And while you appreciate all your new free time and ability to think through a situation without superstitiously invoking a deity or fleeing to church, there are also some things you miss about your old faith…

10) Carrying Your Bible

Also known as your “sword,” you were never a moment without that precious cargo. It might have even had a handy carrying case (mine did).  In a moment’s notice you could whip it out and get daily insight from anonymous authors or set your friend straight about the theology of predestination.

Now you just have the internet and the LOLCat Bible.

9) “Free” Weekly Concerts

It was so nice to relax, praise your precious beautiful cutsy-wootsy invisible Jesus, and listen to a band play repetitive, simplistic, sappy praise songs. There was never a better time to let your mind wander and think about all the other things you could be doing right now.

And remember that one girl who shouldn’t have been singing? Everyone felt too bad to say anything about it. At least she was hot.

But even though there wasn’t a cover charge, they always passed that pesky basket around asking for 10% of your income… and you sure don’t miss that.

8) The Superiority Complex

There’s something wonderful about feeling like you’re better than everyone else around you.

Whether being too good to watch a certain movie (“they take my precious Savior’s name in vain!”), go to a concert (“is it Christian music?”), or just being weird (“sorry, I have to go to soul crushing witness training class tonight!”), it’s really a shame to feel like you’re just a regular person who doesn’t really know what the hell is going on. :(

7) Potluck

Holy fuck, just that word alone got your mouth watering, didn’t it?

Remember the long tables filled with pot roast, mashed potatoes, sweet potato casserole, cornbread, fried chicken, cookies, cake, cupcakes… ok I’m a believer again! Sign me up and pass me the food!

6) Community

I mean it’s cool and all to sit at home in your underwear and talk to other enlightened atheists on the internets, but there’s something nice about meeting regularly in a sacred place with people who think similarly.

Plus, chicks in dresses.

5) Free Daycare

Admit it — sometimes church was worth it just because they took care of your damn kids.

4) Being Told What To Think

Thinking is hard. Remember when a guy in a suit got up on a stage and told you what to think? Life was so much simpler back then.

3) Christian Cosplay

Who doesn’t love dressing up in a costume and pretending to be something you aren’t? Putting on some nice clothes, smiling, and spouting memorized Bible verses is a nice change for a lot of people.

Unfortunately, too often things went back to normal on Monday and you found yourself sniffing coke off a hooker’s ass (like Ted).

2) Christian Bookstores

…because where else can you get the latest PRAIZIN’ GOD VOL 23 CD, a “God’s Gym” t-shirt, a framed naked baby angel, and testamints?!

1) Jesus

Yeah, you miss the 2,000 year old mythical man-god. He was your make believe friend — he always listened to you (though never talked back), never judgmental (except when you ate too many M&M’s), and best of all, he was always on your side (mostly because he was a figment of your imagination).

Yet even though these are all things you might miss…

Reality is better.

* * * * *

Like Unreasonable Faith on Facebook!

As the new book makes clear, pathological altruism is not limited to showcase acts of self-sacrifice, like donating a kidney or a part of one’s liver to a total stranger. The book is the first comprehensive treatment of the idea that when ostensibly generous “how can I help you?” behavior is taken to extremes, misapplied or stridently rhapsodized, it can become unhelpful, unproductive and even destructive.

Selflessness gone awry may play a role in a broad variety of disorders, including anorexia and animal hoarding, women who put up with abusive partners and men who abide alcoholic ones.

This paragraph caught my attention:

David Brin, a physicist and science fiction writer, argues in one chapter that sanctimony can be as physically addictive as any recreational drug, and as destabilizing. “A relentless addiction to indignation may be one of the chief drivers of obstinate dogmatism,” he writes. “It may be the ultimate propellant behind the current ‘culture war.’ ” Not to mention an epidemic of blogorrhea, newspaper-induced hypertension and the use of a hot, steeped beverage as one’s political mascot.

Boy, does that sound familiar. This has been one of Fred Clark’s major themes for the past few years. He wrote a clever piece a couple years ago titled Just Say No

He took offense.

It started out in college. You know, just experimenting with it. But he liked it. He liked how it made him feel.

For a while it was just recreational — weekends and parties and rallies and that kind of thing. But soon he was hanging out with some pretty hard-core users, with the kind of people who took offense all the time. They didn’t need a reason or an excuse, it was just what they did. It was who they were. Soon he found he couldn’t get through the day without it.

Over the years he even learned to grow his own, to take the tiniest seeds of umbrage and nurture them into full-grown pretexts for outrage. The good stuff.

Lemme back up …

Several years ago, various mainstream sources started talking about “dominionism,” the movement within conservative Christian sects to gain control of secular government. Atheist groups and right wing watchers had spoken about it for several years before that, but books like Max Blumenthal’s Republican Gamorrah and Jeff Sharlet’s The Family helped get the idea into the mainstream.

The mainstream attention on dominionism reached a crescendo recently in the coverage of the Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry presidential campaigns, both of which has some ties to dominionist groups. See Forrest Wilder on Rick Perry or Ryan Lizza on Michele Bachmann for prominent examples. Since many people were only just hearing about dominionism, this produced a flurry of speculation. Call this the first backlash, against dominionism itself.

This flurry of activity came across as a bit paranoid to some readers. Several long-time watchers of American religion stepped in to rein in the speculation: Lisa Miller at the Washington Post, Ira Stoll at Reason.com and Jonathan Tobin at the Commentary blog. Call this a second backlash, against the media coverage of dominionism.

Now several prominent bloggers are stepping in to counter the that second backlash. Peter Montgomery at Religion Dispatches argues that Lisa Miller goes to far, and that the dominionists are more than liberal paranoia. Meanwhile, Jason Pitzl-Waters at The Wild Hunt makes the point that no one is arguing that all evangelicals, or even most evangelicals, are dominionists. But even one highly placed person who believes that all atheists and pagans are in league with demons could be a disaster.

Their basic argument was that Jesus was in no way a socialist, he would have approved whole heartedly of capitalism, the Liberal Left don’t know what they’re talking about, how dare you invoke the name of our pure, white, American English speaking Jesus in support of dirty socialism, taxes are evil, the government is evil, universal healthcare is evil, yada yada yada, you get the drift.

So I thought I’d do a bit of reading. Of the Bible. Ladies and gentlemen, in what is a genuine first for me, I am now going to post a giant wall of text from the Bible in support of the idea that the character of Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament was a left-wing socialist liberal, bordering on communist.

Enjoy.

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 2: 44, 45

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 4:32-37

31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Mathew 25: 31-46

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.
4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.
7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Romans 13:1-7

13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you.
14 You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

Luke 14:13, 14

If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Matthew 19:21

24 You cannot serve both God and Money.

Matthew 6:24.

Additions and rebuttals are welcome :-)

The Christian argument for a personal god is the perfect example of a non-sequitur argument. They explain that at the moment of the Big Bang there must have been a “First Cause” that created the universe. The only explanation they can provide for this lack of knowledge is god. We may never know what happened at the first moment, but many models have been used to derive theories for it. Some explain it as a singularity and others claim that we are just part of a multi-verse, but it is clear that the Biblical representation is not accurate. Science is working hard to answer these difficult answers; religion claims to know the answer. Many scientists, including Albert Einstein, have conceded the fact that god created the universe. How can atheists be so arrogant to believe that this genius was wrong? The real question is how can Christians be so ignorant to confuse the words of a man that denounced the idea of a personal god.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Albert Einstein and many others have stood in awe as they observed the beauty of the universe. Many physicists have mentioned god when speaking about the beginning of the universe, but their definition of god is different than the monotheistic personal god. The underlying principles that govern the universe are consistent throughout the known universe. The rate of expansion is consistent, the cosmic background radiation is consistent, and Einstein’s general theory of relativity provides consistent and precise predictions about the known universe. These principles have been tested and verified numerous times and this is why we have the Big Bang theory. If one were to call these underlying principles god then many would accept this claim, even atheists have been known to concede to this definition of god. How does this concession lead to a personal god? Here comes the non-sequitur! Because the universe was created, Jesus must be the savior of all mankind and all those that don’t believe will go to hell! WTF!!

These are two separate claims and a concession to the first claim doesn’t provide evidence for the second claim. The second claim goes beyond the underlying principles that govern our universe and seeks to prove a personal god. This claim must be supported by evidence that shows undeniably that one god listens to all of mankind’s prayers and has the ability to answer them. Since we know the criteria required to support this claim it is possible to test it. The Bible has many promises that this personal god has endowed upon believers. The Bible’s main promise states that faith in Jesus is the only way to heaven; conveniently, this promise can’t be proven or disproven, but many others can.

The Bible promises god will answer prayers, but what about the millions of unanswered prayers? If god chooses to answer one prayer then he has the ability to answer them all. If a prayer doesn’t get answered then there are only two possible explanations: 1)god chose not to answer it 2) god doesn’t exist so he can’t answer it. If god chose not to answer the prayer then he is no longer perfect because he didn’t fulfill his promise, which means he no longer exists. Either way this personal god is invalidated. Many people pray and see very inconsistent results. Out of 100 prayers they might see 10 fulfilled; these odds would convince most to get up and leave the card table, but Christians find millions of reasons to justify them when it pertains to god. Shouldn’t god deliver 100% odds; either he is very inconsistent or nonexistent. If something can be done without god’s help then why waste the effort of asking for it?

If god is all-powerful then why did he create deadly genetic disorders that evolve?

Why does he allow innocent people to die every day as their families pray for healing?

How can a just god sit back and watch people in pain as he ignores the cries of his people?

This doesn’t sound like the almighty, loving god that Christians preach about, but these are the observations reality provides. All of the evidence refutes the existence of a personal god. It is more beneficial to analyze the evidence than spend a lifetime ignoring it to hold onto one’s failed belief system.

Signs and Wonders of Snake Handling – What Skeptics and Atheists Can Never Grasp

[...]

The practice of snake handling is scripturally supported in the Book of James and the final chapters of the Book of Mark.

“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.“ – James 1:22

“And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” – Mark 16:17-18

[...]

Growing up in Appalachia I have a profound respect for those that choose to test their faith with these Biblical signs. While not my brand of faith expression, this respect has more to do with my faithless, tinkle inducing fear of poisonous snakes than geographical bias. I have never understood the ‘fun’ of playing chase with a fat, glistening black racer either. While non-poisonous, I just don’t like that challenging look in the eye that says “Com’on, let’s see who’s faster.”

Well, you know Blanche, I also grew up in Appalachia (pronounced “apple-atcha,” as in, “pronounce it like a yankee and I’ll throw an apple atcha’”.) In fact, I grew up in a tiny little fly-speck on the map in the foot hills of Virginia. To quote Doug Marlette, it’s “a town so backwards… even the Episcopalians handle snakes.”

So I got a certain amount of sympathy for the folks there. For them, getting into heaven is probably the only way they’ll ever get away from the smell of the paper mill. But might I suggest that when the holy rollers in the local strip-mall church think you’ve gone too far, that maybe it’s time to rethink things?

Blanche found a comment from our site particularly objectionable. From last year’s post about snake handling, she pulls out a comment from busterggi:

Granted that snakes aren’t cuddly nor are they brilliant intellectually, but as someone who has owned snakes (including wild ones which I caught) I can testify that most of them calm down enough to be handled as soon as they learn they aren’t in any danger & that their handlers are supplying them with food.

No miracles necessary for handling pets.

Busterggi’s stupidity seems to depend on the religion of Cain rather than understanding. While some will keep snakes in boxes, on any given Sunday near my hometown one can see the faithful walking beside the road with a sack and hook. Some out of towners will mistake them for the poor collecting soda cans. (Shout out to the cousins from New Jersey for that nugget!)

We know they’re not looking for soda cans, it’s soda bottles they’re after. A good two-liter is perfect for making meth.

Anyway, it’s a fun article, and a fun site if you like gentle parodies.

Friedman and Donalsky don’t make a very clear case for the relevance of the bible. Of course, most folks would say they shouldn’t have to. Our current culture is saturated in biblical references. But when Friedman and Donalsky do make an argument, it seems horribly weak

“The Bible is a source of human experience and of wisdom, and wisdom is something we need.” Fair enough. It’s such a pity that humans stopped producing wisdom in the second century. But obviously we have no philosophers, scientists, psychologists, theologians and so forth trying to pass on wisdom today, so we’re stuck trying to mine the wisdom left to us by the ancients.

“The Bible’s value, above all, is as a guide to lives.” Yes, there’s nothing like a rousing story on ancient Canaanite warfare to help me work through the sticky ethical issues of modern society.

What the Bible Really Says

Pullquote: “We use historical-critical methods, philological and literary analyses, text criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, anthropological perspectives, archaeology and ancient languages (Hebrew, Greek, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Aramaic) … ”

So let’s look at this wisdom. So what does the Bible say about the modern issue of homosexuality? Exactly nothing. At the time the Gospels were written, there was no word for “homosexuality” nor was there any understanding of a homosexual orientation. (I believe those date back to the Victorian era.) Sex, marriage and sexual identity were all understood in a different way than in modern times.

You can try to extrapolate from what some of the Biblical authors wrote about their own issues, but that way lies all sorts of pitfalls. Friedman and Dolansky list nine different tools and sub-disciplines that they feel are necessary to understand the text. Given that kind of complexity, the opportunities for getting things wrong are enormous.

And really, what is the point? Unless you’re a sectarian believer who has already assigned some great authority to the Bible, it seems like a lot of work for a very marginal reward. Certainly not an effective use of our time.

The Book

So the Bible has little to say to us that we can’t get more easily from somewhere else. I suspect that this is where Friedman and Dolansky would get pragmatic. “The Bible matters to people, ” they say. The Bible is important because a lot of people consider the Bible to be important. Best to make sure they understand it, rather than use it as a prop for their own prejudices.

It reminds me of the Star Trek episode A Piece of the Action, where the Enterprise finds itself dealing with a culture that has based itself around a book that was accidentally left to them, titled Chicago Mobs of the Twenties.

No doubt Chicago Mobs contains wisdom. I suspect you can learn a lot about human nature from studying the gangs we’ve formed. I suppose you could use that wisdom as a “guide to lives.” That’s not the intent of the author of Chicago Mobs, but it’s not the intent of the authors of most of the Bible either.

But is Chicago Mobs relevant? The book is a history about an entirely different planet, so I wouldn’t think so. But the culture decided that the book is sacred, and it changed itself to conform to the book. Now the book is relevant. So I think the question becomes, should the book be relevant?

Like Chicago Mobs, the Bible is a book out of its place and time. It is relevant to us because we force it to be. Unlike the culture of Sigma Iotia, where they change the culture to fit the book, we change our interpretation of the book to fit our culture. We insist that the Bible comment on issues that would be completely alien to its authors, and we twist the text until it says what we want. In doing so, we waste time and ignore sources of wisdom that are much closer to our modern dilemmas.

So the Bible is relevant, despite itself. We should stop forcing it to be so.

At the end of A Piece of the Action, Kirk notes that Starfleet will try to shift the culture of Sigma Iotia towards a more civil society. Presumably this will mean weaning them off the book Chicago Mobs.

Just the same, Hector Avalos has suggested that part of the purpose of biblical studies should be “de-privileging” the Bible. Unfortunately, it looks like Friedman and Dolansky are planning to perpetuate the forced relevance of the Bible.

Fantz does a good job of making her two subjects – Sheila Martin and Clive Doyle – seem like just plain folk. Which, I suppose, they are. They’re just plain folk who got caught up into a cult of personality infused with religion. Here’s how Doyle explains his continued obedience to the memory of David Koresh:

There are three crucial points to understanding the Branch Davidian brand of religion.

First, God can appear in the flesh as a man. Second, that man doesn’t have to be a good person. Third, if you question whether that man is God, then you are questioning God. In other words, the devil is responsible for your doubt.

“Now,” Doyle asks, “are you going to give the devil control?”

That second part explains how they could remain members, even as Koresh slept with Doyle’s 14 year old daughter.

But the most heatbreaking part comes at the beginning, as Shelia Martin shops for memorial flowers:

Sheila Martin’s children burned alive. God, she says, wanted it that way.

“I don’t expect you to understand,” she says, leaning her bird-tiny frame against a full shopping cart in the nursery aisle at a Super Walmart. Her pink shirt, flats and purse match the lilies, hydrangeas and clusters of jasmine she’s buying.

The problem is, I think I do. If this isn’t part of God’s end times plan, then the children burned for nothing. That would mean they died because David Koresh was deluded and Martin and dozens of others got pulled into his delusions.

That doesn’t make Marin anything more or less than human, but it’s still a hell of a thing to face every day of your life. How much easier must it be to cling to those old beliefs, rather than admit that your mistake cost your children their lives?

… Evangelicals often tend to disguise their creedal hermeneutic under the pretense of an historical-grammatical hermeneutic, and this is not fine. If they were to be honest about their true biases, then I would accept their hermeneutic as part of their tradition, even though it’s not a hermeneutic I myself am willing to accept for my own practice.

From the vantage point of my tradition, I am a conservative, and they are the liberals. They are the ones who liberally filter the Bible through their own theological constructions. On the other hand, I and those within my tradition (insomuch as we live up to our ideals) are the conservatives. We wish to conserve the Bible’s historical-grammatical meaning, to conserve the original voices of the Bible’s authors, and allow them to speak to us without imposing our own assumptions and theological constructs upon them, which would be refusing to let them speak.

It works, largely because Stark is actually doing what his opponents can only claim to be doing. He’s caught then at their own game.

Whenever someone like Rob Bell steps up and suggests that the Bible should be interpreted in light of (insert interpretive framework), many Evangelicals will sadly shake their heads and act like the last defenders of the clear and evident truths of the Bible. As Stark is showing, this is just a pose. The Evangelicals all have their own interpretive frameworks, and that places them in the same position as Bell and the rest of the “liberals.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I’m off to watch it now. Wish me luck!

Edit: I also reposted the teaser videos on my last post on this topic as YouTube videos instead of the BBC links which didn’t work outside the UK.