irrational fears born out of superstition. Just consider the number of christians who are easily manipulated to elect pro-rich politicians because they fear some “divine” punishment. All the rich have to do is wave a cross and, presto-chango, they get the support they need.
And, quite frankly, given that you can produce no evidence that your idea of a god exists or that prayer works, don’t you consider it arrogant to argue that hope can only spring from the supernatural.
I have hope and it comes from the history of human progress.
It is human self aggrandizement to think that a human-like persona could do a better job of creating all of nature (including humans) than all of nature does creating and recreating itself at every moment. We are of course part of something greater than ourselves. Nature can be defined as all that exists and occurs naturally, and it is marvelous to feel part of it without contemplating the need for a supernatural overseer. Hope comes from seeing the natural goodness in people despite there being a counterpart to it. Hope comes from ingenuity that overcomes human hardship like disease, just as one example. Hope also comes from the diminishing of fear and superstition when we trust and help each other in well meaning fashion without personal agenda, other than the idea that when others are better off we are also better off.
I predict there will be a tipping point when slow decline turns into rapid collapse. Christianity has never explained anything and never will. Anyone who thinks there is a relationship between Christianity (or any other religion) and morality, needs to read more history.
Not slow enough! From the beginning of time, the Priesthood has held their subjects, through ignorance, in a religious state of slavery. Persons having a moderate understanding of religious history could agree that religion has been the worst social institution mankind has had to endure. Societies in the far east, the middle east, Europe, and all the Americas have endured the most henious crimes known to man, perpetrated by the Priesthood, which parallel the crimes of war that we view daily from our living rooms. There is only one way to eliminate the Priesthood. Starve it competely. Withhold all monies from their coffers, and they will die. Most all intense beliefs stem from religion and politics. Eliminating one half of this hostility will make the world a much beter place to live.
I just want to point out that to say something like “God doesn’t exist” is a statement of faith.
Chris,
You wrote:
“i just want to point out that to say something like “God doesn’t exist” is a statement of faith.”
Faith is belief without evidence. There is no evidence at all of a god. To deny the existence of something for which no evidence exists isn’t faith; it is, instead, a logical conclusion.
Josh, your question about the source of hope presumes that there is some outside source. If that were true it would not be hope. Hope comes from within.
Chris you can’t expect people to just accept your statement as true just because you pronounce it like it were a given. All I have to say is that I don’t buy it.
“Not buying it” (another thing you are doing on faith) does nothing to change that not believing is in faith and believing is also in faith. Neither can be “proven” fully. Both start with basic assumptions.
Chris,
You seem to be avoiding the definition of faith, which is belief without evidence.
You are constructing your arguments as if faith were defined as merely belief.
To believe that something exists that is material or testable is quite different than in believing in things for which there is no evidence.
Chris, do you think it is only on faith that we can say that Darth Vader, Mickey Mouse, the tooth fairy, etc. do not exist? We know by observation that humans invent fictional characters, and the characteristics of those characters are that they cannot be sensed by our five senses or by scientific means that improve the sensory experience. Imagination doesn’t make something unreal real.
Chris,
I always find the statement that it takes faith to not believe or more faith to be an atheist a very strange thing for a theist to say. It works against you. I’d guess that you consider faith to be a virtue and so if an atheist has faith that a god does not exist you are saying the atheist is virtuous in his non-belief just as the theist is virtuous in his belief. If it takes more faith then the atheists faith is more virtuous. I do not think that is your intention. When a theist speaks of their faith they hold it up on a pedestal but when they are trying to paint an atheist with a faith it is used in a negative manner. Some intend it as an insult. But you can’t have it both ways. Is it an insult or a virtue. It seems many theists forget Hebrews 11.
Also, I’d hazard another guess that you do not believe that the gods Zeus, Odin, Mithras, or Shiva exists. To be consistent you will have to say that your non-belief in these gods is based on faith.
Theists that make this statement display a misunderstanding of what constitutes evidence and the concept of burden of proof.
Not sure I’ll be back. Traveling this week. Have a great week.
What I am saying chris is that it is not a good argument and you should abandon it for a better one.
Haha whoever suggested that faith is “belief without evidence”?
Alan, does love exist? Because you certainly can’t get to it by “five senses.” How about beauty? Meaning?
And Jimmy I don’t think “faith” in and of itself is “a virtue.” We all place our faith in something, we all submit to something, we all (even) worship something. The things Adolf Hitler placed his faith in were not virtuous.
And yes, my unbelief in the Greek gods as literal is definitely taken in faith. Although I wouldn’t say that I place my faith in that “with no evidence,” just that the evidence alone cannot take me all the way to my conclusion. You are right that I have to acknowledge that to stay consistent, but no thanks on abandoning the mode of argument.
Chris,
You wrote
“Haha whoever suggested that faith is “belief without evidence”?”
You might want to consult a dictionary.
You might also want to consider there is no evidence for a god.
And not all of us worship something.
And many people require evidence to believe a claim. That would be a life without faith.
You are attempting to show that secular humanists believe and behave as you do. By engaging in this line of reasoning you are broadening definitions to the point that they have no meaning.
Faith is not mere belief; it is a specific form of belief: one that requires no evidence.
Worship is homage directed to a dirty. I know no secular humanist who does this.
There are fundamental differences between living a life based on faith and one based on rational analysis.
that should be “directed to a deity.”
You say you don’t worship anything yet you continue to push rational thought as some sort of highest good, too. There’s what you worship, no matter what you call it.
Let me ask, what is your “evidence” for there being no God. As for the definition of faith, I have consulted dictionary.com and the word “evidence” was not present in any of the three definitions. One of the three included the word “proof.” The definition in the book of Hebrews that was mentioned also doesn’t mention evidence. So no thank you for your definition of “faith”: I reject if completely, the dictionary rejects it partially, and the Bible also rejects it. I also don’t appreciate your definition of “worship,” but that’s not very shocking.
As for “evidence” for God, I could offer some, but you would reject it and we’d get into this same semantic argument about the definition of “evidence.” For someone’s work who is much smarter than I am, check out Anthony Flew’s latest book–a former world-renown atheist philosopher–on how the “evidence” led him to become a theist.
And no, I don’t accept your black-and-white thinking about faith and rational analysis either. They are not mutually exclusive.
Chris,
Faith as defined in the New Oxford American Dictionary:
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
It is definition two that governs this conversation, given that we are talking about religion. I don’t think I broaden the definition by substituting evidence for proof.
Worship as defined in the New Oxford American Dictionary:
1. the feeling of expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.
2. adoration or devotion comparable to religious homage, shown toward a person or principle
I most certainly do not worship a deity; I most certainly do not feel a religious homage to the scientific method or secular humanism. I find both useful, but that does not imply that I worship them.
Even the second definition does not apply: to worship in the sense of definition one means to believe that the act of worship will influence the deity and by extension will somehow influence humans. The second definition merely implies something or someone held in high regard.
Hence, secular humanists worship nothing. It would be illogical and irrational to do so. Secular humanists hold rationality and the scientific method in high regard because it is productive with the ability of self correction built into it. High regard is very different from worship.
As to disproving the existence of a god. You’re right, I can’t disprove the existence of an immaterial god. That is why I dismiss it. Allow me to explain.
The christian god idea is logically unverifiable. By definition it cannot be disproved. Here is another logically unverifiable idea (to give an example).
Adorable, purple undetectable aliens control human governments. They are quarrelsome and hence governments continually go to war. The aliens are somewhat mollified if you give their representatives money. I know this because they favor me and placed that information in my mind.
You cannot disprove this argument because by definition the aliens are undetectable. The idea is logically unverifiable, just as is the christian god idea. I cannot disprove logically unverifiable ideas, but I can (and should) dismiss them.
Contrast this to evolution, for example. The fossil record shows organisms going extinct and others emerging. I have an idea: perhaps the new animals evolved from previous species. To make sure that my idea is not logically unverifiable, I need a condition that would disprove it. A human fossil in the triassic would disprove that idea. Hence, this is a valid idea that can then go on to hypothesis, testing, peer review. If there is enough evidence it becomes theory and fact–as is the case with evolution. Note that I did not claim that a valid idea is proof; rather, it allows the idea to be tested–something your god idea does not.
This is what I find so dishonest when I hear a christian claim that secular humanism is the same as religion. Religion is based on logically unverifiable ideas; secular humanism is not.
If you are going to argue that logically unverifiable ideas are as valid as ideas that can be tested and reviewed, then you would have to admit that my adorable undetectable purple aliens are as likely as is your god.
Chris,
By the way, love is a bio chemical reaction that is fairly well understood. So is hate anger and our other emotions. Thus, our emotions can be understood rationally. In fact, a whole psychiatric discipline and industry are rooted in the ability to understand depression.
Living and advocating for a life of faith is one thing, but to liken non-faith science and philosophy to faith is dishonest.
The statement you are making is that people of faith need to lie about their beliefs in order to justify them.
When I speak of love I don’t speak of it purely as an “emotion,” and I think it’s pretty sad that you (and others) boil it down to a simple chemical reaction. If someone spends ten years of his life taking care of a parent or spouse who’s paralyzed or ill, that’s a little more than a checical reaction.
I noticed you left “beauty” out of your response. Is that a chemical reaction, too?
I have no interest in “lying” about my faith in order to justify it and frankly I have no idea what you meant by that or why you made it.
I think you prefer a simplistic black-and-white, us-vs.-them world, and my faith is not that, and nor was Jesus’ vision or the Bible as a whole. It is full of complexity and paradox. A beautiful example of that is Jesus telling the adulterer to “Go and sin no more” after he freed her by asking “He who is without sin be the first to throw the stone.” So in two sentences he both judged he both called her action a sin and gave her grace for it. That is the life of faith, it is full of paradoxes. Which is yet another reason faith and reason are nowhere near mutually exclusive. Read some C.S. Lewis or Wendell Berry or St. Augustine; it is FULL of reason!
As to beauty, to experience beauty is a chemical reaction. All mental events are bio-chemical. What you imply is that love or beauty is floating around in some unknowable manner that somehow makes a home in a person. That makes no sense whatsoever. You stated that understanding the chemical complexities of the brain is sad. I do not find this sad at all. In fact, I’m rather amazed that organisms have evolved to find things beautiful, to fall in love, and other emotional states. Natural selection has led to a species that creates beauty, that experiences love (and hate), and that struggles to understand itself. It is rather arrogant to argue that by only inventing a deity can we humans appreciate and admire the process of natural selection.
Natural selection is both simple and complex. To look at all of the diversity of life and to ponder the circumstances that led to it is both intoxicating and wondrous. To think that this is all brought about divine fiat leaves no room for wonder, amazement, or investigation. It is merely the act of an omnipotent being. Where is the wonder in that?
As to a simplified us vs them; that tends to be the position of christians. If you believe, submit, and obey your logically unverifiable idea of a god then you are rewarded; if you don’t, you are severely punished. The christian god is good; the devil is evil. That is black and white thinking.
What I propose is that the complexities of human behavior can be understood rationally and that humanity improves by rational understanding. What I also propose is that superstition impedes growth and is often used to inflict cruelty and despotism.
Jim,
I think I love you
Thanks merjen.
I think you rock too.
Josh,
You began your discussion about gay people with this:
“Our darkest nature as humans (and in my own life) tends to manifest itself sexually”
Off the bat you equate being gay to humanity’s darkest nature. You go on as if walking on egg shells, but essentially you believe as the Phelps do: being gay is an inherent sin. It doesn’t matter that Plato (a gay man) contributed to western society. It doesn’t matter that DaVinci (a gay man) contributed to western civilization in profound and enduring ways. It doesn’t matter that Alan Turing (a gay man) helped stem the nazi tide and was instrumental in developing the computer. It doesn’t matter that these were also decent men. According to your mythology these men all represent “our darkest nature.”
Sir, you had me fooled. From some of your comments I had thought that you represented an evangelical side that isn’t hostile to gay people. However, you are a fraud. There is no evidence for your god. The bible accepts polygamy, yet you oppose it. The bible not only accepts slavery, but encourages it, yet you oppose it. I can only conclude that you are a selective literalist who like all the other rabid evangelicals dislike gay people on a personal level. You couldn’t even bring yourself to use the word gay, the term of self identification preferred by gay people.
I hope the next time someone posts a comment about how hostile evangelicals are to gay people, you have the honesty to either agree or to not comment. To comment that anti gay evangelicals are a minority given your own posts on your blog that disprove it and your own gay hostile point of view is just typical evangelical hypocrisy. At least the Phelps’s are honest about their bigotry.
I was beginning to think evangelicals could be rational. Gratefully, I asked a direct question to get your real opinion on the matter.
You are no different from white southerners who used the bible to justify first slavery and then segregation. You are no different than those who used the bible to keep women from the vote.
My contempt for you and your kind is quite deep and I won’t be returning to your blog.
You might want to consider that religious christian bias against Jews and gays is what led both into the camps where they received torture and death.
I am much more convinced that secular reason is the only way our species will advance. The christian way only leads to religiously justified bigotry.
Jim,
Commenting on a blog is great because it fosters communication, but horrible because we can’t be in one anothers presence.
Sexual sin for me is an all of the above issue, and I believe that the further you go down this path with completely objectifying another human (in heterosexual and homosexual contexts) being the most debased.
I do view homosexuality as a sin, but also believe that Christians should reach out in true love to this community that so often has been judged and pushed away.
This means I live in an uncomfortable tension. But I would rather be here than compromising my understanding of sexuality and the command to love as Jesus loved.
I tend to not use the term “gay” because in my mind I associate that with other slur. In college when a friend came out he told me how painful it was to hear me use some of those slurs.
I am clearly not perfect and am not the best representative of Jesus.
Thanks for being apart of this community and reading other things I have written, and I hope you change your mind and stick around.
You challenge me to see things from a different perspective, and you are always welcome here.
Jim, while you may perhaps have jumped opportunistically on a poor choice of words from Josh, you missed something very important. In his explanation of his view, he implicated his own fallen sexual behavior with that of gay sexual behavior. I won’t speak for him, but I’ll speak for myself. I have often acted, out of my own woundedness as a person, far from “the ideal” (Josh’s words), and I regret some of those patterns, even ones I still fall into. But the point isn’t that my own harmful behavior somehow dismisses my credibility or destines me to hell or pisses God off or whatever other extreme statement that I could make. The point is, I’m human, I’m fallen, and I’m desperate for things–both in and out of my own life–to be made right.
We could dismiss all this as a deterministic bunch of chemical reactions, or we can acknoweldge that yes chemical reactions exist and matter, but that they don’t fate us to whatever patterns we’re currently in. We still make decisions, much of the time “in faith” (whether you are a Christian or not). And for me to keep on living in my unhealthy patterns and blame them on chemical reactions is a cop-out. No thank you to a life in which I can conveniently blame everything on chemical reactions.
I live a life that is full of error and mistakes and unhealthy decisions. Christians often call those “sin.” I’m comfortable with that word, but only among religious people for whom it actually means something. Along the way, much grace and forgiveness is needed, if we are to live well alongside of each other.
Chris,
I am simply speechless. What am I to say to your patronizing point of view.
1. I am not wounded; I am fed up with christians using their religious text to defame gay people.
2. I missed nothing Josh said: he argued that being gay is a sin. That he also admitted that he commits sinful acts does not detract from the fact that he defames, dehumanizes, and mistreats gay people by preaching that being gay is inherently sinful.
3. I am also fed up with christians who claim to be rational but then ignore all the objective facts that support that homosexuality is not a pathology.
4. As to the planet, your self defeating attitude will become a self fulfilling prophecy. Instead of feeling guilty about throwing away a plastic lid, how about recycling it. I bring my own mug to the coffee house I have coffee at so I don’t use a paper cup and plastic lid. I only buy sodas in glass so I don’t have to contaminate the planet with more plastic. I use public transportation and walk so I don’t contribute to green house gasses. I wear a hoody at home in the evening so not to use the heater. In short, I do simple things to reduce my carbon footprint. That, I think, is much better than shrugging my shoulders and thinking that redemption will make my behavior all right.
5. Josephus was not an eyewitness. He was born in 37 ce. He was quoting what he heard from christians, none of whom were eyewitnesses. Further, many scholars believe this was an addition by a christian to his works. Not that it matters; the point is that Josephus was NOT an eyewitness. There are no eyewitness accounts to this alleged person.
6. I do not believe all christians are rabid animals. I think the episcopalians, the quakers, some methodists have transcended biblical morality and have become moral people. However, it is their departure from christian morality that elevates them.
To ascribe real christian atrocities, real christian prejudices that harm people to a personal wound is simple minded and self serving for you. I don’t think I could feel more contempt than I do for you right now.
And as to Josh, he made it very clear that no matter what the evidence, he will consider being gay inherently sinful. I am a secular humanist. I believe morality can be found rationally. What should I think of someone who claims to be rational and educated, yet harbors a bias against gay people that is rooted in an unproved and unprovable god? What am I to think of someone who harbors such a bias that cannot be justified with objective facts?
Jim,
I have to be honest there have been moments over the last few weeks where I have gotten frustrated with the dialog here in this comments section, and frustrated with you personally. With the blog being down for a few days for some technical changes I had some time to examine this and re-read some of your comments.
And, I’m sorry.
Without false humility or sarcasm I am truly sorry. Sorry that I have allowed some bitterness to exist towards you and sorry that Christians on the whole have missed the point. I am sorry for all the poor representations of Christ (including my own) and I am sorry that I can’t seem to clearly articulate my faith.
You are always welcome here and I hope you continue to contribute to this community.
Josh,
And I am sorry too. I am sorry that even those christians who say they are rational and educated still hold on to a bronze age bias against gay people. I am sorry that when pointing this out, you hid behind your “own sexual imperfections.” I am sorry that you refuse to face the fact that sexual orientation is not a sin. I am sorry that fantasy has replaced reality. Last, I am sorry that no matter how hard you try, you and your kind always resort to patronizing those who don’t agree with you; it is such an entrenched habit that evangelicals can’t even see it.
I am sorry for you Josh. You want to be a rational educated person who is the good guy. Your difference with the Phelps’s is only by degree.
The one thing you did well was articulate your faith. I am sorry that when your faith is presented to you in print in a discussion that it seems inarticulate to you. I am sorry that you don’t see that was is inarticulate is really your own bigotry being exposed.
I am sorry for you, truly sorry,
Jim
Josh,
Against my better judgement, I am going to reply.
A sexual attraction is not an objectification of someone. Sexual attraction is something deep in our neural chemistry that we have no control over whatsoever. By your christian reasoning I should live a celibate life and not engage in a relationship that can bring sexual fulfillment, please, or deeper romance.
You wrote in an earlier post that you are educated and rational. I ask you, what rational reason do you have for stating that same sex attraction is an affliction. The APA doesn’t. You can’t use the bible because it is not based on rational facts or rational argumentation; it is based “revealed” “truth.” Further, to use the bible to rationally justify your gay hostility, you would first have to rationally prove your god exists. This is something no one is capable of given your god idea is logically unverifiable.
You wrote earlier that you place the message of this alleged Jesus over the bible. Nowhere does Jesus discuss gay people.
Sir, you wrote that anti-gay christians are a minority, that you are rational, and that you place the message of a purported Jesus over the bible. Still, you think that being gay is a sin. What am I to think of you except that you are a fraud and a liar? It seems to me that the difference between you and the Phelpses is just a matter of degree. Both you and Phelps preach to your congregants that being gay is a sin, thereby justifying an anti gay bias. The only difference is that Fred Phelps is more literal than you in his desire ti kill all gays.
One of the reason’s christianity is declining in this country is because your message that a gay orientation is inherently sinful is becoming more and more offensive. It never ceases to surprise me how evangelicals use their religion to express their base prejudices. And hiding behind your imperfections with this statement–”I am clearly not perfect and am not the best representative of Jesus”–is just false modesty and just as offensive.
please should be pleasure
Josh,
Meant to comment on the word gay. Gay people prefer to be called gay. Homosexual is a word that began as a clinical term that connoted depravity, insanity, and the usual anti gay associations. Homosexual is also the preferred word of evangelicals because they don’t want to “legitimize” the “homosexual lifestyle” by using the word gay. I imagine your friend was upset at how you used the word. If you were being derogatory when you used the word gay, is it very surprising that his feelings were hurt? I suspect you were being derogatory, which gives me a pretty good idea of the sort of person you are.
Like I said I am not perfect, and of course whenever I talk about this I am reminded of my immaturity and pain that my words caused and can cause.
That reply has nothing to with the hypocrisy you’re engaged in. When someone wrote about Westboro you said they didn’t represent baptists, yet you agree with Phelps’s position that being gay is inherently sinful as do most ministers that were in the poll you posted on a different blog entry. When another commented that christians are irrational and stupid, you stated that you make rational educated decisions and were offended someone would claim that christians are inherently stupid. Yet you hold on to an irrational prejudice against gay people. There is no rational, educated reason to consider same sex attraction as immoral.
It is one thing to be a typical evangelical bigot. I’ve met many before and am accustomed to the bigotry, anti-intellectualism, knee jerk conservatism, and general mean spirited disposition. But you wanted people to think of you differently. I suggest that the next time someone points out that evangelicals are hostile to gay people, you acknowledge the truth of this rather than lying.
As it is, you are a fraud; you are a liar. I am very angry at myself that for a few minutes I believed an evangelical minister could be honest, intelligent, and rational. You should present yourself as you are: a bigot who uses the bible to justify your gay-hostile heterosexual-superior
belief.
You evangelicals are just a bunch of rabid animals, happiest when condemning and judging
others. I expect nothing else from your kind and should have kept that in mind when I read your earlier, false, posts.
As to you having gay friends. You are about as much a friend to a gay person as is the racist who has an attachment to a African American and still considers the “friend” inherently inferior. I pity any gay “friend” you have.
One last thing. As to this post of yours:
“Like I said I am not perfect, and of course whenever I talk about this I am reminded of my immaturity and pain that my words caused and can cause.”
This false modesty of yours to excuse the fact that you inculcate gay hostility into your congregation and anyone who takes the opinion of a minister seriously, is extremely offensive. Since you are hostile to gay people and think it is an inherent sin, then get on board with all the other bigots such as Pat Robertson. The “I want to be a good guy” scam is just that, a scam.
Since you claim to be educated and rational, here is a very brief article by a molecular scientist about the nature of orientation, gay, straight, and bi:
http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/OP-ED__Is_It_A_Choice__A_Scientist_s_View/