Guest Post by Vincent Skolny
It sort of hit my wife and me suddenly late in our process of deconverting. Every Christian rejects something (or a lot of things) in the Bible. Particular things. Things about which the Bible is very clear. It turns out, there’s no other choice.
The Bible contains a lot of paradoxical statements, conflicting accounts that cannot be unraveled and even a formal contradiction or two. It also has commands that the Christian does not wish to obey and descriptions of God that the Christian does not want to worship.
Still, Christians can’t reject the Bible entirely. That would be throwing out the baby Jesus with the holy water. The Bible is the only reason to believe certain things they do hold dear. So, in one way or another, they reject what they don’t like.
Some Christians will dismiss more of the Bible, others less. Some in pious sounding ways, and others more flagrantly. The better educated, more articulate Christians might perform mental genuflections to explain biblical contradictions and write grand systematic theologies to describe their gods, while the uneducated ones might tell you only what they feel in their hearts and the religious yuppies will tell you what meaning they take from the Bible. What each Christian is telling you, though, in her or his own way, is that he or she is god.
The result is a rank and unique pride that claims a divine stamp of approval upon the Christian’s own life, while rejecting both all of the Bible that doesn’t appeal to her or his liking and the gods constructed by other Christians, reflecting other parts of the bible.
It’s an arrogant syncretism of life and religion that we call Self-Projection as God (SPAG).
For a practical demonstration, just pick a pair of contrary or contradictory Bible verses that are on either side of a sensitive issue and ask a Christian what she or he thinks about them. The better you know the Bible and the Christian, the easier it will be to pick the appropriately contrary verses, but the result will always be the same: The Christian will start rationalizing and explaining the contradiction in a way that accommodates them to his or her own life.
Understand that we’re not merely intending to demonstrate simply that the Bible is an inconsistent hodgepodge of ancient mythology and antiquated ethics rife with error. That’s obvious and it’s not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that because the Bible is such mishmash, SPAG is the necessary and universal form of Christianity in practice, an absolute identity: All Christianity is Self-Projection as God.
Vincent Skolny is an entrepreneur and founder of The Avangelism Project
So clear to those who have left the faith and quite opaque to those still in it.
“The better educated, more articulate Christians might perform mental genuflections to explain biblical contradictions and write grand systematic theologies to describe their gods”
3 words – William Lane Craig
Not are clear to me as i have never had a faith in my life, only seems to me that Christians think that their a part of some special elitist club and everyone else are dirty heretics which must be converted (“Saved”) or eradicated.
~What each Christian is telling you, though, in her or his own way, is that he or she is god
As a Christian who sometimes doubts (and yes, finds some aspects of the Bible rather disturbing), I don’t think this is true. Maybe your (atheists’) interpretation of what we say is much like what our interpretation of the Bible is: varied, depending on who you are listening to.
“varied, depending on who you are listening to.”
Yes, exactly. If you really listen to what they are saying, I’m not a Christian, never was a Christian, and my experience among Christians is different than someone else’s. I hear them, a lot of them, I listen to them, overhear them, have conversations with them. They may hate their church, they grew up strict Catholic, for example. They may conclude “this doesn’t sound like god” to me. They look for an easier-going church, or a more tolerant church, one that believes and preaches the god they conceive is the best or most likely version of god, according to what they themselves believe is a righteous way to live. Besides other Christian sects or denominations, some become pagans or Buddhists, or Jews.
If you listen to all those people talk about their beliefs, they will remark as to the closeness of what they personally believe is the truest god and all others are false. If they start out with a god they find is unbelievable, they will seek out a more perfect one. They don’t know that god of their upbringing really conforms to their own ideals as they mature and able to critically assess god according to that church, so they look for one that does.
You think this is atheistic “interpretation” though. What would you call it? Of course it varies, depending on who is talking. If they believe what they believe because it’s in the bible or that they interpret the bible according to what they want to believe, it’s the same thing.
I think this was aptly demonstrated in the recent Thunderf00t vs. Ray Comfort discussion, where Ray refused to answer the question, “If God said that it was ok to be a paedophile, would it be ok to be a paedophile.”
My assessment of the reason he refused is that, being as hardcore Christian as he claims, the only possible answer is “yes”, but he would much rather project his own values onto the god he believes in, and then claim that that god is the real one.
Vincent, thanks for sharing your story, unfortunately we’ve heard so many similar ones. It appears this is another example of a sad religious experience devoid of a genuine encounter with Spirit (Himself). Nowhere was the word (the Person of) Spirit mentioned in his post which is a “dead” giveaway regarding his past unfortunate, dry “religious” experience most likely filled with rituals, rules and “church” of which all are merely external and not portending to Life.
Another giveaway is that He thinks a believer is intended to “live by” an external book as opposed to an indwelling Spirit at one with our own in maturity. So naturally he becomes disillusioned and tosses the baby out with the bathwater and who could blame him. He made a wise choice and first step toward freedom in doing so. The religious conditioning and filters must be discarded if we are ever going to experience the Real which He is. The Real journey has finally begun. Now the authentic spiritual journey towards healing, restoration and wholeness can begin. Watch Love pursue Him now that he is free from all the oppressive shackles.
You never know what wonderful Thing tomorrow may reveal, all the very best.
Yes, you tell him, John. It’s not like you have a favored interpretation of God and the Bible or that you choose to disregard the parts of scripture that make you uncomfortable.
TRJ…recently Daniel posed a great question asking “isn’t not having a bias an impossibility?” (or something to that effect). Somewhere (over the rainbow, ha) someone’s “bias” will turn out to be the Truth. Who’s will it be? I say the greatest Bias is…Love! Take care TRJ!!
You know, it is possible that *everyone’s* bias is incorrect.
I suppose it’s impossible for anyone to be unbiased. That’s why it’s a good idea to evaluate ideas against reality. Simply stating that people are biased is a lousy excuse for not examining the validity of your arguments and assertions.
I can’t see why J C is allowed to post this kind of BS. Devoid of reason and sense, as usual. Also, random Capitalizing makes my eyes bleed.
Actually Erik this has been my experience for a quarter century now, so I am quite well versed in “religious” experiences on both sides of the isle in what I share with my dis-believing friends.
As far as being “allowed” to share in a public forum, I thought your kind was adamantly opposed to censoring, no? Would you really want to live in a one perspective world? I thought variety was the spice of life? All the best…
What ‘kind’ is that, John? Who are you assuming Erik to be? What are you projecting on him? I don’t see anything in his post that would tell me what kind of person he is. Is this another revelation from Jesus that only you are privy to?
Since when is Love reasonable, sensible? Anything but.
But you’ve just done the same thing; imagined and fashioned your own image of God according to your ideas. Your projection of God was designed by you and is therefore merely a product of your own imagination. You most likely see God everywhere now and why wouldn’t you? You re-made him to fit your world view, whereas your earlier imaginings didn’t.
You know, maybe I am just playing to type, since the OP did say that those in Christianity won’t see this phenomenon, but I’m not entirely clear what self-projection as God actually entails. Does it mean relying on one’s own decisions to make religious interpretations? Consciously asserting self-godhood?
I feel like the thrust of the argument is: “they reject what they don’t like.”
How we get from that to: “What each Christian is telling you… is that he or she is god” is extremely unclear to me.
I am under the impression that even Christians live their own life; that is, there isn’t a special Christian autopilot. If a religion presents answers on a topic, and the religious person is more or less impious by following their own theories rather than the “proper” religious one, how is that different than any other person making a moral choice?
If making free moral choices is “SPAG,” then sure, I guess I’m guilty of it too. If that’s not what is meant by “SPAG,” will someone tell me what the hell its supposed to mean?
Is it “every Christian is a hypocrite?” framed in a different way? Not gonna lie, that’s basically what it sounds like…
It seems more like a fancy way of saying that Christians (and Jews and Muslims) interpret their religious texts to accommodate their own pre-existing prejudices and normative notions. In other words, the person’s own desires are the tie-breaker in a sticky or paradoxical interpretation.
It is a different phenomenon from hypocrisy, I think. More of describing religion as a tool of personal expression. I don’t think in itself it is a bad thing, though it undercuts sharply the more orthodox notions of Biblical or Godly authority.
Yes.
It’s always interesting to me that ‘God’ hates whoever the believer hates, and with the same degree of passion.
SPAG means that everyone’s god is a projection of their own ideas and prejudices, with a dash of superpowers to enforce them.
“SPAG means that everyone’s god is a projection of their own ideas and prejudices, with a dash of superpowers to enforce them.”
Ok, that now makes more sense. Thanks!
Well put.
Also, to embellish it a bit – perhaps we could similarly say that people’s conceptualizations of god resembles their projected superego. And a Freudian analogy may work in this case.
God is their ideal – perfection. Evil (or Satan) would take the place of the id and be in oppositional conflict with the ideals of the superego. And each individual is the poor ego in the middle of the battle, trying to make choices and live as nicely as possible.
With a religious game scenario laid over the process one receives reward or punishment depending on how much one leaned toward the superego or id – good or evil – godliness or earthliness. At least so they think.
This seems to fit rather well (as an analogy) with the SPAG theory. The individuals themselves are not the god they project; rather, the god is an ideal. Transgressions against the ideal may result in guilt (keeping with Freud’s thoughts on this trinity).
Additionally, if an offered conceptualization of god (from a priest, etc.) did not fit the individual’s internal model of goodness, then they may reject that concept of god and modify it to fit their model – e.g. 6 day creation of the universe is not literal, I will follow science more and interpret Genesis as mythology; or more toward morality – punishment of homosexuals for their mere existence.
I like the SPAG thoughts and I’m sure you’ll keep me thinking about it for a while.
(Disclaimer: I am in no way supporting Freud’s work in its’ entirety, nor am I a disciple of his teachings…just a fun, impromptu analysis)
@JonJon. Thanks for posting that. I read this a couple of times and just figured I was missing the logic train that went from “selective reading” habits to SPAG. I’m not entirely sure how that equates.
Granted, selective reading of the Bible is, without a doubt, one of my largest problems with organized christian religions, and I do believe that somewhere in the bible is a statement about god created people in his own image (haven’t read it in a LONG time), but without a better definition, I’m not sure I agree with the assessement.
However:
“that the Bible is an inconsistent hodgepodge of ancient mythology and antiquated ethics rife with error” -> I like :)
One can go to house of worship or grow up in a worshiping household, or culture, that believes X is true, and repeats it as though it were true, interpreting the book to lead to the “correct” conclusion as per their god. Whether that means they are just gullible followers of their faith, adherents to customary practice, or not depends on their ability to justify those customs or defy them, at least internally, if they don’t seem true or sensible.
I live in the US. I’ve always been an atheist. This somewhat applies to even secular customs. Slavery seemed like a good idea at the time, to the people who practiced it. Even if you didn’t like it, you still went along, or you had to go along, because you were a slave. Eventually, enough people were in favor of abolishing slavery, because “the way things are” doesn’t mean that’s how they have to be. Yet, oppression of minorities remained in place through lawful segregation. Some people still believe in it, although it has gradually been made less and less lawful.
There is no law against being a racist today. You just can’t practice this in your business or perpetrate crimes of hate. In most places, it’s socially advantageous to not reveal your bigotry to others, but you can still have it.
SPAG simply abounds with or without the bible. You can glorify the past, or your own race, or some other set of ideals, so interpreting your own attitudes as god’s true wish, you are just changing the frame of reference. Things are not as you wish, and god has not made them so, yet you still choose to believe that it’s your mission to correct the world, or live according to god, no matter what anyone else tells you (they are the devil).
If you grew up in a racially conflicted region, in a church that picked out passages that defend bigotry, yet see things as they should be – harmonic, inclusive, and tolerant (and by saying “should be,” I’m projecting my own ideals which others may not share, but probably do), you may seek out a god or a church who preaches this instead, and believe that to be the loving god: the one you would believe in is the one who believes what you believe. When you design “in your heart,” what the “right” thing is, and you concur with the god who agrees, this is what the author calls SPAG. You are not just a reflection of what you hear that your preacher wants you to believe is the scheme of god, you are trusting in it because it matches what you accept hearing, or you seek another message deliberately.
But as a reference, other things can take the place of “god” in a culture – namely the government or the marketplace. People do things the way they have been done, agree to certain laws that may be bad (like my slavery and segregation examples), but you don’t have the power or numbers in your group to change them, or you simply don’t know any other way, so you agree this is good. Leaving the country is always an option, just like leaving the church you grew up with.
Other countries don’t have our freedoms, so this is not a universal truth; segregation and bigotry persist in other countries because the people there don’t agree to progress in this area or the government is too strong, or the government is so charismatic in this area, one is indoctrinated in their nationalism (like Nazism). In some cultures, the religion is basically the same as law, or their interpretation of it – they don’t want you there if you don’t behave according to the dogma. To me, it’s not the same as belief in a god, it’s that the government believes the laws of their god are superior, which parallels the religious adherence.
I guess I’m saying that this god thing – not just a god thing. Many people use other excuses for their behavior, rather than objectively try to change it. Some have no choice, if their government is strict. Other people say, “well that’s just how I was raised,” for example, and don’t see how ridiculous that is, that they can change their mind or their actions to what they really think. They just want to and choose to think like they always have, and make their upbringing a sort of god figure with god powers over them and god righteousness that agrees with what they want to believe is true and right.
The way I phrase it is this: “God always seems to agree with whoever it is who’s doing the preaching. I wonder why that is?”
And I leave it to the other party to fill in the blank. I’ve never had any rebuttal by anyone who didn’t take my point.
Like JonJon, the entire SPAG idea comes across as a complete non sequitur to me.
“All Christians read the Bible selectively.” (I agree, btw.) “Therefore, all Christians self-project as God.” Wait, what?
Analagously, “Atheists do not believe in god(s); therefore, atheists have no morals.” Wait, what?
Honestly, I think this post fits in quite well with the Creationist Tactics that UF is so happy to point out.
The issue at hand is that because the Bible is such mishmash, SPAG is the necessary and universal form of Christianity in practice, an absolute identity: All Christianity is Self-Projection as God.
The rub is the word “necessary.” It’s an enormous claim, but nothing is offered in support. Alternatives to what you describe as SPAG absolutely exist, and there are examples in abundance should you choose to look.
You don’t necessarily make the truth and then make god conform to that truth. You agree with the things you hear about in church because you agree to agree to them. You are aware that a lot of people call what you believe is nonsense or not even “true” Christianity, yet you decidedly reject other faiths and atheism in favor of, basically in so many words, what you want to hear. You believe in that god because it agrees with you inside your head, which you may or may not also call your heart.
Atheists sort of do this too, but without need or belief in god. You do what you believe is right, and yes, that sometimes means having morals or not having what you would call morals by various degrees. Some Christians think it is their moral obligation to hate gay people, because it says so in the bible. You may disagree with this, because that is not the form of god that agrees with you in your head (or heart) as righteous.
Mostly, you attend church as a reflection, you want to hear things that remind you how to behave and what you find is really sensible. If they started to throw things around that you wouldn’t agree to, you would question it, or you would just go along because you feel that it is not your job to question it. In the latter, you would have designed a god so powerful, and diminished your own power to disagree, thereby concluding that this god is a correct resemblance to what you wish to go with, to believe in, and to behave like.
In the case of atheism, we’re not alike to each other, but we don’t form a power over us that we can’t contend with. We can decide what is right, and that set of ideals becomes somewhat like a god to us, a set of instructions and aspirations really, nothing more, which directs our behaviors and attitudes, and some can become more “set in their ways” than others, just like the church-bound.
I don’t think what the author of this passage said was anything surprising, or distinctly within the realm of the religious, except in most forms of life, people are freer, or seem freer, to question the cultural values and their own ideals if they don’t seem to be right anymore, or true overall, or helpful in achieving our needs. At least that’s the way I read it, and process the information. A lot of times, I don’t like to see religion being held up for a special example, just because it exemplifies so many things atheists disagree with in general.
But, remember where you are and what we like to examine. I personally don’t mind turning the mirror on myself. I’m just like the article says too, I cherry-pick what I want to do too, and sometimes think this is how the whole world should work, if only someone was in charge to make it so, or I could get everyone on board. I’m too humble to get into actuating that, though. I just don’t have this set of ideals as a sacred supernatural order – I don’t pretend or believe it has power over humanity. I chose it what I could, but I don’t name it god, and I can adapt it accordingly.
One might draw a line between those Christians who believe their God is just like them and those who believe their God is nothing like them. The target of this piece is, roughly, the first sort.
Quite profound!
A lot of contradictions from the bible are explained within the bible. There’s an old law that went away and a new law that replaced it. That’s the whole point of the old and new testaments.
When people quote some thing from the old testament as an example of how crazy christians are, they’re probably quoting something from the old law and their assertions are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the bible. It seems like this goes over the heads of most christians too.
Call it a rationalization, but it’s an integral part of the story about why Jesus came – to fulfill the old law and introduce the new one.
Not to say there aren’t contradictions in the bible that fall outside of the old law/new law argument, but those seem to be the only ones I ever hear.
I am not defending mainstream christianity, and don’t subscribe to it myself, but I think it’s important not to use straw man arguments to bring it down. There are plenty of legitimate arguments that can be made against it.
t’s an integral part of the story about why Jesus came – to fulfill the old law and introduce the new one.
Actually, I think that’s a pretty good example of what the OP is talking about. There’s a direct contradiction here between Matthew – who states clearly that the law will not pass away, and that those who follow it will be first in the Kingdom – and Paul, who argues that the Gentiles need not follow the law in order to be justified.
There is conflict between Paul and James in the book of Acts over this very issue that is not clearly resolved. That conflict was carried on between Jewish-Christian sects like the Ebionites and the proto-orthodox church, and the conflict lasted for centuries.
So how do we resolve it? Well, we either ignore or spin Matthew, and pretend that the argument was clearly resolved. Your statement above is a pretty good example of spin, turning Matthew’s statement about the law on it’s head.
I like it how theologians often try to explain how James agrees with Paul on the law and faith/works — yet they never phrase it like “Paul actually agrees with James”…
It’s hard to see our own biases.
“There’s a direct contradiction here between Matthew – who states clearly that the law will not pass away, and that those who follow it will be first in the Kingdom – and Paul, who argues that the Gentiles need not follow the law in order to be justified.”
I hate to nitpick, but those are not contradictory statements.
I hate to nitpick, but those are not contradictory statements.
Right. I should have worked in something about James’ insistence on circumcision.
I’ve actually never heard of this! ‘Splain?
“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” Susan B. Anthony
That’s the essence of SPAG. Your personal desires and biases are read into the bible and then reflected back to you resulting in a projection of yourself onto the deity.
Actually what that quote describes well is union life, oneness. The high spiritual ground where His desires and your desires become so inseparable, are the same. This stage is closely related to that lofty degree of perfection. Him in you and you in Him, One. It’s beautiful.
wow…incredible
Probably need a lot of dedicated practice to pull off being inside each other at the same time. Can’t say I’ve ever seen that.
Clearly you’ve never been to Singapore.
So it’s Jesus fault that you spend your time babbling nonsense to atheists?
Since I have never even once seen that tactic work, you have to admire Jesus stubbornness in the face of total failure.
Hm, so your desires come close to perfection. That’s pretty… self-absorbed, to put it nicely.
“Him in you and you in Him, One. It’s beautiful.”
*giggles*
It’s even better if you use Astroglide.
It’s too bad that union, that ‘oneness’ doesn’t produce a unity among the faithful, as the bible declares. Every believers unity bears an eerie resemblance to the individuals ideas, beliefs, prejudices and desires combined with a healthy dose of magic, to taste.
So are we to believe that there are virtually no christians (in this case defined as someone who has this ‘oneness’) or is it more likely that what these people call god is merely their own personalities amped up ancient superstitions? If believers really did achieve that unity with the divine, we’d expect some uniformity in their thoughts and actions. For one, the bible claims this should be the case and for two, it just makes sense that if everyone is getting their answers directly from the same timeless, omnimax, creator of everything, those answers would all be the same (unless that creator is a real ass), and that sameness would further evidence the connection those people had made.
That sameness most certainly does not exist. So again, what are we to believe?
“That sameness most certainly does not exist. So again, what are we to believe?”
I’ve just shocked myself by coming up with an analogy that could explain this – if one takes as a postulate the existence of a god, even if just for argument’s sake.
Combining the symmetric property, “if a=b, then b=a”, and the transitive property, “if a=b and b=c, then a=c”, it has to be that, “if a=c and b=c, then a=b”. So apparently either the symmetric property or the transitive property – or both – don’t apply to union life. I’m going to proceed with the case that it’s the symmetric, because clearly there is no useful definition of “god” that a human could ever be equal to.
In mathematics, sets and the quality “contain” are something that the symmetric property does not apply to. If Set A contains Set B, then Set B does not necessarily contain Set A – the only time it does is if the two sets are equal. If you think of “god” as a very large set, and people as very small sets, then it would be possible for a person set to perceive himself as having a state of “oneness” by having his entire set contained within the god set, and yet also not intersect some others of the person sets, even if those sets are also entirely contained within the god set. For example, call “the god set” the set of all real numbers, and say I am the set {1, 2, 3, 4} and you are the set {5, 6, 7, 8}.
The analogy falls down a bit here because there is no inherent contradiction between “1″ and “6″. We consider that anything worthy of the name “god” should contain all truth, and only truth. We also consider that truth cannot contradict truth, or fact contradict fact. So we conclude that the god set cannot contain things that contradict each other. Therefore if “god” is the set of all true facts, then sets (people) which contain contradictory facts cannot both be contained within the god set. The problem is sorting out which is in and which is out.
Problems also arise when people do not realize the difference between “contained in” and “equal to”. Those are perhaps the SPAGs?
Yep. God is greedy and must want me to be greedy. The poor and hungry are not to be helped, for they will find salvation in the next life. Gay is icky…er, I mean, it’s a sin against God…says so in the holy book. God Bless America and nobody else. I’m not racist, sexist and xenophobic…I’m just doing what the Bible says I should do.
How convenient.
Sorry, I screwed up the ‘reply’. I clicked on the wrong ‘reply’ button. You have to click on the one below the post you want to reply to. Now I know, and knowing’s half the battle.
I believe that it is not just Christians who are selective about God and the Bible, but every individual — the Muslim with the Quran, the Buddhist with their scriptures and what not. Even atheists de-emphasise certain facts while elevating others. It’s called confirmation bias, and is a common phenomena that happens in everyone.
The argument that God is incoherent because Christians are incoherent about God’s nature just doesn’t quite hold, in my opinion. Even atheists, who believe that God doesn’t exist based on non-evidence, is living on a lot of faith. They pride themselves in the positivism of the sciences and the certainty of human senses.
I don’t think you can call anything that produces reproducible results ‘faith’. In fact, doing so is just trying to claim naturalism requires just as much faith as religion does, and that’s a crock of shite.
Ah equivocation, the last bastion of the factually challenged.
Pingback: Atheists: Open or Close-Minded? « Josiah Concept Ministries
what I don’t get
give 2 Christians i
one verse
guranteed you 2 different opinions
and both will say oh it doesn’t mean
what it says but this it what it means to me
ok why was the bible written
if people change it
or think they are
Pingback: A CFT Xmas (discussion) « The Cleveland Freethinkers
Contradictions exist so that there may be choice
Aaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnddddd a lot of “contradictions” don’t exist anywhere but in people’s heads.
he’s right alot of contradictions have logical answers
Pingback: SPAG and the Liberal Christian | Unreasonable Faith
Pingback: Man Created God in His Own Image « Skepticism is good.
It is amazing that this site was made to explain your thoughts on God. Perhaps your journey to find/discover God led you to a web creation to get input from others in hopes for a toe hold? John 4:24 has caused me to ponder a lot. May God bless you on your journey.
Or perhaps you didn’t bother reading the “About” link.
You are right, I did not read the about section of the website, just the article itself. This site was one of my choices when I googled the number thirteen and Christianity to follow up on a different topic. I went back and read the about page and found what was stated to be true; the author wants proof to have faith. Already a conflict in terms. Anyway my recommendation is to read some other material such as the Didache, catechism of the Catholic church, particularly the section entitled man. All of this can be found online very quickly. Also check out some of the elements of the degrees of Freemasonry where they don’t argue the divinity of Jesus but use his teaching as part of the degree. Also question why early Christians died for the faith in the first place. And go back, and this is just an example, and discover why evangelicals split from their Baptist parent and why they split from their Lutheran parent and why they split from the catholic church. Go back and see the history of the orthodox and catholic church, I think there you will find that other churches may have split because they didn’t like the “hard sayings” from the original church. Go and check out Luther and see what his gripe was with the catholic church. And finally. You not the only one who searches for the Truth, there are many out there. One final thought, if you haven’t prayed in a while, ask God to help you find him in your prayer. I am confident where it will lead you.