Tag Archives: christianity

Sunday Sermon by Thomas Paine

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

[…]

EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word ‘revelation.’ Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hand of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so, the commandments carrying no internal evidence of divinity with them. They contain some good moral precepts such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver or a legislator could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.

When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven, and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and therefore I have a right not to believe it.

When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.

It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.

The Age Of Reason


Yet Another Book About Atheism

This one takes a rather new and interesting approach, however. Guy P Harrison is the author of 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God. The following is an excerpt from his guest post at Skepchick.

As a traveler I have discussed belief in gods with people on six continents. As a journalist I have interviewed a rich variety of fascinating people and many times religion came up. […]

Each chapter is a reason for belief that I heard repeatedly from many believers in many places. I respectfully listened to the world’s believers about why they believe and then responded to what they said, not as a debating rival or as a superior intellect, but as nothing more than a fellow human sharing his thoughts on an important matter. The consistently polite and respectful tone of this book defuses the most common defensive reflex from believers when confronted with ideas that challenge the existence of their gods. They replay the usual condemnation: “This is the angry rant of a bitter atheist who is more dogmatic and closed minded than any religious person I know.” 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God is exceedingly polite. I want readers to be thinking about my ideas in the book, not how mean or arrogant my tone is. I make it clear that I am challenging their reasons for belief, not them personally.

Sounds interesting. I think I’ll buy a copy.


Forgiveness According To David Jordan

My old pal, David Jordan (DJ) has written a lovely post on forgiveness. It might also sound like he had a heart, if I didn’t keep hearing the words “lazy class” in my head as I read it. Let me show you what I mean:

The point Jesus is making here is that those who have been forgiven of a debt they could have never payed have absolutely no right to demand ‘payment’ from others. The one who has been forgiven the unfathomable cannot demand the miniscule. Instead, he should, out of a heart of pure thankfulness, freely let go of the debts (wrongs) incurred by others.

To forgive means to release someone from a debt- the debt of your expectations.

And yet he can’t forgive people the debt of accepting public assistance because, he says, they are taking something from him. I would think a few scraps of public assistance (even if taking it is wrong) would be the “minuscule” here. By DJ’s own statement, he should forgive, and release the debt of his own expectations.

Even if people are collecting public assistance (taking from DJ) because they’re lazy, he has no right to expect apologies or repayment or anything, for that matter. After all, DJ has been forgiven the unfathomable, and out of pure thankfulness for that he should freely let go of the debt (wrongs) incurred by the people who are “taking from him” (wronging him) by accepting public assistance.

In Matthew 6, Christ shows us how to pray (The Lord’s Prayer) and in this prayer, we find the phrase, “…forgive us our debts, as we have also forgiven our debtors.” This is huge!!! We are asking God the Father to forgive us our shortcomings ACCORDING TO how we forgive others. How can we ask God for mercy if we are not showing mercy? How can we ask God for grace and not show that same grace to those who have wronged us?

Can DJ be forgiven his shortcomings when he hasn’t let go of being “wronged” by people who “take from him” by accepting public assistance? How can he expect mercy from God when he shows no mercy toward those he calls the “lazy class”? By DJ’s own statement and his own doctrine, he dare not even ask for it:

When it comes to expecting apologies, Christians don’t have a leg to stand on, for the only reason they stand at all is the imputed righteousness of Christ. All we can do is forgive and release the debt. How dare we expect apologies after such a debt has been lifted from us?

And yet he exhibits relentless bitterness toward those members of the so-called “lazy class” because he believes they are taking from him. He refuses to forgive and release them of their ‘debt’.

What can all this mean for David Jordan?

Posted by Lottie — Copyright © 2008 Rambling On


Christianity: U R Doin It Rong

Is Christianity a natural state of being? Most Christians I have ever known would answer with a hearty yes! I’ve heard it preached from the pulpit, discussed amongst Christians in Bible study groups or over pie and coffee. It’s also been the topic of many lively debates I’ve taken part in on internet discussion forums.

Christians often argue that humans are naturally inclined toward Christianity; that we have an innate desire to worship God. It’s what we were made for. It is the sole purpose of our existence. Just as naturally as our bodies need oxygen and thirst for water, so do our souls crave God.

Even when we don’t know it, we are drawn to and seek out God. The compassion you feel for others is really God. Your conscience is really God. The love you feel for your spouse and even your children is only possible because of God. Every decent thing about you, every good quality you possess, every good deed or act of kindness you perform is not even you, but God working through you.

I’ve heard it said from the pulpit that God has no grandchildren. That is, people are not Christians because they are born to Christian parents, they are Christians because they are born and God is their father. It is only later in life that people lose their “natural” way and begin following a different (false) god or no god at all.

The usual and most reasonable rebuttal to this is to point out that Christianity isn’t practiced all over the world. What about places where the majority of people are Muslim or Hindu, for example? What about cultures that embrace Buddhism or Islam? One need only glance casually at the many cultures of the world to see that Christianity clearly is not natural to all humans. Christianity is as cultural and learned as the language you speak or the food you eat, just like every other religion in the world.

The assertion that Christianity is natural to humans also calls into question the need for missionaries. According to the Bible, Jesus told his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel. But why is this necessary if humans are natural-born Christians? And why do missionaries still travel the world to teach people this inborn trait?

As an atheist who was once a Christian, I am often told that I couldn’t possibly have been a “real” Christian. A true Christian would never abandon Christianity, after all. I’m often told that I just didn’t try hard enough, I didn’t pray enough or read the Bible enough. That’s why it stopped making sense; that’s why I stopped believing.

Bottom line: I was just doin’ it wrong.

But how can that be? If Christianity is inherent in humans, why does it require so much work to get right? If a newborn baby can latch onto its mother’s breast and drink her milk within minutes of being born, surely a grown person who has spent more than half her life rooting around in the bosom of Christianity could find some source of nourishment to keep her faith alive.

Perhaps Christianity doesn’t come as naturally as some claim.

I don’t have to work at being 5’4′. I don’t have to try to keep my eyes green. I don’t have to practice having brown hair. I don’t struggle to maintain my shoe size of 8 1/2. These are natural characteristics. There is no way I can get any of that wrong. And if Christianity were a natural characteristic, no-one would get that wrong either.

Posted by Lottie — Copyright © 2008 Rambling On


Idiosyncratica September Challenge

This month, Archie challenged us to write approximately 500 words on the “joy of losing” . This was the most difficult for me so far, and I have to admit I’m terribly nervous about posting it. But I’ll take a deep breath and publish it, just as soon as I finish this introduction.

This purely fictional piece was inspired by Truthwalker, a fellow blogger who evacuated his home yesterday morning to avoid Hurricane Gustav.

Truthwalker is a former Christian who shares quite candidly on his blog his progress, thoughts and feelings as he discovers a new way to live . I can personally relate to many of the changes he is experiencing, and I appreciate his being so open about it all in the face of how difficult that can be, and for the opportunity to follow along on his personal journey.

I am thankful for the inspiration, and I’ll be looking forward to his safe return.

Here is my story:
Continue reading


Lazy Sunday Round-up

I was totally stressed last week because my son was starting middle school and couldn’t even get it together enough to be lazy on Sunday! I’m back in the swing of things now, so here goes:

My friend Gary Murning wrote a very good post about the misuse of terror laws. This always strikes a chord with me, but for some reason, I have a really hard time writing about it myself. So I’m always excited to find other articles that reflect my views.

While we’re on the subject of abusing power, PZ Myers posted something yesterday about his state practicing anti-democratic, anti-liberty tyranny right now. Part of the article Professor Myers quotes says that teams of police in riot gear entered and searched the homes of people suspected of planning a protest of the Republican National Convention. And that’s the tame description! Go to Pharyngula to get more details, but prepare to be disgusted.

My darling husband, Mike, author of The Odd Blog, wrote a very good piece discussing Obama’s choice for a running mate. Be sure to check out the two drabbles he posted as well. My honey is multi-talented!

Truthwalker, a former Christian, wrote a few days ago about the benefits of not believing in (or trusting) a god in a disaster. Being a former Christian myself, his thoughts echo some of my own. He and his family also evacuated at 0600 this morning to avoid the wrath of hurricane Gustav; I’ll be on the lookout for their safe return!

Chris Petroni’s Allusions of Grandeur made me feel like a kid in a candy store this morning — so much yummy stuff to choose from, I can’t make up my mind. One post I found particularly interesting, though, is entitled, Why Japanese has so few swear words.

From a blog I only recently discovered and just can’t get enough of, please read this message from Gawd (aka God) to Ray Comfort who, by the way, is clearly bananas (that was just too damn easy). Please check out the many other postcards from God; He has quite a few words for the presumptuous mortals who keep disturbing His vacation. If you want to get on His good side, though, turn up with a nice bottle of Scotch. And thanks to the Postman who diligently delivers Gawd’s postcards so the rest of us can know what’s really on this deity’s mind. I just hope he (Postman) doesn’t start thinking I’m some kind of creepy stalker.

That’s all for today. I’m starving and have lots of crap to do.

Posted by Lottie — Copyright © 2008 Rambling On


My Husband Is Better Than God

Dswerling, author of One Christian’s Journey, wrote a post back in May entitled What Atheists Really Want. When I saw that title, I thought, “Oh great! Another Christian who thinks s/he knows my mind better than I do”. They’re not exactly in short supply.

But this one actually nailed it:

What they want is one thing: good old fashioned proof. […] They want academic, reasoned, logical study with as much empirical proof as possible […]

Bingo! What more can I say?

Of course, Dswerling goes on to admit that we’ll never likely get that kind of proof because, well, Christians simply don’t have it. It’s a matter of faith or trust, if you will, which brings me to the reason I felt the need to write this post:

Faith is a form of trust; trust in God or Jesus or Allah or Zeus or Ra or any other deity you pick, but at its heart all faith is trust that somehow things are going to work out just fine in the end, in one way or another. I think even a lot of Atheists certainly have this trust, they just can’t reconcile it to trust in something greater, a reality above the reality that we observe in the physical world. However, this is a personal issue for everyone. After all, how would you ever find scientific proof that say, your mother or girlfriend or wife or father or boyfriend or husband loved you? How would you ever truly know another person was trustworthy? You simply cannot know, you are left with an act of faith on some level, and no one ever talks of finding scientific reasoning for these trust issues. So if we aren’t trying to scientifically prove why we can trust our mother or father or any other humble human, why would we bother trying to scientifically prove why we can trust the infinite creator of the universe?

[emphasis mine]

What Atheists Really Want

I would like to begin by addressing the last sentence there.
Continue reading