Smoke and Mirrors

If there's one thing I've learned in the last little while, it's that very little is actually what it seems. Often something that seems like a random detail is actually there to distract us from something bigger (or something huge will be staged to create support for something that people would otherwise protest). Of course everyone knows that this happens all the time in politics, but I believe that it happens just as much so in religion (actually the political and religious illusions often seem to distract us from the same things, just using their own unique methods).

There are various sorts of distractions in religion. One major type is "true doctrine," beliefs that aren't allowed to be questioned. Of course they are questioned, and debates occur and new denominations are formed (and heretics are persecuted in various ways). Meanwhile, in all the fighting for doctrinal purity, people miss out on what is really real and actually happening and not bothering to help change the things in the world that need changing.

Along the same lines, religious leaders (and certain scriptures) will often teach conflicting and contradictory beliefs (and often absurd stories and doctrines that logically can't be true) and insist that we must believe all of them. This creates cognitive dissonance in a religion's followers and induces compliance in them. Deep down they realize that what they have been told doesn't seem to make sense, but they trust that their leaders (or the writers of their scriptures) must know what they are talking about and if these things don't make perfect sense then they must not be smart enough to think for themselves and that they'd better just continue blindly doing and believing what they've been told.

Another type of religious distraction is "morality." Religious people are led to believe that God actually cares about things like what sorts of clothing you're wearing or what you're eating or drinking or whether certain synonyms come out of your mouth or whether you've watched a certain TV show or movie or read a certain book or that you've had sex with someone without being married to them (or that you might be the same gender as they are) or whether you're working on a particular day of the week or whether you've attended a particular religious service or participated in a particular religious practice, to name just a few of the many hundreds of examples I could give. Religious "morality" is particularly insidious because it causes those who live (or try to live) "moral" lives to think that they're actually doing a good thing while keeping them distracted from doing and avoiding what really matters.

Ultimately, religion is one of the biggest smoke and mirror games played by the powers that be (human or otherwise). It keeps people so distracted from reality that they end up thinking harmless things are evil and harmful actions are good. It asks people to persecute heretics, apostates and other infidels in the name of their religion or deity (sometimes just in small ways like marginalizing them, but all too often with more violent methods as well), and to ignore (and sometimes even look down upon) those who are hurting and need assistance. I don't believe that any deity who was actually good would ask these things of us, so this means that any religion that asks us to take these illusions seriously is a lie and should be carefully avoided.

Ye Shall Know Them by Their Fruits

I have had people of various religions and denominations try to convince me that their set of doctrines are the truth and that if I don't follow their particular philosophy that I will come to a bad end (or at least not as good an end as I could). With so many different ideologies competing for my allegiance I had to find a way to determine which of them (if any) were likely to be true. Even just within the faith I grew up in, Christianity, there were too many contradictory sets of belief that I was being asked to affirm, nearly all of which could be defended from the Bible. When nearly every competing Christian claim is able be backed by the Bible it makes it very difficult to know which to accept so in the end I decided that I'd judge a doctrine or practice by its fruit.

What does this mean? It means that I look at what believing or practicing a particular theological belief or practice tends to lead to in its followers. When a religious belief causes people outside of that particular orthodoxy to be belittled, insulted, ostracized, persecuted, fired, censored, expelled from their homes and hometowns, beaten, robbed, imprisoned, tortured, raped, or even killed in the name of that religion (all things that do happen with the approval of certain religious leaders and teachings) it makes it pretty easy to determine that this particular viewpoint isn't at all positive and should be avoided. Also, if a religious group doesn't allow people inside that particular orthodoxy to think for themselves, but rather insists that they let their religious leaders determine what is true for them I know that something is fishy and that I should probably not have much to do with that particular group. If openly questioning (or even disagreeing with) a particular doctrine will get a member of a religious group in trouble then I know that this group is probably not to be trusted. And if a particular denomination insists (or even just asks) someone to do physical harm to them self or somebody else, be it some form of bodily mutilation or even suicide, run as far away from them as possible and never look back.

When it comes down to it, there are two sets of fruit that a theological paradigm tends to lead to. The first is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, and self-control. The second is fear, selfishness, peer pressure, intolerance, hostility, anti-intellectualism, arrogance, hypocrisy, and misery. If a doctrine or practice can be demonstrated to lead to the former then it sounds like something that should be embraced. If it has been shown to lead to the latter then I would think that it should be avoided if at all possible.

Stuff

As Tyler Durden put it in Fight Club (possibly the most important movie ever made), we're "chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need." And, even worse, "the things you own end up owning you."

He's right. Very few, if any, of our possessions actually make us happy. On the contrary, they often make us quite miserable. They enslave us to having to maintain them and they trap us in fear of having them damaged, stolen or destroyed. Plus, we just don't need 99% of the stuff we own.

Over the years I've been cutting down more and more on stuff, and you know what? There's little that feels more freeing than getting rid of things I just don't need. I'm also buying a whole lot less. If I don't need it I try not to buy it, and does this ever save a lot of money.

Learning to live with less stuff is the first step on the road to freedom. The funny thing is, while it sounds like it would be difficult to do, at least at first, one quickly learns that it's actually one of the easiest things in the world to do and that the less you have the richer your life becomes (not to mention the richer your bank account becomes, if that's something you care about).

Slavery

I am a slave, and odds are high that you are too. We are slaves to a system that has come to dominate pretty much the entire world. I call this system "transactionalism." It's a way of life in which people will only do something for you if you do something for them, and vice versa. It's a way of life where you can't have even the basic things needed to live, things like food, clothing, shelter, clean water, and health care, unless you have something to trade for them (hence the name "transactionalism"). In times past we traded other objects for the things we wanted or needed, though these days we mostly trade icons made of metal and paper (we call these icons money) that represent an imaginary point system made up by humans long since dead. All but the richest of us trade our time and energy in order to gain the objects or icons needed for these transactions, but all of us trade our souls.

This is a voluntary slavery, however, because transactionalism is completely unnecessary. I believe that we could actually eliminate all forms of commerce and trade and that humanity would not only survive, we would thrive. I would say that well over 90% of the jobs out there would be completely unnecessary if we were to eliminate transactionalism from the equation. The vast majority of jobs exist solely to make money (for owners and employees). Without money, the only work that would be left is that which truly is necessary, work such as that which provides food, clothing, shelter, clean water, and health care to the planet's population. With today's technology, less than 10% of the world's population would have to work in order to provide these necessities, and since most people would get bored without a job, these jobs would never go unfilled, even without the financial "rewards" for doing them.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of humans have given their souls over to transactionalism, and are taught from childhood that it is the only way. In fact every religion is really a form of transactionalism (do certain things and/or avoid certain things and your deity will reward you, or at least not punish you too much). While my dream is a transaction free world, I realize that this is unlikely to happen in my lifetime since humans aren't likely to get over this system anytime soon (if ever).

Dialogue With an Evangelical - Part 2: The Bible

Everlasting torment in hell isn't the only topic I've discussed with "Bob." We've talked about all sorts of other theological and philosophical issues, one of my favorites being when we've talked about his thoughts on the Bible:

Bob: The problem with most Christians today is that they just don't follow the Bible any more. If more Christians read their Bible and actually followed it we'd see real revival in the Church.

Me: Are you telling me that you follow the Bible perfectly?

Bob: Nobody's perfect, but I do my best to practice what the Bible teaches. Not like those liberals who pick and choose and only follow the passages that make them feel good while ignoring all the passages that make them feel uncomfortable.

Me: So someone who picks and chooses which passages to follow and ignores the rest is a liberal Christian?

Bob: If you can call them a Christian at all. I sometimes have a hard time thinking of these cherry pickers as Christians, but I'm nothing if not generous so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Me: I'm glad to hear that. Particularly since your generosity might come in handy for you down the road.

Bob: What do you mean?

Me: Well, I'm just not sure that you really do follow the Bible quite as thoroughly as you might think you do.

Bob: What?! How can you say that?

Me: Because of all the Bible verses you completely ignore.

Bob: You've got to be kidding me. Like what?

Me: Well, the Bible teaches that witches should be killed, for instance. Do you kill every Wiccan you come across? It also teaches that shellfish and pigs are an abomination. Do you ever eat shrimp or pork or have pepperoni on your pizza?

Bob: But those are Old Testament teachings. According to the New Testament we're not under the law any more and don't have to follow those rules.

Me: I know some Seventh Day Adventists who would disagree with you, and Jesus said that He didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and many Christians still base many of their doctrines on the Old Testament. But okay, let's just focus on the New Testament for now. At your church, do you allow your women to speak?

Bob: We don't have any female pastors or teachers in our church, no.

Me: That's not what I asked though. I asked if you allow your women to speak at all. For instance, after a sermon, do you allow the women to talk out in the foyer about the sermon you all just heard, or even just about life in general?

Bob: Well, sure, once the church service is over.

Me: But in 1st Corinthians 14:34-35 Paul says, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." It doesn't say anything about whether a church service is still going or not, it just says they can't speak in the church. It even says for them to wait until they get home to ask their husband if they have any questions.

Bob: Well, it does, yeah, but we have to consider the context of that passage and interpret it accordingly.

Me: So it's okay to interpret passages of Scripture and not just take them at face value?

Bob: Of course. Not all passages are meant to be taken literally. And not all passages are intended for all people in all times. There's the historical and cultural context to take into consideration.

Me: Ah, I see. So how would you interpret that passage then?

Bob: Well, I don't know. I'm sure it didn't mean that women couldn't speak at all in the church building though. That just doesn't make sense.

Me: But I assume you have some good basis for interpreting away the literal meaning of the passage beyond the fact that it doesn't make sense to you. I don't see anything in the passage that seems to indicate that Paul only meant it for the Corinthians, or that he only meant during the service, or even that he only meant it for Christians in the first century.

Bob: I don't know. But my pastor lets the women speak in our church and I'm sure he wouldn't if that passage was meant to be taken literally.

Me: Are you saying that your pastor is incapable of being wrong?

Bob: You really like that question, don't you?

Me: As long as people fall back on the pastor excuse I'll continue to ask it.

Bob: Touché. But no, I realize he can't always be right about everything. He isn't God, after all. Still, even if he is wrong, there's no way we could tell the women in our church not to talk to each other. That wouldn't go over well at all.

Me: So, in other words, we should ignore a passage because it makes us feel uncomfortable. Doesn't that make one a liberal by your earlier definition?

Bob: I don't know. I'm confused now.

Me: And that was only one New Testament command that you don't follow. I could go on with dozens more that I'll bet you ignore, many of them given by Jesus Himself.

Bob: I'm not sure I'm ready for any more right now.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I really could have gone on with literally dozens of passages that no Christian takes at all seriously. And yet these same Christians will not hesitate to condemn other Christians for interpreting the passages they do take literally in a manner different from the way they interpret them.

And just for the record, I have no problem with women speaking in church. :)

We Are All Innocent

Those who know me well know that I don't believe in free will, or at least that I think it's the biggest misnomer there is, philosophically and theologically speaking.

Every person alive is a victim of their genetics and past experiences. In other words, every choice we make is predetermined by our nurture and nature. Why do you favour your right hand when I favour my left? Something in our DNA or some factor in our personal development decided that for us. Why do you choose lobster while I choose steak? Because, again, some part of our DNA gives us different taste preferences, and another part, along with other life experiences, causes us to order the food we prefer (or to order the food we don't prefer if some other gene and/or past encounter is causing us to want to try something different at that particular moment).

This lack of belief in free will is one of the reasons I believe so strongly in grace. If you're from an evangelical background like I am, you've probably heard that the definition of grace is "unmerited favour." I prefer to think of grace as simply showing unconditional love and kindness to someone, whether they deserve it or not, and I believe that all humans deserve it. None of us asked to be put here. None of us asked for the genes that shaped us or the life events that made us who we are. Even the Bible agrees that "the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it in hope, that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." (This is why I lean towards a Universalist form of Calvinism, by the way.)

In the end, whatever the causes of our suffering may be, I take comfort in the fact that, as Our Lady Peace put it, We Are All Innocent, and that maybe this means God will help help us all out in the long run. I can only hope.

Dialogue With an Evangelical - Part 1: Hell

The following is a dialogue between myself and "Bob," an Evangelical Christian, about the subject of hell:

Bob: Hi, I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions.

Me: Sure, why not? What's up?

Bob: If you were to die today, do you know for sure where you'd end up?

Me: Creepy question, but okay. I'd probably end up in a coffin or an urn.

Bob: What I meant was, do you think you'd end up in heaven or in hell?

Me: I'd have to say heaven.

Bob: That's good to hear. Does that mean you've accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour?

Me: I have, and I also do all sorts of good works.

Bob: But don't you know that salvation is by grace through faith, and not of works?

Me: Of course, Ephesians 2:8 and 9.

Bob: Then how can you believe that you're going to heaven based on your good works?

Me: When I read about the subject in the Gospels, I notice that Jesus seemed to teach that there are a few reasons one goes to hell, as well as a few ways to avoid going there. The Bible says He taught that those who were rich and those who said that the work of the Holy Spirit is actually the work of the devil and those who didn't help the helpless and those who didn't amputate body parts that offended them were the ones who had to worry about going there. He also seemed to tell us that the way to escape this fate is to feed the hungry, to give something to drink to the thirsty, to invite strangers into your home, to give clothing to those who need it, to take care of the sick, to visit those in prison, to cut off body parts that offend you, to be poor rather than rich, and to never say that the work of the Holy Spirit is actually of the devil. Avoid those things, and Jesus tells us we'll avoid going to hell and instead we'll go to heaven, at least based on a literal interpretation of Scripture.

Bob: Yes, it does seem that Jesus taught those things, at least if we take them at face value without properly interpreting them. Since the apostle Paul taught us that salvation is not by works, but is by faith, then obviously Jesus didn't mean for us to interpret those things literally.

Me: So you're saying that He meant for us to interpret those passages figuratively, then?

Bob: We'd have to, in light of what Paul said.

Me: Okay, fair enough, the passages are figurative. I assume you're going to be consistent and interpret the whole of the passages figuratively, right?

Bob: What do you mean?

Me: Well, if we're going to interpret the passages figuratively, to be consistent we'd have to say that the "everlasting punishment in hell" part is meant to be figurative as well, right?

Bob: Well, um...

Me: Because there's nothing in those passages that gives us any reason to believe that Jesus suddenly went from figurative speech to literal speech when He went from talking about how to escape from the punishment to talking about what the actual punishment itself is, right?

Bob: I don't know. Are you saying that hell isn't real?

Me: I'm just saying that, to be consistent, one can't just choose to interpret half of a Bible verse figuratively and the other half literally for no good reason. Wouldn't you agree?

Bob: Technically, yes... but Jesus spoke more about hell than He did about heaven, so it must be real.

Me: First of all, I never said hell wasn't real. Secondly, Jesus is recorded as having spoken about everlasting torment in hell a grand total of three times, according to my concordance. That's many, many times less than He's recorded speaking about heaven. Thirdly, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about, which is being consistent in our interpretations of Scripture.

Bob: Okay, then what about Ephesians 2:8 and 9? You agreed that it says that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works.

Me: I did, which means that salvation and escaping from hell must be two completely different things if we're going to remain consistent in our interpretations, at least according to the traditional methods of interpretation.

Bob: But that doesn't make any sense. Everyone knows that salvation is about escaping hell and going to heaven.

Me: Do they now? Whether that's true or not, how do you explain the fact that it would be inconsistent to interpret it that way?

Bob: I don't know. I just know that this is what I was taught. Are you saying that my pastor is wrong?

Me: Are you saying that your pastor is incapable of being wrong?

Bob: Well, no. But that's what Christians have always believed. Isn't it?

Me: Actually, no. Many Christians have had a completely different take on heaven and hell than what you've been taught, from today going all the way back to the early church.

Bob: Really? Like what?

Me: These Christians believe that the passages talking about how to avoid everlasting torment in hell are indeed meant to be taken figuratively, but they remain consistent and interpret the whole passage figuratively, not just the first half. They believe that judgement in hell is not everlasting, but is only temporary, and that eventually everyone will end up in heaven.

Bob: You're talking about Universalism. We know that can't be true since the Bible teaches that hell is eternal.

Me: Only if one is inconsistent in their interpretation of the three places Jesus spoke about "everlasting torment in hell," which we just covered.

Bob: But that would mean that everybody gets the same reward. That means that all the good works I do, and all the sin I avoid, is for nothing, because someone who lives a life full of sin is going to heaven anyway. What was the point of all my good works?

Me: Good question, you tell me. Didn't you just try to tell me that salvation isn't based on good works?

Bob: Well, yeah, I guess. But still, what's the point of living a good life if you'll just go to heaven anyway?

Me: Because living a good life is its own reward, perhaps? Certainly not so you'll go to heaven, since salvation isn't by works, right?

Bob: I suppose. But these people didn't choose Christ, so why should they get to go to heaven?

Me: When you quoted Ephesians to me earlier, you left out a vital part of the passage. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." Our faith in Christ is not of ourselves, it is entirely of God. We don't choose to have faith in Christ, God chooses for us by giving us the faith.

Bob: You're talking about predestination.

Me: Sure.

Bob: Okay, but whether they choose it for themselves or are elected by God, the Bible still tells us that only those who have the faith are saved.

Me: Actually, no, it doesn't. It tells us that God is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. It doesn't say "particularly those who believe," or "only those who believe," it says especially. If a teacher were to say at the end of the school year, "everybody passed this year, especially Lisa who got an A+," we'd know that while nobody else got an A+, they still passed, since "especially" doesn't mean "only." To try to say this passage doesn't teach that everyone gets saved is reading one's own doctrinal bias into the passage, particularly since there's no good, biblical reason to believe otherwise, as we've already covered.

Bob: Okay, but what about the Lake of Fire?

Me: What about it? We know that it isn't hell, since the book of Revelation tells us that hell will be emptied and then cast into the Lake of Fire itself (hell, that is, not the people in it).

Bob: But aren't people who's names aren't written in the book of life thrown in there as well?

Me: Revelation does say that, yes, but you'll notice that it doesn't say that they'll be in there forever. Neither does it say how one's name gets put in the book of life. In fact it doesn't even say that anyone's name won't be written in the book of life, just that if someone's name isn't in there they'll be cast into the Lake of Fire for an unspecified length of time. Add all that to the fact that Revelation is entirely figurative up until this point, and, just like Jesus' warnings about hell, there's no reason to assume that this passage is suddenly meant to be interpreted literally after 20 chapters of symbolism either.

Bob: Hmmm. What about the other passages that warn about hell?

Me: Which ones? We've already covered every warning in Scripture about "everlasting torment in hell." There are other warnings about everlasting destruction and things like that, but we'd have to read these passages figuratively to read them as referring to everlasting torment in hell since they don't literally say that, they say things like "destruction."

Bob: Interesting. Do you have any more information on this subject? I obviously need to do some more research on the subject.

Me: Definitely. Check out my website at www.ChristianHeretic.com where you'll find writings by all sorts of Christian Universalists over the last two centuries or so.

Bob: Thanks. Can I follow up with you if I have any more questions?

Me: Of course.

Bob: Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------------

The preceding was a combination of discussions I've had online and offline with various different Evangelical Christians. I hope you all enjoyed it.

Time Spent at Work

Sometimes it feels like most of my life is spent at work, even though I realize intellectually that it isn't, so I decided to do the numbers. Taking into account all my weekends, paid vacations days (presuming I don't leave my company this year I get 20 vacation days in 2008 since I've been there for over five years), paid statutory holidays (11 this year), paid personal (sick) days (five, though hopefully I don't have to use them), and hours on workdays not actually spent at work (evenings and sleeping time), it looks like I'll only actually be spending about 20% of 2008 at work (presuming I did the math correctly). Not so bad after all, particularly considering that my current position is actually a pretty easy job in and of itself (the fact that once I've put in my 8 hours I'm completely done work for the day definitely helps as well). In fact the only downside is my job's location, which takes an hour or so from my day, but I take the subway so I get to read and not actually worry about traffic or anything, so that's okay too I suppose.

Theological Evolution

While I've been a Christian Universalist for about seven or eight years now, there was a time when I believed very strongly that non-Christians would spend eternity in hell (and did lots of street preaching to try to prevent as many people as I could from experiencing this fate). After being introduced to the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation, and after much study and soul searching, I had to admit that I was probably wrong about my belief in everlasting torment and changed my mind.

Likewise, if you were to ask me for my views on any number of other theological and philosophical issues, you'd find that my beliefs have changed in many different ways from year to year. Some people have seen this as a negative thing and criticized my theological fluidity from time to time, but, as I recently said in a post on another blog, "my opinion is that if your theological views aren’t at least slightly different from year to year then you’re not to be trusted since it shows lack of growth. There’s no way that your beliefs (I’m speaking to everyone here) are so spot-on correct that you have no need to adjust them, or even completely reject them, every so often."

What Has Always Been Believed

Recently, a traditionalist Christian was trying to promote his views by saying something along the lines of how we should ignore interpretations of Scripture other than those that have always been believed by the Church.

In response, I would suggest that there's no such thing as "what has always been believed by the Church," because there have always been Christians (members of the Church, in other words) who disagreed with the doctrines that came to be considered "orthodox." Calling these people heretics because they believed something other than the theology that won the doctrinal wars doesn't make them wrong, and the fact that a belief came to be considered orthodox doesn't make it right. In fact, my theory is that the more "orthodox" a doctrine is considered to be the more likely it is to be wrong, but would you expect anything less from a heretic like me?