Coincidence?

"I don't believe in luck or coincidence."

-- Steve Camp


I don't remember exactly what song that's from, but I used to listen to a lot of Steve Camp's music in my late teens and I can still hear that line playing in my head. I can also recall sitting in church and, on more than a couple of occasions, hearing pastor so-and-so yelling about how there's absolutely no such thing as luck or coincidence. Nope, absolutely not.
I can kind of buy the part about luck- I don't actually believe that 'good' luck is some sort of good fortune that some people inherently have, and 'bad' luck is some sort of misfortune that other people just inherently have; it's all coincidence, really. If I happened to find a $50 bill on the ground one day, then I might say it was my lucky day, but it was really just coincidence that I was the one who happened to find it, and not someone else. It's so easy to find myriad examples of coincidence in everyday life that it's kind of hard to understand why so many Christians flat-out do not believe in it. It's kind of an issue for me here because it doesn't seem to be just a few believers here and there who deny it; in my experience, I find that it's very pervasive in Christian thought. (I didn't just 'happen' to find that $50 right when I needed it to pay for some unexpected expense- God blessed me!) I think it's because they think that it takes away from God being 'in control' of things. It makes him seem even more 'hands off' than he already appears to be. If things 'just happen' by luck or coincidence, then God isn't exactly out there watching over us, intervening when he deems necessary. And then from there, it's only a small step to, 'Well, maybe he doesn't even exist.'
Well, for the coincidence-deniers, I have a few examples of things that appear to me to be one hell of a set of coincidences.

Have you ever noticed that it always seems like the way things just happen to be is always the way that God just happens to work? Or, the way things are in the real world is just how God 'chose to do it?' For instance, the Bible was written thousands of years ago, in Middle Eastern countries- a time and place where women had few, if any, rights at all. God 'just happened' to choose that place in time and geography to inspire men (of course, men) to write his word for all of humanity for all time? And also considering when and where it was written, doesn't it seem like a really big coincidence that God, even though 'he' is supposed to be genderless, 'just happens' to want us to refer to him as being male? Father, Son, Holy Spirit? Why not Father, Mother, Holy Spirit? Why not just Holy Spirit 1, 2, and 3 (or even just the Great Triune Holy Spirit, since 1, 2, and 3 seem a little impersonal)? Considering the anti-female environment of the time, seems like it would've been a great way to show off his power if he'd have included a female element to his persona- 'Dare you challenge my God status? I'll show you...!' and then proceed to call down fire upon their heads or some such similar display of his God-status. (Considering all the people that he killed/had killed in the old testament, it's not like anyone can say he would've been above doing that sort of thing.) I just think that since he wanted us to refer to him with a gender, it would have added to his stature to have included the female gender as well, since of course people would have challenged him on it and then he could really show off his/her/its power and shut all the naysayers up. But, funny how he chose not to do it that way. Funny how he only chose men to be his prophets, and forbid women to teach or have authority over men. Funny how it was the woman who sinned first and led the man to sin too. Funny how it's women who get to bear the pain of childbirth, and not men. So God designed women to be the ones to give birth (though it supposedly would've been pain-free, had Adam and Eve not sinned) and not men? Women who have to go through monthly periods and hormonal changes, and not men? And funny how it was the Son who was the only one who could save humanity, and who himself only chose men to be his disciples. Doesn't this all seem like a bunch of crazy coincidences to you? It does to me. Some might mention the book of Esther, and say she held a place of esteem in God's eyes. Hell, she got an entire book of the Bible named after her. Mary, mother of Jesus; she was well-thought of, as were plenty of other women in the Bible. And the fact that Satan is not a female. (I guess he's technically genderless, having been an angel and all, but in common culture is generally thought of as male.) As for Esther and Jesus' mom and all the other women that modern Christians point to to show that the Bible isn't misogynistic, so what? Taken as a whole (in context, you might say) the Bible is clearly male-centric. As you would expect it to be, considering when and where it was written. As for Satan not being explicitly female, to me that's just a good example of the Bible having been written in a dynamic process, over time- which is to say, a group of guys didn't just get together one day and make up a story and then another group of guys put it together and called it the Bible. Just because us nonbelievers don't accept the Bible as being 'true' doesn't mean we think it's 'just a made-up story' (though I've heard that misconception before). So, looking at the Bible and its history as a whole, I see a whole lot of 'coincidences' in the way God 'chose' to do things. Believers tell me he wants me to believe in him, and the 'evidence' is overwhelming if only I'd consider it with an open heart, but the way God 'chose' to do things sure makes it easy to think that the Bible was just a product of its time and place. Why couldn't he have done it some other way? Some other way that was far more compelling and believable?
Daniel over at Unreasonable Faith had a post awhile back entitled 'How would you reveal yourself?' It wasn't a post, per se, but just a question to his readers- supposing you were an all-knowing, all-powerful (all-that...) deity, and you wanted to reveal yourself to your human creations so that they could know you and choose whether or not to worship you- how would you go about doing it? Never mind the 'Well you're not God, so it doesn't matter,' and 'God is God so whatever way he chose to do it was the Right way,' b.s.- it's a legitimate question, one that should be considered if believers want unbelievers to consider the merits of their faith. Funny how the god of the Bible chose to reveal himself- speaking first thousands of years ago to tribal people- paper hadn't even been invented, for crying out loud! They were writing on papyrus and who knows what else? The ten commandments? Stone tablets! Was that really the best way to go about revealing himself to his creation? I suppose it had to have been, since he's perfect and wouldn't have done something less than perfect. (Or would he?) Fast-forward to the new testament- the old law has to go, it's time for a change; it's time for grace to come in the form of Jesus (which makes me wonder- why was the law even there in the first place? If it was working, why change it; if it wasn't, why bother with it to begin with?). So Jesus comes in, does his work, then charges his disciples and followers with spreading the gospel. I remember in the early days of my faith, long before the internet came around with it's e-mail and instant messages and whatnot, a common question was what about those people who live in far-off lands who haven't heard the gospel? Are they going to hell for not being given a fair shake? After all, if they've never heard of Jesus, how can they be blamed for not believing in him? Then the preacher would point to that verse (in Romans, I think) about how noone was without excuse because all you had to do was look around and you could see Creation, so you just *knew* that there was a Creator (and somehow you were also supposed to know that his name was Yahweh, as opposed to Allah, or whatever). But that brings up a couple of interesting questions- if everyone is without excuse and already 'knows' that there is a creator (called God, named Yahweh) then what's the point of sending out missionaries to lands near and far, preaching the gospel everywhere? That's a whole lot of resources that could be put to other, better use. So why did he did tell us to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations and peoples? And if the ultimate goal is to preach the gospel to all nations and peoples and bring everyone in the world (or at least as many as humanly possible) to a saving knowledge of Jesus, why send Jesus to earth to die for everyone's sins and start the Christian church 2000 or so years ago? The printing press hadn't been invented (and wouldn't be for quite some time) so it's not like you could just go around handing out Bibles to everyone in town. Mass transportation? Sure, a herd of camels. Or you could put a few dozen people on a ship and go to sea for a few weeks before reaching a far-off land. It just seems like if you're an all-knowing deity and you have a fallen race of people, and you want them to have a 'relationship' with you- it seems to me like there would be a better way of going about reaching that goal than the one laid out in Christianity and history. Maybe send Jesus in the year 2000 instead, when the internet is humming along nicely, and air travel is taken for granted? Why not? It's only a couple thousand years later. And since a thousand years are like a day with God, no big deal, right? Could it be, could it just possibly be, because 2000 years ago when Jesus was around doing his thing, people were a lot less knowledgeable about how the natural world worked, and also a lot less skeptical? So when you said that someone walked on water or rose from the dead, it didn't seem totally far-fetched because after all, people could be possessed by demons- something that we don't see any real cases of today, by the way. (Imagine if the illusionist David Copperfield were to go back to that time and perform some of his tricks. He'd be thought of as divine for sure. Or at least having a lot of 'supernatural' powers.) In the old and new testaments God routinely manifested himself in dramatic, unmistakable ways, performing obvious miracles even before the eyes of nonbelievers- but not today. Suppose Jesus never lived at that time and instead showed up in the 21st century and started doing his thing? What then? It'd be a lot harder to pull off, considering some of the things that the world's greatest magicians can do, but on the other hand, if you can just say the word and restore someone's sight- if you're God in human flesh, in other words, then it shouldn't be a problem. And why restore just one person's sight? Why not cure blindness in everyone? Why not heal amputees? Now that's a tough one- somebody survives, say, an 'incurable' deadly brain tumor that absolutely noone realistically expected him to, and everyone thanks God for saving him. But no amputee has ever had their missing limb 'supernaturally' restored. What's so hard about that? Salamanders can do it like it's business as usual. Does God like salamanders more than us? Only relatively recently has medical science been able to do something like that, and even then it's not a 'new limb', it's an artificial, man-made one. How many decades of diligent medical research by thousands of people, and how many millions of dollars have been spent to be able to arrive at that technology? If God would have just built in the ability in us like he did with salamanders, humanity could have saved countless hours of study and millions of dollars- time and money that could have been put to other uses.
Imagine if only Jesus had shown up in the 21st century instead- we do have a whole lot of gullible people nowadays, but we also have a lot of naturally-minded scientists and skeptics, people who want actual, testable proof of stuff before they accept it as true. Jesus could step in and heal some blind people and walk on water and shut up all the skeptics. Turn them into believers, even. Instead, God chose to manifest himself in human flesh 2000 years ago and work 'through' ordinary men who had to write his words on papyrus manuscripts. A quick google search turned up a page over on the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry mentioning 'a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing.' A fragment? Again, why not just show up in modern times and write on easily copied paper, or post on the internet for millions (billions, even) to see, and not have to worry about piecing it together thousands of years later from fragments nearly lost to history? Or why not just send him at the beginning? If Jesus coming in to save all of humanity was God's plan all along, why bother with the Law in the first place? Clearly it wasn't working, which is why he had to send Jesus and do away with it. I know, I know, he didn't do it that way, so the way that he did do it must have been the best way because his wisdom is infinite and that's the way he chose to do it; if the way that I mentioned was the best way then he would have chosen that way, etc. etc.
Step back for a minute and look at the bigger picture; look at all the things I've just mentioned, take a minute and think about it for yourself and see what you can come up with as well. Doesn't it seem just a little bit odd the way that he 'chose to do things?' Commanded that the gospel be spread far and wide, yet he starts his church at a point in time when animals are the predominant mode of land transportation. Radio and television? So far off in the future that if you were to describe them to someone in that day, they'd think you were bonkers. Maybe even demon-possessed. Yet they can reach far more people and far easier than the way things were two thousand years ago. And speaking of things being more primitive back when Jesus was around, take it a little further and go back to the garden of Eden- why create a race of people so primitive, with absolutely no knowledge of science or physics or anything of the sort? Knowing that they're going to sin and then have to deal with diseases and such, why not just create them fully advanced, with all the science and medical knowledge and technology we have today? I mean, he was nice enough to equip our bodies with an immune system so we could fight off diseases and such once we got kicked out of the garden, why not go whole hog and give us an advanced knowledge of medicine like we have today- the kind that lets us build robotic limbs that can feel. But not only did he choose not to do anything like that, but he didn't even bother to tell us about that immune system, a little bit of knowledge that would have been handy to know sooner rather than later so we could've started working on making vaccines and saving lives. But getting back to my point, if he'd have created us, say, 20 years ago or so, all fully advanced and whatnot, then, instead of having to piece the Bible together from ancient texts, scattered about and buried in clay jars and such, it could be written electronically and printed and distributed on a massive scale. And we could also trace back human history to the very beginning so much more easily! We could say, 'Sure, God created humanity just a couple decades ago! In fact, let's walk over to where the garden of Eden is right now and look at the angels with the flaming swords, preventing us from getting in.' Would sure make things much easier to believe, wouldn't it? But, the way he chose to do it instead coincides nicely with something you'd expect to see if there there is no supernatural intervention in the world, making it very easy to believe just that. Yet I constantly hear from believers that they 'don't have enough faith to be an atheist;' that it's just so obvious that the way things are laid out in the Bible and taught by Christianity is the way things really are, and anything that contradicts it is just plain wrong (or worse, a flat-out lie). Well it's not obvious to everyone. Do you really think that out of the entire time-line of humanity, out of everyone who has ever not believed, that every single one of those nonbelievers really 'knew the truth,' but chose to ignore it? That not one of the millions of nonbelievers (or people who believed in a different god or faith) over the years had actual intellectual and logical reasons for not believing? Because that's what the Christianity I used to be a part of says, and what the Christianity that I'm still surrounded by now says.

Some might say to me, ''Who are you to judge God? Who are you to tell him what he can and cannot do, should and should not do, what's good or bad. He's God, so if he does something and calls it good, then it's good, no matter what 'we' think or if we like it.' I've heard those arguments before. To those people, I say, 'Who are you to tell me what God wants for my life, what he says and doesn't say, likes and doesn't like, is like and is not like, and then tell me that it's not you saying it, but him 'saying it through you?' Throughout history 'God's people' have had a reputation for getting it wrong (and never admitting to it when they know they're wrong) so how do they know they've got it right this time? It goes back to what I said before- I can think for myself and decide for myself- 'they' don't get to decide for me. In fact, I wish 'they' would just shut their pie-holes and let God speak for himself.

Creationistic Hoo-Ha

Daniel Florien over at Unreasonable Faith recently wrote a post entitled 'Creationism In the Jaws of the Lion' (very much worth reading; it's not a very long post) and it echoes exactly something that I was planning on talking about here at some point anyway, so I might as well do it now, while it's fresh in my mind. I've mentioned a couple of times that, when I was still a believer, I was having questions that I wasn't getting any satisfactory answers for. This is one of those questions. And it's not a bogus question, either, some abstract thought experiment to 'prove' that God doesn't exist (Do [insert made-up word/nonexistent entity here] exist? No? Then that's proof that there's no God, because if there was a God, then such and such would exist!) It's not like that at all. Awhile ago I mentioned that at one point towards the end of my faith, I decided to read the Bible from start to finish as if I'd never read it in my life, as objectively as possible. It's amazing, absolutely amazing, the kind of perspective you gain when you do something like that. No preconceived notions about anything, no making excuses for difficult problems that arise. And one of those problems that I had was that I used to think (had always been taught...) that life was 'designed' (and by only one Designer, of course); I remember going on a hike up Katahdin one time with a group of guys from church, and was talking with one of them on the way up and I said how it just seemed so obvious to me- there's design, there must be a designer. I mentioned how every single animal has some sort of defense mechanism against predators; even if it's insignificant, they still have one (looking back, I don't see how that's any sort of evidence for the existence of a deity- so animals have a defense mechanism for avoiding being eaten- so what? All that really proves is that they don't want to be eaten by predators). Well, putting aside the fact that probably not every single animal has one (I don't want to make definitive claims here and say that no, not every single animal has one- sheep come to mind; if you consider the cold to be a predator, then I guess they do, but that wool doesn't really do much to protect against wolves and coyotes) there's still the problem of death by 'design' and the struggle for survival. If we're to take Genesis literally, as mainstream fundamentalist Christianity teaches, then there was no death anywhere in the world until after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. None. Everything was 'designed' to live forever, and supposedly would have if only the First Couple had just listened to God and not ate the fruit. But if nothing died, what would the carnivores have eaten? As Daniel points out, 'If lions were designed, they were designed to be killing machines.' I actually read somewhere that Answers in Genesis and their creation museum teach that some dinosaurs that we know to be carnivorous, were actually vegetarian (before the Fall)! Really! (I think they said that animals like the T-rex used their strong teeth and claws to crack coconuts.) So before the fall, there were no carnivores? Everyone and everything that eats ate plants and veggies? What about sharks? Squid? Barracudas? All vegetarian? Well, I guess if you take Genesis literally they'd have to have been. Granted, God did say he gave us all the seed-bearing plants as food, and as I recall, Genesis doesn't mention that food being for sea creatures, only 'every living thing that walks on the ground.' So maybe the sea creatures could be carnivores, but not the land animals. But still- the Creationist camp (Intelligent Design, as they prefer these days) teaches that death entered the world through Adam's sin- before that, no death. But then there's this problem: plants are living things too. Not in the way that people and animals are, but living nonetheless. And plants die, so which is it? Well, I guess we'll have to 'clarify' the no-death teaching to mean death of sentient beings, or humans and animals, as we know them. Plants don't count, since God did say he gave them to us as food (even though the bible also says 'death entered the world through one man...'). But what counts as 'sentient?' The bible doesn't exactly clarify such things. Are mosquitoes sentient? Bacteria? Who knows?
Ok, let's set aside the whole idea about plants dying, and fish being exempt from the 'no death' rule- let's just talk about land animals. They weren't supposed to die, but according to the ID'ers, it appears God designed them to eat other animals, and in turn, be eaten by other animals. Take a field mouse and an eagle, for example. The eagle has eyes that are 'designed' to be able to see the mouse hiding in the field up to a mile away. But the mouse has fur that generally matches the color of it's environment, to better hide from predators and not get eaten. Lots of other animals have their own unique 'designs' for catching prey/avoiding predators, from color-changing octopuses to the cheetahs that can run 70 mph to the owls that can see so well at night to the razor sharp teeth and powerful jaws of the great white shark that can cut a seal in half with one bite. So even though death supposedly wasn't part of God's original 'plan,' he outfitted all the animals with the tools they'd need to catch food/avoid getting eaten- so after Adam's Fall, they could fight for their lives, literally. Yet it's not a perfect system, as the mouse sometimes gets away, and sometimes gets eaten. Seems God wanted life to struggle for its survival. All of this, and so much more, makes so much more sense in the light of unguided natural evolution. Yet, can you be a Christian and accept evolution? Not with the Christianity I was part of, which is why I mentioned earlier that it wouldn't even matter if I did come back to some sort of faith- I'd be labeled as one of those who 'think they are [Christians] but are not.' I do know of some Christians who can reconcile evolution with their faith; not sure how many of the ones I know personally do because it's never come up in conversation, but I've come across many others through their writings online who do- one example being the author of The First Morning blog over there in the links section. These are people who have the same faith in Christ as the folks I used to count myself among, yet they also accept the findings of modern biology, and other sciences. Yet, according to those in the ID community, there can be no reconciliation- those people are simply 'deceived.' And folks like myself, who don't believe at all, are part of a vast, Left-wing conspiracy to suppress the truth, because we hate God. See, we promote evolution, not because a multitude of science supports it, but because we know that 'according to the Bible,' you can't believe in both God and evolution together, and we want to eradicate God from society completely. So we've infiltrated many branches of science- not just biology, but paleontology, geology, physics, and astronomy. We've infiltrated them worldwide, and over many generations, not just passing down our teachings to the next generation, but completely brainwashing them to believe whatever we say. And of course, we control all major universities and science publications, filtering out as many God-believing teachers and professors and their research papers as we can. Why? Because we hate God. (That's what Ben Stein, Ken Ham, Phillip Johnson, and others would have you believe.) You'd think the fact that there are those people who do believe in God, and even identify as Christians, would kind of shoot that idea down completely- they don't hate God, they worship him. So see? We can all just get along and work together to continue teaching and promoting science- us atheists without saying, 'God did it,' and the Christians saying the opposite. Oh but wait, I almost forgot- those Christians who believe in evolution have been 'deceived.' Probably because they just accepted what the atheistic college professors taught them without question. Well here's a question- if someone who identifies as a Christian who accepts evolution- and there are many- who reads the Bible and sincerely prays for God's guidance, fellowships, goes to church, 'seeks truth' in everything, and does all the other things that 'real' Christians do- if someone like that can be 'deceived...' then how is it that they are the one who is 'being deceived,' and never the other way around? You have two camps of people who are the same in every way, except one accepts evolution, and the other does not, so naturally the ones that do are just plain wrong. It's inconceivable that it could be the other way around.

Getting back to the idea of 'design...' Creationists would have us believe that we're 'designed'- and that it's blatantly obvious. It used to seem obvious to me. Our bodies seem to work just right to do the things we need and want to do, so they must have been 'designed' by a 'Designer,' right? And when they don't work 'right' it's because we live in a fallen world and those are just the effects of sin, the decay that started after Adam and Eve decided to disobey God. At first glance, it seems so obvious. But then when you start to think about it a little more critically, it doesn't seem so obvious at all. What would things have to be like for us to think that we weren't designed? Suppose all humans were normally born with just one eye, with no eyelid or protective cover, on the tops of our heads, so that we had to 'look down' in order to see ahead of us. Suppose that we had only one ear, but without the 'ear' part that channels the sound into our heads- just a hole somewhere in our heads for hearing purposes? Suppose also that we had two arms, like we do now, but only one hand, and that hand had only two fingers (and no thumb)? And the arms were straight, with no elbows to bend? Suppose also that we had no nose to smell with or breath through, but only our one mouth. And suppose that one of our knees bent in the opposite direction that they do now, so that walking would be so different from what we know it as today that you really couldn't even consider it 'walking?' As long as we humans could have adapted well enough to survive as a species (and we probably could have) then you could still say, 'Oh wow, look at the wonderful, amazing design, there must have been a Designer!' It absolutely does not matter what our bodies, as a species in general, are like- we could all have no skeletons, like jellyfish, but as long as we could adapt to survive as a species you could point to that and say, 'designed!' But we do have skeletons (internal, as opposed to external like other species) and we do have two eyes, in the front of our heads, and knees that bend in such a way as to facilitate walking and running, and all that. So don't you ever wonder why God designed us in the way that he did, and not some 'other' way? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? The way he chose was the best way for us, of course. If it wasn't, he would have done it in some other way. Right? I mention all this, because for me, and for a lot of other people, it's not so damn obvious. Seems like he could have done things different, and better. The reason we have things like birth defects and failing eyesight is because of 'the fall?' Eagles have some pretty amazing eyesight; 'the fall' doesn't seem to have affected their eyes all that much. Surely God could have designed us in the same way so that we too could see so well. Maybe also given us excellent night vision like cats and owls have. And instead of protecting our most sensitive organs inside of a skeleton made of bone, which can break relatively easily, surely he could have given us a skeleton made of steel, which can withstand much more force than bone. Or maybe originally, before the fall, our bones weren't breakable. Maybe the fact that bones break is simply a result of the decay that entered the world through sin. Another thing that seems not very well thought out to me is the fact that our trachea and esophagus are so close together; and since we take in food and air/oxygen through the same hole(s) in our head, our nose and mouth, and since we can't breathe and swallow at the same time, it's actually very easy to choke to death. If I was going to design a living being, I'd make it so that they can breathe and swallow at the same time, so that if some food or foreign object got stuck in their throat, they'd at least have a couple of days to try and remove the blockage before they died of thirst. Hell, I'd make it so they could eat and drink and breathe all through different parts that didn't conflict with each other; that way if they got something stuck in their throat, they could survive for a very long time before suffering any ill effects. But, I'm not God, and since he's supposedly perfect and has infinite wisdom, I guess his way was best after all, right? But since choking is such a real threat for all humans, and presumably has been ever since the fall, the least he could have done was given one of his prophets divine instructions for performing the Heimlich maneuver, instead of leaving humanity to wait until the mid-1970's when Henry Heimlich first published his article outlining the procedure. Surely many thousands of lives could have been saved over the years had people just known about the move.
Can I even say any of this? I mean, basically I'm calling into question God's wisdom, saying I could have thought of something better- me, a lowly human being with (very) finite wisdom, thinking I could have built a better mousetrap. Is that blasphemy? Am I losing brownie points with every question I raise, edging myself even closer to the pit of hell than I already am? I certainly don't think so. I think anyone and everyone should be able to ask any questions they want of God, without being afraid that they've crossed some line, without being afraid that, 'Oh now you've gone and done it, you asked the 'wrong' question and done made him mad.' And I think we all deserve honest answers to those questions, answers directly from God. Not from people, claiming to speak on his behalf, saying, 'Well, that's just how he chose to do it, and since he's all-knowing, all-powerful, infinitely loving, etc., etc., etc., it must have been the 'right' way, so you have no right to question, doubt, or say otherwise.' That is not an answer. That's just saying that 'however things happen to be, that's how God chooses to work.' Which seems like an awfully big coincidence to me (not to mention a major-league cop-out). And since most Christians I know emphatically do not believe in coincidence, that last saying is what I'll be talking about in my next post.

Those damn Bereans...

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11 NIV)

Not the most often quoted verse I've heard, but I did hear it quite a bit. It was usually in the context of, 'Don't believe something just because that's what you were always taught. Do your own research to find out for yourself if something's true.'
Yeah, great, be like the Bereans; they're so damn respectable because they do their own research and read the bible for themselves and think for themselves and don't believe something just because Paul said it was so... Well in my experience, that's a respectable position to take only if you come to the right conclusion. The right conclusion, of course, being that the main tenets of Christianity are true, and in a literal sense. If you come to just about any other conclusion, no matter how honest and careful, and 'in pursuit of the truth' your research is, you're just plain wrong. And not only are you wrong, but your motives are probably suspect too: you hate God, you 'don't want to answer to anyone but yourself,' you want to live a sinful life, you want to 'believe what you want to believe,' etc, etc... It's absolutely unthinkable (unpossible, even) that maybe you simply looked at all the available evidence for and against Christianity, you looked with an open mind and 'an open heart,' and came to the logical conclusion that the 'for' evidence just wasn't strong enough to warrant belief. That there are too many other, better explanations.
Or (possibly even worse) you read the bible, go to church, maybe teach Sunday School... you call yourself a Christian, but you take a far less literal interpretation of the bible, like Bishop Spong, like a lot of (most?) Unitarians, or other 'liberal' branches of faith. You do all that because you're like those noble Bereans who thought for themselves, but because you didn't come to the 'right' conclusion, you get no respect for thinking for yourself. I guess I can kind of understand that, though- it's hard enough to really respect someone when you strongly disagree with them, but then throw into the mix the 'us vs. them' and 'we must battle because we're in a spiritual war' mindset of fundamentalism and it's pretty much a lost cause.
But this really isn't about the whole 'liberal vs. conservative' Christian thing (well, kind of it is, because I just think it's so ironic and stupid to argue about faith- something that, by definition, can't be proven- 'my faith is the one true faith, not yours!' If you could prove it, it wouldn't be faith, would it? And, if you have faith, you don't need evidence; if you have evidence, you don't need faith). It's about me, going from mainstream fundamentalist* to atheist, due to being like those noble Bereans and thinking for myself.
I can remember more than a couple of occasions being in church and listening to pastor so-and-so rail against the people who, when you ask them why it is that they believe the things they believe, they say, 'Well, that's just what I was always taught,' or, 'That's just what I've always believed.' And pastor so-and-so would rant and rave and yell about what a stupid position that was to take- you should never believe something just because 'that's what you were always taught.' And he'd be right- you shouldn't. But I think he needs to take it a step further and say that you should also learn how to think critically. Churches tend to not do that very often (I think it's because if you learn to think critically, as well as think for yourself, you might just end up disagreeing with them).

Here's what I find ironic- I was 'always taught' that the bible is the inspired, infallible, authoritative Word of God. I was 'always taught' that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit. I was 'always taught' that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a perfect and sinless life, performed miracles, died as an atonement for the sin of humanity, was resurrected and went back to heaven to be with God, and that we can have a personal relationship with him. I was 'always taught' that the creation account in Genesis should be taken literally-that Adam and Eve were the literal first two humans and that all life today was present, more or less in the same form, at the beginning. Death came afterwards, as a result of Adam disobeying God, the flood (and Noah's ark) was a literal event, etc., etc. That's what I was 'always taught,' and that's what I had always believed. I didn't necessarily believe it because that's what I was taught (except maybe at first, when I was much younger); I did do my own research- read the bible, studied apologetics, etc. but then after awhile, after I started having more and more difficult questions and was not getting any satisfactory answers, I managed to also learn how to think critically, and think for myself. Sort of like those Bereans. (I can hear the argument now, because I've made it myself- 'What's all this crap about thinking for yourself? I think for myself and I happen to believe all that stuff you no longer believe. All of us already do 'think for ourselves.' Well, sure, all of us do 'think for ourselves' to a point- some people think the rapture will be pre-trib, others post-, and still others mid-. Sure, everyone thinks for themselves, and mainstream fundamentalism doesn't have any problem with that at all until you start to disagree with some 'established' idea, and have solid reasons for doing so, i.e. I don't believe there's going to be a rapture because, based on logic, evidence, and critical thought, I can honestly no longer believe in such things.) Yet I don't hear anyone mentioning Acts 17:11 when talking about people like myself. Not once has anyone ever said to me that even though they disagree with me 100%, they still respect the fact that I came to my own conclusions about the bible/god/jesus/etc.

A lot of people who are critical of atheists/atheism like to say that we just 'don't like God' or what the idea of God means for our lives. My problem isn't so much with God, as with what people say about him. Lots and lots of statements are made, many specific, some broad and vague. Some people, after doing all kinds of research and study and investigating, can reach some sort of agreement with those statements. I can't. And it doesn't involve any ulterior motives of any kind. I studied, prayed, researched, examined, asked questions, prayed some more, studied some more, and all of that. I was a Berean, you might say. I just happened to come to a different conclusion. Obviously lots of people disagree with it. They strongly believe that I'm 'wrong.' And I respect their right to believe that, but it is my honest conclusion, for my life.

They don't get to think for me. They don't get to decide for me.





*Mainstream fundamentalist- some might say that's an oxymoron, that fundies are in the minority, and therefore not mainstream. Well, the specific church that I attended for many years was very mainstream- a 'mega-church' even (though this local church was relatively small compared to 'sister' churches in places like California. But around the time I left, they were doing 3 Sunday services, with, I believe, a total membership of around 1000 people, and (I've been told) an annual budget of around $1 million). This particular church (the whole branch, not just that local church) identifies strongly with Answers in Genesis, the ministry that started the Creation Museum. (Tell me that's not fundamentalist.) So... mainstream fundamentalist. In any case, I'm not here to argue semantics.

Still here...

Just been busy. I have no idea who, if anyone, reads this. And I'm not supposed to care, since, like I said in the intro, it's just a letter to some friends/online journal, but since I do post comments on other blogs occasionally and leave this URL as a link, I figure other people might stop by once in awhile. So, just thought I'd let you know, it's far from being over. I have a whole lot of stuff that I want to get written down here still. If the topic interests you at all, do the RSS thing, or check back once in awhile. I'm hoping to get a little busier with it in the next few weeks or so.

So that's it- those were the two big things for me. Those two things, more than anything else, really led me to walk away from my faith. There were definitely other things along the way, no doubt, but it's been a really long time and I can't remember any of the specifics. Whatever other things there were have gotten mixed in with all of the other issues I've been thinking about since then.
So all of the following posts are going to be along those lines- a mix of all the stuff that's been going through my mind since that time; stuff I've thought about and re-thought about, problems I have with what I used to believe and problems I have with accepting what Christians try to tell me nowadays. Basically, why I can never be a Christian again. Read on, if you're so inclined. It's not going to be elegant writing, that's for sure; I'll probably repeat a lot of stuff, because I tend to do that. I'll probably jump around to totally different topics a lot, repeat myself some more, and generally not explain things the way I'd like to. But at least I'll have said all the stuff I've wanted to say to you, but never could; and hopefully, by writing it down here, I can finally stop thinking about it so damn much. (But mostly I just hope I can answer some of the questions you've had over the years, without raising too many more.)

Turning Points (II)

"Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they shall be granted you."
-Mark 11:24 NASB

That verse played a key role in changing the direction of my life. I know, I know, you gotta take the Bible as a whole, not just pick one or two, or even several, verses and try and make something from that, believe me, I know. But this verse had been giving me some trouble for awhile. Don't remember exactly when, or why, since I'd no doubt read it countless times before and never had a problem with it, but for some reason it started really sticking out to me and not making much sense. After all, how many times have you heard that Jesus 'says what he means, and means what he says?' I've heard it countless times, and it's usually said in a forceful voice and with an air of authority, like the speaker is a politician's right-hand man on the campaign trail-
'Candidate A says what he means and means what he says, and you can take that to the bank!'
They say it like he just speaks in an Everyman's language, plain and simple and direct, no way to misunderstand the words or the meaning behind them. So what to make of this verse, then? It's pretty plain and simple and direct. Ask, and you shall receive, right? Well, obviously he wasn't talking about anything and everything, like he's just some spiritual Sugar Daddy, waiting to hand out new cars and winning lottery tickets, right? Obviously. But I knew that. I didn't read the verse that way, because I knew better than to take things out of context, picking a verse here and there to support the things I wanted the Bible to say, like the so-called 'Name-it-claim-it' folks. I knew better than that. But I was still having trouble with it because what about the other stuff; the things that God probably does want for our lives, the things that Christians everywhere ask for in all sincerity in their prayers (whatever those things might be)? That's what I was having trouble with. Especially since over in Matthew 18:19 it says, 'Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.'
So what about that? He tells us in his plain and simple and direct language to ask. Just ask, and you shall recieve (or, 'it shall be done'). Either way, when taken at face value it simply isn't true. And remember, I'm not talking about asking for 'worldly things.' I'll get into some specific 'things' later, but for now just think about some of the things that you might pray for that maybe seem to be answered with a 'yes' and maybe they don't. But there is no 'maybe' in the verse. There's no 'no' in the verse. It's just 'ask, and you shall receive.' And it was really starting to bug me. I couldn't seem to figure it out. So, one night on a Wednesday- I had stayed home from church for some reason- I happened to be listening to the radio call-in program 'To Every Man An Answer' (similar to The Bible Answer Man, where you call in with questions about the Bible and Christianity) and decided to call those guys and ask them about it. So I asked them my question, making sure to note that I was ruling out any sort of 'name-it-claim-it' b.s. I just wanted an honest answer to the question of 'why?' Why does he say ask and you shall receive, and yet countless prayers go unanswered. All I remember the guy saying was that 'Jesus wasn't giving us carte blanche to ask for whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted it.' He said some other stuff besides that, but I think I stopped listening at that point. What a letdown. What a huge, huge letdown. I don't know exactly what I was looking for for an answer, but I was hoping for something with a little more substance than 'he's not giving us carte blanche to ask for whatever we want, whenever we want...' Of course he wasn't. Obviously he wasn't; I knew that. Tell me something I don't know. That was the purpose of the call- to maybe give me a little insight, help me see things differently, and maybe understand a little better. It might have been better if he'd just said, 'Y'know, I don't know, that verse really stumps me too.' I seem to recall them offering up 'I don't know' as an answer at times to other peoples' calls (not, however, for 'interpretation' issues). And that's fine- you don't know, just say so. I can appreciate that kind of honesty. But I really don't like attempted answers that really don't answer anything at all. This phone call was a very long time ago, and so my memory of all the details may be a little foggy, but I do recall him giving me that answer quite readily- no long pause, no 'hmmmm.... let me think...' And he (as I recall) sounded quite confident too; pretty sure of himself. I suppose part of that is just the radio business- you kind of have to be clear and confident and ready to go when it comes to a national call-in show. Voice is everything in radio. To be fair, when he was done 'answering' my question, he did ask me if that helped me, and I did say yes, even though it really didn't. I suppose I could've said no, and pressed for more. I'm not sure why I didn't. Maybe I realized deep down right then and there that it wouldn't matter. What else could he say, really? I'd spent enough time pondering it on my own, and he and his co-host offered up their thoughts, so what more could be said? Afterwards, I spent a lot of time thinking on that phone call and what they'd said, and how I'd felt about their answer.

And I came to this conclusion: 'Why should I listen to these clowns?'

I don't mean to say that they're just a joke, by calling them clowns, but that's what I felt at the time. And really, why should I listen to them when it comes to these types of questions? Why should I listen to them or any other 'expert?' This isn't rocket science we're talking about here. Hell, it's not even science. It's, 'what do you think it means?' It's not like I was trying to figure out Fermat's Last Theorem, or some other advanced math problem, where there is a hard-and-fast, right-or-wrong answer, as well as a method for finding it; it's not even like I was asking for relationship advice for my troubled marriage. Even that would be different because even though there are no absolute right-or-wrong answers in relationship advice because everyone's is different, a lot of people have experience that they can draw on, and offer useful advice. But this wasn't about anything like that; it was about, 'What do you think he meant?' So why should their opinions be any more valid than mine? Sure, they may have studied the Bible, and it's history, for many more years than I have, but the Bible doesn't change (for better or worse). The verses are exactly the same when he studies them as they are when I study them, so when I read the Bible with an open mind and an open heart and come away with a different take than him, or you, or pastor so-and-so, what makes anyone else more 'right' than me? My brother likes to say, 'There's only one way to interpret the Bible- the right way.' Ok, so what exactly is 'the right way,' and what if my interpretation is different than yours? If we have differing interpretations, and if they both can't be right (although both could be wrong) then how are we supposed to decide which one (if any) is the right one? I've heard Chuck Missler say that 'we use the Bible to interpret the Bible' (yeah, he's quite good at talking a lot of utter nonsense). My experience and my observation is that 'the other guy' is always wrong. Always.
Since even Christians can't agree with unanimity on everything the Bible says, how is it we're supposed to be able to know what this 'right' way is?
Here's what I think- anyone who believes that there's only one single 'right' way to interpret what the Bible is saying is deceiving themselves.

I'm sure I'll have a lot more to say on this later, but I just want to sum up by saying that that phone call was a turning point for me. It made me realize that when it comes to matters of faith, my thoughts and opinions and ideas are no less valid than anyone else's. It helped me learn how to think for myself. Never mind asking, 'What do you think about such-and-such?' It's 'What do I think?' Other peoples' thoughts and opinions are valid and can be helpful in forming my own, but the bottom line for me, especially when it comes to intangibles like,
'What do you suppose Jesus meant when he said...,'
the bottom line for me is that I can, and will, decide for myself.

Turning Points (I)

There's a book I have listed over in the sidebar called, 'Losing Faith In Faith,' by Dan Barker. You might recognize the name, as he was apparently a big name in evangelical Christianity in the late-60's and 70's, but that was before my time in the faith, so I'd never heard of him until after I left my own faith and found his book. It's a book that I highly recommend, to anyone. I've already read it twice, and am working on a third time. He's a lot more well-spoken than I am and says a lot of the things that I want to say, only better. His de-conversion process took place over a five year period, one that he describes as, 'painful.' I think my own took place over a period of about 2-3 years, and yes, it also was painful. Very much so. I imagine that it's similar to going through a difficult divorce, since, in a sense, that's kind of what it is. It also leaves us ex-believers in kind of an odd spot- people who've always been atheists tend to wonder how we could have ever believed in the first place, and old Christian friends (as well as other believers) well, they tend to have a whole laundry list of reasons why we no longer believe- everything from, 'we never did' to, 'we still do, we just don't want to own up to it and bow down to God.' It's really, really hard for anyone who hasn't gone through this to truly relate or understand. I don't expect you guys to be able to fully understand- simply because you haven't gone through this yourselves- but hopefully I can at least give you an idea. I did not just wake up one day and say, 'Enough of this crap, it's over.' Or, 'I'm tired of doing what God wants me to do, it's time to do what I want to do.'
I can't remember every single thing that led me to where I am now, entire conversations I've had with people, the way some people apparently can, but there's two main things that really stand out in my mind that really had an impact on me and my thought process, and still do to this day. These two things, I think more than anything else, led me to where I am today. Ironically, the first one was during a sort of bible study at church. It was actually some sort of class- I can't remember exactly what it was about, but the main church out in California (I want to avoid too many names, but I'm talking about K's church here, not the Nazarene church) they have some sort of bible college going on. And apparently, they offer the curriculum for sale, minus the college credit, at a reduced price to other member churches- the idea being that you could get the education of the classes without going for whatever degree was being offered. Good for folks who couldn't actually make it out there to attend, or who weren't interested in a degree, but still wanted the opportunity to be able to study under some really smart guys (being that they were college professors, and all). In the end though, as I remember it, it was basically just a bible study. They had several different courses available and one or another was picked out to start off with. I think they figured on meeting up once a week for 6-8 weeks or something like that, but I actually only ended up making it to, I think, two before I called it quits- I was living in Union at the time (at least I had a car by this point, so no more hitchhiking, or I wouldn't have been able to make it at all, since it was at night and I had to work the next day) and since I was already coming up on Sundays anyway, I really didn't have the extra time or gas money.
So here I am, in this 'class,' with maybe 5 or 6 other guys. I can't remember exactly what the subject was about, the 'nature of God' or some such thing, but that particular night we were going over something from Romans about how Jesus was 100% God, yet also 100% man (human) at the same time (sorry, I really can't be bothered to look up the exact verse(s). And everyone was tripping on it, like, 'How can this be? I don't get it, I just don't get it!' There was a lot of discussion, a lot of going back and forth, slapping of foreheads, and they were talking about how you could 'practically hear the fuses blowing' in their heads. And they totally relished it too! They seemed like they were having a really great time, not understanding. Me, I'm just sitting back taking it all in, watching, listening. That's just how I am; I'm not much of a talker. But it kept going on and on, they were stuck on that one passage, really making a big deal out of it, like they'd never read it before in their lives. And at one point, I just remember thinking something like, 'Why don't you just ask him to explain it to you, then? Why don't you just go to the Guy that wrote the book and ask Him?' (Not those exact words, of course, but that's the gist of it.) I didn't say that, of course, since that's not how I am; that's also not 'how things work'- you don't just pull up a chair and invite Jesus to join the discussion you're having about him. So I just kept on listening and watching, and I don't remember thinking too much about it afterwards. It really didn't seem like that big a deal at the time. I'm not sure when it did become a big deal, but at some point, it did.
I don't know why it never occurred to me before, or, if it did, why it never meant as much as it did then and does now. I don't know how other people can think about it and it doesn't seem to affect them like it did me. I guess it's all part of the 'mystery of God's ways,' as Dan Barker said in his book. Except that it's not, anymore. Not for me, anyway. Think about those words for a minute-

'Why don't you just ask him to explain it to you, then? Why don't you just go to the Guy that wrote the book and ask Him?'

To this day that is one of the biggest problems ever that I have with my old faith. Isn't one of the core teachings of Christianity that you can know God? Know him personally? Have a relationship with him? It's practically one of the foundations. Take that away, and you're basically back in the Old Testament where the average guy definitely can't talk to God directly, but instead has to go through a high priest
or Moses, or whoever. I remember hearing countless sermons railing against the Catholic church because of having to confess to the priests and all that- 'No,' they said. 'Jesus took all that away! You don't have to go through anyone anymore, you can go straight to the Lord himself (through Jesus)! Except that, really, you can't. Can you? I mean, that's what they say, but when it really comes down to it, it doesn't work that way. When it really comes down to it, those guys in that class were left to themselves, slapping their foreheads and talking about fuses blowing in their minds. Why not just ask God to explain it all, make it simple? Make it so we can understand? (No need to say it because I can hear it now, because I've heard it countless times before- 'But He has made it simple! He has made it so we can understand!') But there they were, asking themselves. Arguing and debating and going back and forth and back and forth, trying to figure it all out. There was no clear answer for them (not that they seemed to mind- 'All we know is that, yes, he's 100% God, and 100% man at the same time, but we don't know how or why or...' Can't explain it, we just know that it's true.'). I don't pay much attention anymore to theological discussions within the church, but I would imagine that people are still trying to figure out that idea, as well as countless others, just like they always have been, just like they always will be.

There was a post over on Unreasonable Faith recently, that I think sums it up perfectly. Just a photo, and I'm normally not too keen on these 'Demotivational' poster ripoffs, but I think this one is worth it-





It's always, always, always humans doing the talking. One of the commenters on that particular post had this to say, in response to a comment by someone else-

'You’re right… God could come to us in the form of a man… we’d probably kill him, but then he’d rise from the dead… oh wait… that all happened and people still don’t believe. God has given us every reason already to believe in him, even outside of Jesus, we see the existence of God in nature...'

But, by a really strange coincidence... that was a person who posted that comment! God may have been speaking through him (or he may not have been) but it was still a person doing the writing. Along those lines, think about how the internet has changed the volume of debate- before the internet, you had to to write books, or newsletters, or hold public debates, or whatever. Now, you've got countless- countless- blogs and newsgroups, forums and chatrooms, where all people do is debate one side or the other. People. Debating. About God. God's not doing the debating. The people are.
Us nonbelievers, sure, we have to speak up for ourselves, make our own case, because really, who else will? We don't have an Ultimate Authority who will speak for us. But have you ever really wondered what God's doing while all these countless debates are going on in his name? I picture him sitting on the edge of a chair, rooting for his favorite commenters on his favorite blogs/forums/chatrooms, pumping his fist in the air and saying, 'You tell him! You tell him!' I don't mean to sound flip or sarcastic, but really- from the Christian point of view, what is the point of it all? Why should anyone have to go to bat for God? Speak for him? Defend him? Can't he speak for himself? Or is it that old, 'He's speaking through his people' bit? Funny, though, how God always speaks through people, and not directly to people. Funny how he always uses their own voice, or their own pen, or their own word processor, to speak through them. Funny how he speaks through them, unless or until they're found to be telling lies, like Mike Warnke was, or until they're found to be a closet homosexual, like Ted Haggard is. Funny how God chooses to work that way, eh?

I remember seeing an interview not so long ago that Bill Maher did with Mike Huckabee, and he asked him something along those lines, about how God speaks to us. Huckabee answered pretty much the way he had to, the way everyone does when pressed on such matters- God speaks to our hearts, our souls, it's the 'still small voice,' it's the child's laughter, it's the quiet time by the stream, etc., etc., etc. Because whenever someone says that God actually speaks to him or her, like has a conversation with them or something, they are rightly looked on as nuts, even by Christians. God just doesn't work that way. (Of course he doesn't work that way. Why would he? It would certainly clear up a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding, wouldn't it?) So then what of all this talk about 'relationship' and knowing God personally and intimately? I still remember the whole, 'It's not religion, it's a relationship,' argument. Religion is all those other belief systems, the ones that don't include the God of the Bible (or do but add lots of man-made rules, like the Catholic church does); we're all about relationship, specifically one with Jesus. But what does that even mean if you can't actually talk with him? Ask him questions and expect real answers? With God, it's always a one-way conversation.
'You can know him personally,' they say. 'He can (and should) be your best friend,' but when you need real answers for real problems (including doubts about your faith) what you get is a 'still small voice;' one you can't even hear with your own ears because he 'doesn't work that way.' And even if you did hear a voice, who could you tell? Because even Christians look on that sort of thing with a great deal of skepticism. All you're really left with is prayer and talking to other believers, asking them what they think. Which leads me to turning point number 2. But that's for the next post. For now, I just want to say one last thing. Possibly, my tone here has come off a little strong; a little 'anti-God'. Some Christians reading this may think so, and vice versa, if there's any unbelievers reading this, they may think just the opposite. Let me be clear, this post, this blog, is not some sort of 'attack' on God, the idea of God, you, your faith, anyone's faith. A lot of Christians tend to look at any statement of unbelief as such-

I'm listing off reasons why I don't believe, so therefore it's an attack on everyone who does believe.

Not at all. Like I say in the 'About Me' section, this is just an '...online journal where I try and clear my mind of all the thoughts, doubts, questions, and other bullshit that has been building up...' And that is what all of these posts are- honest thoughts, doubts and questions that I've had now for over 10 years. And one thing I've learned over the years, is that for all peoples' talk about respecting truth and honesty, a lot of it is just that- talk. The truth hurts. A lot, sometimes. Everyone says they want the truth, and they don't seem to mind when other people get offended over hearing it, but when you start saying things like, 'How's this for honesty- I'm not a believer anymore. In fact, I can't believe anymore,' all of a sudden things are different and you find that maybe folks don't appreciate honesty as much as they'd like to think they do.
So this is just my place to be honest. I hope you'll understand.