3. Even if we were to ignore the obvious crimes against humanity that atheists involved in the global communist movement in the past century have committed, we can condemn all atheists and atheism simply by examining the one million dead at the hands of “rational,” “enlightened” atheist French Revolutionaries. Historians call the Vendean Martyrs in March 1793 the modern-era’s first genocide. The atheist French Revolutionary Army ordered the conscription of 300,000 citizens of Vendée. Having already had all of their churches suppressed and their bishops slaughtered, this infuriated the populace which rose up in “The Catholic Army.” In response, the Revolutionary Army massacred 6,000 Vendée prisoners, many of them women, children and the elderly, after the battle of Savenay. In addition, 3,000 Vendée women were drowned at Pont-au-Baux. In addition, 5,000 Vendée priests, elderly, women and children were tied in groups in barges and drowned in the Loire River at Nantes. By July, AD 1796, nearly 500,000 Vendean Catholics were killed. All of these theists were killed at the hands of atheists. Considering this was the first cry of “public” atheism—as opposed to individuals who simply didn’t believe in God throughout Christian history—atheists have yet to explain why “compassionate” and “rational” atheists’ hands are so murderously bloody.
4. If the above statement were true, it might make the atheist case unassailable. However, anyone who has read a newspaper at any time between the 17th and 21st centuries knows this to be untrue. This is one of the atheists’ fondest lies. I’m not sure that the person about to be executed by a Marxist or Maoist atheist is assuaged in the knowledge that his evil, merciless executioner isn’t killing him because he’s an atheist but rather because he believes in an atheist philosophy and only coincidently doesn’t believe in God. Multiply this by all 152 million dead at the hands of atheists in the 20th and 21st century—a carnage which has yet to abate—makes the above claim perfectly worthless. In addition, we have more than sufficient proof that atheists killed in the name of atheism as in the case of the Soviet Union’s Society of the Militant Godless, Mao Zedong’s Red Guard, the Enlightenment’s Reign of Terror, Abimael Guzmán’s Shining Path, atheist Napoleon’s wars and Plutarco Elias Calles democide of Mexican Catholics during the Cristero Wars.
5. Atheists who make nonsensical, ahistorical and misological claims such as this one, prove they’ve never truly examined their own community’s behavior under the microscope as they enjoy doing with us. Consider instead those who have died in the name of atheistic philosophies such as marxism, socialism, communism, maoism, Nazism, fascism, totalitarianism, libertarianism, monopolistic capitalism, robber barronism, industrialization, secularism, jingoism, anarchism, social darwinism, eugenics, malthusianism, messianic scientism, nihilism, anti-humanist terrorism, individualism, narcissism, physicalism, materialism, consumerism, modernism, postmodernism, nietzscheism, Marquis de Sade’s sadism, (i.e., sadistic murders) moral relativism, hedonism, radical feminism, (i.e., abortions, infanticide, suicide, false claims of rape) radical environmentalism, (i.e., ecological terrorism) Anton LaVey’s satanism, (i.e., ritual murders) and the “Law of Attraction.” (i.e., the deaths, including suicides, caused by Peter Popoff, Sylvia Browne and other gurus”) All of these atheistic philosophies have resulted in the deaths of countless hundreds of millions of human beings. In comparison, the deaths caused by religion seem almost quaint and insignificant.
Author’s note: This guest post is the same one as before, except that I have added some examples at Bruce’s and his editor’s request. At times, the post is a bit snarky. I have to say that I’ve used so many Biblical examples in it that it felt like preparing a Bible study. However, you might say that it’s more of an anti-Bible Bible study.
Suspension of disbelief and gaslighting
Some of the stories in the Bible depend heavily on the suspension of disbelief and/or on gaslighting. These tools are quite useful, as they give more credence to the stories, which is pretty important for a book that claims to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Suspension of disbelief is important when it comes to storytelling, as it is needed sometimes. If we all didn’t suspended our disbelief, why would we ever watch or read fantasy or sci-fi? Why would we be interested in mythology or superhero movies? The characters, animals, and events in these stories are not real, as we well know, and loads of impossible things happen. Suspension of disbelief is what keeps us going. Superman doesn’t exist, but we’ll still give him the benefit of the doubt because we’re interested in the story and the character.
But — and there is a “but” to this — if the suspension of disbelief stretches a little too far for a little too long — the tolerance varies from person to person — we stop believing in the story and instead get irritated and scornful. We stop reading or watching and feel a little cheated somehow. The promises are not fulfilled and the bubble is broken. There are many ways this can happen; I’ll mention two.
Deux Ex Machina and the plot hole
These are two of the pitfalls of some biblical stories. Deux Ex Machina literally means “the god from the machine.” It’s a plot device that comes out of nowhere and saves the day. It can be used for any kind of new event, character or development that fixes whatever was the problem. The audience feels cheated when this happens: it seems unfair because it’s too good to be true and not very believable. Deux Ex Machina tends to break the suspension of disbelief and creates an eye-roll moment instead. The plot hole has a similar effect. A plot hole is an error or gap in the story that cannot be fixed without ruining the story’s own internal logic. A situation where events clash with earlier information is an example of a plot hole. Plot holes are irritating to the reader and make a story weaker. If something doesn’t fit well in the story, once again the suspension of disbelief is much more easily broken, which will in turn lessen the enjoyment of the story. Other examples of this are characters who act out of character or, for instance, historical characters whose dialogue is far too modern. It becomes harder to enjoy a story when these things happen.
A few examples of Deux Ex Machina in Biblical stories
The story of Adam and Eve and the fall has an element of Deux Ex Machina in it. God threatens the first couple and informs them they will die if they break his laws, but when push comes to shove, they only get expelled out of paradise. God changes the rules of the story—because He can—as there wouldn’t be much of a story left if the only two protagonists are dead. So the ‘promise’ of death is not fulfilled and another solution is found: exile. This way the couple stays alive to live another day and it also means their story may continue. To stay with Genesis, I could mention another example. Cain, for instance, is responsible for the first murder but in order for him to stay alive, God protects him with a mark, gives him a wife and a city to flee to. None of these are mentioned beforehand, but they appear out of nowhere in order for Cain to have a somewhat happy ending.
Such a surprise happy ending happens quite often in the Bible. The story of Jesus breaking the bread where the food suddenly multiplies could fall in this category. It serves as a miracle but is also a bit convenient. Many of the miracles of Jesus rather follow this pattern. Think of it like this: when you first get to know Superman, you quickly learn that he can fly and cannot suffer to be near Kryptonite. You learn these things about him at the beginning of the story and if he later manages to escape by flying, say from a burning building, you don’t feel cheated because you already knew he could fly.
With the Jesus stories, it is different. We know he is the Son of God, but we don’t know what that entails. That means that any kind of miracle can occur, any kind of rabbit from the hat. If Jesus has a problem, he’ll solve it, with a flick of his fingers. He can heal the sick; he can raise the dead; he can walk on water; he can multiply food; he can battle the Devil in reciting Scripture; he can heal someone’s ear; he can foresee the future; he can control nature; he can…. The possibilities are endless. Because the story offers virtually no limits to Jesus’ powers, they can easily feel like a Deux Ex Machina. Easy solutions coming out of nowhere.
When you consider the stories of Jesus as a living body of work that has been shaped over years with various authors, this makes sense. There are many versions of Jesus as there are many versions of King Arthur’s tales and, indeed, many different versions of Superman or other comic book heroes too. Different authors think up different background stories, add to them, or eliminate elements. The enemies may differ, the powers may vary, the character itself often changes along with the story. With various authors, the internal consistency of stories can easily get muddled. This often happens when there’s a large body of work on a single character.
But even with only one author this might become a problem. Readers have, for instance, pointed this out in some of the Sherlock Holmes stories of Arthur Conan Doyle. It is hard to remember every little bit of detail of a character’s life if you write many stories about the same character. And so Holmes has hardly any interest in literature in one story, whereas he quotes Goethe in actual German in the next. (1) The same can be said for Watson’s war wound, which might be located either in the shoulder, the leg, or one of his limbs. (2) A popular explanation—one might be inclined to call this Holmes canon apologia —is that Watson was bending over and was, therefore, shot in the leg and the shoulder both with the bullet first hitting his leg and then his shoulder or the other way around. (3) However, it is just as easily conceivable that the author simply did not remember where he’d decided to give Watson his wound.
Plot holes in Biblical stories
In the Bible there are a few stories that have different endings. You could consider this a plot hole, or if you want to be kind, see it as a parallel universe instead. Both Judas and King Saul die differently in different versions of their life story. In 1 Samuel 31:4, Saul commands his armor-bearer to kill him. The man doesn’t obey and so Saul kills himself instead. However, in 2 Samuel 1:8-10, King David hears the tale of Saul’s demise told by the Amalekite that killed him. In this version, King Saul also asked to be killed and his command is obeyed. Both stories cannot be true, unless they truly did happen in parallel universes. Judas’ death has a similar pattern to it: it remains somewhat of a mystery. In one of the gospels, Matthew 27:5, Judas hangs himself, yet in the book of Acts 1:18-19, Judas falls, presumably onto a rock, and dies. It is not entirely clear if this is a deliberate act and, therefore, also a suicide or simply an unfortunate fall. Either way the deaths differ significantly and cannot be both true. The reader may think of it as an alternative ending, much in the way that some movies offer when they come out on DVD. Except, of course, that this is supposed to be read as history—if you are a literalist—and history does not have alternative endings. (On a fun note, historians sometimes do contemplate the “what if” question where history is concerned. This is called counterfactual history and a big source of new stories and ideas. The man in the high castle is a well-known example of a story that poses such a question.)
The two differing creation stories present a similar problem. They do not add up. Man and woman are created differently at different moments in the story. In the one story, Adam is alone for a while and Eve is created from his rib; in the other one, they are created together, apparently simultaneously. Again, they cannot both be true.
A short internet search brings you a world of Biblical plot holes. There are far too many to mention them all, but this Reddit thread alone, brings up quite a few. (4) If God is so powerful, why does he punish the people with the Babylonian confusion? He could have gone much further, and as the original poster suggested, these different languages that are created become pretty irritating when you get to the point where evangelizing becomes really important. However, that’s where speaking in tongues comes into play.
God’s power itself poses an interesting question as well. Satan is a created being; God isn’t, yet at times they seem equally powerful. Satan is able to enter heaven at will and makes a devious bet with God to get Job to lose his faith. A similar attempt is made by Satan to deceive Jesus as well. When Daniel receives news of an angel, the angel tells him he was held up for days and could only visit him, after an arch angel had assisted him. Where was God, you may wonder? (Daniel 10:13)
When Abraham is visited by the angels, they tell him that God has heard cries coming from Sodom and they have been sent to investigate what’s going on there. (Genesis 18:21) This seems to suggest that God is not omniscient and needs his helpers to find out instead. In Judges 1:19 God supports Judah and provides victories, however, chariots of iron are stronger than God somehow. Imagine that: the tribe in possession of more advanced weaponry wins!
These stories make some sense from the perspective of a world with various gods in constant battle where the winning tribe also represents the victorious god. They make no sense at all if the God in these stories is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient: because, in that case, demons and chariots fitted with iron shouldn’t matter one bit, let alone be on the winning hand.
Another one I find quite compelling myself is this one: if Genesis is meant to be metaphorical, as many people claim, consider the following, posed on another thread, by a former Catholic:
“[W]hen you finally break down all the inconsistencies and questionable passages in Genesis, many Christians come to the conclusion that Genesis is simply metaphorical. But Jesus sacrificing himself for a metaphor seems like a major plot hole all on its own.” (5)
Gaslighting
Gaslighting is a subject which has recently received more attention. It is a form of manipulation where the person who is being gaslighted will begin to doubt his or her own memories or reasoning. It’s seen as an abusive tool as the subjects will become doubtful and distrustful of, ultimately, themselves. Gaslighting is about being dismissive of someone’s arguments and about invalidating people’s feelings. “Are you sure it happened that way?” might be an example. It’s a way of discrediting someone before they’ve even begun to speak.
The term gaslighting is based on the play, and movie, Gas Light. In the story a woman is deceived by her husband. He spends time in the attic searching for hidden treasure and as he lights the gas lights up there, the lights in the rest of the house dim. His wife notices this but in order for him to keep his secret, he convinces her she is mistaken instead. He tells her not to trust her own perceptions but to believe him instead. Every time he goes up into the attic, she notices the dimming gas lights in the rest of the house, but he continues to make her doubt her own senses. She is simply imagining things. His manipulation of her: making his wife doubt herself, her own memories, and her own perception, is what became known as gaslighting.
You could say it’s what Job’s friends do to him as they invalidate his words and talk over his arguments. Job’s friends insist that has must have done wrong, for God to harm him so. Job is adamant that he did not. In fact, in the story, God himself agrees with Job on this. It doesn’t matter what Job brings forth in arguments, his friends will not have it. In Job 4:7-8 Eliphaz says “Think now, who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same.” His other friend, Bildad, makes a similar argument in Job 8:20. “See, God will not reject a blameless person nor take the hand of evildoers.” They cannot unify their beliefs about a just God and Job’s suffering, therefore, Job must have done something to provoke God’s wrath in their opinion. The friends do not succeed in making Job doubt his own account and point of view; they go to a great deal of trouble to make him see their point, but ultimately fail to gaslight him.
Another example of gaslighting is a story that is often brought as very poignant. Jesus accepting Peter back into the fold. Jesus asks Peter if he loves him as he has just betrayed him. In the story, this question is repeated three times —the number being symbolically significant in itself as the number of completeness, hence the Trinity, three days in the grave and I’m sure there are others — until Peter gets pretty frustrated. “You know I love you,” he finally exclaims, exhausted. And yes, it is a kind of punishment for his betrayal: can he be trusted after all? But there’s another side here as well. As part of the Trinity, as God, Jesus knows what Peter thinks and believes; he can see right through him. (John 21:15-17) Why does he need to ask him three times? Why else other than to make Peter doubt himself all over again (as punishment)? Peter becomes frustrated and desperate as his exclamations are unable to prove his fealty. He has nothing but his word and his word is not believed. This story is often portrayed as Jesus’ endless love for Peter —considering what happens to Judas, as a response to his betrayal of Jesus, one is inclined to see the story in that way— yet it also shows the more testily side of Jesus. He makes Peter grovel, makes him doubt himself all over again, and only after he has toyed with him, does he receive forgiveness. Perhaps Jesus forgot his own teachings? I seem to remember something about seventy times seven…. (Matthew 18:21-22)
When you take this further, it might be that God is gaslighting us. The Bible constantly warns us that as sinful people, we should not to trust ourselves, nor our sinful hearts. This is precisely what the term entails: making people doubt their own perceptions, their own lived experience, belittling their feelings or memories. The question is: who gains from this and what does the gaslighter have to gain? In a relationship the gaslighter will try to get the power, the reins of the relationship, by manipulating the other party in the relationship. If this is what God does to his own people, what does that say about Him? Why does God have to manipulate his followers in getting the power in the first place? Doesn’t He already have it?
“Trust in the Lord with all you heart and lean not on your own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9) “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding.” (Psalm 111:10) What these texts have in common is that God is to be trusted and humanity is not. But it goes even further than that: God is to be trusted and you should not trust yourself. You cannot believe in yourself, rely on your skills, stand for your opinions, trust your sense, but you have to rely on God instead. God will guide you; God will keep you; and so on. This means ultimately that God wins every battle you will have with him. You might not like the existence of hell, for instance, but God has the final say. Perhaps you want to have an egalitarian marriage but God, and probably your preacher too, point you towards the headship of men. But it can get worse. You might feel pressured into forgiving someone because the Bible tells you to do so. You might stay in an abusive relationship because you believe God does not allow divorce.
It ends in you not being allowed to be yourself. You are considered a sinner by God. You have been saved by his Son and as a result you have to give up yourself. Your personhood. The Bible is quite clear about this. The price you pay is to no longer belong to yourself. You have been bought and paid for. It also means that you may end up in an identity crisis. You are no longer allowed to think for yourself and make your own decisions. Instead you are supposed to ask for and follow God’s will. Your opinion doesn’t matter. What your senses or instinct tells you is null and void, because the will of God will always win. You do not matter and what you think or believe doesn’t matter either. After all, you can’t trust your sinful heart. You cannot trust your sinning mind. Paul explains it like this in Romans 7:15: “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do.” He is torn and struggles in this chapter with his own mind. The things he does, he sees as sinful; the things he wants to do, but doesn’t do, he considers to be good. The following link gives 23 Bible verses about the death to self. (6) Twenty-three times where you are told that you are not allowed to be yourself. That your self is bad and untrustworthy. As, for instance, Ephesians 4:22-24 “[T]hat, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self.” Or the often repeated phrase about crucifying your old flesh or taking up your cross. Galatians 5:24 says the following: “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” John 3:30 talks about: “He must increase, but I must decrease.” These are only three of the twenty three verses and they all mention not trusting your own judgement.
Gaslighting is a specific tactic designed to make people doubt themselves and thus grooming them to believe the other person’s views and perceptions. It is something that leaders of any kind might use to their advantage to control (a group of) people. If people can’t trust themselves, they will be far more likely to start trusting their leader, which is the intended goal. Cults probably use this as well. Messages to the members to not trust themselves, nor the outside world, make it easier to keep them in the fold. Finally, the Bible itself has countless verses telling you not to trust yourself, to abandon common sense and your own judgement and to give your life with all its decisions over to another. You are told to die symbolically, by baptism, and to rise as a new person – an empty person who is the marionette to God’s strings. This is the ultimate goal of gaslighting.
Conclusion
One could say that when you de-convert, the suspension of disbelief for the Bible has been broken. You’ve been kind, and perhaps resilient, enough to hang on to its truths for a long time but you simply can’t anymore. The spell has been broken and suddenly the Bible is riddled with plot holes. Broken promises and prophecies abound. The story no longer captivates you as it did before. You become aware of numerous problems in the storylines. You can’t un-see them anymore. On top of that, the authors (or God) try to gaslight you into not trusting yourself and your own judgement. Once you realize that, you’ll have a hard time going back to Biblical bliss.
This is the one hundred and twenty-eighth installment in The Sounds of Fundamentalism series. This is a series that I would like readers to help me with. If you know of a video clip that shows the crazy, cantankerous, or contradictory side of Evangelical Christianity, please send me an email with the name or link to the video. Please do not leave suggestions in the comment section. Let’s have some fun!
Today’s Sound of Fundamentalism is a video clip of an unnamed Irish Catholic woman instructing teenagers the physiology, nature, and purpose of sexual intercourse.
As many of you know, Polly and I travel the highways and byways of Northwest Ohio, Northeast Indiana, and Southeast Michigan looking for photography opportunities. I have developed an interest in how we as Americans — particularly Midwesterners — memorialize life and death. Of special interest is the various means religious people use to remember the dead. This interest might seem odd for someone who is an atheist, but I am attracted to roadside memorials and cemeteries. From time to time, I plan to share a few of the photographs I’ve shot while stalking death.
I shot these photographs at the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church in Deshler, Ohio.
In recent years, several movies marketed to Evangelicals have featured erotic scenes of Evangelical revivalism ravishing atheism. Movies such as God is Not Dead are built around the notion that the Christian gospel has the power to brings atheists to their knees. Never mind the fact that these Evangelical fantasies are about as real as the scenes found in countless porn movies. While I can point to countless Evangelicals who are now atheists, rare are atheists who become Christians. When people tell me that they were atheists before they embraced the wonderful, matchless grace of Jesus, I question them as to what they really believed. Most often these former atheists were not atheists at all. At best, they were anti-theists or indifferent to religion. These atheists-turned-Christians wrongly assume that not believing in the Christian God means the unbelievers are atheists. This simply is not the case.
Most atheists I know can give numerous reasons for why they are atheists (or agnostics). Most of the atheists-turned-Christians I have met couldn’t explain atheism if their life depended on it. Ask them what atheist writers they have read and they will likely give you a blank stare. What often happens is that Evangelical pastors and evangelistic zealots convince these new Christians that they were once atheists. What better testimony is there than that of an atheist who realized the Evangelical deity was the true and living God. Outside of being a Satan worshiper, a mob kingpin, or Pablo Escobar’s right hand man, there is no greater Christian testimony than to have once been an atheist.
Most atheists are naturalists and materialists. Most atheists put a lot of stock in the sciences. It is hard for me to imagine someone abandoning science and a naturalistic view of the world in exchange for a religious system built upon an anti-science, anti-reason foundation. I am sure, on rare occasions, it happens, but I do not personally know of one person who was once a card-carrying atheist and who is now a Bible-believing Evangelical Christian.
Actor Kevin Sorbo is working on a film about “an atheist who, upon experiencing a near-death experience, converts to Christianity.” Titled Let There be Light, the movie will feature Sorbo as the world’s greatest atheist. Think Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, or Steven Hawking. Or move way down the list to C movie atheists such as myself or other one-time Evangelical preachers. Try to fathom what possibly could happen for one of us to have a come-to-Jesus moment where we reject reason, skepticism, rationalism, atheism, agnosticism, humanism, and science and in their place embrace the mind-numbing, anti-intellectual, irrational, and anti-science beliefs of Evangelicals. Sorry Kevin Sorbo. This might be some sort of Christian porn fantasy, but in real life it is highly unlikely that a well-known atheist would reject atheism in favor of Evangelicalism.
Of course, this won’t stop Sorbo and others like him from making movies such as God is Not Dead, God is Not Dead 2, and Let There be Light. You see, these movies are not made for atheists or to be used as an Evangelistic tool to reach the godless for Jesus. These type of movies are campaign propaganda meant to stir the hearts of believers, leading them to believe that ANYTHING is possible — even the salvation of Richard Dawkins.
Yesterday, Mother Teresa was granted sainthood. This monumental event led Benjamin Wiker, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Franciscan University of Steubenville to say that Catholics should now pray to Saint Teresa of Calcutta, asking her to heal Steven Hawking of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and convert him to Christianity Wiker writes:
I know this might be rather bold, but I’d like to ask, say, several million people out there to pray to Mother Teresa during her canonization day, and eight days thereafter, for the conversion and complete healing of the great physicist Stephen Hawking.
Why? As simply as I can put it, his conversion and cure would be a miracle that would show to the world that Christian faith and science are not opposed, but (as St. John Paul II said) “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”
Imagine what would happen to Hawking himself if God would see fit to answer this prayer through the intercession of Mother Teresa. He would not be any less a physicist. He would still know what he had previously known, from Black Holes to Quantum Mechanics, but his universe would quite suddenly become immeasurably larger and more complex.
Hawking would then be faced with an even bigger task than coming up with a Theory of Everything because the Everything he would now have to fit into the Theory would involve mysteries beyond the ken of science, but not in ultimate contradiction to them. Faith and science couldn’t be in contradiction because they in fact co-exist in a much larger harmony. There are Black Holes and there are also Albanian nuns (or at least one) whose prayers somehow bring about the divine healing of unhealable diseases like Lou Gehrig’s disease, which has for so many years afflicted Hawking.
Moreover, if these prayers were answered, Hawking would know exactly what it was like, some two millennia ago, to be healed directly by Jesus, and that would mean that the New Testament would quite suddenly be transformed from a book of fiction (as too many scientists see it) to a book of startling miraculous facts. That book would then have to be on the same shelf with his physics books.
As far as I know, Hawking never met Mother Teresa. But I have often thought, when seeing Hawking so sadly trapped in a painfully twisted body for so long, what it might have meant for him if Mother Teresa had come to him, as she had to so many like-wise broken bodies lying in the dust of Calcutta, and picked his frail body up, looked into his eyes, and spoke with him about the love of Christ.
One might say that it’s too late for such a meeting. But it just may be the perfect time, her canonization, a very busy time for saints. She could, God willing, go to him now.
I also think about this meeting for what might seem an odd reason. Stephen Hawking has lived far, far longer than anyone should who has Lou Gehrig’s disease. That in itself is a mystery. Perhaps it is a mystery waiting for such a meeting.
I pray that it is, and hope again, for several million others to do likewise. Spread the word.
St. Teresa, by the Grace of God you ministered to the poorest of the poor, the sickest of the sick, the crippled, the leprous, and the dying. We beg you please, in virtue of the Graces now bestowed upon you in canonization, to pray for the complete physical healing and conversion of Stephen Hawking. Through the same Christ our Lord you so dutifully served. Amen.
I predict, based on the evidence at hand, that no notable atheists will be converted through Sorbo’s movie. I also predict that seven days from now Steven Hawking will (sadly) still have ALS. And as a final prediction, I predict that Christian preachers, priests, and movie makers will continue to make money off Christian porn featuring straw-men atheists who do not exist in real life. From the safe corners of Christianity, God’s spokesmen will continue to tilt at the atheist windmills of their own making. Cheering crowds of Christians will rejoice, thinking their leaders have once again routed the enemies of God. Little do they know that no atheists were harmed in the making of this movie.
Archbishop Charles Chaput, head of the Roman Catholic Church in Philadelphia, reminded civilly divorced and remarried Catholic couples that they are NOT allowed to engage in sexual intercourse. Those who ignore Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage, according to Archbishop Chaput, and have sex are committing adultery and are not permitted to take communion. CBS News reports:
The head of the Roman Catholic Church in Philadelphia is closing the door opened by Pope Francis to letting civilly remarried Catholics receive Communion, saying the faithful in his archdiocese can only do so if they abstain from sex and live “as brother and sister.”
Archbishop Charles Chaput, who is known for strongly emphasizing strict adherence to Catholic doctrine, issued a new set of pastoral guidelines for clergy and other leaders in the archdiocese that went into effect July 1. The guidelines reflect a stance taken by St. John Paul II.
Civilly remarried couples must have their previous marriages annulled before they can receive the Sacrament of Penance and eat the body of Christ and drink his blood. Having had a son and daughter-in-law go through the annulment process, I think I can safely say that Catholic marriage annulment is a way for the Church to get around the teachings of the Bible. Using theological sleight of hand and a mountain of paperwork, civilly divorced Catholics can have the Church wave a magic wand over their marriages and VIOLA! the marriage is jettisoned into outer space, never to heard of again. My wife and I, along with several of our older children, had to sign papers of behalf of my son, stating that has past marriage was defective and that he is of good moral character. I signed the papers because my son and daughter-in-law — who are already civilly married — can be viewed as married in the eyes of Church. I told them, at the time, that I thought the whole marriage annulment process was bullshit — a wink-wink, pretend-pretend act that says a previous marriage never took place. The things we do for our children.
It is time for the Catholic Church to enter the 21st century. While some people see Pope Francis as a reformer, patiently dragging Neanderthals such as Archbishop Chaput into the modern era, I tend to see a man who is long on words and short on concrete action. The Pope says all the right things, but within the walls of Catholic Churches things remain just as they have been for the past hundred years. I will believe Pope Francis is a serious reformer when he issues papal decrees allowing women to be priests, same-sex couples to be married, and allows civilly divorced and remarried Catholics to be members in good standing — allowing them to take communion. I will believe the Pope is serious about reform when he roots out every last child abuser from within the Vatican and Catholic parishes. The Pope talks about the importance of good works, yet he himself is long on words and short on works. If Pope Francis wants to show that he truly cares about Catholic parishioners, how about telling Archbishop Chaput to shut the fuck up and stop attacking civilly divorced and remarried couples. And if the Archbishop refuses to obey the Vicar of Christ? Remove him from office. If the Catholic Church ever hopes to stop hemorrhaging members, it must embrace 21st century life, complete with its changing gender roles and sexual practices.
Millions of Roman Catholics are civilly divorced and remarried. Many of them hide their marital past from the church, thus allowing them to take communion. Suggesting as Archbishop Chaput does that these couples should sleep in the same bed night after night without engaging in sexual intercourse is absurd. To avoid adultery, civilly divorced and remarried couples are required to treat each other like siblings. As I read Chaput’s words, “undertaking to live as brother and sister is necessary for the divorced and civilly remarried to receive reconciliation in the Sacrament of Penance, which could then open the way to the Eucharist,” I thought, the Catholic Church is promoting incest.
By the way, there are Evangelical sects who hold to a similar view on divorce and remarriage. I plan to write a post on this subject at a later date.
Fundamentalist Baptist Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Christian Donald Trump
A year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, invalidating federal and state laws that defined marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman. Evangelical, Catholic, and Mormon culture warriors warned that the Supreme Court’s ruling would pave the way for forcing pastors, priests, and elders to marry same-sex couples. Warning that pastors would soon be jailed for refusing to perform such marriages, these defenders of heterosexual marriage began working at the state level to pass laws that would exempt pastors, priests, and elders from marrying gay couples. These hysterical laws were/are little more than lame attempts by conservative (Republican) legislators to show Evangelical voters that they are still battling the secularists and atheists who want to outlaw Christianity.
Remember Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas, saying:
That [refusing to perform same-sex marriages] may mean we experience jail time, loss of tax exempt status, but as the scripture says, we ought to obey God rather than man, and that’s our choice.
Or Baptist pastor Rick Scarborough telling a radio audience:
…[the clergy must] resist all government efforts to require them to accept gay marriage, and they will accept any fine and jail time to protect their religious freedom and the freedom of others.
And former Presidential candidate and Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee warning pastors:
If the courts rule that people have a civil right – not only to be a homosexual but a civil right to have a homosexual marriage – then a homosexual couple coming to a pastor, who believes in Biblical marriage, who says, ‘I can’t perform that wedding,’ will now be breaking the law.
Ominous, indeed. Surely, a year later scores of pastors have been arrested and jailed for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, right?
Just today, Americans United For Separation of Church and State — a group I proudly support — posted a list of those pastors arrested and jailed for refusing to marry same-sex couples. Are you ready to see the list? Here it is:
That’s right, not one pastor has been arrested or jailed for refusing to marry a same-sex couple. Why? Because it has NEVER been against the law to do so. Pastors, priests, and elders have always been free to refuse to perform the marriage ceremonies of couples who do not meet their personal or ecclesiastical marriage standards. Sects, churches, and pastors are free to marry whomever they wish. As long as the U.S. Constitution remains in its current form, conservative Christian churches will have the legal right to not only refuse to marry same-sex couples, but also to bar gays from being members of their congregations. Evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons — along with every other religious sect — are free to discriminate at will.
Evangelical blowhards such as Robert Jeffress, Rick Scarborough, and Mike Huckabee are shameless liars for Jesus. These culture warriors only care about one thing, political power. This is why these very same men spent yesterday on their knees — not praying — but performing fellatio on Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump. These warriors are so shameless that they have convinced themselves that Trump is a Christian. Several months ago, Jerry Falwell, Jr. stated unequivocally that Trump is a member of Team Jesus®:
I’ve seen his generosity to strangers, to his employees, his warm relationship with his children. I’m convinced he’s a Christian. I believe he has faith in Jesus Christ. I’ve had conversations with him just within the past few weeks about his faith, and I have no doubts he is a man of faith and he’s a Christian.
Evangelicals are busy now with plans to put “Christian” Trump in the Oval Office. Once their candidate is thoroughly trounced by Hillary Clinton, these liars for Jesus will return to the culture battlefield, once again trying to capitalize on the fears of their constituents. War on Christmas! Transgender Bathroom Use! Homosexuals Preying on Children! Prayer in the Public Schools! Creationism! President Clinton Taking Away Religious Freedom!
As in past years, pastors and church leaders will indeed be arrested, but not for marrying same-sex couples. These men of God will make the front pages of their local newspapers, arrested for crimes such as child abuse, sexual abuse, rape, sexual misconduct, and sundry other crimes. These issues will be shoved under the rug, replaced by fake outrages and boycotts. These liars for Jesus will continue to reveal that at the heart of conservative Christianity lies hatred, bigotry, homophobia, and racism.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
This is the one hundred and fourteenth installment in the Songs of Sacrilege series. This is a series that I would like readers to help me with. If you know of a song that is irreverent towards religion, makes fun of religion, pokes fun at sincerely held religious beliefs, or challenges the firmly held religious beliefs of others, please send me an email.
All the seats at the Sunday masses,
Filled with the mass’s massive asses,
Classes pass as fast as molasses.
Ceremonial reading glasses.
Read a little bit of Leviticus.
All the kids are a little too little for this.
All the parents nod in agreement –
“I think I can vaguely see what he meant.”
It’s too early in the morning glory
To read another allegory story,
The father, reads a little bit farther,
Assuring the assured that they need not bother
“When god, in verse 45, said that slaves are okay to buy,
He meant that people, all from the start
Each have slaves within their hearts.
Things, that we have sold or boughten, that are forced to pick our moral cotton
God calls us to set these free, free our hearts from slavery…
And then as god goes on to explain the logistics of buying and selling slaves…”
In the back, I sit and I nod to the beats that are bumpin’ from my iPod
My god, they’re starting to pray
And over the music I can hear them say
“dear god, dear lord, dear vague muscular man with a beard or a sword.
Dear good all-seeing being, my way or the highway Yahweh.
The blue-balled anti-masturbator, the great, all-loving faggot hater,
I’d like to thank your holy might for making me both rich and white
And though this is your day of rest, I come to you with one request
There’s so much pain beyond this steeple,
Wars and drugs and homeless people.
Sadness, where there should be joy, hate and rape and Soulja Boy.
A world in darkness needs your light, so I’m sure your schedule’s pretty tight
But my dog just had surgery if you could fix that first…
Jesus?
Debra Messing’s fingers in a holy place, “Hail Mary full of grace.”
Obama, could you pass some hope to the pope
I know a couple dude’s who wanna elope
See the church said, “nope” so the bros can’t cope.
(the bros can grope but the bros can’t cope)
They’ve been in love, they’ve been addicted
Who said they shouldn’t? Benedict did.
Cause in the holy land of the lord he’s the holy landlord and dicks are evicted.
Cause you can be a benedict if you’ve been a dick under Benedict but
You can’t have benedicts because there’s only one pope with only one dick
What? Yeah, a dick on a pope is
Just like a soap on a rope cause it’s
Pointless, unless in prison, throw up your bibles, Christ has risen.
Hallelujah, now it’s raining men,
Because the gender ratio is 1 to 10.
Winos at the Eucharist station, trans-gendered-substantiation
Jesus wasn’t the messiah, get back I’m a heretic and I’m on fire
It was Oedipus, those holy nights
The holy motherfucking Christ.
I’m a blasphemer post-Katrina cruising the marina. On a crusade to cruise aids
And blast FEMA
You’re too late, we’re fucked we don’t need ya.
Amen
In the name of the father, son and holy ghost
Head, shoulders, knees and toes
Turn up your nose, strike that pose.
Hey, Macarena
But so much good has been done in the name of religion too.
This is one of the arguments I would quite happily never hear again for the rest of my days. It’s the apparent riposte of choice whenever someone has the temerity to draw attention to the downright formidable list of sins attributable to religions or religious institutions. Beginning from A for Appalling Atrocity, one could easily go through the alphabet many times over in an attempt to produce even a marginally comprehensive report of these misdeeds. Alas, the effort would most likely be come to nothing, for the inevitable reply would merely be “yes, it is true, all that took place, but it also inspired so much good“.
At the risk of appearing forward, I must state this is without a doubt one of the most vacuous and insipid arguments I have ever encountered. Any truth there is to it, is a truth of the most trivial and banal kind, so much so that it bears great resemblance to the infamous claim by McDonald’s that their food is nutritious, since it contains nutrients. Yes, one can say people have been inspired to do good because of their religion, but has that good truly amounted to more in the grand scheme of things, than those vaunted McDonald’s nutrients? Do the few, aged onion slices really make up for the throat-clogging fat and the pink slime? In short, does it, and has it ever, made up for all the misery, suffering and all-round horribleness which can unquestionably be laid at religion’s doorstep? Do good intentions really cancel out abhorrent outcomes? And if McD’s doesn’t get away with appealing to all the good nutrients contained in their products, why should religion be allowed to use this frankly rather outrageous claim to get a free pass?
You know, the fascists did a lot of good things too. They reduced unemployment, they made the infrastructure work, they restored order in society. I’m sure some Stalinists were very kind and loving to their families. The inquisitors and puritans who made it their life mission to hunt down, torture and kill heretics, no doubt had the very best intentions with regard to the future and well-being of all humankind. Many paedophile priests or ministers were reported to be well-liked and appreciated shepherds to their flocks, doing many a good deed and performing many a needed service. An inordinate proportion of men who abuse their partners are known to be very charming and impressionable with everyone else, and such good, dependable men too. Yet, do we excuse these people for the less than stellar aspects of their behaviour, based on “all the good” they have done? No, no, no, no, and all too often yes, respectively. Religion however, does get to hold this permanent get-out-of-jail-free trump card. Why?
Why are Magdalene laundries and Irish reform schools ignored? What about the Catholic Church actively shielding paedophiles? Or lying to poor people in Africa about the efficacy of condoms in prevention of AIDS? The US government at the behest of religious elements instituting a global gag rule on the topic of abortion among all NGO’s receiving their funding? The evangelicals fomenting war(s) in the Middle East in the hopes of bringing about WWIII, the Armageddon and the second coming of Christ? The incalculable and frankly philistine destruction of culture and artifacts perpetrated by missionaries? The active pursuit to keep women forever as not even second class citizens? Denial of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and the abject refusal to do anything about it, as it can’t possibly be true, because “God alone is in control of the planet”? Or is this all too abstract perhaps? What about refusing sick people life-saving medical procedures because they would amount to “playing God”? Bullying individual members to give up their autonomy, belongings and anything else the holy people deem offensive to the divinity? Forcing families to completely cut off apostates or those designated as such, at the threat of eternal damnation? Actually physically harming individuals, who dare to step out of line too much? Female genital mutilation (FGM), suttee, honour killings, witch hunts? I could go on, for pages on end. And do not for a moment think this doesn’t happen any more, or that it doesn’t happen in our beloved civilized west. I will be more than happy to point to actual cases. Note, that I have purposefully selected mostly modern examples here. The sheer carnage is by no means limited to history books, I assure you.
Yet all the above is conveniently swept aside with a few small words, “but a lot of good too”. What that amounts to is a brazen claim that all the above and then some doesn’t really matter. It isn’t really that important at all, as it is generously counterweighted by soup kitchens, second hand shops, schools, orphanages, etc. Incidentally, that all too often means soup kitchens where a captive audience is proselytised to, or schools where children are mentally and physically abused. But look at all the good that has been done! Surely that means all the less savoury aspects are worth it in the end? Yes, I am sure that’s an inordinate comfort to those on the receiving end of those less savoury aspects. I ask you, what other institution in the history of humankind, would get such a leeway?
The fascists are rightly denounced today, despite their purportedly accurate train schedules. Sincere belief in the goodness of one’s actions excuses few people, and gratifyingly often a few good qualities aren’t enough to rescue people who are harmful to others from social opprobrium. We are willing to do this, but religion still gets to appeal to its shiny side and wash away all its sins. So what’s the difference?
Perhaps a hint to a possible answer is in the fact, that other people who frequently escape consequences for their behaviour are those in power. Husbands supported by patriarchal structures, sports heroes supported by adoring fans, billionaires supported by their buddies in business, politicians supported by party machines and so on. They couldn’t possibly be held responsible for what they’ve done; after all, they are otherwise so good (or rich, successful, handsome, etc.)! Those in power do not want the proles to get all uppity and attempt to apply the same rules to them as are applied to the proles. Those without power adore and idolise those in power, declaring that their heroes can’t be all bad and should therefore have their transgressions excused. Possibly also hoping against all good sense that the world is just and therefore those people would never get that far, or the institutions would never have survived this long, were their existence not, in the end, mostly a good thing for the rest of the world.
It is well known that history is written by the winners. It would seem to me, that not only has religion been one of the great winners over time, but that it still is writing the history today.
I recently wrote a post about Evangelical outrage over Montel Williams suggesting that the heart of Christianity is good works. Countless Evangelicals schooled Williams about salvation, reminding him that good works play no part in salvation. According to these Evangelicals, salvation is by grace — God bestowing his unmerited favor upon sinners. Are these Evangelicals right? It depends on which Bible verses you read. For example, Ephesians 2:8,9 says: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; Not of works, lest any man should boast. Seems to the settle the question right? Salvation is by “grace through faith and not by works.” However in the very next verse the Bible says: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. This verse seems quite clear, well as clear as any Bible verse can be; that those whom God saves are ordained (chosen) by God to have lives that demonstrate good works. There are numerous ways one can argue this issue, but anyone with even a modicum of understanding about the New Testament certainly knows that the Bible makes a clear connection between salvation and good works. People who claim to be Christians yet live in ways contrary to the teachings of the Bible are, at best, Christian in name only. The Jesus who said Follow me surely expects his followers to believe and obey the teachings of the Bible. After all, according to Evangelicals, the Bible is God’s inspired, inerrant, infallible word. It’s God’s blueprint for life, a sure road map for the journey between birth and eternity. Why then, all the Evangelical outrage over Williams’ comment?
A large number of Evangelicals believe that salvation is some sort of magic pill or eternal fire insurance. At some point in their lives they have had some sort of “experience” with God and now they are Christians. For these Evangelicals, all that matters is believing the right things. And in recent years, believing the right things has come to mean having the right political beliefs. Williams’ comment was in response to Evangelical outrage over transgendered people using the wrong bathroom. Williams rightly pointed out that Evangelical hatred and bigotry towards transgenders was un-Christian. How dare Williams suggest hateful, bigoted Evangelicals aren’t being very Christian! These Evangelicals can recite John 3:16 and parrot “God’s Simple Plan of Salvation,” and that is all that matters. They might believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, but fuck those perverts who want to use what Evangelicals consider the wrong bathroom.
These Evangelicals are being quite hypocritical, are they not? If salvation is NOT by good works, how dare they expect or demand people to live by the teachings of the Bible? Aren’t these the same Evangelicals who oppose homosexuality, same-sex marriage, premarital sex, or any other form of sexual expression except a monogamous married heterosexual couple having sex via the missionary position, yet commit the very sexual sins they condemn? And aren’t these the very same people who make all sorts of moral demands that they themselves are unable to keep? Why should any of us — transgenders included — follow ANY of the teachings of the Bible? If Evangelicals can’t practice what they preach, aren’t they being hypocritical? Of course they are.
These Evangelicals (and I say these because some Evangelicals do think good works are essential to Christian faith) are the worst that Christianity has to offer. They demand that everyone submit to their religion’s teachings, yet they are ignorant of those very teachings. They expect everyone to obey their interpretations of the Bible, yet they exempt themselves from doing the same. When questioned about the disconnect between what they say they believe and how their live their lives, these Evangelicals remind their critics that they are works in progress or that they are resting on the promises of God. These Evangelicals are ignorant of much of what the Apostle Paul had to say about behavior, choosing to focus on God’s super-duper grace-filled plan for their lives — grace that Dietrich Bonhoeffer called cheap. All that matters to them is where they will spend eternity when they die — heaven. Well that and making sure that there are no transgenders using the wrong bathroom.
You see, these Evangelicals actually DO believe in salvation by works. Every Evangelical has internalized some sort of moral code by which they, in theory, govern their lives. They think that this moral code comes straight from the mouth of God. And if it comes from God, shouldn’t everyone behave the same way? These Evangelicals, despite what they told Montel Williams, believe that there ARE certain behaviors that preclude people from being Christians. Will there be any LGBT people in heaven? Not according to these Evangelicals. In fact, their list of people who will not be in heaven is quite long. These Evangelicals speak out of both sides of their mouth, decrying anyone who says salvation is by works, yet at the same time saying that there are certain behaviors that will land people in hell (and most of these behaviors are sexual in nature). Quite frankly, if THESE Evangelicals will be in heaven, I am quite happy to spend eternity in hell with Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Prince, homosexuals, Christopher Hitchens, transgenders, same-sex couples, liberals, abortionists, and Barack Obama. According to these Evangelicals, Dennis Hastert and countless other Christian perverts get a free pass because they told God, sorry, and promised to never, ever sexually molest children again. Yet, when Catholic priests diddle young boys and later ask God’s forgiveness, they still go to hell when they die. Why? Because Catholics worship the wrong Christian God. And around and around the Evangelical merry-go-round goes.
