As a Christian pastor I spend the great majority of my time around Christian people (or at least church people). That being the case my thinking and the thinking of those around me is decidedly biased. With that as backdrop I have a request today–I would love to hear from people who would not consider themselves Christian–atheist, agnostic, skeptic, truth seeker, apathetic, etc.–I would love to hear your complaints, accusations or objections to Christianity. I want to hear from “real” people outside the church about what they think of the church. If you would like to take it a step further I would even be willing to entertain some of your questions about the Bible or the church. Who knows–it could be fun.
Pastor Jeff
As an atheist view, I’ll just state that I like to remind believers that there are other ways to think and live and be that don’t require daily devotions to a deity.
These other ways are not “wrong” so much as they are different. Different doesn’t have to be wrong. Different can be enlightening and educational.
There are ways to think and live that shouldn’t be encouraged or supported, obviously. We should all want to stand up against ideologies that promote mistreatment (and/or torture) of children, women, and any number of groups that are just different enough to be feared or killed by the more powerful group in those societies.
The assumption that atheists are ill equipped to deal with morality and ethics and goodness and just behaviour because we don’t follow a god is a silly one. We gauge appropriate behaviour based on the culture we live in, same as everyone else does.
Some of those appropriate behaviours are in the bible. Early thinkers promoted many of the same rules and laws we agree to abide by now and we’ve kept them them because they help keep societies from imploding.
But the bible doesn’t have enough wiggle room to account for all the ways to live and think today. I think we’ve learned enough about history and biology and all manner of disciplines to balk at the thought of restricting ourselves to severely outdated documents. We’ve already given up on phrenology and humours, so why can’t everyone give up on the notion of a 6000 year old earth, for example?
We’ve certainly learned enough about nature and the universe to look at the bible with different eyes and see how many things they believed were true because there was no alternative explanation available. I’m sure they did the best they could at the time, though, to make sure people had rules to live by and something greater than they were to believe in and be a part of. I can’t fault them for wanting that.
And I can’t fault the people who still wish to believe the same. It’s their choice. But there is still the choice to live another way and be worthwhile members of society. Not all of us need to shut up or be shut out of important discourse, yet those always seem to be the choices we’re given.
I’m going to shrug here and sign off on my early morning ramblings. Thanks for asking for input. Cheers.
By: 1minionsopinion on November 10, 2009
at 9:10 am
I appreciate your response. Since I asked for your thoughts I certainly am not going to debate them and, in fact, I found a lot of them to be quite appropriate. I do wonder if you are aware that there are many Christian intellectuals (you may find that to be a bit of an oxymoron) that are very willing to accept both the time frame and method of evolution–just not the unguided nature of it. There was a phrase you used that caught my attention–”not all of us need to shut up or be shut out of important discourse.” I would say that many Christians feel that they are the ones being shut out of the discourse–you know the idea–”religion is fine, just keep it in private.” I would not mind further discourse because you raise some very important topics. I know I recommended this in my post yesterday but I think you would find Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Chrisitanity very interesting. He addresses many of the topics you are thinking about. Once again, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
By: pastorjeffcma on November 10, 2009
at 6:14 pm
My thoughts of Christianity are really diverse. I have seen some Christian Pastor’s teach Jesus’ Message. Say that diplomacy over war is always an option. Then some say that war is necessary. Actually I am referring to a particular pastor. He has actually stated disapproval over Obama’s statement of trying to open Diplomatic Relations with Iran. You may or may not know him. He is Bill Keller. The thing about Bill Keller is he actually believes everything he has said. His body language and speech tones actually support this. Do you think this kind of preaching is damaging the Christian image? I do not concider myself Christian but I do believe that there is only one TRUE GOD. And his son was Jesus Christ. I am a moderator of ADKOB or tothewire.wordpress.com
I am not a christian because I don’t believe in some of the doctrines. I am not Mormon because I feel the same way. But I am not an athiest or agnostic either. My beliefs are different, and its not that I am uncomfortable putting them all out on the table, I just don’t like to. I feel it’s personal and I am no longer a practicing multi-faith minister so I feel no obligation to outline every single one of my beliefs. I also do a Project Sanctuary that promotes religious tolerance, so I invite anyone that wants to share their belief to do so. I don’t like debating on religious belief but questions and answers are incouraged. I haven’t posted anything on there for a long time, but that is for personal reasons.
By: Enkill_Eridos on November 10, 2009
at 9:55 am
Thank you for responding to my request to hear some differing points of view–and I have heard some. One thing that I can surmise from your comments is you seem to defy religious definition–you are not a Christian (because of some doctrinal issues), but you believe in one true God and that Jesus Christ was His Son, neither are you Mormon, nor are you atheist or agnostic and you are no longer a multi-faith minister. You like the idea of religious pluralism and I don’t know if your comments denote that you believe war is a last resort or war is never an option. There is a lot of stuff in that list. I would like to address 2 things you mentioned–you said you have “seen some Christian Pastors teach Jesus’ message.” The question that comes to mind is, “what is Jesus’ message?” There is a lot that falls into that category–should I assume you mean His message on a certain issue or about a certain topic or to a certain group of people? Then you also asked this question–”Do you think this kind of preaching is damaging to the Christian image?” Do you mean preaching a political point of view? Do you mean preaching against Obama’s policy regarding Iran? By the way, what is the “Christian image?” There are certainly people with such a bad image of Christians that it would be hard to damage it any further. Certainly a strong stand against almost anything would hurt one’s image with a specific group of people. By the way, I really enjoy a thoughtful, spirited, albeit respectful debate on religious/philosophical issues. Could I ask you one question? What is a “multi-faith” minister? Not a term I am familiar with.
By: pastorjeffcma on November 10, 2009
at 10:03 pm
Hello Jeff and thanks for the invitation. What really grinds my gears are those Christians who spread LIES about evolution and who try to sabotage the teaching of children in public school science classrooms.
The fact evolution does happen is perhaps the most well-documented fact known to man. It’s one thing to say that one chooses not to accept the evidence for religious reasons. I could respect that. But to lie about the evidence not being there is just sad, and even worse that these loonies want to dumb down a generation of American schoolchildren.
The fossils are not only in the rocks but in our genes. Human chromosome 2 shows clear evidence of being two ape chromosomes fused together. Endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes are at the same place in chimp DNA as in human DNA. And there are MANY transitional fossils between every “kind” of creature, including at least a dozen species showing a clear progression from ape to human.
WHY would God make it look like evolution happened if it didn’t? IF Genesis must be interpreted as literally true (and I know not all Christians insist on this), then that makes God a malicious prankster trying to deceive us.
By: The Bicycling Guitarist on November 10, 2009
at 1:14 pm
I appreciate your thoughtful response–and I do mean that–I really enjoy the thoughtful reasoned conversation that this medium allows–and I despise the hateful ignorant interchanges I read from both Christians and non-Christians. I think I may even get more upset when I see it coming from those that would claim to represent Christ–it is more of an embarrassment than anything else–but then I digress. What may surprise you is the large number of Christians that would agree with your comments regarding evolution. As I mentioned in another post the only problem that many believers have with the evolutionary process is the unguided nature of it. As I mentioned to somebody else you may be very interested in reading What’s So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D’Souza. He addresses so many of these issues so well.
By: pastorjeffcma on November 10, 2009
at 10:25 pm
Oh, and I am not an atheist. The closest my spirituality is to any others would be to advaita vedanta Hinduism or Zen Buddhism. I am not a Christian in the ordinary sense, although I see Christianity as a form of bhakti yoga that is a legitimate path for those it reaches.
There are many Christians who accept the fact that evolution happens, just as they accept the fact that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa which used to be the “official” position of Christianity.
Some of these Christians who accept evolution are scientists, such as Ken Miller (a Catholic who testified about the human chromosome 2 at the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial) and Francis Collins (an evangelical Christian who was director of mapping the human genome), so the creationist claim that all scientists are atheists trying to disprove God is also a LIE!
By: The Bicycling Guitarist on November 10, 2009
at 1:23 pm
Having an interest in world religions I would love to hear a more detailed description of your religious beliefs. My knowledge of Zen Buddhism is limited to studying Aikido as a teenager and reading Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Also, what do you mean by connecting Christianity with bhakti yoga? By the way, I agree that we spend far too much time trying to decimate each others point of view. I believe in truth and therefore not everybody can be right–but as we converse on this we can do so in a respectful way.
By: pastorjeffcma on November 10, 2009
at 10:31 pm
Some argue against evolution because they think it denies the existence of God and that it is based on random chance. Both these assumptions are incorrect. Evolution no more denies God than gravity does. Evolution is just as much a fact of nature as gravity is, and we actually understand more about how evolution works (the mechanisms) than we about how gravity works.
As for God, He is outside science. Even if scientists wanted to disprove God, there’s no way they could. And for evolution being based on random chance, there is some randomness perhaps in mutations to the DNA from chemicals or radiation in the environment (that assumes that those chemicals or radiation weren’t guided by God to be at that place and time, again, outside the realm of science). Once the mutations occur though, natural selection is NOT random. Those mutations that happen to give an advantage to a particular organism in a particular environment are more likely to be passed on to future generations.
The Bible says man is made from the dust of the earth. Evolution says the same thing. it’s just that the dust went through several generations of living things before it took human form. The Bible says the earth brings forth animals after their kind. Evolution says the same thing. Some Christians will say “WHAT?” Let me explain.
Individuals don’t evolve; populations do. Any set of parents will bring forth offspring that more or less resemble those parents, so they do bring forth after their kind. BUT in a population, allele frequencies of genes expressed can shift over time in response to environmental pressure. Over enough time, the shifts can be enough to result in new species.
I will make another post to explain my spiritual views.
By: The Bicycling Guitarist on November 10, 2009
at 11:01 pm
I believe there has been only ONE spiritual teaching throughout time, expressed various ways to connect with the culture by and for whom it is written. What corrupts it is the need of humans to communicate said teaching using language, when words change according to context and nobody really has the same context for any word. Over time, the teachings become concretized, diluted and polluted by cultural artifacts.
That teaching is that there is a higher power or consciousness that creates or manifests everyone and everything, and that consciousness is at our ground of being, the core of our existence. Every faith gives hints on how to put oneself in accord with that consciousness. What is needed is to let go the ego, let go and let God.
It is my opinion that Jesus had the same type experience as Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, and others throughout history, but Jesus was limited in communicating his experience to others using the terms available to him in the culture of his time and place. This explains the monarchical model of the universe, the patriarchy (God the FATHER), etc.
I know many people disagree, but I am neither the first nor the only person to realize this.
A bhakti yoga is a form of yoga based on devotion. In the case of Christianity, that would be devotion to Jesus. Jesus said my yoke is light. The etymology (word origin) of yoke means the same thing as yoga. Jesus taught a form of Yoga!
By: The Bicycling Guitarist on November 10, 2009
at 11:10 pm
If you have not seen this you might enjoy it. I want to suggest (again) that you read What’s so great about Christianity?. I think you will find it quite fascinating.
Here is the creed for the modern thinker.
We believe in Marx, Freud and Darwin.
We believe everything is okay, as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is okay.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated and you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there is something in horoscopes, UFO’s, and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammad and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher, although we think basically his good morals were really bad.
We believe that all religions are the basically the same, at least the ones we read were.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation.
We believe that after death comes nothing because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, and if the dead have lied, then it’s compulsively heaven for all except perhaps Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What is selected is average, what’s average is normal, and what’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good – it’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society; society’s the fault of conditions; and conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him and reality will adapt accordingly; the universe will readjust and history will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth, except the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought.
If Chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is His rainbow in the sky.
And when you hear: “State of Emergency,” “Sniper Kills Ten,” “Troops on Rampage,” “Youths go Looting,” “Bomb Blasts School,” it is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.
Here is my problem with the idea of lumping Jesus into the group of all the religious teachers. Unless you buy into the Jesus Seminar folks or the “Historical Jesus/Christ of Faith” then you take the New Testament at face value. If you do that you cannot read it without clearly seeing that Jesus claims to be God (over and over again). If that is true then C.S. Lewis trilemna comes into play (I am assuming you are familiar with that–Lord, Liar or Lunatic). And, of course, Jesus was pretty exclusive in terms of what salvation looked like. Along with being the only religious leader to rise from the dead to justify His claims to divinity.
By: pastorjeffcma on November 12, 2009
at 12:02 pm
The main teaching of zen buddhism is that there are no teachings! Buddhism is about direct experience and avoiding labels and concepts that can confuse and distract.
Buddhism is a dialogue, and what some people think of as the teachings of buddhism (the eight fold path and so on) are only the opening stages of the dialogue.
What I like about Buddhism is the direct experience of spirituality. It is my opinion that Jesus taught Buddhism, but some of his later followers missed the point and put Jesus up on a pedestal, worshipping the messenger instead of actually listening to His message.
What I like even more about zen is the humor. Most religions are so serious, even gloomy. I saw your post about laughter and enjoyed it.
By: The Bicycling Guitarist on November 10, 2009
at 11:16 pm