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