A break...

My dear friends and readers, I have to take a break.

It is not for lack of topic, as I still have more to say. But unfortunately this time of year is the busiest time of year for me, and I am finding it increasingly difficult to find the free time to dedicate to the type and quality of posts I want here.

Unfortunately the way timing works in my life, everything has to hit the fan at the same time. My family has been thrown into a needlessly dramatic situation; the result of which will be me and my husband moving out of our current home and moving in with my grandmother to help care for her.

Any and all prayers will be appreciated...

..for a good laugh. Honestly, don't waste your time.

At any rate, I am going to hold off on publishing more posts until after the new year. I may try to sneak one or two in, for Christmas or whatever, but no promises.

Thank you for your understanding.

See you... soon,

Frank

Death and Politics

This past weekend, Brittany Maynard decided to end her life. She was not depressed. She was not suicidal. She was terminal.

Earlier this year she was diagnosed with stage 4 glioblastoma, a terminal form of brain cancer. She was given approximately six months to live; her health would rapidly deteriorate. She would experience pain. She would lose control of parts of her body. She would become a burden to her friends and family. Chemotherapy would only prolong the inevitable death, adding its own unique side effects to the mix.

Brittany chose to take control of her own destiny, sparing herself and her friends and family the pain of slowly wasting away. She proactively chose to not be a physical and financial burden, to not suffer.

She chose to die with dignity.

And yet, many people are reacting in a dishearteningly disturbing way which is quickly stripping away that dignity:

"Some people fight until the end and some just quit because they are weak and not fighters."

"Like abortion, suicide is murder. She'll be judged by here Creator God for her actions."

"Next you death-lovers will be hailing a mentally-ill person for murdering themselves."

"Death is something that we all must face in our own time, or you could just take the cowards way out like Brittany."

Oregon, Washington, and Vermont all have enacted legislature (The Death with Dignity Act) which allows doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs under certain conditions. Brittany and her family moved to Oregon this past summer to take advantage of this.

Knowing that you are going to die and making the concious decision to control your own death is not cowardice, it is maturity. It is honorable.

I understand the comments, the hateful remarks made by Christians. They truly do believe it is horrible, is an affront to their god. When I was a fundamentalist Christian, my own opinion on the matter would have been that people should be prevented from doctor-assisted suicide. In fact, Dr. Kevorkian, the first true pioneer in this field, lived only a few miles from me in those days, and I used to curse him. Now I grieve that there are not more like him.

I believed, like most fundamentalists, that those who committed suicide would burn in hell for eternity. Why? Because of the illogical argument that suicide is murder, and one cannot ask for / receive forgiveness when one is dead.

Christians believe that "god will never give you more than you can handle." And yet, I can easily point to millions of souls throughout history who suffered to the point of death (Google the Inquisition, Slavery, famine, plague, and third-world starvation).

Regardless, today's post was supposed to be about tomorrow's mid-term elections. I was going to give reasons why everyone should be voting for Libertarian candidates; but I think that Brittany has more eloquently made my point in the most serendipitous way possible: after all, the Libertarian platform is all about small government and people making their own life decisions.

So, in Brittany's honor, I would like to wholeheartedly thank her friends, family, and supporters; I would like to thank those who enacted the legislation in Oregon, Washington, and Vermont which allowed her to end her suffering; and I would like to cheer-on those who continue to fight for our liberties and freedoms against the increasing tyranny of the fundamentalist movement.

See you in two weeks,

Frank

Six Month Anniversary!

Well it has been six months thus far!

I feel that, for the most part, my deconversion is fairly complete. I am sure there are still things I will have to learn, things to adjust to, and things to forget. I have certainly experienced all of the 5 Phases of Deconversion (this will be presented in a future post).

Time has marched on and, as I slowly start to settle into the life of an apatheist, atheist, agnostic, or whatever the hell I am (which is another thing I've learned: I don't have to accept any given label other than my name, and I can even change that) I am finding that I need this particular forum less and less.

No disrespect to you, my reader, but I can't make this blog and my raging lack of belief the central focus of my life. It is time for me to shift perspectives and start fully living this one life I have to live.

It is true that I want to, in part, turn this site into a resource for other Christians who are toying with joining reality; so in order to do that (and to do the aforementioned perspective shifting) I will no longer be posting on a weekly basis, but rather a bi-monthly basis.

This will allow me to work on bringing resources, media, and higher-quality posts.

I will miss our weekly chats, but trust me: the best is yet to come.

See you in two weeks,

Frank

Columbus Day!

Today is Columbus Day!

I am too lazy today (actually, I’m behind on a billion different projects) to actually write about all of the atrocities committed by Christopher Columbus (in the name of Christianity, don’t forget) so instead I will point you to TheOatmeal, which can illustrate the disturbing details of this horrific (yet ignorantly celebrated) point of human history.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/columbus_day

I hope Matt Inman will forgive me for this slight form of plagiarism.

Until next Monday,

Frank

Prayer (A Reprisal)

In my last post, I closed by indicating that prayer doesn't work. I pointed to a previous post whereby I attempted to argue against the four common beliefs presented by the religious when it is shown to them that their prayers fail.

I feel like that was insufficient. I want to be absolutely explicit when I proffer the claim that prayer just does not work. And so I'm going to point out a few more quick things.

The problem is that the anecdotal evidence offered up by the proponents of prayer are, at best, confirmation bias. At worst, extreme arrogance. In between lie statistical probability, coincidence, and pareidolia.

Arrogance? How dare I! And yet, to declare the "power of prayer" works simply because you prayed for, and received, a promotion, or a good parking spot, or that special toy for Christmas is genuinely offensive to the millions upon millions across this globe whose prayers for clean water, or food, or medicine are ignored.

Those people pray, too. They may pray to the same god as you do, or to different gods. And yet the kind, benevolent, and loving god which blessed you with a little extra whipped cream on your mocha has turned his/her/its back on the disheartening cries of a mother pleading for food for her child. God looks away and hums when a teenage girl is being gang-raped. And god seems to love damning the poor to poverty, while blessing the pastor with abundant riches. Is it ironic that the poor who, in their naivete, give their last dollar to the pastor, because he promises blessings from god?

Complete bullshit.

Confirmation bias I say? Yes, absolutely. We tend to forget all the prayers that go unanswered. Why? Because so many of us suffer so little in life, we can afford to forget the little inconveniences that slip by.

Coincidence? There are billions of people on this planet, and billions of things going on each minute of each day. Pure coincidence can -- and does -- happen, quite frequently.

Pareidolia? Our brains are hardwired to find patterns, to search for meaning. We look for hidden symbols and answers in everything.

Statistics? 10 out of 10. If a radio show selects the 99th caller to win tickets to the circus, then 1 out of 100 callers will win. Someone is bound to be that 1 person!

And while I could easily turn this post into a huge dissertation citing examples and research and studies and science, I'm not going to. Anyone interested in furthering their understanding of why prayer does not work can start with the Wikipedia article on Efficacy of Prayer. If that isn't enough to get your brain gears working, then always remember: GIYF (Google Is Your Friend).

And finally, let's meet Bill: an average middle-aged Baptist church-goer from the Appalachian hills of eastern Kentucky. He has cancer. He prays daily to his god for healing, during his chemotherapy sessions. He visits his doctor once per month, and is sure to take his pills every day during his morning devotional. At church, he asks for the prayers of the congregation, for healing from his god. The cancer goes into remission. Who gets the credit? Hint: it ain't the doctors, and it ain't the medicine.

"Oh," but you say, "that's because god was working through the doctors and the medicine!"

Seriously? So what about all the people who are in the same situation, but don't survive? Did god forget to work though those doctors and those medicines? Or maybe it is part of some great plan -- perhaps the same plan where millions on this planet suffer and die in horrible, disgusting conditions?

Like I said, complete bullshit.

Until next Monday,
Frank

Reconversion!

So, I'm a Christian again now.

LOL! Just kidding. God, you're so gullible sometimes!

So a few weeks ago, a friend of a friend on Facebook noticed a comment I had made about my recent deconversion on a particular posting. He had some questions about that, and so sent a message indicating that he was an atheist who converted to Christianity. He wanted to see if he could address the issues I had regarding the religion, which caused me to leave; to which I responded that he would be wasting his time, if his goal was to reconvert me.

And so the time wasting began.

He wanted to know what, exactly, caused me to leave Christianity. My response:

Too many questions that Christianity couldn't answer, my friend. 

There comes a certain point when history and science and logic put a wedge into one's faith, and then the hammer falls down upon that wedge and breaks it apart...

...just questions, and history, and science, and logic. And 30+ years of religion crumbled away...

Naturally, he was curious as to what those questions were. So I presented them:

1. If Christianity is true, then why are there some 40,000 different denominations? Many of those are at odds with each other over very fundamental beliefs. Many pronounce doom on believers of other denominations. How is the Christian supposed to know which one is really true, and which one is not?

2. How do we even know that the god of the bible, among the millions of other gods throughout human history, is the true god? Every religion has its anecdotal stories which supposedly prove prayer and faith works.

3. How can any loving, personal god, who is truly interested in his creation's salvation, leave that creation with nothing but questions and mystery over what is true, and then say, "oh by the way if you don't figure it out you're spending eternity in hell"? What kind of god can be called loving for punishing humanity for not knowing the truth he refuses to clarify, and to punish eternally? The judgment does not even fit the crime. It reeks of a man-made concept used to reign people in.

And this is where things started to go downhill. The first thing he did was to start arguing from bible scripture. Which is, of course, the #1 no-no when trying to argue your faith with someone who does not believe it. To begin with, the "non-believer" probably doesn't even accept your religious book as valid or true (much like Christians do not believe the Koran or Bhagavad Gita to be true). And so starting off in this manner comes across as very arrogant, as you are all but saying, "your holy book is false, therefore what you believe is false -- let me correct you using my holy book, inspired by the true god."

Christians, how would you react if someone from a different faith approached you like this? Would you laugh them off, or try to convince them otherwise? So why expect your targets to act any different?

Now, in the course of this conversation, arguing from bible scripture was just the starting point. Then he began, in all honesty, making excuses for how men misinterpret things, and we should just stick to the scripture and, quite frankly, blah blah blah. If you are interested, here is my (rather wordy) response:

I understand completely what you are saying, as an apologist I also argued from this position myself. The problem we get into, with the concept of just following the scripture, is that it is up for too much personal interpretation. In fact, the innumerable translations from the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek into English can determine multiple different ways a particular scripture can be interpreted.

Another problem with the concept of "solo scriptura" is that there are thousands of different manuscripts of the Greek New Testament books. All of them are divergent from each other in some way...

The third problem is that there are actually more non-cannonical New Testament gospels than there are in the currently accepted cannon. The New Testament as we know it today evolved over the course of 400 years. So does that mean all the other types of Christians were wrong and are in hell, because they believed adoptionism, or gnosis, or any one of the other dozens of divergent concepts of who Christ was in early Christianity?

Finally there is one other glaring problem: with exception of a few books of the New Testament, we don't even know who the authors were. All of the gospels were anonymous, and are completely at odds with each other in many areas. Many of the epistles were not written by who they claim to be, and several were written upwards of 150 years after the fact.

...I appreciate your gusto and what you're trying to do. But the more I read into the history of bible, its origins and formation, the more I see that it really is a loose coupling of books written by divergent men over diverse time periods.

If you want a good understanding of why I don't believe the bible to be reliable, read this blog post of mine on Paganini's 24th Caprice.

I welcome any arguments that you may be able to present from outside the bible, but anything from inside that book I am not going to agree with. I am sorry, but that is where I am at. It is not that I don't believe in the possibility of a god, but that I do not believe in the god of the bible.

Sadly, his response was only more rhetoric: "you can actually read the writings of the early church father's and put together the entire New Testament cannon just from the quotations of their writings." I have heard this argument plenty of times.

In fact, the same argument can be used of any religious text. All religious fathers will quote their holy books as they make their cases or debates. I am sure one can reconstruct with some accuracy the entire texts of the aforementioned Koran and Bhagavad Gita by referencing religious pundits' quotations of them.

You can do the same with almost any popular book of any antiquity on this planet. Eventually (if it hasn't happened already) enough people will quote enough of Shakespeare's Hamlet that one could recompile the whole play without the actual source material.

Let's be honest here: the proliferation of quotes is not a logical argument for the accuracy or truth or reliability of what is being quoted. Truth is not a democracy, it is not based upon majority rule. 200 copies of the same section of scripture does not mean it is more true than one copied only 20 times. It just means it was copied more, for whatever reason.

But single-handedly the most disturbing thing he said during our discourse (before I stopped him and told him he really is wasting his time because I already know all the arguments he is going to use, and defeated them all for myself): 

I believe because I believe the evidence bears out that what the scripture says is true. Not necessarily from the context of naturalist materialist post-scientific 21st century American worldview, but from the context in which it was given - that of the pre-scientific ancient near east Semitic people from about 2,000 BC to 100 AD. It makes quite a bit more sense when we don't try to impose filters on the scripture that are completely foreign to it.

So... basically you're telling me that your own belief is not even based upon evidence, but upon the belief that it proves scripture? And, that we should relate to the bible in a way which only ancient Jews understand? And that the bible makes more sense when we don't apply logic, reason, or science?

Is this the same religion which tells me I can have a personal relationship with god and that the bible can be relevant in my daily life?

To answer those questions: The evidence constantly and overwhelmingly disproves scripture. We cannot relate to anything in any capacity other than what we have, ourselves, experienced (in other words, I am not an ancient Jew...). And if we were to remove logic, reason, and science from everything (in the same way religion asks us to) humanity would regress to what we were hundreds of years ago. Of course, then maybe we could relate to the bible like ancient Jews a little easier... 

It is obvious, through this short conversation I had with him, that he is just spouting off the same spoon-fed apologetic arguments that all Christians use. I wonder what would happen if he honestly questioned these arguments. Would he revert to atheism? No, I doubt it. Any atheist that would engage in such weak logic would be doomed to waffle.

Above all, I truly feel bad for him. And I know he feels bad for me too, because he said he would pray for me. And we all know how well prayer works. Oh wait, no we don't... (check out my previous post on Faith, part 2).

Until next Monday,

Frank

Relics

Everyone has heard, I am sure, about how the Catholic church has maintained certain relics throughout history. Bones of saints, bits of the cross, the spear which pierced the side of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea's toilet paper, and the like. Of course, most of us in this enlightened age realize the truth -- that relics such as these are complete hooey.

But yet there is still a reverent fervency for certain biblical relics; specifically the Holy Grail, Noah's Ark, Mount Sinai, and the Ark of the Covenant. Well, at any rate the Holy Grail certainly does not exist (and never did -- it is a purely Catholic tradition which got entirely out of hand). But what about the others? Many have actually claimed to have found them.

One of the most prolific self-proclaimed biblical archeologists in history, Ron Wyatt, claimed to have found the site of the Red Sea crossing, the "real" Mount Sinai, Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and just for good measure, Sodom and Gomorrah. PS: Wyatt was a nurse anesthetist who claimed that the big guy upstairs had blessed him with keen insight. In other words, he had absolutely no experience as an archaeologist.

As a fundamentalist bible-literalist young-earth creationist I also believed wholeheartedly in Wyatt's discoveries; to such an extent that even through my deconversion and up to this very weekend I had a difficult time trying to reconcile them with the fact that I no longer believe the bible or consider it to be anything close to historically accurate.

But then! I ran across this blog: Against Jebel al-Lawz, which presented a very clear, concise, and well-researched, well-referenced rebuttal on some of Wyatt's "discoveries." The author even piled on the resources to help refute all of Wyatt's other claims. It was scathing. But the best article I read was about the Noah's Ark formation on Mount Arat: the author theorized that the formation (while certainly not a boat) may actually be responsible for the creation of the legend!

Regardless, it is satisfying to once again learn the truth and dispose of the fiction. But also a little sad -- another bit of childhood, of the last 35 years of my understanding of the universe, is gone. It seems like a recurring theme now -- in some regards, I am digging up these religious relics of my mind and exposing them to the light of truth and reason. And just like those physical relics, each mental one "promptly disappears in a puff of logic."

Until next Monday,

Frank

The Butterfly Effect

Three weeks ago, one of my coworkers gave me (along with several others) a monarch caterpillar to care for while it embarked on its journey to become a butterfly. I took it home, watched it munch down on milkweed plants for a few days, and then form a chrysalis. For ten days it did nothing but hang there; then yesterday morning a beautiful, giant orange butterfly emerged. This morning we set it out into nature. It waved an antenna and then fluttered away.

I spent a good deal of time researching monarchs during the chrysalis phase, and I learned a great deal: that they shed their skin and the chrysalis is underneath, that they only eat milkweed when they're caterpillars, and that those little caterpillars are feces-making machines. I am not joking -- they poop. A lot.

But the most amazing thing I did learn was that monarchs go through four generations every year. The first three all hatch, eat, transform, lay more eggs, and then die -- all within a two-month time-span. But the last generation, born in late August / early September, is special. They break that short-cycle and migrate to Mexico for the winter. There, they enjoy the fine beaches, cuisine, and everything else the exciting central American country has to offer. Well, no: they hibernate, for six to eight months. Then they fly back to their homes, lay eggs, and the cycle continues.

Evolution at it's best! And I am sure that it would be a very fascinating story, to discover why caterpillars ended up this way. But for me, the monarch has come to symbolize transformation; I am sure it has symbolized this to many people over many eons. But it hits home in a special way for me, having gone through my own metamorphosis recently. On top of learning about evolution, seeing a miniature version of it was a fairly emotional experience. I think that the monarch will forever hold a place in my heart; and may very well be my new favorite insect (it used to be the pillbug).

It’s almost enough to make me believe in god again.

LOL, just kidding. Hooray science!

Until next Monday,

Frank

Patriot Games

First, this: making this post was a very difficult decision. The topic strays somewhat away from my usual anti-religious rhetoric and into the arena of politics. The subject matter is still, over a decade later, a painful spot; so I apologize in advance if I cause offense -- this is not my goal. My goal is to take offense this time.

This Thursday is the thirteenth anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Flight 93. "Patriot Day," as it is now officially called, was designated as a national day of remembrance in December of 2001. It was signed into law by George W. Bush, who also signed into law the Patriot Act earlier that fall. Sheesh, what was with this guy and the word "patriot"?

While I do agree that it was a most horrific example of what humanity is capable of doing to itself, I hold the opinion that calling it "Patriot Day" is a misnomer and a disservice to our country.

For the majority of the last thirteen years, I have asked many why the government chose the term "patriot" -- and no one has yet given a reasonable answer. Usually I just receive a shrug and an "I don't know." So what, exactly, is a patriot? And who, exactly, were the patriots the day was named for?

According to Merriam-Webster, a patriot is "a person who loves and strongly supports or fights for his or her country."

In the great dance of events that occurred on September 11th, there were only five "categories" of people. In descending order of active involvement they are:

1. The bystanders (you and me and the families of the victims)
2. The victims
3. Those who tried to retake Flight 93
4. The government and rescue workers
5. The terrorists

So which of these categories fit the definition of a patriot?

It could not be the bystanders, as they were powerless to do anything. The victims were everyday citizens who just showed up to work or boarded the flights. The valiant passengers and crew of Flight 93 were fighting for their lives, not their country. And the government and rescue workers were probably more concerned with responding to the unforeseen and horrific tragedy (and the cost of life and property) than being patriotic.

That leaves just one category: the terrorists. 

The true patriots of Patriot Day are those who, by instruction of a call to martyrdom, entered our country. They are those who took flying lessons, who snuck weapons on board at least three flights and hijacked them. And who, I am sure, shouted praises to their god as they murdered thousands.

Is it blasphemy that I should equate the actions of those terrorists with patriotism? I do not think so. I am certain that they considered themselves patriots of their extremist ideals.

"Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people... We say that the end of the United States is imminent, whether Bin Laden or his followers are alive or dead, for the awakening of the Muslim umma (nation) has occurred." Osama Bin Laden, 12/27/2001

It is apparent that they were actively instigating war against us as a response to our support of Israel. Bin Laden equates his movement with a nation. Certainly the ideal with regards to these extremists is to destroy and conquer. And the hate continues even to this day: the successor to Al Qaeda, ISIS, dominates today’s news with its terrorist tactics.

(PS: I am not so naive to think that America has not brought some of this punishment upon itself.)

In my mind it does disservice to the citizens of this country and to its armed forces, to continue to call September 11th "Patriot Day," because we are giving credence to what those extremists did by way of justification through their religion. I am sure, America, that our Lord and Savior Jesus (and his mother, for you Catholics) is crying over our country unwittingly giving props to a terrorist god. 

It's just another reason why religion causes more harm than good, if you ask me. Well, you didn't but you know I'm going to give you my opinion anyways. Think I'm being harsh about this? Just wait until Columbus Day...

Until next Monday,

Frank

Mental Health

Three weeks ago, Robin Williams took his own life. It was a tragic end to a unique life and a brilliant career, but there has been a slight glimmer of positivity because of it: people are, for the first time, openly and unabashedly coming forward and discussing their own mental health issues, their struggles, and their thoughts of suicide. Perhaps Robin's death need not be in vain -- perhaps it can be the catalyst our nation needs to really start openly addressing mental health.

In an earlier entry I wrote about the suicidal thoughts which occupied my mind prior to abandoning my religious beliefs, and how those thoughts disappeared. For the most part, this is still true; yet every so often they still pop up. They aren't as strong, not by a long shot; but they are very cavalier, and this concerns me.

I used to view this life and its problems as temporary, and that when one died one spent the rest of eternity in heaven or hell. Life, therefore, was not altogether precious -- it was just a necessary step to reach our real destination. As a religious individual, it was fear of hell which stayed my hand from suicide.

Now, since I don't believe in an eternal destination, I see life as unique and important and fleeting. It is precious. But some small part of me struggles now with the finality of death. Why should I continue living, if I'm just going to end up as worm food? And, of course, the answer is because life is unique and important and fleeting. But the part of me that struggles seems to have a "devil may care" attitude and I'm concerned that I may do something stupid on a whim. So I decided to seek some help.

It's been 14 years since I last visited Susie, my psychologist. I went through a very rough period in my life back in 2000, her help and guidance impacted me in a wonderful way -- so naturally I was brimming with excitement when she responded that she could fit me in to her schedule.

Meeting with her last week caused me to explore many things in my past that I had forgotten... but nothing floored me so much as her impression during my last sessions with her, as I was beginning to join the Apostolic Pentecostal church.

"I'm going to lose him," is what she told me she was thinking back then. She could not understand how a rational human could lose himself to a religion. I laughed! "That is exactly what happened," I told her. I did lose myself. And all of my friends. And respect from most of my family. And part of my mind, all because of a fundamentalist religion. "Now that I've left religion I can see things so clearly," I said.

I bring up this story for three reasons. First, because I don't want to be silent about my mental health issues. We need to talk about these things. We need to be honest and open. People need to know that they are not alone, and telling your story is the best way to accomplish that.

Secondly, I want to draw attention to the fact that suddenly finding yourself without a soul, or an afterlife, or a big eye in the sky watching your every move can be frightening. It can make one feel lost and alone. And quite frankly, it is difficult to deal with the idea that one will just cease to exist when the time comes, as opposed to what one was misled to believe for decades. But there are lots of us out there -- those who have had to come to terms with this dilemma. I can personally tell you that there is no shame in seeking professional help, or even just someone to talk to. You are not alone, and you do not have to be.

Finally, I want to point out the barbaric attitude that seems to permeate religion with regards to the field of mental health. I certainly cannot speak for everyone, but for myself, all throughout parochial school -- high school, in particular -- I was told that psychologists and psychiatrists are agents of the devil (except, of course for the Christian ones because they adhere to biblical principles). In church they had a filthy reputation of catering to the mind instead of the soul, of telling one what one wants to hear, of not falling in line with the idea that god's ways are concrete and everyone should just serve and obey. This is all invented nonsense in an attempt, I truly believe, to keep Christians under subjection to their religion. If one starts visiting a secular counsellor, one may start using one's brain and start thinking for one's self.

Meanwhile, in the church, I was told that all I had to do was pray to god for the healing of my mind and my past and my emotions. God would provide. And since god's ways are higher, I should just be patient and wait for a response. God will do it in his own time. Maybe I should just pray harder and have more faith.

Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothes the grass, which today is in the field and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little faith? And do not seek what you should eat or what you should drink, nor have an anxious mind. For all these things the nations of the world seek after, and your Father knows that you need these things. (Luke 12:27-30 NKJV)

When looked at on the surface, this hopeful scripture demonstrates the beauty of god caring for creation. To me, it certainly illustrates Jesus' free-loading hippy attitude. But dig deeper, flower child, and you will find a very nefarious concept: that you should rely on god for everything. Why do I say nefarious? Because where do you draw the line? How far do you let yourself be reliant on something which may not even be there?

We are told to call upon god for help. And when that help doesn't arrive? Naturally, it adds to the issue. Sometimes the pastor or other church member will offer counsel. But is this counsel grounded in psychology or in theology? In the former, then there is hope. But in the latter there is nothing but more hardship.

I look back with pity on my Lutheran high school experience. How many nights did I cry myself to sleep; the mental anguish of a gay teenager who is told by his religion that god hates gay people, who would cry out to his god for succor, whose recompense was nothing but silence? The sideways remarks from the faculty and staff of the school. The public outing by someone I stupidly took into my confidence. The scriptures read, the verses quoted, the videos and books telling us that homosexuals are hell-bound. And so that 17-year-old took a bottle of pills and laid down one night with a note beside his bed consisting of a single line: "I apologize for the inconvenience."

Thankfully, I was not the brightest bulb in the chandelier when it came to pharmaceuticals, and suffered no worse than a night's deep sleep.

I am the first to admit that my memory is not the best, but it seems like every single time I have had an issue and brought it to someone in a position of authority in the church (or Lutheran school), they tried to affect change within me to bring me in line with biblical concepts or interpretation. Instead of, you know, trying to help me deal with the issue I would instead be presented with the miracle cure of... god's word. And always the promise of hellfire looming in the distance if I didn't repent of my sinner ways and snap to.

Perhaps that is why I have such fond memories of Susie and such horrid memories of church figures when it comes to counselling. When I asked her if she thought she could help, she told me, "I want to give you hope."

That's a hell of a lot more than I ever got from my religion -- the very institution which prides itself on how much it helps the downtrodden. And that is sad.

Until next Monday,

Frank

The Grand Architect

At the beginning of July, I subscribed to The Humanist -- an online magazine and resource for people interested in secular humanism (a life philosophy which embraces ethics and morals without religion), and noticed that they have a weekly advice column called "The Ethical Dilemma." Well, as it turns out, I did have such a dilemma and decided to submit it; whereupon I was told by the columnist, Joan Reisman-Brill, that she was excited to have such a question and that it would appear sometime in the near future.

And so I waited, with baited breath. And finally, this past Friday, it was featured! And so now I am finally able to discuss the issue. Here is the question:

I find myself in a precarious position. I began joining the Freemasons before I de-converted from Christianity. I find myself teetering between whether I am an atheist or an agnostic theist (one who believes that there may be a god, but that's about it). The Freemasons, while respectful of other religious beliefs, are overtly Judeo-Christian and do not tolerate atheists.

Now that I am a full-on member, I really am enjoying my time with this fraternal organization, its members, history, and structure. But part of me feels like I am "in the closet" and so I'm not quite sure how I feel. Have you any good advice for someone in such an odd spot?

The response I received was very well thought out and provided some good insight:

I really don't know much about the mostly-male and secretive Freemasons, but the Freemason website says, "You believe in a Supreme Being--no atheist can become a Mason--but we are not concerned with theological distinctions or your particular religious beliefs." You were still a believer when you declared your belief in a supreme being, and even now, as you waver between atheist and agnostic theist, you retain a sliver of belief. So it sounds like you're good, with or without god. (For readers not familiar with Freemasonry, check out the segment about it on CBS Sunday Morning.)

Could you discreetly probe what your group's policy is toward members who (hypothetically, of course) lose their belief sometime after they are already members? Would such a person be honor-bound to leave the group, or would the group be compelled to eject such a person, even if he is in every other respect in good standing?

Regardless of the answer, if you are enjoying the organization, why not keep enjoying it and keep your doubts to yourself? The website states that Freemasons do not discuss religion, so now that you are long past the pledge stage, questions about your current state of belief shouldn't even arise.

This may be naive, but perhaps after you've been a member for some time, even if you were to fully embrace atheism, there might not be any repercussions if your non-belief became known.

And probably even more naive, perhaps one day you might lead a movement to alter the by-laws to include atheists. After all, it is called "Free" masons.

I take the advice to heart, and believe that it will help me in my journey with the Masons. And something else which will help me: the overwhelming response received to the article by readers on the website and on Facebook!

True, there were many negative remarks, many off topic, many discussing and debating the details and conspiracies of Masonry. I was expecting those. I was, however, not expecting the number of Masons who expressed that atheists / agnostics should not be excluded or disfellowshipped. And what really floored me is that several Masons responded who are, themselves, atheist / agnostic!

"I am a Mason. I would note that Masons do not require a belief in a specific definition of Supreme Being. That leaves a lot of room. Most physicists hold that something preceded creation; they call it the laws of physics. You say the laws of physics; I say Supreme Being."

"...realize that while you may be the only atheist in your Lodge, you are not the only one in Freemasonry. We just don't discuss it."

"The earliest Masons were pretty much all freethinkers and deists."

"I am a 32 degree Mason and see no problem with atheists in the Lodge."

Just a small sampling of the more positive comments made.

To those not in the know, the Free and Accepted Masons are an overtly religious organization (as are the higher levels of York and Scottish rites). I fully anticipate that one day I will most likely be excommunicated because of my increasing outspokenness against organized religion and the ignorance it propagates -- especially as I continue to work toward providing resources and help for questioning Christians and recent deconverts.

My own lodge's Worshipful Master took me aside the other day (knowing that I am teetering with religious belief) and told me that he knows of at least one atheist in a sister lodge, and that some people know and others don't. He survives by keeping his mouth shut around the brethren -- a hint given me not as a warning but as a survival tactic. My WM knows me, and knows that my heart is in it (even if my soul is not). And for that I am truly grateful.

Of all the positive comments posted on Facebook, this one was by far the most important to me:

"I'm a Freemason and I don't believe in anything supernatural. I don't believe in a personal god, but I also don't have a problem with using the term 'god' to refer to the totality of the laws of the universe, which govern all things."

Please indulge me as I contemplate this for a moment.

In the Masons, we talk about the "Grand Architect of the Universe" -- hyperbole for "god." And this is where it gets uncomfortable for me, because I'm not even sure that there is such a being. We are asked, when we take oaths, "in whom do you put your trust?" Naturally, the correct response is "god."

What if "god" is a man-made concept? Then we are putting our trust in an invention, and then invoking that invention. There is no evidence for god, for a supernatural creator of the universe, for a spiritual being who interacts with humanity.

But there is evidence for science.

In fact, science itself is based upon reason, logic, theories, and evidence. It is based upon everything that makes up the universe. It is based upon how the universe functions. Human ingenuity and spirit drive science. And science drives human ingenuity and spirit. It is a beautiful cycle, made even more majestic and potent by the fact that science will continue on, even without human interaction.

I can completely get behind that. In whom do I put my trust? In physics, math, biology, history, evolution, atoms, quarks, relativity, stars, planets, space, oceans, mountains, rain, hydrogen, sunsets, gravity, air, moon dust, spacecraft, black holes, bacteria, reason, and on and on. In science. In god.

Until next Monday,

Frank

PS: I am not expressing a belief in pantheism -- that everything is god and god is everything. Nor am I proffering that science is, itself, a deity. I am simply expounding on "using the term 'god' to refer to the totality of the laws of the universe."

Evolution

Yesterday I finished reading a fun little book called "Then Why Do I have Toenails", written by Thom Phelps. Originally started as a letter to a fanatical Christian friend (an interesting story in and of itself), it proved to be an interesting and amusing foray into the mind of an atheist.

True, it wasn't the best-written book I've read this year (though I have certainly read worse), but it did make its point, and made it well. Plus it gave me a new phrase for my repertoire: "C&E Christian" – a Christian who attends church only twice a year, on Christmas and Easter. I believe he used this in a similar way to my own "CINO" (Christian In Name Only).

The question of toenails really only plays a very small role in the book. I believe the title was chosen specifically to cause inquiry and curiosity; on that particular level, it worked. Why, the reader is forced to ask, do people believe in creationism when animals and plants and humans have vestigial organs?

I spent a few minutes Googling today, to see what bits and pieces may be left over from the evolutionary process. As it turns out, there is a broad spectrum of vestigial organs across this planet, far too many to be conveniently explained away by creationism.

In humans alone, there are male nipples, toenails, wisdom teeth, ear muscles, sinuses, the appendix, the coccyx, part of the large intestine, and apparently a little bit of a third eyelid. We also have vestigial reflexes like goosebumps and babies grasping anything placed in their palms.

In the animal kingdom, you can find flightless birds, fish with feet, snakes with pelvises, blind species who still have eyes, or my personal favorite: whales with leg bones.

Before my deconversion from Christianity, I was a die-hard creationist. I believed in the literal six-day creation as outlined in Genesis, I believed that evolution was a lie, and I believed that schools teaching evolution should also be required to teach Intelligent Design as an acceptable alternative.

But now that I've removed the filters of religion and have started to question the motives of evolutionary scientists versus religious pundits (I realize now that science is not trying to hide truth, but discover it; whereas religion is trying to hide discovery under the guise of truth), I see and understand that we are all part of a huge, growing, changing system. It is awesome, and amazing, and beautiful, and deadly, and scary – all at the same time!

Why are so many fundamentalist Christians diametrically opposed to the idea of evolution?

For starters, they just don't have the correct information. One of the many problems with church hierarchy is that one person (or a small group of select people) are in charge of dictating the information their parishioners and parochial-school students receive. In most cases, those parishioners and students simply accept the information given to them without much, if any, further research because they trust the supplier of the information is telling the truth or is knowledgeable (this is called the Argument from Authority). The problem here is obvious: if incorrect information is being disseminated, and no one is fact-checking, then the cycle of ignorance continues.

But the major reason why fundie Christians reject evolution is because they are literalists, which means they absolutely believe the creation myth (in other words, they are die-hard creationists), and since creation and evolution are mutually exclusive and contradictory viewpoints, and they are fundamentalist, they choose religion over science.

From the fundamentalist point of view, evolution brings death into the world before sin; but the bible indicates death is the punishment for sin, so no death could have existed before Adam and Eve ate the fruit. And anyway, if the bible is lying about this, at the very beginning of the book, then what else could it be lying about? No, creationism must be true because otherwise the entire book is suspect and we cannot have our faith called into question, science and reason be damned.

The fact of the matter is this: science is continuously giving answers based upon evidence. If the evidence contradicts what is known, science is smart enough to try to figure out why and flexible enough to change its precepts. It isn't afraid to say "I don't know" because it always follows up with "but I will try to find out."

Religion, on the other hand, cannot give answers based upon evidence: only faith. If evidence contradicts faith, it is usually the evidence which is the first to be chucked out. Christianity rarely changes its precepts, which is why there are so many denominations: if one does not agree, one leaves and starts one's own church. Well at least the religious are not above admitting lack of knowledge, but there is almost always the caveat: "we cannot know the mind of god" or something similar. 

Given these things, science will always triumph over religion. On the topic of this post, science can nearly perfectly explain vestigial organs by evolution, creationism cannot. In fact, here are the two most common responses used by religion on this topic:

1. The organs (and reflexes) in question initially had an important function, but have lost that functionality over time.

2. Science has not yet discovered the function or purpose of those organs (and reflexes).

Please indulge me for a moment as I point out the hypocrisy of these two responses. The first is using evolution to disprove evolution. The second is using the scientific process to disprove the scientific process. It is becoming increasingly the case that Christians are abandoning the literalist interpretation of Genesis and embracing the scientific understanding of evolution.

I hope the trend continues. People need to wake up and come to terms with how the universe actually works, god or no. And when they do? Who knows... perhaps one day religion itself will also be vestigial.

Until next Monday,

Frank

Quotes

Today is a very tragic day.

Robin Williams was found dead of an apparent suicide, and I am completely heartbroken. Here is what I posted on Facebook earlier:

I mean, I'm just absolutely floored. I keep hoping that it is some elaborate prank. I would have NEVER guessed Robin Williams - the GREAT Robin Williams - would have not only suffered from depression, but to the point of actually exterminating his brilliant and unique life.

I could cope with it being an accident, a murder, a heart attack; but not suicide. I can't help but feel we have really lost one of the greats here. I mean, just wow.

We've had record-breaking flooding here in and around Detroit, to the point that I probably won't be able to get to work tomorrow (thankfully I can work from home when necessary). Here is a picture of the expressway only 2 miles from my residence:

And another from near downtown Detroit:

I have a full day of training on Wednesday, on a product I don't even use (though, in theory, I will be using at some indeterminate date in the future). And I have a big project due next week, the shoulders on which my future career partly rests.

This is all too much. To be honest, I don't have the energy to write a proper post today. So instead, I will grace you with a few quotes I have been saving for such a rainy day as this.

Share, and enjoy.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. (Stephen F. Roberts)

Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god? (Epicurus)

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence (Christopher Hitchens)

Until next Monday,
Frank

Shocking

This past week my sister and her girlfriend loaned me their copy of "Religulous," a documentary by Bill Maher. (The name is a portmanteau of "religious" and "ridiculous.") Many people know that I am not a Maher fan, simply because he can be a complete dick with such little effort. Yet I agreed to watch it.

He did tone down his normally dickish tendencies for the documentary -- for the most part. There were a few moments I found myself yelling at the television for Maher being slightly unfair to his interviewees.

But for the most part, I did find it to be a rather refreshing (if not comedic) look into just how ridiculous religious adherents can be sometimes. His documentary did a fairly decent job at showcasing the (often willing) ignorance of those who accept as literal, the teachings of their holy books.

It was slightly embarrassing, because I used to be like that.

A few weeks prior, I watched an interesting documentary from 1972 called "Marjoe." The crew followed around one-time child preacher Marjoe Gortner (the second portmanteau of this post: "Mary" and "Joseph") as he engaged in one last hurrah on the pentecostal circuit -- he didn't want to swindle any longer and wanted to expose how charismatic evangelists manipulate their audiences into parting ways with their wallets.

The songs were familiar; the preaching styles, the repetitive words, the healings, the dancing, the speaking in tongues -- all familiar to me, as I had converted to a pentecostal branch of Christianity in 2000. To be honest, my jaw dropped several times as I realized that I had, in the pentecostal church, been prey to the same exact methods Marjoe was employing.

Speaking of jaw-dropping, I just finished Christopher Hitchens' book "god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." I was shocked. I was just absolutely, horrifyingly shocked at how the Big 3 (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have behaved throughout history, all by way of justification of their beliefs.

(Side note: I discovered through this book and through videos on YouTube that I absolutely adore Hitchens and was subsequently grieved to learn of his untimely passing a few years ago.)

This education, which I received over the last three weeks, has caused me to change my tune: I no longer believe that religion is necessarily a good or innocuous thing. It had its place, eons ago, before the human mind had enough compiled data to be able to see what is going on; but in today's world it is a vestigial mental process. For the sake of humanity, we must let it go; if we don't, we will end up destroying ourselves.

When confronted with the ignorance, with the manipulation, with the atrocities, the usual answers are "It was part of god's plan," or "God's ways are higher," or "They weren't a TRUE Christian," or "They weren't following god's word," or "That was so long ago, it doesn't matter today," or the like. Glossing over a ruinous past by brushing it aside. Shirking any responsibility for the religion's report card.

And yet, those things did happen. And on some level they are still happening today -- a topic upon which I plan to expound in a future post.

I grieve that I spent so many years of my life buying into what was being sold over the pulpit. I am ashamed that, as a Christian, I did not read my own holy book to discover for myself the true nature of the god of the bible; and I'm even more ashamed that I glossed over the atrocities therein and those committed by Christians throughout human history by justifying the actions as being part of some grand design of a loving god. I am an intelligent human being, I have a brain and deductive reasoning skills, and I am guilty. Shame on me.

And shame on those who continue following, just like I did, without questioning.

Until next Monday,

Frank

(non)Belief

Two weeks ago, I joined a Facebook group for atheists and agnostics. Last week I was kicked out -- for not being atheist / agnostic enough.

Here was what I was told:

Just wanted to let you know we've revoked your membership as you are a self professed theist. While a questioning nature and agnosticism is absolutely encouraged within theist communities, we cannot allow any theists to be in the group.

Such utter BS.

I wrote her back, clarifying my (non)beliefs as an "agnostic theist." She wouldn't have any of it: I was told that I may accidentally preach or interject belief into my comments or posts in the group, and where do I get off breaking the rules and then complaining about getting kicked out? This is an atheist group!

More BS. The group description specifically indicates it is for atheists and agnostics. Which, of course, leads to a world of confusion because people don't realize that the terms are actually mutually exclusive. Therefore one can be agnostic and atheist, or agnostic and theist. I will expand on this in a moment.

The whole affair left me feeling quite dejected -- after all, I wasn't expecting the atheists to be so exclusive (reminds me of a lot of religious organizations) -- and after seeking council on the Facebook page for Minority Atheists of Michigan (who do accept agnostic theists), I ended up making two new friends. So that lemon got turned into a sweet fruity beverage! Winning!

However, this ordeal made me pause and think: how, exactly, should I define my (non)belief? I've been claiming to be agnostic theist for months now, but after all that I've read and begun to understand, I don't feel that is is the right banner under which I should stand. So what should I be calling myself?

There are two philosophical standpoints when it comes to metaphysical belief:

• Gnosticism -- from the Greek, gnosis, which means "knowledge." I'm using this term in a purely academic manner, not in a manner associated with the pre-orthodox Christian sects called "Gnostics." For my purposes in this post, a gnostic is someone who claims specific knowledge of the existence of one or more deities -- be it from a book, oral tradition, personal revelation or anywhere else.
• Agnosticism -- from the Greek, a gnosis, which means "without knowledge." An agnostic claims to have no specific knowledge of any deities, regardless if he believes in any or not.

There are two major standpoints of metaphysical belief:

• Theism -- from the Greek, theos, which means "god." A theist is someone who claims belief in at least one deity, regardless if he holds to a gnostic or agnostic philosophy.
• Atheism -- from the Greek, a theos, which means "without god." An atheist is someone who claims no belief in any deities, regardless if he holds to a gnostic or agnostic philosophy.

So combined, there are four major categories concerning one's position on the existence of a god:

• Gnostic Theist -- The majority of religious adherents in the world fall into this category, which claims that there is evidence for the existence of at least one deity. 
• Gnostic Atheist -- The rarest of these four categories, where you may find those who are anti-theist (opposed to the concept of deity) or "explicit" atheists (argues from philosophy against the concept of deity). 
• Agnostic Theist -- Those who are skeptical about religious beliefs or the supernatural, or who claim that one cannot know anything about any deity, and yet still believe that at least one deity exists.
• Agnostic Atheist -- Most self-professed atheists fall into this category, which claims that there is no evidence for any deities, and so therefore there is nothing to actually believe in.

Please note that, for the purposes of this post, I created the terms of "gnostic theist" and "gnostic athiest." While these concepts do exist (and so far as I am aware, they remain ungrouped in such a manner), the terms themselves do not.

I am definitely agnostic -- I don't believe that there is any empirical evidence for or true knowledge of any particular god(s). This is the default position for a skeptical mind, as the skeptic wants proof and such has been lacking from the very beginning. But here is my dilemma: I am not quite atheist and not quite theist; I fall somewhere between.

Despite the lack of evidence, I do believe that there may be a god, who may have began the universe and / or may have sparked off life on at least this planet. My simple human mind just cannot wrap itself around how things started or where matter originated from. And of course, this opens me up to the First Cause counter-argument (more colloquially known as "Who created god?"). We all know where this path leads: if a god can be eternal then why cannot the universe be eternal in god's stead?

Is there an alternative to the four major positions I've outlined? It turns out that there are quite a few, but one in particular seems to fit me better than agnostic theism:

• Agnostic Pragmatism -- Also known as "pragmatic agnosticism", or its catchy portemanteau "Apatheism" (apathetic and a/theism). The best way I can describe this concept is as a contract between you and any deity that he/she/it/they is/are going to ignore you and you are going to ignore him/her/it/them back. No phone calls. No text messages. No Facebook tagging or emails or showing up randomly at your door at 4 in the morning. If you see each other at the club, you'll just stay in your own respective corners. And if god wants to stop being so stand-offish and actually reach out, then perhaps you'll say "hi" back. Maybe.

It is obvious to me that there is a total lack of interest by any deity in the workings of our universe (let alone our planet or individual lives). To boil it down to a simple statement: if a god were truly interested in humanity, that god would manifest itself to humanity, and not leave stupid humans to try and interpret its divinely-inspired words.

If god is apathetic with regards to me, then there is absolutely no reason why I cannot be apathetic back. And so this arrangement works perfectly for me: I can stay comfortably somewhere between atheist and theist (about 95% / 5% respectively) without having to violate my leanings in either direction!

I'm happy to report that I've updated my Facebook profile. Let's see how many groups I get kicked out of now...

Until next Monday,
Frank

About the Holy Bible

Two weeks ago I finished reading a short book, "About The Holy Bible", by Robert G. Ingersoll, a lawyer from the mid-19th century.

Many have praised the book as being one of the first of its kind to unabashedly blast the bible with truthful objections. Any Christian reading it would either shudder and throw the book away (claiming it to be a blasphemous work of the devil) or instantly leave the faith.

One section has resonated so fully with my beliefs on the "holy scripture" that still two weeks later I ponder its apt presentation. Because I wholeheartedly agree with what Ingersoll says in this section, and my words cannot do justice (or so sharply stab) by him, I am this week substituting my own words with his.

Ministers wonder how I can be wicked enough to attack the Bible.

I will tell them:

This book, the Bible, has persecuted, even unto death, the wisest and the best. This book stayed and stopped the onward movement of the human race. This book poisoned the fountains of learning and misdirected the energies of man. 

This book is the enemy of freedom, the support of slavery. This book sowed the seeds of hatred in families and nations, fed the flames of war, and impoverished the world. This book is the breastwork of kings and tyrants--the enslaver of women and children. This book has corrupted parliaments and courts. This book has made colleges and universities the teachers of error and the haters of science. This book has filled Christendom with hateful, cruel, ignorant and warring sects. This book taught men to kill their fellows for religion's sake. This book founded the inquisition, invented the instruments of torture, built the dungeons in which the good and loving languished, forged the chains that rusted in their flesh, erected the scaffolds whereon they died. This book piled fagots about the feet of the just. This book drove reason from the minds of millions and filled the asylums with the insane. 

This book has caused fathers and mothers to shed the blood of their babes. This book was the auction block on which the slave-mother stood when she was sold from her child. This book filled the sails of the slave-trader and made merchandise of human flesh. This book lighted the fires that burned "witches" and "wizards." This book filled the darkness with ghouls and ghosts, and the bodies of men and women with devils. This book polluted the souls of men with the infamous dogma of eternal pain. This book made credulity the greatest of virtues, and investigation the greatest of crimes. This book filled nations with hermits, monks and nuns--with the pious and the useless. This book placed the ignorant and unclean saint above the philosopher and philanthropist. This book taught man to despise the joys of this life, that he might be happy in another--to waste this world for the sake of the next. 

I attack this book because it is the enemy of human liberty--the greatest obstruction across the highway of human progress. 

Let me ask the ministers one question: How can you be wicked enough to defend this book?

You can read the entire text online here (or download as an eBook).

Until next Monday,

Frank

Faith (part 2)

Today's topic is on faith in the New Testament -- specifically faith as spoken about by Jesus. Even more specifically, about what we are told a believer can accomplish with his faith. The following four verses sum up just about everything Jesus had to say on this topic (emphasis mine):

And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him; and the child was cured from that very hour. Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not cast it out?" So Jesus said to them, "Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you." (Matthew 17:18-20 NKJV)

And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, "Let no fruit grow on you ever again." Immediately the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, "How did the fig tree wither away so soon?" So Jesus answered and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast into the sea,' it will be done. And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."  (Matthew 21:19-22 NKJV)

And the apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith." So the Lord said, "If you have faith as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be pulled up by the roots and be planted in the sea,' and it would obey you." (Luke 17:5-6 NKJV)

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes* in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14:12-14 NKJV) [*pisteuó: believe, have faith in]

I grew up in the Lutheran church, Missouri synod. We were taught that miracles such as moving mountains or withering fig trees were powers vested upon the original disciples and that such days are long gone. When I converted to Apostolic Pentecostalism in 2001, I was taught the complete opposite: that the magical powers of god were at my fingertips -- contrary to what those evangelical, liturgical, trinitarian heretics were teaching -- all I needed was "faith faith faith, just a little bit of faith" (as the gospel song goes).

I believed this; I believed wholeheartedly in the anecdotal evidence I was constantly supplied with during my time in the charismatic movement. I heard of healings, miracles, people being raised from the dead… and although I could never find a single ounce of evidence, in all my searches through books, the internet, and interviews, that didn’t matter because others had seen them and I trusted their stories. And after all, I had the TRUTH and god was on my side! Hallelujah!

I could easily spend this post writing an epic dissertation on confirmation bias, coincidence, and some of the truly abysmal let-downs that the optimistically faithful have experienced (and continue to, regardless of what branch of Christianity one belongs to). And as salacious and eye-opening as it would be, it would make this post entirely too long and bound to push me off my point. Anyone honestly looking for that kind of information will quickly and easily find an abundance of it; perhaps one day I will, myself, venture to compile some of it to make a more rounded case for what I'm here presenting.

The fact is, almost every religion claims that their god or gods provide magical blessings for her/his/its/their chosen. And so every religion has its anecdotal stories which keep the converts rolling in -- Christianity is certainly no exception.

There are a plethora of points I can make on this, but I want to focus on just one: the ignored requests of the faithful.

I've seen parents pleading with god in tears, over their comatose child. I've known a man in a motorized wheelchair, so stricken with ALS that he could only move his head and arms, told that he will be healed in god's time. I've seen people with cancer, people with addiction, people struggling just to provide for their families; all on their knees, all asking their lord for just some small ounce of help.

And yet that help never comes.

In my own experience, there are four reasons usually given as to why faithful prayers go unanswered, all of which contradict the previously quoted scriptures:

1. God's timing
   Like a starving dog at master's table, the faithful are often left in a state of constant begging, until the master benevolently throws a morsel. An offensive analogy, but accurate. However the scriptures say nothing of god's timing. There is no caveat of "eventually" or "when god is ready" attached to any of the verses. And yet this is the most standard response given when god doesn't follow through with his promise.
2. Not enough faith
   Twice we are told that all is needed is the faith of a mustard seed -- chosen because of its tiny size, it was used to illustrate that one only needs a small amount of faith to accomplish great things through god. And yet, when god doesn't follow through, the faithful is blamed for not having enough faith. After all, god is perfect and god does not lie, so maybe the believer just needs to pray louder or something.
3. Sometimes god says "no"
   I will let scripture itself answer this question:

   Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NKJV)

   And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive. (Matthew 19:22 NKJV)

   If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. (John 14:14 NKJV)

4. Asking amiss
   One could truly argue that motives have everything to do with faith, and asking, and doing all sorts of wondrous and magical things in Jesus’ name.
   

   You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. (James 4:3 NKJV)

   This is a truly legitimate reason for god ignoring the requests of his faithful. But the problem is, how many are asking amiss when they are seeking healing or relief from pain? How many are asking amiss when they pray for a means to financial resources in order to take care of their loved ones? How many are asking amiss when they are just asking their god to listen to them and do what he promised?

And as if ignoring his faithful wasn't enough, god allows them to be mislead and deceived by agents claiming to come in his name!

Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff, and all those other circus animals on television, or on their stages, or in their gold-laced pulpits who put on these amazing spectacles in the name of god and his powers are nothing but leeches who rape the humanity out of people seeking hope. Hope which, for whatever reason, has been misplaced in a deaf and blind god.

Think about it: if a god were to actually heal people and raise them from death then people would have reason to actually believe! And, according to scripture, that is what god wants:

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

The ultimate hypocrisy here is that, according to the bible, god wants everyone to be saved, but in truth isn't actually willing to actually provide any evidence of his existence.

My dear Christians, how can you continue to believe in a god who turns a blind eye to those who place their trust in him? How can you continue to serve a master who demands you to beg? How can you not shy away from a god who allows false hopes, false healing, and false security done under his authority to those who need real hope, real healing, and real security?

Would you remain friends with someone who makes promises to you, but never follows through? If you answer "no" then you have some serious thinking to do about your faith.

And so, 20 years later, that man with ALS is still waiting for his healing. God will fix him... eventually. He just needs to keep the faith.

Until next Monday,

Frank