By Danimal ~

In some of my previous stories I have mentioned that I am on the autism spectrum. Autism is a condition marked by social, communication, and sensory deficits. Some of these deficits may be severe to mild, and no two autistics are exactly the same. In my case I am unable to make eye contact with others. I can't tolerate crowds of people for long periods of time. I have various sensory issues with types of clothing, noises, lighting and colors. I am also lacking what is called the "theory of mind". I am unable to "read" facial expressions and other nonverbal communication. I am very dependent on verbal communication and people have to be very specific with me.

So, what does this have to do with religion? In my obsessive study of autism I quickly discovered how many autistics are atheists. Not all, but a great many of them are. I thought this was a curious phenomenon, and I analyzed my own thinking. What I discovered was disturbing to me. I really didn't think in theistic terms. I simply absorbed what Christians told me, but I never internalized the religion. I found that I really didn't believe in miracles, divinely inspired books, or invisible super-beings.

However, I didn't know why. I noticed that Christians spoke of god as if he was visible. They professed great love for an invisible god and sang love songs to him. In their minds god was real and a real presence. But, not for me. I lack the connections in my brain to experience "spiritual" things and to believe in things I can't perceive with my physical senses. I am unable to personally define faith and spirituality. For me, religion is irrelevant. I am highly logical and inquisitive. I discovered that these two traits are not prized by most Christians. I have many logical, sound reasons not to believe in any religion, but the truth is that I'm unable to understand them.

I've spent a year now really understanding my autism. I don't think in theistic terms. If I don't know something, I never assume that god did it. I have no need for miracles, prayer, or church. All religions are irrational to me.

That doesn't mean that all the religionists are wrong. I simply think differently. I have no problem with the normal "neurotypical" people having religious beliefs. However, rarely do these people keep their beliefs to themselves. They impose them on others. They can't seem to tolerate that others may have no desire for church or saviors. To these whack jobs autism is caused by demons or a lack of a "relationship" with Jesus. It would never occur to them that this is simply how I am. If religions were free of nut jobs, closet schizophrenics, and antisocial personalities they could be a real force for good. Unfortunately, religion in itself breeds mental instability, delusional thinking, and aberrant behavior.

Since leaving church and religion, I have actually felt better. I have much less anxiety than I did. My thinking isn't obscured with religious twaddle. I am free of all the lies and quarrels that exist in church. Really, if Jesus is going to marry the church, then he is marrying a whore (excuse me, sex worker). I am free to be me for the first time in my life. I've lost all my christian "friends", but I don't miss them. I don't miss tongues speaking, intercessory prayers, fellowship, hideous christian music, sermons, general nosiness, and people actually trying to control my life. I need to end now. I think I see some Witnesses coming up to the door...
I wiggle my ears for your comments.

By Jutsas ~

I have read with great interest a number of "testimonies" from different people here about their journeys away from christianity. Some have been remarkably similar to mine, others quite different. But a somewhat common concern is how best to let family and friends know that you no longer believe as they do. This (quite obviously) can be a very difficult thing to do, so I would like to make a few suggestions. These suggestions are not for everyone. They are also not absolute. Everyone has a different situation, and every relative or friend you deal with will have different reactions.

First some points on whom these ideas do not apply.

If you come from an abusive christian background with emotionally or physically abusive parents, relatives or perhaps even friends, then I strongly suggest you get professional help on dealing with the situation. I am not a professional and these ideas will not be very helpful. (I know that some here will say that christianity is always abusive, and I won't argue the point, but I'm talking more about clinical abuse done by real people, not the personal psychological abuse of the religion itself. There was a great series here several years back about the christian god being abusive, and it was very very applicable to my background, but my parents, and none of my christian friends were ever abusive to me). There are other good articles on this site about dealing with abuse, but again, please find real professional help!

If you are in the "Angry" phase of your break away from christianity, I strongly suggest you refrain from discussing your situation with your friends and family. What I mean by this is what several others have suggested on this site - that leaving christianity can result in going through all the stages people go through with loss and grief. There are arguments about whether the proposed five or six stages of grief are real or not, and I'm not going to get into that here, but I do know from my own personal experience (I started leaving christianity about 20 years ago - it is IMHO a lifelong process - but that's another story) that there was a long period when I was very angry that I had been hoodwinked by christianity. In that time period I got into heated arguments with a number of people about christianity. The results were not good. If you can be patient and make it to "acceptance" of where you are stage, you will find that getting your friends and family to "accept" where you are now will be much easier. I'm sure I will get some strong disagreement on this point. But I'm primarily talking about people who want to maintain their ties to their families and certain friends, not burn bridges. If you don't care, then you don't need to be reading this article. But if you are in an angry phase, let me suggest you might feel quite different about it several years from now, and you may find that you have left scars on both sides due to anger.

So here are some ideas, not in any particular order:

1) Know that pain is going to occur. There is just no way around it.

This pain is going to be at many levels. When people are confronted with an idea they don't like, or that they think questions something they hold dear or believe strongly, there isn't just an "emotional" pain, there is real physical pain. Research has shown that when cognitive dissonance occurs, chemicals are released in the brain that cause pain, the same that are released in a dangerous situation where your brain is telling you "get the F out of here". The natural desire is to relieve that pain. Getting angry or placing blame or coming up with rationalizations, or even running away from the situation, can relieve that pain. As some have said, there is no way around the pain, there is only "through it". I'll have some thoughts on addressing this later on.


Another major source of pain, if not the major source, is that this change throws out of balance the social hierarchy that you and your parents and friends have spent years building up. No matter how much we might dislike it, humans, similar to other species like Chimpanzees, spend much of our time fitting in to a "rank" with our fiends, family and coworkers - i.e. building social hierarchies. Over time, we unconsciously figure out our "rank" with regards to other people. "That's my dad, that's my mom, these are my children, I'm the smartest of my friends, or I'm smarter than Bob but not as smart as Harry" , etc, etc. Christians are actually very strong at this - I'm this spiritual, Sally is really spiritual, but Harry is a bit too worldly. I know my bible really well, but not as well as Tom the pastor, but certainly better than Beverly. We are always checking each other out for relative strengths and weaknesses. It happens here on the ex-christian site, and you can easily see it with who can make the best snark remark or write the best article about those misguided, stupid, idiot christians - or the most thoughtful, thought provoking article, or the best horror story about our religious experience and joyous non-religious awakening. These self rankings and ranking of other people happens naturally and changes somewhat over time, but we all eventually reach a fairly "satisfied" comfortable point where we know how we fit in with other people we deal with regularly. We are very uncomfortable when we don't know where we stand. Hell, this article is not unaffected to my innate desire to "fit in" on this site somewhere.


Losing your religion in a family or group of friends where religion is very important, is like dropping an atomic bomb on this hierarchy. Not only do you no longer fit into your established social ranking, your family and friends no longer know where they fit with respect to you. There will be a _very_ strong conscious and unconscious desire to not only find a way to return you to your "position", but to return themselves to the spot where they were comfortable with respect to you. This isn't just being dominant, it works on the submissive side as well. People, perhaps a still religious child, who looked up to you as a spiritual leader, may actually be more "hurt" than those who considered themselves "above" you. Parents, who see them selves as having a god given responsibility for your well being, will suddenly see their position as a parent strongly challenged, not only as a family spiritual leader but also with respect to their own capabilities as a parent. If they in a position of religious responsibility, such as pastor, their whole sense of self worth, and how they will be seen by all their peers or "flock" will now be severely challenged. If their own family member falls away, how can they be qualified to lead?


Contrary to what some claim, that the anger some parents and friends have is because they have been brainwashed by their religion , is rather I believe more strongly correlated to the abrupt upset of social status. Note, however, that this isn't necessarily due to you suddenly being sent to the lowest end of status with your family or friends. It isn't your new status, but the throwing out of your old status and now unknown placement that causes the discomfort.


We all feel uncomfortable if we are suddenly thrown into a situation where we don't know anyone. In fact, we are so uncomfortable, that if some one we barely know - but at least do know - shows up we will naturally drift over to that person. We at least have some standing with them. I would suggest that announcing you no longer believe an important shared faith results in much more discomfort than being in a group of people you don't know.


Understanding that this discomfort will occur, and that it is actually quite natural, is important in recognizing what happens when you make your declaration. Perhaps it can help you to know that your mother or father or friend will go through this not simply because they are still religious nut cases, but because it is natural for all humans to be hurt and upset by finding their social position with respect to you totally thrown out of whack. A similar thing would happen if you told Republican friends you voted for Obama and are now a Democrat, or even worse if you told your far left socialist friends you voted for George Bush and think he's a great guy. Or if you were a Boston Red Sox fan, but suddenly showed up to a party at your buddies wearing a Yankees uniform and said you loved Derek Jeter. Indeed, many of my former religious right friends seem to be more offended if I say that I voted for Obama than if I say I don't believe in Jesus anymore.


So what can you do about this, if it's true? I would suggest trying first to decide generally where you want to fit with your family and friends before you talk to them. Do you still want your Mom to be your Mom, your Dad to be your Dad? Then determine ahead of time that you are going to do what it takes to remain their child. This means that they need to see, and you need to recognize, that your status as their child no longer has any dependence on you being a christian. You were their child, and are their child totally apart from that consideration. I suggest that with parents if you come in with both barrels blasting denigrating their beliefs, you risk destroying any chance of maintaining a parent/child relationship. I believe it would be helpful to maintain your respect for them AND for their faith. There is no miracle sudden cure for instantly fitting back in, but this will be a start, and I think for most people, if your parents do truly love you - and being a parent, for most of us that IS the case - you will find that after a while, things will be fine. Not the same, but fine. Again, let me reiterate, this does NOT apply to abusive relationships!!!


For friends, the approach can be relatively the same depending on the relationship. This however, can be a lot tougher, because you do not have your family relationship to fall back on. It is quite likely that most of your relationship, and your place in your group of friends, was mostly centered around your christian faith. As a result, you may have very little left to use to fit in. You can no longer use "jesus talk", or try to say the most spiritual sounding prayer, to have the most verses in your bible highlighted, to attend the most services and shout Amen the most times, or the be slain in the spirit and talk in tongues the most, or to share the most horrifying conversion story, or talk about those evil Democrats and how Obama is destroying our country, or say how evil those gays are, or rather say how loving and accepting we should be to gays and love the sin not the sinner, how we should be emphasizing the love and saving grace of christ rather than pushing a political agenda, etc. depending on your particular former brand of christianity. I have found that, even though I maintain a acquaintance level friendship with some former christians, I do not have the tools any longer to comfortably "find my place" in that hierarchy anymore. This is a two way street. When christians know you don't believe like them any more, then they consciously and subconsciously know or sense that all those same "tricks" for fitting in will no longer work with you. Not only have you lost your tool kit, you have caused them to lose theirs.


This leads me to my next point.


2) Recognize that a lot of the difficulty is with you, not with them.


You must read the section above to know what I mean by this. This is not an accusation - as it will appear if you just jumped here! What I mean primarily is the difficulty we have with facing where we now stand with former family and friends if we announce we no longer believe.


So above, I tried to establish that disclosing your De-conversion will cause pain on all sides, not only emotional, but actual physical pain due to neurological chemicals released by the cognitive dissonance that _will_ occur on the part of your family and friends, but also primarily because it suddenly and almost totally destroys long established hierarchies - where you fit in, what rank you have with your family and friends.


Here I just want to point out how this is just as devastating to you as it is to them. If you read articles on this site carefully, I believe that you can clearly see that - despite protestations about how much happier we are now that we don't have the oppressive reign of christianity hovering over us - and I am not at all denying that this is the case - that this disruption of our place in the world leaves many many people if not unhappy, then at the very least, uncomfortable with where they fit in life now.


As I pointed out at the end of the previous section, without a shared faith, you no longer have the tools most people use to fit in with their christian friends. You find that you no longer value the things that used to give your status before. Not only that, some of them are now plainly embarrassing. But it goes further than this. You may find that you also are very poorly equipped for fitting into groups _outside_ of christianity. In fact, if your former faith was very strong and you were very well established in your christian group, you WILL be poorly equipped for fitting into many groups outside of christianity. Usually you will suddenly find yourself at the bottom rung of knowing what are the right phrases to say, what the right things are to like/dislike, and won't have the right stories to tell from your life that help fit in with a new group.


But possibly more strong than that, are all the things you learned (or as some psychologists recently have suggested, were naturally inclined) not to like. For example, in my case, I have found that a large number of non-christians (ok, not all, but too many) spend much of their life partying and getting drunk. It's like there is nothing else worth doing. I hate hate hate drunkenness. I have zero interest in that life style. I have tried to fit into several non christian groups, only to find that this really is is how they want to spend a lot of their time, drunk or stoned. Maybe its just where I live. But the point is, not only was drunkenness anathema per christianity, I also developed a strong dislike of it which remains the case _outside_ of christianity. Also, as anyone who has read some of my few other comments on this site, I dislike blind hatred and attacking other people's religious persuasions with angry diatribes. Blame too much "be kind one to another" all my life if you want, but I refuse to join in with the hatred/mockery crowd. Well, I'm not above making a few mocking comments myself, but again, its not something I feel comfortable with. This takes away a strong "tool" for fitting in with a new group of people. (IMHO, Most of the hateful snarky political comments you read on virtually any political discussion online, are actually done to fit in better or raise status with your own crowd than to make a point to the opposition - which is why its painfully clear that neither side is listening to the other side.)


So, you don't have the tools to fit in with the old crowd, but you don't' have good tools for fitting in with any other crowd. If you totally lose your family and friends, what and who will be left? This is a very real, and very strong fear. Those who ignore it, or deny it, are in my opinion ignoring and denying reality.


So what can be done about this? For many of us, this is perhaps the most difficult thing with declaring we no longer believe in Jesus to our friends and family. We might think its fear of what they will think (and certainly that is there) but it can be just as much, or more, about not knowing where we will fit in the world apart from our former faith.


There may be a simple answer, but unfortunately it is not simple to implement. I would suggest that we it might actually help to do what Jesus said when people asked him what they needed to do be one of his followers (well one of the the many often contradictory things) - you must become as a little child. A little child is at or near the bottom of the rung in social status. The easy thing for a real child is they hardly care, where-as you will. But what I mean is you have to do the hard work at shirking off some (not all) of your former positive and negative tools for fitting in and develop new ones. You will find that some of your old tools still apply. Friendliness, kindness, intelligence, other things are well valued in many social groups (see values on Valarie Tarico's website) You are not as much a misfit as you might think. But whereas you had probably reached a level of fitting in to your christian group such that you didn't have to work very hard at it anymore, now you do have to work at it again.


Then there is another hard part - finding a group you actually do want to fit in with. I'll leave those suggestions for any commenters, because I can't claim I know anything about how to do that. I do have to say that this site, while helpful in knowing there are other people like you, is not the answer. You need a local answer.


In summary, the whole reason I brought all this up, is I think you would do well to have started fitting in with a new group of people before you start making your announcements to previous christian friends. Maybe you don't have to wait for very good christian friends, who you trust will remain friends anyway, and maybe not family - who will remain family (though of course they have to be people you can trust won't go telling everyone else - you may not have such friends). But your larger church groups can wait. I think it will be much easier and lead to a much lower chance of causing unneeded friction if you are first comfortable with who and where you are - and have a supporting group - before you make a broader "announcement".


Understanding that the desire to fit in is a very real and natural feeling, that it's painful to no longer know where you fit in, and that its painful for your former christian friends and family to not know where they stand with you - and worse not know what to even do - to no longer have the "tools" - to establish standing again, that all these things are part of the way we are as humans rather than caused only by stupid and biased beliefs, can help you be more understanding of your own position, and perhaps be a bit more forgiving of the other side. It can help you see that given time and some work (by both sides) you can re-establish your standing with your family and some of your previous friends. That standing will never be the same - in either direction, but it can be there.


3) Realize that arguing your point will not avail you much.


This should not be hard to get if you have at this point agreed with most of what I wrote above. When you make your announcement, you will immediately cause physical and emotional pain in the person you are talking to, and you will immediately destroy all status you have built up over a long time with that person. There is very little you can say - in fact probably nothing - in the form of logical argument that will be accepted by the other person. The closest picture I can give you is they will go immediately into Gandalf mode: "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udűn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass." Your logical arguments may make you feel better, but no matter how ingenious or reasonable your arguments are, it is highly unlikely you will be truly heard. They will not pass.


This is yet another reason to enter this situation in a friendly non-confrontational way, with respect and understanding. They truly know not what they do. I maintain that if you reverse the situation, and an atheist announces to his/her atheist friends and family that they are now a christian, a similar "closing of the mind" would occur. The atheists will be totally unwilling to listen to anything the new christian has to say. The is not because of dishonesty or a closed mind (or only because of that), its because of a truth that so many believers and unbelievers, leftists and conservatives, etc, just never seem to be able to accept. It is nearly impossible to have a reasoned logical conversation with a person with whom you have no real social standing. Everything you say runs right into the other person's natural and very real cognitive bias. And standing will and does go down almost immediately with just a fewo of the "wrong" words and phrases. You say you are a republican to a group of liberals, and virtually nothing else you have to say will be heard, and vice versa. Make a strong argument for a liberal or conservative position when they don't know what you are, you will be at least heard. If they actually think you are one of them, they will be much more inclined to even agree with you.


Thus, logical argumentation is the last thing you want to get into when you make such an announcement. Instead, make it clear you don't want to have any discussions about this at the time. Rather, focus on your relationship, and begin to make some steps to re-establish a standing with them - if you can. You have to know you don't control both sides, only your own.


Note that you can start the logical reasoning with your close family and friends before you make a full announcement. You can begin to express you doubts and questions beforehand. Many christians will actually be willing to discuss these with you - many of them may have the same doubts. This will help it be less of a shock when you do make your anouncement. Meggizzle has a good example of this in the following article:



http://new.exchristian.net/2012/07/disturbing-christian-childhood-religion.html



4) Realize that if you have family that really does love you, you won't lose them. But you will probably lose most of your friends.


This is all explained in section 1 and 2 above. You have a built in real standing outside of religion with a loving family. You probably don't with a lot of your friends, with possibly a few exceptions.


5) Maybe instead, just Ignore all this and just jump right in!


Some will suggest you just have to jump in the water start swimming. The following is an example of one lady who did this. The results were not pretty. As a pastor, she was at the very top of her social hierarchy, but made her announcement to an atheist society rather than her church. Her church was left to hear it second hand - apparently by the atheist society putting her announcement online - I don't know if it was with her knowledge If not, I'll leave you to judge for yourself the integrity of that. But for me, uncaring and the pride of "Yay let the world see we have another one!!!" comes to mind. Needless to say, the reaction from her church was not good. You might say "See how hateful they are!!!". I beg to differ. They are just human. They have no supernatural source for being any different.



Do note that her husband - still a christian - still says he loves her and will stay with her. Family.



http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151681248/from-minister-to-atheist-a-story-of-losing-faith


For an interesting free book that probably goes way overboard on status seeking in humans, but is still a fun read:



http://www.imammalthebook.com/I_Mammal/Book_contents.html

By Klym ~

I could have called this article "Random Thoughts" or "A Day in the Life of an Ex-Christian." I have truly had a weird day, as you will understand when you read this.

First of all, it's a Sunday, so I went to my Unitarian Universalist "church" where the guest speaker was a quite famous Wiccan priest. I say famous because he was invited to the 9/11 memorial service to represent the Wiccan religion and to discuss forgiveness, and he is also the author of the book "Wicca Demystified." Anyhow, being taught throughout my life that Wiccans are evil devil worshippers, I was really curious as to what I could learn from this man.

I actually enjoyed his talk---he dispelled many of the misguided beliefs I had about Wiccans. He was somewhat attractive---that is, he didn't have horns or anything coming out of his head. He explained that Wiccan spells are like "prayers with props." The way he presented his beliefs sounded to me like Native American beliefs about the earth and nature. I quite liked his philosophy of life and began to wonder if perhaps I might be a Wiccan, or Pagan, at heart. More on that later....

Then on to lunch, where I spent time with family celebrating a cousin's 14th birthday. After lunch, my cousin was to attend a week long church camp about sex. This camp is only for kids who have finished eighth grade, hence it's called "Eighter's Camp." All my cousins attend a Disciples of Christ church, so this camp was sponsored by that denomination. My cousin, the 14 year old's mom, asked me to ride with her to the camp which is a little over a two hour drive away. I said sure, I'd be glad to ride along.

So, we set out for camp---me, my cousin, and her son. Of course, we got lost and couldn't find the place, which created a bit of frustration. On the way, I read all the paperwork about the camp. Being an Ex-Christian, I knew that some of it would bother me. There were two pages outlining the agenda of lessons that the kids would be taught throughout the week. Most of it was great and I wished I'd had that kind of sex education when I was 14. (My sex education in the Southern Baptist church consisted of this: "Don't do it--you'll go straight to hell!")
But, some of it was just ridiculous.

The first lesson was about the first two humans that God created---Adam and Eve, of course. It was assumed that that is a true, literal story. OK, I got past that without spouting off. But then I got to the lesson for Wednesday--it's title was "WDJD--What did Jesus do?" The gist of that lesson would be Jesus's views on sex. I was thinking---now how can anybody learn anything about sex from Jesus who the Bible implies was totally celibate???!!! I went on to read that the kids will learn about how Jesus treated women, adulterers, Pharisees, lepers, etc....How does that relate to sex, I wondered? Oh, well, I guess relevancy is not a priority here.

The good things were that the kids will learn all about their bodies, reproduction, STD's, and other actually relevant and factual information that they can use. While it is all couched in Christian religion, it was still a pretty good overview of sexuality, without making the kids feel ashamed of their bodies and desires. So, I kept my mouth shut until my cousin was delivered to the camp and well out of earshot. (Sidenote: The 14 year old cousin has been to the UU church with me a few times and so has been exposed to very liberal ideas. Before he got out of the car to go to camp, he told his mom he liked my church better than his. Ouch!)

So, when he was gone, I told my cousin that it was ridiculous to use Jesus as a guide for sexuality when he never had sex. She more or less agreed with me. She is a pretty liberal Christian but I must admit I was surprised that there was no real debating the issue. But, then, it's hard to argue against the obvious, I guess.

We had a terrible time getting home---there was a rain storm that was so bad we had to pull off the interstate until it passed over, and then a carwreck with fatalities that police directed us away from. Very, very sad and my cousin and I talked most of the way home about how someone today lost loved ones unexpectedly and violently.

When I finally got home, I rushed to the Internet to do some research on the Wiccan religion. In my readings I found a list of spells that are done for a variety of things---a broken heart, travel protection, finding a new love, and so on and so on, and then there was a spell for finding a good parking spot. It said that "Squat" is the Diva of Parking Spots and she is pictured as a heavy-set black woman in a meter maid's outfit. (I can't make this stuff up!) Anyway, when you are looking for a parking spot, you put your hand up and have your thumb touch your ring finger and say, "Squat, Squat, I need a spot!" Then, when you find one, you thank her by saying, "Squat, Squat, you're really hot, thank you for the parking spot!"

OK, when I finished laughing (the footnote said, "Don't laugh---many New York City pagans use this and have had success with it"), I thought about a Christian friend I have who always prays for parking spots close to the front of the stores where she shops, and when she gets one, she says, OUT LOUD, "Thank you, God!" She's a minister's wife, by the way. When I go shopping with her, I prepare myself mentally to ignore this nonsense.

I apologize to any pagans on this site if what I say insults you, but I just don't think that the "energy in the universe", which pagans claim to use to their and other's benefits, really gives a flying fart about a parking place!!! I mean: If the energy in the universe is to be used for the good, why does it not save people from head on collisions during thunderstorms? With a world full of starving children and deadly tornadoes and child abuse and horrible diseases, why bother "energy" or "god" or the "universe" about such a trivial thing as a parking spot???!!! After that, I decided I am not a Wiccan at heart after all. I don't have any faith in prayer anyway, so why would I put faith in "prayers with props"? What was I thinking?

OK, so Jesus can teach us about sex; Wiccan spells use the universe's energy to find a good parking space; and people die unexpectedly in horrible ways. It just doesn't add up....and yet our culture wonders why religions of all kinds are being rejected by more and more people? Seems like a no-brainer to me....

By Valerie Tarico ~

The Southern Baptist Convention is a force to be reckoned with. As the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, with over 45,000 affiliate churches, it have been shaping and channeling conservative Christian sensibilities since the Civil War, when Southern Baptists split from the North so they could advocate on behalf of slave owners. They fought to keep slavery and lost. Then they fought for Jim Crow laws and lost. Then they fought for segregation and lost. Now, faced with eroding membership, the Southern Baptist leaders are fighting for relevance. Unfortunately, they have committed to a strategy that will make it harder for their members – and for all of us—to move toward a future based in collaboration, compassion, and practical solutions to real-world problems.

With secularism on the rise, entrepreneurial Christian denominations have evolved a variety of survival strategies. Anglican theologian John Shelby Spong (Why Christianity Must Change or Die) proposes a rigorous rethinking of Christian belief. Mainline and Unitarian congregations have embraced Michael Dowd’s Evolutionary Christianity, an interplay between Christian worship and scientific wonder. Elsewhere on the spectrum, Joel Olsteen plays down theology, instead offering comforting promises of prosperity to those who pray and give. Willow Creek mega-church in Chicago pioneered sound and light shows and indie rock bands that entice young people by emulating familiar entertainment media. The Catholic bishops are boldly trying to re-create an epoch in which they were ascendant.

Last week the Southern Baptist Convention voted to approve a name change. Congregations will now have the option to call themselves “Great Commission Baptists.” The name change is meant to distance from their past association with racism, but it does much more. To those in the know, it announces that their future will be focused on turf wars – on competing for members and dollars rather than any kind of forward-facing spiritual leadership. To draw an analogy, imagine that Coca Cola decided to distance from their past sales of cocaine drinks by dropping the “Coca” and calling themselves “World Dominance Cola.” Imagine them announcing to the public: Rather than improving our product, we’ve chosen to focus on our marketing department. That’s essentially what the new name means.

The Southern Baptist denomination was formed in 1845 when Baptists split over a question of slaveholders as missionaries. Freed from the sensibilities of their Northern brethren, the Southern Baptists became strong and vocal advocates for slavery as a Biblical institution. As one leader, Dr. Richard Furman, wrote to the governor of South Carolina, “the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” Over the years, Southern Baptist deacons and pastors moved in and out of Ku Klux Klan leadership positions. In 1956 the minister of the largest Southern Baptist church in the nation testified before the South Carolina legislature, voicing his support for segregation. It wasn’t until 1995 that leaders formally apologized for their defense of slavery and 20^th Century opposition to equality for Blacks. As recently as the Trayvon Martin murder, the denomination has struggled with embarrassing racist taint. Last week, along with the name change, the Convention elected a fiery Black preacher as the first African American president in its 167 year history.

In an alternate universe, the Southern Baptist history of endorsing slavery and then Jim Crow laws, so shameful in hindsight, might have led to broad theological growth. For example, it might have softened the authoritarianism that caused ordinary believers to blindly follow whatever their preachers said. It might have called into question the notion of “biblical inerrancy” which gives God’s seal of approval to every form of Iron Age bigotry in the biblical record. It might have led to an increase in denominational humility – the sense that maybe there are things to be learned from other kinds of Christians, the outside world, or the moral trajectory of human history. Alas. It would appear that the lesson learned was a narrow one: Blacks are fully human and they can make loyal church members. A cynic might suggest that there was no lesson learned: economics were on the side of slaveholders at the start and are now on the side of putting Blacks at the helm.

With secularism on the rise, entrepreneurial Christian denominations have evolved a variety of survival strategies.Like the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention almost made a leap that would have brought their teachings into line with the moral demands of the 21^st Century. In fact, by the 1970’s it appeared that the Southern Baptists might be ready to move into a position at the vanguard of Christianity. Doors were slowly opening to women even at the flagship seminary in Louisville, and scholarship in fields like archeology, linguistics and the natural sciences was penetrating and changing theology discussions. But then at the national convention in 1979, hard liners seized the reins of power. Theological dissent was purged. Over a several years, women were removed from positions of spiritual leadership. By 1993 an adroit biblical literalist, Albert Mohler, who had been instrumental in the coup, was installed at the helm of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. A 1997 documentary, Battle for the Minds, tells the story of one well-loved but regrettably female theology professor, Molly Marshall, who Mohler forced out. Under the leadership of Mohler and likeminded theological conservatives, the denomination has pursued the kind of authoritarian Old Time Religion that lead to the 1845 split, with biblically sanctioned sexism and homophobia replacing Civil War era slavery endorsements.

Like the Catholics, the Southern Baptists recently have doubled down on controlling women as it has become clear that they are losing their battle to ostracize gays. Last year, Albert Mohler told Focus on the Family Radio that Christians need to prepare for gay marriage. “I think it's clear that something like same-sex marriage is going to become normalized, legalized and recognized in the culture. It's time for Christians to start thinking about how we're going to deal with that.” In January, LifeWay Christian Resources, an arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, published a two volume Bible commentary about gender roles. The commentary promotes “complementarianism,” the idea that God made men and women for different purposes. If you couldn’t guess, the purpose of women is homemaking and childbearing. Men are made for marital, social, political, economic and spiritual leadership. Complementarianism is Jim Crow in the gender realm, a desperate last ditch attempt to ensure that straight white males keep dominance over somebody. To date it continues to have broad appeal among Southern Baptist members.

The Southern Baptists are staking their institutional future and finances on the idea that Old Time patriarchal heaven-and-hell religion still has a market and will for some time to come. In the choice of a new name, they have made clear how they intend to compete for mindshare in the coming decades: with better and more aggressive marketing of their traditional theological product. The Great Commission refers to a set of New Testament texts that mandate proselytizing. Quotes vary slightly from author to author, but they are always composed as words spoken by the resurrected Jesus to his disciples. Here are a couple examples:

Matthew: Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19 NIV)

>Mark: Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well. (Mark 16:15-18 NIV)

It’s not a given that Bible-centered Christians should make these passages about proselytizing, belief, and baptism the cornerstone of their faith. Some New Testament texts advocate a very different set of priorities. In one place, Jesus says in graphic terms that hell is for those who fail to tend the needy and ill. (Matthew 25:31-46). Elsewhere, he suggests that worldly riches mean a person is living outside God’s will (Mark 10:17-25). When asked which is the greatest of the Hebrew commandments, Jesus says that the Torah and Prophets can be summed up very simply: Love God, and love you neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22: 26-40).

Over the centuries many Christians have made these teachings the center of their faith and religious practice. The result is a spiritual life centered on simplicity and service. A Christianity centered on the Great Commission, by contrast has the following defining features.

1. Every member is a part of the sales force. Great Commission Christianity is first and foremost about recruiting, because membership is top priority. The Great Commission brand says that the most important thing churches can do is recruit more converts. Overseas medical services, inner city food banks, even friendship –all of these can be smart marketing, but they should be a means to an end, conversion.
2. What is sold is a package of exclusive truth claims . – A focus on outreach necessarily goes hand in hand with a certain kind of theology. The recruiting efforts would be pointless if there were many paths to God. The message of the recruiting is that there is only one path to God: being cleansed by the blood of Jesus. Interspiritual or interfaith perspectives are wrong, and adherents need to be wooed from their misguided beliefs to the Righteousness.
3. The measure of a spiritual person is right belief. In this case right belief means something like: You deserve hell; Jesus died for your sins; accepting him as your savior will get you to heaven. Buddhists may believe that compassion is the heart of spiritual practices. Modernist Christians may center in on the words of the Great Commandment: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Priorities like these simply don’t work with the Great Commission strategy; they are too inclusive.
4. Other religions and denominations are competitors, not partners. The Great Commission is a competitive strategy; and in fact successful conversion activities often are described as “winning” souls. Creating heaven here on Earth might require interfaith teamwork. By contrast salvation through right belief is an individual affair, and those who believe they are saved and headed for heaven tend to get grumpy if someone suggests that there is no hell.

After failing on the great moral questions of the 19^th and 20^th Centuries—full personhood for Blacks and females respectively—the Great Commission rebranding effort that inadvertently shows the world how little Southern Baptist leaders have learned from two centuries of ethical slumming. Mind you, the Great Commission strategy has been a winner for some mega-churches, and proselytizing is strongly correlated with the growth in minority sects like Scientology and Mormonism. In past centuries religions could capture mindshare through conquest, which is how Christianity spread through Europe and how Islam spread through India. Competitive breeding was baked into both Catholicism and Islam because it offered some additional advantage. But in the last century, the primary mode of competition among religions has been evangelism. In other words, the Southern Baptists have placed their bets on a strategy with some history of success.

Whether they win or lose from the standpoint of re-filling church pews and bank accounts remains to be seen. What is regrettable, either way, is that by choosing to be competitive they have once again pitted themselves against the moral arc of history. Whether humanity can flourish in the twenty first century will depend largely on whether we can move beyond competition to collaboration. Population growth, resource depletion and weapons technology have carried us to the point that there are fewer and fewer “winnable” competitions. Humanity desperately needs to find common ground in our shared moral core and dreams for our children. Just as they did on the questions of slavery and the full humanity of women, the Southern Baptists have positioned themselves as moral dead weight, which is a loss for us all.

By JonTheFro ~

It all started at the end of my freshman year of high school. I started to notice a depreciated value of community at church. Back then I was as much as a bigot as much of my extended family and the sort of people I was surrounded with. And people hated me for it. I was rude to my biology teacher- it's something I'm actually annoyed at myself for, even after all these years. The year after that I began questioning the status quo, by the means of science, and truly exploring what evolution was, how it worked, and how it could be applied in an all-encompassing way that religion had for the entire duration of my life up to that point. By senior year I’d become what some would call a Creation-Evolutionist, which worked well for my political positions in high school. I refuted atheism as being brash and difficult to latch onto simply out of the fear of the unknown.

But everything changed when the fire nation attacked. Or something of that magnitude- the polarity shifted within my once conservative bible belting sheltered family, and my Mom saw through the cracks. For reasons which I now fully understand and take to heart, she decided to call it quits with my Father, who, to put it bluntly, can be a close-minded asshole at his worst and at best a simple musician with the same childlike passion that just isn't seen much from within my rather cynical generation. For reasons I don’t wish to delve into, I moved out to Utah after senior year and arrived amidst the biggest culture shock I’ve ever experienced.

Utah is somewhat of an oddity, with firm roots in the crass gun-toting republicanism and ineptly dubbed “Family Values”. Family Values which at their best turn children into proselytizing Mormon drones and childbearing slaves, clogging every orifice of the populous with an astoundingly large herds of children. I could delve more into the creation of Mormon clans, but I digress, as that’s optionally an entire rant on it’s own.

In the wake of my first year in college, I needed to fill a history slot, so I opted for Middle Eastern history rather than the regurgitated American History I’d taken a whopping six times since fourth grade. Alongside that I took Jazz band, where I met quite a few interesting fellows. Middle Eastern history allowed my humble introduction to Islam. Islam is rather accepting on the surface, with people that don’t pass judgment- until you start talking about the Palestinian border. Or their mosques. Or the fact that when Christians seized power in Spain, they built a church on top of an active mosque. Mid-way through the year I was walking up and down the campus and a random stranger approached me. Apparently he was a Hindu monk. He said I looked intelligent, said Oppenheimer (my favorite scientist ever) read it, gave me the Bhagavad Gita, and as I scanned the cover, disappeared into thin air. Yes, it’s as weird as it sounds. Freakin’ teleporting monks. As I mentioned before, I met some people in Jazz band. I met a fellow named Che, who was one of the few I accept into my social circle. Those who are open enough to at least discuss the issues, and the science that always seems to come into question from mainstream religions.

The semester after that I took yet another Middle Eastern history course (easiest teacher ever- he seriously only gave us 3 assignments a semester), which allowed me to assemble a decent model of what I thought about Islam. It had some good practices- the lack of judgment passing appealed to me. But I slowly began to notice a lot of Muslims had little tolerance for each other- just on the separation between Shi’ism and Sunni there was an apparent subtext of dissension. That spiked my frivolous interest, but we often couldn’t discuss much about the aforementioned issues, as there were both Palestinians and Jews from Israel in the class. You’d be right to say that situation was practically nuclear all the time. Definitely an interesting dynamic from an objective standpoint, though.

After that I took a third semester of college where I didn’t really have much going on in the sense that I had before- this led to my inevitable switch to the film career path, which is the best decision I’ve ever made. Film- a medium of expression I’d never fully comprehended- has become a very real thing for me, and I’m enjoying every last second of it. It’s also helped me meet interesting characters of every flavor. I’m glad to have met every one of you (you know who you guys are) and really letting my mind think about things that were important to me, things that annoy me, and things that just make better sense to me. Through a combination of reading way too much on the internet and discussion (and Crash Course/Sci Show, thanks for those, Devin), I was re-grounded in my fundamental belief of the sciences. The LHC, the discovery of what may just be the Higgs Boson particle, proving Einstein’s model right, my wishing we still had a space exploration budget, reevaluating what it meant for something to be a “theory” again. They all came together like an amalgamation yesterday, and with the flick of a switch, my brain made a declaration. A declaration against intolerance, ignorance, and pushing views down everyone else’s throats. A sense of nonconformity boiling to the point of a hot intensity I’d not seen in myself in years. To put it in layman's terms, an epiphany, in the truest sense of the Greek definition of the word. The shocking revelation, that I am in fact…

An atheist.

By Klym ~

I just read the article below on Yahoo. It is very, very sad and disturbing. This is an example of using religious faith in the most abusive way imaginable.

Worst Parents of the Week

Brandi Bellew's first husband, Brian Sprout, died of sepsis from a leg injury after failing to seek medical treatment, but still she wasn't moved to bring her son Austin, 16, to the hospital during the week he languished at home before he passed away last December. The Daily Mail reports the cause of death has not been released but investigators said it was "highly treatable."

According to the Register-Guard, Brandi and her second husband, Russel Bellew and their six other children, are members of the General Assembly of the Church and of the First Born in Pleasant Hill, Oregon, a congregation that believes in using prayer to treat illness.

On Monday, April 15, 2012, the county juvenile court ruled that the remaining children would be wards of the state. They can remain home but under the watch of an approved "safety provider" who is mandated to immediately notify the Department of Human Services if the children display any signs of illness or injury. The parents are facing charges of second-degree manslaughter.

A state caseworker revealed that Russel's first wife, Randi, is also deceased but of unknown causes. Her obituary reportedly said she was, "preceded in death by two daughters."

Austin's uncle, Shawn Sprout still hasn't lost the faith. "We trust in God for everything. We trusted him to take care of our illnesses and heal us…it wasn't in our hands," he told KVAL News.

I personally think that the remaining children should be removed from the home. Those parents will be masters at hiding any illness or injury from the state's caseworkers. As a school counselor, I have seen case after case of abuse that children were told to hide. I had a student once whose dad told her that if she she didn't tell anyone about the bruises all over her body, which her long sleeves and long pants hid, he would let her get her ears pierced and buy her earrings. Some parents will threaten children any number of ways to convince children to lie to caseworkers. This whole things just makes me sick to my stomach, and to think it was done by Bible believers somehow makes it even worse. I'm positive that the other children in that house are brainwashed to the maximum and probably believe that God took their brother away from them for some good "mysterious" reason. This is religion at its worst and most inhumane. How can we stop these kinds of things from happening? This is the kind of story that makes me lie awake at night wondering about humanity.

By Brent ~

Even though I still attend a sunday service, I have defected from the Christian faith. After doing thorough research on the internet I came to the conclusion that all or at least majority of the denominations in Christianity are just like the political parties the public watches on the news channels. Many have their own documentation following alongside what is taught in the Bible. Also, the bible itself does not promote public prayer according to Matthew 6:6 which would nullify televangelism and other denominational churches. Even the argument for public prayer in schools should be nonexistent because of this verse.

Next is what l call "union dues" that the church calls tithing. Which poses the question "Why would God require that which is Caesar's?" Wouldn't God want people to serve him and tithe through other various avenues of worship like volunteerism or teaching others valuable skills or teaching commonsense living.

I have tended to notice, that during services, if the pupil count was or is currently low, the church tends to blame everything and everyone else for that concept. I have heard that psychologists, sociologists, Mormons, and other "false cults" are to blame. It seems like the church is an alcoholic that is angry and blames other people for disliking the alcoholic self's fallacies and drunkenness.

With their overall belief system, I have been taught that God's grudge towards Adam and Eve's original sin is not only the sole reason that weather phenomena; tornadoes, hurricanes, and the like, occurs on the planet, but is also the reason that justifies the argument that every child that is born on this earth is "born unclean" or "born with sin." This makes God contradictory to the "always loving, always forgiving, etc." elements to Himself. Also, these individuals love to commit anchoring. confirmation, and hindsight biases, along with other cognitive biases, to commit logic, traditional appeal, and authority appeal fallacies, and agentical , which means, in a nutshell, that they teach what they call "the Absolute Truth" and adhere to it that strictly that they actually rule out legitimate arguments from other sources that may also be true.

I will finally get to the title of this article. I have heard that many of these "born-again" individuals that proclaim the "love of God" and are supposed to be always forgiving, always supporting of another, and other types of attributes. Except whenever I had dialogue with these individuals about political matters, they would demonstrate that they harbor biases toward the non-christian persons and would not vote for one. Similar reactions occurred when they discussed potentially taking college courses, christian only teachers. During services they demonstrate ethnocentric, tribalist, and narcissistic stereotypes that consistently demean, demote, or berate other groups inside the church services or outside in public. Even the very act of church attendance itself feeds into the collective group dynamic. Be careful, though, if attendance is more frequent, they will try to discourage individual liberties, after Sunday services, in the name of the group dynamic. I had an experience where I were to spend time with friends after service, well, after the informal luncheon that some members and I have. The event usually concludes at about 2:00 to about 3:00. I was scheduled with my friends at 1:30. Not only did the driver of the car said that I had to seek permission from everyone else, but he complained to me and asked that if I can move the event to 3:00. In the end, they did respect my wishes though and I was home at 1:10. Some churches will not negotiate with its adherents like that, and it's worth mentioning. If one wishes to venture into this lifestyle, research biases and fallacies, and make sure you are well versed with arguing skills and the material you are arguing with, because these individuals will attempt to wear you down.

By dmat ~

Atheism-tortise (Photo credit: AlphaBetaUnlimited)

The internet played a major role in my deconversion from belief in god. Of course some would say it was the devil using the internet to destroy my faith! I recently saw Josh McDowell say that the internet would be a strong weapon for atheism to spread. For once i agree with Josh!Only through the internet was I exposed to a different world view than my middle class white suburban evangelical upbringing. I was exposed to atheist authors, and two books particularly were helpful: Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker, and Leaving the Fold by Ed Babinski.

It has been about six years since i gave up faith, though i have never revealed it to anyone. I just couldn't do it to my family, as they would be crushed. I often think that there are thousands just like me who don't believe but prefer to kept it hidden so they don't lose the respect of family and friends. So now i feel like i am starting life over in some ways, like i have been "born again" yet again!

By Paul So ~

Deductive view on life:

1. Laws of conservation of energy: Energy is neither created or destroyed, only converted.

"Relativity", the sixth and last sculpture of the Walk of Ideas in Berlin, on the occasion of 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany. The sculpture was unveiled 19 May 2006 in Lustgarten. The Altes Museum (Old Museum), built between 1825 and 1828 by Schinkel, is visible in the background. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

2. Einstein's Mass-Energy Equivalence (a.k.a E=MC squared): mass is the property of energy, and energy is the property of mass; in other words they are equivalent.

3. Entropy: Areas of the total system can lose energy/heat while other areas consequently gain energy/heat.

4. Universe is an isolated total system with its sum total of energy, including mass-objects that are simply condensed energy(Mass-Energy Equivalence, proposition 2) that remains constant but its content can change, but it cannot be created or destroyed (Laws of Conservation, proposition 1) which makes it possible for energy to leave other areas of the isolated system to others areas (entropy, proposition 3).

5. I am part of this Universe, thus governed by those laws/mechanisms (Mass-Energy Equivalence, Laws of Conservation of Energy, and Entropy).

6. I am a body (with capacity for consciousness) with mass

7. My body's mass is equivalent to the energy (Mass-Energy Equivalence)

8. My body cannot be created or destroyed, only converted (Laws of Conservation of Energy)

9. The overall structure and mechanisms of the body (content of mass, therefore content of energy) involve conversion (i.e. cells converting nutritions to stored fat, enzymes breaking down solid food into basic nutrition, etc) (Entropy)

10. This conversion (proposition 9) can lead to decomposition.

11. Death, then, is simply a specific kind of conversion of my body's energy (conservation of of energy) in which heat/energy leaves the specific area of the total system (my body) to another area (ground of earth) which in turn converts and then leaves that area to another part of the system (Entropy) such as animals, plants, etc.

12. Nothing is truly lost, only apparently so because of change; death is only a kind of change common in life.

This is pretty much how I view my life now, I am only here for a while converting energy by sleeping, walking, talking, and…doing pretty much anything that requires converting physical energy. My cells, organs, and brain are constantly converting energy to keep me alive but the sum total of that energy won’t stick there forever. Someday the energy that is the vitality of my soul (to use the term metaphorically) will leave me, when I die, back into the earth, which in turn will go to plants, animals, and bacteria. From a cosmic point of view that energy will disperse into the whole sea of physical energy that will constantly convert. It is as if the universe is circulating and recycling its sum total of energy for eternity, and I am simply part of this grand cosmic process. There is no purpose to this, the only purpose that exists are the ones that I created as my goals and personal values. This does not disturb me but rather it reveals that I am deeply connected to Nature and its laws; the energy that I have is what I get from eating and breathing, and will leave me when I digest food and exhale the inhaling air. When I die my body decomposes which is essentially another way of converting energy to another which goes to the earth, and consequently transfers to other things. I am simply part of this whole causal system of energy circulation, and to me this is amazing. There is no after-life, but the very things that constitute me will continue on after I die into this universe. This way of thinking puts death in an entirely different light that is less threatening and more natural. I am still scared of death, but I do not have a negative belief about death. While Christianity teaches that death is a byproduct of sin, I think death is a natural consequent of how the universe (and life) works. Instead of ultimately resisting by living in denial and self-infantilizing myself, I’d rather be in harmony with Nature by accepting my ultimate cosmic fate, which I think is a sign of true spiritual maturity. Nonetheless, while I am living I will meditate on life and live fully before this life returns to the circulating arteries of Nature.

By Older1 ~

RUTH BERNHARD (b. 1905) Perspective II, 1967

We lost our daughter to fundamentalism when she was a teenager, some 20 years ago. Since then we have had an understanding that we will agree to disagree, and we just don’t discuss religion. We have a strong relationship in spite of it, and we get together frequently. There is none of the strife that inflicts so many other families that are split by differing religious outlooks. My wife and I have recently provided significant financial and physical support to the family as they have adopted three disabled children all under the age of five, and we continue to visit regularly to baby sit and taxi the older children about town.

Our home is in a rural area and is way out of the way in respect to the daily travels of our daughter and her family so we didn’t really take much notice that her visits to us have diminished and that there always seemed to be a reason her children, our grandchildren, couldn’t come over.

But in a recent phone conversation with my wife, it has come out that our daughter and her husband object to two photographs on the walls of our home, and that they do not want their children to see them. Our daughter has asked that we take them down when they visit.

In the grand scheme of life, the issue is probably small potatoes. But I am nevertheless upset. If the images were bawdy, I would not object, but these are two important images in the world of photography. And they are not small prints on the mantle; one is the keystone image in the collection in our living room, a 16x20-inch print in a 24x30-inch frame. The other, at about 18x24 overall, is prominently displayed in our dining room. While the specific photos are irrelevant to the core issues, you may want to look them up to better understand the context. They are “Girl on Beach” by Wynn Bullock, and “Perspective II, 1967” by Ruth Bernhard. Any search engine will turn them up in an instant. The Bullock photo has been on our wall for about 15 years; the Bernhard for perhaps five.

Compounding this is that I spent my career in photography and these photographs are ones I am particularly fond of.

I have not yet responded to my daughter. My wife did, and while expressing her anger, agreed to remove the images. If I was the only one involved I would not have agreed to take them down, but the dynamics here are such that this is the way it will be. The Bullock print will come down and the other will be covered with a black drape.

So I am conflicted as to whether I should make a separate response or not say anything at all. There really is nothing I could say that would change the outcome. I know my daughter and they will not come over if the pictures are on the wall. She is not open to discussion or debate. Her mind is made up and that is the end of it.

But another part of me does not want to remain silent. I have drafted a response, which is below. Your thoughts are welcome.

Note: The boys I refer to below are her sons, ages 11 and 13. Also, you will note that my concluding paragraph uses a Christian context for argument. I’ve learned that the only real way to connect with Christians is to use language they understand.

---

I have waited a while to respond to your request about the photographs on display in our home, because I wanted to give my thoughts a time to coalesce. And now that I have done that I have decided to respond to you in this way so that I can craft my thoughts carefully and to be sure that this is said the way I want it said.

You already know that your request was not well received. For you to understand how we feel, I ask you to imagine how you would feel if we were to ask you to please remove the Bibles and religious icons from your living room when we visit your home. Many years ago I told you that your beliefs were not an issue for me unless you tried to put them onto me. By asking us to modify our home to accommodate your religious beliefs, you have crossed that line.

But that is not the point I wish to make. I have several reactions and they are below, not in any priority order.

First, we see your request as a grievous insult to our values. While there are differences between your philosophy and ours, we believe we all share the same core values: peace, love, and a desire to leave the world a better place than it was when we entered it. It is to these ends that your mother and I have lived our lives.

I also see it as a personal repudiation of me and my 30 year career in photography. I have always stood for a moral and just use of the camera to advance the human condition, and have always stood against it when used opposite those goals. The photographs I showed in my classroom always supported the ideals of truth and justice and were in support of the fight against the evils of our world.

Further, the images on our walls are not ribald images by any measure. If they were, there would be no discussion. They are important works from significant photographers. The figure in one is such a small percentage of the whole that its details are invisible at normal viewing distance, and the other shows far less than what can be seen at a public swimming pool or the beach.

Second, your request is also an insult to your own sons. For you are suggesting that their character is so weak that they would somehow be corrupted by these images and that the sight of them would somehow pull your children down into a sea of bad behavior. It also suggests that they cannot be trusted to deal with such things in an intelligent manner. I know that those boys are more intelligent and stronger than that.

[Ex-C members: My daughter and I share a love for the musical "The Music Man" and have seen it a number of times on screen and on stage as a father/daughter thing — we can both quote dialog extensively; thus it’s use here is particularly relevant.]

Remember the Music Man, who comes into town as a pool table is being delivered to the billiard parlor. Nobody in the street is taking any notice. But Prof. Harold Hill decides to make it an issue, and points everyone to something that otherwise would have been ignored. Nobody would have noticed if he hadn't said anything about it. But he whips the citizenry into a frenzy by claiming that the presence of a pool table in the community will immediately lead their youth to “Ragtime, shameless music, that will grab your son, your daughter, into the arms of the animal instinct....” Of course, by the end of the movie, the pool table is still in the billiard parlor, and everyone is doing just fine.

The lesson from that is that it isn't an issue until someone makes an issue. I would suggest to you that none of your children have looked for one microsecond at what's on the walls of our home. I also suggest that in the unlikely event that your sons should notice and have any reaction at all, that you would use it as an opportunity to teach them two things: First, how to intelligently and maturely deal with something that they are not otherwise used to and, second, that the human body is in the image of God and is nothing to be ashamed of.

I would also suggest that you ask yourself why something that is universally regarded as God's greatest creation would somehow be a problem. We know that the Bible says that man was created in God's image. And we consider the human being to be God's greatest achievement. So what you are doing is repudiating the image of God and the greatest manifestation of it.

---

So there it is. I do not know if I will respond or not, and I may have to decide before this is published on this site. It is, for me, a difficult decision.

By Valerie Tarico ~

Seattle family planning doctor Deborah Oyer routinely asks new female patients, “How often do you want to have your period? Monthly? Every three months? Or not at all?” Until she asks, some don’t know they have a choice. Like every other aspect of reproductive health, menstruation is a fraught topic. A woman who is actively managing her period is in control of her fertility; in Judeo Christian folklore, she is cheating Eve’s curse. Even talking about menstruation can violate taboos. Consequently, most of us are astoundingly under-informed about a facet of womanhood that affects anyone who either has a uterus or loves a person who does.

For example, did you know that:

• Modern Western women have four times as many periods over a lifetime as our hunter gatherer ancestors and triple the number for women just a hundred years ago. In other words, what seems “natural” now is very different from what our bodies have historically supported or have evolved to support.
• In the 19^th Century there was approximately a five year gap between when females started their periods and age at first marriage; now the gap is closer to fifteen years, with many girls starting in grade school.
• Girls who start early are more likely to have painful cramps and heavy bleeding.
• Menstrual contractions can be as severe as early labor and can trigger vomiting or blackouts.
• Menstrual symptoms cause over 100 million lost work hours annually for American women; they are the number one reason young women miss school or work. In the developing world menstruation is a factor in adolescent girls leaving school.
• A woman can now choose to regulate her periods using either short acting contraceptives like pills or rings or a long acting method like an IUD or injections.
• Given an option, about one third of women would choose to keep their period; the other two thirds would prefer to ditch it.
• There are no known long term health consequences of menstrual regulation or suppression in healthy women.
• IUD’s (which are as effective as sterilization from a contraceptive standpoint) were recently approved by the FDA to decrease menstrual symptoms and endometriosis and are rapidly becoming a first-line treatment for many menstrual problems.
• A hormonal IUD reduces menstrual bleeding by on average 90% and many women have no period by the end of the first year –yet menstruation and fertility return within a single cycle after removal.
• Italian researchers found that menstrual symptoms and related absenteeism accounts for approximately 15% of the wage and promotion gap between men and women.

Over the centuries, many religious leaders have taught that women were made for childbearing, and some, known as complementarians, take this position today. Fortunately, few go as far as Reformation father Martin Luther: If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing; she is there to do it. Complementarians are right in one sense: our bodies are optimized to produce the greatest number of surviving offspring, even if it costs us in other dimensions of health or wellbeing. In past centuries this meant a high level of mortality for women and babies. Historically, one woman died for every hundred pregnancies. When that is multiplied by a traditional number of pregnancies per woman, you get a maternal death rate close to ten percent, similar to what it is in Afghanistan today. Globally, half a million women die each year due to complications of pregnancy and childbearing.

Producing babies with big brains is rough, and our bodies work very hard each month to ensure that we have surviving offspring despite the odds. In a sense, each menstrual period is an incident of failed pregnancy. The uterine lining thickens just in case some lucky egg-sperm fusion should come along and attach itself to the endometrium. Even with this month-after-month cycle of preparing for pregnancy, it is now thought that most fertilized eggs fail to implant. From a biological standpoint, gearing up for pregnancy each month is costly, which has made evolutionary biologists curious about the advantages. The evolutionary disadvantages are easier to spot: anemia, for example, and a blood or scent trail that might attract predators.

Menstruation and reproduction are as entangled with culture and religion as they are with each other. The ancient Hebrews justified the pain and trauma of childbirth, along with subjugation of women, through the Eden story. In it, Eve is created from Adam’s rib to be a “helpmeet” to him. Later, God punishes her for eating from the tree of knowledge: I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. (Genesis 3:16) In the Hebrew religion, menstruation was not only physically unclean, it was spiritually unclean, as was childbearing, and a woman was unclean for twice as long when she gave birth to a baby girl as a baby boy. On the other hand, in many cultures and for some women in our culture, menstruation is a point of pride. Childbearing is a form of power, one of the greatest powers in the world, and menstruation is a sign of that power. Onset is accompanied by rituals as solitary as days of isolation or as social as community feasting and dancing.

Given the cultural significance of menstruation, it should come as no surprise that a variety of groups and individuals are uncomfortable with the idea of women choosing or not choosing to have periods. In this regard religious conservatives find themselves in unfamiliar company. Some of their fellow advocates are wary of the medical establishment and instead promote natural living and alternative medicine. Some hate the “medicalization” of women’s bodies and reproductive health and think we should embrace menstruation as part of what it means to be powerful, female and sexual. Some believe that the ovulatory system has other health functions and shouldn’t be messed with. (Until the Population Council developed what is now the Mirena, it was not possible to actively manage menstruation without also suppressing ovulation.) Some have had bad experiences with hormonal contraceptives. Some find a spiritual rhythm and serenity in the monthly cycle. Unfortunately, the cultural or spiritual weight given to menstruation means that matter of fact, pragmatic information can get pushed to the periphery, distorted or even suppressed.

That is unfortunate for women who simply want to manage their lives. It is especially regrettable for millions of girls and women with debilitating cramps, severe bleeding or menstrual migraines. For most of us, how often we menstruate is not some form of cultural advocacy. It is a practical, personal question. Evolutionary programming aside, most of us don’t want to maximize our number of pregnancies. Many of us don’t care particularly about what religious leaders think of “Aunt Flo.” We simply want to take care of ourselves, our sex lives, and our children or future children. We don’t want cramps, bloating, back aches, nausea, fatigue, mood swings or migraines. But we do value our fertility and want to make sure that we can have babies when we feel ready. We are interested in avoiding anemia and endometriosis and plain old monthly malaise, but we are cautious about profit driven medical treatments that affect our reproductive tracts. Some of us also like to dance in leotards, swim in bikinis, race in triathlons, work in military combat zones, backpack in bear country, or wear white in the summer. All of this means that we want accurate, practical information and options when it comes to our periods.

Complementarians are right in one sense: our bodies are optimized to produce the greatest number of surviving offspring, even if it costs us in other dimensions of health or wellbeing.Ironically, when research first began on the Pill in the early 20^th Century, menstrual symptoms like dysmenorrhea (pain) and menorrhagia (heavy bleeding) were front and center in the conversation. Preventing conception itself was so controversial that it was listed as a side effect on an early application for FDA approval. In 1873, at the behest of anti-obscenity crusader Anthony Comstock, the U.S. Congress had passed the Comstock laws which made all contraception illegal. Condoms could be sold only for “feminine hygiene.” Such was the situation when Margaret Sanger’s mother died at age 50 after eighteen pregnancies and eleven live births. Sanger herself was tried for a Comstock violation in 1936. After that, prosecutions dropped away, but thanks in part to advocacy by Catholic leaders and conservative Protestants contraception remained controversial. Feminine hygiene products, on the other hand, flourished, and so it was natural that as contraceptive technologies emerged so did carefully worded conversations about hygiene and menstrual management.

From the beginning, doctors recognized that there was no medical reason for women on the Pill to bleed, but they thought Pills would be more accepted by the public and by Catholic authorities if they mimicked a monthly menstrual cycle. For women who are taking oral contraceptives, monthly bleeding triggered by seven days of placebos isn’t actually menstruation, but rather a response to hormone withdrawal. Real menstruation is evidence of a feedback loop in which a functioning hypothalamus and pituitary signal the ovaries and uterus, causing a follicle to develop and egg to be released into an environment that is ready to receive it. The hormones in most oral contraceptives suppresses this cycle of ovulation. In other words, women who are on the pill to regulate their periods aren’t actually regulating them. They are suppressing them and replacing them with withdrawal bleeding, and benefits of menstrual suppression accrue whether the monthly bleeding occurs or not. For two generations, women using hormonal contraceptives have bled monthly for cultural reasons, most without knowing there were alternatives.

Fortunately we now have other options. No matter how often a woman wants to have periods, monthly, every three months, or not at all, there are state-of-the-art top tier contraceptives that can fit the choice. That is why Dr. Oyer’s question, “How often do you want to have your period?” is a reasonable one for her to ask her patients. If you are female, it is also a reasonable one for you to ask yourself.

By Faithfool ~

Message: “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (1 John 4:8)

God is love. This well-known passage in the Bible describes love:

”Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

If God is love, he must consistently display these attributes. Let’s pick out just a few attributes of love and see if God measures up:

• Love does not envy. So to envy is to not love. But wait a minute. “I, the Lord your God am a jealous God.” (Exodus 20:4-5). That sounds like envy to me.

• Love does not boast, is not proud. Yet when God speaks to a traumatised man (Job 38-40) whom He has allowed to suffer terribly so He could win a bet with Satan, God offers not one word of comfort, choosing instead to talk about himself in a way that would make anyone feel small and wretched, ie “Do you have an arm like God’s, and can your voice thunder like his?” (Job 40:9). The whole three chapters sound a lot like boasting and pride to me.

• Love keeps no record of wrongs. Hang on. “For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.” (Ecclesiastes 12:14) That surely requires keeping a ‘record of wrongs’.

Optional conclusions to choose from:

1. The Bible is wrong about love


2. The Bible is wrong about God being love


3. The Bible is wrong about both

Whichever way, the Bible seems to be an unreliable source of truth on the topics of love and/or God.

By J. Lords aka boomslang ~

Recently I attempted to find common ground with a Christian apologist (female) in a discussion over an article she had written titled, "Securing a More Stable Future". Towards the end of the article, she added...

"This is why the Founders lamented that children must receive a good moral education in order to secure this Republic."

The reason that this caught my attention and prompted me to chime in, is because, as a former believer myself, I know what she had in mind, and that is that children need to be taught (indoctrinated with) Christianity and that morals come from "God", namely, the Christian god. We know that this is false for many reasons, one of which, is that in order to know that "God" is things like moral and good in the first place, you'd obviously have to have a preexisting standard of morality with which to compare to this "God". If you don't have a preexisting standard and simply allow "God" to be the moral standard, himself/herself, then anyone with a half a brain can see the problem.

What would have happened had Adam & Co. obeyed "God" and NOT eaten the forbidden fruit?In any case, the discussion got to a point where "Original Sin" came up and how, according to her beliefs, everything is so messed up today because Adam and his lover/accomplice ate the magical forbidden fruit. Well, I thought to ask her a hypothetical question on that very topic. That question was this: What would have happened had Adam & Co. obeyed "God" and NOT eaten the forbidden fruit?

Well, lo and behold, at that point she all of the sudden could not (would not) speculate, affirming that the duo ate the fruit and we subsequently live in a sinful, fallen world, so the "what if" doesn't matter [paraphrased]. In other words, her back was up against a wall and she resorted to the fallacy of begging the question.

So, why is it that this question is so difficult for believers to answer? Anyone? Christian lurkers? It seems to me that if going against biblegod's wishes and eating the fruit made Adam, his lover, and the rest of the human race flawed with "sin" and in need of "God", that the opposite would be true had they honored biblegod's wishes and not eaten the fruit. That is, that Adam, Eve, and the rest of the human race, would have been flawless(aka, perfect), and not in need of "God". But of course, Christianity cannot have this, can it? No, and isn't this a giant, red flag? I think so, because the conclusion is glaring: Christianity is dependent upon the very things that it warns us against..i.e.."sin" and "evil". Uh-oh!!!

By Evs ~

Finally, atheists, the evidence you've been so patiently waiting for, proof that God exists.

First, a conundrum. Belief in God is illogical, implausible, and insane. Such an idea should be cast out completely around the same age belief in Santa Claus goes. Yet many otherwise sensible people believe in God well into adulthood. How does one explain such a contradiction?

I explain it with omnipotence. Omnipotence is very simply defined as unlimited power and more intricately defined, well, a number of ways. The problem with properly describing omnipotence can be easily elucidated using a common paradox: Can an omnipotent being create a boulder so heavy it cannot lift it? Similarly, can an omnipotent being create another being that defies its will? And if an omnipotent being gives up its omnipotence, was it really omnipotent in the first place? One more refined definition of omnipotence stands out from the others as being able to answer these questions. Essentially, omnipotence is absolute. Everything that can be strung together as words (and potentially more things than that) is within the power of an omnipotent being. The arbitrary bounds of logic cannot hold omnipotence. Unlimited power is truly unlimited.

Now we begin to see that an omnipotent God explains our earlier conundrum. If God didn't exist, no one would believe in Him. However, people, even seemingly rational people, do believe in God. This means that surely God exists and is using His omnipotence to make it illogical to believe in His existence and then using it again to make some people believe in Him anyway. Clearly, this is sound proof that all atheists should immediately cower in fear of His almighty power.

Only one question remains: which of the infinite omnipotent possibilities should we all be worshiping?

By Monica ~

I was raised Christian (Methodist) my entire life. My extended family is crazy conservative and deep in their faiths, and my immediate family are all definitely believers, just not as intense. As a kid, I whole heartedly believed it because that's what I was taught and I wasn't old enough to have an opinion. It was just like any other subject. I didn't question reading or math, because I was just a kid, and I did what I was told. So Christianity was just a way of life for me, and that was that.

I started going to summer camps the summer after third grade, and that's probably where I noticed that I was the less than emotional Christian. Yeah, I believed because I was told to, but even still, I didn't feel the need to raise my hands up during songs or cry during the end-of-camp communion service. I tried, really. I wanted to fit in. But it just wasn't me.

In eighth grade history class, we learned about all kinds of different cultures and religions, and I just got to thinking... what the heck makes Christianity any different than other religions? We look at them thinking "they're going to hell if they don't convert, because we are the only true way to heaven." Yet they look at us and think the exact same thing. I kept thinking, why would God pick just us, if we all basically believe the same thing, just with different guidelines? And that's where it all really started, and I never, ever felt right about my "faith" after that.

Around that time, I started really disliking church. My family went to the traditional service, and it always seemed like everybody was just going through the motions. Motionlessly sing 5 hymns (yes, we have a crazy choir director who thinks church is some big production), listen to the scripture without reading along in the bible, and nod off during the sermon. The best part of church was going out to lunch afterward. And this wasn't just me! That's just how my church worked. There was never anything special to it, and that caused my whole religious experience to never have anything special.

I'm 20 now and only just now deciding to officially renounce Christianity. But for 6 years now I've struggled hard with those questions from eighth grade. I kept going back and forth, wondering if I was an atheist and I was completely disturbed that I might be. It's hard to get the basic rules of life that you've been taught your whole life out of your head, so even if I supposedly didn't believe in God, part of me always would, and would always think I was going to hell for not believing. Confusing, isn't it? This is what religion does to people.

I went to college and found myself a nice, Christian campus ministry so that I could make friends and connections. Non-denominational, so they were a little bit liberal. But even still, I didn't like going to bible study. I loved hanging out, until somebody brought up Jesus. It just wasn't all there for me, but I did what I had to do to make friends and have a good college experience. This worked until these so called Christians stopped talking to me after they all got their own cars and didn't need me to chauffeur them around. Real good religion, isn't it? But this is typical of most all the Christians I know.

I realized that I didn't have to be an atheist or a Christian. I can be my own thing.So anyway, I struggled with this for years until last spring when my then-boyfriend (who's borderline atheist, but like me, won't admit it to himself) and I were sitting on the porch talking about our beliefs and I kind of had a revelation. I realized that I didn't have to be an atheist or a Christian. I can be my own thing. That's what Christianity doesn't teach you. They tell you that if you aren't a Christian, or part of some other sinner religion, you're one of those evil atheists and you're going to hell. So once I looked at the religion from an outside view, I realized I didn't have to pick. I was raised believing in God and that's what I want to do! I don't have to get emotional about it - hell, I don't even have to worship him, because I believe that a real, true, loving god wouldn't want you to worship him. But I still believe he exists and he created the universe; however, that doesn't mean I have to believe in the bible.

Suddenly, everything felt so right. Like this was what I'd been feeling my whole life, but I was too afraid to really feel it. But I don't feel bad. I don't feel like I'm going to hell. Because I really, truly believe that there is not a hell. I mean, what kind of loving, merciful god would send his own creation to eternal damnation?? And after I realized that, all these opinions started flowing. I realized that I can dislike the bible without being a bad Christian (or should I say God-believer, since I'm not really a Christian). I can make my own beliefs!

And that's the thing about religion. Everyone has different opinions. It comes with being human. So how can you create a couple of religions and just ask people to pick? There is no way you can satisfy every type of person, and that's why so many churches don't. There is such a close-mindedness to Christianity that the churches keep pushing more and more people away.

I still haven't told my family, though. Even though I'm not an atheist, they'd still think down upon my not believing in the bible. The closest I've come to disclosing my beliefs are "I'm kind of a liberal Christian - I think that as long as you believe in something, you'll go to heaven." I told my ex-boyfriend, and I told my best friend, both who feel roughly the same way, maybe even a little more extreme. But I still go to church when I'm home from school, because my parents make me. I still do things to help out, like teach at vacation bible school, because being raised in the church, I still have good morals and can't say no. And yes, when I go back to school, I plan on going to the Wesley Foundation to make some new friends. I'm going to try other clubs, but I need a back up in case I don't immediately hit it off with people there. And everyone here in the south is Christian, so it doesn't really matter if I meet them in a Christian club or a regular one. They'll all be the same. So needless to say, I'm a closet ex-Christian. But I'm working on it. Chances are I'll get fed up with the Wesley and just hang out with a few choice friends. But either way, this is me, attempting to swim out of the raging whirlpool that is Christianity.

By Carl S ~

For reasons mentioned in a previous testimony, I used to attend church services with my wife. She still goes there, and meanwhile I have the “benefit” (or curse) of going there to pick her up after the services. The attendees know me already, which places both them and me in awkward positions, because I wear my "Out of the Closet - Atheist" cap in their presence. I challenge, thereby, their tolerance, charity, and faith, at the same time. Whereas I was an outsider amongst them before, I am now overt, and in a position to continue my observations of believers. Needless to say, they confine themselves to small talk with me, which is the last thing you'd expect to hear from people who have spent the last hour and a half hyping themselves into belief.

Last Sunday was different. Teen Challenge was making its annual hitting-up-for-money there. The belief seems to be that if a 'charity' is beseeching in a church, it is God's own, and ergo, deserving of those monies, no questions asked. Well, my wife was still in the building, volunteering to count out the tithes, collections, which were assigned to various causes. So, after talking to a few of the members, I went out and sat on the church steps. The "Teen" members were taking their amps and whatever to their van, and on the way back into the church, each one shook my hand. I continued to sit there, cap on head.

One of the members stopped, alone, next to me, to say that an atheist, "Is one who says there is no God." I replied that in reality, an atheist is one who says he finds no evidence of a god or gods, and asked him just how much he really knew about atheists, which he didn't answer. He next informed me that atheists did nothing to help their fellow humans like believers do. I informed him that I VERY MUCH help others, as I do.

Something about believers: when they're challenged with the facts, they change the subject. This time, he switched to going off on 'intelligent design' against evolution, talking about a certain organ in the human body and its many important functions to sustain the well-being of the whole. (He was, I know, repeating by rote the words he had been taught to believe.)

If you remember from school years, the words, "Tell us in your own words what that means," you know that you are being asked to explain that you have thought about what you have been taught and actually understand it to the point that you can articulate that understanding. This is important, and the opposite of indoctrination, which is repeating like a parrot, by rote, what you are told is true. This rattling-off intelligent design defense was no different than other indoctrinations I keep hearing from the believers on other beliefs they have - not thought out at all; somebody else has done the "thinking" for them. I interrupted his spiel on the example of a bodily organ as an excellent example of intelligent design, to point at my ears and say, "Do you see these hearing aids? What about these dentures, these eyeglasses?" He said, "That's technology. "Yes,” I said, “to make up for deficiencies in the first place."

This time, I changed the subject to mention an article I read, about thousands of children dying in Africa each day while their mothers prayed for them. He said that the men and women over there were promiscuous, that's why the children died. (How did he know that?) This cold indifference to the unnecessary deaths and sufferings of others made me angry. I told him, "Do you know what? You are fu...d up." We talked for a few moments more. He said he would have to join up with the others, but I asked him to wait a moment while I got the "prayer and babies" article out of my car, adding that, in my experiences with believers, discussions ended with them walking off. I went and got the article out of the car. When I returned, he was long gone. I waited the ten or fifteen more minutes till my wife came out. I had challenged the teen and he left. His support group was supporting ignorance, prejudice, and gullibility.

That evening, I related some of the conversation with my wife, about atheists, children in Africa, etc., and asked her, "What are they telling these kids?" Now, the big argument against confrontation of irrational beliefs is to "live and let live,” that people are going to believe what they want to, so don't bother. This I find troublesome. What if the beliefs are harmful, like the beliefs that slavery is mandated by God, black people and gays should "stay in their place," that women must stay endangered in abusive marriages because a wife should be "subject" to her husband?

Should we be silent while teens and small children are taught lies about non-believers and dying children in Africa? In short, should we NOT confront ignorance with facts, urge compassion, and defy prejudice? As has been said so eloquently by George Santayana, "The only way evil can succeed is for good men to do nothing." Religious indoctrination, like political indoctrination, is insidious. We who know this are faced with an obligation we can choose to ignore or embrace, but is there really a choice, if we truly care about others?

By dealdoctor ~

Guys, each of us has been involved in Christianity and many of us in a brand of Christian Evangelical fundamentalism that really caused many of us us feel guilty about our sexual urges and as teenagers, masturbation in particular. I think you might find interesting this YouTube video lecture by Alan Watts a one time Episcopal priest who later became deeply involved in Eastern mysticism and Zen Buddhism. Watts is an outstanding intellectual of top rank who does a sharp analysis of the relationship between Christianity, sex, and masturbation. He explores its Jewish and Greek foundations.

Anyway it is always good to know the source and cause of matters this includes the way things are in Christian churches as they relate to the "let me make you feel guilty abut sex stuff" brand. Watts will entertain you and he is an educator who is very well educated. Here is the YouTube lecture. See what you think. Might this be the reason Churches think about sex the way they do? Now what? Dang there is a reason for things as they are now. Do you know the history that lead to where the church is now on the issue of sex? Find out. Watch this YouTube video and then reflect and decide what you believe about all this. Watch this and THINK!

By Cris ~

When I was about 13 two major things happened to me that have shaped my life since: I got "saved" and I discovered a love for music and a desire to be a musician.

I was going to an Assembly of God church which is a pentecostal / evangelical type denomination. Up till this time my family had been church goers but it was just something we did on Sundays.

This new church was exciting and fun. Instead of dry old hymns accompanied by the typical piano / organ duo, this church had drums and electric guitars!
Not to mention the highly emotional and entertaining preaching, the youth group full of average kids my age (and some cute girls!)
We went to concerts, had camp outs, special guests,etc.

Over time I started owing the excitement and "high" I felt in church to the religion (rather than the meditative and soothing effects of music,repetition of praise songs,etc) - For the first time church was interesting and made my heart pound, I owed this to the "holy spirit" convicting me and so I got more and more into the church, attending 3 times a week or more.

My "high" from church would last a day or two then I would start "backsliding" into normal adolescent thoughts, music, etc. Feeling "God" around me was easier at church than anywhere else. (Recently I realized this was just like any addiction- get a fix, come down, get another,etc)

At this time I also became fascinated with the musicians and their instruments at church. Being brought up in a large conservative family with no musicians, this was the first time I was really able to see real musicians in real life and it just seemed magical to me the sounds they made.
Special bands would come in and play for us sometimes,and also we went to Christian concerts.

Deciding that I wanted to "serve the lord" by becoming a musician, I decided arbitrarily on learning bass guitar as it was the thing I determined was making the low vibrations in the pews at church, as well as in my body.

At this time we were being taught that rock and other secular music was of the devil- we watched films about backwards masking and satanic influences,etc. and I started listening to Christian rock or contemporary Christian music pretty much exclusively.

I would pray and basically beg God to get me a bass somehow and make me learn it as fast as possible. I day dreamed of being in a praise band or eventually in a touring Christian band.

I finally got a bass (from my mom, not God) and started taking lessons. I was a somewhat embarrassed when the teacher asked me what some songs were that I wanted to learn. I think even then, as much as I loved CCM, I realized that lyrics could be pretty sappy.

For the next year or so I practiced and even attempted a jam with the church's music director, but I was still too inexperienced to attempt playing in the main church service.

Meanwhile in the youth group I and some other members discussed starting a band.
Every thing was great and I was finally finding my way and friends.
My life literally revolved around this church and music.

Then my life was torn apart. While I was on vacation for a few weeks in another state, my parents decided to change churches and pull the whole family out to start going to a huge mega-church.

I lost my whole social circle, my church, my music connections, everything.

The new church was interesting- rocking bands and "modern worship" etc. but I was just a little fish in a big sea, a stranger surrounded by strangers.

I could not reach the same level of ecstatic devotion as in my old church.

Then soon after, another big change. I moved from Texas to Georgia to live with my mom and stepdad.

My mom and stepdad didn't even go to church but had rather a general purpose kind of quiet belief. My mom was also a child of the 60's and she had all kinds of books on religions, philosophy, *gasp" records of all kinds of secular music from Bluegrass to Zydeco.

All these new avenues of thought and experience started the process of leaving religion that would take at least 15 more years.

I started going to a new high school and immediately started in a music class where we could study whatever instrument we wanted and start bands.

In the last year I had started listening to more secular music and getting further and further from my spiritual beliefs.

I could not understand why I couldn't "feel the spirit" anymore, and why, separated from the "modern worship", that the Bible and Christianity seemed so stale and boring.

Understand, I was not yet finding fault with religion- I assumed it was my fault, that I was just not good enough or had enough faith. No matter how much I prayed or how many times I begged God to forgive me of whatever it was that was keeping the spiritual ecstasy away, there was no answer but silence.

In the next few years I prayed less and less and finally stopped as I started getting more and more involved in music, playing in bands, performing in bars and drunken parties.

For the next 10 years or so I considered myself a "backslidden" Christian that never prayed or went to church. I played hundreds of gigs with various bands at bars, parties, motorcycle rallies, hippy weddings,etc. Smoking weed, taking LSD, getting drunk,etc.

My religion was still there, un-examined and dusty in the back of my mind. Even after the past 10 years of crazy debauchery I still thought someday I would finally find God again and I would come back into the fold (not to mention have some wild crazy stories to give as testimony)

I even started going to church again on my own at a tiny country Presbyterian church in attempts to find my way back. At this point I hadn't been in a church more than a few times in the previous 5 years or more. Saturday night I would be playing, drinking and drugging in a bar with the band, Sunday morning I would be standing next to the choir on the tiny church stage with my bass feeling a bit bleary eyed trying to figure out the chords to "Rock of Ages" or "Heavenly Sunlight".

went there about 5 years, never feeling the same thing as I did as a teen. I wondered if maybe the "holy ghost" didn't hang around in Presbyterian churches?

Then came the fateful week came when it all fell apart.

I remember being at work one day and vaguely thinking about my religious experiences and why I could not put my finger on why they seemed so slippery and confusing. What did I really believe? What was hell? Why so many denominations? Will children in India all go to hell? Why did the Bible seem so ... medieval?

I then thought something like this:

"I bet someone that would understand these thoughts and doubts would be a Christian pastor that became an atheist"

I have no idea where that came from, nevertheless, I got on the internet and immediately found Dan Barker, and for the first time in many many years, my heart started pounding about spiritual things again, only this time because someone was echoing and confirming the same doubts I had and others I had never considered.

Given the nature of the internet, I followed links and ended up reading more and more and more, and within a week I was wondering if it was possible to be a Christian without believing in God.

Within a month of daily obsessive studying of the Bible, Bible history, comparative religion, philosophy, logic, science, etc. I was an atheist.

I would say most people here understand these first epiphanies of breaking through to disbelief, so I won't go into detail.

In short, this is how music led me into and out of religion

1. Music was exciting and punctuated the words of preachers and I thought the good feelings and euphoria was due to the message, rather than the music (years of playing in secular groups showed me that music itself was the source of my "spiritual" euphoric feelings all along)

    

2. Music pulled me into a social situation in church that led to me feeling a sense of belonging- the music connected me to the somewhat dry "old fashioned" theology also.

    

3. After I stopped going to church as a teen, being a musician led me to a social group that led to the closest and most long lasting friendships of my life. These friends were not overtly religious at least, and at "worst" they were outright heathens. These experiences and friends opened my mind and let me see thorough the brainwashing of religion.

This has been around 10 years ago now and I still wonder at the power of religion, and the power of music.

By Sherlock ~

Two weeks back I got myself into a somewhat heated discussion regarding prayer which eventually led to the discussion of God. It started when a friend posted, "Thanks God for the rain I don't need to water the plants today" on her wall. I wanted to comment right then but I figured out, "What's the point?" So I just let it go. But a few days later, I posted "Self-centered prayer vs. Collective thinking prayer: Thanks God for the rain I don't need to water the plants today vs. Thanks God for the rain the plants are happy today". This post didn't get any comments but it got 2 likes.

Anyway, a day or two days later I read, somewhere among the comments of my friend's post, something like "God is always good because He never fails to answer the prayer of her humble child." (These are not the exact words because she has deleted that particular post on her wall.) So I couldn't help myself not to comment anymore. So I replied, "It's just rainy season. Prayer has nothing to do with it. Pray for rain in summer and let us see if God hears your prayer". She got angry, I knew for she replied, "You can say whatever you want because you don't believe in prayer. You don't have God". And so the discussion went on and on. And during the discussion I remember asking her, "Are you not bothered about the millions of people outside your world whose prayer are not being heard or answered?" She just replied, "I know my God and He never fails me." Well, what can I say? So to make the story short, that discussion ended amicably...superficially, I think. She ended up praying for me to let Jesus in to my heart and accept Him as my savior. I wanted to answer, "I did once but I found my heart empty and I figured out I didn't need saving, I'll save myself" but I just said, "Sure!" and she "liked" it immediately. The end.

Now, four days back, while browsing at her profile, (I unsubscribed to her wall posts because all of them are just about god, god, god) I found this:

"I couldn't help but be amazed at how people assume to know too much about you. They don't know you and they throw questions as if you don't care. Are you not bothered about the millions of people suffering whose prayers are not answered is a question of foolishness! How many of your FB friends know the real you, huh? It is one thing to get bothered and or to be concerned, but it's another thing to ACTUALLY DO something about it. How many of your FB friends know the rape victims you've helped and whose children you adopted? How many of these creeps know the out-of-school youths you sent to school and colleges so they could be properly equipped to face life? How about the those cancer patients children whom you bridged to those who can financially support? And the street children in Timog Ave. that you sent to DSWD to get proper help. And the times you spent teaching for free to those children whose parents are not capable of sending them to school? How about the AIDS victim that was disowned by her own parents but you took her in your arms until she died? How many pregnant women who were refused a ride by taxis that you let in your car and drive them to the hospitals even if you have exams to catch?

Let's go to Kochi: how many kids are there in the orphanage you and your husband run? how about the old-age house where ungrateful children put their parents into? The list goes on because you are not just bothered, you do things and BE the ANSWER to their prayers. Why do you do these things, I asked (remember, i asked you before?). And you answered: "It is not me. It's the Lord who gives me the desire to help and who empowers me to act on those desire according to his pleasure. The Lord has blessed me in every way, I have to share it to others. There is no other way." Yes, I still remember this because you got my respect, even my family. You are among the few who just don't get bothered and sit. You act on it."

I think her best friend wrote that to her wall. For a while I was tempted to butt in because I know that message is referring to me, about the discussion I had with her the previous days but I guess I'm already tired to get involved in another endless arguments of reason versus no reason.

But I actually draft a reply to this post. Here it is.

(For her)

I know this post very well, to whom it is for. It is for me because I am the only friend on your list who dared to question your beliefs. I am the only who doesn't say yes to everything you say. I may not know everything about you, about the all charitable works you have done or been doing but I certainly know that there are so many people like you out there doing the same things you do, and/or even more. I admire people who act, who help the needy the best way they can. But do you know the difference between your motivation and their motivation to do all these things? Many of these people don't have a God that inspires them to do good deeds. That's the big difference! And since it is God that inspires you, will you still have the desire to help the less fortunate if there is no God?

(For the best friend)

Not acting or not doing does not always mean not helping. A person has not adopted any orphans in her life but she chose to be child-free. She chose not to create children of her own. She is not contributing/adding to the world's population. Is she not helping?

A person does not help campaigning against AIDS but he/she practices safe sex. He/She doesn't have multiple partners. Is he/she not helping?

Teaching kids for free is very admirable. But what you are teaching is also very important. How about teaching the parents themselves? How about knocking their heads off and try to make them listen to, "How dare you breed when you couldn't even give your children a proper education?" Is addressing this issue not important?

Those are the only answers I could think right now. If you were me, should you have replied? How would you address that post?

I know that there is nothing wrong with having an inspiration to do good things but why only God? One could at least draw inspiration from a Teddy Bear or someone who has really lived and made a difference. Why God?

I also know that we don't need God to do good deeds or to be kind to other people and to the other creatures whom we share this planet with.

(Timog Ave. is in Manila, Philippines)

By Valerie Tarico ~

Despite a defeat in District Court this week, the Catholic Bishops and their conservative Protestant allies are forging ahead with lawsuits against Obamacare. Their goal? To ensure that American health options are dictalted by religion rather than medical science. With an infallible pope and an inerrant Bible as guides, they are convinced that they know what God wants.

Obviously, not all Christians agree. If they did, contraceptive use in this country would be somewhat below that of Nigeria. It wouldn’t matter whether coverage was included in health plans at Christian hospitals and universities because nobody except the occasional misplaced heathen would use it. The contraceptive mandate is a problem for the patriarchy only because most Christians have their own deeply personal understanding of God’s will and they want to live in accord with that understanding. In other words, the contraceptive mandate is an issue for the Bishops and their allies only because it is a non-issue for most lay Christians.

Then again, if they could, some Church leaders would do away with much more than the contraceptive mandate. Christian Science theologians teach that God’s will excludes most of science-based medicine because prayer alone should suffice. In fact, they have tried to get the services of “prayer practitioners” reimbursed under federal health care laws. Like Catholics and conservative Protestants, they find basis for their belief in ancient texts: Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up (James 5:14-15).

Throughout the Bible, both Old Testament and New, physical health is largely a spiritual matter. Healings come from prayers, rituals of repentance, and miraculous intervention. In Chronicles King Asa, who has a severe foot ailment, is held up as a bad example for seeking help from physicians and not from God. By contrast, King Hezekiah prays when he falls ill, and Yehovah adds fifteen years to his life.

For those who don’t want simply to pray and wait, the Bible does actually prescribe or describe a variety of healing practices. Unfortunately, healthcare in the Bible, perhaps more than any other topic, reveals the authors to be men of their time—the Iron Age. Like prescriptions against homosexuality, Hebrew and early Christian health practices appear to be shaped largely by surrounding cultures and the “yuck factor.”

If there were any room to doubt, a quick overview of biblical health care is a great reminder why Abrahamic religion should not be dictating national health policy.

Dermatology: quarantines and dove blood. Based on the level of detailed attention it receives in the Bible, dermatology might appear to be the most important medical specialty. Two chapters of Leviticus are dedicated to assessment and treatment of visible skin infections, which, given the descriptions, might include skin cancers, leprosy, cystic acne, or psoriasis. Such infections must be diagnosed by a priest: Anyone with such a defiling disease must wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ As long as they have the disease they remain unclean. They must live alone; they must live outside the camp. (Leviticus 13:45-46). Later, the priest finalizes the healing process by killing two lambs or doves: The priest is to take some of the blood of the guilt offering and put it on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of their right hand and on the big toe of their right foot (Leviticus 14:14). In a second ritual the patient is sprinkled with blood that has had a scarlet string, hyssop, and a live bird dipped in it.

Treatment of skin wounds may include the use of bandages and soothing balms, but most cures recorded in the biblical texts are faith healings. In one story, a foreign military leader Naaman gets rid of his skin disease after dipping seven times in the Jordan River on the advice of the seer Elisha. (Both the number seven and the Jordan have special powers throughout the Bible.) However, the story is a tribute to the power of the Hebrew God, not any general prescription for healing.

Obstetrics and Gynecology: words of encouragement. Midwifery is a clear part of Bible-based medical practice, though without modern tools the power of the midwife is limited. At the birth of the patriarch Benjamin, a midwife offers his mother Rachael encouraging words right before she dies from postpartum hemorrhaging: “Do not fear, for now you have another son” (Genesis 35:17). In another story, a midwife ties a scarlet string around the hand of one twin to distinguish which came out first.

Menstrual and post-partum bleeding are considered unclean, and a woman is unclean for twice as long after giving birth to a girl as a boy. Cleansing rituals are prescribed for any man who has sex with a menstruating woman or even touches something she has contaminated, but in the absence of science-based medicine, no procedures are recommended to give women means to reduce or avoid bleeding.

Fertility: mandrake roots and prayer. The mandrake plant was widely believed to have special powers long before J.K. Rowling wrote it into her Harry Potter books. It appears in the book of Genesis as a fertility agent. In Genesis 30, two sister wives (literally) are competing to produce male offspring, and they turn to the powers of the mandrake.

Now in the days of wheat harvest Reuben went and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them to his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.” But she said to her, “Is it a small matter for you to take my husband? And would you take my son’s mandrakes also?” So Rachel said, “Therefore he may lie with you tonight in return for your son’s mandrakes.” When Jacob came in from the field in the evening, then Leah went out to meet him and said, “You must come in to me, for I have surely hired you with my son’s mandrakes.” So he lay with her that night. God gave heed to Leah, and she conceived and bore Jacob a fifth son.” (Genesis 30:9-22)

Ophthalmology: spit and mud. In the Old Testament, the primary objective in managing vision defects is to ensure that people with bad vision don’t defile sacred spaces or the halls of power. They are not excluded from town, like people with skin infections, but they are excluded from the temple. However, in the New Testament, Jesus heals several blind men. To do so, he calls on a combination of faith, spit, and mud (John 9:6). This technique would have been familiar to Greek and Roman readers of the Gospels, since the Greek god-man Asclepius was said to heal the blind in a similar fashion.

Orthopedics: isolation and exorcism. Like ophthalmology, the primary goal of Old Testament orthopedic management is to keep defective people from contaminating sacred spaces or food offerings:

No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the food of his God. For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a^]defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles. (Leviticus 21:17-23).

However, acute injuries were treated differently; there is at least indirect evidence that splinting was standard practice for broken bones. In the visions of Ezekiel, unsplinted broken bones are a metaphor for political weakness: ^“Son of man, I have broken the arm of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and, behold, it has not been bound up for healing or wrapped with a bandage, that it may be strong to hold the sword.” (Ezekiel 30:21)

Healthcare in the Bible, perhaps more than any other topic, reveals the authors to be men of their time—the Iron Age.At least one New Testament story suggests that orthopedic problems can be caused by demon possession, which would suggest exorcism as a solution. And there was a woman who for eighteen years had had a sickness caused by a spirit; and she was bent double, and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, He called her over and said to her, “Woman, you are freed from your sickness.” And He laid His hands on her; and immediately she was made erect again and began glorifying God.

Psychiatry and Neurology: more exorcism. Psychiatric and neurological problems in the Bible are attributed to demons, which unlike the monsters of modern horror movies, almost always cause symptoms we would recognize today as medical syndromes. In the Old Testament, such accounts are rare, and an evil spirit may be sent by God himself. But in the New Testament, demon possession becomes a prominent theme. Demons can cause muteness, epilepsy, and abnormal strength; they can inhabit animals and more than one can inhabit a single person. Typically, fortunately, they leave when commanded to do so, either by Jesus or by a Christian in the name of Jesus.

Preventive Care: worship, worship, worship. Rather than nutrition, exercise and sunscreen, biblical preventive care focuses primarily on pleasing God or at least avoiding his wrath. In no uncertain terms the writer of Deuteronomy reminds readers who is in charge. There is no other God beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal. (Deut. 32:39). Righteousness has great health rewards: Worship the LORD your God, and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you, and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span (Ex. 23:25-26). But on the other side of the equation are illness, injury and hemorrhoids. The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed (Deuteronomy 28:27).

Patience. Ultimately, the trump card in biblical health care is the promise of Heaven, with incorruptible bodies that experience neither hunger nor thirst, sickness nor death. In one prophetic vision, the writer of Ezekiel describes a utopian version of the Promised Land. In it, a great river flows, providing an unending bounty of nourishment—and medicine: By the river on both banks (shall be) every type of tree fit for food. Their leaves shall not wither, and its fruit shall never cease. Every month it shall renew its fruit, for its waters spring from the Temple itself; And its fruit shall be fit to eat, and its leaves (shall serve as) medicine.” Ezekiel 47:12

The dream of beauty, sufficiency, and wholeness conjured by Ezekiel is enough to make even an old skeptic like me a little wistful. If only dreaming worked, and mandrakes and dove blood and prayers. Then we wouldn’t need contraceptive coverage – or the rest of Obamacare for that matter.