Wednesday, 12 September 2018
A New Direction
So I started this blog a few years ago to help me process my loss of the faith I had practiced since I was a child. It fulfilled its purpose and life got busy and I no longer felt that I either had anything I needed to blog about in order to process it nor did I feel I had anything interesting enough worth blogging about. I recently realized that I have a lot worth blogging about as this is my life, which no one else is living the same as I am but some people may be experiencing some of the same situations as me. So I've revived Compartmentally Happy to write about more than my lost faith. It will now include posts about depression, introversion, parenting and marriage and all the ways these four things affect each other in my life. Enjoy!
Friday, 17 May 2013
Don't bother praying for me
I came across a book today called: Being Christian: Exploring Where You, God and Life Connect. Now normally, even when I was a Christian, books like this didn't attract any attention from me. I'm just not a non-fiction kinda girl. However, I glanced at the back of this book and it listed a few questions that are answered inside the book and the author is assuming the reader would like to have answered. The one that caught my eye was: "Is there any sin that's beyond forgiving?" Of course, having been a Christian most of my life, I knew what this was referring to: "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin." (Mark 3:29) but I admit, it's a verse that I never really understood and I imagine I'm not alone in that. I think as a Christian, I figured if I stayed away from all blasphemy and never felt anything but benevolence and respect for the Holy Spirit, I'd be safe and at very worst, if I did ever accidentally blasphemy the Holy Spirit, I hoped and believed that God was the kind of God that would understand my intentions and see that I didn't do it on purpose and maybe make an exception. Since it was a verse/question I was never really clear on, I was intrigued and cracked open the table of contents and found the page I needed. This is what I found:
(the following in quotes is the author paraphrasing Jesus' words to make them more clear to the reader - everything in italics is an excerpt from the book)
"I understand why people might say negative things about me personally; I have, after all, presented myself here on earth wearing the cloak of mortality. Some or even many are going to resist me, as I've expected and foretold. If a person doesn't at first believe in me, and speaks ill of me, but then later realizes that I am exactly who I say I am - God incarnate - then I will joyfully forgive that person whey they ask me to forgive their former blasphemies against me. No problem. But once a person has been filled with knowledge of my divinity - once my Spirit has come alive within them - and then they turn against me? That is unforgivable. Anyone filled with the Holy Spirit who then rejects the Spirit has created for themselves a world of hurt from which even I cannot deliver them."
At any rate, you see the point: What Jesus is saying is that you can doubt and even blaspheme against Christ before you accept him as your Savior - but once the Spirit is in you, you'd better not turn against him.
So the short answer to "Is there any sin that's beyond forgiving?" is that there's exactly one: Turning against Christ after you've accepted him. But that's the only such sin. Christ died on the cross for the forgiveness of all our other sins, even the most heinous.
So there you have it - According to Jesus, according to Stephen Arterburn and John Shore, I am beyond hope now. Because I was a Christian and now have turned away, I have blasphemed the Holy Spirit and therefore, regardless of any further actions on my part, for good or evil, I am damned to hell because of this one UNFORGIVABLE sin. I feel I should probably tell the people in my life who are praying for me to stop wasting their words since if God is real and heaven and hell exist, I have a one way, non-refundable ticket down. And this further convinces me that I should NOT raise my children to be Christians but rather, allow them to make their own decisions when they understand all they can about the world and religion, etc and feel competent to make that choice since, I, having been indoctrinated as a child, was made to follow Christ before I really had to chance to make an informed choice - a situation that has now really screwed me over according to this verse. Others, who are raised anything but Christian, can doubt and speak against Christ and believe other things and decide to practice another religion as long as they don't first become a Christian, then ask questions later. However, people who are raised as Christians better be pretty darn sure that they don't believe any of it anymore before turning away because once you do turn, you create a "world of hurt" for yourself that Jesus himself can't save you from and there's no going back.
And that one paragraph: "So the short answer to "Is there any sin that's beyond forgiving?" is that there's exactly one: Turning against Christ after you've accepted him. But that's the only such sin. Christ died on the cross for the forgiveness of all our other sins, even the most heinous."
It so comforts me to know that all the murderers, child molesters, rapists, greedy televangelists, Hitlers, and every other sinner has more hope than I, a good, thinking, kind unbeliever, do of ending up in heaven. I mean, they can all beg forgiveness, even on their death bed and it could be granted to them, while I could spend my entire life, taking care of the people I love, teaching my children to make a difference in the world, doing all sorts of good things with my life, and yet I will still end up in hell because I was once a Christian and now I'm not. Apparently, I can't even change my mind now! I don't believe any of this, but let's say someone came along that convinced me. It wouldn't matter because I've done the unforgivable and it's too late for me. Anyone who believes that we get our morals from God should really question this. According to this belief, I'm already screwed so what motivation do I have to do good? It's not going to earn me anything, I'm not good because I follow Jesus and he says to do good, I no longer have the Spirit so how can I have the fruits of the Spirit? And what you should really ask yourself is "do I really want to follow a God with these sorts of morals?" The kind of morals that say that taking a life, abusing people, being greedy, slaughtering millions - the most heinous sins - are forgivable but going from Christian to non-christian for any reason (including the reason that you've looked into it, thought about it, learned about it and it just doesn't make sense anymore) is SO bad that even God can't forgive you for it.
Now some people reading this might say, "But that's just one way to interpret that verse! I understand it this (less damning, more understanding, looks better for God's reputation) way!" which just leads me to reiterate what I've claimed in conversations with Christians in person, if not on this blog: the Bible is subjective and therefore not a Holy Book or a reliable source of information or guideline for living. If you can take any Bible verse and interpret it 2-100 different ways depending on your upbringing, personal bias, personal experiences, etc., how should I know which interpretation is the right one? Yours? The Pope's? That famous Christian writer? My own?
So stop praying for me. Don't waste your breath. Apparently there is one kind of person that God can no longer save and that's me.
(the following in quotes is the author paraphrasing Jesus' words to make them more clear to the reader - everything in italics is an excerpt from the book)
"I understand why people might say negative things about me personally; I have, after all, presented myself here on earth wearing the cloak of mortality. Some or even many are going to resist me, as I've expected and foretold. If a person doesn't at first believe in me, and speaks ill of me, but then later realizes that I am exactly who I say I am - God incarnate - then I will joyfully forgive that person whey they ask me to forgive their former blasphemies against me. No problem. But once a person has been filled with knowledge of my divinity - once my Spirit has come alive within them - and then they turn against me? That is unforgivable. Anyone filled with the Holy Spirit who then rejects the Spirit has created for themselves a world of hurt from which even I cannot deliver them."
At any rate, you see the point: What Jesus is saying is that you can doubt and even blaspheme against Christ before you accept him as your Savior - but once the Spirit is in you, you'd better not turn against him.
So the short answer to "Is there any sin that's beyond forgiving?" is that there's exactly one: Turning against Christ after you've accepted him. But that's the only such sin. Christ died on the cross for the forgiveness of all our other sins, even the most heinous.
So there you have it - According to Jesus, according to Stephen Arterburn and John Shore, I am beyond hope now. Because I was a Christian and now have turned away, I have blasphemed the Holy Spirit and therefore, regardless of any further actions on my part, for good or evil, I am damned to hell because of this one UNFORGIVABLE sin. I feel I should probably tell the people in my life who are praying for me to stop wasting their words since if God is real and heaven and hell exist, I have a one way, non-refundable ticket down. And this further convinces me that I should NOT raise my children to be Christians but rather, allow them to make their own decisions when they understand all they can about the world and religion, etc and feel competent to make that choice since, I, having been indoctrinated as a child, was made to follow Christ before I really had to chance to make an informed choice - a situation that has now really screwed me over according to this verse. Others, who are raised anything but Christian, can doubt and speak against Christ and believe other things and decide to practice another religion as long as they don't first become a Christian, then ask questions later. However, people who are raised as Christians better be pretty darn sure that they don't believe any of it anymore before turning away because once you do turn, you create a "world of hurt" for yourself that Jesus himself can't save you from and there's no going back.
And that one paragraph: "So the short answer to "Is there any sin that's beyond forgiving?" is that there's exactly one: Turning against Christ after you've accepted him. But that's the only such sin. Christ died on the cross for the forgiveness of all our other sins, even the most heinous."
It so comforts me to know that all the murderers, child molesters, rapists, greedy televangelists, Hitlers, and every other sinner has more hope than I, a good, thinking, kind unbeliever, do of ending up in heaven. I mean, they can all beg forgiveness, even on their death bed and it could be granted to them, while I could spend my entire life, taking care of the people I love, teaching my children to make a difference in the world, doing all sorts of good things with my life, and yet I will still end up in hell because I was once a Christian and now I'm not. Apparently, I can't even change my mind now! I don't believe any of this, but let's say someone came along that convinced me. It wouldn't matter because I've done the unforgivable and it's too late for me. Anyone who believes that we get our morals from God should really question this. According to this belief, I'm already screwed so what motivation do I have to do good? It's not going to earn me anything, I'm not good because I follow Jesus and he says to do good, I no longer have the Spirit so how can I have the fruits of the Spirit? And what you should really ask yourself is "do I really want to follow a God with these sorts of morals?" The kind of morals that say that taking a life, abusing people, being greedy, slaughtering millions - the most heinous sins - are forgivable but going from Christian to non-christian for any reason (including the reason that you've looked into it, thought about it, learned about it and it just doesn't make sense anymore) is SO bad that even God can't forgive you for it.
Now some people reading this might say, "But that's just one way to interpret that verse! I understand it this (less damning, more understanding, looks better for God's reputation) way!" which just leads me to reiterate what I've claimed in conversations with Christians in person, if not on this blog: the Bible is subjective and therefore not a Holy Book or a reliable source of information or guideline for living. If you can take any Bible verse and interpret it 2-100 different ways depending on your upbringing, personal bias, personal experiences, etc., how should I know which interpretation is the right one? Yours? The Pope's? That famous Christian writer? My own?
So stop praying for me. Don't waste your breath. Apparently there is one kind of person that God can no longer save and that's me.
Saturday, 13 April 2013
Going Public...sort of.
I think I'm going to go public. I think I'm ready for people to know that I no longer believe. I don't necessarily plan on throwing it in anyone's face but I'm considering including my blog address on Facebook so if anyone is curious enough, they can come check it out. Anyway, if you're new and here for the first time, take a deep breath and know your limits - the contents of this blog may shock you, especially since it's coming from me, someone you likely still thought was a Christian. Happy reading!
P.s. I would suggest, as a starting point, the first post, obviously but if you're not sure you're going to make it through all my posts, please give "how I got here" a chance as it will explain a lot.
P.s. I would suggest, as a starting point, the first post, obviously but if you're not sure you're going to make it through all my posts, please give "how I got here" a chance as it will explain a lot.
Monday, 28 January 2013
Old Journal Entries #2
Here's another blast from the past - almost a year after the first journal entry I posted:
There is apparently a revival in Florida with Todd Bentley. We're watching the 50-somethingth service online at the church right now. He came for 3-4 nights and ended up staying quite a bit longer. I've come to observe. I don't know what I think about this sort of stuff anymore. It's not that I don't think it's of God. I guess I'm just wondering about all the people involved. I just want to know what everyone's thinking. Does the worship team struggle with pride? Is Todd or any leadership worn out from 50 straight nights of meetings? Why are people showing up? To get a high? Because they're conference junkies? To see a show of miracles? To change their lives? To become closer to God? The people from my church, why do they come to watch this? What's the difference between a song being anointed and it just working and sounding really good? What do people think about when they sing about God being "holy?" I've never gotten that. Pastor went to this revival for the past couple days. He texted me from Florida to ask me to play keys for him tomorrow. Sunday morning could be interesting.
I just really don't know what to do with all this. I feel like I don't have a good foundation. I feel like I've been raised on speaking in tongues, miracles, signs and wonders, revival and all the other extra Pentecostal stuff and that I haven't gotten a good solid foundation in the basics of Christianity like love and forgiveness and patience and a daily relationship with God rather than being filled with the "Holy Ghost". So I slip and slide everywhere and change my mind and believe then doubt and get so worn out all the time. I've been raised on icing - I'm missing the cake. A.D.D - it irks me when, at a conference, the guy on the stage says something and people cheer...sorry, it may be stupid but it bugs me - seems a lot like hype...now the worship leader has "holy laughter".......
Personally, I'm all conferenced out - for crazy charasmatic/pentecostal/revival/change-my-life-in-a-weekend kind of conferences. Who calls it a revival? The leadership of the church? Todd? Other people? Is it a revival meeting before "revival" hits? or was it just teaching services that turned into "revival?"
Oh, and the shaking and falling and groaning get me too - does this change anything? What's the point of it? Why do some people do it and others don't? Here's the "holy laughter" again.
How do we know that when someone yells "fire" in a revival service, conference or prayer that people aren't trained and don't trick themselves into thinking they feel hot or tingly or whatever they "feel" as the fire or power of God?
"Fire!" "More!" "Glory!" "Hallelujah!" "Drink!" "Fill!"
I should probably be open and willing and ready to receive but I'd like to know if God or this revival or "the glory" or whatever is powerful enough to overcome my skepticism.
Why can't I taste or smell or see or feel the presence of God?
The worship leader/piano player just fell off his stool and stopped playing because he's under the "power or God." If I was there, you couldn't lose me. I'd still be playing, straight-faced.
*I then list all the "healings" and "miracles" that happen that all, all of which can't be verified that the illness or disability existed in the first place (cancer, deafness) and therefore can't be verified that they were actually healed.
There is apparently a revival in Florida with Todd Bentley. We're watching the 50-somethingth service online at the church right now. He came for 3-4 nights and ended up staying quite a bit longer. I've come to observe. I don't know what I think about this sort of stuff anymore. It's not that I don't think it's of God. I guess I'm just wondering about all the people involved. I just want to know what everyone's thinking. Does the worship team struggle with pride? Is Todd or any leadership worn out from 50 straight nights of meetings? Why are people showing up? To get a high? Because they're conference junkies? To see a show of miracles? To change their lives? To become closer to God? The people from my church, why do they come to watch this? What's the difference between a song being anointed and it just working and sounding really good? What do people think about when they sing about God being "holy?" I've never gotten that. Pastor went to this revival for the past couple days. He texted me from Florida to ask me to play keys for him tomorrow. Sunday morning could be interesting.
I just really don't know what to do with all this. I feel like I don't have a good foundation. I feel like I've been raised on speaking in tongues, miracles, signs and wonders, revival and all the other extra Pentecostal stuff and that I haven't gotten a good solid foundation in the basics of Christianity like love and forgiveness and patience and a daily relationship with God rather than being filled with the "Holy Ghost". So I slip and slide everywhere and change my mind and believe then doubt and get so worn out all the time. I've been raised on icing - I'm missing the cake. A.D.D - it irks me when, at a conference, the guy on the stage says something and people cheer...sorry, it may be stupid but it bugs me - seems a lot like hype...now the worship leader has "holy laughter".......
Personally, I'm all conferenced out - for crazy charasmatic/pentecostal/revival/change-my-life-in-a-weekend kind of conferences. Who calls it a revival? The leadership of the church? Todd? Other people? Is it a revival meeting before "revival" hits? or was it just teaching services that turned into "revival?"
Oh, and the shaking and falling and groaning get me too - does this change anything? What's the point of it? Why do some people do it and others don't? Here's the "holy laughter" again.
How do we know that when someone yells "fire" in a revival service, conference or prayer that people aren't trained and don't trick themselves into thinking they feel hot or tingly or whatever they "feel" as the fire or power of God?
"Fire!" "More!" "Glory!" "Hallelujah!" "Drink!" "Fill!"
I should probably be open and willing and ready to receive but I'd like to know if God or this revival or "the glory" or whatever is powerful enough to overcome my skepticism.
Why can't I taste or smell or see or feel the presence of God?
The worship leader/piano player just fell off his stool and stopped playing because he's under the "power or God." If I was there, you couldn't lose me. I'd still be playing, straight-faced.
*I then list all the "healings" and "miracles" that happen that all, all of which can't be verified that the illness or disability existed in the first place (cancer, deafness) and therefore can't be verified that they were actually healed.
Old Journal Entries #1
So I found this the other day, all the way back from 2007. It's a journal entry about my beliefs and my questions and such and I thought I'd share because a) I find it interesting looking back and seeing the beginnings of where I am now and b) sort of to prove that this definitely has not been a very recent change - that it has been a long time coming. So here goes:
I've been thinking a lot about my relationship with God -- or lack thereof. I've heard that the longer you've been a Christian, the better/more you should know God. It makes sense. I should know God more this year than I did last year. I really should at least know Him more this month than last month, but we'll go with years because I don't even have that. I keep going over the same things over and over again. I don't really know how to explain it right...I guess I'm just following the rules...well, sort of. Yeah, like I flee sexual immorality, I don't lie, steal, cheat, dishonor my parents, take the Lord's name in vain, I don't work on Sundays, kill people (or hate them), covet, gossip, do drugs or drink alcohol, etc..you get the picture. but I don't know how to love God. I hate praying. I know how terrible that sounds..that means that I hate talking to God..ouch...but I do -- I get so bored and tired and would much rather do something else. Besides, there's always too much and not enough to pray for -- too many people and situations to pray for and not enough answers and things to pray for about them. and I really don't like reading my bible. If I'm reading a book and the author adds in bible verses, I skip them...They're annoying and I hate reading them. I hate sitting down and really reading the Bible because whatever I learn, I forget almost right away. I can never remember what I read about the day before. So what purpose does it serve? I know that if I want it to stick and everything, I have to really get into and study it and apply it, but I just don't want to. I sing/play on the worship team and lead worship but all I do is sing. I don't think about the words or consider whether it's pleasing God or not, or really even think about God at all. I think about the chords I'm playing, the way the drummer is playing, the way the bass players stands, the funny notes on the side of the music from the original that was previously used by another worship team member, how I can make the harmony sound better when there's no third harmony, etc. Midst all that, who has time to think about God? I'm just being honest about how I'm feeling and thinking these days. I know it's no good but I have to get it out to figure it out. I think I'm just too used to the Christianity thing. I can't seem to get past the flesh stuff to get to God. I guess in some ways, I'm bitter. About what? I'm not entirely sure. But I am bitter. When I talk about bitterness, my heart hurts and I tear up. What am I bitter about? The church, being used in the ministry, not having a real childhood, being eternally depended on, feeling like a disappointment when I take a break, being responsible for so many things, wanting to quit but wanting to please, being criticized and gossiped about, being verbally and emotionally attacked, being left out, being ignored, being lost and expected to find my own way, being misunderstood, being stabbed in the back, being lied to. And I don't know how to get past it all to get to God and what He really wants me to do and how He wants me to do it. I feel like praying is really emotional and sensing the Holy Spirit's presence is impossible for me. I can't see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or feel it. You could tell me that it's there and I'd just have to believe you. I'm tired of all the church stuff. I don't know what to do. Anyway, I'm sure that if I did talk to God and all that jazz and actually had the right motives in place, I'd know what I was doing about life but it seems like even when I do fast and pray and read the Word and try to listen for God's voice, I'm as lost as I was when I started. I'm back to the whole "I can't hear God's voice" idea when it seems like everyone else doesn't have a hearing problem. Once again, I just don't know how to get around it.
I've been thinking a lot about my relationship with God -- or lack thereof. I've heard that the longer you've been a Christian, the better/more you should know God. It makes sense. I should know God more this year than I did last year. I really should at least know Him more this month than last month, but we'll go with years because I don't even have that. I keep going over the same things over and over again. I don't really know how to explain it right...I guess I'm just following the rules...well, sort of. Yeah, like I flee sexual immorality, I don't lie, steal, cheat, dishonor my parents, take the Lord's name in vain, I don't work on Sundays, kill people (or hate them), covet, gossip, do drugs or drink alcohol, etc..you get the picture. but I don't know how to love God. I hate praying. I know how terrible that sounds..that means that I hate talking to God..ouch...but I do -- I get so bored and tired and would much rather do something else. Besides, there's always too much and not enough to pray for -- too many people and situations to pray for and not enough answers and things to pray for about them. and I really don't like reading my bible. If I'm reading a book and the author adds in bible verses, I skip them...They're annoying and I hate reading them. I hate sitting down and really reading the Bible because whatever I learn, I forget almost right away. I can never remember what I read about the day before. So what purpose does it serve? I know that if I want it to stick and everything, I have to really get into and study it and apply it, but I just don't want to. I sing/play on the worship team and lead worship but all I do is sing. I don't think about the words or consider whether it's pleasing God or not, or really even think about God at all. I think about the chords I'm playing, the way the drummer is playing, the way the bass players stands, the funny notes on the side of the music from the original that was previously used by another worship team member, how I can make the harmony sound better when there's no third harmony, etc. Midst all that, who has time to think about God? I'm just being honest about how I'm feeling and thinking these days. I know it's no good but I have to get it out to figure it out. I think I'm just too used to the Christianity thing. I can't seem to get past the flesh stuff to get to God. I guess in some ways, I'm bitter. About what? I'm not entirely sure. But I am bitter. When I talk about bitterness, my heart hurts and I tear up. What am I bitter about? The church, being used in the ministry, not having a real childhood, being eternally depended on, feeling like a disappointment when I take a break, being responsible for so many things, wanting to quit but wanting to please, being criticized and gossiped about, being verbally and emotionally attacked, being left out, being ignored, being lost and expected to find my own way, being misunderstood, being stabbed in the back, being lied to. And I don't know how to get past it all to get to God and what He really wants me to do and how He wants me to do it. I feel like praying is really emotional and sensing the Holy Spirit's presence is impossible for me. I can't see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or feel it. You could tell me that it's there and I'd just have to believe you. I'm tired of all the church stuff. I don't know what to do. Anyway, I'm sure that if I did talk to God and all that jazz and actually had the right motives in place, I'd know what I was doing about life but it seems like even when I do fast and pray and read the Word and try to listen for God's voice, I'm as lost as I was when I started. I'm back to the whole "I can't hear God's voice" idea when it seems like everyone else doesn't have a hearing problem. Once again, I just don't know how to get around it.
Wednesday, 14 November 2012
Merry Mithras Day!
This was an email forward that I received this week. Somebody wrote up about the war on Christmas and religious persecution using "The Night Before Christmas" and changing the words. I was just going to write a normal blog ranting about all the things I disagreed with about it but then, while talking to a friend about it, got the idea to do the same thing but as a rebuttal. So below is the original email that annoyed me to no end and then below that is what I wrote.
Original:
Twas the month before Christmas when all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying nor taking a stand.
Why the PC Police had taken away
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a ' Holiday '.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-Pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was no where to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-is-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton !
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS,
not Happy Holiday !
Please, all Christians join together and
wish everyone you meet
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Christ is The Reason for the Christ-mas Season!
If you agree please forward, if not, simply delete.
Rebuttal:
Twas the month before Xmas and that time of year
For some Christians to bother anyone who would hear:
"You're ruining Christmas with your "Holiday" trash
Just stick with Merry Christmas and we'll no longer clash!
Put Christ back in Christmas and we'll have a swell season
Christian or not, there is only one reason!"
"They've taken our faith!" they exclaimed with a clatter
"We can't talk about Jesus or the things we think matter!"
While the truth really is that we all have free speech
and our government doesn't control what you preach.
You're welcome to say what you want in your church
In private, to family, that's a reasonable perch
But to complain that publicly-paid institutions
Won't bow down to your "Christian" rights resolutions
Is a misunderstanding of Church and of state
And how they're separate; I'll illustrate:
In exchange for permission to believe what you want
and the freedom to practice all the faith that you flaunt;
your religion has no say, (and this isn't a flaw)
in deciding the things that should or shouldn't be law.
Now Muslims, now Hindus, now Buddists and Jews
Atheists or any other stand that you choose
Don't they get a vote, shouldn't they get a say
In how we all celebrate this pagan holiday?
The real meaning of Christmas, from when it first started
Is all about Mithras and from that we've departed
Each year he is actually re-born in December
He's the Sun God and I hope you'll always remember
On the shortest and darkest day of the year
He returns to us and for that we can cheer
The return of long and warm days to come
Due to Mithras each day growing some
So please join me in joy of this festival season
And remember Mithras is the true, ORIGINAL reason
Please all people, join together in enjoying warm houses, food and drinks in this cold weather, being a little extra generous to your fellow man and understanding that nobody has the monopoly on this holiday.
Please wish everyone you meet some form of good will statement that conveys your wishes for joy and peace.
Happy Holidays! Merry Mithras Day! Seasons Greetings! Merry Christmas!
Friday, 14 September 2012
The Case for Christ
My father in law lent the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel to me to read and I’ve finally gotten around to it in the last few days. I was very disappointed for a few reasons.
I went into it with an open mind but also with the inability to shut off my critical thinking muscle. I thought, “This will be great! I’ve looked at a lot of evidence from both sides from all different sources but it’s nice that someone put it all together in one book.” WRONG. I was open to examining all the evidence again from both sides and seeing if I perhaps came to a different conclusion (instead of atheism) based on good evidence and arguments. Unfortunately, it seems to be a very biased book: the author is already Christian WHILE he’s doing the interviews, out of 13 interviews, 13 interviewees are Christian, and any evidence from the other side is only brought up to these Christians to throw out the window. Not once does he ask someone who thinks differently and asks them why they do – he asks the Christians what other people think and why. Ugh. Truly frustrating. I understand why so many Christians find that this book has strengthened their faith – Lee found “smart” people to confirm everything he already believes and presents counter arguments as “weak” and easily torn down – never once confronting someone who stands by those counter arguments.
2. Even though I mentioned this above, I want to expound on it. Lee Strobel is a Christian! The whole time! See I was under the impression and I don't quite remember why, that Lee starts out as an atheist/skeptic who goes around collecting evidence for the case for Christ and ends up converting. I was starting to get suspicious while reading because a) Lee doesn't sound like a skeptic. Sure he brings up points that skeptics have brought up but when the Christian apologists that he's interviewing give him an answer, good or bad, he basically says, "Huh, that sounds good. I'll take it!", since it boosts his bias. b) at one point, an apologist says, "The odds alone say it would be impossible for anyone to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies...Yet Jesus-- and only Jesus throughout all of history---managed to do it." and Lee writes: The words of the apostle Peter popped into my head: "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He has thus fulfilled" (Acts 3:18) Seriously? I was a Christian and I didn't have the Bible memorized but I still knew most of it's main verses and I don't know that one well enough to just have it "pop" into my head, but apparently Lee, the skeptic does? c) I cheated and looked at the back of the book and happened across the part where Lee describes his conversion. Later, while reading the book in order, I read that Lee has met the apologist he is now interviewing. They were at a debate together: Lee was the moderator, William Lane Craig was the Christian debater and an unnamed atheist was the other debater. That right there bugged me: that they weren't naming this person. I wanted to know if it was some random or a well known atheist debater and I don't understand why they didn't just include his or her name. So I googled it: it's Christopher Hitchens - one of THE best atheist debaters of late. The other thing I found out was that this debate happened in 2009. No big deal right? At least it's fairly recent. The problem is, Lee became a Christian in 1981. This was my first proof that Lee wrote this book as a Christian looking to preach to the choir, not a skeptic looking for answers. My second proof immediately followed when I took a closer look at the paragraph at the end of the book describing Lee's conversion. Had I read it completely the first time instead of skimming I would have noticed this: "My investigation into Jesus was similar to what you've just read, except that I primarily studied books and other historical research instead of personally interacting with scholars." He's admitting right here (at the end of the book mind you, after you've gone the whole way assuming he's a skeptic) that this book full of interviews wasn't actually his journey - that happened long before. d) the way he describes God is definitely from a Christian point of view, not a skeptics. He's looking at whether Jesus really was God and stating that if he was, he'd have to be LIKE God. So what is God like? According to Lee and many Christians, "He's loving, he's holy, he's righteous, he's wise, he's just." (pg 156) According to Richard Dawkins, an atheist: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, meglomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (The God Delusion) I'd think that if Lee really was a skeptic, he'd at least land somewhere in the middle - between the two descriptions, not in the middle of the Christian camp.
3. One of the issues I had with Lee was pretty much right from the start. First, he talks about a case where the suspect shot a police officer in a scuffle. It was an airtight case according to the evidence - even the suspect pleaded guilty. When the case is over and the suspect is sentenced, a source calls Lee to tell him about pen guns. This leads Lee to reconsider all the evidence that so clearly pointed in one direction and see that it also fit another scenario - one where the police officer is carrying this illegal pen gun and it actually misfired in the scuffle. Totally different story - but the evidence fit both stories. He applies this to the evidence for Christ. He describes what he thought about God, Jesus, Christianity, etc. and admits that all he'd ever given was a cursory glance to the evidence surrounding all things Jesus. He goes on to say that he'd read enough to convince himself that he didn't need to look any further into it and he did so because he had a "strong motivation" to do so: "a self-serving and immoral lifestyle that I would be compelled to abandon if I were ever to change my views and become a follower of Jesus." And so he wonders if the evidence (that he's hardly looked at) could tell a different story. Here are my issues: 1. He didn't have a good reason for being a skeptic in the first place - he hadn't really looked at it either way and he reasoned if it WAS true, he'd have to change his life which he didn't necessarily want to do. 2. Lee unfortunately reinforces the myth that atheists don't believe in God because they want to do awful things and not be held accountable. I'd be interested to know what sort of immoral things Lee was doing before he became a Christian. Maybe he wasn't as generous as he felt he could be or he felt bad for not going to church. I really have my doubts that his story is the kind where Jesus saves him from crime/drugs/sex/tattoos/oujia boards/etc. Atheist is to immoral as standing in a garage is to car. Either way, Lee was not coming from anywhere near where I am coming from. 3. Lee doesn't follow his own advice about the idea of evidence being able to tell two different stories - because in his book, he only tells one. I was at least willing to look at both sides.
In the end, I haven't lost any respect for my father in law - I know that he is sincere and he is doing his best to make sure he has good reasons for what he believes which I admire. I also realize that he cares about me and was only trying to share what he thought are strong arguments for Christianity. Lee, on the other hand, I am extremely disappointed in. I hope his only desire was to further convince Christians of their faith because his book will have either no effect or an adverse one on non believers. I have no respect for someone who claims to have looked at both sides of the story and promises to present them to you and then only tells one side. I'd be a lot less upset if his book was called "why you should believe Jesus was God" or "proof that Jesus was the Christ" and then he states his intentions to only talk about the evidence that helps his side. It would be honest at least. And you're allowed to write biased books - but I think you should be honest about it, not pretend to be objective.
I went into it with an open mind but also with the inability to shut off my critical thinking muscle. I thought, “This will be great! I’ve looked at a lot of evidence from both sides from all different sources but it’s nice that someone put it all together in one book.” WRONG. I was open to examining all the evidence again from both sides and seeing if I perhaps came to a different conclusion (instead of atheism) based on good evidence and arguments. Unfortunately, it seems to be a very biased book: the author is already Christian WHILE he’s doing the interviews, out of 13 interviews, 13 interviewees are Christian, and any evidence from the other side is only brought up to these Christians to throw out the window. Not once does he ask someone who thinks differently and asks them why they do – he asks the Christians what other people think and why. Ugh. Truly frustrating. I understand why so many Christians find that this book has strengthened their faith – Lee found “smart” people to confirm everything he already believes and presents counter arguments as “weak” and easily torn down – never once confronting someone who stands by those counter arguments.
2. Even though I mentioned this above, I want to expound on it. Lee Strobel is a Christian! The whole time! See I was under the impression and I don't quite remember why, that Lee starts out as an atheist/skeptic who goes around collecting evidence for the case for Christ and ends up converting. I was starting to get suspicious while reading because a) Lee doesn't sound like a skeptic. Sure he brings up points that skeptics have brought up but when the Christian apologists that he's interviewing give him an answer, good or bad, he basically says, "Huh, that sounds good. I'll take it!", since it boosts his bias. b) at one point, an apologist says, "The odds alone say it would be impossible for anyone to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies...Yet Jesus-- and only Jesus throughout all of history---managed to do it." and Lee writes: The words of the apostle Peter popped into my head: "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He has thus fulfilled" (Acts 3:18) Seriously? I was a Christian and I didn't have the Bible memorized but I still knew most of it's main verses and I don't know that one well enough to just have it "pop" into my head, but apparently Lee, the skeptic does? c) I cheated and looked at the back of the book and happened across the part where Lee describes his conversion. Later, while reading the book in order, I read that Lee has met the apologist he is now interviewing. They were at a debate together: Lee was the moderator, William Lane Craig was the Christian debater and an unnamed atheist was the other debater. That right there bugged me: that they weren't naming this person. I wanted to know if it was some random or a well known atheist debater and I don't understand why they didn't just include his or her name. So I googled it: it's Christopher Hitchens - one of THE best atheist debaters of late. The other thing I found out was that this debate happened in 2009. No big deal right? At least it's fairly recent. The problem is, Lee became a Christian in 1981. This was my first proof that Lee wrote this book as a Christian looking to preach to the choir, not a skeptic looking for answers. My second proof immediately followed when I took a closer look at the paragraph at the end of the book describing Lee's conversion. Had I read it completely the first time instead of skimming I would have noticed this: "My investigation into Jesus was similar to what you've just read, except that I primarily studied books and other historical research instead of personally interacting with scholars." He's admitting right here (at the end of the book mind you, after you've gone the whole way assuming he's a skeptic) that this book full of interviews wasn't actually his journey - that happened long before. d) the way he describes God is definitely from a Christian point of view, not a skeptics. He's looking at whether Jesus really was God and stating that if he was, he'd have to be LIKE God. So what is God like? According to Lee and many Christians, "He's loving, he's holy, he's righteous, he's wise, he's just." (pg 156) According to Richard Dawkins, an atheist: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, meglomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (The God Delusion) I'd think that if Lee really was a skeptic, he'd at least land somewhere in the middle - between the two descriptions, not in the middle of the Christian camp.
3. One of the issues I had with Lee was pretty much right from the start. First, he talks about a case where the suspect shot a police officer in a scuffle. It was an airtight case according to the evidence - even the suspect pleaded guilty. When the case is over and the suspect is sentenced, a source calls Lee to tell him about pen guns. This leads Lee to reconsider all the evidence that so clearly pointed in one direction and see that it also fit another scenario - one where the police officer is carrying this illegal pen gun and it actually misfired in the scuffle. Totally different story - but the evidence fit both stories. He applies this to the evidence for Christ. He describes what he thought about God, Jesus, Christianity, etc. and admits that all he'd ever given was a cursory glance to the evidence surrounding all things Jesus. He goes on to say that he'd read enough to convince himself that he didn't need to look any further into it and he did so because he had a "strong motivation" to do so: "a self-serving and immoral lifestyle that I would be compelled to abandon if I were ever to change my views and become a follower of Jesus." And so he wonders if the evidence (that he's hardly looked at) could tell a different story. Here are my issues: 1. He didn't have a good reason for being a skeptic in the first place - he hadn't really looked at it either way and he reasoned if it WAS true, he'd have to change his life which he didn't necessarily want to do. 2. Lee unfortunately reinforces the myth that atheists don't believe in God because they want to do awful things and not be held accountable. I'd be interested to know what sort of immoral things Lee was doing before he became a Christian. Maybe he wasn't as generous as he felt he could be or he felt bad for not going to church. I really have my doubts that his story is the kind where Jesus saves him from crime/drugs/sex/tattoos/oujia boards/etc. Atheist is to immoral as standing in a garage is to car. Either way, Lee was not coming from anywhere near where I am coming from. 3. Lee doesn't follow his own advice about the idea of evidence being able to tell two different stories - because in his book, he only tells one. I was at least willing to look at both sides.
In the end, I haven't lost any respect for my father in law - I know that he is sincere and he is doing his best to make sure he has good reasons for what he believes which I admire. I also realize that he cares about me and was only trying to share what he thought are strong arguments for Christianity. Lee, on the other hand, I am extremely disappointed in. I hope his only desire was to further convince Christians of their faith because his book will have either no effect or an adverse one on non believers. I have no respect for someone who claims to have looked at both sides of the story and promises to present them to you and then only tells one side. I'd be a lot less upset if his book was called "why you should believe Jesus was God" or "proof that Jesus was the Christ" and then he states his intentions to only talk about the evidence that helps his side. It would be honest at least. And you're allowed to write biased books - but I think you should be honest about it, not pretend to be objective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)