mcdspot

This is an amazing, amazing essay on the idea of living without God. And, I suppose, what really happens to a society with weakening religious beliefs. A fresh perspective, amidst so much gnashing of teeth lately.

Attention

To adherents of the following Protestant denominations:

Pre-Lutheran Protestants
Lutherans
Reformed Churches
Presbyterians
Congregationalist Churches
Anabaptists
Methodists
Pietists and Holiness Churches
Baptists
Spiritual Baptists
Brethren
Apostolic Churches - Irvingites
Pentecostalists
Charismatics
Latter Day Saints
etc
etc
etc

PLEASE STOP INTERPRETING THE BIBLE LITERALLY. It’s really pissing me off. Rejecting science and reason is so medieval.

Why don’t you take a cue from the Catholic Church, which has long declared that the theory of evolution is compatible with the Bible? Hmm? Or are you still at odds with the ‘papists’ and adopt a contrary stance as a matter of principle?

At any rate, YOU CAN STOP IT NOW. Please stop trying to introduce creationism and other crackbrain theories to our children. Please chill out on issues like school prayer, abortion, stem cell research and focus on real threats like poverty, crime, racism, and needless war.

What has happened to you? Why are you so focused on abortion and creationism? Why do you let these issues decide which candidate you will vote for?

Of course, I’ve never understood how you can insist on a literal interpretation of the Genesis story one minute, but then the next minute you make a liberal textual interpretation of the Bible to justify your stance on abortion (the bible does not literally proscribe abortion).

But all that confusing hypocrisy aside, don’t you care about any other issues? Is abortion really such a pressing issue that you are willing to overlook a candidate’s progressive ideas on taxation, the economy, and foreign relations? WHY, for god’s sake?

I have come to the very skeptical conclusion that many bible-beaters must not care about these issues. And I’m not sure whether I should be very scared or very sad.

UPDATE: great article: Why Do We Believe Impossible Things?

Creationism Controversy: State-by-State.

Academic freedom. Oh really?

Good question: If churches are allowed to endorse politcial candidates, shouldn’t they lose their tax-exempt status?

Again?

Are you kidding me?

A new law in Texas will require public schools to teach the Bible to students. Surely this is all about protecting religious freedoms and First Amendment rights.

Sigh.

James Dobson’s religious right organization Focus on the Family recently posted a video on its website urging people to pray for “rain of biblical proportions” during Sen. Barack Obama’s acceptance speech in Denver. The video has since been taken down allegedly due to complaints. The religious right, to paraphrase the bumper sticker, is becoming less religious and less right.

UPDATE: Oh, this is sooo good. I now believe in a just, merciful god. After Dobson’s puerile call for prayers asking God to deliver flash floods that would “swamp the intersections” around Invesco Field in Denver “two minutes before [Obama's] acceptance speech begins,” it appears that Hurricane Gustav is set to dampen the GOP convention in Minnesota on Monday. This goes beyond poetic justice. This simply has to be direct divine intervention.

This book may go far in debunking the unfortunate misperception that Islam is incompatible with democracy.

“A cult is a religion with no political power.”

- Tom Wolfe

“A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution. Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC’s review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.”

Attaboy.

If you strive to live your life according to the golden rule but need some further elucidation on how to do it, try reading about the 37 practices of a bodhisattva. I can’t help but think Jesus met a Buddhist at some point in his life.

I keep promising to myself to stop writing about religion, but I just can’t. Religious belief, particularly belief which contradicts history and science in order to justify itself, simply astounds me. I just cannot understand how normal, educated people, who otherwise understand human nature and employ reason and logic in their daily decisions, are willing to suspend reason and logic when it comes to their beliefs. By stating this I honestly don’t mean to judge anyone, or act as if I’m ‘above’ religious people for praising logic and reason. I understand that religious belief exists in every culture and is obviously deeply rooted in our psychology. It’s a very complicated human characteristic and I respect it as such. However, I don’t understand it.

In particular, I don’t understand how anyone can truly believe that the modern Bible is ‘true’ and currently exists in a form intended and inspired by divinity. That the Bible is free of mistakes, omissions, alterations, forgeries, misinterpretations and propaganda, all of which characterize human writings throughout history. How can one believe this, when Biblical scholarship has shown that many, many passages of the Bible exist in multiple inconsistent or contradictory forms, and that the text has been altered and added to hundreds (if not thousands) of times? How can one really accept the bible’s veracity in the face of its chaotic textual history?

I accept that biblical scholars frequently disagree over interpretations and that they may be wrong. But on issues where the vast majority of scholars agree, there is at least a high probability they are right. And some of these issues, if explained to the world, should rightly rock the foundations of the religion. These textual discoveries contradict the notion that the bible is divinely inspired. These discoveries should be verified and addressed by the church.

One specific passage that has had enormous influence on modern theology is Mark 16:9-20, which states the following:

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

This controversial passage has long been an accepted part of Jesus’ story, and has been cited as historical proof that Jesus rose from the grave (See Josh McDowell’s ‘Evidence That Demands a Verdict’). It has inspired sects of Christianity and established the precedent for ’speaking in tongues’ which still occurs in many mainstream churches today. More importantly, the phrase “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” forms the very basis for Christian fundamentalist judgment (other passages may support this too–I’m no scholar).

Shockingly, it turns out that this passage was likely not part of the original gospel of Mark. There is an extensive scholarly debate on this issue, but it is undisputed that many extant versions of the gospel do not include some or all of these verses. One of these is the Codex Sinaiticus, handwritten in Greek over 1600 years ago and discovered in 1844 (this text has a fascinating history, by the way). The Sinaiticus, along with other texts, has provided very real evidence that Mark 16:9-20 were added to the bible at a later, unknown date. Although the issue remains controversial, it is undisputed that these early texts were later altered, which not only disproves the ‘divinely inspired’ theory but brings into question the teachings within those verses.

I’m pleased to learn that the aim of the Codex Sinaiticus Project is to eventually “reunite the entire manuscript in digital form and make it accessible to a global audience.” Hopefully, a greater understanding of the text will re-open debates over what constitutes christian doctrine. The same process should be used to address the tenets of every religion.

Again, I raise these issues not as an attack of christian or general religious beliefs, but as an attempt to propose answers to the following questions: What if we could improve our religious institutions? Is there some way to curb religious fundamentalism, an increasingly dangerous byproduct of belief? Will reconciling faith with science, history, and modern ethics help deter fundamentalist thinking?

Wow. Walking out of church holding a Eucharist cracker, rather than eating it right away, is now a hate crime. Catholics “worldwide” became furious when a Florida student recently took his wafer to a friend who was curious about Catholicism, and now the student is receiving death threats. PZ Myers offers a little perspective on the outcry.

An atheist soldier has filed suit against the U.S. Army, alleging a ‘pattern of discrimination against non-Christians in the military.’ Not surprisingly, it looks like he’s got a legitimate case.

An Israeli scholar has discovered a document dating to the years prior to Jesus’ birth which references a “messiah” who rose from the grave after three days. How can this be? The discovery suggests, of course, that the story of Jesus’ own leap from the grave may be more mythology than fact. The authenticity of the recently-deciphered document needs to be settled, but if it is true then we will be a little closer to understanding what many have noted: that the early Christians realized that the only way to make the Jesus myth palatable to non-believers was to use (or appropriate) traditions and symbols those people were already familiar with. The messiah legend was already deeply embedded in early Jewish culture (see Daniel 9:26), so it makes sense that the followers of Jesus would feel compelled to wrap him in messianic garb. And in other areas outside of Jewish culture, it was necessary to have Jesus’ story emulate the pagan traditions that were so ingrained in those cultures, most notably Mithraism. No self-respecting Egyptian shepherd in the 5th century was going to believe in a god who couldn’t even raise himself from the dead, after all.

As expected, many Christian scholars and apologetics vigorously disagree with this theory. They must, because many Christians unfortunately continue to insist on basing their spiritual authority on the premise that everything in the Bible is literally and factually true. And so this new evidence revealing the nature of ancient Jewish culture will most likely be quietly refuted and then ignored, much like the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and many other documents which could help us better understand the historical context of religious belief. If these documents are authentic, they should be used to guide an evolution of doctrine in the church, even if they are non-canonical. I’m not suggesting that the church reform its tenets every time a dusty parchment surfaces in Iran or Jerusalem. But I am saying that the church, from time to time, should examine the historical record and refine its creeds and canons to correspond with confirmed history. Wouldn’t this make it more appealing as a belief system? Wouldn’t this help the church adapt to the modern, rational world? The church has made similar adaptations many times in the past in order to preserve itself from schism and fracture. It is time for another reevaluation.

In my opinion, the Christian church should make it official doctrine that one need not believe in the historical accuracy of the entire Bible in order to be a Christian. This would correspond with the actual beliefs of many modern Christians anyway, including people like Thomas Jefferson. This would be a radical step that would probably cause dramatic upheavals, but in the end I believe it would do much to remedy the crisis of faith commonly faced by many believers. This would admittedly take Christianity a step towards secular humanism, but as long as the church emphasizes Jesus’ singular role in distilling human ethics into what Jefferson called the “most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man,” things should be okay. The church would still celebrate and worship Jesus (and Mary, if you’re Catholic), but would simply acknowledge a new focus on Jesus’ symbolic status and power rather than his historical origins.

I know the odds of this ever happening are extremely, extremely low, but I’m sure of one thing–it would have absolutely no effect on the power of the church to continue to teach ethical, Jesus-like behavior. I don’t believe for a second that a person acts morally because they believe the events described in the Bible are factual. Which takes us back to the issue of the newly-discovered document mentioned at the beginning of this increasingly bloviated post: Does it really matter whether Jesus was the only messiah and actually rose from the grave? Does this really have anything to do with a person’s daily decision as to which moral principles he or she will follow?

How the church became so dependent on the historicity of Christ is the result of hundreds of years of complex human history, and is a subject I would love to learn about someday. But for now it seems relevant to ask this question: Did Jesus ever state that in order to follow his ethical teachings one must also adopt a belief in a particular religious history? The answer is obviously no. John 14:6 notwithstanding, Jesus never stated that one can only be moral by believing in Jesus’ divinity. Jesus clearly indicated that one may ‘love one’s neighbor as one would love oneself’ without any need to affirm a belief in any historical interpretation. The very idea is absurd. I imagine Jesus would feel sorely misunderstood if he were to learn that many Christians today believe that a person may lead a wholly moral life yet still suffer punishment in an afterlife because he or she refused to endorse a particular version of history.

Ah. So it goes.

The Pray at the Pump movement is designed to petition God directly for a decrease in gas prices.

“This whole thing is a wake-up call from God to Americans, because we idolize men so much,” said Twyman, 59, a public relations consultant and Seventh-day Adventist who believes that high gas prices are a sign of the apocalypse drawing nigh. “I think through this crisis, God is trying to call us back to depend on Him more.”

Rather than praying over expensive gas, we should be laughing at it.

No, South Carolina, you can’t do that. It says so right here.

After reading about the history of the Nicaean Creed, I’m beginning to understand why the Bible I have says “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) when some other bibles don’t say that at all.

Interesting study on religious views in America shows that many people hold beliefs that contradict the tenets of their faith. For example, the study found that 57% of evangelical Christians say that multiple religions can lead to salvation, a view opposite to Jesus’ claim that “No one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6). The explanation is that religion in America is becoming more personal and less about categories and dogma. This makes sense in a time in which many of the “official” teachings of religious groups are increasingly becoming obsolete or falling out of vogue. Could this mean we are witnessing a broadening of tolerance for differing religious views in America? I sure hope so.

After all, how can we expect all of these super-heroes to get along?

from Teach the Controversy