Mind shift

This post is about the fantastic shift I have experienced in my thinking as a result of changing my worldview. Things that used to be meaningless now have meaning and vice verse. For example, I used to think that space exploration was a huge waste of time and taxpayer money and now I think it is very important. As a Christian there is no point in exploring other planets because Jesus is going to return to this one, so we should just stay put. Even recycling was somewhat pointless. Why should Christians take care of the planet when God has plans to destroy it and make a "New Heaven and New Earth"? This all changed with my new worldview and I have had to re-think everything.

I was pretty much raised in a Christian incubator. I was home-schooled from Kindergarten through 12th grade and went to church every Sunday. I was never taught evolution. All of my text books were A Beka books from Pensacola Christian College. I was a descendant of Adam, the first man, who lived around 6,000 years ago. I was indoctrinated with Christian Facts that cannot be questioned: The Bible is God's Word, I was born a sinner and Jesus died on the cross to save me from sin and hell. I say all this so you can see how steeped I was in my first worldview.

Now imagine how radically that has all changed. I've already discussed some of the realizations that led me here along with some reasons for my deconversion. This ultimately leads to my mind shift and having to come to grips with this new reality. The reality is that not a single person on this planet knows with certainty why we're here and how we got here. We may all have our own opinions, but that's all they are, opinions. All we can do is examine the evidence available to us and make an educated guess. This is why I've embraced science rather than religion to understand our universe. Science says, "I don't know, but let's work towards figuring it out using what's available to us." Religion says, "I've got it all figured out, just put your trust in me." When a new discovery comes along that challenges our accepted viewpoints science and religion show their true colors. Science says, "I have to change my views because of this new evidence." Religion says, "The evidence is wrong, keep trusting in me." Now which of these seems like a more honest approach?

Since we don't know how we got here (evolved, created or something in-between) what should we do now? If we are created then whoever created us might expect something of us or might not. Since we don't know I think it's best to listen to our own reasoning. My reason tells me that smoking tobacco or doing drugs will destroy my organs so I don't do those things. I love my wife and my family so I am fully dedicated to them and their welfare. I will never kill another person because I have a high regard for life and liberty. If we have evolved through natural processes that doesn't change anything I just wrote. Either way we are very fortunate to experience life and should do our best to ensure that future generations can experience it as well. Things like world peace, equality, sustainability, and fighting hunger and disease are all fantastic goals and should be sought after. This sums up my agnostic viewpoint and I am glad that my mind has shifted to this new way of thinking.

Far-fetched claims

Christians need to ask themselves why they accept some far-fetched claims and not others. What yard-stick do they use when arriving at conclusions and how do they know that it's reliable? I think we like to assume that our beliefs are based on sound evidence and reasons, but is that really the case? Do we consider what other influences may be steering our beliefs? For example, what have we been taught by our parents? How has our culture influenced our beliefs? What do the people that are closest to us believe in? What about our personal desires? When you start to realize how much all of these factors influence your decisions and beliefs it can be a real eye-opener. I've even wondered if it's actually possible to make a truly objective decision without all of these factors weighing in.

Since we are usually very biased when considering whether we should believe something or not how do we overcome this? I think we should constantly ask ourselves what is motivating us to believe. Is it one of the factors I mentioned above or is it because there is sufficient evidence to believe? Do you believe the earth is a sphere? Yes, because there is sufficient evidence. It was hard for men to believe at first when it seemed the earth was flat, but eventually the evidence piled high. I think it was good for men to be skeptical at first, but once the evidence is sufficient then it is time to have a change of mind. I think being skeptical of any outrageous claim comes quite naturally to us, but the hard part is being consistent. If someone told you that a UFO landed in their backyard you would be very skeptical. If your neighbor told you that they had a vision from an angel you would also be skeptical. How come Christians are not skeptical when this same claim of an angel visitation is made in the Bible? I think it's because Christians put the Bible in a special category within their minds and they will believe what it says no matter what. However, if you are going to be consistent you should be just as skeptical of claims in the Bible as you are of claims from any other source. But what are Christians repeatedly told? Keep reading the Bible, don't question it's authority and any doubts you may have are directly from Satan.

Now, if you're ready to take an objective look at some far-fetched claims from the Bible continue reading. Christians, please be honest with yourselves and ask yourself if you really think these claims are true. I am going to word them a little differently then you would hear them in church because I think this helps us look at them differently.

According to the Bible...

• A man named Ezekial was sitting by the river one day and had a vision of God / Yahweh. God had the appearance of a man sitting on a throne wrapped in fiery clothes and surrounded by a rainbow glow. His throne sits on an expanse that is moved around with four wheels and four creatures that each have four wings and four faces (Ezekiel 1).
• There was once a time when the sons of God / Elohim would come down and impregnate humans which caused a race of people called the Nephilim who were giants (Genesis 6). The book of Enoch actually names some of these angels who came down and married the daughters of men, but Enoch is not in the canon (even though the book of Jude quotes from it).
• A man named Moses spoke with God and sent ten awful plagues on the Egyptians because the Egyptian pharaoh refused to release them from slavery. Somehow the Egyptians forgot to record any of these events in their records, probably from embarrassment. Somehow all of these plagues only affected the Egyptians, but not the Israelite people, even the plague of darkness which made it pitch black everywhere except in the Israelite homes. Maybe they had lamps, but no one else did? The darkness was so thick that none of the Egyptians moved for three days (Exodus 10).
• A talking snake tricked the first woman and in turn her husband into eating a magical fruit that would give them knowledge of good and evil. For this sin they were exiled from the garden of Eden whose entrance is guarded by a flaming sword to prevent anyone from eating from the tree of life (Genesis 3).
• A man named John was on an island and received a vision of events that will happen in the future. Great wars will be fought on horseback. Angels will use a sickle to "reap" mankind like grapes and fill up a huge wine-press with blood. Other angels will turn all of the rivers and oceans to blood and great hailstones one hundred pounds each will fall from the sky (Revelation 16).
• A woman named Mary was artificially inseminated from God to give birth to a son named Jesus who later traveled around Galilee doing miracles. Once he sent a legion of demons out from a man and into a herd of 2,000 swine who all dove off a cliff and drowned in the sea (Mark 5). When Jesus was later crucified the earth became dark and there was a huge earthquake and many tombs around Jerusalem were opened and the dead were raised and walked into the city (Matthew 27).
• A man named Noah built a huge boat at Yahweh's request and used it to escape a flood that somehow covered the entire earth up past the mountain peaks. The boat held Noah's family and every species of land animal and also enough food to keep everyone fed for a year, even the carnivores (Genesis 7).
• Prior to creating everything God's Spirit / Elohim used to hover around over the water (Genesis 1).
• One day some children were teasing the prophet Elisha calling him "bald-head". Elisha cursed them in the name of Yahweh and two she-bears came along and tore up forty-two kids (2 Kings 2).
• A man named Korah felt that he should be allowed to be a priest like Aaron and his sons were. This was a bad idea and he ended up being sucked into the earth along with the rest of his family. Another 250 men that had agreed with Korah were burned alive with fire from the sky (Numbers 16).
• Noticing that men were building a huge tower up to heaven, God was concerned that mankind would work together and become unstoppable. So he went down to them and programmed their brains to speak in different languages which caused them to disband (Genesis 11). 

Now if someone told you a story like these in modern times you would probably think they were crazy. What would you say to me if I told you that a glowing blueberry bush in my backyard talked to me last night? I stopped believing stuff like this because it is just plain dishonest. If you won't stop and question your beliefs will you at least stop forcing them on other people? And if you do believe these stories then to be consistent you should also believe in many other ancient folk stories as well.

One year later

Today marks one year since I left Christianity. It's always amazing how quickly a year goes by isn't it? I was hoping that by this time I would have done enough research such that I would be able to make a firm decision to either be an Atheist, a Liberal Christian or a Deist. This is not the case. I still have a lot of research to do. I've decided to call myself Agnostic for the time being. I consider Agnostic the default position for someone not making a positive or negative claim for the existence of a god. I may very well remain Agnostic for a long period of time because it really strikes me as the most honest position anyone can take. Do I know how we all got here? Nope. So the honest thing to say is "I don't know". I don't know if there is a God. The existence of a super, all-knowing intelligence seems unlikely, but then, the existence of space, matter and life arriving by pure chance also seems unlikely. It is quite a puzzle we all are left with.

I am currently reading "Why I became an Atheist" by J. Loftus and "Reasonable Faith" by W. Craig. Also, while commuting to and from work, I am listening to an audio reading of "The Grand Design" by Hawking and Mlodinow. All of these give me plenty of things to think about. Sometimes it feels like a curse to have to worry about things that most people hardly give much thought to. For those of you who are like me and wrestle with the big questions a lot, I have a challenge for you and for myself. Let's not forget to make the most of the time we have with the ones we love most. And don't forget to enjoy life as puzzling as it may be.

Deconversion Realizations

I haven't posted in a while. Life gets busy and I think my deconversion from Evangelical Christianity will slowly become less and less important to me which means I'll blog less and less. I'd like to write down some of the realizations that I had both prior to and during my deconversion from Christianity. I have a feeling that some day I'll want to come back and read through these blog posts to recall some of these things (I have a poor memory, just ask my wife). Some of these realizations are things that nagged me in the back of my mind for quite some time with which I finally confronted myself and some are things that I discovered upon doing research. These are going to be a bit of a ramble because my intention is to preserve my thoughts; not to create something that is organized and easy to read (kind of fits the name of my blog too).

Let's start with the realization that kick-started my deconversion process. There is not a single, good reason for calling the Bible "God's Word". Even though I was indoctrinated from infancy on up through high school that the Bible was inspired by God I was never given a good reason for it. Many religions want to claim that they have scriptures that were sent down from heaven. The only way to know if they are or not is to examine them critically. If you study how the Bible was formed you'll see that it was put together over a long period of time and that several books were added or removed at different times. The New Testament epistles started out as regular letters, then they got passed around, and then as time goes on they were regarded as sacred. Centuries after they are written the orthodox church selects a canon of books which would eventually be known as the Bible. It was the same for the Old Testament. The Old Testament canon was made centuries after the books were actually written. Rather than having divine instructions to create the Bible, it all happens rather haphazardly for various reasons. Even today there are still different versions of the canon because some books (the apocrypha) could not be agreed upon. Why couldn't they agree? Because God was not telling them what to do. Men have done this all on their own (and it's been done many other times in other cultures / religions). We are left with an "orthodox" canon because the minority "un-orthodox" groups (such as the Gnostics or Ebionites) were wiped out and only some of their writings have survived. We are left with a book that contains supposed scientific insights (read and decide for yourself), but also contains scientific errors (which, conveniently, we should read as non-literal). To this day we don't know who some of the books authors are and there is also continuous debate on whether some books are written by who they say they are. We are left with an assortment of various writings which should not be called a Bible, but should be called a collection of religious texts.

Another realization I had was that Christianity has no more claims to evidence than other religions do. When I was a Christian I assumed that Christianity was profoundly superior to other religions. Reading through apologetic material by Muslims, I found that they make claims about the Koran that are just like what Christians claim about the Bible. They claim it contains prophecy and scientific facts. They even have a consistent author. Muslims, like Christians, can also claim to have explosive growth and vast numbers of followers. And Muslims don't have the problem of trying to explain something illogical like a three-in-one god. Even Judaism makes more logical sense than Christianity. What about the prophetic claims of Christianity? They may seem like pretty good evidence if you are a Christian, but what happens when you examine them critically? Again, you should read and decide for yourself. To me the prophecies are just not clear enough. They seem like they are taken and used out of context. Another toted evidence for Christianity involves life transformation which I wrote about in a previous post and this is also mirrored in other religions. I don't think it's asking too much to see some concrete proof that is superior to what any other religion has to offer. I have not seen this in Christianity.

I also realized that I did not have any good reasons to believe in Christianity. I think that someone should only believe in something if they think there is a good probability that it is true. So I'll just list a bunch of reasons that don't meet this criteria and, yes, I used to hold on to some of these reasons.

• Believing because everyone else does
• Believing because it makes you feel good
• Believing because you trust in the authority of other people
• Believing because you want to live forever
• Believing because that's how you were raised
• Believing because you're afraid of going to hell
• Believing because you're afraid of social rejection
• Believing because you're unwilling to think about other perspectives
• Believing because a large number of other people believe

Now you can believe for these reasons if you want to, but personally I don't find them very good reasons. And when I say believe in Christianity, I'm not talking about believing in a God that created you (Deism), I'm talking about believing the Bible is God's Word, believing in Jesus as a man-God, believing in human sacrifice for the atonement of sin, believing in the trinity, miracles, demons, angels, etc. the whole Christian package. Now it might seem pretty harmless to believe these things, but add to it the fact that Christians believe most of the people on the planet burn for eternity in hell and it suddenly is no longer a harmless belief. Add to it the fact that Christians need to "give up their life" for Christ and proselytize more and more followers using any means necessary and now you have some reasons to make you stop and think.

This next realization took some research. I realized that what I thought were good reasons for being a Christian were not backed up by solid evidence. These include:

• Believing because the disciples were martyred for what they believed in
• Believing because there is overwhelming evidence for the resurrection of Jesus
• Believing because God speaks to people through the Holy Spirit
• Believing because God answers prayers
• Believing because of miracles

I used to think that the first two were a given, but I found that was not the case. Obviously it is hard to imagine someone dying for something they knew was a lie. From all I've read so far here is my understanding: No one knows how any of the disciples died and whether or not they died for their faith. There are three disciples who have traditions of martyrdom one of those being Peter who is said to have been crucified up-side-down. We do know that the Jews did not like the Christians because Paul (Saul) was one of them. I've read that Roman Emperor Nero needed a scapegoat for the Roman fires in AD 64 because he was in danger of being blamed for them. He chose to place the blame on the Christians because no one liked them and they were an isolated group. This gives a natural account for a widespread phase of Christian persecution in the 60s. I don't think Christianity is an outright lie. I think it evolved naturally with natural human tendencies. I think the earliest Christians were the Ebionites and were an offshoot from the Essenes. They were followers of Jesus (a Rabbi) in Galilee and they believed that the apocalypse was close at hand. They believed that a new Kingdom of God would be established within their lifetimes. This led to them living like socialists selling and sharing what they owned since the world would soon end. I think the Jewish authorities (big-wigs) did not like this one bit because they wanted to be in control of all religious movements including the movement of money to the temple. Jesus was probably crucified for inciting a riot when he did the temple clearing (or any other reason involved with being a zealous religious leader) and his closest followers hid themselves, Peter being one of them. The disciples were so distraught over the death of their friend Jesus that they became very likely candidates for having a vision. This is a scientifically documented occurrence called an After Death Communication (ADC) and is more common than I realized. Rather than actually seeing Jesus physically they saw him in a dream or vision and he told them to preach the good news of the kingdom. So in this theory they are not spreading a lie they are sincere believers with a sincere cause. This also explains why the earliest writings we have (Paul's letters) do not mention any physical appearances or an empty tomb story. I think Jesus was buried in a common grave like all the other men whom the Romans crucified. These earliest followers spread the original teachings of Jesus which are now lost to us (possibly the Gospel of the Hebrews). Along comes a zealous Saul of Tarsus who has both a Jewish and Hellenistic background and persecutes the Christians because he was a devout Pharisee. At some point he comes to his senses and has a "brainstorm". I believe that Paul is the real founder of the Christian religion. What he knows about Jesus is from the people he was killing. Jesus was the messiah and was crucified by the Roman / Jewish authorities. Paul invents the idea of Christ being the final atonement for our sins and putting an end to animal sacrifice. Since Paul was from Tarsus he may have been influenced by any number of Hellenistic / pagan beliefs. Paul claims in his letter to the Galations that what he preached he received by divine revelation and had a three year ministry before going to Jerusalem and meeting with Peter (See Galations 1). I think that the followers of Jesus of Nazareth and Paul were all dead by the time the gospels were written. The first one written is Mark and I think it was shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. There are a lot of theories about where Mark got his information, but it's important to note that whoever wrote Mark did not give his name (this goes for all the gospels). My theory is that Mark is written by a Greek writing Gentile convert and is a mixture of religious propaganda and story telling mixed together with verbal narratives passed down through the decades. Another important thing to note about Mark is that the ending was added at a later date, a fact which you will see mentioned in any copy of the New Testament. About ten years later someone wrote Matthew, which, if he was a first-hand witness, would not have borrowed so much of his story from Mark. Most people realize that there are plenty of discrepancies between the four gospel accounts. Some Christians say that this makes it more realistic as if the eyewitnesses writing the gospels are relaying the facts according to their own recollections. The problem with this idea is that the gospels are not written as if they are an eyewitness account. They are written like stories and there are many instances that could not have been witnessed by the disciples (To name a few: Herod's meeting with the magi, Pilate speaking with Jesus, Satan tempting Jesus, Jesus praying alone, Jesus with the Samaritan woman, the angels and the shepherds, Judas and the chief priests, etc.). One way Christians can answer this problem is by simply claiming that the Holy Spirit told the writers about all of these private events. But once you are committed to the inspiration claim then you have the problem of the discrepancies, and around it goes. In summary, the gospels appear to me to be embellished stores written decades after Jesus died. I do think Jesus was a good teacher and that some of his sayings remain within the gospels, but I think Paul and later Gentile converts put a different spin on it. I don't think the original Jewish followers of Jesus would have approved the new testament. *Disclaimer* The above theory is just a lay-mans attempt at piecing something together, I expect it has some problems since I am not a scholar by any means. In the end it all comes down to possibilities and opinions. The point I'm making is that the evidence I thought was sound turned out to be very poor.

What about the Holy Spirit, answered prayers and miracles? These would be supernatural reasons for being a Christian and although I've never experienced them I won't say that no one else has. If you have truly experienced one of these supernatural events then I will submit that you have a good reason to be a Christian. For me, I cannot accept third-hand accounts - I need to experience them myself to believe in them. It is well-known that humans are prone to exaggerate and make things up. Telling me about a miracle that happened and was told to you by someone who had it told to them by someone who heard it from an eyewitness who was there does not impress me at all. While deconverting it did not take me long to realize that I had no idea if there was a Holy Spirit inside of me or not. There is no way for me to distinguish between my own thoughts and those of another. It could all very well be my own thoughts. Believing that another mind is feeding thoughts into my mind is not something that I would have thought of on my own.

Answered prayer and a miracle could probably be in the same category. I've never seen a miracle. That does not mean they don't happen, I've just never seen one. Basically it would be something that has never occurred before and defies a natural law, such as gravity or death. I find it interesting that stories of miracles were so prevalent in ancient times and have become more scarce in modern times. How can we be expected to trust ancient miracle accounts when people used to be so superstitious and gullible? (Actually even in modern times people report and believe ridiculous things.) Most of the ex-Christians I've come across have admitted that if they witnessed a genuine miracle they would have to re-think their positions and I would do the same.

Let's squeeze one more realization into this post. It took me a while to grasp this one. Faith is not a good character trait to strive for. Just so we're clear I'm talking about the kind of faith that expects us to believe something against the odds. Let's say I told you that aliens had spoken to me and told me that the earth would be obliterated in three days if we did not all wear green hats. Would you believe me? Would you have faith? I hope not. If something sounds like a tall tale it probably is. I think the writers of the Bible included a lot of tall tales in their writings. Asking me to accept them on faith as if faith were some kind of virtue is preposterous. If faith is a virtue then why not believe in all kinds of things? Why not believe that the angel Gabriel revealed God's will to Muhammad? You must have faith! Why not believe that Joseph Smith discovered God's will? You might as well have faith in Santa while you're at it. I think that reason (using our brains) trumps faith all day long. If you are committed to finding truth one of the best tools you can use is being skeptical. Ask hard questions and weigh the evidence. Remember, it was men that told you faith was important, not a divine being.

To read some of the reasons for why I am no longer a Christian, click here.

Life Transformation

Recently I was speaking with a friend of mine who is a Christian missionary. We were talking about modern day evidence for Christianity and one point he made was that the gospel has the power to change lives (life transformation).

This would be a pretty good point, but there are two problems. Let's say that by changing lives we mean going from a "destructive" lifestyle to a more civilized / happy / fulfilled lifestyle. Does someone who hears the gospel and repents (changes their lifestyle) always remain that way? I'll bet everyone can think of examples of Christians who go back to their "sinful" way of life. So it does not always work and it does not always stick. So the first problem with the point my friend made is that the gospel's power to change lives is not powerful enough to keep everyone changed. This makes transformation and back-sliding look more like regular human nature than something that has a supernatural force behind it.

The second problem with using life transformation as evidence is that it is not unique to Christianity. Thanks to the Internet, finding examples of life transformation in other belief systems is not hard at all. The Internet is full of personal testimonies from people all over the world. Try searching for "How _____ changed my life" and fill in the blank with whatever you want: Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. I've already read through several testimonies that sound just like Christian testimonies only they are not Christian. These are sincere people who really feel that this new belief system or deity they've found has changed them.

I think my friend is grasping at straws when he tries to find modern day evidence for Christianity like this and I don't find it very convincing. What would be more convincing is if we had a consistent and unique experience for Christians that could only be explained by a supernatural force. Early Christians supposedly had the ability to perform miracles or give prophecies and some were even able to handle deadly snakes and drink poison without dying. I would have to change my mind if I witnessed something like that and if it could be verified as a real miracle. Since there are so many ancient writings that contain outrageous claims it is hard to take any of them seriously.

Does God know why he exists?

How's that for a random thought?

Just for fun, pretend to be God for a minute. You've always existed and you have the power to create anything. You know everything past, present and future. You create a universe wherein lies a small planet with some little people running around on it. Sometimes the people stop and think... "why am I here?" You smile and decide to be mysterious and let them continue to wonder. But then you start to think... "Why Am I Here?"

Counting the cost of deconversion

I'd like to write a post to someone who might happen across my blog and is currently considering leaving Christianity. I will assume that the person has already wrestled with issues surrounding the Bible, Christian doctrines and historical evidence.You may be in the process of realizing, like I did, that your faith is unwarranted.

You may be surprised, but I am actually not going to recommend that you leave Christianity. I believe that everyone should be free to make their own choices about their beliefs. Instead I would like to give you some pros and cons that I have found as a result of deconverting. Before I do that, let me just say why I think it's o.k. to stay a Christian. First, I think there is nothing wrong with believing in something that may not be true so long as you stay open to the fact that it may not be true. In other words, being aware of Christianity's problems is a good thing because you will be less dogmatic, more sympathetic to alternative viewpoints and you won't try to inflict your morals and politics on other people. Second, so long as you focus on the good aspects of Christianity it can be a great comfort in times of grief. If comfort is something you are in need of then do not rob yourself of it. Also, there is a great sense of community within religion which can be hard to replace. In summary, although I am against religion when it is used to control other people I have no problem with religion when it brings people together and encourages them.

Perhaps in spite of what I just said you are still considering leaving Christianity.
Here is my list of pros and cons:

Pro: There is a great intellectual burden that is lifted when you don't have to keep rationalizing away things in Christianity that don't make sense.

Con: You may lose friends that you care about. It might be intentional because they feel betrayed or it might just come about slowly from no longer seeing them at church.

Pro: You no longer think in terms of saved people and unsaved people (sheep and goats) and you don't have the burden of being responsible for witnessing to people so they don't spend eternity in hell.

Con: You don't get to live forever. Honestly, we have no idea what happens to us when we die, but it is my opinion that when our brain stops so does our mind.

Pro: Reflecting on the fact that this could very well be the only life we have can give you a great motivation to make the most of it and not take any moments for granted.

Con: You may experience mental / emotional anguish as a result of changing such a large part of how you think. It could be like going through a mental divorce.

Pro: Freedom. Your mind is free to think. You can read anything you wish, such as scientific discoveries, without having to worry about aligning them to your boxed-in worldview.

Con: You have no way of comforting someone who has lost a loved one. You can spend time with them and try to cheer them up, but the reality, no matter how sad it is, is that their loved one is gone.

Pro: Goodbye superstition. Read my post about leaving superstitions behind you.

Pro: Drop those nagging questions in the box beside the door as you leave please. Where DID Cain get his wife? What happens to those that don't hear the gospel? Did angels really procreate with women and create giants? Why did God expect Abraham to go through the motions of sacrificing his son on an altar? Did Jesus fly all the way to heaven through space? How did the earth contain enough water to flood everything including the mountains? Jesus is supposed to be God and have died on the cross, but isn't God immortal? Etc...

Con: Now you may wonder how the universe came to exist (this is not really a bad thing and could easily be a pro instead of a con). There is nothing wrong with admitting that we just don't know. If you want to believe that there may be some kind of divine being out there that's fine too. In my opinion, we should be open to future scientific discoveries and explanations that may follow.

Pro: No more guilt trips. Preachers feel the need to make you feel very guilty if you are not doing everything you can to be more and more like Christ. Giving, serving, praying, Bible reading, more serving, more giving, etc. Once you realize that they don't have a higher authority backing them up you no longer feel guilty. The guilt you felt was imposed by people, not by God.

Con: If you start to believe that there is no God listening to your prayers then you've just lost a very close friend that you used to speak with.

Pro: You don't have to feel embarrassed praying in a public restaurant. Just give your thanks to the waitress who served your food and leave it at that.

Pro: The "good news" is that there is no hell to be saved from and there will not be millions of people in never-ending, flaming torment weeping and gnashing their teeth. 

Remember, none of these are supposed to be arguments against Christianity. As long as you can still find some possibility that Christianity could be true for you then you have the choice to believe it or leave it. These are simply things to consider from a "how-it-will-affect-your-life" standpoint. One last observation I'll make is that while deconversion was a difficult experience on an emotional level, it has gotten much easier as time goes on.

Why I am no longer a Christian

Here are some reasons for why I am no longer a Christian:

1. Contradictions in the Bible - Christianity is centered around the Bible and it's divine message, the inconsistencies and contradictions within the Bible are evidence of it being uninspired. It is passed as a single, unified book from God, but it is just a collection of religious texts from ancient writers and should be treated as such.
2. Science disconfirms the Bible - Science has shown us that the universe is much older than 6000 years old. Being able to see galaxies that are millions of light years away is one example.
3. Archaeology disconfirms the Bible - After much searching no one has found any trace of the mass exodus, the ten plagues in Egypt, a large-scale Canaanite conquest or a world wide flood. 
4. Insufficient evidence - The miraculous events in the gospels are not mentioned in any contemporary writings and the gospels are written anonymously 40-80 years after the events may have happened. The gospels are not written in the first person, they are written like a story.
5. Failed prophecy - The most prominent failed prophecy in the Bible is Jesus' own prediction that his second coming would occur within the lifetimes of his generation.
6. God is not involved - Good and bad things happen to both good and bad people. Terrible and horrific things occur and God does not intervene. There does not appear to be any supernatural beings meddling with us at all.
7. Hell is unjust - Infinite punishment for finite crimes is unjust and the concept of eternal torment is  inconsistent with the concept of a loving God.
8. The trinity is illogical - Not only is the trinity logically impossible, but it is a later explanation given to cover the problems created by the New Testament authors.
9. Yahweh's commanding of genocide - By modern standards of human rights it is immoral to command the killing of women, children and infants. It makes more sense to interpret the Canaanite conquest narratives as man-made justifications rather than a divinely inspired message.
10. Transformation is not supernatural - The ability to behave properly, treat others kindly and abstain from non-healthy addictions is not something only Christians can do (not that they all do). The moral "transformation" that occurs for a new believer is something anyone can do if they want to, but for some people they get a boost from a community of caring people to keep them accountable.
11. No unity of the "Spirit" -  Despite claims that the Holy Spirit is indwelling Christians and helps them discern the truth from scripture, Christians do not agree on many important doctrines and Christianity has been fractured into scores of different denominations.
12. Out-of-context prophecies - The claim that Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies in the old testament falls flat. It is clear that anyone can go back and find texts that can be interpreted to meet their needs. The gospel writers (especially whoever wrote Matthew) appear to have gone out of their way to make their stories fulfill a "prophecy".
13. Christianity's bloody history - The crusades, witch hunts and the inquisitions. One should only read about these if they have a strong stomach. Heretics (people with different views - gasp!) were burned at the stake. All of this was justified by select passages from the Bible such as Deuteronomy 13:7-12.
14. Faith should not be esteemed - Faith in the sense that you need to believe in something rather than seeking evidence or proof does not appeal to me at all. Without being skeptical you will end up believing all kinds of things regardless of whether they are true.
15. Unethical beliefs - I've been told that I should believe just to be on the safe side (Pascal's Wager). This is selfish thinking. If I don't have enough proof to convince honest skeptics or even myself then why should I believe just to save myself while believing that everyone else goes to hell? Beliefs should come from evidence, not from our desires.
16. Nothing unique - I have yet to see a claim made by Christians that is not paralleled by other religions. All religions claim things about personal experiences, fulfilled prophecies, miracle stories, scientific insight and superior moral values. Christian's who claim they are superior to other religions often rely on stereotypes. 
17. Outdated - The Bible is outdated and needs to be replaced. It is not a good book to base your life on. It says hardly anything about parenting. It says to stone your disobedient children or anyone who breaks the sabbath. It is not tolerant of other cultures and beliefs. It sanctions slavery. It tells you to do good things because you will get a reward. It does not treat women equally. Etc, etc.
18. Based on fear - Fear of Yahweh, fear of Satan, fear of demons, fear of punishment and most of all... fear of hell. Vain threats have been used down through the ages by cowardly men who unfortunately know how to prey on human weaknesses.
19. Birthed in superstition - The time period of the gospel writers was overflowing with superstitions. Miracle workers were commonplace along with divine prophets, martyrs and gullible believers.
20. Unfair - The idea that the creator of all men would only reveal himself to one group of people, but leave everyone else in the dark is unfair. The ancient Chinese, Egyptians, Aztecs, Native Americans and many other people groups are left out and only the tribe of Israelites were chosen to interact with the creator of the universe.

In response to all of this a Christian might ask, "What about the possibility that you are wrong and on your way to hell?". First of all, I would ask them how much time they spend worrying about going to Islam's hell for not being a Muslim. Probably not much. That's about how much time I spend worrying about going to Christianity's hell because I just don't believe in it. "But it could still exist!" they might say. In that case, I would rather go there if that's where God thinks I belong. To me it would be better than forever worshiping a deity that has no problem torturing human souls for all eternity.

All you need to do is accept it

Something that I am now fascinated with since leaving Christianity is looking back and reading things that I used to believe - hook, line and sinker. It's kind of entertaining in hindsight to realize how naive I was all those years. Today I was reading some Christian apologetic material on Carm.org and came across this page on a possible contradiction in the Bible. Actually it is a contradiction if you're willing to be honest with yourself. The Bible clearly says that no one can see God and live. The Bible also clearly says that both Abraham and Moses saw God and they did not die. This is a pretty clear contradiction, right? Well, there is still a way to wiggle out of this:

"The solution is simple. All you need to do is accept what the Bible says. If the people of the OT were seeing God, the Almighty God, and Jesus said that no one has ever seen the Father, then they were seeing God Almighty, but not the Father. It was someone else in the Godhead. I suggest that they were seeing the Word before He became incarnate. In other words, they were seeing Jesus." - [excerpt from Carm.org]

All you need to do is accept what the Bible says. Close your eyes. Turn off your brain. Open wide. Simple solution, right? So it was really Jesus that appeared to Abraham and Moses, o.k?

In the book I'm reading by Thom Stark (The Human Faces of God), I've learned the different ways that inerrantists will interpret a Bible passage. They usually will try to take the plain meaning first while looking at the context of the passage. This seems reasonable, but the problem is that they are not consistent with it. Whenever using that method leads them into a Biblical contradiction, they will abandon that method and jump to other methods. They will continue looking for alternative meanings until they find something that "explains away" the contradiction. No matter how many hoops they have to jump through to explain a passage - if the explanation can solve the contradiction - then that MUST be the right explanation! This kind of thinking is mind-boggling.

So how did I handle this sort of thing when I was a Christian? Easy. I never went looking for contradictions. There is a trust system within Christianity that is based on relying on others more qualified than yourself. If you are a lay-person then you trust in your pastor. If you are a pastor then you trust in the scholars. As long as someone has done their homework then everything is o.k. I remember once in a Sunday School class the question was asked, "What should we say (when we are witnessing) when someone protests that there are contradictions in the Bible?" The answer: You hand them the Bible and arrogantly look down your nose at them (o.k, I added that part) and say, "Show me one." Then everyone in the class laughed and we moved on to the next question. So basically you take the chance that the person making the claim does not actually know of any off hand. When in doubt, brush past it and start showing them Bible verses. They are sinners, they need a Sav...... You get the idea.

Leaving superstitions behind me

I was marveling today at how I used to analyze everything from a Christian perspective. Everything that happened to me or to others could somehow be traced to God or the devil. Looking back it all seems so strange. I used to think, "Could this be God testing me?" or "Satan must have quite a hold on that person!" Looking at what the Bible says it certainly is reasonable to think this way. Just look at the story of Job. Behind the scenes of the terrible events in Job's life we see a dialogue between God and Satan in which they are both responsible for causing Job misery. God was proud of Job, Satan had the great idea to "test" Job, and God gave Satan permission to do everything except kill Job. So it is no stretch of the imagination for a Christian to wonder what is going on behind the scenes in the day-to-day events that they come upon.

I can now recognize this as superstitious thinking and I am glad to put it behind me. So in the future if I get a flat tire, it is not a test of patience from God, it is simply a nail that was left in the road. No more Christian mind games. No more trying to figure out what God is "telling" me.

To be honest, shortly after I "left the faith" I thought that if there was a God who was keeping track of my belief status I would surely start to have some trials. It also seemed like some Christians that I spoke with were waiting and expecting that my life would start to fall apart. But nothing happened. My health is fine, my marriage is great, my job is fine, and I'm not "drowning in sins". The world has not changed, only my view of it has. There are no longer any spirits, demons or angels floating around, invisibly controlling or watching us. I am glad to put that behind me.

Can we judge the acts of Yahweh?

I'd like to discuss a typical answer I see Christians give when they are faced with the immoral acts of Yahweh in the Old Testament. It goes something like this: "How can you judge whether something is good or bad? If you don't believe in God and his commandments then you can't call something immoral."

So basically Christians say that whenever skeptics question the acts of Yahweh in the Bible the skeptic has no ground to stand on since he or she does not believe in absolute morality. Similarly, they would say that skeptics cannot condemn the acts of Hitler because skeptics do not think there is an absolute, divinely-inspired standard to live by.

This is not a good come-back. I think the skeptic is well within reason to step into the Christian worldview in order to make an argument against it. It is a simple line of reasoning... If the Bible is true, then there are absolute standards. Yahweh claims to be perfect and good. If he is perfect then he should follow the absolute standards, right? So the reasoning goes like this: if you want to find whether A is true and you can find that within A there are contradictions, then you have a strong argument against the truth of A.

In other words, even though the atrocities in the old testament are horrendous in my opinion, I don't have to use my opinion as the standard that I judge by. I can use the standard within the Bible and see if Yahweh meets those standards. The Bible says that God is holy, righteous and just. So when I look at a story like the first born killing in Egypt I have to ask myself, "Does this match up with the other descriptions of God in the Bible?" (Remember, Yahweh hardened pharaoh's heart so he had no chance of repenting or stopping the massacre.) To me, the Egyptian plagues sound like a case of "our god is bigger and more terrifying than your god" which makes it look like a very man-made story.

Most Christians rather than seeing the humanness of the stories just ignore the parts they don't like and stick to the parts that they agree with. If they like a terrifying, wrathful, jealous god they can find it in there. If they like a compassionate, loving, honest god, he's there too.

Mere mythologies and a false trilemma

I have to be honest. I am a bit disappointed in this next section I'm reading of Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. The writing style is excellent and very easy to read through, but I was hoping for something a bit more profound. In the beginning of the book Lewis was very thought provoking while making a case for the existence of God, but was careful not to jump to saying that it was the Christian God. Now in this second section of the book he is discussing what Christianity believes about Genesis, Jesus, etc. This felt like a jump to me as he really did not explain why we should suddenly start talking about Christianity since he was so careful not to make that assumption in the first part of the book. Of course I knew he was going to get to Christianity at some point, I had just hoped there would be a bridge from the philosopher's God to the Christian God.

Mere mythologies
Lewis also made a strange comment that really raises the eyebrows. When listing the clues God gave us for His existence Lewis mentions that "He [God] sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men." It's amazing that he took this as evidence of God's existence. I take it as evidence of stories from other religions being borrowed and used in Christianity. The early christian apologist Justin Martyr makes the same admission that Lewis makes, but he had a different spin on it. He blames demons for spreading myths that were similar to Christianity. "They have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race" (Justin Martyr, 1st Apology, Ch. 54). Justin explains that the demons were able to read the prophets and had some ideas about how the messiah would come and so they influenced heathen mythologies to appear similar to Christianity. If you are interested in reading about these mythologies, here is a Wikipedia article about some of them: Jesus Christ in comparative mythologies.

A false trilemma
One other thing I'll mention about Mere Christianity is the argument C. S. Lewis makes that Jesus has to be one of three things: a Liar, a Lunatic, or the Lord. This sounds nice, but it's not a good idea to corner oneself into only these three possibilities. The biggest problem is that it leaves out the possibility that Jesus was made into a Legend. It also makes a huge jump in saying that he automatically has to be God. He could have just been a prophet that God chose to raise from the dead. There are plenty of other possibilities too and let's not forget that we don't even know if everything Jesus "said" in the gospels were his words or not.

The Bible against itself

I've started reading The Human Faces of God by Thom Stark. I think Thom is a Christian even though his book is about the Bible not being inerrant. Most folks would probably label him a liberal Christian for this view of the Bible. He starts out by saying that the Bible contains arguments. Different authors of the Bible had different opinions about things. 

For example, some authors believed in Nationalism and others in Universalism. Ezra is given as an example of a nationalist who did not believe in "sharing" Yahweh with other nations. Ezra even goes so far as to expel from the land all the pagan women who had intermarried with the Israelites along with their children (Ezra 10). The author of Jonah had a different viewpoint. In the story of Jonah, Yahweh was merciful to the repentant pagans in the city of Ninevah. The author of Jonah believed that Yahweh was the god of all the nations which is in conflict with what Ezra believed.

Another topic that writers of the Bible could not agree on is suffering. Thom Stark gives several examples in his book of how some writers thought that suffering was a direct result of sin, but other writers felt that suffering was distributed evenly between the righteous and the wicked.

So what conclusions can we draw from the arguments within the Bible? To me, it is evidence that the words in the Bible are the thoughts of several different men and there is nothing behind the curtains inspiring them into a single, unified message. What's interesting is that Christians believe the Bible "all fits together" and they use this as evidence of its inspiration. I've read the Bible from cover to cover a few times and whenever I hear this I think, "Really? It all fits together?"

What are some other things that the writers of the Bible don't agree on?

• Paul's teachings vs. Jesus' teachings
• Synoptic gospels vs. John
• Salvation: Faith vs. Works
• God may or may not desire animal sacrifices
• God is one or God is three in one
• God may or may not pass on punishment to future generations
• God may or may not tempt us
• Free will vs. Predestination
• Observing the Sabbath
• Circumcision
• The rapture may occur before, during or after the tribulation
• God is Love vs. Yahweh's Atrocities (This is a big one for me)
• Jewish Old Testament Messiah vs. Jesus
• Resurrection accounts vary in each gospel
• Just Google "Bible Contradictions" to find a lot more

My next post will cover the next section I've read in C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity.