“…but Christianity 

is NOT a religion!"

The first time I heard this I stopped dead in my tracks and thought, “What the hell are you talking about?” Come to find out there is an entire movement where Christian believers are redefining Christianity…again!

I had found a site where I was able to find an explanation of how someone attempts to reason this notion. The site, if you follow the link, shares with you a standard-issue sermon on the idea as well as a long-winded and convoluted explanation of, well…deluded convolution.

I will spare you the misery of reading the entire rationalization train-wreck and it's default prayer for salvation at the end so I will simplify this notion for you.

As most religions require a belief in a god along with good deeds to qualify for passage to heaven, this new notion of Christianity claims that it doesn’t require anything. By this they mean that “God seeks man rather than man seeks God” by way of sending Jesus and making mans' passage to heaven instantaneous and “free”: no works, deeds or actions required.

However, I think of religion as it is defined in the dictionary. I don’t think a religion can neither be over-sophisticated nor over-simplified in order to exclude itself from the group of which belongs.

So below is e-mail debate I held with the author of this blog in attempts to…well, you’ll see.

I wrote: “…I’d like to complement your enthusiasm on the catchy notion that “Christianity is not a religion.” It certainly is a new perspective to spark interest in the new and old believers alike. Whether or not you coined the idea I do not know but I can’t help to think that it is merely a “selling gimmick” rather than an honest expression of logical thinking or even in consensus on what we, as a society, define as religion.

Now mind you, this is not a theological discussion, this is a logical discussion on which I base this contention. Allow me to explain myself. My contention starts with your definition itself. The definition you used is:

Religion is a system of beliefs or a code of moral conduct that judges (qualifies or disqualifies) a person based on their adherence and obedience to certain codes, rules, laws, traditions, or the performance of required acts.

True, this is a valid definition of the word “religion”. But you base your entire “philosophy”, if you will, on one of hundreds of valid, if not even more applicable, definitions of the word “religion”.

You see, most definitions of religion come up like these:

“1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”

…www.thefreedictionary.com

or

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe; A particular integrated system of this expression; The spiritual or emotional attitude of one who recognizes the existence of a superhuman power or powers."

….http://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/religion/Definitions.htm

But I’ve found, out of several definitions, one similar to your own. That is:

“1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,

especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies,

usually involving devotional and ritual observances,

and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

…http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Here, it says “and often”, meaning, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t include the “conduct of human affairs”. The truth of the matter, Pastor Driscoll, is that there are literally hundreds of ways to describe one thing. They more or less say the same thing. But you’ve chosen one that illustrates the idea that fits your gimmick. What bothers me is that the idea of Christianity not being a religion is contingent, for you only, on that one single phrase.

My point being, is that, based on all these definitions above, Christianity is still a religion. One might say, “But considering the latter of the three, Christianity still does not require one to perform certain actions to receive the forgiveness that Christ has given us as a result of his resurrection.” I say, absolutely not. Regardless of which definition you use, including your own, Christianity still maintains the full criteria of a religion, as clearly illustrated in all the definitions above because it’s still belief in the supernatural; it’s still a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief; it still has a set of beliefs values and practices based on the teachings of a certain leader. So, here’s the punch line: if Christianity DOES NOT qualify for any of those, then Christianity is not a religion. The final result: Christianity is a religion!

So this is why: you cannot negate the application of these other definitions of religion even if Christianity does not require one to regulate ones behavior in the way the old Testament does. These are merely definitions which are subject to the normal variance of society, culture, etc: these are not Federal Regulations where one has to obey one verbatim just as you do when you interpret the scriptures. Even with your definition, Christianity still fulfills all these criteria as given above as well as the hundreds of other definitions on religion which you will find online. Pastor, I implore you, this is not merely my opinion, but simple logical reasoning.

You say you “hate religion” in hopes to make an appeal not only to people of religion but also of the non-religious, but clearly you, an apologist by example, are merely advertising the religion which you believe and chose to view differently when in fact it’s the same two-thousand year old thing that it always has been.

Should you decide to reply, simply remember that I said this is not a theological discussion, this is a logical discussion. NO bible verses at play here in any way, please.”

The blogger responds: “I do not intend what I am saying about Christianity not being a religion to be a “selling gimmick”. Far from it! It is something I wholeheartedly believe. I am being very sincere here. There is a VERY profound and significant difference between what Jesus taught and all the world religions. Jesus’ teachings stand alone in a very real way, and are drastically different than any other way to God offered by any religion. 

I really don’t care if you want to call Christianity a “religion” or not. This is a pointless debate that I will not enter into again. I have previously listed several sources that list among their definitions ones that agree with my use here (See my response to Amanda above, comment 48). I have even pointed out that the origin of the word “religion” is from the Latin meaning “obligation or bond”. In your response you even made the point that there are many definitions for this word (and even quoted one that agrees with mine). You also overlooked your definition 3 from the freedictionary.com that you quoted which includes “practices”. Elsewhere from your list: “A particular integrated system of this expression”. All of these are getting at the idea and way I am using the word here. 

What I take away from this is that the word “religion” is a very loaded word that means a lot of different things to different people. I have no issue if you want to use this word to mean something different than I do. All I ask from you is the same freedom. I think the diversity of definitions for this word provide for that. My use is certainly within the scope of how people use this word. If you want me to illustrate this point consider this usage: a dentist saying to a patient, “I want you to brush your teeth and floss every morning, religiously.” Obviously the dentist doesn’t mean the person is to believe their tooth brush is the creator of the universe, should pray to it, that their floss is holy, or have an emotional attitude about it. He means that he wants the person to be devoted to this practice. He wants the person to see it as an obligation required to achieve his goal of having healthy teeth. He wants them to perform the acts required to gain this goal. This is the same meaning I am using. This is simply “logical reasoning”. No bible verses are needed. 

The word you use to describe Christianity isn’t that important. What I am trying to point out is there is something drastically different (at its very fiber) about Christianity from anything else. It is truly alone as the only faith that says that God Himself came down to man instead of telling man what we must do to come to God. It is the only faith where God Himself does all the work required (not us). This is a huge difference! Whether or not you agree it is true or not, you must admit that there is something very unique about what Jesus taught on this. We can argue all day about whether Christianity should be considered a religion or not, but I would much rather talk about this clear difference. You are missing the forest for the trees here. A raft made of logs may have some similarities to an aircraft carrier, but what best characterizes the two is their vast differences, not their few similarities. Give the difference between Christianity and the other religions whatever name you want, let’s talk about the amazing difference! 

At the heart of Christianity is the profound idea that it is only God who can fix the problem of sin and restore us to a right relationship with Him. No other faith actually has a solution to the problem of evil. They all teach some form of the idea that man must become better on our own, work harder, make up for evil they we’ve done, and earn good standing before God. But how can a man, who could not keep from doing this evil in the first place, completely stop committing it in the future? And even if he could, not doing evil in the future does not negate or erase evil already done in the past. We all know this is true. I am found guilty of murder by a jury and I stand up to give my last remarks before I am sentenced and I tell the judge, “Yes I did it, but I have been so good since then. I have walked old ladies across the street and worked at the local food bank”, what do you think the judge would say? He would respond, “Yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that you committed this crime. You must pay the penalty for it.”

If God is good and just, He cannot simply overlook evil. If He doesn’t punish Hitler He is an unjust judge. But, if He doesn’t punish my sin of hurting my wife with unkind words He would also be unjust. Yours too. No other faith addresses this problem. They expect a holy and just god to be unholy and unjust and simply tolerate evil or to continue to allow flawed, imperfect, frequently wrong-motivated people to attempt to better themselves. The problem of sin and evil remains. This is a logical problem with these religions. 

This is why these religions cannot offer salvation. They do not successfully deal with the problem of our sin. The only way God can remain just and we can go free is for someone to pay our penalty for us. This allows God to remain just by not failing to punish evil, but it also allows Him to let us go free. Other religions have no one who is qualified to pay the debt caused by our sin. It is only Jesus, the God-man, who can step in between you and God and pay this penalty. No other person can do this. They aren’t qualified. They have their own sin. No, the only way would be for God, Himself, to pay it for us. He is the only one who is qualified. He alone is perfect and without His own sin. 

The amazing result of this is that it is not our effort and works that earn us salvation in Christianity, it is God’s work substituted in our place. Jesus did all the work for us. He lived the perfect, sinless life. He died the death and took all my sin upon Him. As a result the teaching of Christianity is that anyone who accepts this gift is immediately righteous in God’s eyes! The righteousness of Jesus blankets and covers them. When God looks at them He sees Jesus’ goodness. It has nothing to do with anything they did. They can never do anything to make themselves more or less righteous in God’s eyes. Therefore it has absolutely NOTHING to do with their own effort and work.

This is a gigantic and fundamental difference! It is not semantics. It is not a sales gimmick. The very nature of this faith is grounded in an act of God completely alien to all the others. God dying for human beings? God sacrificing Himself to fix our problem? God becoming a human and experiencing evil and pain like us? God being murdered in our place? What religion is like this?!”

I responded: “First allow me to thank you for your response. My reason for being here is to gain clarity in this discussion and you have taken your personal time to help those with questions and for this I am graciously appreciative. Unlike some people I do not see anything wrong with asking questions or having a constructive conversation for that matter. If it wasn’t for open platforms for discussion such as the one you provide we’d probably still be paying heavy premiums for plenary indulgences and liberation from our iniquities from “His Grace” of the Holy Roman Catholic Church…a time which I’m confident to say we would all abhor living in. A wise man once said, “Within understanding lays freedom.” To discuss merely to argue is worthless but to not discuss is even worse. Knowledge is priceless, let us discuss, share and grow.

In response to what you so kindly wrote me, I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. And though you have stated, “I really don’t care if you want to call Christianity a “religion” or not. This is a pointless debate that I will not enter into again” I can certainly understand that you wouldn’t want to repeat yourself but I would have thought that for a blog entitled “Why Christianity is NOT a religion” this would be of utmost importance. So pardon me please if I’m in the wrong forum but I have already taken the liberty to voice my idea, ask your review and so I shall then now make my final rebuttal if you please.

When seeing that you are relying moreso on the etymology of the word “religion”, which is often rooted in the terms as an “obligation” or “bond” (up through the times of Lactantius or Cicero although it varies a bit in Jewish thought) it makes a little more sense why you would not classify Christianity as a religion. I still, however, don’t think that this is correct for this reason: if Christianity has no bond or obligation, and I find no bond or obligation to follow its credence, I will still be sentenced to eternal torture in hellfire after I pass away; something I have absolutely no say or choice in MAKING a choice; I am going to participate in this heaven or hell feud regardless of my wish: I have NO choice. It literally is ‘an offer I cannot refuse’ in the worse sense of the phrase. So, by this it would seem that there really IS a bond or obligation in order for me to avoid torture which would be to mentally acknowledge the propositional criteria; that being the few components of the Jesus story; and not just a one time acceptance –a life long effort to live a life slightly acceptable to the divine. But to me, a creed of ‘no bond or obligation’ would be, “congratulations, you’re ALL going to heaven!” or a “Get out of hell FREE card”. But this is not the case.

Additionally, I feel that perhaps I didn’t quite illustrate my point very clearly regarding the definition part of this topic. You wrote to Amanda,

“I appreciate your point that many dictionaries and other sources do not define religion as I have done here. I know and understand this. The truth is that there is not great agreement on the actual definition.”

Now, I’m not going to talk about “truth” because most general public and pastors included haven’t studied epistemology so I will utilize a different avenue to express my point. Now, I wouldn’t quite go so far as to say that there isn’t a great agreement on the actual definition; yet, I also wouldn’t quite say that there is a disagreement either. I feel that it would be correct to say that there is a vast area of which religion, or religions, fall into: meaning that, all the different definitions we’ve come across are all agreeable and, here is my point, are widely accepted in consensus in our society as to “what” religion is. Because these are merely descriptions, not crucial qualifying criteria, one CANNOT discard the definition as a whole simply because a religion doesn’t fall under one minor particular part of the description.

So, said more simply, you wrote me,

“I have no issue if you want to use this word to mean something different than I do. All I ask from you is the same freedom.”

I, nor others here in agreement with my argument, are asking or using ANY freedom to use a definition my way, your way or another persons way. We are saying that one must need to use the definitions in the CORRECT way: that there are still the majority of definitions of religion which Christianity DOES falls into. We cannot pick and choose when it comes to definitions even in a vast variety. If somehow, some way, it falls into the bucket, it’s a religion and Christianity certainly is that. Allow me to illustrate-

I LOVE Mexican food. One of the many things I like to eat are taquitos. Now, when I looked up the definition of a taquito it is given: 

“a Mexican dish consisting of a small tortilla rolled around a filling of meat and cheese and deep-fried.”

Now, I’m 35 years old and I have NEVER had a taquito filled with meat AND cheese; none of them had cheese in them! Now I wouldn’t be opposed to a taquito with meat AND cheese but that’s just not a taquito to me; more like a fried enchilada! Now, CAN I SAY that a taquito without cheese is NOT a taquito??? NO! It is just a different type. And so this is how I argue the proper use of a definition.

Now, don’t get me wrong. You say that Christianity is god coming to us and not us going to god. Broadly speaking, I’ll give that to you. I’m certainly not contesting this part of the idea. There is something different about Christianity than there is comparatively with some of the other major (existing) world religions. Some dead religions identical to Christianity I can name at least a dozen of them but that’s for another blog! But it is still looking up to someone or some thing of greater intelligence than us, something of inspiration, something of reverence, something of which we love, adore, sing praises too, build buildings for or in the name of, write songs, have services, gatherings, and rituals (even if not obligatory but done purely out of love) in the name of said deity. All those things I am talking about god and all those things are of religion and yet again, Christianity is certainly part of it…or at least a quasi-religion if you insist that it is different than all other religions. THIS is how we use definitions.

Now you told me in so many words that it’s not so much the definition as it is the concept. I understand very well where you are trying to get at. I argued my case and honestly feel that I have definitively demonstrated that Christianity is indeed a religion. So what is “Christianity is NOT a religion” when it actually IS a religion? Religions, not just Christianity, have thrived for thousands of years and SURVIVED because they adapt and modernize their structures to accommodate themselves with the religious man in a progressive society. This is a historically accredited and proven fact. It’s just a way of reinventing itself. Now, its okay, they all do that. But it really isn’t much more than a slogan or a way of raising an eyebrow. I have seen the modern movements of younger generations following their new ideas in Christianity; but it is merely perspective and not realistic difference as far as definition goes.

So I submit to you, when there is “us” and then there is a “god”, in the simplest sense of the term, it’s a religion regardless of the mechanics of how the philosophy works.

Thank you for your time, patience and understanding…whether we agree or not. Your friend in critical thinking, Eric.” 

The blogger responds: "Eric, Thanks for listening to what I said and responding.  

I want you to know that I did not post your “rebuttal” on my blog page because, as I have already clearly said, I do NOT wish to continue what I consider a pointless debate (what the word “religion” means) on that page.  Arguing over the semantics of which definition you or I chose for a word distracts from the point I am trying to make on that page.  You said, “I can certainly understand that you wouldn’t want to repeat yourself but I would have thought that for a blog entitled “Why Christianity is NOT a religion” this would be of utmost importance.”  But, you again, misunderstand that there is an idea I am trying to convey here.  You are hung up on the word “religion”, I get that.  I meant it when I said I don’t care if you want to call Christianity a religion.  Go ahead.  Peace.  What you don’t seem to understand is that I have something to say with this page.  I am trying to show the powerful and amazing way in which Christianity is different.  What word you use to describe that difference isn’t the point at all.  The point is the difference!  The page is to discuss the difference, not debate over word choice.  I am not posting your “rebuttal” because you are not rebutting my POINT at all.  You are critiquing my word choice which is taking the focus off what I intended to say.  

By doing so, you are missing the forest for the trees.  It’s like a person who has been bitten by a poisonous snake arguing with the doctor trying to save them, saying “the shot is really called an antidote, not a serum”.  Who cares what you call it!?  Just take it.  What word you choose to call it is totally beside the point.

I think your acknowledgment that the blog comments might be the wrong forum is correct.  However, I would be happy to continue the discussion via email since I agree with you that, as long as it is respectful and fruitful, both parties are benefited.  I also enjoy a good discussion and particularly when it relates to this topic.  I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with asking questions and having good constructive conversations (even if we disagree).  This is how we grow.  It is ok to not agree.  It is ok to be wrong too, as long as we can learn from it and move on.  I am certain that I am wrong about a great many things.  The trouble is, I don’t know which ones they are.  If I did, I’d change my opinion and be right again :).

As a side note, I just wanted to let you know that I have studied epistemology.  I am quite comfortable discussing what knowledge is and how it is obtained.  Just so you know a little about me, I am not just a pastor.  That isn’t actually what I do for a living.  I am actually an engineer.  I work at Boeing designing passenger aircraft.  I am a scientist and engineer that has studied the Bible, the Christian faith and philosophy in depth.  I also know a great deal about apologetics and making arguments for Christianity from the evidence.

Since you seem very determined to discuss my use of the word “religion” in this blog, I will humor you once more (even though as I have already said, I think this is a red herring).  This will be my last attempt to explain why I think my use is actually a correct usage of the word, in the context I provided.  If I am not able to show you how this is a valid usage in this response, we will have to agree to disagree on it.  It isn’t that important anyway.  The point I was making in the blog is much more important and I would much rather discuss that.  I am fine if you call Christianity a religion.

I find it interesting that in your last response first you agree with me that there isn’t great agreement on the definition of the word “religion”, and then you proceed to lecture me on my incorrect use of the word.  What disagreement means is that there is not universal consensus.  If there is disagreement, then it means religion can mean more than one thing.  As long as my usage is within the sphere of possible definitions for the word, I am not wrong in my statement.  

At one point you say there is a “widely accepted consensus in our society as to "what" religion is.”  However, this is plainly untrue.   It is shown to be untrue by the very fact that you and I are having a disagreement on the definition.  I am certain that you are not alone in your view of the meaning of the word.  I know I am not.  I know many people who use it in the same context to mean the same thing I am saying here.  In fact, several notable people have remarked on religion’s allusiveness to define and nail down.  

Consider these examples: 

“Most of us know perfectly well what religion is - until someone asks us to define it.” ~ St. Augustine

Consider this source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm  that begs off trying to provide an all encompassing definition.  They say…

“Many people have their personal favorite definition which they know to be the correct one, to the exclusion of all others. Unfortunately, there does not exist anything approaching a consensus.”

This is why I would not attempt to provide an all inclusive definition for the word.  Instead I opted for its use in a narrow context.  I clarified exactly how I was using the word and in what context I was applying it.  I feel I was very fair and clear on this.  I am not saying this is the only context or only definition for the word.  It is merely the one I chose here.  That should be clear.

I find your view of how to use definitions curious.  Are you actually claiming that whenever a person uses a word they must mean every definition for that word at the same time?  If I say Christianity is not a religion that I can’t be talking about how it isn’t a religion according to ONE definition, but that I have to be saying it isn’t a religion by ALL definitions?  I would never try to claim that.  That is NOT my position at all.  If that is what you are arguing against you are attacking a straw man.

Let’s take an example.  The word cow as two definitions according to Merriam-Webster:

1: the mature female of cattle (genus Bos)

2:  a domestic bovine animal regardless of sex or age 

Now, if I were to say “milk comes from cows” it would be very clear that my usage only applies one of the two definitions above.  Milk only comes from mature females of the species.  So it is clear I mean the first definition above.  You could not tell me I was wrong because milk doesn’t come from male cows and there is a definition that defines the word “cow” to include males.  That’s absurd.  Clearly, only the one definition intended in the usage can be applied to the statement.  The statement must be judged as true or false based on the single definition intended.

For example, the word “set” has at least 464 definitions in the Oxford dictionary!  Clearly when someone uses this word in a sentence they cannot be expected to be meaning all of these at once.  How absurd.  No, they mean just one.  If they say, “The table is set”, they do not mean the table is placed on top of something or that the table is the stage for some play.  The mean just one definition: the table is arranged for a meal.  

Similarly, one CANNOT say that I am wrong when I use the word religion to mean just one of its many dictionary definitions.  I have already clearly shown (and you have even agreed) that there are definitions for religion that are how I am using it here.  I am NOT arguing that there are NO definitions of the word religion that may describe Christianity.  I have already agreed this is the case.  But, this fact has nothing to do with what I am saying in this article.  I am not using those definitions.  I am using the word in just one of its established definitions and showing that Christianity (unlike all the others) does not fit.  

And, that is completely fair and reasonable.  This is what everyone does every time they use any word!  If you were to write an article titled “Why the Seattle Seahawks Will Beat the Minnesota Vikings in this Sunday’s Football Game”, I would not write a comment to it saying that you are wrong because the Seahawk players would never physically assault the other team’s players (because they would go to jail).  Perhaps when I read the word “beat”, I thought you meant one of the word’s other definitions.  But, I would imagine the rest of the article would make it clear which definition you meant.   I even went out of my way in my article on Christianity to clarify, up front, which definition I was using!

It would be absolutely ridiculous of me to assume you must mean ALL the definitions of the word “beat” at once (or even a majority of the definitions).  But, this is exactly what you are trying to do to me.  You say, “…there are still the majority of definitions of religion which Christianity DOES falls into. We cannot pick and choose when it comes to definitions even in a vast variety.”  But this is exactly what every single one of us does whenever we use any word.  We select a single definition (from multiple legitimate ones) that means what we are trying to say in that context and we use the word.  

You said, “I argued my case and honestly feel that I have definitively demonstrated that Christianity is indeed a religion.”  Not that it really matters at all, but I actually do not think you succeeded in demonstrating that at all.  If I understand your point correctly, you are essentially saying that if Christianity can be considered a religion by ANY definition then it must be called a religion in EVERY context.  However, this completely ignores the other definitions and their usage.  There would not be other definitions for a word unless the word could be used in a different context to mean a different thing.  If the same word can have a different meaning, then when it is used to mean that other meaning, it no longer has the first meaning.  It seems obvious to me, but apparently it isn’t.  If the word “beat” can mean “the tempo of a song” and also “hitting something”, when I say “I beat the rug to remove dust” I am meaning something different than when I say “this song has a great beat”. 

Yes, Christianity may be a religion when someone uses the word in one context, but it is NOT a religion in the context I used the word. That is what I meant when I said, “I have no issue if you want to use this word to mean something different than I do. All I ask from you is the same freedom.” I ask for the freedom to use another one of its definitions.  

Additionally, you failed to address several of the valid points I made in my last response, including when I pointed out that some of the very definitions you cited DID include practices and rituals.  You also didn’t address my example of the dentist asking the patient to brush their teeth “religiously”.  Would you stop and correct the dentist, telling him not to push his spiritual beliefs on his patient?  Of course not, you understand very well that he is using that same word in a different context to mean something different.  This is all I am doing.

I have no idea what point you were trying to make with the Mexican taquito story.  I do not see how that applies here at all.  You didn’t tie it into the discussion we are having.  I like taquitos too, with cheese or without.

You said of Christianity . . .

“But it is still looking up to someone or some thing of greater intelligence than us, something of inspiration, something of reverence, something of which we love, adore, sing praises too, build buildings for or in the name of, write songs, have services, gatherings, and rituals (even if not obligatory but done purely out of love) in the name of said deity. All those things I am talking about god and all those things are of religion and yet again, Christianity is certainly part of it…or at least a quasi-religion if you insist that it is different than all other religions. THIS is how we use definitions.”

But this is where you fail to grasp how Christianity is fundamentally different.  You can strip away all that and you still have Christianity!  This is not so with the other religions.  You need none of the things you mention above to be a Christian.  Remember that I have never made the argument that Christianity hasn’t been expressed in religious ways.  I am simply saying that Christianity at its core is NOT any of these things or the combination of them.   They are peripheral and superfluous to Christianity.  Christianity is at its most simple expression: “Christ in me, the hope of glory!” (Col 1:27)  Christianity is Jesus Christ.  It is knowing the person of Jesus Christ.  It is not a list of rules, a place to meet, a way to sing, a ritual to perform, or even creeds to affirm.  It is all about a person: Jesus the Christ.  If you have Jesus and one other person who believes in Him and they are in a mud hut somewhere…you  have Christianity.  If you have believer in Jesus alone in a prison cell, chained to a wall, whose tongue has been cut out and who cannot speak or do anything…you have Christianity.   THIS is what we mean when we say Christianity is NOT a Religion.  No actions must be performed, no rituals are necessary, not rules must be followed, no works are needed to earn anything.  Christianity is a condition of the mind and heart.  It is a state of BEING…not of DOING.  In this, it is fundamentally different.

You say, “if Christianity has no bond or obligation, and I find no bond or obligation to follow its credence.”  Yes!  That’s it, exactly.  That’s my very point.  You aren’t bound to follow any credence.  

You then say, “I am going to participate in this heaven or hell feud regardless of my wish: I have NO choice.”  However, this is a straw man.  Christians do not believe that.  Christianity holds that the person who goes to hell chose to go there.  No one will go to hell that didn’t choose to.  Christianity holds that you are currently in rebellion to God and choosing to reject His way and go your own way.  That’s a choice.  You are culpable.  You are a responsible party, capable of making your own choice.  You will be held accountable for it.  Can you really deny you are choosing to reject Jesus as God?

This does not equal an obligation.  Perhaps it would be helpful to use an example.  Let say you are flying on an airplane over the mountains and both engines suddenly fail (perhaps the plane flew through a flock of birds or something).  You were sleeping and didn’t realize anything had happened.  You are just sitting there going about your nap, completely oblivious to your imminent peril.  Then the stewardess comes to you, wakes you up and says, “I’m sorry to inform you sir, but the airplane is doomed.  We are going to crash in the mountains.”  This is some very bad news.  You would most likely begin to feel fear and possibly panic.  But then she says this…”fortunately, we happen to be carrying a couple of pallets of parachutes in the cargo compartment.  There is a team of skydivers aboard and they are transporting 350 parachutes to the city we are traveling to.  We have enough chutes for you, if you would like to take one.”  You, of course are not OBLIGATED to take one.  It is simply being offered to you.  Would you lash out at the stewardess or the skydiving team for offering it to you and call it an obligation?  The fact that you were unaware that the airplane was already crashing isn’t somehow the fault of those who bring that message to you.  You can certainly choose to remain on the plane and go down with it.  That is your choice.  No one will force you to take the parachute.  You are under no obligation.

This is an excellent picture of what Christianity teaches.  Like the example of the plane crash, those who choose to reject God and stay with their plan will face the consequences…and they are severe.  That is absolutely correct.  However, they have been offered the gift of the parachute to escape them.  They have chosen to reject it.  You don’t have to do anything to deserve or earn the parachute.  It is free.  All you must do is trust the one giving it to you enough to put it on and jump.  No one is obligated.  You said, “to me, a creed of ‘no bond or obligation’ would be, “congratulations, you’re ALL going to heaven!”  But, this is exactly what is being offered.  The stewardess is offering to save everyone on the plane.  But if you refuse the means by which she is providing this salvation (namely the parachute) how can you accuse her of putting an obligation on you?  She neither forced you to stay on the plane or to jump.  She simply offered you the choice.  This is what you said you wanted and didn’t have…a choice.

You say that Christianity requires “not just a one time acceptance –a life long effort to live a life slightly acceptable to the divine.”  However, that is also not what Christianity teaches.  It’s another straw man.  That is what I am writing AGAINST in this blog article!  If you paid more attention to the point I was trying to make instead of my word choice, you would have realized that.  The idea that you can make yourself acceptable to God by ANYTHING you do it totally foreign to Christianity.  Rather, Christianity teaches that Christ has already lived a life totally perfect and righteous in your place.  All that is needed is for you to stop trying to earn it yourself, admit you can’t, and place your trust in Him to do it for you.  Stop trying to earn the parachute.  When this happens, it is NOT true that you then have to live a life trying to be a good person to win His favor.  You already have it.  Instead, God starts to change you.  He gives you new desires and you have a new power to carry them out.  Any improvement in your action is actually the work of God in you, not your own human effort.   That’s why it’s so completely different than the other religions.  It’s not about what you do…it’s about what God does for you (both before and after you are saved).

It’s fine if you don’t believe this or agree it is true.  But, don’t claim that we believe something we don’t.  Your characterization of what “Christians believe” in your last response is not accurate.  If this is what you think we believe, it’s no wonder you think we fall into the same category as the other religions.  The problem is, that’s NOT what we believe.  We believe something much more incredible and grandiose.

You said . . .

“Religions, not just Christianity, have thrived for thousands of years and SURVIVED because they adapt and modernize their structures to accommodate themselves with the religious man in a progressive society. This is a historically accredited and proven fact. It’s just a way of reinventing itself.”

I am intrigued by this statement.  I do not believe Christianity has changed any doctrine in 2000+ years (the whole of its existence).  That is quite a bold statement, without being accompanied by any example or evidence to substantiate it.  What, pray tell, has Christianity changed to accommodate progressive society? Everything I have said here goes directly back to the very words of Jesus Christ Himself and His Apostles over 2000 years ago.  

Thanks again for your continued discussion.  I would love to continue discussing the ways Christianity is vastly different, any questions you have about Christianity, or any items that impede your belief in it.  You said that there are “Some dead religions identical to Christianity I can name at least a dozen of them but that’s for another blog!”   I would certainly be most interested in what dead religions are “identical” to Christianity.  I find this assertion quite fantastic (in an unbelievable sense) to say the least.  I have spent a great deal of time studying ancient religions and I am not aware of any that is even close (much less identical) to Christianity.  There are a few with a couple of vague similarities.  But, even these are more explicitly described by their stark and numerous differences to Christianity, not their few and minor similarities.  I actually already addressed one of these claims on the blog page you commented on.  Consider my response to DS in comment 76.  

Thanks again for your thoughts and response.

God bless,

Jake"

I wrote: "Hello again, Jake,

Thank you again for taking your time to further explain your point one last time. I am afraid, however, that we will have to agree to disagree.

Some how I feel that either I didn’t argue my point well or that it was not thoroughly read; the fact that you didn’t connect how my silly “taquito” demonstration was identical to the way you use the word “religion” raises this notion. And I certainly wasn’t trying to argue on something as simple as using homonyms  or synonyms (excluding your “cow” example) but of using words of the same or similar definition with the same origin and then excluding itself of that. In fact, at one point you have even used my own argument to agree with your own and this didn’t make any sense to me.

Please know, I’m not trying to be mean or put you down in any way, that’s not how I am. Quite frankly I actually admire you, not as a pastor, but as an aeronautical engineer as I myself am an engineer of a different kind and I know what kind of “brains” it takes to do what you do. But getting back to what I was talking about: I’m simply trying to illustrate where my frustrations are so we’re on the same page as to why I choose to resign my argument.

You see, in a way, it feels as if we are looking at the same thing and I am calling it a “4-8-4 Northern”, for example, and you are calling it a “B-29”. I honestly feel sympathetic for those whom I have so often seen who are reasonable and logical in every aspect of their life except when it comes to religion- because, in my observation, it is within religion where things have to be extrapolated for it to make any sense in this modern world and religion has enough emotional investment for people that they are willing to go to this extent. This discussion of defining religion is only a small example.

Furthermore, I know the point you are trying to make in speaking to me of the true meaning behind Christianity (and not the definition) and you say that I have missed your point or missed “the forest for the trees”. But in deed I haven’t missed it and haven’t commented on it because that side of the discussion I have no interest in. As you know, my topic is WHY people say Christianity is not a religion and I later illustrated why I believe people do that. You called my argument a “red herring”, I called yours “bait”. I do not think that we will meet agreement in the near future so that is all I have to say.  I welcome any final remarks you’d like to make.

I know you believe what you believe and I know that you honestly feel that you are doing the right thing and I hope that you understand the same of me.

Many thanks,

Eric"

I've debated on and off whether or not I should write a epilogue to this. To be honest I still cannot decide and so this clearly a contemplative text and that shall stand in place as that. What else can I say but that this is a typical argument?

The comparison of science and religion is like physics and magic, study and hearsay, logic and fantasy. The reason why this debate, not just mine, goes on unending is because the two are not a cohesive collaboration together. When the highly religious decides to bite the bullet and step down from the all-knowing assumption, only then can the two sides begin to debate on an even playing field.

What is there to say but this? If you've ever been in such a debate or have watched debates you start to recognize the primary fallacy of the religious persons' reasoning. I am not being unfair in saying that because the square root of 25 will always be 5 no matter how you argue it, not the square root of 25 is zero because you are no longer required to crunch numbers anymore because you've graduated from school.

There is a difference between logic and philosophizing. Until someone truly breaks down to analyze their situation, there will not be a coherent analysis. The "truth" is honestly in the eyes of the beholder. I argue logic.

...coming soon: the scientific method........

While asking me about my religious standing, a young lady asked me, “So do you believe in evolution?”

“Yes,” I answered.

“I don’t see how we came from apes” she started “and I just don’t see why people believe something just because someone said it or wrote it.” She remarked.

“Me neither” I said strongly. “But isn’t that what people do with religion?” I asked.

She remained quite.

“Well,” I said, “it’s not that I just believe: I have been convinced.”

“What’s the difference?” She asked.

“I didn’t just choose to believe something because I liked the way it sounded, or felt obligated to believe it because others did” I replied, “I have actually read The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin. And I used discretion and critical thinking to make up my mind!”

“Oh”, she said looking up to me with a bit of surprise.

So, I asked her, “How many people do you know say they do not subscribe to biological evolution and yet have never read any of the scientific literature on it?”

“Hmm” she said quietly while looking down in thought. “I’d say about...all of them” she said with a rising intonation as if asking a question.

I said, “As I started reading these big works I was astounded with the amount of time, research and evidence that Darwin presented in his writing. He clearly had the ‘stuff’ to lay the foundation with and it wasn’t just a bunch of ideas he was throwing against the wall. It was such a flood of information that it was so simple to just connect the dots. Given this information and being that it is still in consensus with modern science, which has since presented even more evidence of Darwin’s theory, how could I deny it? I’m a reasonable person and I’d be lying to myself if I did. And you’d do the same.”

“I didn’t realize that it was that serious of a work. I thought it was just...random theories” she said. “But I’ve never read it so I guess I just don’t know.”

“A lot of people think that…but they forget or had never even known that science doesn’t work that way. It utilizes the scientific method. And that is what set’s it apart from religion.”

Free Will: Comply or Die

Imagine receiving in the mail a birthday party invitation from a close friend. As you open it you find the usual stuff: “I’d like to invite you guys to my birthday party, Saturday! There’s going to be great food, great people and great music! You’ll never regret it! If you can’t make it it’s okay but please RSVP if you can.” As you scroll down to the bottom you find a post script, “BUT come Saturday night and I don’t see you I’m going to hunt each and every one of you down, strap you up in my basement and inflict upon you a life-long vengeance of unremitting pain!  Hope to see you guys there! :-D”

A little passive aggressive isn’t it? But I would like, however, to pose this question to the religious: if this scenario is not acceptable to you, or even slightly objectionable within your every day life, then why do you allow this to thrive in your religion? You see, the scary truth about this is that one can identically equate god’s “free will” choice to this tasteless but fitting example.

The Deal
A lot has been discussed about the many quirks in religion systems but it seems to me that many tend to skip over the sore thumb: the fallacious notion of free will. Now beside the obvious flaws we can pick at such as: if god knows everything including the end result then why go through the whole creation, test and judgement deal-e-o; there is a lot of debate in philosophy on the notion of free such as determinism, predeterminism, incapatibilism, and much more. Sam Harris, whose work I greatly admire, wrote on the subject in this respect but with a twist of his own expertise in neuroscience. This is all great and wonderfully complex stuff but what I've chosen to talk about here is the step right before that: the very simple aspect of religion which opens the deal, why we have to choose to begin with and take an offer we can't refuse.

Religion, particularly in Christianity, boasts that its idea of free choice is one of the most painfully beautiful and selfless philosophies in its doctrine, aside from the crusifiction of course. In an askew way it can seem so: god is claimed to have created the multitudes with their own free choice of direction in life and offers them eternal love and reward to those who want it. What a generous guy, huh? It's as sweet as grandma baking cookies for you as a kid for an after-school treat. But that's not quite the truth because there's more to the story. In the end it seems that god's desire for his people to have free choice is greater than his love for their ultimate survival as he will not only kill the non-believers and "lukewarm" believers on judgement day, he will sentence them to eternal torture. It seems as though god places his importance on the interim of choice rather than the end result. Eternal torture for not accepting god's part of the deal is like grandma blowing you away with a shotgun for getting a "B" in science! This sounds more like a control issue rather than a love issue. If this is really all god's design then why set the playing field up that way?

To me free will would mean that you may choose to live your life in any reasonable way without any punishment or reward for either direction- just a different way of life. Punishment and reward are objects of coaxing when used between the two parties. But with the biblical view, when looking at what is actually a clear and immanent threat, one realizes that there isn't much room for a choice, is there? Would you go to my "killer" party as described up top? You'd have to! And what kind of vibe would it have? It would be a group of scared and angry people amongst one victorious dictator. Having forced a person into a particular type of lifestyle under threat of torture for ones own benefit is far from a choice of free will. It's actually an ultimatum. In fact; free will changes its color to a big red flag: duress.

Just to be clear on what were talking about here; duress is defined as “a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person.” In Tort Law contracts made under duress can be legally breached and voided because of the obvious bias, unethical practice and undue burden put upon the victim. In this day and age we understand this as logical because we've grown and progressed as a society and we know better than our ancestors did.

The victim of a mugging isn’t going to argue the moral failure of the perpetrator while he has a gun pointed in his face. He’s going to give the perpetrator his wallet regardless of the situation. This is why “God-fearing” people didn't question their religion in the days-of-old and those who perpetrate religion were and still are very much aware of this.

But nowadays the more logically-oriented religious people have started questioning their beliefs because we know so much more about our world through the avenues of science and logical thinking. It has become acceptable or even normal to be non-religious. Illustrating the fact that religion survives by duress doesn’t directly negate the existence of a god obviously (that’s not part of my current argument) but it clearly illustrates the fact that we need to start thinking differently about an ancient way of thinking. 

The Weapon

So where is the proverbial gun? It takes no detective to find it. It's pretty easy to open a bible and find some sort of verse speaking of a revengeful act against non-believers. For example, Paul, who founded part of the early Christian church wrote to them,

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord; and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.”

...1 Thessalonias 1:7-10

But that’s God talking through Paul to each and every one of us…or is it? Without reiterating what I've already said in the above paragraphs, I ask: can this be justified by a “God of love”? By merely reading the bible it becomes evident that it was not entirely inspired by eternal love from god but by the old brutal mentality of primitive man; the same brutal primitive mentality which prides its tribalism and promotes negative otherism. Kinds like those engage in car bombings and suicide attacks today. When this clear and evident fingerprint of man becomes prevalent, we then have to question the remaining validity of the subject. Knowing the history of religious scriptures or just religion in general confirms this and so I will not go into detail about this here.

Verses depicting god's wrath toward the unbeliever like the one quoted above is merely one out of thousands, if not tens of thousands. It bothers me tremendously to know that there are so many people who claim they are all about god's love but yet take even more pride in the violent destruction and ultimate demise of anyone who thinks differently than themselves. I think those who fit that description indeed reflect a lot about their psychology and they themselves are often ignorant of their own psychology. I despise hearing messages like Preacher Al Martin's which is emphasized with visual and audio effects by a bible-belt church in order to aid in the anger and the fear they want to inflict upon people. With the unmistakable intonation of a condemning preacher, they always leave their flock feeling that if they think they've been good, they haven't been good enough. Every time I hear it I expect to hear a gunshot at the end. It just makes me realize that no matter who they are, more or less crazy than the next, they're just portraying the same condescending and demeaning message. What's the difference?

Where there's smoke there's....hydrothermal vents?

To help better understand god's reasons for threat of torture I thought it would be interesting to find out what believers propose as the authoritative description of hell other than the usual description we've all heard. I then thought the authors of the Left Behind series would be good for this research as I'm sure their ideas are probably widely accepted by the Christian public but I decided that they get enough publicity as it is so I flushed that idea. So when running a simple Google search I was astounded to see the amount of people devoted to illustrating and reiterating those horrid descriptions in the bible. I didn't really find much more than the usual cave-like landscape with fire, brimstone and torture which we're used to hearing but there were a couple ideas I found particularly interesting...

As we know our ancestors devised the notion that hell is down below us in the ground. Though we know now through Earth science that the inner core of the Earth is merely a tumultuous convection of magma at insane degrees of heat and pressure, Terry Watkins, of the Dial-the-Truth-Ministries, amends this fact. After doing the "research" he has exclaimed in the typical  professing-Christian all-capitol letters that “YES! THERE IS A PLACE CALLED HELL!” (This picture is from his website.) 

Terry explains that screams have been heard near erupting volcanoes and concludes that they are from people burning in hell  heard through the volcano. I don't know whether or not he ever considered them being from people living in the communities around the erupting volcanoes. Either way, he concludes that hell is indeed underground. He proposed that for one to physically penetrate the surface of the earth on the way to hell one turns into a giant worm, swims down through the hydrothermal vents deep in the Pacific Ocean and then die. The Riftia pachyptila, or tube worms, as he’s referring to are invertebrates that live near those hydrothermal vents and in his eyes are physically metamorphosed hell-bound human beings. 

I happened to have found more "scientific" descriptions of heaven rather than of hell as the bible paints a mysterious picture which strangely doesn't consider all the laws of thermodynamics. Rich Deem, wrote on his website,

“The characteristics of the new creation tell us that it will be vastly different from what we are used to on earth. Probably most noticeable difference will be the lack of gravity. The New Jerusalem is described as a 1,500 mile cube. Structures of this size would automatically become a sphere in this universe, because of gravity. Therefore gravity will either be absent or significantly reduced in the new creation. There will be no Sun or moon. This makes sense, since there will be little or no gravity. Without gravity, the new creation would not be bound to its source of heat and light. The lack of the Sun is not a problem for the new creation, since the Bible tells us that the glory of God Himself will provide illumination. The illumination provided by God is probably not the same kind of electromagnetic radiation (photons) that we call light. The illumination provided by God certainly involves the wisdom and knowledge that He possesses. With this kind of light, there would be no need to visually see things, since this would severely restrict our ability to "see" everything as God sees them. There will be no oceans, which means that there will be no water cycle. It would be difficult for a water cycle to operate without gravity. There will be the river of the water of life, which flows from the throne of God. Given its source, it seems likely that it may not be liquid water as we know it.

“The laws of thermodynamics seem to be absent from the new creation, since the Bible tells us that there will be no heat. In this universe, the second law of thermodynamics controls virtually everything that happens. The law states that heat flows from hot bodies to cold bodies. Stars cannot shine, animals cannot consume food to produce energy to move, and chemical reactions cannot occur, since all these processes require the exchange of heat.”

­

It seemed to me that there are also people who just cannot wait to die in order to experience these great things. They would claim to be lucky if they just might be able to experience the end of the world. This site provides a counter!* Though they are not sure how the world will end they provide a good list of ideas from aliens to mad scientists and of course my personal favorite: Planet X.

“Others believe that a mysterious red planet, PLANET X: NIBIRU, two thirds earth's size, is heading towards earth right now and will pass through our solar system around 2012 causing polar axis shifts on earth.  Some say that polar shift takes thousands of years.  Others say that Nibiru's presence will cause polar shift to happen quickly. 

“Nibiru (Planet X - the red planet) is one of the biggest December 21 end of the world 2012 predictions.  Some claim that Nibiru is one of twelve planets in our solar system and that it cannot be seen at the moment because it is hidden by other planets.  To find out more about Nibiru and whether it will come near or strike earth in 2012, CLICK HERE (text version - scroll down to see the section on Nibiru) or CLICK HERE to watch a video about Nibiru.”

 
Clearing the Smoke
So god is “green”, will save you money on your electrical bill and there will be no more need for the Sci-Fi Channel! Of course it would be a waste of time debunking these things as anyone with a basic college education and experience in critical thinking can spot the "hiccups" in what we just read. One would think that a powerful omniscient god who created the universe, floods the world or parts the seas would have provided a clearer understanding as to where we are going and how we will get there.

I honestly didn't want to promote the authors by posting four whole paragraphs of this stuff but I still had to illustrate the fact that people are willing to put so much time and esoteric thought into this stuff without even analyzing the basic structure or foundation of their embellishments. But the strangest fact here is that what seem to be religious fanatics are actually what I would call religious preservationists: they are not only perpetuating fantasy but they are perpetuating the prolonged intentions of belief that religion first held in its heyday. What I mean is that these are not clinically insane people doodling in the sky with these crazy ideas; these are real adults investing their time and research into what many people really believe...or want to believe. 
  
I can understand that some of these people are just pretending to be research assistants for Indiana Jones’ and they probably have fun doing it too. But researching these fantastic concepts is just as futile as researching the end of the world according to Jupiter, Poseidon or G.I. Joe! As we know, there is a lot more confusion that could use clarification in this realm rather than deepening the ambiguous fantasy. To paraphrase Michael Schermer, most people are more interested in chasing a fantasy or controversy rather than a simple logical explanation.

So Why the Gun?
We've already seen the fact that there is no free choice in religion because of the duress seemingly impinged upon us by god. Taking it a step further back, to the point before god needed to draw his weapon toward us, we would ask why a graceful god of love needs to use a "gun of torment" to force everyone into his final paradisal destination? Why would he need us to be there? To serve us for a change? 

If there was a man who walked into a dog park and placed down two bowls of food and then shot down the ones who randomly chose to eat from the bowl on the left, took home and cuddled the ones who ate from the right, ultimately what is his benefit?  What would be the benefit of this entire filtering-process that a god couldn’t achieve without us? Why create so much life when he knew he would painfully waste so much in the end?

I fail to see the logic and reason, or even the love, in this idea of religion. Torture, within the realm of eternal love and trust, just sets the scale toppling over like Kim Jong-Il, David Koresh, the Phelps, and the father of "drinking the Kool-Aid" Jim Jones of Jamestown. What's the difference between a cult and a religion besides the number of people who follow it? It may seem like a harsh comparison but it is indeed accurate. It illustrates that we are human and so were the creators of world religions. It is part of our inherent nature to be tribal, to group up, to yearn for belonging, to fight for a place and fight to hold that place; but so are the ways of religions as they are "our" creations. Looking at the structure we see in religions we start to see the imperfect tendencies of our own selves surfacing through the eyes of anthropology.

My point being is this: if this is really all god's design then why set the playing field up that way to begin with? We in our sophisticated societies don't even operate this way anymore except in religion. It's like executing the football players of the team who didn't win the Super Bowl! I guarantee you there'd never be a football game again if this was the way it was. Are we now better than god or better than our previous selves? What would be the difference between the god of the bible and "Jimmy" from The Twilight Zone? Jimmy had fun by keeping around him only the people who worshiped him in his utter tyranny, created and destroying strange creatures, banishing free-thinkers to the corn-field, and turning poor uncle Jack into a twisted children's toy for questioning Jimmy's wretched dictation. If this isn't the structure of the "gun" in religion, I don't know what is.

These may seem like silly questions but they all have serious implications. There may be no real answers to them but they stronger as tools of logic and philosophy to help bring to light the flaws that are in the woodwork of our thinking. So why should we allow a dissonant way of thinking continue to exist in our modern world? Logic and rational thinking were the first monkey wrenches jamming up the gears in my past religious beliefs. 

So why the gun? It's because one religion thinks it's better than another religion. It's because of the lingering competition through tribalism or clans which were part of our ignorant past. It's because it was the only seeming possibility of hope and boost in morale for those who would ultimately never get it during their life times like the slaves, the terminally ill and the impoverished. So in the end what we’re dealing with is not a controversial divine authority, ignorant and insubordinate man blinded by gods great glory, riddles in philosophy never to be deciphered, but of authors from times of old. At least in a first world country we no longer need to function in this archaic manner.

Freedom of Choice Operating System 
One last point that I wanted to make is this: religion is a mode of thinking. There is no more certainty in the life of the religious than that of the non-religious except for blind self-reassuring thoughts. I'll illustrate this fact. 

I recently encountered a life-changing career move. It was something I thought I really wanted. A Christian friend of mine told me, "Have faith in Him. He wouldn't have taken you this far if he didn't intend on bringing you all the way." It was a nice thing to say and it's a nice thing to hear. But the fact of the matter is, that's the extent of it. My friend didn't actually know that I was going to get the job, right? It was a process of a semi-reasonable deduction.

Well I actually did finally achieve the goal I was aiming for but shortly realized that it was more of a burden than a pleasure- I regret the entire ordeal. Achieving my goal my Christian friend remarked, "You see! God wanted to bless your life and made it happen!" But my religious friend, an abstinent and highly-devoted Christian, couldn't have foreseen the outcome any more than I could, right? Now knowing my current predicament she says, "The LORD was testing you to show you that life was really better the other way around. Be careful what you wish for." Wouldn't those who are "in-tune" with god be able to foresee things that this atheist couldn't? 
  
If I hadn't achieve my goal to begin with she would have said, 'The timing just wasn't right for God. Sorry.' On the outset a Buddhist friend of mine would say, 'It all depends on your karma and if you put good energy into your efforts' and another who is an atheist would say, 'so far so good but we'll just have to wait and see what happens.' My Christian friend forgot that I used to be a Christian and I know these types of memorized phrases and self-soothing ways of thinking. With any situation there is a prescribed statement that anyone from any religion would profess. We see through unbiased statistics that religious people have no more a successful life than the non-religious.  I asked this once before and I'll ask it again, have you ever seen a psychic win the lotto? Me neither.

Case Closed
Religious or not there is NO certainty. Some people like Windows, some like Unix. Some prefer paper some prefer plastic. Some prefer hot dogs and some prefer tacos. Quite frankly I take comfort in knowing the reality of the situation rather than fool myself into believing something that just might or might not happen. Being cognizant of reality allows me to strategically plan and be active in my life rather than waste time and energy, praying and thinking I'm actually doing something. This is one reason why I am an atheist. 

We get told, “God’s ways are higher than ours” and “there are some things that we are not supposed to know or understand right now”. My advise to those who say these things is: save it! Those are old phrases used to quite logical minds and to keep curious people compliant. I’m sure a lot of believers find themselves saying it without realizing what they’re doing. But why would any even-minded person utilize logic, reason and critical thinking in every aspect of their lives except religion? People need to stop going to church while leaving their brains in the parking lot!

Atheists are not people who want to be immoral, violent or treacherous. We don’t condone killing, lying or stealing. We know it's wrong to covet thy neighbors ass or thy neighbors wife’s ass! Atheists are atheists because we know that there is room for good people of free thought in the world and we know that we are not going to be punished for it. There is no hell; no proverbial smoking gun. Religions’ role as a social control system prohibited peoples natural-right to experience life freely, but not any more. It is okay to live a life of intellectual and personal freedom! There is an undiscovered universe for each of us to experience through the senses and the keen perception of our intellect. What you're going to perceive depends on what program you're going to run. The fact is you can question what you believe. You can question why you believe and you can “test the LORD thy God.”

Only an open mind is wide enough to take in the beauty of this universe.  

­­­­

Other Sites not noted above:

http://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell

http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/ch16duress.htm - duress

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html-
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/heaven.html
http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/135-A-history-of-religion.jpg

* This article was written before but published after 12/21/12. It was quite a kick to see the racing numbers counting down to the "end".

All You Need Is Love

In the Christian bible 1^st John 4:8 states, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”

Spirituality

In my religious days that verse was one of the cornerstones in my life. Even as a child before taking religion seriously I had always felt a strong connection with nature and had a deeply passionate feeling for life. It felt deeply meaningful to me like a pure natural love and I felt it everywhere and in all people. It gave me a sense of confidence in where I was in my known world. Later, whether in my Christian years or my meditation years it was still by use of this feeling where I was able to discern that I was in the right place.

When I was a kid we went to church on Sundays. But I couldn’t seem to associate the sense of spirituality I experienced in my life with the biblical god whom I was taught about. It wasn’t deliberate it just didn’t feel like it was the same thing even though my experiences could be classified as spiritual. It was of course promoted during those years by good parents, kind friends, and good experiences. Back then one could have called it “spirituality” but it is now what I call a natural sense of unity.

In my mid teens I took Christianity quite seriously and in my early twenties I left that and started practicing ancient yoga meditation to which I became deeply devoted. Though I had profound experiences in meditation I think most lasting was that same natural sense of unity I had as a child but only magnified. Funny enough in my late twenties I became an atheist because of significant lingering issues that neither god nor religion could address. But yet as an atheist I could still experience the benefits of meditation, closeness with nature and a deep sense of humanity, just in a more sophisticated sense. How could this “spiritual” sense still exist if I no longer subscribed to the idea of god or religion?

Atheism

Now I wouldn’t want to misrepresent myself and say that everything was the same one way as a religious person and continued feeling the same way as an atheist. There was a change, a transition. I lost something I never had but I gained a new understanding of something I always had. Part of this was that natural sense of unity which was eclipsed during this change but later shined again within a new understanding. For more details about this transition please see my previous articles.

I honestly believe that had religion not been introduced to my life I would have become roughly the same man that I am today. Christianity was an unfortunate loss of time with a lot of hard work and very little reward. The heavy discipline of original yoga meditation, though relaxing, I found still damaging to the ego by surrendering the self just as in Christianity (see my article on “The Virus in Religion”). It was now clear to me that those passionate feelings I experienced as a child were not from god because they were still able to survive in one form or another throughout my transitions. “How could spirituality exist if there is no spirit?” I wondered. It’s quite simple: it came from within me. It is not a spirit in the supernatural sense but spirit meaning the psychological seat of emotions and character. This can still be an important part of who we are but ultimately it is of an emotional origin.

Now I don’t like to refer to life stories as a way of proving a point because science doesn’t utilize anecdotal evidence; rightfully so. But I try to provide relevant experiences for which scientific and historical evidence already exists. This is to encourage free-thought in readers who are “on the fence” who have newly embarked on this area which is otherwise forbidden by religion. It may seem audacious for me to suggest that spirituality is merely a psychologically based experience but there is more of a consensus than some may think. Next time you or someone you know is experiencing something spiritual, whether it is praying, yearning for comfort or feeling the presence of god, try to find out what they’re really feeling rather than what they were told what they are feeling.

One of the most common false conclusions religious people make when asked about their most convincing proof of god is, “I can feel Him. Therefore I know.” Christians often claim that it is their “personal experience” of god which renders proof. We know it would be incorrect to say that what they feel is not real. Those feelings are very much real. But it is the attribution of these feelings which is incorrect and has been done so almost traditionally. The religious have neither had a better explanation for it nor have they the reason to look for one. For the religious, they label it the way they were taught to: they are told that it is god. This is true in the emic perspective.  But as scientific facts started emerging we started to see that those feelings are not god.

Contemplation and Expressed Desires

Our genes have a lot to do with our intelligence, our character as well as our moral inclinations. Though this amazing and complex subject certainly has some ties to ideas behind spirituality it is something which we will leave, however, for a future article. For the purpose of staying on topic we will continue on the idea of spirituality as an emotional byproduct.

When it comes to spirituality, the brain’s complex laboratory of neurochemicals, cognitive mechanisms and emotions all play the leading role. For starters, Sigmund Freud wrote in depth on his theories of the psychological development of god. An article from Philosophy of Religion sums it up well by stating, “For Freud, as for [Ludwig] Feuerbach, religion is wish-fulfillment. Freud adds the explanation that the adoption of religion is a reversion to childish patterns of thought in response to feelings of helplessness and guilt. We feel a need for security and forgiveness, and so invent a source of security and forgiveness: God. Religion is thus seen as a childish delusion and atheism as a grown-up realism.”

It may seem a little far fetched but there is a lot of psychological investment in what we intrinsically feel toward parents and inherently in a psycho-social sense toward a loving god. Many of the emotional needs that people seek from their “heavenly father” are the same as some needs sought by children from their parents. But the psychological need that religion tries to fulfill is only a small part of the picture and isn’t so much regarded in this area of study anymore. It does however provide a platform for us to examine what we vainly seek for our selves through the avenue of religion. I might even add that as the origins of religion are highly emotional so are the resulting scriptures. It follows that as a passionate species we still feel a sympathetic resonance with it. I argue that as emotions are often irrational or illogical, so too are the many “quirks” we find in religion.

I might even go on to speculate on my natural sense of unity by saying that this form of spirituality is a yearning to return to the pureness of childhood: if one is fortunate to live in a family where a healthy childhood was promoted, a child’s early mind, which is unhampered by adult struggles in life, is relatively “perfect” or sets the standard thereof. In this sense ignorance is not just bliss but it is simplicity and retrospectively speaking a reformatted version of our fundamental selves. It can simply be a refreshing way to decompress from the pressures we accumulate throughout life. In this ideal is the purity we seek; it is a return to innocence.

This is in part spoken in a theoretical sense but by this we begin to understand that what we seek in the form of spirituality, quite possibly an introspective mirror, reveal the desires we seek for our personal selves. Having fulfilled those emotional needs fills the “god-sized hole” we have in our hearts.

Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience of Religion

In more recent studies in the area of cognitive neuroscience we’ve been able to gain more of an insightful understanding as to why our minds tend to render the notion of the supernatural. Freud almost hit the nail on the head with his idea of transference: continuing the desires for a caretaker or parent into the adult age by conceptualizing god(s). I wouldn’t deny this exists in some form or another but the whole of spirituality is much deeper than this.

Since the days of our early ancestors, or even primates for that matter, instinctive and cognitive mechanisms evolved along side of their behavior to assist them in meeting the challenges they encountered in life. These are the demands of daily living such as care taking, avoiding predators, hunting, migrating, etc. These developed as instincts or traits which made these tasks easier and more efficient. This is analogous to the reason why you don’t have to learn to ride a bike each time you set-out on one! But some of these mechanisms can interplay and indirectly create “quirks” on which we then derive strange explanations for. I hope I’m not bursting anyone’s bubble but in contrast to the religious mentality, our brains are not perfect. There, I said it! (Wink)

Ancient times or modern, we have always been a social species. Hunter/ gatherer societies lived and flocked in groups as it was advantageous for things like hunting and protecting their selves and their young from predators. As living in groups deemed advantageous it became inherent in the brain to provide positive chemical feedback to infer “this is good” and to “keep doing it”. Thusly they continued this behavior. So derivatively speaking it’s easy to understand why going to church can feel spiritually beneficial to us because we naturally feel comforted and encouraged while in the company of like minded people. It is a sense of community.

Church services themselves, particularly those with rigorous worship rituals like the Baptists, the Evangelicals and especially indigenous tribal groups can be tremendously moving. In their worship rituals they reproduce the rush of adrenaline much like how one instinctively experiences through running or even like being pursued by a predator (experiencing urgency, enhanced strength and hopefully achievement). As a matter of fact the good old Boogie Man, that monster lurking in the dark that we as children have all feared, is an instinctive survival trait from our ancient past. Remember, before our early ancestors learned how to build shelter they lived in the midst of nature and they were well aware of the fact that there were nocturnal predators out hunting for food. Waking up to a Bengal tiger licking your foot tickled only for a moment!

Aside from instincts there are also cognitive factors which we often attribute to the supernatural. The notion that the mind or spirit could conceptually continue after physical death is largely a result of us being unable to conceive cessation of consciousness. We encounter a paradox when attempting to imagine non-existence because doing so requires one to be receptive to even perceive this notion. This is, in part, a side effect of what is known as the mind body split. The mind body split in cognitive neuroscience is responsible for the introspective part of our selves: the internal self as opposed to the physical self. Most people claim this suggests that the mind actually does continue beyond mortality but this is fallacious. We know a lot about the mind now days and that includes its idiosyncrasies.

Another aspect that plays a very important role in spirituality is in peoples claimed ability to perceive the will or direction of god. It is spurred from decoupled cognition. Its intended purpose serves us the function of being able to hypothesize what a known person might think or act in a given situation. It is useful in guiding ourselves socially especially in accordance with a parent or a boss for example. Similarly this function acts in the extraordinary feature of postulating “What would Jesus do?” or “I hope my dearly-departed grandparents aren’t watching me!”

Interestingly enough neuroscientists found that the frontal temporal lobe, which houses our sense of self, is also the same part of the brain in which we associate our sense of god. This doesn’t mean that there really is a “god part of the brain”, it’s “our” part of the brain but the notion of god is often so personal that it becomes part of our identity. This also explains why some religious people could be personally offended by reading my articles!  To add to the experience, the activity in the parietal lobe, which is responsible for our physical sense of orientation, can decrease during meditation rendering the illusion of being “larger than life” or an expanded consciousness. We can clearly see that, as I’ve mentioned throughout this article, spiritual experiences come from directly within us.

By seeing that there is this mental mixture of god and self we can deduce that those who claim to perceive the “voice” or “will” of god are literally speaking of themselves- not god. When they say “God told me to run for president.” as a few of the 2012 Republican Primary candidates stated, they were subconsciously saying, “I really want to run for president!” Like talking about ones self in the third-person perspective, the little voice of god is really an extension of the self. It is only misattributed to their identity and association with god. But of course I would be proven wrong if we elect three Presidents of the United States this year!

As we can see this conflicting sense of self and god can be troublesome if not totally disastrous. As devoted believers speak not only as themselves they often also speak from what they believe is the infallible and monumental standpoint of god which is seemingly exempt from any or all criticism. This can result in ideas from “God has asked me to tithe to the church” to “God has asked me to kill the infidels.” This cynical result brings a sobering awareness to those critical of religion and hopefully to those in religion because it reveals the necessity of understanding where spiritual impulses comes from and how it can affect each and every one of our lives. 

People who were unfortunate to have incurred brain injuries can also experience spiritual-like side effects. We understand now that these types of experiences are injurious manipulations of the neuroanatomy in the brain. Jill Bolte Taylor, a neuroanatomist, had an experience unparalleled by other researchers in her field. Jill suffered a major stroke and a brain hemorrhage. After eight years and a full recovery Jill’s description of the onset of her injury provides a real and tremendously moving account of her phenomenal experiences as a byproduct of the brain. Both the detail and significance of this is so great I cannot afford the room herein and so I refer you to this must see video link I’ve attached above which applies perfectly to this point.

Those who incur life changing brain injuries are often not as fortunate to have the extensive recovery as Jill did. They are sometimes incapable of willful direction of their post-injury behavior such as in the classic example of Phineas Gage; the brain is responsible not only for the notion of spirituality but behavior as well. It is the same misfortune for those who are born with the psychological predisposition of a sociopath or other negative social dysfunctions rooted in the brain. When the brain is damaged or defective are they exempt from gods “laws” when the men who wrote the bible weren’t even aware that this possibility could exist? What is the religious people’s explanation for the purpose and destiny of one who was born with a defective brain?

There are volumes written and volumes to be written on this area of evolutionary cognitive neuroscience of religion and it is incredibly fascinating. I’m certainly no expert in the field but I encourage everyone to read Dr. J. Anderson Thompson’s general audience-friendly book, why people believe in god(s) for an incredible tour through our early human behavior and modern psyche.

Mis-Belief

Here are a few more real claims to the supernatural of which we now know have their origin in neuroscience. We all know that there are people out there who honestly believe that they are psychic. In an experiment some of these people were tested as they claimed that they can psychically perceive, with high accuracy, the shapes on the back of Zener cards hidden from view. But in the scientifically controlled setting where the results are statistically analyzed we see that they are the same to that of a random draw. Have you ever seen a psychic win the lotto? Neither have I. The cause: self delusion.

Another example is the Ouija Board. Legend has it that they can be used to talk to the dead. Understandably so! Years ago back in my paranormal investigations I’ve tried it on several occasions and the planchette actually moves! But what’s moving it is far from dead. It’s very much alive and it’s us! It is what is known in psychology as an ideomotor response. It is unconscious movement made by the body such as salivating while only thinking about the sourness of a lemon, the suggestive forces in hypnosis, reflexes and even the shedding of tears while crying. It is commonly explained as the driving force in many other supernatural tools such as pendulums, divining rods and automatic writing.

Another claim of spirituality is where the consciousness seems to leaves the body during a near-death experience. Though it is often a tremendous and unforgettable experience we have learned that it is a type of survival mechanism that is triggered within the brain when it is undergoing severe trauma or stress. It removes the conscious mind from the current of pain neurally and into tranquility or euphoria at which point pleasant hallucinations may occur. It does this as simply as flipping a switch.

We cannot deny that these experiences mentioned in the paragraphs above, especially the ladder, may be deep and meaningful but once again, these are experiences which come from inside of us and not from outside of us. We can now see that these are all fine examples of how natural physiology can create “quirks” on which we then draw the erroneous conclusion of “something else”.

Let My People Go

We’ve already shown here and in past articles that these experiences are not a result of a god and religion; god and religion were the initial resulting explanation for these experiences. Religion throughout the world is as varied in the cultural sense as music, food, dance, clothing and superstition. Cross culturally, however, children learn to believe without question because their parents believe as did theirs. In that tight constraint they do not have a world view of the myriad of ‘competing’ religions and the logical contentions against them. Consequently, in the cyclical sense, society attempted to do the same to myself but I broke the cycle. In light of this fact it doesn’t mean that these feelings are no longer meaningful; they can be but understand them for what they are.

I find it frustrating that churches perpetuate ignorance by not teaching the accredited historical facts in how their religion was developed and spread but they also blatantly ignore science which is the foundation of the developing world around them. Developing science utilizes critical processes in testing and validating points before professing them, something that religion seems to be exempt from. My point here is that there are several reasons why people take refuge in religion but in the wake of the progressing world around them it is the responsibility of their churches to inform and educate them. Certainly the church is worried about one day becoming obsolete but by not confronting reality they are doing themselves and their followers the disservice of misleading them. This is the height of irresponsibility. Someone once said, “By standing still as time goes forward you move backward.”

Spirituality or the natural sense of unity is different for everyone. As spirituality has its complex roots in our emotions let us utilize this knowledge to seek within ourselves, or other qualified humane resources, aid in the fulfillment that we desire while utilizing common sense, critical thinking and a loving sense of self-betterment. We all have different feelings and connections to our surroundings and we all have different ideas of the purity of mind we may seek in our efforts to mentally reclaim or revitalize our worn selves. Dependent or liberating they are all part of us in which we need to learn to understand without having a casting of religion embedded in it.

I feel fortunate to have been able to experience the passionate view of life that I had as a child prior to indoctrination. I’m glad that what I felt was only a passion for the beauty in life rather than a dependency plaguing me for a lifetime. It’s a lot easier looking at things the way they are rather than being inflicted with so many archaic dogmas that so clearly go against the flow of human nature. Once we have brought it down to this basic level I think that John Lennon had the right idea in mind when he sang the words, “All you need is love.” Does it really need to be more complicated than that?

Site:

• Thagard, Paul. The Emotional Coherence of Religion. Journal of Cognition and Culture 5.1-2, Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden 2005.

• Alcorta, Candace S. and Sosis, Richard. Ritual,Emotion, and Sacred Symbols: the Evolution of Religion as an Adaptive Complex. Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, 2005.

• Bocock, Robert. Sigmund Freud,-pg 86. Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.

• Thomson, Jr., MD, J. Anderson and Aukofer, Clare. why we believe in god(s). Forward by Dawkins, Richard, Pitchstone Publishing, 2011.

• Hudson, Janice and Tanner, Meredith. Bunkbed Positions. Toronto: Room Publishing, 2006.

• Holt, Tim. Sigmund Freud: Religion as Wish-Fulfillment. Philosophy of Religion, 2008

• Lawson, Willow. Brain Area Affects Sense of ‘Self’. ABC News. (year not given)

What I'm Reading....

why we believe in god(s)
By: J. Anderson Thomson, Jr., MD
      with Clare Aukofer

BUY NOW

ISBN: 978-098449321-0


Thanks to the Skeptic Society I had the privilege of meeting Dr. J. "Andy" Thomson and had my book signed at his Cal Tech lecture.








Description from back of book: In this groundbreaking volume, J. Anderson Thomson, Jr., MD, with Clare Aukofer, offers a succinct yet comprehensive study of how and why the human mind generates religious belief. Dr. Thomson, a highly respected practicing psychiatrist with credentials in forensic psychiatry and evolutionary psychology, methodically investigates the components and causes of religious belief in the same way any scientist would investigate the movement of astronomical bodies or the evolution of life over time - that is, as a purely natural phenomenon. Providing compelling evidence from psychology, the cognitive neurosciences, and related fields, he, with Ms. Aukofer, presents an easily accessible and exceptionally convincing case that god(s) were created by man - not vice versa. With this slim volume, Dr. Thomson establishes himself as a must-read thinker and leading voice on the primacy of reason and science over superstition and religion.

J. Anderson "Andy" Thomson, Jr., MD, is a staff psychiatrist at the University of Virginia's Student Health Center and Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, and maintains a private practice of adult and forensic psychiatry. He serves as a trustee of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Clare Aukofer is a medical writer who has collaborated with Dr. Thomson on several projects.


....and another...

QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
By: Richard Feynman

BUY NOW

ISBN-10: 0691024170
ISBN-13: 978-0691024172








Book description from Amazon.com: Famous the world over for the creative brilliance of his insights into the physical world, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman also possessed an extraordinary talent for explaining difficult concepts to the nonscientist. QED--the edited version of four lectures on quantum electrodynamics that Feynman gave to the general public at UCLA as part of the Alix G. Mautner Memorial Lecture series--is perhaps the best example of his ability to communicate both the substance and the spirit of science to the layperson.
The focus, as the title suggests, is quantum electrodynamics (QED), the part of the quantum theory of fields that describes the interactions of the quanta of the electromagnetic field-light, X rays, gamma rays--with matter and those of charged particles with one another. By extending the formalism developed by Dirac in 1933, which related quantum and classical descriptions of the motion of particles, Feynman revolutionized the quantum mechanical understanding of the nature of particles and waves. And, by incorporating his own readily visualizable formulation of quantum mechanics, Feynman created a diagrammatic version of QED that made calculations much simpler and also provided visual insights into the mechanisms of quantum electrodynamic processes.

Just a little something I try to keep in mind as I go through the actions of the day....

This is narrated by the late great Alen Watts and animated by Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Thanks to OurTVproductions for posting this video on YouTube.