The Anti-Sex Attitudes That Harm Religion

             This is an essay about the sexually oppressive attitudes found in fundamentalist Christianity (as well as in the more conservative sects of other religions). I will explain why I don’t think the Bible actually promotes such restriction. In writing this, I have no intention to bash Christianity or any other faith. I also won’t preach to anyone or claim that something is true simply because the Bible “says” so. I’m just going to explain, to the best of my knowledge, what it really reads. You can use this information however you wish. Ideally, this perspective will be refreshing. If you and a fundamentalist are discussing a sexual topic, this essay may be a useful resource. If you are religious and feel burdened by sexual constraints, I hope this piece will ease your worries.

            I welcome your thoughts on this matter.

*     *     * 

Part One: Language

Last month I read an article that addressed the decline of organized religion in the Western world. It said that in recent years, less young people have been identifying with Judeo-Christianity. They are not all atheists; they simply wish to distance themselves from any theological label. It’s no coincidence that at the same time, many who do identify with religion are becoming more extreme.

            When a group notices their membership is dwindling, they often respond by tightening the reins. It’s a classic attempt at self preservation, but tends to yield the opposite result. I think that Jesus taught the ideal tenets to live by, but the modern surge of fundamentalism has alienated me from Christian gatherings. Many others have told me that they share this sense of estrangement.

            Not all fundamentalists are stern, humorless, or self-righteous. However, there is a good reason why these traits are frequently ascribed to them. I’ve heard a great deal of fundamentalists express the following beliefs: “You can’t truly love anyone unless you’re a Christian.” “If you’re not a Christian, you’re an atheist by default. You may believe in another god, but ours is the only one that’s real.” I have also heard fundamentalists accuse non-Christians of “trying to rob God of his glory by refusing to worship him.” This falsely assumes that everyone believes in God, and that anyone who is not a practicing Christian is simply refusing to comply out of willfulness. They fail to see that anyone of any ideology could easily make the same claim. It doesn’t help that they tend to construe any form of dissent as persecution.
            These issues are frustrating and polarizing, but I think the biggest source of contention is sex. By this, I don’t just mean intercourse. I mean any sex-related topic at all. It’s very difficult to establish a comfortable friendship with someone if you have to walk on eggshells when you speak to them. I know fundamentalists who cringe when they hear the word “underwear.” There are plenty who want to censor media that contains sexual language. This is odd, since it’s such a prevalent theme in the Bible. In fact, the scriptures cover all of the following topics:

 

-Incest (Genesis 19:30-38)

-Bestiality (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16)

-Prostitution (Revelation 17:1-6; Joshua 6:25)

-Concubines (Genesis 25:5-6; 2 Samuel 3:7, 5:13, 16:20-23)

-Rape (Genesis 19:1-8, 34:1-31; Deuteronomy 21:10-14, 22:23-29, 2 Samuel 13)

-The rhythm method (Genesis 38:8-10)

-Breast fondling (Ezekiel 23:3, 8)

-Nocturnal emissions (Leviticus 15:16-18; Deuteronomy 23:10-11)

-Circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14; Acts 16:3; Galatians 5:1-4; 1 Corinthians 7:18-19)

-A battle in which King David killed 200 men and kept all their foreskins as trophies (1 Samuel 18:23-27)

-Castration (Deuteronomy 23:1; Matthew 19:12)

-A scene in which God grabs Jacob’s testicles (Genesis 32:25)

-The practice of placing a hand on a man’s testicles as he swears a sacred oath; hence “testify” (Genesis 24:9)

-Menstrual blood (Leviticus 15:19-33)

Last but not least, it makes references to donkey penises and horse semen (Ezekiel 23:20. Look this up on Biblegateway.com if you don’t believe me!)

As you can see, sex and genitalia are broadly covered in scripture. However, some Christians are still uneasy discussing it. Some argue that the Bible may address certain practices without endorsing them. This is true. Notwithstanding, the scriptures don’t condemn all of the acts listed above, either. Some are mentioned without any judgment passed upon them. To me, this means that the Bible does not forbid dialogue about sexual matters. And if we can talk about it, why not also joke about it?

Some cite Ephesians 5:4 as a prohibition of sexual humor: “Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.” But in this context, “obscenity” and “coarse” have different meanings than they do today. “Obscenity” is translated from the Greek word aischrotes, which means “filthiness.” Something can be “filthy” without any sexual connotation at all. “Coarse joking” translates from eutrapelia, which has a variety of definitions. These include “abusive,” “evil,” and “sexually aggressive.” Thus, coarse talk is not merely sex-related talk. It refers to speech that is sexually abusive; with the intent to make others feel degraded. According to the etymology, yelling unwanted explicit comments at a woman would be considered “coarse,” but making a non-malicious innuendo would not. Telling a “that’s what she said” joke would not be classified as sinful. Whether or not a statement is vulgar depends on the speaker’s intent. The same is true for cursing. When James 3:8-10 instructs Christians not to curse, it does not pertain to modern-day expletives. It refers to the actual act of “cursing” or wishing harm upon someone. Saying “I hope you die” is a curse. Saying “bullshit” is not.

The terms and gestures we consider obscene are socially relative. Centuries ago, the words “pants” and “pregnant” were deemed inappropriate. (Maternity clothing would have been a very taboo topic!) In the Middle East, offering your left hand for a handshake is a grave insult. In the Middle Ages, Germanic words were seen as vulgar because the English thought the Germans were unrefined. As we can see, our standards of “proper” language are trivial and subject to cultural change.

Part 2: Sex and Marriage

            Certain Christians may still conclude that the Bible forbids them to joke about sex because of Matthew 15:18-20, which denounces “sexual immorality.” But what is sexual immorality according to scripture? Throughout the Bible, various sex acts are described as immoral. These consist of incest, rape (unless one rapes a woman from a rival tribe), bestiality, adultery, and fornication. The word “fornication” has caused great confusion over the course of history. Today, it is most commonly associated with “premarital” sex (which is a phrase completely absent from the Bible). More conservative Christians have extended the definition to include any intimate contact outside of marriage, and even sexual thoughts. This interpretation is not biblically supported, either. According to Matthew 5:32, “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for fornication, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” This clearly indicates that fornication can mean an activity other than premarital sex, since it would be impossible for someone to have premarital sex while they are married.

            The two Greek words translated to “fornication” are porneia and fornicatio. “Porneia” has the following meanings: incest, bestiality, adultery, and fornication. “Fornication” is derived from fornicatio, which meant prostitution. It came from the Latin word fornix, which meant “under the arch.” That refers to the fact that in ancient Rome and Greece, prostitutes stood under the public archway to solicit customers. Some people may respond that this pertains to premarital activity because women who had sex before marriage were considered “whores.” This argument does not hold up, because Ezekiel 16:33 states that “all prostitutes receive payment” (some translations say “receive gifts.”) Ergo, the Bible defines prostitution as the exchange of sex for money or rewards. It is distinguished from promiscuity in this sense. Promiscuity is also different from premarital sex. One can choose to only be intimate within a committed relationship, whereas a promiscuous person chooses their partners non-discriminately.

            While I’m on the subject of marriage, I’d like to point out that it may have a more subjective meaning than we’ve been taught. What qualifies a couple as married? It’s not a wedding, since you can be legally wed without going through the ceremony. To be married in a legal sense, you only have to sign some paperwork. But legal documentation doesn’t make a marriage, either. People were marrying each other long before paperwork was ever part of the process. Do the vows bond you to your spouse? Not if you don’t keep them. If a couple is legally married but are not committed or loving to one another, are they still married in a spiritual sense? I don’t believe they are. In that way, the vows don’t determine the marriage. Some would say that you’re only genuinely married if you say your oaths to each other and to God. If you follow this logic, it would infer that atheists cannot be married. Obviously, that’s ridiculous. Because of these quandaries, I believe that marriage cannot be narrowly defined. As long as two people love each other romantically and are completely devoted to their union, I think that can be considered a form of marriage. Sex within this type of relationship is healthy.

            In ancient Israel, there did not appear to be much of a distinction between a fiancé and a spouse. When Mary was engaged to Joseph and became pregnant, he was sure she had been unfaithful and planned to “divorce her quietly” instead of inciting a public scandal. How would he have been able to divorce her unless they were, in some way, already considered married? Deuteronomy 22:23-24 mandates that a man who rapes an engaged woman must be executed for violating another man’s wife. Notice that they are not officially married yet, but she is still called his wife. In various periods of history, engaged couples have been considered married. For the first five centuries of Christianity, the Catholic Church allowed betrothed couples to be sexually intimate. This was also broadly accepted in Colonial America.

            Back in the days of ancient Israel, however, it was unusual for women to carry on sexual relationships before they were married. This is because most people were married off as soon as they reached puberty. On average, they married at age thirteen. Mary was said to be fourteen when she gave birth to Jesus, which means she most likely became pregnant when she was only thirteen years old. It has always been unusual for people to be sexually active before adolescence (unless it’s non-consensual). Also, most marriages were arranged by the parents for financial gain. A wedding was basically a business transaction in which the wife was purchased. They did not date beforehand, and certainly didn’t wait to get to know each other first.

            In 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, Paul wrote, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” When he mentioned passion, he was talking about promiscuity and sexual obsession. He was not declaring that it’s evil to have a libido before you’re married. In addition, he specified that he was sharing his own opinion, and that God was not using him as a mouthpiece (1 Corinthians 7:25). 2 Timothy 3:16 claims that all scripture is inspired by God, but that in itself was not classified as scripture when it was written. Paul’s letters were not seen as scripture at the time, either.

1 Corinthians 7 is frequently cited as evidence that the Bible forbids premarital sex. It is important to examine this letter in context. Socially, women (or, rather, 13-year-old girls) were expected to remain virgins until marriage. However, the expectation was socially sanctioned rather than biblically mandated. In their culture, slavery was an accepted norm, too. When Paul wrote this epistle, he knew that a bride would be shunned and victimized if she was “discovered” to be non-virginal. (However, their method of “proving” virginity was shoddy at best. A lack of blood on the bed sheet does not disprove virginity. Not all women bleed the first time.) For this reason, Paul believed a man should be punished for lying about his wife’s sexual history. He also believed that a girl should be held accountable if she pretended to be a virgin, but that was because he objected to any kind of dishonesty.

I suspect that the historical fixation on women’s virginity is mainly rooted in competitiveness. It’s a race to see who “gets there first.” The focus is also engendered by the concept that women are property, not people. According to this rhetoric, marrying a non-virgin is like buying used merchandise. The seal is broken; the original packaging unwrapped. We’ve all heard the misogynistic adage, “Why buy the cow when you’re getting the milk for free?” This dehumanizes women by comparing us to livestock and commodities. I have never heard this expression used in reference to a man. On a related note, men in ancient Israel were not expected to be virgins until marriage. Even after being wed, they were not required to limit their sexual partners. A married man could keep concubines and sleep with his slaves, and these actions were not considered adultery. Plenty of “righteous” biblical figures kept sex slaves, and the scriptures did not criticize them for it.

Even today, the classic bridal ensemble contains symbols of virginity. The white fabric invokes images of bed sheets. The veil clearly represents a hymen, since it’s a thin layer the groom must penetrate to gain full access to his bride. People say the white denotes “purity,” but this is clear code for virginity. Unsurprisingly, it isn’t customary for grooms to don white. To me, the quality of “purity” is irrelevant to virginity and should be recognized as such. I see purity as a state of optimism, idealism, honesty, and good intentions. In this way, you do not need to be a virgin to be pure. 

Part Three: Homosexuality

            The underlying misogyny of idealizing virgins can be seen in homophobia as well. Sexism and homophobia are tightly interwoven. Anti-female attitudes are a strong driving force behind the denigration of gay men.

            Almost everyone who is anti-gay disdains homosexual males because they “act like women.” Socially acceptable women are soft-spoken, gentle, and nurturing. If a man fits this description or partakes in interests traditionally deemed “feminine” (fashion, dance, etc), he is assumed to be gay and often ostracized. At the core of this lies contempt for “female” characteristics.

            Anti-gay Christians justify their rejection of the LGBT community by quoting Genesis 1:27; Leviticus 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; and Romans 1:26-27. They’re also fond of mentioning Sodom and Gomorrah. However, none of these verses provide a valid reason to shun homosexuals.

Genesis 1:27 says that “…God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.” This is taken by many to mean that the only permissible relationship is between a man and a woman. Granted, this is the most common union and regarded as the general standard. That does not mean it’s the only acceptable pairing, though.

Leviticus 20:13 is another favorite passage for anti-gay believers to quote: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” We have to remember that this is but one part of the Leviticus holiness code, which no longer applies. The holiness code was introduced mainly to differentiate the Israelites from other Middle Eastern tribes. It was meant to be observed by Jews, not by gentiles. This code included bans on shaving, cutting one’s hair, wearing two different types of fabric, and eating shrimp. Whenever it called something an “abomination,” it meant it was ritually unclean. This did not indicate that it was fundamentally immoral.

Jesus overwrote these laws and taught that instead of clinging to a rigid and complicated code, we are simply to love God and love one another. He said he came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it. “Fulfill” is translated from the word pleroo, which means “to come true.” It does not infer that he came to continue or add to the code. According to the text, he chose to obey all the laws so the other Israelites wouldn’t have to. Once he had “fulfilled” the ordinances in this way, the Jews could be freed from them. See Hebrews 7:12, 8:6-13, 10:1,9; Romans 7:4-6, 10:4; Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 2:14-17; and Galatians 3:23-25, 4:21-31. These passages all explain that the Old Testament laws are no longer required, which includes the ban on same-sex relations.

While some will concede that Christians are not bound by the Leviticus code, they argue that the prohibition of homosexual activity is featured in the New Testament and thus still applies. This claim doesn’t hold its weight under scrutiny.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 it is stated: “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” The phrase “men who have sex with men” is translated in some modern versions as “homosexuals.” The word “homosexual” never appeared in the Bible until the 1940s, though, and had previously been translated as “effeminate.” All of these interpretations stem from the two original Greek words, malokois and arsenokoitai. (Arsenokoitai was also mistranslated to "those practicing homosexuality" in 1 Timothy 1:10, New International Version.) “Malokois” refers to young male prostitutes, and “arsenokoitai” refers to the older men they serviced. This denounces a form of child prostitution that was common at the time. It does not relate to consensual sex between two men of appropriate age.

Paul wrote in Romans 1:26-27, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Now, that passage brings several interesting points to mind. The first is that Paul was not labeling same-sex relations as sins in themselves. Instead, he speculated that homosexual attraction is the punishment for another sin. Specifically, he believed it to be the consequence of worshipping pagan gods. He likely saw a correlation between paganism and homoerotic activity because the latter was commonly incorporated into pagan rituals. We must be aware that the sexual acts performed in those rituals were far removed from the intimate type of sex that occurs within loving gay relationships. During the rituals, men engaged in public orgies with one another. They were also known to include bestiality, prostitution, and castration in their ceremonies. These were certainly “shameful acts.”

Paul was not making a judgment about the homosexual orientation. In the ancient world, no one was even familiar with the concept. Same-gendered lovers did not live together, date, or start families. Paul could not have been referencing something he had never heard of.

He didn’t use any word that meant “homosexual,” as no such word existed. He never said that being gay was unhealthy or immoral. The word he used was physikos, which was translated into English as “unnatural.” In modern parlance, “unnatural” denotes that something is perverse. This is not the meaning of physikos. It actually means “that which is not produced by nature.” Today, any reputable scientist will tell you that same-sex attraction is produced by nature. It has been observed in over 1,400 species. It’s an involuntary instinct. Biologists call homosexuality a genetic trait. Pagans who partook in same-gender relations for religious rituals were not acting in accordance with their inborn drives. They were presumably heterosexual, and only performing such acts for the sake of the ceremony. Therefore, they were not behaving in a way that came naturally to them. This was a form of social coercion as well as self betrayal.

Genesis 19:1-29 is the final, and perhaps most famous, passage used to promote gay bashing. This is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. As one can deduce, the word “sodomy” is derived from this tale.

Sodom and Gomorrah were cities of great vice. The residents lived in decadence but refused to be charitable to the poor. They bullied outsiders and cared only for themselves. When two traveling angels came to the cities to see if they were as egregious as rumored, a virtuous man named Lot offered to let the angels stay at his home overnight. A group of townspeople gathered outside Lot’s door and threatened to rape the angels. In response, God destroyed both cities but spared Lot and his daughters.

This is not a cautionary tale about homosexuality. It’s an allegory of rape. The Sodomites intended to violate the angels, which were the purest creatures imaginable. Lot offered up his daughters in their place (despite being “righteous”), but the townspeople would accept no substitute. Raping someone of the same gender is no more sinful than raping a person of the opposite sex, and raping an angel represents the lowest form of depravity. The Sodomites would settle for nothing less. In Ezekiel 16:49-50, the sin of Sodom is explicitly explained. Once again, it is completely unrelated to gay sex: “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.’” There you have it. A Sodomite is a rapist, or a grossly inhospitable person.

Part Four: Lust and Adultery

            One of the most harmful assumptions about same-gender relationships is that they are only based on lust. Plenty of gay couples share profoundly close bonds and a deep love for one another, just as many straight couples do. There are also heterosexual couples whose relationships are strictly lust-based, yet no one uses this fact to denounce heterosexuality.

            The word “lust,” in itself, is frequently misused. It’s often taken as a synonym for “libido,” as if it’s a sin to have a sex drive at all. This cannot be true, because an immoral act would not be necessary for reproduction. In its true definition, lust is a greedy, selfish desire that trumps all consideration for other people. This can definitely entail sexual acts that cause harm, like adultery or the compulsion to commit adultery. Lust, however, is not always sexual. One can be consumed with a greedy desire for money, power, or violence. Wishing for money or influence is not evil, nor is wanting or enjoying sex. If one’s yearning causes them to lose sight of compassion or reason, however, it has gone too far. This is regarded as sin.

            In Matthew 5:28, Jesus spoke of lust in relation to sex. The verse reads, “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” This is another verse that has been vastly misconstrued over the centuries. Some have taken it to mean that it’s wrong to ever feel desire for anyone. Others even think it implies that if a man is single, he cheats on his future wife by thinking about other women! The former interpretation is wrong, because desire is not immoral, and Jesus was not even discussing basic sexual impulses. By “lust,” he referred to an obsessive and demanding yen that causes people to behave selfishly. In regards to the latter interpretation, it is only possible to commit adultery if you’re in an exclusive relationship or if you get amorously involved with someone who is. The idea of “cheating on your future spouse” is preposterous because you’re not even with that person yet. Furthermore, the Hebrew word for “woman” was interchangeable with the term used for “wife.” Since Jesus cautioned his disciples against adultery, I believe he was warning them not to covet one another’s wives.

Part Five: Birth Control

            The majority of overly restrictive attitudes result from misunderstandings. When analyzing the Bible, people often make this mistake: they read verses which only applied to specific people, but assume they apply to everyone. They find passages which were only relevant in the time they were written, but assume they’re always relevant. Those who assert that the Bible bans contraception are making this error.

            The belief is born of a flawed understanding of Genesis 38:8-10. In this passage, God killed Onan for using the rhythm method in lieu of impregnating his brother’s widow. However, the practice of withdrawal was not called a sin. Onan’s sin was his refusal to comply with God’s order. God had directly instructed him to impregnate the wife of his late brother, so that their lineage may continue. Instead, Onan used the woman solely for his own pleasure. This parable does not teach that sex is only for procreation. It conveys that in this particular instance, Onan was commanded to continue his bloodline, but shirked his duty. His transgression was disobeying God and exploiting the woman. Contraception was never condemned.

            Anti-contraceptive attitudes are also drawn from Genesis 9:7, in which God ordained that Adam and Eve be fruitful and multiply. (Incidentally, this quote seems to refute the popular but misinformed doctrine that sex was the “original sin.” In the story, God encouraged Adam and Eve to reproduce when they were still living in the Garden of Eden.) Some take this to mean that God was speaking to the whole human race through Adam and Eve, and therefore we are all supposed to reproduce. This is an extrapolation. In the context of this story, God was telling the two of them to have children. He was not addressing every person who would ever live. Even if he had been addressing others, it wouldn’t entail that every person must become a parent or that couples should only have sex with the intent to procreate. It would be a general guideline, not an all-encompassing rule.

            Grievous outcomes have resulted from the misapplication of these verses. The condemnation of birth control has contributed to overpopulation (and, in turn, poverty), unwanted children, the subjugation of women, and the spread of disease. Contraception, on the other hand, has curbed those problems immensely. The use of birth control is a much more responsible choice.

Part Six: Morality

            Numerous quotes from Jesus have been warped and used to justify harsh, prejudiced, and sexually oppressive outlooks. This is often influenced by the perception that Jesus was a fundamentalist.

            Jesus was passionately dedicated to Judaism and strove to share that passion with others. That being said, he was far from the current definition of “fundamentalist.”

            Today, fundamentalism is defined by strict adherence to doctrine, a literal understanding of scripture, and the notion that you cannot be a “true” believer unless you agree with an immutable set of tenets. Any dissent is disloyalty, and to question the tenets is sacrilege. By this definition, Jesus was not a fundamentalist at all.

            Jesus repeatedly encouraged his followers to question the traditional “orthodox” teachings. He told them to judge for themselves what is right (Luke 12:57). The Pharisees were like the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the time, and Jesus criticized them for constraining people with too many demands. He also repeatedly exposed the fallacy of literal interpretation, which is driven by overly concrete thinking. Jesus’ disciples were accustomed to interpreting scripture literally, but he advised them to open their minds to a new and broader understanding. At one point, he encountered a woman at a drinking well and said he could offer her “living water” which would forever quench her thirst. She mistakenly thought he was talking about physical thirst and water, when he was symbolically alluding to her spiritual craving and the wisdom that would satiate it. When Jesus spoke of being “born again,” people were confused because they thought he was speaking concretely. In fact, when you read the New Testament, you can see that just about everyone who took abstract concepts literally was proven wrong. They served as examples of spiritual naiveté.

            Throughout Christian history, the scriptures have not always been read literally. Moreover, the tenet of Biblical infallibility did not come about until recently. It wasn’t deemed “inerrant” by mainstream sects until the early twentieth century. Martin Luther believed that the book of Revelations should be removed from the Bible. Now, people are accused of blasphemy if they express such an opinion.

            Those who insist on an entirely literal reading of the Bible and consider it inerrant also tend to lean toward a more fire-and-brimstone Christianity. They often confuse pessimism with realism, believing that theology can only be genuine if it’s unpleasant. Any approach that’s more hopeful is called “watered down” or “sugarcoated.” Such fundamentalists spend a lot of time defining who is or isn’t “Christian,” and exclude most people from the club. From my perspective, no one has the right to tell someone who regards himself as a Christian that he is not. It’s presumptuous to make that judgment call. I strongly disagree with the fundamentalist approach, but would never say they’re not “real” Christians. I think it’s better to emulate Jesus than to mimic people who think they’re like him. If anyone regards him or herself as Christlike, it automatically means they’re not. That type of self image is arrogant, which is un-Christlike by default.

            I think that biblical literalism (and the sexual oppression that grows from it) is the biggest threat to Christianity. This approach is woven from many assumptions, one being that a story cannot be mythological and true at the same time. These threads knit a shroud for Jesus and bury him under conjecture, rather than resurrect him.

            The Christian philosophy is corrupted when it’s reduced to a set of black-and-white statements that its followers must agree with. “Faith” and “belief,” the words most central to modern evangelism, have been distanced from their original usage. “Believe” derives from the word “belove.” To belove someone or something is to value it. Saying “I believe you” is not the same as saying “I believe in you.” The last sentence expresses the word’s primary intent. When the books of the Bible were written, to believe in Jesus was to love him. It didn’t oblige you to be certain he was the only son of God, that he had supernatural powers, or that his mother had been a virgin when she conceived him. If you believed in Jesus, it meant you respected him and sought to practice his teachings.

            The same is true for faith. Hebrews 11:1 is commonly translated as, “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” Many fundamentalists are inclined to think this means they should take things at face value without any supporting evidence, and even despite evidence that indicates otherwise. I highly doubt this is the message the author intended. First, hope differs from confidence. One anticipates an event they are sure will happen. They don’t hope for it. Hope implies a measure of uncertainty, which is not a negative thing. Secondly, this appears to be a mistranslation. The King James Version is much closer to the authentic biblical language, and it has an alternate translation of Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (emphasis by me). Substance is distinct from confidence. With this phrasing, the verse does not advise Christians to display fidelity to God by believing things against their better judgment. It defines faith as the foundation of what we hope for, and says that our hope is evidence of what we believe in. In John 20:29, Jesus told Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Again, he was not asking Thomas to take things for granted without any proof. He was reminding Thomas to trust (belove) him, and had already demonstrated that he was worthy of Thomas’ trust.

            Trust is the opposite of fear, and religious fundamentalism is deeply steeped in fear. It generates neuroticism about God, sex, and secular culture. It exalts the spiritual while vilifying the physical, as if the two were irreconcilable. The body and spirit do not need to be at odds with one another. This isn’t even a biblical concept. Paul wrote about the conflict between flesh and spirit, but he never said that everything physical is evil. He used flesh as a metaphor for humans’ carnal nature. Carnality doesn’t always relate to sex. It’s the impulse to fulfill one’s desires at the expense of others. It is callous disregard for one’s fellow man. This can certainly involve sex, in cases like rape or adultery. At the same time, it can encompass plenty of nonsexual behaviors. Cruelty, theft, and all types of violence are carnal.

            Plato popularized the notion that the spirit and body are opposites. His writings have heavily influenced Catholic thought. Plato’s theories continue to resonate in our society. They can be found in dualistic thinking, such as the idea that a smart woman shouldn’t care about being attractive. It’s conveyed in the belief that one must choose between the body and the mind.

            Bodies and sexuality are not to be feared, nor is the secular world. Many fundamentalists are wary of nonreligious media and secular activities. But God is tantamount to good, so we honor Him as long as we do what is right. We honor God when we console a friend, feed an animal, or open a door for someone. God is also honored by self respect. One doesn’t need to be completely selfless in order to have compassion. On the contrary, empathy develops from ego. When we know how we want to be treated, we learn how to treat others. Whenever compassion is shown, Jesus is resurrected and returns to this world. As long as kindness lives on, Jesus will be born and born again.

Reasons to Question

          Let’s start with a quote, shall we?

         “In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness. Do not be over-righteous, neither be over-wise—why destroy yourself? Do not be over-wicked, and do not be a fool—why die before your time? It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes.” Now here’s a question: Where do you think this originated from? Where do you think this quote can be found? Do any of you who are Christian consider it heretical; unbiblical? Well, if you have never heard the quote before, you will probably be quite surprised to hear where it’s from: the Bible. Ecclesiastes 7:15-18.

         From what I’ve observed, a lot of very vocal Christians are not really all that familiar with Scripture. Even those who can quote any Bible verse off of the top of their heads often don’t know what the verse said in earlier Biblical texts, in other languages, or even in other versions of the Bible. Some will argue that it’s not important to know the background of Scriptures or the back story of your faith; it’s only important that you believe what the Scriptures say. In response, I say this: How can a person be sure that his or her Scriptural understanding is correct without knowledge of what the Scriptures originally said?

       Plenty of people will tell you that whatever we see in our modern Bible is an accurate representation of what was originally written. However, there is far more than one modern Bible. We have multiple translations and numerous different versions. While they all tell the same basic story, they tie together more loosely than many realize. They differ from one another in quite a few key issues. When you read the same verse in the NIV and KJV, it will say something completely different in one Bible than in the other. Study Bibles contain footnotes listing what various passages say in alternate (and sometimes earlier) translations. The variations are overwhelmingly vast, and we don’t have a specific version to use as a frame of reference. Even the early Greek manuscripts don’t contain all the authentic material, because we don’t have the first Scriptures ever written. We have copies of copies of copies. Regardless of how meticulous and diligent the scribes were in their efforts to copy everything verbatim, alterations were made. Some changes were intentional, due to political pressures or the desire to emphasize specific doctrinal points while downplaying others. Other changes were purely accidental. We know there were changes because we see them. We see how dramatically the words and statements change from one version to another, from one translation to another, from an earlier text to a later one. If you don’t believe me, do the cross-checking. Compare Greek and Hebrew words to their English translations. Compare a passage from the NIV or ESV to its King James Version counterpart. Don’t accept or reject my statements on their own basis. See for yourself.

          I don’t know everything, and I by no means claim to be correct about everything. I’ve prayed for wisdom and guidance, and asked God to remove any selfish motive that may be a part of my actions. I repent whenever I recognize undue pride in myself or start to feel like a know-it-all. However, I have combed through every word of Scripture again and again. I’ve done the cross-checking. I’ve researched more deeply than I had ever thought possible, and have come to conclusions about what I believe.

         So what do I believe now? I believe we can find answers in prayer, research, and introspection, but I don’t think we can assume that any book holds all the answers we’ll ever need. Only God does. A lot of people seem to worship the Bible as an all-knowing god in itself, rather than a vessel through which God communicates. Many worship their church, instead of using their church as an avenue for worship. I don’t actually equate doubting the Bible or doubting a church to doubting God. The Bible tells us to test all things by Scripture, so I tested Scripture by other Scripture. In doing this, I discovered that much of it doesn’t hold its own weight. I’m currently compiling a list of every single internal contradiction and inconsistency that I can find, both in the Old Testament and the new. I have filled up almost an entire notebook with what I’ve found. Once again, these are not careless assumptions. I’ve prayed over this and researched more than anyone can know. I’ve read and reread, and looked at it from every angle I can think of.

        Does this mean that I no longer believe in Jesus? No, it doesn’t mean that. I believe in Him because of my own experiences (expanded upon in earlier notes.) I believe in Him because the Old Testament includes quite a few Messianic prophecies that were later fulfilled. Before I studied the history of Judeo-Christianity, I didn’t know that the Old and New Testaments were written thousands of years apart. I thought they were all penned throughout the same time period, which would have made it less significant that those prophecies were later fulfilled, since anyone could write a story in which they include a “prophecy” and then detail the fulfillment of it later on. At the same time, some of the OT prophecies which were applied to Jesus didn’t really seem to be about him, or seemed to be self-fulfilling. In essence, I believe in the divinity of Jesus but not in the majority of revelation. From research into earlier manuscripts, I learned that not all of the stories about Jesus were originally included. I believe in the basic concept of Him and in the root of His teachings, but don’t believe every single thing that is written about Him or all the quotes which are attributed to Him.

        As to as the writings of the prophets and Apostles, I don’t believe everything they say God had told them. No, I am not calling them liars. I think they fully believed what they were saying, and wholeheartedly thought that God was speaking through them. The fact that they passionately believed what they were saying doesn’t prove that it’s true or divinely inspired, though. Two people of completely different spiritual views can both believe that God spoke to them. One can think they are receiving prophetic visions, but really be experiencing hallucinations.

        An interesting fact: the majority of diagnosed schizophrenic people who have auditory or visual hallucinations believe them to be messages from God. A Christian could argue that the “visions” are proven genuine if they’re consistent with the Bible, but several different facts refute this argument. First, a lot of different peoples’ delusions mirror one another, whether Biblically related or not. A great deal of delusions share similar themes: the belief that one’s phone is bugged, that the CIA is spying on them, or that they are a famous public figure. These ideas can be empirically disproven. Thus, the fact that they are common does not mean they’re true.

         Secondly, hallucinations and delusions are strongly influenced by a person’s environment. A Christian with schizophrenia or a similar psychosis-based disorder is very likely to have delusions or hallucinations that include Biblical themes, since the Bible is such an integral part of his or her life. Even if the “vision” includes Biblical information that the person claims to not have previously known, they may be underestimating the influence of their own subconscious. We see and hear much information that we forget, but some of it is stored in our subconscious memory.

         Lastly, schizophrenic and bipolar people of all different religions experience visions that affirm their beliefs. Not all religious beliefs are compatible, though, so not every person claiming to have a spiritual vision can be correct. Even if the vision does not line up with a person’s respective Scripture, they will interpret it in a way that affirms it. Why? Because nobody wants to believe they are having delusions, or having sensory experiences that are not “real.” If you can’t trust your own frame of reference, you are in a terrifying position. It’s a lot more comforting to believe you’re receiving exclusive messages from God (and therefore are especially valued by Him) than it is to believe you have a mental illness. Some have an aversion to psychiatric treatment because they believe that medication will mute God’s voice. I think that if God genuinely speaks to someone, His voice would easily penetrate through the effects of medication and prove the communication to be genuine.

          A great deal of people who call themselves prophets end up making more claims about themselves than about God. They may genuinely believe themselves to be speaking on God’s behalf, but end up thinking along the lines of “Anyone who doesn’t believe me is an enemy of God. I have the truth because God shared it with me, and anyone who doubts me doubts God by extension.” This allows no room for open discussion or flexibility or growth. If others disagree with or resent the self-described prophet, he or she frequently feels encouraged by the rejection. They reason that many other prophets were rejected, so it must mean they are in the same boat. Anybody can be rejected for any reason, though. As I’ve mentioned, consensus doesn’t prove a claim. However, if a lot of people share the same grievance about someone, it may be worth examining. I know this because I’ve been that way. For years, I struggled to get along with people. They weren’t all at fault. I was the constant.

           Let’s return to the issue at hand. There is inconsistency in the idea that a prophet is legitimized by how many people reject them. Those who think themselves prophets are encouraged by both rejection and acceptance. They feel that others mainly confirm their claims. If you are in a state of psychosis, the perception that others are verifying your prophecies may, in itself, be a delusion. This can affect those without mental illnesses as well. If you want to believe that others are affirming your visions, you will find a way to persuade yourself that it’s happening. Even if you surround yourself with people who hang onto your every word, it doesn’t necessarily prove that your visions are divinely driven. Just as you are eager to believe in your own prophecies, some others will be eager to believe them too. If they can’t find a direct connection between their experiences and your visions, they will make one. Churches are emotionally charged environments full of people grasping for confirmation of the divine.

             This is my main issue with revealed religion. We can’t be expected to just take someone else’s word at face value. Revealed religion hasn’t been revealed to us personally; it’s been passed along by people who regarded themselves as prophets. These “prophets” contradict one another, and often contradict themselves. Extraordinary claims merit extraordinary proof. If we’re supposed to believe something just because we are told so, then we are obliged to believe anyone who tells us anything. We need to determine that our sources are reliable, rather than self-referential. If we’re going to let an ideology govern our lives, we need to make sure that our sources are not using other sources that are self-referential. A circular argument doesn’t disprove the validity of its claim, but if a claim is only based on a circular argument or hearsay, it’s not very solid. We can’t rationally believe that the Bible is true simply because it says it is. We need to examine the reliability of our own perceptions and experiences, too. Some will say that the Bible must be entirely reliable because people have had so many personal experiences that confirmed the Christian faith, but people have had personal experiences that confirm (to themselves) the doctrine of any religion that exists. Not all religions can be right, but I think there's a common link to these occurrences: they cause the person who is having the experience to feel certain that there's a God. This God's specific identity is up to interpretation.

            My other issue with revealed religion is the blatant manipulation that is used to convert people. If you remove the punishment and reward factors from your belief system, would you still feel compelled to follow it? Would you still practice your beliefs if you didn’t hope for a cosmic reward or fear punishment for disobedience? Is it mainly about love for God, or self-preservation? I can’t answer these questions for everyone. People operate on different motives. I notice that demoralization is a large part of the conversion process. Evangelism usually involves a heavy dose of guilt-tripping and threats. It involves telling someone that they are wicked and awful unless they hold specific beliefs. I don’t think that all evangelists use these methods for the sole sake of demoralization, as many believe their own rhetoric and don’t exempt themselves from it. Still, the fact that these conversion methods are based on genuine beliefs doesn’t mean they’re commendable. The fact that they’re often heartfelt doesn’t make them any healthier or more productive. An argument that rests entirely on circular logic, subjective experience, red herrings, and personal accusations will not convince me.

          So, where does this leave me? Well, I have certain beliefs that are consistent with Christianity, and I do worship Jesus as God. If you think my doubts make me a hypocritical Christian, though, I’ll settle the issue. I won’t call myself a Christian. The title comes with too many connotations that don’t apply to me. I don’t mean any disrespect toward Christians. I’m not out to force my views on anyone; I'm just explaining them so you will know where I’m coming from. I would be lying if I denied my desire to convince people. Of course I want people to agree with what I'm saying, but I don’t want to be forceful about it.

        When I associated myself with the title of Christian, I think I was doing it more for others’ approval than anything else. I didn’t want to acknowledge that even to myself, but I need to be honest. Throughout much of my life, I’ve sought acceptance from those who will never fully include me. I saw the general Christian community as a group of people who would only approve of me on a highly conditional basis, and I sought to earn it. In a way, I viewed the Judeo-Christian God the same way. I saw Him as the ultimate standard of selective approval, and thus His love was the ultimate reward to be earned. It shouldn’t be about approval-seeking or social pressure, though. I want to base my beliefs on reliable evidence gained from research, prayer, and logic. I will strive for this from now on.

Faith and Reason: A Crucial Balance (Part 4)

The conclusion.

*     *     *

        Despite my doubts of inerrancy, I see a solid foundation of truth in Christianity. When I went to church for the first time, there was a moment in which everyone’s prayers seemed to merge into one. I could feel my heartbeat in my words, as if they had a life of their own. I lifted up my arms and felt as if I was touching God’s presence with just a brush of my fingertip. I used to be much more anxious and neurotic, but I now feel a peace I’ve never known. It’s not a placebo effect. I used to expect Zoloft to produce the same contentment, but it never did. All I can say is that God’s love feels like the Big Bang; like a whole universe bursting to life inside of you. It breaks you apart, showing you everything you are and aren’t and should be. While it cracks your spirit open, it also fuses you back together stronger than you’ve ever been. I wish for everyone else to share the same joy and to know they’re not alone in the world.

      Compassionate people and hateful people can subscribe to any faith, or the lack of it. There are “Orthodox atheists” who like to spread their gospel of Godisimaginary.com like bacteria. They harass prayer request websites, telling you that you’re stupid to pray because there is no god to listen. There are diplomatic atheists who are horrified by such behavior and wish those bullies would demonstrate the tolerance they preach. On the flip side of the same coin, there are hateful Christians who believe a woman’s only purpose in life is to pop out little bundles of bigotry. They boast that God speaks to them, but “God” only seems to tell them what they want to hear. Marx famously called religion “the opiate of the masses,” but I’d say it’s more of a stimulant than a depressant. It galvanizes people into action, which can either be positive or negative. Faith is good for congenial, honest, and gracious Christians who seem to emit more goodwill than they can contain.

            Where do I fit in the spectrum? I’m striving to become the kind of Christian I admire. I can’t be a fanatic who attends Harry Potter book burnings and thinks it’s sacrilegious to eat deviled eggs. I suspect you reach that degree of fervor once you no longer recognize that fanaticism exists; once you think it’s impossible to stretch too far. I can’t do that. I’m going to read Harry Potter books and dress up for Halloween, but God is still my first priority. I’m born-again. There were some complications with my second “birth,” but thankfully it came to term. I just want people to know that God is deeper, richer, and far more complex than anyone could completely capture within a book. Faith is not an all-or-nothing experience. Doubting some parts of it doesn’t entail that you have to disregard the rest. If you want the discernment to know what to believe, just use the judgment God gave you. It all comes down to Him in the end.

Faith and Reason: A Crucial Balance (Part 2)

This is the second section of my essay. I delve into my current doubts about inerrancy, and explain my reasoning. If this part is going to upset anyone, you may want to skip over it. Just a disclaimer.


*    *    *

           From what I’ve observed, blind faith seems to be governed by circular logic. Many Christians (and people of other religions, for that matter) can offer no reason for their beliefs other than internal reasoning. I think we need to provide reasons outside of “the Bible says so, and I trust the Bible because it says it’s true, and it says it’s true because it is, and it is because it says it is.” I see the value in trusting something we haven’t physically seen or heard, provided we have other reasons to trust it. I don’t see the logic in a never-ending verbal spiral that doesn’t venture outside of itself. Some people say that the mark of “true” faith is continuing to believe something despite evidence to the contrary. This negates the critical thinking skills God gave us. If that line of reasoning were valid, we would be obliged to believe people who are clearly delusional or dishonest. The fact that someone preaches Biblical doctrine doesn’t always mean their reasoning is sound. A schizophrenic Christian might genuinely believe that God ordered him to bomb Las Vegas because of the tourists’ decadence and greed. His reasoning would be Biblically accurate, but that doesn’t mean we should believe God spoke to him.
            There are many intelligent fundamentalist Christians who don’t base their faith on circular reasoning, but I do notice that circular reasoning is more prevalent in fundamentalist thought. Over the past few years, I’ve discovered something intriguing: the most embittered atheists are usually ex-fundamentalist Christians. I wondered why this is so often the case, and realized that Christianity based entirely on the belief in Biblical inerrancy is the most easily fractured. For numerous people, this type of faith is a house of cards. As soon as they find one religious doubt that they can’t reconcile, the very foundation crumbles. It’s perfectly possible for a smart person to hold fundamentalist beliefs. It requires some mental gymnastics, and mental gymnastics are pretty useful for keeping your brain in shape. Unfortunately, they don’t allow for the same flexibility as real gymnastics. I view fundamentalism as a workout that only exercises one muscle. That muscle may become inordinately strong, but the rest of the body is neglected and falls out of shape.
           It’s possible to doubt absolute Biblical inerrancy without renouncing the faith. Personally, I have reservations about Biblical inerrancy. I’d like to share my reasons. Hopefully those of you who are still reading will bear with me and not get offended. This isn’t intended to upset anyone or to undermine Christianity, but to explain why my faith can survive in spite of these doubts.
            I’ve read the whole Bible by now, and have come across some passages that seem inconsistent with one another. It’s possible that my understanding is flawed. If you think these verses are inerrant, you’re welcome to clarify them.
            These are the passages I can’t seem to reconcile:

-God is incapable of lying and always tells the truth/God sometimes lies and doesn’t always fulfill His promises: 1 Kings 22:19-23; Ezekiel 20:25; 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12; 1 Samuel 9:15-16, 31:4-7; 1 John 2:21 (Jesus and God are the truth, so no lie comes from them), Hebrews 11:13; Numbers 14:30

-God never changes His mind/God sometimes changes His mind: 1 Samuel 15:29; Exodus 32:10-14; 2 Samuel 24:15-16; Isaiah 38:1-6; Jeremiah 18:7-10, 26:3, 19, 36:3 (It seems like it would contradict God's nature for Him to change His mind, as that would imply He was mistaken the first time. An all-knowing God would have no reason to alter His plans because He'd already know everything that was going to happen. Some may interpret these passages as conditional, especially the ones where God says "If X happens, I'll do Y." A lot of these examples are not conditional, though--God explicitly states He is going to do something, and then does something else. Even when God is speaking conditionally, this conflicts with His omniscience. When one knows the future outcome of something, one doesn't use the word "if.")

-God knows and sees everything/God is unaware of some things: Psalm 139:2-6; Isaiah 40:13-14, 63:5; Genesis 18:20-21; 1 Kings 22:19-23 (God asked for advice); Jeremiah 1:11-12, 2:30 (God can do things in vain?), 3:7, 3:19

-Children are/are not punished for their parents’ sins: Ezekiel 18:19-20; Isaiah 14:21, 65:6-7; Deuteronomy 24:16; Exodus 20:5, 34:7; 2 Chronicles 25:4

-Saul knew/did not know David before he was king: 1 Samuel 16:19-23, 17:55-58

-Michal (the daughter of Saul) had children/was childless all her life: 2 Samuel 6:23, 21:8

-There never would be anyone wiser than Solomon/Jesus was wiser than Solomon: 1 Kings 3:12; Matthew 12:42; Luke 11:31

-King David's only sin was adultery/King David sinned not only by committing adultery, but also by taking the census: 1 Kings 15:5; 1 Chronicles 21:1-4. (David also gloated about defeating his enemies, and asked God to pour out His wrath on them: Psalm 3:7, 52:6-7, 58:10, 69:20-28, 109:10-15, 137:8-9, 140:10. Being vengeful is listed as a sin many times in the Bible. Even though David sometimes asked God to avenge him instead of carrying out his own retaliation, he still had a vengeful attitude. As far as gloating goes, Proverbs 24:17-18 tells us not to gloat over an adversary's defeat. Not only did David commit all those transgressions, but he also calls himself blameless in Psalm 18:20-24. Scripture repeatedly states that everyone sins, and that claiming to be blameless is a sin in itself. Being power-hungry is a sin as well. David expresses a great yearning for power and exaltation in Psalm 18:37-50 and 27:6. He thanks God for allowing him to defeat his foes, but his gratitude seems to be grounded in self interest. He's thankful to God because of his own gain.)

-No one ever went to Heaven before Jesus did/Elijah and Enoch went to Heaven before Jesus was born: 2 Kings 2:11; Hebrews 11:5; John 3:13

-Jesus was the first to ever rise from the dead/Others were resurrected before him: 2 Kings 4:32-37; Acts 26:23. (We also need to remember that Jesus resurrected Lazarus and the dead girl before being resurrected Himself).

-The earth will be destroyed/The earth will never be destroyed: Psalm 78:69; Ecclesiastes 1:4; Luke 21:33

-All people will be saved eventually/Some people will not be saved: 2 Peter 3:9; Isaiah 26:10 (Grace is shown to the wicked?), 45:22, 52:10; 1 Timothy 2:3-4, 4:10 (“All men, especially those who believe”); John 12:32; John 3:3; Mark 16:16

-People can choose God/God chooses us: John 5:39-40; 2 John 1:8; Deuteronomy 30:19-20; Joshua 24:15; Colossians 1:22-23; Galatians 5:1, Romans 9:11-26

-No one who is saved will depart from the faith/Some will fall away from it: 1 Timothy 4:1; Isaiah 57:1; Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 6:4-6; 2 Peter 2:20-21; John 10:28; 2 John 1:8; Romans 8:38-39; James 5:19-20; Colossians 1:22-23

-God’s anger is short-lived/God’s anger is everlasting: Psalm 30:5; Jeremiah 3:12, 7:20, 17:4; Micah 7:18

-Jesus came to bring dissension/Jesus didn’t come to condemn people: Matthew 10:34; John 3:17

-God’s work is not flawed and His laws are perfect/Some of God’s laws were flawed and needed revision: Psalm 19:7, 111:6-8, 119:160; Isaiah 40:8; Hebrews 8:7-9, (Note the difference between two of the possible translations in Hebrews 8:8. One translation reads that God found flaw in His people and changed the law accordingly, while the other translation reads that God found flaw in His own law. These are two vastly different statements); Hebrews 7:18-19

-The saved do not sin/Everyone sins, including the saved: 1 John 1:8, 2:10, 3:6-10, 5:18; Romans 3:23; 1 Kings 8:46; 2 Chronicles 6:36

-Jesus said that Scripture cannot change and God’s laws stand forever, yet the laws were altered with the new covenant: Hebrews 8:13; Colossians 2:14; Luke 16:17; Galatians 3:10, 24-25

-Proverbs 3:12 says that the Lord disciplines those He loves. Most of the people who receive His wrath don't seem to be loved by Him, though.

-Jesus was sinless and perfect because He was God in human form. Why does Hebrews 7:28 say He was “made” perfect? Wasn’t He already perfect?

-Isaiah 54:9-10 states that God vowed to never be angry with Israel again, but subsequent passages show He was angry with Israel after that.

-Isaiah 60:18 says that God promised Israel would never be attacked again, but they were attacked in later passages.

-Why would God write a name in the Book of Life in order to blot it out? Doesn’t the act of blotting something out imply correcting an error? God doesn’t err.

-The sun moves, implying it revolves around the earth? Psalm 104:19, 22; Ecclesiastes 1:5; Joshua 10:13

-We’re to love God and fear Him, but there is no fear in love. 1 John 4:18

-Love keeps no records of wrongs and God is love, but God will announce all our sins on Judgment Day (even though the Bible says He’ll erase our sins from His memory if we repent of them).

-In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul says that he believes widows will be happier if they don't remarry. (He specifies that this is his own opinion.) If this is the case, why do so many widows remarry instead of opting to remain single? Paul also says he wishes that all men could be celibate, and that doesn't sound like an inerrant statement. It's obviously counter-productive to the human race's survival--or "counter-reproductive," if you will.

-Insects have four legs? Leviticus 11:23

-The story of Noah's Ark states that the only living beings who survived the flood were the ones on the ark. Nephilim were not on board, so it would logically follow that they died off. However, they are featured later on in the Bible.

-God killed Onan because He told him to continue his bloodline, but he refused to comply. If God was so insistent that the family line continue, was it self-defeating for Him to kill Onan (thus ending the bloodline anyway)? Why did God order Onan to do something He knew he wouldn’t obey? Why does God test us when He already knows the outcome?

-Why does God design every aspect of every fetus when He knows some won’t be carried to term (due to abortion, miscarriage, etc)?

-In Mark 16:9-20, Jesus says that believers will literally be able to handle venomous snakes and drink poison without coming to any harm. Throughout history, a lot of believers have attempted these actions and died. (Bibegateway.com contains a footnote adding that earlier versions of the Bible don't contain this verse. It makes me wonder how much of our current Bible's content was originally there, and how much was added over time.)

-Romans 9 speculates that God might create most people simply to destroy them, in order to demonstrate grace to the elect. The passage surmises that God may do this to show the elect what grace means by providing a basis of comparison. The elect couldn’t fully comprehend the comparison, though, because they wouldn’t experience both. Seeing something doesn’t produce the same understanding as experiencing it. We wouldn’t need a basis of comparison if God made everyone elect and equipped us with the knowledge of its significance. We also wouldn’t need to be rescued from Satan if God didn’t allow us to be swayed by him in the first place. People say God gives us the option so we can choose Him out of our own free will, but some passages claim we don’t have the free will to choose Him. They state that God chooses us, but not due to our personal merit. Paul tries to justify this view in Romans 9 by saying that it wouldn't be unfair of God to create people just to destroy them, since a potter can use his creations however he pleases and the clay doesn't complain. This is a false comparison, though. Clay doesn't complain about being destroyed because clay is not a sentient creation. It doesn't have a brain or feelings or opinions. It doesn't suffer.

-Why does God desire glory? Doesn’t God already have infinite glory, simply because of who He is? Why would God need or want affirmation from such inferior beings?

-In 2 Peter 2:20-21, why does Peter write that a believer who has fallen from the faith and lost his salvation is worse off than someone who never had it to begin with? If both people are damned, why is one worse off than the other?

-Romans 1:18-20 says that God’s attributes are clearly seen in His creation, so no one has a reason not to believe in Him. What about people who are unable to intellectually comprehend Him, such as the severely mentally handicapped? What about people from other cultures who have never heard of Jesus? They may perceive some sort of God, but they cannot perceive the Abrahamic God specifically. Among our Western culture, there are people who have heard of Jesus but honestly don’t perceive Him or feel His presence in the world. They don’t reject God out of rebelliousness, as if they know He exists but are willfully choosing to ignore Him. Since God knows everyone’s heart and motives, why would He punish such people?

-The criteria for what qualifies a book as Biblical cannon seems subjective to me. During various Papal discussions, the Catholic church decided which books would be included in the Bible. (This explains why the Catholic Bible includes certain books that other Bibles omit, such as the Septuagint and the book of Maccabees). These choices were based on whether the books were consistent with others, whether they emphasized messages the Pope wanted to spread, whether they had been read by the Apostles, and whether the texts were old enough. Consistency is challenging criteria, as some of the Biblical books seem to contain internal discrepancies. How do we know which books were fully divinely inspired when they were so subjectively chosen? One could argue that God gave the cardinals and Popes proper discernment, but this doesn’t explain why some versions of the Bible include books that others leave out. It doesn’t explain the discrepancies. Another factor to remember is that the 27 books of the New Testament were not declared official cannon until over 300 years after Jesus' death.

-A lot of Christians cite 2 Timothy 3:16 as proof of Biblical inerrancy, but this is a circular argument. The Bible doesn’t explicitly profess to be inerrant. (Conversely, I would also be using a circular argument if I denied the Bible is inerrant because it doesn’t call itself inerrant.) In Timothy’s letter, he may not have been actually saying that all the books of our current Bible are divinely inspired. Not all of the current books were considered official Scripture at that time. He may not have been calling his own letter Scripture or calling any other text Scripture. He may have been simply defining Scripture as a divinely inspired piece of writing. However, the fact that a text is inspired doesn’t necessitate that every word is dictated by God. Some of the prophets were recording visions they had seen, and likely described them by their own interpretations. (I'm sure they genuinely believed they weren't relying on their own interpretations or using their own words, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were all correct in that belief. A person can be fully convinced that something is true, but the conviction alone doesn't prove it. Two people of opposite viewpoints can be equally certain of what they believe, and both may think that God convicted them. It's also useful to remind ourselves that many who believe they're receiving divine messages are actually listening to their own subconscious minds). In 1 Corinthians 7:12 and 25, Paul specifically states that God did not order him to write the letter. He said he was writing from his own personal judgment. He believed his judgment to be trustworthy because he’d received the Holy Spirit, but those who received the Holy Spirit could still err in their understanding (take Kings Solomon and Saul, for example). I noticed that many of the books cite other books which are not included in the Bible (such as the recorded prophesies of Iddo, the books of annuals, and other letters written by Paul). I’d assume that if a book is divinely inspired, it would only quote other books of divine inspiration. Otherwise, how would their references be spiritually reliable? Yet if the other books mentioned were divinely inspired, why weren’t they also included? Wouldn’t God have preserved them?

         In addition to these topics, I have doubts about the issue of perdition. I admit that my objections are largely based on emotion, because I don’t like the idea. Heaven and souls and God are all happy concepts for me, but hell and Satan are much less pleasant to believe in. I know this isn’t a sound reason to reject something. I don’t like the idea of cancer, but I accept the fact that it exists. Still, there are some other reasons why I have difficulty believing in a permanent hell.
        First, let’s look at the original Scriptural words that have been translated to “hell.” There are five which I know of. The first is “abaddon,” which means “destruction.” This could mean destruction after death, but could also refer to general failure and misery in life. It may also simply mean “to perish,” which is to rot away. The second word is “Gehenna.” This was an actual location in the valley of Hinnam, where people burned their garbage in a pit that contained worms. That explains Jesus’ use of Gehenna as a metaphor for the place we end up if we are immoral; a place where the fire is never quenched and the worms devour everything. It could simply be a figurative term. The third translated word is “Hades.” The term “Hades” is Greek for “Sheol,” which the Greeks believed to be a general place of the afterlife reserved for the righteous and unrighteous alike. It was also used to mean “the grave,” “the pit,” or death in general. The fourth word is Sheol, and the fifth word is “infernus.” That means “being underneath,” in reference to being buried underground. “The pit” makes no inference to an afterlife; it only means death.
         In the book of Psalms, David actually seems to express the belief that there is no afterlife. See Psalm 6:5; 30:3, 9; 31:17; 49:10, 14-15; 63:9-10; 71:18; 88:4-5, 11-12; 90:5. The book of Ecclesiastes seems to express this outlook as well: 3:19-21; 6:4-6; 9:5-6. The New Testament obviously includes a different interpretation of the afterlife, though Ephesians 2:10 says that people can praise Jesus from “under the earth.” If that refers to people in hell praising Jesus, it doesn’t seem to make sense that they would still be damned after accepting Him. In Psalm 6:5, David says that no one can praise God from the grave.
         I question the consistency of such teachings about perdition. For example, if you never leave heaven or hell once you’re there, why does the Bible say we’ll be temporarily brought to earth (resurrected) on Judgment Day? You would have to leave in order to appear back here. Also, why would we be judged a second time if we’ve already been judged directly after death?
          I can’t help but feel that hell would be a disproportionate punishment for sins committed during a limited amount of time on earth. We’re dead for a lot longer than we’re alive, so why would we be eternally punished for things we did over a duration of roughly seven decades? One might also ask why we deserve to be eternally rewarded for a short period of righteous behavior and faith. I don’t think we “deserve” it, but I think we receive it because God is generous and merciful. He gives us better than what we merit.
          Most people who have NDE's report a blissful experience in which they visit heaven, but a small portion of NDEers have seen a hell-like environment. Howard Storm, an ex-atheist, gave a detailed account of his experience and was interviewed on the History Channel. When I saw it I noted that positive and happy NDE's seem to all share common elements, whereas unpleasant ones are all different. I don't know whether this implies that each person's hell is unique, or that a hell-like NDE is more of a psychological manifestation than a "real" experience. I have my doubts about hell, but if it does exist, I don't think it's permanent. When people (such as Howard Storm) have Near-Death Experiences in which they believe they've been to hell, they never seem to report seeing anyone they recognize. Some see other people, but never ones they know. In NDE's that feature heaven, almost everyone sees deceased people they've known. This could have two implications. It could mean that most people go to heaven, which would increase the chances of encountering familiar faces. It could also indicate that everyone in hell is a stranger to you, which could be one of the punishments. I'm more inclined to believe the former.
          A permanent hell doesn't really make sense to me. Some compare God's damnation of a soul to a father disciplining his child, but the purpose of discipline is to reform children and teach them lessons. Placing unruly souls in a hopeless eternal prison wouldn't correct them, and would provide them with no opportunity to repent. I don't see why it would be too late to repent of mistakes after we die, since life is temporary but death is everlasting. I could view it as a holding place where some people are sent to "do their time" and learn the error of their ways, but then are released to heaven once they've atoned for their sins. Interestingly, Howard Storm's NDE actually refutes the common view of an eternal and inescapable hell where we're severed from God completely. He was able to ask for Jesus' help while he was there, and Jesus freed him.
            I have further doubts about hell based on physical technicalities. How would hell be “the blackest darkness” (Jude 13) if it contains fire? Why would it feature flesh-eating worms if souls have no physical flesh?
            As for Satan, I think his existence would tip the scales a bit too far in evil’s favor. If we already have wicked inclinations and there’s an additional supernatural figure encouraging us to pursue them, how much of a chance do we have? I think the devil might be a symbolic character in the Bible, representing the internal temptations we wrestle with. He’s never described as a literal figure in the Torah, even though the Torah and the Old Testament are virtually identical. I can believe in demons and general malevolent forces, but I think they’d be far too powerful if organized by a leader. I consider them more chaotic.
            Overall, I feel that the concept of hell is far too unjust to be true. A lot of Christians dislike the idea of hell but are afraid to question its existence, lest that doubt becomes the thread which unravels the rest of their faith. They fear that if we break loose from hell, all hell will break loose. I don't think we have to be so inflexible. Discounting one doctrinal element doesn't require that we throw the rest out the window.
         Some people may disagree and caution me not to lean on my own understanding, but God gave us understanding for a purpose. No matter what, we always end up relying on it. When we come across complex Biblical passages, we use our judgment to decipher them. Christian books usually advise us to adapt our personal ethics to match Scripture. They advise us not to justify something that our intuition tells us is wrong, or something the Bible prohibits. What if your gut tells you that the Bible is mistaken about something? What if your intuition cries out in protest that a certain verse is deeply, utterly wrong? Scripture says that the law is written into our hearts. Why not let our God-given understanding guide us, since He engraves His standards into it? Some say we betray the laws we are innately aware of by justifying behaviors we know are wrong, but what if we sometimes do the same with Scripture? I suspect it’s possible that we intrinsically know certain laws are unjust (such as the code requiring a woman to marry her rapist, or requiring parents to stone a disobedient son). We don’t convince ourselves that some laws are wrong when we instinctively know they’re right. We do the opposite, which is what we’re commanded not to do.

Reasons to believe

Just so you know, this is quite long (10 pages). I wrote it in the beginning of December. My standpoint remains the same, with the exception of my views on hell and on evolution.

*    *    *

These are thoughts that have been accumulating for months, but I didn't know how to even begin expressing them. The prospect intimidated me. Now I have the words and the motivation, and a night without distractions. So, here goes.

I feel like a misfit in most groups. I'm more pious and have more "traditional" values than a lot of the artistic people I know, and am more analytical and questioning than a lot of religious people I've encountered. As a result, I tend to keep a lot of opinions to myself while spending time with people. Some may not consider me a "real" Christian due to certain factors. I live with my boyfriend, who I've been with for five years. I have gay friends. I don't attend a church. I tell colorful jokes and make sexual innuendos (though I try to draw the line between silly wordplay and actual vulgarity). I've interpreted some Biblical passages in ways that deviate from popular doctrine, basing my views on the original Hebrew words and the context of the Scriptures. At the same time, I love Jesus, read the Bible, try to apply its teachings to my life, and keep a prayer journal. I thank God for everything He provides, and apologize for all my failings while doing my best to repent of them. I pray every day for everyone I know, regardless of whether I like them or not. Every time I hear someone has a problem, I say a prayer about it. I’m not saying this to exalt myself, but just to convey the way I live my life.

I wasn’t always Christian in my beliefs, and never used to apply Jesus’ standards to my behavior. I’ve believed in God and said frequent prayers throughout my life, but haven’t always believed that Scripture was divinely inspired. I believed in a god that wasn’t tied into any specific religion. Essentially, I worshipped a Creator of my own creation. This god didn’t have any standards or expectations. He was mainly there to comfort me when I was distressed, and to grant wishes. Until recently, I didn’t really feel compelled to give back to God for His blessings. I took Him for granted.

For years, I actually professed to be anti-Christian. I didn’t dislike all Christians. I disliked Christianity as a whole. My views were colored by various people who were not prime examples of the faith. My reasoning was, “I don’t want anything to do with the religion if this is how most of its followers behave.” However, I’ve come to realize that it’s both limiting and unfair to reject an entire faith on account of some of its adherents. Over the past few years, I’ve met wonderful people who are Christian. I’ve learned that they don’t all dress the same way or have uniform hobbies and tastes. They don’t all wear plain pastel-colored clothing and walk around looking sheepish or nervous. I’ve learned that a Christian can be a metalhead, a biker, an artist, a comedian, or a rock star. Leah, Celine and Elan have given me faith in Christianity rooted in genuine compassion and charity. Matthew, Nicole, and Nicholas have taught me that Christians can be deeply intelligent and analytical. They’ve also provided an inspiring example by holding themselves to the same standards they hold everyone else to. C.S. Lewis showed me that a Christian can be a creative genius. Elna Baker taught me how a Christian can be witty and fun. (This is not to say that any of the aforementioned people lack the qualities I didn’t assign to them. I’m just pointing out the traits which I immediately associate with each person.) About four years ago, I remember declaring that I would “never be a Christian.” It’s funny how God takes “I’ll never” statements as a challenge. This year, He began to chisel away at the wall I’d built up. It started when I read something my friend Nicole had written on a Facebook survey. One of the questions was, “What’s your biggest pet peeve?” She answered that her biggest annoyance is when people disregard the whole Bible just because they don’t like some of the things it says. Up until that time, I’d convinced myself that my objections to Christianity were purely logical. Then, I began to question myself. I came to the realization that a lot of my objections were based more on emotion than on reason.

When I was a student at SCSU, I took a Religious Philosophy course. We discussed the basic qualities of the Abrahamic God, and debated whether or not such a god can exist. I argued that one can believe in a god who’s completely unrelated to any world religion. I noted that many Christians say you have to believe in the Bible if you believe in God. Similarly, many atheists claim that you must reject any possibility of a deity if you doubt Scripture. I pointed out that it’s not all-or-nothing. You can doubt Scripture without doubting the existence of a god, and you can have faith in God independently from Scripture. This is true. However, I missed a crucial point. You can believe in a god that’s detached from religion, but the fact that the belief is possible doesn’t necessarily mean it’s valid.

Although I haven’t associated myself with a religion for most of my life, I’ve always tended to defend the belief in God over atheism. Just as it’s unfair to stereotype Christians, it’s also unfair to make sweeping generalizations about atheists. I don’t think that all atheists hate religious people, nor would I say that all atheists reason the same way. I have noticed common patterns in atheistic logic, though. For one, a lot of Bible skeptics actually base their doubts on Biblical claims. I’ve heard more than one skeptic say they don’t believe in hell because “a loving god wouldn’t send anyone there.” They accept the Biblical premise of a loving God, but then use it as grounds to dismiss another premise in Scripture. This can be called “having your cake and eating it too.” Another inconsistency is that many unbelievers have a moral code, and believe in a set of unchanging ethics that apply to everyone (even if they leave room for moral relativism when it comes to some of their values, most atheists would concede that certain moral laws do apply to all). This is my question: How do you think the code came to exist? One could say we developed it to ensure our survival with the help of our peers, but that doesn’t entirely cover it. How do we innately know what’s fair and just, and what is not? Some people don’t care how they treat others, but they certainly react when they are wronged by another person. Therefore, we are aware of an innate ethical code, whether or not we live by it. The theory that we developed ethics to improve our chances of survival misses another point, too. It doesn’t explain why we intrinsically know that selflessness is a virtue and that self-sacrifice is noble when done for the good of another person.

I’ve heard some atheists say that life is about doing whatever makes you happy. In my opinion, you can’t judge something as “good” on the simple basis of whether or not it makes you happy. It might bring you joy at the expense of someone else. It may be self-destructive, even if momentarily satisfying (such as drug abuse or overeating). All the same, the fact that an activity is “fun” doesn’t automatically make it wrong, either. Pleasure is not the deciding factor of whether or not an action is ethical. In my opinion, it’s irrelevant.

When deciding what you believe, it’s easy to cave into social pressure. It’s easy to confuse your own inborn moral convictions with the ones you’ve been conditioned to believe. It’s easy to confuse what’s “right” with what’s popular, even if it’s only popular in your family or social circle. A lot of people who identify with a religion tend to struggle in distinguishing between their genuine convictions and the views of their community. Atheists and agnostics face this too. It’s tempting to subscribe to a certain worldview or concept because it’s what all the “smart” people believe, and you want to be respected intellectually. It’s trendy to be cynical. For a long time, this is why I never discussed my belief in God. I didn’t want anyone to think I was stupid, ignorant, or crazy. It’s so sad that those qualities are associated with spiritual reverence.

I’ve heard it said that people believe in God for deep-seated psychological reasons. I agree that many people do have a psychological need, but it’s not the only reason. Plenty of atheists, agnostics, and otherwise non-religious people have psychological reasons for not believing. Some may have negative associations with religion or God, stemming from painful experiences. Some may simply think that life is simpler, more convenient, and more fun without a religious code to regulate it. These are by no means the only reasons why a person would choose not to include God in their life. They are common reasons, though. A lot of people replace God with evolution, but this doesn’t need to be done. One can believe that evolution was guided by God. In fact, The Genesis Enigma (which was written by an agnostic scientist) details how he discovered that Earth formed in the same order specified by Genesis. It formed over more than just six days, but the Bible does say that God’s time is different than ours. Several billion years could be one day for God. Personally, I have doubts about the theory of evolution. I believe in microevolution, the variation and adaptation within species. I question macroevolution, the change of one species into an entirely different one. I’ll post another note explaining my doubts, since it would take too long to get into it here. Suffice to say, I suspect that the theory has holes in it. In fact, it may be more a bit holier than the church. (Please excuse the atrocious pun.) I’ll post my questions about evolution, in hopes that I can find explanations. I want to find answers to some Bible-related questions, too.

One issue I’ve pondered is how Jesus seems to differentiate Himself from God, but that could be like the conscious and subconscious mind. Different parts of the brain are aware of different facts. This could explain why the Father knew things the Son didn’t. While reading the Bible, I’ve also come across some passages and wondered if they contradict one another. I’ll post them later to see if anyone can help me reconcile them. I do think that in the midst of translating Scripture into different languages, some things have been lost. I won’t just leave my questions unsettled and be content to stay unsure, though. Even if I can’t come to a  fully satisfying conclusion, I’m not going to cast aside the whole Bible. I won’t leave my questions about evolution unsettled, either.

Although there are still some issues I’m unclear on, I have a basis for my faith. Some of it is rooted in my own experiences, some in research, and some in stories I’ve heard from other people. In college, I did a research paper on Near-Death Experiences (NDE’s). I read one account in which a woman saw her sister in the afterlife, and only later learned of her sister’s death. A scientist returned from a NDE with new discoveries he’d learned on the other side. People gained knowledge of future events. Some have watched the past. People have left their bodies and heard conversations that were out of their earshot (and those conversations have later been confirmed). People see their entire lives play back to them, and learn about the impacts of their decisions. Some report reading letters and numbers, which can’t be read in a dream. One woman floated up to the sky during cardiac arrest and, after returning to her body, said that she’d seen a blue shoe on the hospital roof. The shoe was then found. Some people have visited the afterlife and seen new colors that they couldn’t have imagined.  Those with longer NDE’s have reported more intense experiences. Some atheists have come to believe in God as a result. Others have had experiences that didn’t line up with their religious beliefs, so it was unlikely a result of them inventing what they expected to see. I can post the report if anyone wants to read it and see my sources.

Outside of my research on Near-Death Experiences, I can’t help but believe in an afterlife when I observe the world around me. In nature, so many things renew themselves. Plants regrow each year, and spring comes around after winter. When the sun sets, it’s like the death of a day. The day is reborn during sunrise, though. I know this interpretation is more poetic than literal. All plants do eventually die, and someday the sun will no longer exist. I think this shows a general pattern of rebirth, though. Just as we begin a new life on the other side when we die, we can be reborn during our lives. We can renew our hope and faith, even when it seems to come to an end.

Aside from what I research and perceive from life, I’ve had my own experiences. Over the years, I’ve had many very specific prayers answered. I see it happen with other people too. Twelve years ago, my uncle Tom was scheduled for surgery to remove a pancreatic tumor. He was told that if he didn’t have the surgery, he would die. A relative stayed up praying with him on the night before his operation. The next morning, the doctors saw he had a spontaneous remission. The tumor was completely gone.

Three years ago, my aunt Mary passed away. A month afterward, my grandma got a call from Mary’s old friend, Brett. She used to be very close to him when they were younger. They’d collaborated on poems together, taking turns writing lines. They had lost touch years earlier, but Brett woke up one morning with a poem in his mind. He jotted it down, not even feeling like he’d planned it. The poem was all about Mary walking with God and going to heaven. It was called “A Shepherd’s Voice.” After writing it down, he called my grandma’s house and asked to speak to Mary. He suddenly felt driven to share it with her. Brett was stunned when my grandma told him Mary had died. He started to cry on the phone. That day, Brett drove all the way from Vermont to Connecticut and left the poem on Mary’s dresser. I copied it down and now carry it everywhere with me, to remind myself that she’s safe with God and her suffering is over. She had a drug addiction for seventeen years before she died. I used to deeply resent her for it, although I never let her know. Now, I realize how wrong I was to condemn her. When she died, I found her old diaries and hundreds of poems she had written before she got addicted to crack. I rediscovered the warm, loving, creative, sensitive, funny, insightful, and wonderful person who was hidden behind the drugs for all those years. I came to love and understand her in a way I never had before. God had taken her in mercy and guided her home. After seeing that, how can I not look at Him with complete love and gratitude?

I’ve had my faith affirmed in less serious circumstances, too. When I first started to apply Jesus’ lessons to my life, the results were remarkable. This summer I did a favor for someone I disliked. I wasn’t trying to gain her friendship. In fact, it made no difference what she thought of me. I merely did it because it was the right thing to do, and I would have appreciated someone extending the same kindness to me. From that point on, we’ve been on good terms. The day after I chose to swallow my pride and help her, I got an interesting email. It was a message from an ex-boyfriend, apologizing for everything he did during our relationship six years ago. He wrote that he was in a 12-step program and was trying to make amends to everyone he’d wronged. He had abused me when we were together and I’d gotten several restraining orders against him since then. I hadn’t heard from him in five years but still felt unresolved about the ordeal. That message was exactly what I needed to have closure, so I decided to give him closure too. I wrote back just to say, “I forgive you.” I think the whole experience over those two days was a lesson in forgiveness.

There are many events in my life that led me to believe. I might share more of them in a future post. I just chose to include these because they’re so poignant to me. I don’t expect everyone to believe me. Some will, and some won’t. That’s another thing, though. Some people claim there’s no evidence for anything beyond the physical world, but dismiss stories like this when they hear them. They refuse to see them as evidence, because they’ve already made up their minds. Skeptics often attribute these accounts to mental illness. It’s true that people with mental illnesses have told these types of stories, but so have many people with no history of psychosis. The experiences tend to have a lot in common with one another, too. Besides, an event doesn’t automatically need to be dismissed just because it was told by someone who was psychologically unbalanced. Anyone can have a spiritual experience. So many have been recorded over the years that it’s hard to believe none of them are true. Even if only one is true, it opens the gateway of possibility.

A lot of people doubt occurrences like miracles because they’ve never seen one. That’s the point of a miracle, though. If it were commonplace, it would escape our attention and no one would recognize it as an act of God. I’ve also heard that Christianity has Pagan DNA; that the story of Christ is a combination of older Pagan myths. I’ve looked into that claim, and found that the majority of Pagan mythology involving a resurrected man had been written after Jesus’ lifetime. Even the stories that preceded Christianity don’t indicate that the Bible plagiarized it. If anything, God likely planned it that way so the Pagans could compare it to their stories and see that something divine was taking place. This reminds me of evolution, too. The fact that two entities share similar traits doesn’t necessarily mean that one evolved from the other.

One of the more popular arguments against Christianity is that it was written to secure power over the public. I sincerely doubt this when I think of what the Apostles were subjected to. They were legally persecuted for spreading the Word, and the rules they prescribed for other people applied to themselves as well.

A further popular claim is that we can’t find evidence for such things outside of the Bible. There were historical accounts outside of the Scriptures, though. Jesus’ miracles were mentioned by other sources, both religious and non-religious. One of the most famous was Flavius Josephus’ historical record, Antiquities of the Jews. It was written soon after Jesus’ lifetime. And in Acts, Paul’s descriptions of Roman life were meticulously detailed and accurate. He correctly described the local geography, weather, political customs, and social attitudes. The more we discover about history, the more the Bible seems to be verified. We didn’t used to think the Hittites existed, until their whole library was unearthed. (You can find a lot more details about this in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, which is an excellent read.)

As strongly as I believe the gospels, though, I’m not satisfied with today’s church. I’ve yet to meet a Christian who is happy with it. Every Christian I’ve spoken to either feels that the church has become too lenient or too harsh. On the news, I hear countless stories about Christians attacking and bullying anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs. They probably think they’re following God’s example by showing wrath, but vengeance isn’t ours to dole out. They’re not gaining many converts that way, either. You attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. You attract the most flies with bullcrap, though, which seems to be spread by a lot of contemporary churches.

I’ve listened to so many Christians hypocritically condemn others while refusing to acknowledge their own sins. I call them hypochristians. I think we operate under a Catch 22. Jesus told “whoever was without sin” to cast the first stone. This meant that if a person is sinless, they have the right to condemn. We’re supposed to strive for a sinless life, but to never believe we are without sin. So by claiming to be flawless, anybody who cast the first stone would have automatically been sinning (unless it was Jesus, but He chose not to. He said it to make a point.) This isn’t to say we can’t make any judgments, but they shouldn’t be hypocritical ones.

Contemporary churches, in my opinion, obsess too much over sexual behavior and don’t focus enough on other sins. Reckless sexual behavior is a significant problem, of course. It needs to be addressed. Sexuality in and of itself isn’t “bad,” but people can easily value sensuality over intellectual and spiritual joy. When this happens, sexuality becomes shallow. I think, though, that churches alienate many people by overemphasizing sexual sins as the absolute worst ones.

I’ve observed that modern Christian culture tends to belittle environmentalists by calling them “hippies.” Polluting the earth is an insult to God, though. By neglecting the planet, we trash the home that He built for us. It reminds me of the way we pollute our bodies by doing self-destructive things, since our bodies are home for our souls.

Despite my qualms about today’s Christianity, I want to stay true to the faith and grow in it. When I first committed to it, I was afraid of changing too much. I was afraid of God molding me into something unfamiliar. I no longer fear it, though. God’s judgment is always right, so whatever He chooses to do with me will be for the best.

I know this message is extremely long, but I needed to get all of this out there. I don’t think I have all the answers. I don’t even think these are original thoughts, because there isn’t a single thought in existence that God hasn’t come up with first. Not all of my conclusions are set in stone. I’m a work in progress. I am Christian, but not all the stereotypes apply. I don’t hate gay people or take part in book burnings. I’ll tell you my views, but won’t try to force-feed them to you. I can’t make anyone change their mind, though I do urge everyone to open theirs. Please, don’t be afraid to challenge yourselves. Try to understand other points of view—not to validate or agree with them, but to gain knowledge and compassion. Read as much as your brain can handle without turning to mush, and then read some more when your mind is refreshed. Research the context behind Scripture and the original meanings of its words, so you don’t fall for false doctrine. Please, always use the abilities you’ve been given. The way I see it, when God gives us gifts, we’re obliged to use them in order to give back. We have a responsibility to use them for the betterment of the world. The more abilities you have, the more responsibilities. That’s a beautiful thing, though, because it offers the opportunity to make a difference.