A few days ago I received a well-written email from Roger, a Christian and supporter of Evolution. He had a few things to say with respects to Christianity that I thought you might all enjoy. I’m hoping that Roger will stick around to answer any questions that readers may have as he actually appears to be a reasonable Christian ;)
Roger does mention a few books in his post and I’d like to know if anyone here has read them and could share their thoughts.
Here’s Roger’s email (which was free of spelling mistakes! A religiousfreaks.com first!):
Roger wrote:
Hi gasmonso, I appreciate your frankness on all the points you raise here, or toss into the public forum. Although honestly your horrid experience with religion (in your upbringing, as well as from some of the people flaming you on this site!) doesn’t really reflect the biblical belief system.
While I was raised in a (very loving and tolerant) Protestant household, in my late 20s I took the stance: “OK God, if this book [the Bible] is true, it’s true not because someone says it is, certainly not because IT says it is, but only if it’s REALLY true.”
I embarked on an odyssey to put that to the test; actually, the biblical belief system (not necessarily organized religion!) specifically instructs people to put it to the test; and if it is found wanting, to toss it. (You don’t hear THAT from a lot of pulpits! I don’t think they often have the balls.) My eventual conclusion was that, despite the horrendous hypocrisy and outright evil among many professing Christianity (think Inquisition, pogroms, etc.), that in fact contradicts who Jesus is and what he said; and he himself turns out to be pretty cool and reliable.
But this isn’t a “preach” letter. You mentioned looking for books to read: “Who Moved the Stone?
And as above, I hold the view that Christianity (the biblical belief system, not necessarily what you get in a lot of churches) is based on fact, not mere “belief” (read: make believe). To that end I also fully embrace evolution as a fact, not contradicting biblical teachings at all, as you will see if you have the patience to wade through the blog I’m currently building at http://rogersshrub.blogspot.com … and maybe more to the point, as you can see from the comment I left tonight on your “America not a Christian nation” post, I would advocate that if people professing Christianity would actually walk their own talk (or really, walk Jesus’ talk), for one thing society would have a profoundly different view of Christians, and society might even be positively affected the way he advocated. (Gandhi’s quote about liking Christ but not Christians hits it on the nose.) I should add that for the last 15 years I’ve had the great privilege of being part of a church that actually DOES advocate and aim to live by love, mercy, compassion, tolerance, genuineness, and that openly refutes the hypocrisy of the Christian “subculture”. Rare but honestly refreshing!
However, enough rambling; thank you if you had the patience to read through all this.
Take care and all the best to you.
Yours sincerely,
Roger
Related posts:
- Dave Represents The Old School Christians
- Hypocrite Christians Riot Over Dose Of Justice
- Christians In The Buff
- Are Christians Worshiping the Sun?
- Christians Invade Air Force
Ok. I think we would all commend you on your ability to see the hypocrisy (and downright evil, in some cases) that exists in the church and organized religion. Congratulations on finding a church that, if you are correct, truly reflects Jesus’ teachings of love, caring, yada yada…
I think it begs a question, though. Namely, why do you feel the church is necessary? You look out on the churches of the world and see all sorts of corruption and greed and hypocrisy yet you still look for a church that you can join. Why? You’ve already made up your mind what’s right, and have clearly already decided that the other churches don’t adhere to your version of what that is. If you are looking for a church that meets your (relatively) narrow view of what a church should be, then you’re not really an adherent of that church’s philosophy — quite the contrary, you looked explicitly for one that was an adherent of yours. That being the case, the church was — and is — unnecessary.
You could just as easily have started the ‘Church of Roger’ (which, incidentally, would make a fantastic title for a porn flick) and espoused the exact same ideals. No prophet necessary.
Neither your admission of church corruption nor your tesimony that your church is actually ‘good’ is justification for your belief in God.
I’ve read one of Lee Strobel books, which I can imagine is similar to those you list, and I must say I’m not impressed. It always, always, always boils down to arguments from beauty and complexity. Neither is a valid argument for your religion.
These books always spend a great deal of time detailing archaeological finds that lend credence to some story told in the bible. All that shows, and all it will ever show, is that whoever wrote the bible injected bits of fact and current events into the story.
I couldn’t care less about whether or not Jericho existed, or how big its walls were, or when they fell. All of that is meaningless historical data. Unless someone can convince me that they fell in response to a bunch of lost monks marching around and blowing trumpets (and noone can) AND can show that science cannot show the cause, then you have shown nothing. Sorry.
Indeed, to my mind, the only thing that corroborating archaeological evidence points to is the shrewdness of the author in adding religious context to actual events in order to substantiate the claim.
Then, there are the miracles performed by jesus himself. On what ‘fact’ do you base your belief that jesus fed the multitudes with one basket of whatever it was (bread? fish?)?
On the basis of what fact would you contend that jesus healed the blind man?
On the basis of what fact would you contend that jesus rose lazarus from the dead?
On the basis of what fact would you contend that jesus was reborn?
Please keep in mind that a fact is not made so by virtue of being written down. Please cite your evidence.
Maybe, instead, you don’t actually believe these impossible things, but merely believe that jesus was saying some pretty good shit when he told people to be nice. If that’s the case, then I contend you are not a christian, just a Deist with a propensity toward niceness.
Hello Roger,
I read your comment earlier and liked it quite a bit. It’s nice to see that the liberal interpretation of Jesus’ teachings is making a comeback. I certainly hope it replaces the self-righteous, authoritarian interpretation that calls itself ‘evangelical’ Christianity.
I am curious, though. When you say “I embarked on an odyssey to put that to the test; actually, the biblical belief system”, how, exactly, did you go about that? Thanks.
I agree that this person seems like a very reasonable man. However, I can’t agree that it is based on fact, and not “make-believe”. There are many completely outragious stories in the bible told as if they were fact. Mountains of scientific evidence have proven many of these stories to be false, and thus are “make-believe”.
Many religions are based on real people and places. The Mormon religion was created by a real man who died of multiple “real” bullets because he was a “real” hated psycho! Being substantiated by some fact, doesn’t validate fantastical preachings of magic plates and kingdoms. Religion does not withstand the scientific “repeatable” process. If it is true and valid, ANYONE should be able to repeat it or witness it again. As far as I know–not much in the bible has been repeated or seen again (I know that some biblical scrolls exist-written by flesh and blood men, but the contents of the scrolls are in question to me).
Yeah all fair and good, I probably wouldnt have such a problem with religion if more people were like this guy (i used to be) BUT I also agree with Sam Harris’ assertion that the more liberal christians, muslims, jews etc end up being a distraction or providing a ‘buffer zone’ around the dogmatic fundamentalists who are a real problem.
At the end of the day, its still an issue of ‘make believe’ stories and rules from a deeply flawed (often politically motivated) text versus science, reason and genuine human compassion.
Hmm, I wanted to write something insightfull, and then I noticed that Mike and Eagle chick stole all my arguments…
Well, in adition to what they said: Why follow a church at all, and how does the fact some historical facts match the bible make it a holy book?
I’d like to ask, how do you distinguish between the parts of the bible you take litterally and those that you interpret more liberally? What mechanism do you use to select the parts of the bible to follow and which not to? And why not just ignore the bible at all, and simply follow what you think is right.
Hello Jayman,
I just finished Sam Harris’ The End of Faith and enjoyed it. But I wasn’t convinced by his assertion you brought up. It’s akin to claiming that libertarianism provide a ‘buffer zone’ around anarchists or that Republicans provide ‘buffer zone’ around fascists or that legalizing pot would lead to increased heroin use. After all, moderate drug use legitimizes extreme use, right? I’ve even heard some make the absurd claim that homosexuality somehow allow statutory rapists to gain some legitimacy. If we reject these types of arguments, we should also reject the ‘religious moderates permit religious extremists’ argument.
While he makes an excellent case that faith is dangerous, this argument of Harris’ is little more than a disguised slippery-slope argument which has never been a very convincing one.
I sort of know where youre going, but i dont know whether i believe that this idea can be translated to other social issues so easily, largely thanks to the historical, entrenched nature of religion in relation to our culture/society.
I dare anyone to say that challenging religion and the religious is not often, or nearly always, considered taboo and ‘off limits’ by many as its viewed as akin to challenging someones cultural beliefs, which is a step away from racism. Ive been acused of being insensitive toward peoples bat-shit crazy beliefs, when I was simply challenging some of their assertions and beliefs – no more insulting than a christian challenging me on evolution (to that i say bring it on), but perhaps only because its fairly easy for us to poke holes in their beliefs.
And anyway, much drug policy is based on the belief that moderate drug use automatically leads to hard drugs etc, particularly in the US and increasingly in australia… funnily enough, not based on anything scientific like harm minimalisation.
For the record, I believe Republicans ARE facists. :D
Hello again Jayman,
Oh, I definitely agree with you about that. In fact, I think that was the most valuable point made by Harris. While I think the beliefs of religious moderates are fair game for critique, I find it inappropriate to blame moderates for extremism.
Hey Sid
I didnt interpet it as nor accuse the moderates as being “blamable” for extremism per se, rather the moderates make it harder to actively criticise the more extreme elements of a religion.
However, i do blame the more moderate/liberal adherents of christianity, judaism and islam for not doing their own criticism of the lunatic fundies within their respective religions, and therefore to me, they are all part of the same problem. Anyway, even refering to them as though different groups is misleading: there are no ‘groups’, merely a sliding scale of irrationality and faith for all believers.
That’s a fair statement. I would like to see the moderates criticize the extremists more often. Some already do, such as Roger in the OP. Unfortunately and perhaps unavoidably, it takes the form of a ‘more Christian than thou’ or ‘no true Christian‘ argument. Still, I think an effective tactic to take is to encourage such criticism when it can be found.
The biblical instruction, in flow chart form, about what should happen post-rape:
http://i.imgur.com/BIBnD.jpg
Great day, may be right here is towards situation solely well, i’ve been doing study regarding your site which’s why it is quite obviously professional. I possess been developing a crisp new writings with each other with making an attempt get back look nice, whenever as well as sense products i’ve spoil it. Recommendations about how onerous was seen as the to site? Successfully any man or woman much like me devoid of an occurence do it, on top of that complete people boost web need to have of wrecking acquiring that performed as well as?