Sigh…
So here’s what’s been going on lately. Most of you who read this blog already know that when my wife and I left Christianity, it wrecked most of our family relationships. My wife’s parents and siblings, as well as my own, felt that they could no longer interact with us socially after our deconversion. We were no longer invited to any family functions, and our communication with them all but disappeared. We would speak if it was about religious issues, or if there were logistic issues that needed to be worked out in letting them see our kids, etc.
Over the years, things have gotten a little better, especially with my wife’s parents. Things are by no means back to normal, but at least our infrequent interactions have become more civil and more comfortable. A few weeks ago, I even had a phone conversation with my father that lasted about half an hour and had no references to religion whatsoever. It was nice.
Nevertheless, the awkwardness is still there, just under the surface. And we’re still blacklisted from all the family functions.
Throughout this time, I’ve occasionally reached out to my side of the family with phone calls, letters, facebook messages, etc, in an effort to discuss the issues that divide us. I don’t get much response. I’ve always been puzzled by that, since I know they think I’m completely wrong. If their position is right, why aren’t they willing to discuss it?
In the last five years, I’ve also been sent books and articles and even been asked to speak to certain individuals, and I’ve complied with every request. Why not? How could more information hurt? But when I’ve suggested certain books to them, or written letters, they aren’t read. When I finally realized that my problems with Christianity weren’t going to be resolved, I wrote a 57-page paper to my family and close friends, explaining why I could no longer call myself a Christian. As far as I know, none of them ever read the whole thing. And sure, 57 pages is quite a commitment. But they say this is the most important subject in their lives…
This past week, the topic has started to come back around. A local church kicked off a new series on Monday entitled “Can We Believe the Bible?” It’s being led by an evangelist/professor/apologist that was kind enough to take time to correspond with me for several weeks in the summer of 2010. I’ve never met him in person, but a mutual friend connected us, since he was someone who was knowledgeable about the kinds of questions I was asking. Obviously, we didn’t wind up on the same page.
My wife’s parents invited us to attend the series, but it happens to be at a time that I’m coaching my oldest daughter’s soccer team. So unless we get rained out at some point, there’s no way we can attend. However, we did tell them that if practice is ever cancelled, we’ll go. I also contacted the church and asked if the sermons (if that’s the right word?) will be recorded, and they said that they should be.
Monday night, the weather was fine, so we weren’t able to attend. And so far, the recording isn’t available on their website. However, they do have a recording of Sunday night’s service available, which is entitled “Question & Answer Night.” I just finished listening to it, and that’s where the bulk of my frustration comes from.
It’s essentially a prep for the series that kicked off Monday night. They’re discussing why such a study is important, as well as the kinds of things they plan to cover. What’s so frustrating to me is that I don’t understand the mindset of evangelists like this. I mean, they’ve studied enough to know what the major objections to fundamentalist Christianity are, yet they continue on as if there’s no problem. And when they do talk about atheists and skeptics, they misrepresent our position. I can’t tell if they honestly believe the version they’re peddling, or if they’re purposefully creating straw men.
A couple of times, they mentioned that one of the main reasons people reject the Bible comes down to a preconception that miracles are impossible. “And if you start from that position, then you’ll naturally reject the Bible.” But that’s a load of crap. Most atheists were once theists, so their starting position was one that believed in miracles.
They also mentioned that so many of these secular articles and documentaries “only show one side.” I thought my head was going to explode.
And they referred to the common complaints against the Bible as “the same tired old arguments that have been answered long ago.” It’s just so infuriating. If the congregants had any knowledge of the details of these “tired old arguments,” I doubt they’d unanimously find the “answers” satisfactory. But the danger with a series like this is that it almost works like a vaccination. The members of the congregation are sitting in a safe environment, listening to trusted “experts,” and they’re injected with a watered down strain of an argument. And it’s that watered down version that’s eradicated by the preacher’s message. So whenever the individual encounters the real thing, they think it’s already been dealt with, and the main point of the argument is completely lost on them.
For example, most Christians would be bothered to find out that the texts of the Bible are not as reliable as were always led to believe. Even a beloved story like the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus writes on the ground, we’ve discovered that it was not originally part of the gospel of John. It’s a later addition from some unknown author. To a Christian who’s never heard that before, it’s unthinkable! But if they’ve gone through classes where they’ve been told that skeptics exaggerate the textual issues in the Bible, and that the few changes or uncertainties deal with only very minor things, and that none of the changes affect any doctrinal points about the gospel, then it’s suddenly easier for them to swallow “minor” issues like the insertion of an entire story into the gospel narrative.
Sigh…
I’m going to either attend these sessions, or I’ll watch/listen to them once they’re available online. I may need to keep some blood pressure medication handy, though.
Finding Truth 
Brandon:
So you believe that the targeted killing of children and babies is, sometimes, under some circumstances, justifiable??
Even in war, the targeted killing of children is considered a war crime. Killing children as “collateral damage” in the act of war is not a war crime, but deliberately targeting children for killing; hunting them down; looking for their hiding places and then running them down as they scream in terror as they see you raise your sword or knife, IS a war crime.
Your god would be arrested, tried, and convicted of the most heinous war crimes if he were put on trial today.
He is a monster. How can you teach your children this barbaric nonsense? How can you call yourself a “moral” person and believe this?
Brandon: There is NEVER any justifiable reason to target children for killing. Never.
LikeLike
Gary, you’re just make assertions without reasoning.
Consider how strange the situation really is. God gave the Israelites rules of engagement that spared women and children with only one exception — the Canaanites. (Two exceptions if we count the Amalekites). This has zero to do with modern warfare especially with regards to policy or international law on war crimes.
I tried to make it more clear for you. This is the same as God taking a child’s life with other means — natural disaster, cancer, pneumonia, etc. Only God uses human agency. So, the question is, does God not have the right to request their life? Notice I’m giving you the burden of proof to make a case.
This means you can’t just assert that if we put God on trial this or that would happen. Give me details. Reasoning. An argument. I know what you want your conclusion to be, but demonstrate that your conclusion follows some line of reasoning.
LikeLike
Murdering children has no justification, Brandon. Your religion’s white washing of your god’s despicable crimes is a disgrace. It is unconscionable. Just what distinguishes your morality from that of ISIS?
If I need to give you reasons and arguments for why it is wrong to murder children, your standard of morality defies any argument that I could ever present to you. Your position is IMmoral, my friend.
You have been brainwashed, Brandon, that murdering children is sometimes good. One needs no more evidence than this to see your religion for what it is: a barbaric, ancient, superstitious lie.
LikeLike
@Brandon
Does God have the right to request anyone’s life before their natural death?
Wow…
I’m assuming that you’re asking this as a rhetorical question – e.g. you obviously think the answer is yes.
Perhaps I think that is the great divide between believers and non-believers. Believers think that as long as God is the creator of everything, he has every right to do anything he wants. While for people like me I don’t really subscribe to “might is right” kind of thinking.
But hey, I don’t believe in absolute morality so I’ll stop short of calling your train of thought as “wrong”. I dislike it, I just hope you or people like you will never come into power.
That being said, I do have an issue if you do equate “good” to God if you believe the above. Definition of “good” must be outside of God, not “whatever God does = good”, for the latter definition makes the word “good” meaningless.
Anyway, what you’ve said (and also your subsequent replies to Gary) reminds me of a friend (I would rather call him an acquaintance now) who once told me that even though he doesn’t know why God would send his kind and nice grandfather to hell – obviously he’s not a believer – but when it does happen (he obviously is of the mainstream belief that people only go to hell after everything is over, not at the moment you die – e.g. last portion of revelation) he would applaud God and praise God for that is definitely the good thing to do. By the way he said this with tears in his eyes.
So what do we make of this? Cult thinking? Crazy? Or a rational christian trying to do his best to rationalize crazy shits that they believe God does?
LikeLike
Here is just how crazy the Judeo-Christian moral system is:
Saul, the believer and follower of Yahweh/Jesus, had no problem killing little children and babies, but spared the sheep and goats. He had no pity for crying, terrified children, but he spared the sheep and goats out of selfish greed..
And much worse, Brandon, your righteous, holy god did NOT punish Saul for killing babies…but he DID punish him for not killing the goats and sheep!
That is madness, Brandon. There is no justifiable reason to excuse this behavior.
It is evil.
I have a bet to make with you: If you had been there that day, and God himself had told you to chop the arms, legs, and heads off of little Amalekite babies and toddlers, do you think that you would have obeyed?
I bet you wouldn’t. I will bet, Brandon, that you are a much more moral being than your god is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Gary
Don’t bet your house on it.
LikeLike
Brandon to Crown: “Before you go, I think the most important step in your argument is in determining that there are no plausible natural ways to generate the image. What publication was able to show this?”
I second this request.
LikeLike
Brandon, your apologetic regarding genocide and the horrors of the old testament used to be surprising yet understandable to me given your view of scripture. It is becoming a bit creepy though as time goes on. Surely you see the conundrum here, no?
Your view seems like this: If there is a creator then it is sovereign so commanding the slaughter of toddlers as they are running away from you is acceptable behavior and we can still put the label of “all good” on a creator like that.
What is off limits for this sovereign creator before we can agree the label of “all good” doesn’t fit – nothing? If it commands you to rape a toddler is it ok in the same way, or is that a different category for some reason?
LikeLiked by 1 person
As someone above said: Is the Christian god “good” because his behavior adheres to objective moral principles at all times, or is he “good” simply because he says he is good? If the later is true, then good is only a matter of what the biggest, most powerful, bully says it is.
How is it that Christians can condemn the barbaric, genocidal acts of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, but call the same barbaric, genocidal acts of their god “good”? Their is no rational explanation for this inconsistency. The morality of Christianity is subjective, not objective. The morality of Christianity is subject to the whims of a tempermental, vindictive, vengeful, blood-thirsty big bully—Yahweh/Jesus.
You can point out all the errors and discrepancies in the Bible to Christians until you are blue in the face and it won’t change their minds. But, how do they counter the charge that their god is a murdering son-of-a-bitch? Answer: “He’s good because he says he is.”
If the Christian god exists, dear Christian, please at least be honest and stop calling him “our loving Heavenly Father”. No loving father murders babies. Tremble in terror and call him what he is: “our Heavenly Monster”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“3. There is no pain in Hell, but you will miss out on all the fun in heaven.”
Fun in heaven? Read the Bible carefully – there’s no fun in heaven, it consists of praising god, 24/7, for eternity – does that really sound like fun? And what kind of poor self imaged entity really needs that?
LikeLike
Nate,
Your commenters are usually far more knowledgeable and articulate than I am, so I typically just read and nod quietly over here in my little corner of the interwebs as they expound on the details of religious history, but I wanted to say that your bravery is admirable, as is your willingness to be open-minded (in the best sense of the term).
Such qualities often lead to a lot of sighing.
The God of the Bible is not one that is easy to understand or follow, much less believe in, for most rational thinking people. Taking the time to be as understanding and tolerant of each other’s right to believe as their own conscience dictates is not always easy, especially when the effort is not reciprocated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some may find it rude for me to refer to the Christian god as a murdering-son-of-a-bitch. But I have a question for you: If Adolf Hitler had been captured at the end of WWII, and you had the opportunity to speak to him, would you refer to him respectfully as “Herr Chancellor” or would you refer to him as a monstrous, mass-murdering SOB?
Mass Murderers and Baby Killers do not merit respect.
Christians need to understand how many of us skeptics view your belief system. Yes, we view it as a fable or myth. But your myth is not an innocuous myth such as that of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. The belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy has not been the cause of the murder of millions of innocent men, women, and children. Your belief is responsible for just that: MASSIVE persecution and murder.
I realize that most Christians today do not see themselves as adherents to “that version” of Christianity, but the bottom line is: you still worship and obey the very same BABY KILLER god!
Your belief system is immoral, my Christian friend. To not speak out against your beliefs; to not speak out against the monster you call your god; to not attempt to rescue more and more young people from this brain-washing cult, would be the epitome of IMMORALITY.
We MUST speak out plainly and forcefully against the evil superstition of conservative/orthodox Christianity!
LikeLike
We skeptics/non-believers do not hate Christians. You are our family, our friends, our co-workers. We care deeply about you. But your beliefs are evil. You have been brainwashed to believe the lie that your evil god is good. He is not. He is the epitome of evil. It is our duty to help you to see that.
LikeLike
The god of the Bible ordered the brutal murder of every breathing Amalekite child and baby.
Conservative Christian: “The God of the Bible is not one that is easy to understand or follow, much less believe in, for most rational thinking people…(but we should obey and serve him anyway).”
Nazi: “Hitler is not one that is easy to understand or follow, much less believe in, for most rational thinking people…(but we should obey and serve him anyway).”
Neither of these individuals is thinking rationally.
LikeLike
Saw this on FB and thought it worth sharing:
LikeLike
Dear atheists, agnostics, skeptics, naturalists and other non-believers in the Christian god:
I believe what Nan has said above is very important: It is critical for us to point out to Christians the irreconcilable traits of the Christian god. You cannot be a good, benevolent, loving father and a baby-slaughtering murderer at the same time.
We will not defeat conservative/fundamentalist religious bigotry, discrimination, intolerance, and superstitions debating Christians and other religious fundamentalists regarding the accuracy of their holy books and the reality of the supernatural claims therein; we will only defeat this evil by convincing good, decent, thinking Christians of the immorality of their belief system.
LikeLike
Howie, it has nothing to do with sovereignty . That’s the sort of “might makes right” type of argument. Also, notice that I’m not using any apologetic at the moment. I’m challenging Gary or you or anyone else to make a coherent case for your position.
It’s not as easy as people think it is, it’s kind of like Kagan arguing for contractarianism against a decent case for moral nihilism. Well, how does a supreme creator deity fit into a moral scheme like contractarianism?
I think the creep factor is just a gut level reaction. This is an emotionally charged subject that even I get. I have to intentionally suppress this, think about the facts, and think more objectively.
LikeLike
Gary, once again it seems you are not reading anything I type. Until you are able to read and respond appropriately, I cannot have a conversation with you.
LikeLike
Powell, it has nothing to do with might makes right, see what I said to Howie above. If you have a good case, I’m willing to hear it. Until then, I’m not sure what you are talking about. You are not addressing me, you are just having an emotional burst against someone else — an old acquaintance?
What is your case? Assertions and emotions I don’t want to here. Give me the inner logic and knowledge. Demonstrate.
LikeLike
We can forget the “creepy” statement for the moment, but as an aside you may really want to consider it if you want to convince people who admit to having a moral sense even though they aren’t completely sure where that moral sense comes from (and I’m one who concedes it could possibly be from a deity).
I think I’m just unclear by your case Brandon. Your words seem to be saying clearly that if there is a supreme creator deity then he has every right to command slaughtering all human Amalekites and Canaanites no matter what age. If it’s in his rights I’m assuming you mean he is still all good even in this scenario.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“There never was a flood that covered the entire earth and the mountains by 22 cubits of water. This was only a regional flood in the Euphrates River Valley”
LikeLike
Speaking of frustration, it really bugs me when people discussing these topics present themselves as if they’ve arrived at THE correct conclusion. I see very little evidence on this thread that anyone on either side of these topics has been willing to actually check out more information. When I read guys like Nate and unkleE admitting they need to go and read up, it makes me think there is likely none of us who can say we’ve exhausted the information on even on of these topics. I think a lot of this has to do with the interwebs, and the fact that it’s so easy to talk a big game anonymously.
Anyway, for this discussing the morality of God based on OT passages, here is just one series of articles giving a lot of history and context I found quite interesting it doesn’t defend killing of women and children. Instead, it shows that we may not have a correct understanding of either the events or what lead up to the events.
http://tcapologetics.org/god-of-war/
I know, I know. The guy’s an apologist, so must be fudging. This isn’t the only place I’ve read this stuff, so more than likely there’s good info in here. Plus, most of you all want us Christians to only trust the review of those who don’t believe Christianity. So, why not return the favor? We can’t always focus only on those who believe as we do
• God implemented justice on a particularly evil culture. In doing so, God was not forcing His law onto every other nation; He was
• showing He was a God cared about the victims of evil.
• God waited hundreds of years before implementing His justice; he carefully warned the targeted cultures; and he drove out most of the people ahead of time.
• The language of destruction in the war texts primarily contain language of displacement: God was destroying a horrific cultural system, even while the individuals within it were embraced by the Israelite community.
• The people involved in the wars were the cultural gatekeepers (priests and military), not the civilians.
• The rules of war reflected the principle of lex talionis, the command that the punishment should not exceed the crime.
• This is not a history of genocide, but of the salvation of an area of the world from specific cultures that were some of the most brutal on record in human history
Who among us, if we saw evil invading a region, could fault the one who intervenes? If anything, a lot of us may fault God for waiting too long to intervene.
“Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God’s wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn’t wrathful at the sight of the world’s evil. God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love.”
LikeLike
I should have added – basically, the orange area, this was the great flood of 2900 BCE, which took out the city-state of Shurrapak, at which the Sumerian Kings List ends during King Ziusudra’s reign, with the words, “…and then the flood swept over.”
LikeLike
The bullet points above are just a flavor of the series. There’s a lot more in the articles. Forgive the terrible editing – I’m typing on my iPad.
LikeLike
Sorry I can’t join you Josh – Satan has a restraining order against me – something about a bad influence —
LikeLike