Tag Archive for Christian

JT Eberhard’s “Dear Christian” at GVSU with Q&A!

Last Thursday, JT gave his talk “Dear Christian” at GVSU in front of some 200+ Christians involved in Cru. Below are parts 1-4 of his talk, and parts 1-3 of the Q&A.

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

 

Q&A

Part 2
Part 3

Catholic League adopting atheists…

So the Catholic League has taken it upon themselves to search out atheists in an attempt to indoctrinate us in time for Christmas. More likely their targeting those fence sitters who are apathetic on the religious movement. So they have launched their own “Adopt An Atheist” campaign, the predicate of which is, “We want atheists to realize that there may be Christians in their community, even if those Christians don’t even know they are Christian.”

First of all… no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Just… ah, I hardly have any words for this. There is no such thing as “not knowing” you’re a Christian. You’re just NOT.

In this campaign, the Catholic League is encouraging “everyone” to email American Atheist affiliates (a list is provided) by email and, “Let them know of your sincere interest in working with them to uncover their inner self. They may be resistant at first, but eventually they may come to understand that they were Christian all along.” I checked out this list, and I’m pretty sure it was snagged without permission, or even if it wasn’t, I think any message coming from these Catholic nuts wanting to “adopt” one of us will be marked as spam. So good fucking luck.

They finish by saying, “If we hurry, these closeted Christians can celebrate Christmas like the rest of us. As an added bonus, they will no longer be looked upon as people who ‘believe in nothing, stand for nothing and are good for nothing.’”

I think this deserves a counter email campaign to all Catholic League affiliates telling them that it is not okay to force your religion on others. Especially those who have already made up their minds to the point that they’ve joined American Atheists… seriously, are you just looking for a beating? If you REALLY feel the need to adopt something by Christmas, adopt a shelter dog and tell them everything you want them to know about Jesus. I hear that pets are great listeners.

Skepticon and the True Believer

My trip to Skepticon was delightful. Good friends, great presentations, and lots of thought provoking discussions with the attendees. The only cloud on the whole experience, speaking for myself, was the brouhaha over a local restaurant refusing to serve the convention’s participants on the grounds of their non-religious status. While the owner of this “Christian Business” did eventually apologize, the episode left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.  But what struck me the most was my own reaction.

To paraphrase Greta Christina, many religious people, especially Christians, have a nasty habit when confronted with injustice enacted by members of their faith. This habit is to brush the incident aside with an, “Oh, that’s not the True Faith,” and leave the matter there. What this says to their conversational partner is that they’re far more concerned about their own reputation than the injustice innocent people have suffered.

I have to admit that I also have this habit. When I heard about this incident, my first internal reaction was: “That man calls himself a Christian?  Hardly, a real Christian wouldn’t do that.” A moment of reflection (and Ms. Christina’s timely words) suggested to me that I was being just as dismissive of this man as he was towards my friends. “True Faith” is a term that gets thrown around a lot, but it hasn’t been since this year that I’ve given any serious thought to what that means. Apart from the fact that there are thousands (upon thousands) of versions of my own religion, you can find plenty of discord and descent within almost any of those versions. What level of arrogance does it take to sate that my own interpretation is ‘the’ correct one? Or that my “True Faith” makes me more of a human being, entitled to greater privilege, than the rest of the population?

Additionally, using a term like “True Faith” usually only serves as a disavowal of responsibility. It’s very comforting to believe oneself an enlightened individual immune to prejudice or flawed reasoning. It’s also egotistical and apathetic towards the plight of others. The world we live in is a far cry from heaven on earth. What’s worse, many horrific acts are carried out every day in heaven’s name. The victims of these acts aren’t concerned with whether or not they’re representative of our own belief system, or the history of doctrinal divergence. We need to stop trying to absolve ourselves, god, and the Church of the charge of moral depravity through empty words and complacent behavior. We have a responsibility, not as the few, lucky, chosen of god, but as human beings, to fight discrimination and and injustice wherever we find it.  So many Christians ask themselves what they’ll say about their life when they stand before god, what can we say to our fellow human beings if we ignore their suffering? What can we possibly say in defense of ourselves for tolerating bigotry and ignorance? “It’s not the True Faith,” isn’t good enough.

__________

Jaime Wise is a devoted member of Center for Inquiry on Campus at Grand Valley State University where she is studying Writing and English and continues to be a model of rationality and tolerance from within the Christian faith. She has defined herself as a Christian Humanist and has started a theology sub-committee of CFI GVSU to discuss matters of Theology from outside the usual Christian context.

A Question Posed by an Increasingly Concerned Christian

Given the angry rants of “Brother Jed”, the extremist Christian who dropped in on GVSU campus for a friendly reminder that we all deserve hell, a silent protest seemed like a great idea. What better way to counteract a vicious hate-speech than showing up with positive messages; a simple reminder that there was an alternative on campus? I showed up to the protest hoping to support my friends and classmates, and I admit, poke fun the crazy guy with the weird staff. But the day didn’t go like I planned. After significantly less than an hour, I was so overwhelmed by the fascistic ramblings of this man and his cronies, that I excused myself and went home. I retreated to my nice, comfortable house, sat on my nice, comfortable couch, had a nice, comfortable afternoon, but I felt horrible. More than horrible. I was ashamed of myself.

Anyone who knows me can tell you I frequently and proudly declare that I’m not a religious extremist. They could also tell you that if asked what I am I get a lot more vague. In my entire life I have done next to nothing to provide any constructive contribution to a discussion of faith and its practice in the world we live in. What’s worse, I don’t think I’m the only one. I’ve begun to notice a disturbing trend among many of my peers in the religious world.

People practically trip over themselves to dissociate from thinkers like Rob Bell for broaching the idea that the traditionally accepted idea of Hell might not be as sound as previously thought. But we seem alarmingly nonchalant about extremists being our loudest voices. Why do we preach toleration towards angry fascists while rejecting anyone who challenges us to examine ourselves? Why are we content to let ignorance represent the church? What do we think will happen to the church if we sit on our hands and pretend nothing is wrong? What (if you pardon the expression) in hell is going on here?

__________

Jaime Wise is a devoted member of Center for Inquiry on Campus at Grand Valley State University where she is studying Writing and English and continues to be a model of rationality and tolerance from within the Christian faith. She has recently defined herself as a Christian Humanist and has started a theology sub-committee of CFI GVSU to discuss these matters among others.

 

My Epic Saga of facing Brother Jed

Many college students know of Brother Jed. Especially those in the skeptic movement. I first heard his name mentioned at the SSA Conference this summer where it was followed by a groan from the whole room of 200+ students. I was unenlightened as to who this man was, but as I will chronicle here, I soon found out.

Last Wednesday, as I was preparing for my panel discussion that night by wasting time on facebook, Dave left me a message informing me that Brother Jed was going to be at my university in two days. I was quickly given the resources to find out who this man was and I immediately sent out a rally cry to my troop of regular members of our chapter of CFI-Grand Valley.

Over the next 24 hours, emails were tossed back and forth between our adult leadership at CFI-Michigan, and myself and other campus leaders on how best to approach this situation. I ended up going with a silent counter-protest of Brother Jed and I spent Thursday night making a stack of posters with positive quotes and sayings including, “You deserve hugs! Love, CFI,” “One Love,” “[citation needed],” “Cool Story, Bro,” and “You ain’t got no pancake mix!” in reference to a semi-famous event that happened at the same spot in years prior and ended up on YouTube.

Thursday night, the facebook event was created, the meeting place was set, and the next morning I woke up after having nightmares about this going horribly wrong. Ever adamant, I checked the facebook event page and a dozen people had confirmed they were attending, with another dozen or so as maybes. Elated, I bundled up for the brisk 50ºF (10ºC) morning, gathered my posters and went to our meetup venue. A half hour passed as six of us eventually gathered, made a few more posters and heard the news that Brother Jed was finally spotted.

I knew that it was going to be a good afternoon when we arrived on location with our posters and cheers and applause came from the small crowd already there.

Our arrival at noon.

Throughout the 4-5 hours we were there, we had this great opportunity to network and speak with the students who were gathered about our organization Center for Inquiry, why we were there and what we are about. A lot of students liked our signs and many of them took our flyer of meeting times and events.

Speaking to students in the crowd about CFI.

Our purpose at this counter-protest was to provide a positive and reasonable alternative to Brother Jed’s angry rants and raves about us all deserving hell. I think with a mix of humor and pertinent quotes, we got many students to think and see our organization as a good thing on this campus.

The sign that got the most laughs. "Cool Story, Bro" was on the opposite side.

Our troop of CFI protesters providing a background of reason to Brother Jed's rants.

Some people after asking about our posters, asked if they could make their own. I had brought some extra poster board and markers with me so they went at it and joined in our peaceful line of reason.

Other people used our signs and made their own throughout the day.

Brother Jed himself didn’t pay us much attention. He did address many of our signs, but we felt his responses were inadequate cop-outs. For example, when he saw my favorite Ghandi quote, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ,” he just yelled about Ghandi being a pervert and a child molester… completely missing the point. When I was holding the “You deserve hugs! Love, CFI” sign he said that as a young lady I shouldn’t be advertising for strangers to hug me and he essentially called me a hussy because of that. After that I received several hugs from some friendly fellows which I gladly accepted. Because I’m a slut like that.

A few LGBT students also came to watch. One held a printed sign stating “I <3 homosexuality.” Several times men would skip by holding hands or make out in front of him, and the crowd would applaud. Brother Jed would yell, “All of you who clapped are going to hell!” to which we only replied with more clapping and cheering.

Throughout the day the crowd grew and grew and slowly moved in closer and closer to Brother Jed which actually made me a bit uncomfortable until I realized what was happening. There was a close ring of people standing around Brother Jed listening and debating, but those who were standing outside of it were talking to each other. I saw dozens of students, strangers to each other before, now talking about religion and debating the issues of free speech at our school and I think that was a beautiful result.

Conversations with a local area evangelical.

By the request of Dave, I live-tweeted a little bit of the event as well. Search for #brojedwatch on Twitter and you can see some Twitpics of the event in-progress. Please use the hashtag if you see him at your campus as well!

Have you had Brother Jed at your campus? What events have you held around his arrival? Check his fall 2011 schedule to see if he’ll be coming to your school!

Living without Religion, Living with Anxiety

Two weeks ago, I was invited to be a participant for Center for Inquiry-Michigan in downtown Grand Rapids on their “Living without Religion” discussion panel as coverage of our new billboard. My first thought was, “hell no!” since I’ve been a lifetime introvert and I have pretty extreme social anxiety, especially speaking in front of crowds. But as I thought about it, I realized that I really wanted to speak on this panel and have my story heard on what it’s like to live without religion as a person happy and content with being an atheist. I finally responded with a ‘yes.’

So last Wednesday night, I showed up and sat on a panel with four other active area CFI members and we shared with a room of 100+ people what it’s like to live without religion. The crowd was mostly other CFI members so it was a friendly room, but we have been heard in the community as MLive.com had an article covering the event.

via MLive.com - T.J. Hamilton | The Grand Rapids Press

The comments on the article still baffle me as all of the ones I’ve read have been arguing over the comment about sending their kid to a Christian preschool. Many commenters seemed to miss the point that even though they were atheists, they were willing to pay to send their second child to a private Christian school. They knew that their daughter would be taught about the Christian belief system and they were okay with that. They only thing these parents were “guilty” of was telling the truth by not lying and signing a statement of faith in God. Not mentioned in the article was how Cathy said they were okay with their daughter learning Christian values at the school but when their enrollment was rejected, they said their daughter still learned a different perspective on “Christian values” that day.

No mention of my comment…

…religious history, when looked at from an academic perspective, appears more akin to mythology. [I believe] science offers a better basis for understating the natural world.

Alas, my voice was still heard and I’m happy I did this. Dealing with anxiety has been a long journey for me and I’ve just recently been gaining a better understanding and a better handle on tackling it. I’ve also recently learned that Sam Harris also had a debilitating fear of public speaking and his article here sums up what I have also learned quite well. I am not a great public speaker yet, and I don’t think things would go well if I were the only one on at a podium in front of more than 50 people. But I’m getting better, and I’ve especially become adept at steps 1-4 that he has outlined.

Coming out as an atheist as well as being more public about the stress of anxiety has helped me tremendously in both areas of my life. I’m proud to be an atheist, and I’m happy that my passion for this movement is helping me to deal with my anxiety.

Disingenuous fearmongering about the “gay agenda”

I was recently alerted to this video’s existence via a Facebook post by a conservative Christian associate of mine.  It was created by CitizenLink, a Focus on the Family affiliate.

CitizenLink Report: Tools for Parents

It’s more of the same message we often see from “pro-family” organizations: that “parents” (read: heterosexual Christian parents) should be “concerned” (read: alarmed) about “homosexual indoctrination” (read: teaching kids that they shouldn’t regard gay people as horrible, immoral monsters) in schools.

For what it’s worth, I know that there are at least a handful of gay activists out there who do have a disdain for heterosexuals and do want special treatment for their sexual orientation (I know this because I met one).  With a little bit of dressing up, this fringe element serves as a handy strawman for anti-gay activists to reference in videos like this.  Don’t be fooled.  The vast majority of homosexuals just want to be who they are without being treated like freaks.  That’s your real “gay agenda”.

If you don’t want to sit through the whole thing, skip to 6:48 for the part that really made my blood boil.

“. . . it is clear that these kids are struggling.”

Around the 7-minute mark the show’s host plays a clip from a “tolerance” video promoted by a gay advocacy group.  In the clip we see teenagers giving their candid perceptions of their own gender identities, followed by the host and her guest reacting with thinly veiled disgust.  They no doubt picked this clip thinking that it represents the worst of the gay indoctrination that students face, and I personally saw nothing wrong with what that clip depicted.  What exactly is wrong with boys not acting masculine?  Girls admitting that they’re not 100% feminine?  More importantly, what evidence is there that these kids are “struggling” any more than any other teenager struggles with life?

Of course, that’s a rhetorical question.  I know that the people who are alarmed by the blurring of boundaries between gendered behaviors feel that way because it demolishes two immutable categories that they’ve constructed in their minds.  “Men and women are fundamentally different, even without counting the genitals and physiological differences, and should always behave as such, and you’ll never convince me otherwise!” says my social conservative strawman.

What’s really damaging is the idea that there can’t be middle ground in gender issues, that you’re either a manly man, a womanly woman, a girly gay boy, or a butch lesbian.  No room for bisexuals, or even heterosexuals who exhibit personality traits of both genders, exists in this mindset (let alone trans- or intersexuals!).

An admonition for conservatives who aren’t anti-gay

I understand that there are plenty of economic conservatives out there who don’t have a problem with anyone’s sexual orientation or gender identity so long as they’re productive citizens.  I understand your sentiment that gay advocacy is intruding on public school curriculum with programs like those described in the video, and likewise that lawsuits for the same cause are frivolous and that government intervention on it is excessive.  I don’t completely agree with that sentiment, but I understand where it comes from.

What secular conservatives should understand is that much of the left-wing sentiment backing this type of aggressive advocacy was forged by the backlash from social conservatives against those homosexuals who have “come out” over the past few decades.  Gay rights activists built up this momentum while fighting a culture war for their right to exist in society.  Tell the religious zealots who have hijacked the Republican Party to stop fighting culture wars and focus on the economy, and you won’t have to listen to this senseless debate any longer.

On the vilification of secular humanists

First, an introduction. I’m Matt Foss, a new contributor here at Skeptic Freethought. I’m an atheist, secular humanist, and skeptic, just starting to get involved in the secular movement.

Over the past few weeks I’ve noticed a handful of items appearing on my Google Alerts for “secular humanism” from Christian news sites and right-wing blogs. They all had a common theme: that secular humanism is the modern world’s greatest threat to the American Christian way of life. Take a look at these two articles in particular:

Secular Humanism is the Established State Religion” – an assertion that humanist values should be kept out of public schools per the Establishment Clause.

The Worldview War” – an absurd rant about how Muslims and secular humanists are working together to bring America to ruin.

You’ll notice that the second article references one Dr. David Noebel as a source of knowledge on the concept of “worldviews”. A quick Google search identifies him as the retiring president of Summit Ministries, an organization focused on apologetics for a world it believes has gotten over Christianity.

Paranoia over secular humanism is nothing new, of course; Christian fundamentalists have been trying for decades to block its “teachings” from public schools on the grounds that promoting skepticism, science, and human rights somehow amounts to religious indoctrination. The Religious Right has been getting more and more vocal as of late, however, and I’m concerned that this sort of anti-humanist diatribe will become a trend.

Why the fuss about humanists?

It might come as a shock to some that Christians would be so alarmed by a group of people who advocate respect and tolerance; wouldn’t they be more afraid of vitriolic, firebrand, capital-’A'-Atheists than of someone who simply claims to be “good without God”? Aren’t so-called humanist doctrines really just the same ethical standards at the core of every free society?

Note: I in no way intend to take sides on the “tone wars” here, nor imply that “atheist” implies “firebrand” or that “humanist” implies “diplomat”. I’m referring to the connotation that the two words tend to have based on my personal experience in discussing them with religious believers.

After reading and thinking on this a while, I’ve realized why they are so afraid of humanists. It’s precisely because of the benign-sounding messages such as “Be good for goodness’ sake!” and “Millions are good without God.” It’s because, framed within a worldview in which a sly Devil seeks to trick gullible humans into abandoning faith for worldly concerns, a friendly and inviting godless philosophy is far more dangerous than an aggressive militant adversary.

As I understand it, these fundamentalists want atheism to be an empty, miserable state of mind for which they represent the ultimate cure. The idea of a worldview that emotionally, intellectually, and socially fulfills people without belief in their God negates the very purpose of their religion’s existence. In this respect, I don’t blame them for feeling threatened by humanism, and I won’t be so surprised in the future when fundamentalists react negatively to non-threatening billboards like the (vandalized) one pictured above.

Praxy and Doxy

Of the thirteen Pauline epistles in the New Testament, seven have been identified by biblical scholars as written by Paul himself. The veracity of the remaining six, Colossians, Ephesians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Thessalonians, is still disputed among scholars. Many suggest that these six epistles were not written by Paul, but were instead written anonymously by later authors and then attributed to Paul, perhaps so that these epistles would be taken seriously by emerging Christian communities.

Paul wrote the majority of his epistles in the middle of the first century, between AD 50 and 60, while the pseudepigraphal works have been dated to the latter years of the first century and possibly as late as the early second century. There are many reasons to suggest that these epistles were not actually written by Paul. In my previous post, I mentioned the radical shift in Paul’s attitude toward women and their roles in the church between 1 Corinthians, written approximately AD 54, and 1 Timothy, which scholars have dated to as late as the turn of the second century. That’s a fifty year difference, and certainly plenty of time for the emerging Christian faith to undergo radical change as it moved from a Jewish sect in the Levant to a fledgling religion in Greece and Rome.

In searching for clues to the authorship of the pseudepigraphal epistles, scholars have analyzed style and linguistic changes between accepted and questioned Pauline works, as well as the content itself. Paul’s earliest epistles, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon, were all fairly short in length and very warm in tone. The first two were letters of support to members of the churches Paul founded in Thessalonica and Philippi, gentle reminders to his followers to stay true to their faith. The letter to Philemon is more of a simple correspondence than an invocation of faith.

It isn’t until the mid 50’s with his letter to the Galatians that Paul begins discussing theological matters, and he most likely did so in order to combat alternative interpretations and practices of Christianity which were emerging in the east. These new issues included the idea that if Christianity is simply a sect of Judaism, then they must follow the laws dictated in the Torah in order to be included as the Chosen People. However, Paul’s claim was that correct practice, orthopraxy, was not necessary. It was correct belief, orthodoxy, specifically the belief that Jesus died to absolve humanity of all sins, that was required of new Christians and not adherence to Old Testament laws. His epistle to the Galatians was simply a way of reining in increasingly disparate dogmas of the young Christianity.

However, the gap between Jewish orthopraxy and Christian orthodoxy would continue to widen until Christianity became predominantly a Gentile religion. The ideas written in 1-2 Timothy expressed a marked change in religious doctrine that no doubt was a result of this split of Christianity from Judaism. As much as Paul tried to promote the idea that both Jew and Gentile could be Christian, the gap between orthodoxy and orthopraxy would prove to be difficult to overcome.

These differences in theology have proven quite dangerous throughout history. As Christianity flourished in the Greco-Roman world, new ideas would emerge from very different interpretations of Paul’s letters, resulting in anti-semitism, adherence to Greco-Roman gender constructs and social mores, and even social hierarchies that Paul, in all probability, sought to avoid. Paul was no doubt the individual responsible for shaping the religion of Christianity as it came to be practiced, but it would be later authors, commentators, and compilers who would have the final say in how Christianity would come to be practiced in the centuries to come.

Paul and the Women

Paul Writing His Epistles

First century Christianity was a radically different religion from the one we understand today in the twenty-first century. However, it seems sometimes that many among the Christian community believe that the way they practice Christianity is exactly the same way Jesus practiced Christianity, with the greatest error in that thinking being that Jesus did not practice Christianity as he was a Jew. The small Jewish cult, with the help of a man named Paul, would eventually become a predominantly Greek and Roman community with early Christians practicing their tradition in the privacy and safety of their homes. In Greco-Roman society, the manager of the home was the wife, and the duties of managing Christian gatherings often fell upon women more than men in these private settings. By the end of the first century, it was not unheard of for women to be in very prominent positions within the Christian community. Yet this is clearly not the behavior we see in the Church today.

Readers will no doubt be familiar with the passage in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 which reads:

11. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

This letter is attributed to Paul, the same Paul who wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:38-40 the following:

38. So then, he who marries his fiancée does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. 39. A wife is bound as long as her husband lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord. 40. But in my judgement she is more blessed if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God. [emphasis mine]

Fresco of Thecla in the Cathedral of Chernihiv

Scholars have agreed that many of the Pauline letters in the New Testament are merely attributed to Paul, and not written by him at all. Paul’s attitudes toward women at times seem surprisingly progressive, particularly in Romans 16 in which he praises many women active in the early Church such as Phoebe, Prisca, and Junia.

Early Christianity offered women a freedom from the strict gender roles demanded of them by Greco-Roman society. A proper woman was to be married and have children. It stood to reason then that when the Christians came along suggesting to forgo marriage and children and instead follow the Christian tradition, it was not taken well by the Greeks and Romans. The apochryphal work “The Acts of Paul and Thecla” recounts the story of a young woman named Thecla who rejected her betrothal to Thamyris and instead went with Paul to become a Christian. As a Christian, she would be free from the demands and expecations placed upon her by Greek society. As a consequence of her conversion, she was condemned to death (though miraculously saved thanks to her new faith).

Paul wrote that all Christians were equal, as stated in Galatians 3:28, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” If Paul was indeed progressive, and the early Church was a place of equality for women and men, then what brought about the radical shift away from equality? Most likely it was brought about in the third and fourth centuries after the Church had become the official state religion of Rome. With that power came abuse. The old communites ended as Christianity became monolithic. Sexism was institutionalized, and new Pauline letters were written to promote the old Greco-Roman gender roles once dismissed by early Greek Christians.

Today, the institutionalized sexism and rigorous gender roles of the Greeks and Romans persist in the Christian religion. It no longer offers freedom from societal expectations, and indeed actively promotes a narrower view of women’s roles than it once did. Christianity may have served an important role in social change, but now in the twenty-first century, it is holding society back and preventing progress in equal rights for women, gays and lesbians and other queer folk, and anyone else who does not subscribe to the rigid roles imposed by long-dead Roman leaders who sought to reinstate the old social order via the new faith. The best bet for social progress now is to completely cast away religion.

Next week, I’ll be looking further into the contradictions in the Pauline letters and discussing the authentic ones versus the later attributions. See you then!