An Atheist Re-Reads the Bible

An atheist's despair

2012-01-01T10:16:00.000-08:00

I took a long-term job subbing for a high school English teacher, and one of the topics we covered was the Bible as literature. In spite of the teacher's warning (she came into the class to deliver this warning in person), the small class divided itself into believers and non-believers, and the believers were highly offended when one of the non-believers described the Old Testament God as an asshole. Of course, the offended Christian was too passive to mention it that day--instead, she brought it up the next day, causing all discussion to end, and causing me to deliver a written lecture to them. One of the examples I gave in support of God being an asshole was this verse, Deuteronomy 6:15: "For the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land." Sounds pretty obnoxious, doesn't it? Then I spoke for the Christians and said that they would like the non-Christians to know that their conception of God is that he is a loving God, and that the covenant changed with the New Testament. At least after I read that, they started talking to each other again, but really, how could that girl get upset--God *is* an asshole in the Old Testament--in fact, that's the point. An omniscient, all-powerful God is going to get grumpy. He even becomes grumpy enough to flood the planet. This is one of the most annoying traits of Christians--their inability to hear a description that doesn't fit with what they're taught. In this case, it led to oppression of free speech, and to everyone feeling bad, or at least tense.

Notice on this list that the nature of God is described in many different terms, but they leave out grumpy asshole (hey, they even leave out angry, even though God describes himself that way): http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/atribute.htm

Christopher Hitchens

2011-12-16T19:37:00.000-08:00

I never managed to finish a Christopher Hitchens book, and in general, I found that his voice had a droning quality which put me to sleep. But in case you like Hitchens, you might be interested in the links featured on the C-SPAN video library blog.

Prayer

2011-10-10T02:48:00.000-07:00

Have I ever prayed? Yes. I grew up in a church, so we prayed a lot.

There was the formal prayer that we said every week--was it before or after communion? The Lord's Prayer. There were sung prayers--the Doxology, which we sang every week. Hymns either took a position about life--e.g., "Count your blessings"; tried to teach us how to be Christians--e.g., "Have thine own way, Lord"; or were about hanging out with Jesus--"I come to the garden alone", but quite a few were either prayers or designed to teach us how to pray.

We prayed at Sunday School. In movies, we saw images of people who prayed before meals, although in my family, we only said a "thank you" prayer, a grace, on Thanksgiving.

One of my childhood books was a book of prayers which included that bizarre poem (at least to a 20th century kid) "Now I lay me down to sleep" since it was about children dying before we woke up.

And during one years-long OCD-infested period, I prayed every night for everyone. It took 45 minutes. Breaking free from that prayer was as useful as finally coming to terms with my lack of belief. Life became simpler after that.

Last week at my temporary job, a temporary colleague said, when she saw my wet hair, "No wonder you have a cold." I told her that it was an old wive's tale that you could catch cold from having wet hair, and she disagreed. I know better than to do the research that would prove her wrong. I've tried that tack before. If she is 50-something years old and still chooses to believe in the fantasy that going outside with wet hair will give you a cold caused by a virus, she isn't going to change her mind now. That's the way belief is--it's like a bad cold that keeps you from thinking clearly because your head is stuffed with nonsense.

The idea that asking for something from a non-existent being could change things--it's nonsense that I outgrew a long time ago. "I'll pray for you" or "I'll pray about that" or "God answers prayers" is such nonsense, but at least it gives you a clue about the person who makes the statement, and warns you away from revealing your true self to the one who prays.

Dinosaur, Schminosaur

2011-10-09T13:02:00.000-07:00

If this doesn't work when you try to play it, turn off the auto option.

Atheism and faith

2011-09-22T08:44:00.000-07:00

I read a lot of atheist blogs, which might be why I haven't posted in such a long time. I'm constantly annoyed by things I read, by other's perspectives, by plans by atheists to "convert" others to their points of view. I subscribe, then unsubscribe, and sometimes *re-subscribe* to blogs like Pharyngula. It's as though I have a desire to connect with other atheists on some level, but I'm easily appalled by actions and viewpoints of other atheists.

This is probably why I'm an atheist in the first place--I seem to be incapable of agreeing with anyone else about faith, religion, and atheism. One of my colleagues explained my atheism to another person this way (interestingly enough, he was a still-believing former minister): "She's an atheist because she *thought* about it."

Tony Blair explains that his faith and values are important to him and affected his decision-making, but he draws the line at someone who believes they have a direct line with God (yeah, because *that* would be crazy). It's gibberish, but he seems not to notice.

But of that day and hour knoweth no man

2011-05-21T05:12:00.000-07:00

People are interested in the latest prediction of the end of the world--perhaps not because they believe in it, but because someone has the audacity to make a prediction and, as has happened before (see William Miller), the one making the prediction has followers.

Every Christian knows Matthews 24:36-44. In the King James version, the verse reads: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man." So if you're a believer, and you dare to make a prediction of the rapture, it seems as though that alone would negate your prediction. Atheists are having a great time making fun of the prediction. See Friendly Atheist here and here. But not all Christians think the prediction should be taken seriously. See: Varieties of end-time believers and Why there will be no rapture. I frequently think that atheists without a religious background find it easy to disparage all of Christianity because they view it as a monolithic entity, ignoring the diversity of opinion, interpretation, and belief that has splintered the Faith since the Reformation.

Matthew 24: 36-44:

³⁶ “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. ³⁷ As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸ For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; ³⁹ and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰ Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. ⁴¹ Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

⁴² “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. ⁴³ But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. ⁴⁴ So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. (Matthew 24:36-44, New International Version)

High school graduation

2011-05-20T08:06:00.001-07:00

Friendly Atheist posted today about a student who complained about graduation prayer and is suffering hatred from his classmates. I quit my last job because it was impossible for me to feel comfortable in that public school with its prayer, not just at flag poles, but before track practice, at football games, and at graduation; with teachers who taught US history, but didn't mention Watergate and seemed to have never read the Constitution; and from Christians who frequently expressed frustration with the persecution they suffered, but who openly professed their faith while the atheists could never have "come out" safely in that school.

Right on, Damon Fowler. Well done. I'm glad that atheists who are wealthier than I am are pitching in to give you a college scholarship.

Matthew 5:1-12

2011-05-08T08:36:00.000-07:00

Another rather fun passage of the New Testament is the Sermon on the Mount.

What makes it fun are the strange, contradictory, and confusing statement Jesus makes. Christians spend a lot of time and energy analyzing the Sermon on the Mount, but a lot of it doesn't make sense. A believer might pray for understanding, or believe whatever their denomination says.

Verses 3 through 12 are called the Beatitudes, or blessings. Basically, the beatitudes say, hey, don't worry, if you don't have it now, you'll get it later. If you're poor in spirit, you get the kingdom of heaven; if you're in mourning, you'll be comforted; if you're meek, you'll get the earth; if you aren't getting righteousness, you'll get it later.

Those verses--3 through 6--cover people who are lacking something. In verses 7 through 11, Jesus addresses people who have good qualities and says they'll be rewarded. So if you're merciful, you'll be shown mercy; if you're pure in heart, you'll see God; if you're a peacemaker, you'll be called children of God; if you're persecuted because you do the right thing, you'll get the kingdom of heaven.

In verses 11 and 12, he expands on the idea of people who are mistreated. "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." I'm sure this verse brought solace to centuries of Christian martyrs, but I've also had it quoted at me by Christians who felt I wasn't getting their message. Encouraging martyrdom in this life because things will be better in the next (imaginary) life after death was one of Jesus's worst ideas.

Matthew 5

Pope John Paul II is apparently now a saint

2011-05-01T19:44:00.001-07:00

I suppose it's because I was raised as a Protestant, but this strikes me as exceptionally silly:

Joyous Catholics celebrate beatification of John Paul II

Yeah, right, and miracles really happen. Prove it. Actually, the Vatican examines miracles, and apparently they are proven to their satisfaction.

I found out because of the photos posted on this blog.

I realize that this makes a lot of people happy, but to me it is disgusting.

The Historical Jesus

2011-05-01T14:58:00.000-07:00

I'm watching Introduction to New Testament History & Literature with Professor Dale B. Martin, one of Yale's open courses. It reminds me of being back in Sunday School. In small town USA in the 1960s, the only moderately intellectual pursuit open to an intelligent kid was Bible study, so I spent hours studying the Bible. I especially feel like I'm back in Sunday School when Professor Martin asks us to "Open your hymnals to..." (a mistake he's made three times when he meant to say, "Open your Bibles to...").

This isn't a class you can watch in the background while you're cleaning; you actually have to pay attention.

As an atheist, I found the most recent episode interesting and worth other atheists' perusal, so I'm embedding it below. If you don't want to watch the program, however, you can read through the transcript, which is online as well. My favorite quotation?

Now there's no way you can basically get these two narratives to fit together in any respectable historical way. Does that mean that nobody's ever tried to do it? No, of course you've got all kinds of very, very smart fundamentalists who believe that the New Testament has to be accurate in every historical and scientific detail or they believe then it can't be scripture. They will figure out some way to try to make sure that both these narratives can be fit together, but what I'm telling you is that no reputable historian will accept this because you just have to fudge the stuff too much; you have to fudge the data.

Easter

2011-04-24T06:34:00.000-07:00

When you're an atheist, a religious holiday sneaks up on you. Someone on Freecycle asked for plants and I offered her one of mine. I told her she could pick it up any time. "Oh," she emailed. "I don't want to interfere with your Easter. I'll pick it up sometime on Tuesday."

I replied that we don't celebrate Easter, so she could drop by any time.

Life is easier without silly holiday celebrations, whether secular or religious.

When I was a kid, the day started early with Easter sunrise service at 6 a.m., followed by a special breakfast served the men of the church, then a brief break for secular Easter egg hunting, then back for Sunday school singing, then the major big deal church service, then an afternoon of sleeping. It was both fun and exhausting: exhausting because we got up so early; fun mostly because we sang the "Gravy Song" (Up from the grave he arose) and "Christ the Lord is risen today, Alleluia."

The last time I attended church on an Easter, they didn't bother singing either of those hymns.

When I was a pre-teen, I wrote a joke in my Bible: "Easter's been cancelled; they found the body." I see that you can now buy a t-shirt with that saying.

If church were just about the singing and the songs, it would be a great place to hang out. But throw in potlucks, baptism, sexism, and a requirement in faith, and you lose me.

Matthew 4: 12-25

2011-04-21T13:13:00.000-07:00

In Matthew 4:12, Jesus heard that John had been put in prison so he withdrew to Galilee. Here we have Jesus hiding out again. Herod threatens--time to head to Egypt. John the Baptist is arrested--time to head to Galilee. Specifically, Jesus headed to Capernaum, which Matthew says fills another prophecy from Isaiah which shows that Jesus is the Messiah.

Capernaum is one of those words that has always bugged me because of its pronunciation. One would think it would be straightforward, but you can hear it pronounced here. How do you get a "knee" sound of "n-a"? As a kid, I always figured that Capernaum must be roughly in the same location as Capernium, so it was annoying to find out they were the same place. At any rate, Capernaum is a pretty place to hang out and conduct a ministry since it's on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus starts collecting disciples, the twelve guys who'll hang out with him throughout his ministry. Either Jesus is extremely charismatic or the disciples are tired of their jobs, because they all readily drop their life pursuits to follow him. He meets two of them, Simon Peter and Andrew, fishing and says, follow me. So they do. In the version I'm reading, the New International Version, he says Come, follow me, and I will send you to fish for people. Fish for people just isn't as poetic as the King James version: I will make you fishers of men.

He gathers a couple more disciples, Zebedee and John, who again drop everything and follow him.

Jesus teaches in synagogues, tells everyone that the kingdom of God is at hand and he heals sick people. It's the healing of the sick that makes him famous. Verse 24 lists the type of people he heals: those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy, according to King James, or those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed according to New International.

In the diverse thousands of denominations which are part of Christianity, you end up with a lot of interpretations about demon-possession. Some denominations feel that the times of demon possession are past; others interpret demon possession broadly to cover problems ranging from disbelief to the perils of modern life to the kind of possession that you need an exorcist to cast out. I view these denominations on a scale of fairly rational people to absolute whacked out crazies. But hey, they all get tax-exempt status on church property and even when they don't respect each other's beliefs, we, as atheists, are supposed to respect (or at least tolerate) them all.

Gasland

2011-04-10T17:34:00.000-07:00

I just watched Gasland. It's more or less obligatory if you live in Garfield County, Colorado, since we're featured in it, although I more or less doubt that any of these people will watch it:

http://www.garfield-county.com/board-commissioners/index.aspx

These three Republicans do not care about the environment. These three Republicans want growth, growth, growth at all costs. Let's have fewer regulations! Bring on the gas wells!

Oh, well. I've never figured out how to be a happy environmentalist Democrat in Garfield County, Colorado.

Brilliant--the Garfield County Republican party website has a link to the "2010 CENCUS" Right on, dudes, keep up the good proofreading. You're trying to prove to me that you're ignorant illiterates, right?

The Civil War

2011-04-09T11:37:00.000-07:00

I read too many blogs, in part because of intellectual curiosity, but in part because I feel that I should try to understand all sides of every issue. Silly me.

On the atheist side, there's Friendly Atheist, who posts too much but hey, it's Hemant, he's cool, and how else would I know about the latest atheist billboard? or, every time he posts something about vegetarianism, I would miss reading the virulent viewpoints of meat-eaters (carnivores are as ADAMANT about meat as atheists are about NO GOD).

There's Pharyngula, who thrives on being a total jerk, but occasionally posts a nice photo of a cephalopod and encourages us to Pharyngulate stupid online polls (which is fun to do). Without Pharyngula, I would never have (briefly) subscribed to Ken Ham's blog, so I wouldn't know that Ken Ham is crazy.

On the Christian side, there's a blog by one of my former ministers, a man who is nice enough, but gees, he created 3 children, and two are ministers (girls can't be ministers in the denomination I was raised in, so his daughter married a minister). I read his little mini-sermons on sex in marriage and the importance of family and how he scrubbed the floors before company because his wife was ill, and I know where's he coming from because I was raised in that church, and I always wonder why some people believe that silly book and others leave.

Christian bloggers don't offer me anything. I've been there, done that, and left decades ago. I may be mildly interested in re-reading the Bible, but there isn't much point in finding out Christian opinions about it. The world isn't about an epic struggle between good and evil; the world is about shades of gray. Life isn't about meaning; it just is. We will NEVER agree, we will always be at war, and our illusion of meaning will disappear.

Matthew 4: 1-11

2011-04-03T12:13:00.000-07:00

I'm back after a long hiatus due to illness. It wasn't enough for me to catch something--I then took care of my mother, and caught her illness too. But all is well now, so I'm back to posting more regularly.

While I generally think of the New Testament as a vast, boring, contradictory wasteland of nonsense, much of which makes me angry, it turns out that I do like a few New Testament passages. Matthew 4, verses 1-11, is one of those. In this passage, Jesus is tested by Satan in the wilderness. Jesus is "led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil" as the New International Version puts it. He fasts for 40 days and nights, so naturally, he's hungry, but when the devil says, "Hey, Jesus, why don't you use your powers to turn these stones into bread?" he replies "Man does not live by bread alone..." Then the devil says, "Hey, you're Jesus, throw yourself off the temple because God will send his angels to save you." Jesus replies, "Nope. We're not supposed to test God." So then Satan says, "I'll give you all this great earthly splendor stuff if you'll deny God and follow me" and Jesus replies, "Heck no, I'm only going to serve God."

Why do I like this passage? For several reasons. It starts with the 40 days and nights of fasting. That always reminded me of American Indian vision quests, and it also alludes to the 40 days and nights that it rained on Noah, and the 40 years that the Israelites spent wandering in the wilderness. I also like that Satan tests him 3 times, which is the same number commonly used for tests in fairy tales. In fact, the fairy tale aspects of these verses might be my favorite part.

I also like the language, from stones being made into bread to "Man shall not live by bread alone."

You can read the entire passage here: New International Version or King James Version.

Good vs. Evil

2011-03-05T07:29:00.000-08:00

One of the Christian blogs I read posted about good and evil.

I responded:

You're mixing up evil--for example, humans who choose to murder other humans--with nature. An earthquake isn't a product of an evil force. It's a product of shifting tectonic plates. A cholera outbreak is a consequence of political decisions made a long time ago, combined with the destruction of infrastructure in an extremely poor country. The view that everything which happens is a consequence of a struggle between good and evil like the one between God and Satan in the book of Job, or like the good guys and bad guys in an old-fashioned western, is one of the more ridiculous aspects of Christian thought.

Christians and atheists frequently share an interest in discussions of ethics and purpose. When you start with the assumption that God exists, everything stems from that assumption. A blogger I formerly read, Sprittibee, railed against the HPV vaccination (which would imply that her daughter or her daughter's life partner might have sex with another person--since that would never happen, why would her daughter need to be vaccinated?). The HPV vaccination was an example of our un-Godly culture (e.g., people have sex outside of marriage), not a medical advance that could save lives. At the same time, she asked us to pray for a child who received a heart transplant. The transplant took place in a hospital, and the child spent his last hours in that medical facility. When the child died, the discussion was all about God's will and how the child was now in heaven ("God took the child home). No one mentioned the role of medical science in the heart transplant. The doctors weren't praised or blamed. I was surprised, though, that these Christians would reject one medical advance because it was viewed as an assault on Christian ethics while they embraced the other. A devout believer would say, "God led those men to develop heart transplants" so does that mean Satan led doctors to develop the HPV vaccine? But the HPV vaccine can save lives, so is it really the product of Satan? So God is responsible for everything that happens, from a child dying in a hospital to Ted Bundy to cholera in Haiti to earthquakes in Christchurch--no, you silly atheist, that's not God. Those things are bad, so that's Satan. But God made everything? Yes, everything. And God created Satan, and thereby evil. Well, no, the Christian says, Satan chose to disobey God. You're forgetting free will. Men can choose to believe and follow God, or they can follow Satan. Right. Whatever. You've lost me.

I can understand the need to explain what happens on our planet and in our lives. I still wonder why my father developed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Was it because we were in the fallout path of the above-ground nuclear testing in Nevada? Was it because he worked in a molybdenum mine? Maybe he contracted it because he prospected for uranium. He always blamed excessive x-rays given to him in the 1940s. He might have had a genetic predisposition to develop it since his first cousin also died from the same illness. I never thought, well, God has a mysterious plan for our lives, and it includes the need for some people to develop leukemia and die. I also never thought, well, leukemia is the work of Satan.

I read religious blogs, astonished by the hours and days and months people spend analyzing the Bible and trying to use it to explain their lives--scoffing at those of us who attempt to remain rational. If you start from a faulty premise--i.e., God exists--you're going to spend a lifetime explaining away the inconsistencies of religious texts and making up silly theologies and exclaiming that you're right and the other guy is WRONG WRONG WRONG because he interprets things differently than you and how many Christian denominations are there in the U.S. anyway, each denomination expressing the RIGHT interpretation?

Everything makes more sense when you start from the premise that God doesn't exist.

No doggie heaven

2011-02-02T18:24:00.000-08:00

I just returned from watching an amazing dog die. He was so sick that he could barely walk, but all his wits were about him, so he tried to let me know that he was happy to see me earlier in the afternoon. It was hard to let him go, and as he died, I felt myself wishing that there was a doggie heaven where he would end up chasing butterflies and balls, but even as I wished for that, I knew that it was just a silly human desire to not let go of one that we love.

All we really have is here, and while Togee was here, I loved him and took the best care I could of him. While he was mine, I gave him a good life, and he returned my affection. Any time I want, I can pull up a memory of me dodging to the left, and Togee running circles around me, or of him bouncing up, wide awake at 4:30 a.m., saying "Let's go for a walk!" and me reluctantly crawling out of bed, putting on his leash, and getting home by dawn. Or I can remember the time he said hello to me for almost 20 minutes because he was so happy to see me. Or the time his owner first put doggie booties on him and he tried to buck them off. Or saying goodbye to him this afternoon.

I have many memories of this wonderful dog.

Now is all we have.

Sixty-Six Clouds--Word Cloud Bible

2011-01-23T09:00:00.001-08:00

Someone made a Word Cloud out of every book in the Protestant Bible (Apocrypha excluded). Matthew's Word Cloud starts at 2:13. I recommend muting the schmaltzy background music, but to each his/her own.

I found it here. They're making money on the idea here, but you can easily make your own Wordle for any chapter you desire.

Revelation is interesting because of the dominance of the word "beast." Leviticus is interesting because of the prevalance of the words "offering" and "unclean." Matthew is all about "Jesus."

Matthew 3

2011-01-22T16:55:00.000-08:00

In Matthew 3, we meet John the Baptist.

Since we are all products of our time, and I was a kid in the 1960s, I always envision John the Baptist as the quintessential Woodstock-era hippie. The New International Version describes him: "John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey." Hieronymus Bosch's interpretation is in the illustration above.

What would camel's hair clothing look like? Would it be comfortable? Is his attire and diet a sign of his religious asceticism? Or maybe he's more like Daniel Suelo, who gained notoriety for living in a cave near Moab, Utah, but lately has been wandering.

John the Baptist is a prophet, foretelling the coming of the Messiah. John condemns the "Pharisees and Sadduccees", the perennial hypocrites of the New Testament, calling them a brood of vipers.*

John was the original Bible-thumping, hell-quoting preacher. He uses an allegory to let them know what's coming to them: "The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

This is an important chapter for those Protestant denominations, such as Baptists, who contend that only adults (or at least older, thinking children) can choose to be baptized. It explains that baptism is for repentance, a sort of get-out-of-jail free card for those who sin. John describes Jesus, who as John puts it, "will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” With this allegory, Christians find out what happens to nonbelievers. They learn that all atheists, like me, are bound for hell. In reading Christian blogs, one gets the feeling that many Christians can hardly wait for the world to end so they can say "Na-na-na-na-na-na" at the atheists. Unless they happen to be related to one of us, they desire less to convert us than to jeer at us when the world ends.

The chapter ends with the baptism of Jesus. Again, advocates of full immersion point to the fact that Jesus was fully immersed as an adult to support their contention that sprinkling infants isn't right. On the other hand, Roman Catholics, among others, are infant sprinklers. For more information on the Roman Catholic perspective, you can read the article on baptism from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Among other insights, that article says that even heretics or Protestants can perform valid baptisms if they use the right words. That seems fairly accepting of them. The article states the position on infant baptism as "The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God."

It's much easier to be a rational atheist than to follow the history of interpretations, exegesis, and dogmatic proclamations instituted by generations of men reading a few verses of the Bible.

Right after Jesus is baptized, an interesting event happens. The Bible says "he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'”

God said, "Here he is. This guy did the right thing. He's my son" thus setting up Jesus to begin a cult. But again, Christians make it much more complicated than that. Many Christians believe that baptism by other men (or priests) can lead to a second baptism by the "spirit." Pentecostal Christians, for example, believe that this "spirit baptism" is demonstrated by speaking in tongues. We'll get into more about speaking in tongues later after the crucifixion when Jesus comes back.

Illustration: Hieronymus Bosch (ca. 1450(1450)–1516) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

*This makes me want to create a Biblical insults t-shirt. Brood of vipers would be a good start.

Leaving church

2011-01-17T18:23:00.001-08:00

Why do some people leave church and others stay?

I'm asking myself that question now because my mother just showed me the Christmas letter she received from a minister friend of hers. He has three adult children, and the two men became ministers while the woman married a minister. All of them bought the party line.

I read a lot of religious blogs. Some claim to have rational explanations for their beliefs. They carefully analyze Bible verses. They write about the theological explorations of believers before them. They try, try, try to understand and to apply what they learn to their own lives and to the modern world.

Like this blog I briefly read, or like my Facebook cousins, some people don't really think about what they're taught. Thus, it's easy for them to stay in the church. To my grandmother, it was social unacceptable to avoid church. If you were a moral person, you went to church. I could never really figure out if my parents believed in the party line. I think my dad went to church partly to please my grandmother, partly because his best friend also attended, and mostly to sing. If I had managed to make friends in the church, would I have stayed? No. In the end, a love of singing wasn't enough to hold me.

I researched our church's history for an online friend and as part of that, I went through the church roster of baptized members. I was surprised to see that my grandfather was baptized. Since he died years before I was born, I know little about him. We only have one decent photograph of him. My dad told me that when he was little, his dad always joined the other men in cooking breakfast for the women and children who were upstairs attending Easter sunrise service. Even though my dad couldn't cook, he made coffee for that same breakfast. Somehow, even though I knew my grandfather had cooked breakfast, I never pictured him attending church. I should have known that with my grandmother for a wife, he wouldn't have had a choice.

Was he a believer? Possibly. He was baptized. So was my dad. It fell apart in my generation. My older brother was baptized, and in a way he's the only one who's stayed "religious" although his religion is decidedly wacky. My other brother is an atheist, but he never really tried to learn much about the Bible. As an example, he was astonished when I answered a trivia question about the "original writing on the wall" with the words Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.

"How do you know that?" he asked.

"I've read the Bible," I replied.

To me it always seemed as though, even though we were all given a choice of the path to follow, the people who stayed in the church didn't really have a choice. Like me, they were thoroughly indoctrinated in the Bible. Our lives revolved around church. We read and studied and were given interpretations for many verses. They chose to be baptized and to stay in, while I opted out. Why did they stay? I think it's because their worldview had become so Bible-oriented. They filter everything through the Bible. I'm not able to do that. So they stayed and I left.

I looked up my former minister's blogs, as well as those of his children, and so I'm now reading even more religion blogs. I found a link from one of their blogs to one blog which seems to be worth reading. It's called Thinking Christian. I read through the post about Sam Harris's latest book. I thought about re-reading and blogging about "Why I am Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell, a book I haven't read since high school. Maybe I'll read Sam's book first.

The photograph below is of my paternal grandfather, who was apparently a believer. The photograph is part of a family portrait taken in 1935 in the church where I grew up. In the larger version, you can see the curtains in the window. The last time I visited the church, the same curtains hung in the window.

Why gays should be able to marry

2011-01-16T09:28:00.000-08:00

I posted this as a comment on an anti-gay, pro-religion blog, the Blog for Life, Marriage, & Religious Liberty. Since it seems unlikely that they'll actually publish it, I thought I'd publish it here.

In the 1950s and 1960s in small town USA, we weren't all that aware of gay-ness as an issue. Betty and Pat ran the airport together, and everyone respected them and treated them well. In 1979, my boyfriend was in a car crash which left him partly paralyzed. An employee at the rehab hospital rented rooms to those of us with relatives in rehab. My housemate wasn't as lucky as I--his girlfriend was in a wreck which left her brain damaged. My boyfriend could say, "I want my girlfriend here." She couldn't say that about him. When her parents visited, he was excluded. That's when I learned what it was like for anyone who isn't married. Later that summer, my boyfriend and I married, and when he went into the hospital, it made a huge difference in the way I was treated. Only those who are married have the right to a real say in their loved one's treatment. That's when I became an advocate for gay marriage. I was able to make it easier for my boyfriend and me; my housemate, however, had no say in his girlfriend's treatment, and since she was mentally disabled, he couldn't just marry her. That's when I realized how unfair and horrible it would be to be gay and unable to marry. That's why I believe that the right to marry is critically important for gays, and I can't figure out any reason why they should not be accorded that right

Cousins

2011-01-07T13:54:00.000-08:00

I re-created my Facebook account for one reason--to share photographs with cousins. Thus, I have only 8 Facebook friends, and almost all of them are relatives. Two of my cousin/friends are LDS (Mormons); two are born-again devout Christians. At least the Mormons aren't overally racist like my other two cousins. Those cousins have posted links to "Preserve our right to keep and bear arms" and "John Boehner"; and their friends have praised Jesus for healing their cancer without even mentioning the important role of modern medicine and science. Although we were happy together as children, I wouldn't even want to try sitting down with them in the same room for a conversation. The last time I tried it, my cousin yelled at me because I am not a racist. The only safe subject for us is the past, as reflected in the photos I post on my Flickr page.

Bill O'Reilly Proves God's Existence

2011-01-07T12:02:00.000-08:00

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Bill O'Reilly Proves God's Existence - Neil deGrasse Tyson

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

March to Keep Fear Alive

Lesley Hazelton: on reading the Koran

2011-01-05T09:39:00.000-08:00

I love this Ted Talk about a journalist/author's reading of the Koran.

The Word is God

2011-01-05T07:17:00.001-08:00

It seems that this might be a good year to read the Bible in the King James version. In honor of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, Shakespeare's Globe theater is mounting a production called The Word is God where actors will read the Bible on stage from, as they put it "Palm Sunday to Easter Monday." While I can't imagine heading to London to see this (since I lack both funds and a passport), I imagine that it will be a wonderful experience.

I would especially like to hear them read Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I wonder how you could make those books interesting enough to hold a theater-goer's attention. Perhaps that's when everyone will take a break from listening and head to the lobby.

I purchased a version of the King James Bible on audiocassette once. It was narrated by James Earl Jones. That sounds like a wonderful idea, and it would have been if they hadn't backed up his sonorous voice with cheesy hymns. They didn't allow even a moment's respite from the background noise. James Earl Jones could have carried it off without the "help" of music. As usual, not everyone agrees with me. Apparently, the reviewers at Amazon generally like the hymns.

Matthew 2: 19-23

2011-01-04T18:08:00.000-08:00

In Matthew 2:19-23, the family of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus is still hiding out in Egypt. But an angel drops by to let Joseph know that it's safe to return to Israel. The family ends up in Galilee, in the town of Nazareth.

The problem with setting yourself the task of re-reading the Bible starting with the New Testament when you don't really *like* the New Testament is that it's difficult to stay motivated. Thus, I haven't really read the Bible in months. But recently, another atheist started re-reading the Bible. He's starting with the Old Testament. He blogged briefly about one of my favorite stories in the entire Bible, the story of the Tower of Babel, saying "Once again we learn that knowledge is frowned upon." Well, that's one of the lessons, I suppose. At any rate, because he's blogging about the Bible, I'm inspired to take up the habit again, power through, and read the New Testament so I can get to the good stuff in the Old Testament.

When we were taught about Jesus ending up in Nazareth in Sunday School, we were specifically told that he moved there to fulfill a prophecy, yet another proof that Jesus is the Messiah. I could never find much meaning in the fact that Jesus fulfilled prophecies made in Isaiah and other Old Testament books perhaps because, unlike the ancient Hebrews, I've never been looking for a Messiah or Savior. Whether he was accepted as the Messiah or rejected (e.g., by the Hebrews who didn't convert), it seemed like ancient history because it is. Matthew wasn't thinking about me when he wrote the verses to prove the prophecy; he was speaking to other scholars of the time. Perhaps that's another reason why the prophecy is irrelevant to me.

Oprah Schmoprah

2011-01-03T16:33:00.000-08:00

Oprah is apparently continuing her non-skeptical and nonsensical beliefs into her new "network", OWN.

One of the shows is called "Miracle Detectives" described as a journalist believer and a skeptical scientist who travel throughout the United States investigating miracles.

Here is one of the comments from the website above:

There will always be the believers and non believers. But honestly we have a choice so what is the best choice. To think there is something more powerful, loving, gracious and wonderful watching out for us and we have a definite purpose here or to just think we are in this alone and isolated and there is no wonder to the wonderful there are only cold facts not loving revelations and gifts. I personally have had miracles happen to me and it's funny because I rarely watch TV and the other day I was actually saying I could use another miracle and I went upstairs to my suites in my Bed & Breakfast to water some plants and clean up a little and I thought I should put the TV on ( because that is the only place I have a TV is in the suites) and there was Oprah talking about her new network OWN (love the name) and the show on MIRACLES I couldn't believe it, no I could believe! Something very profound will happen to our scientists and skeptics of the world and they too will believe. Oprah I do know is a believer in Miracles, she is living them and has all along. She was put on this path to help other people and bring so much information and good on that grand scale and she has made a difference in so many lives. I'm glad she is in my circle of beliefs! I will be watching without a doubt! A Dream by the Sea Michelle New Jersey

Right when she needed a miracle, she went to water her plants and there was the news: An Oprah show about miracles. It was a miracle!

Freethinker vs. Atheist

2010-12-28T07:43:00.000-08:00

I used Google's Ngram viewer to plot the use of the terms freethinker and atheist between 1800 and now in Google Books.

Below is the result. If you click on it, it will take you to the Ngram Viewer where you can see the results in more detail.

Manhattan Declaration

2010-12-26T21:24:00.001-08:00

I came across this website on the Facebook page of one of my sons' classmates. This reaffirms for me that I have absolutely nothing in common with these people (except for having a son the same age as his).

http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx

Yale New Testament Course

2010-12-23T14:03:00.000-08:00

Since I'm having so much trouble actually re-reading the Bible, I subscribed to several religious blogs and Bible verse a day services, but they didn't motivate me. This week, I started watching the Open Yale Course Introduction to New Testament History and Literature. I wasn't sure I'd learn much from the course, but I thought it might inspire me to blog. Since I grew up in one of the slightly-more-rational denominations where we were encouraged to read, study, and learn as much about the Bible and our church as possible, I knew quite a bit about why decisions were made to include certain books in the Bible. However, I didn't know the details. The second video in the course, From Stories to Canon, reviews the decisions that were made. What books could be trusted? Which should be included? How did we end up with the Apocrypha? If you don't want to watch the video, the transcript is online as well.

I came across another Christian blog today where he explains in a circular way how we know that the Bible is the word of God. Thus he creates this fallacious argument: We know that the Bible is the word of God because it tells us so in the Bible. Sorry, dude, circular reasoning won't persuade a non-believer. The Christian tradition I came from required one to analyze the Bible to determine what God wanted from us. It's a short step from there to analyzing the Bible in a way that creates atheists. A true believer, reading the history of how different books were included in the Bible would conclude that God had inspired the selection of those books. In other words, a true believer can live with the inconsistencies because they choose to believe no matter what. A true believer doesn't need a Jesus Seminar to arrive at a theological consensus about the truth. A true believer selects the verses that support his/her position and ignores the rest. This is why atheists and true believers don't have a lot in common.

Blasphemy

2010-12-22T07:27:00.000-08:00

When I attended Sunday School, I scribbled a joke I'd found in my Bible: "Easter's been cancelled; they found the body."

I experienced a similar joy when I told the owner of the dog I'm taking care of that, when we walked past a nativity scene outside of a church, the dog inquisitively sniffed at all the animals in the nativity. "Silly dog," I told him. "Those are *plywood* animals." My friend replied, "Damn, I thought for a moment you were gonna tell me he pissed on Jesus. I was hopeful."

Yes, I found that *very* funny. The overwhelmingly negative experiences that we've had with Christians have made my friend and me wish for the denigration of a plywood statue (although the tacky nativity scene itself is a good advertisement against Christianity).

Merry Christmas.

Being loved

2010-12-21T15:45:00.000-08:00

When I read articles like this one on Atheism Resource (Christians love you) it reminds me of the perverted "born again" Christian who roomed with my then boyfriend. We got into an argument one day, probably over the fact that he frequently scratched his genitalia with me in the room, and he screamed at me, "You are SO HARD TO LOVE!"

I smile every time I think of that encounter. Poor boy. He'd been instructed by his church to follow John 13:34 "Love one another" but he just couldn't do it when he met me. I always thought it was too bad that Jesus hadn't mentioned "Do not scratch yourself in front of your roommate's girlfriend"--that would have been a more useful injunction to me. The reality is that I didn't want him to "love" me, nor did I feel any compulsion to love him.

An Atheist's Take on Bible Verses

2010-12-20T09:10:00.000-08:00

When you spend your formative years in a church, you end up knowing the Bible fairly well, and many phrases and verses become thoroughly integrated into your psyche.

Out of curiosity, I Googled "favorite Bible verses" to see what others regarded as favorites. Beliefnet has a page devoted to Ann Coulter's favorite verses, an aggressive set of prescriptions. She shares three verses from the most bizarre of books, Revelations, including this one: "But the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and fornicators and sorcerers and idolaters and all the false, their part will be in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Revelation 21:8

Ann Coulter actually believes in a physical hell. Silly woman.

The lists I read contain some *very* strange verses, like this one: "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship." Romans 12:1 What in heck is that all about? Why would anyone regard that as a favorite verse?

In fact, in this small sampling of lists, only one even had a verse that I'm fond of:

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matthew 6:19-21

I think of that as the anti-hoarder's verse, or the de-clutterer's verse. As I work on a massive de-cluttering project, I think of that verse often.

White Wine in the Sun

2010-12-19T08:56:00.001-08:00

360 Degree Skeptic posted a Tim Minchin song which I'd actually somehow missed.

I especially like these lyrics: I don't go in for ancient wisdom/ I don't believe just 'cause ideas are tenacious/ It means that they're worthy/ I get freaked out by churches/ Some of the hymns that they sing have nice chords/ But the lyrics are dodgy/ And yes I have all of the usual objections to the miseducation/ Of children who in tax-exempt institutions are taught to externalize blame/ And to feel ashamed and to judge things as plain right or wrong/ But I quite like the songs.

As one who attended church for years just to sing, long after I became an atheist, I agree that I quite like the songs. More about those dodgy lyrics later.

Christmas lights

2010-12-18T14:41:00.000-08:00

The dog I'm caring for and I were walking at 4:00 a.m. and found that many people seem to have enough money to leave their Christmas lights on all night. As we wandered past the partially-inflated Santas, snowmen, and reindeer, listening to machines expelling tiny portions of tinny Christmas songs, I thought about all the money wasted on this stuff. It made me think of this verse: Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Yeah, right. Or maybe you could just leave your Christmas lights on all night while other people in your town are cold.

I thought about it

2010-12-13T16:44:00.000-08:00

At a meeting once, my atheism became a topic of conversation. One member of the meeting said, "Why don't you just call yourself an agnostic?"

One of my colleagues, a former minister, but still a believer, answered for me. "She says she's an atheist because she's *thought* about it and made a decision. To declare yourself agnostic means you're still trying to make up your mind."

He was right--I did think about it--religion--a lot--and rejected it.

Season's Greetings

2010-12-05T19:35:00.000-08:00

In 1960, this was my family's Christmas display:

It says "Season's Greetings" on the sign. There's a painted plywood nativity in the front yard and a plywood Santa Claus with his reindeer on the roof.

On Christmas Eve, our church had Santa Claus visit to give the kids Christmas canes and oranges (standard stocking fare in 1960). When I was 3 years old, my brother pointed out that Santa Claus was actually my dad, wearing a costume.

By the mid-1960s, we had a newer, more Biblical minister, and so the Christmas Eve service turned into a more religious affair and Santa Claus was banned, although the church was still decorated with a gigantic Christmas tree.

Season's Greetings was considered a wonderful greeting in 1960. Yet, now there are movements to "Keep Christ in Christmas"--e.g., this Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/Keep-Christ-in-CHRISTmas/ Sorry, guys. In the good old USA, the issue of Christmas being all about Christ was decided decades ago. I made sure that my kids knew about the birth of Christ being celebrated on Christmas, but I also made sure that they knew that theologians generally believe that if Jesus existed, there's no reason to believe that he was born in December, and that the 25th has pagan origins. Somehow, by telling them the truth at all times, including that there was no Santa Claus, I managed to raise three rational atheists.

Mystical Mexicans

2010-11-22T06:34:00.001-08:00

Ah, Catholics. So mystical, so strange.

Andrew Sullivan said the following about PZ Myers' post about a visit to Our Lady of Guadalupe:

Bizarre", "weird": the adjectives reflect Myers's projection, not the "fluid and flexible and complex" phenomena he also sees in front of him. You could, of course, inquire further into the resilient, mysterious and clearly powerful rituals he is witnessing. But that would require his admission that there is much human conduct here he doesn't understand - instead of the assertion that it is religion and that he therefore knows all he needs to know about it.

Well, no, mysticism doesn't require apologists. Religion is inexplicable to the rational.

Generally, I find PZ Myers obnoxious, but in this case, when he says that Mexico is a weird place, he's making an understatement. Living in Mexico at the age of 14 had a profound impact on my life. I love the country. Experiencing such a different culture gave me a love of anthropology. As a lower-middle-class USian, encountering poverty for the first time reinforced my advocacy for human rights. Seeing fly-covered meat hanging in open-air markets helped turned me into a vegetarian. Experiencing Mexican mysticism first-hand helped confirm my atheism.

When one of my college-educated Mexican cousins chose to deny medical science a few months ago and instead raised funds from her yoga students so she could undergo psychic surgery in Brazil from this dude, I viewed her as a victim of her Mexican mysticism. Currently, she's living somewhere in the jungles of Peru, undergoing more worthless "native" treatments. Every time she makes it to a city with the Internet, she sends an update. One day, soon, I expect to hear that she is dead. Nope, not "passed away" to some mystic's paradise. Just gone.

So while PZ isn't being anthropologically correct in his description of religion in Mexico, as an educated atheist, he isn't wrong.

Image: From my Flickr page, the bell in the Taxco, Mexico cathedral.

Additional link: Science-Based Medicine blogged about John of God today. It seems that Oprah is now promoting his brand of hucksterism.

I have ESP...

2010-09-29T09:52:00.000-07:00

But I don't believe it.

Yes, I've experienced many strange intuitive leaps which seem to go way beyond anything that can be explained rationally, but so what? Until science proves that ESP exists, I'm not inclined to believe that these are anything more than bizarre coincidences.

Last year, I read a brief line about mirror touch synesthesia (MTS) in an article about other interesting forms of synesthesia, many of which I have (e.g., grapheme-color-gender). I've read everything I can find about MTS since then, including reports on the research. I've corresponded with the main author of one of those studies. And thus, I finally believe that MTS exists. There is finally scientific research that supports something I've experienced any time someone touches themselves. I realize how little time I spend looking at other people. I try to block the sensations, even when I watch movies or TV. My mirror touch even extends to inanimate objects, which makes sense to me because I see all of them as being sentient.

Perhaps someday a scientist will prove ESP, and then I'll believe it as well, but until then I'll be in the limbo where I can say, "Yes, I have this but, as a rational human, I choose not to believe it."

On a day when I praise Sam Harris

2010-03-28T18:41:00.001-07:00

Sean at Cosmic Variance tears Sam's assumptions apart.

I watched the Ted Talk he refers to shortly after it was posted, but I didn't find it interesting enough to recommend to friends, nor to listen to again. Ah, I'm listening to it again and this is the question that made me dismiss the talk a minute and a half in: "Why is it that we don't have ethical obligations towards rocks?"

Of course, in my bizarre worldview, I do have ethical obligations towards rocks.

Sam goes on to ask:

Why don't we feel compassion for rocks? It's because we don't think rocks can suffer. [I do]

And if we're more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it's because we think they're exposed to a greater range of potential happiness and suffering. [Uh, no, again, I'm as concerned with insects as my fellow primates and it has nothing to do with their range of potential happiness and suffering--both primates and insects are sentient.]

Sean appears to have become hung up in the lack of logic at this same point, although for a different reason: "Let’s grant the factual nature of the claim that primates are exposed to a greater range of happiness and suffering than insects or rocks. So what? That doesn’t mean we should care about their suffering or happiness; it doesn’t imply anything at all about morality, how we ought to feel, or how to draw the line between right and wrong." Sean says that science doesn't really have anything to do with morality, and his points seem valid to me.

When I listened to the original talk, I realize that I thought that Sam Harris is like the rest of the world--he doesn't share my worldview. He has a Judeo-Christian-scientific view that doesn't match mine. Yes, I know. I'm weird.

Sam Harris says it all

2010-03-28T05:44:00.001-07:00

In a Nightline "debate" (i.e., discussion), Does God have a future?, Sam Harris expressed what I feel about religion. Here is my transcript of what he said:

Well, I think as you've begun to hear, there are two very different kinds of conversations we could have here.

We can talk about religion as it is for most people, most of the time and we can talk about what religion could be or should be or perhaps what it is for the tiniest minority of people. And I just want you to be aware of the difference there because it could get lost.

It's true that some people define God as pure consciousness or as being synonymous with the laws of nature. But if we talk about consciousness and the laws of nature, we won't be talking about the God that most of our neighbors believe in, which is a personal God who hears our prayers and occasionally answers them.

So I just want you to be sensitive to this because if Michael or I say something derogatory about Islam or Christianity, which seems possible, the response from the other side shouldn't mention quantum mechanics and it shouldn't reference a notion of God that is so denuded of doctrine as to more or less be synonymous with pure mystery or pure information or pure energy or pure anything.

So I just wanted, I wanted to plant a flag there where you all can see it. Because the God that our neighbors believe in is essentially an invisible person. Is a creator deity who created the universe to have a relationship with one species of primate--lucky us. And he's got galaxy upon galaxy to attend to, but he's especially concerned with what we do. And he's especially concerned with what we do while naked. He almost certainly disapproves of homosexuality and he's created this cosmos as a vast laboratory in which to test our powers of credulity and the test is this: "Can you believe in this God on bad evidence?" which is to say, on faith. And if you can, you will win an eternity of happiness after you die. And it's precisely this sort of God and this sort of scheme that you must believe in if you're going to have any kind of future in politics in this country. No matter what your gifts. You could be an unprecedented genius, you could look like George Clooney, you could have a billion dollars, and you could have the social skills of Oprah, and you are going nowhere in politics in this country unless you believe in that sort of God. So we can talk about anything we want. I'm happy to talk about consciousness, but please notice that when we migrate away from the God that is really shaping human events, or the God talk that is really shaping human events in our world at this moment.

I was curious to watch this discussion in part because I've only encountered Deepak Chopra's writings at The Huffington Post (one of the many reasons I no longer subscribe to their full blog feed). I wanted to hear him speak. To have Michael Shermer and Sam Harris opposed by Deepak and Jean Houston seemed like a stacked deck against irrationality since Chopra and Houston were frequently incoherent. It might have been more interesting to see them debate a devout Christian, Jewish, or Islamic clergy.

Sam says that in the second video. All 12 parts of the "debate" are available at YouTube. Embedded below is the first video.

Matthew 2:13-18

2010-03-25T21:22:00.000-07:00

Maybe this won't be true once I get past the Nativity, but at least for this part of the New Testament, I associate every few verses with a song.

I read these verses and note Matthew's attempts to further link Jesus to obscure, seemingly unrelated passages from the Old Testament. For example, Matthew says that a prophet proclaims "Out of Egypt I will call my son." Matthew reminds me of those people who pick up the Bible, open a page at random, and seek wisdom from the verse they find. After all, in Hosea 11:1, the son God is referring to is the nation of Israel. Hosea 11:2 talks about Israel, the son, making sacrifices to idols such as Baal. Although the prophets tend to be cryptic in their prophecies, why would Matthew interpret this verse as referring to a coming Messiah?

The jealous Herod, fearing the birth of a new king and lacking the knowledge of the magi about exactly where he's located, orders that all boys two and under should be killed. Perhaps there's archaeological evidence of this massacre, or independent confirmations, but again, it seems that Matthew might be making up an event to fit with a prophecy from Jeremiah 31. Jeremiah is a prophet who exhorted the people of Israel to behave better during the time of the Babylonian exile. Matthew takes a verse to show that Jeremiah foretold the death of the infants--Rachel is weeping for her children and refuses to be comforted. It seems that only in the case of Biblical exegesis would anyone give credence to Matthew's attempt to link Jesus to Old Testament Messianic prophecy. At least, that's the way it seems to an atheist who rolls her eyes at yet another tenuous connection which proves nothing about Jesus's divinity.

I like the rendition below of The Coventry Carol by The Cambridge Singers even though this isn't the way I sing it. I think I'll learn the version below on guitar. If I start now, maybe I'll be able to play it by Christmas.

Lullay, thou little tiny child, by by lully lullay.
Lullay, thou little tiny child, by by lully lullay.

O sisters, too, how may we do, for to preserve this day;
This poor youngling for whom we sing, by by lully lullay.

Herod the king, in his raging, charged he hath this day;
His men of might in his own sight, all children young to slay.

Then woe is me, poor Child, for Thee, and ever morn and day.
For thy parting, nor say nor sing, by by lully lullay.

Why Christians read the Bible

2010-03-20T15:25:00.000-07:00

I took an Old Testament History class a long time ago, which I ended up dropping because I already knew the topic well. The class was filled with Christians of various denominations who didn't know the Old Testament at all. They grew up in churches which emphasized the New Testament. Out of 20 class members, the instructor and I were the only ones who had read the Old Testament, and he was an ordained minister.

I thought at the time that it was odd that these devout believers could be so ignorant about the foundations of their own religion, but since then I've found it to be common.

A Christian blogger asked yesterday Why do we read the Bible? You can read about her reasons at that link.

I'm re-reading it to re-visit the seeds of my atheism; most Christians presumably read it because a) they're told to or b) they want to reaffirm their faith. They regard the Bible as a book with answers. I'm incapable of thinking about the Bible as a benign, enlightening, or uplifting book, but hey, maybe after I re-read it this time, I'll change my mind.

Religion overload

2010-03-14T06:12:00.000-07:00

On Friday, we didn't have school but we had a Christian rock invasion. A local church sponsored a rock group. The only students hanging around school were the conservative Christian teens who helped the rockers set up.

Theoretically, the church brings in groups like this to convert new members of the church, but in practice the only ones who attend are already members, so they revert to talking about reaffirming one's faith and renewing their response to the call of Jesus.

Christian rock consists of love songs--but only about love songs about God and Jesus; and of covers of classic rock songs, with the lyrics rewritten to talk about the singer's relationship and love for God and Jesus. No one who loves music loves Christian rock.

Yesterday, as I was leaving the house to do a favor for one of my sons' friends, a lady walked onto my property and tried to hand me a pamphlet about an upcoming "worldwide" meeting of some sort. My usual approach to Jehovah's Witnesses is to slam the door in their faces, but I met this single person in my driveway, where there was no door to slam, so I told her to go away, that I'm an atheist, and that's she's crazy to belong to a patriarchal organization which hates women. My son said I was overly harsh. I wonder why proselytizers feel it's okay to approach someone on private property. We have laws in our city against door-to-door salesmen. In what way is this different?

When we returned from running the errand, a strange car was parked in my driveway. We walked inside and saw an empty cooler. My son went into the kitchen to find the mother of one of his friends who was stowing leftover spaghetti and meatballs in my refrigerator. "I just came right in when no one answered," she said. "I didn't want this food to spoil."

Ah, yes, give the vegetarian left-over meat sauce spaghetti. Walk into my house uninvited. Witness my filthy kitchen. Of course, even though she's doing this out of a sense of Christian charity (she's a minister's wife), it's impossible to stay angry at this woman because she is a genuinely good person. "Well, I'm off to choir practice at the church." Have fun. Next time, call ahead. Next time, wait before you walk into my house. Next time, don't bring meat.

Unintentional coming out

2010-03-01T20:52:00.000-08:00

I can keep a secret if I'm told it's a secret, but I've never been all that great at hiding who I really am.

I mentioned to a colleague that a Christian (Ray Comfort) was giving away dinners for two to atheists. "Why is he doing that?" my colleague asked.

"That's what we wonder," I replied.

"We?" he asked.

Oh, well, I outed myself again.

Matthew 2: 1-12

2010-02-28T08:48:00.000-08:00

In Matthew 2:1-12, Jesus has been born and the magi are looking for him. Even though there's a large star that guides them, they drop by Herod's palace to ask him if he's heard of the baby. This story seems to establish that the importance of Jesus is acknowledged by 1) a star 2) three wise men who march in and out of history. It also is a way to let us know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, thereby fulfilling another Old Testament prophecy, this time from the book of Micah. It also sets us up for the manifestation of Herod's fear and jealousy when he learns that a new king has been born.

What interests me about Matthew 2:1-12 is the mythology that has arisen over these few verses. Some of that mythology is expressed in song. For example, in We Three Kings, the wise men are not only given names, the verses express the (made-up) meaning behind the gifts they give. Melchior gives gold to show that Jesus is a king forever; Gaspar gives frankincense because it shows his deity; and Balthazar gives myrrh to represent the tomb where Jesus is sealed after his crucifixion. In the last verse of the carol, Jesus arises. Those names aren't mentioned in the Bible and are part of a later tradition.* According to the Oxford Book of Christmas Carols, We Three Kings was written by Dr. J.H. Hopkins, a U.S. minister, around 1857.

I grew up in an independent Christian Church, an inheritor of the Stone Campbell Restoration Movement, where we were taught to base our beliefs only on what it says in the Bible; yet we sang this decidedly unbiblical song with names derived from Catholic tradition. That's what Christianity is like today--a hodgepodge of scripture, interpretation, legend, tradition, and nonsense.

*The Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent has a lengthy and somewhat interesting discussion about the magi.

Faith

2010-02-28T08:38:00.000-08:00

I found a new blog today where the blogger asked "Why do we have to hide faith?"

Since I work at a school where seemingly no one hides their faith, but I am forced to hide my atheism, the question seems silly. I wish that more of my colleagues would hide their faith. At graduation last year, students led two prayers. The act meant something to everyone in the audience. To me, it meant that I was part of an oppressed, invisible minority. To them, it was probably profoundly meaningful in some way.

Jesus said in Matthew 6 that you're not supposed to be out there praying on street corners; prayer should be private. If you're a Christian, how could you possibly think it was right to pray at secular festivals such as graduations and football games? Why would you consider it necessary to proclaim your faith to nonbelievers.

Matthew 1:1-24

2010-02-26T19:05:00.000-08:00

Ah, yes, the begats. In the New International version, "Abraham begat Isaac" becomes the prosaic "Abraham was the father of Isaac."

I remember what they taught us in Sunday School about Matthew 1:1-17. It was designed to prove that Jesus was the Messiah because of a prophecy Samuel made about the Messiah being a descendant of David. Nah, I'm not going to look up the passage in Samuel. You can do that if you like. We were taught about the significance of the fourteen generations described in verse 17: "Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile in Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ." Since I've been searching for my lost great-grandmother for the last forty-some years, I've found it difficult to believe that they could lay out all those generations without making a mistake. The complete genealogy is not relevant to me. With that many generations, they could have filled in gaps with any names. Who could refute it?

Then the passage loses me completely when they continue with verses 18-24 to explain that Joseph isn't Jesus's biological father. Since Joseph isn't Jesus's father, why should I care about his genealogy? It has nothing to do with Jesus.

An angel shows up in Joseph's dream and explains that Jesus was the product of the Holy Spirit getting it on with Mary. The angel convinces Joseph to marry Mary even though she isn't pregnant with his child. Joseph believes the angel's story that this baby is Immanuel. He sticks by her, and doesn't have sex with her until after Jesus is born. The King James version says "he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" and the New International is equally obscure, saying "he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son."

Why bother mentioning her virginity? The birth is a miracle. This isn't an ordinary baby. In Sunday School they probably mentioned another prophecy that the virgin birth fulfills.

Thus, I've only begun to re-read the New Testament, and Matthew 1:1-24 has already left me in the dust. First, they list the complete genealogy of an insignificant guy named Joseph. Yet, somehow someone knows that he is descended from David. Then they negate the important of the genealogy because Jesus isn't Joseph's biological child. To top it off, they add a story of a baby that wasn't conceived via messy insemination, and of an unusual step-dad who sticks by a woman 2010 years ago (roughly) because he's told by an angel in a dream that this baby is Immanuel.

Exactly what portion of Matthew 1:1-24 is believable? None of it. Then why do you expect me to believe?

Re-reading the New Testament

2010-02-26T18:39:00.000-08:00

I'm extremely fond of the Old Testament--all those gory battles, the vengeful God, the lists of rules and complex genealogy--but I'm going to start with the New Testament. My favorite Bible version has always been the King James. Nearly any verse in the Bible is more beautiful to me in King James English--perhaps less intelligible, but definitely more beautiful.

For example, here is Leviticus 14:17 from the King James version:

14: And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the Lord be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turledoves, or of young pigeons. 15: And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar 16: And he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes 17: And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.

Here is the far less magical, less poetic, and less dramatic New International Version:

¹⁴ " 'If the offering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds, he is to offer a dove or a young pigeon. ¹⁵ The priest shall bring it to the altar, wring off the head and burn it on the altar; its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. ¹⁶ He is to remove the crop with its contents and throw it to the east side of the altar, where the ashes are. ¹⁷ He shall tear it open by the wings, not severing it completely, and then the priest shall burn it on the wood that is on the fire on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

Where is the poetry in "He shall tear it open by the wings, not severing it completely"? I much prefer "And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder." It's especially effective if you read it aloud.

Even though I love the Old Testament more than the New and the King James version better than any other, I'm going to ignore those preferences and re-read the New Testament first in the New International version of the Bible. Why? I read the Old Testament more often. I don't want the beauty of the language to interfere with my understanding.

The Bible helped make me an atheist

2010-02-26T18:33:00.000-08:00

There's an excellent chance that if I'd lived in an earlier time or if I'd been raised in a different denomination, I wouldn't be an atheist. In an earlier time, say, before Gutenberg's invention, I wouldn't have read the Bible. I would have relied on priestly interpretations, and I might have bought the story unanalytically. In a different denomination, where Bible study and Bible reading weren't considered as important or emphasized as highly, again, I wouldn't have read the Bible as many times, and thus I might have been able to have faith.

Since Bible reading helped me becoming an atheist, it seems like a good idea to periodically revisit it. I can now do that in a public forum. Who might be interested? Perhaps other atheists; perhaps religious people who want to convert atheists; maybe just my friends; maybe just me.