In my last blog, I wrote a little about my journey as a Christian fundamentalist, how my persistence to force my “infallible” worldview to fit reality inevitably led me down a conspiracy rabbit hole of fallen angels, and their attempt to deceive the world into worshipping Satan. I talked about the various conspiracy theories that followed, one leading to another. That is, until I ran into the flat earth conspiracy and began to have serious doubts about the path I was going down. Looking back on it all now, seeing these conspiracy theories for what they were probably should have been enough to turn me atheist. But my belief that a creator, or some sort of god, was necessary, prevented me from even entertaining the idea that there, not only might not be a need for a god, but the very real possibility that none exist at all. So, I continued to look for confirmation of my bias. Which led me to some very pseudoscientific interpretations of Quantum Physics.
Thankfully, that was short lived.
As I got deeper and deeper into the New Age philosophy and saw the claims that proponents like, Deepak Chopra, were making, such as “Quantum Healing”, I began to very seriously doubt their claims, as well.
As I said in the previous post, 2014 was a big year for me. I told myself for the first time that I was going to put truth above everything else. If the Bible was true, if gods exist, if there is any legitimate reason to accept these supernatural claims, they would survive all scrutiny. In that year, the second installment of the original Cosmos series, previously hosted by one of my favorite science communicators and skeptic, the late, great, Carl Sagan, was now being hosted by another one of my favorite science communicators and skeptic, Neil deGrasse Tyson. If you haven’t watched, Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, I strongly urge you to check it out. It was absolutely mind blowing at the time. Rent it, buy it, do what you have to do, but watch it! It’s totally worth your time.
(The third installment, Cosmos: Possible Worlds, is currently in production and I cannot wait! Here’s the trailer!)
In that same year, Ken Ham and Bill Nye had their creation vs evolution debate. Bill Nye wiped the floor with Ken Ham (in one of my most sincerest of opinions), as the only real answer that he could give was literally, “Well, I have a book…” (If you haven’t watched that you can watch in its entirety here).
While I was already having my doubts about my beliefs and was already on the fence, the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate, paired with the truly eye opening Cosmos series, were probably what I would credit to be, the final nails in the coffin of my Christian fundamentalist beliefs.
While my stint with New Age philosophy temporarily steered me away from Christianity, because of the fact that I had let go of my fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, and the troubling things within it could now be read as almost entirely symbolic, that allowed me to revisit the ideas within it from an entirely new perspective.
It was true that I was getting more and more interested in science, and beginning to exhibit more and more inklings of skepticism, but my belief that there was a higher power, or a god of some kind, was still very much ingrained in my mental process. While I no longer subscribed to the notion that the Bible was infallible, nor did I attribute many events described in the Bible, such as slavery, as commands from God—largely because I saw those parts as human error and human writings—my bias that a god must exist mostly prevented me for accepting what the scientific evidence was suggesting.
Evolution is one example. While I had finally come to accept evolution as the mechanism for the diversity of life on this planet, at this point in my life, I saw no reason why evolution and my belief that God created everything were mutually exclusive. I didn’t understand evolution, first of all. But secondly, even if I did understand it, because of my god belief, I doubt very seriously that I would have accepted that god, likely, had no part in the process. Never mind that an estimated 99.9999% of the species that have ever walked the face of the planet are now extinct—because of natural selection. That’s a lot of failures, and quite frankly, poor “designs”.
(I will talk more extensively about evolution in a future blog addressing, both, old and young earth creationism).
Much like how I saw conspiracy theories for what they were, seeing the Bible for what it was probably should have been enough to make me an atheist. But again, my belief that there must be a God, wouldn’t allow me to go that far. And Jesus seemed like a representation of a deity that was worth worshipping. If there was a God, I had hoped it would be something similar to Jesus.
After watching the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate, I started searching for content that was more in line with my new views on the Bible. I had heard about “those progressives down the street”, while sitting in church, many times. How they “watered down the Gospel”. But I had to, at least, see what these progressive Christians were saying. Even if I had to dismiss large portions of the Bible, and cherrypick it to death. For Christianity, it really was the last straw I could grasp.
So, I began searching through iTunes for podcasts. I don’t remember exactly what key words I was searching for, but somehow, I stumbled upon a podcast called The BadChristian Podcast. For those of you that never heard of the BC podcast, the hosts of it consists of two members from a Christian band called Emery, Matt Carter and Toby Morrell, and their friend who is a pastor, and also an ex-member of the band, Joey Svendsen. The show consists of a lot of swearing, a lot of humorous conversation between friends, or “cutting up”, as Toby would put it, and usually following with a long form interview with a guest. Often times those guests were other musicians, writers, or podcasters themselves, and not always, but generally speaking, they usually were on the more progressive side of Christianity.
As a side note, the BC community, or the BC Club (a private Facebook group for supporters of the podcast) as it was called, played a pretty large role in my deconstruction process, and provided me with a community that understood what I was going through. I, still to this day, owe them a great deal of gratitude.
The first time I heard of Peter Enns was on the BC podcast. Pete is a Biblical scholar and theologian, that was suspended from his position at the Westminster Theological Seminary in 2008 for his controversial book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. I, personally, never read the book as my deconstruction process didn’t start until around early-mid 2014, but according to Wikipedia, “Though the faculty voted 12–8 that the work falls within the parameters of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the chairman of the Board said that a majority of the members on the Board at that time felt the book was incompatible with the Confession.”
Just reading a review on the back of the book can kind of give you, and me, an idea what the book was about:
“Peter Enns has done the evangelical church an immense service by challenging preconceived notions of what the Bible ought to be by insisting on building his high view of Scripture on what God intended Scripture to be.”
Tremper Longman III, Westmont College
As I said, I never read Inspiration and Incarnation, but I did read another one of his books, which had profound influence on my new beliefs, entitled, The Bible Tells Me So…: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It. A review on that book can kind of give you an idea of what it is about.
“Peter Enns has written a great book about The Book. If you’ve ever struggled with the violent or contradictory or just plain strange passages in the Bible, this book is for you . . . And he’s funny.”
I thought that quote was a nice short summary of the book that recognizes the too-hard-to-accept atrocities that were commanded by the God of the Bible (that I’ve talked enough about in a previous blog). I also picked that particular review because it was written by another progressive Christian author—that our pastor warned us about in my old church—Rob Bell.
Bell was the pastor of the Grandville, Michigan mega church, Mars Hill Bible Church, and is the author of the controversial book entitled, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. Those of you that were in the evangelical church scene at that time probably heard about this book, and him, as it made headlines all over the country for its highly controversial and heretical views on hell. And eventually led to him leaving the church, as he said the book caused a lot of fallout in his congregation and he wanted to go pursue a “more forgiving gospel”.
Eternal conscious torment, for me, was another major hangup. A lot of the time when I’m talking about my problems with the Bible, it’s usually referring to something in the Old Testament. Not hell. No, that is entirely a New Testament idea, as far as I can tell. The OT does has references to a place you go after you die, called Sheol, but from what I have read, it basically just meant “the grave”, or a place of darkness to which the dead go. Both the righteous and unrighteous, regardless of moral choices or beliefs.
It’s been awhile since I’ve read Love Wins, and for that reason, I can’t really remember a whole lot about the book. If I remember correctly, Bell never explicitly says that Hell doesn’t exist. He does leave the door open for people that absolutely refuse to spend eternity with God in Heaven, but more or less argues for a universalist view—in the end, eventually, Jesus saves everyone.
I’ve read many books that take the universalist view of the atonement—that all are saved through, Christ. That view certainly seems to be a morally superior idea. When you stop to think about the Holocaust, and you think about the ramifications of the traditional view—that one must first believe to receive eternal life, it means that, potentially, millions of unbelieving Jews, not only had to suffer a horrible death in Nazi-Germany gas chambers, but now they’re burning in hell for eternity. Not only that, but if it’s true that Hitler was a Christian, and repented before death, he is now in Heaven. Which puts more of the emphasis on what you believe than your actions. Rob Bell’s book certainly seems to reverse that, and it worked for me, for a time.
The traditional atonement theory, at least the one that I was taught and knew about, was another major hangup, for me. The theory I was taught was essentially, penal substitution. Which is the view that Jesus took our (rightful) place, died, and satisfied the wrath of God against our sins. Another Christian author by the name of Brad Jersak, who wrote the book, A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel, basically makes the case that the Protestant view of salvation (penal substitutionary atonement) is in stark contrast to the Orthodox view of salvation. It’s based on an illustration originally developed by Anthony Karbo, the priest at the Orthodox Church in Colorado Springs, Co., called, The Gospel in Chairs.
“God says, “For those who love me, my love is like light and warmth, but to those who hate me and close their eyes against my life, my love is like a consuming fire”.”
The Gospel in Chairs
It’s based on the Christus Victor view of atonement, which has more of a subversive nature; and it seeks to restore humanity, defeat evil, death, and the powers that be. A Christlike God argues that Jesus’ character is an exact representation of the Father. Essentially, A God that would rather suffer and die than kill his enemies. Not only does Jersak make the case that God is like Jesus, he makes the case that God has always been like Jesus—apparently meaning that the genocidal slave monger of the OT was a misrepresentation of the true nature of God.
His version of the Gospel really, truly seems like a much more beautiful Gospel.
Unfortunately, regardless of how much a person believes something—or wants to believe something—it doesn’t make it any more true.
These arguments worked for me for quite awhile, and I had thought that I finally found the truth about God.
But eventually, yet again, my doubts started creeping in.
To me, while this view of God being more like Jesus than that Old Testament God, sounded good, but when we stop to think about what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-20, we have a bit of a problem.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-20
You see, no matter how we try to spin these verses and try to make it seem as though the Old Law has been replaced by Jesus’ Law, or a New Covenant, and no longer apply, we cannot discount the fact that—if Jesus existed, and if he truly said the things that were recorded and attributed to him—he was a Jew. He explicitly states that, “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished (“the Law” is contained in the first five books of the Bible), such as death to homosexuals Leviticus 20:13, stoning unruly children Deuteronomy 21:18-21, eating shellfish as an abomination Leviticus 11:12, as well as wearing mixed fabrics Leviticus 19:19, and much, much more. And “anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
When I was a Christian, both a fundamentalist and a progressive, this bothered me. I would try my best to defend the notion that the old laws no longer applied (except when they did). I, as well as many other Christians, would quote Jesus when he responded to a question from “an expert in the law”, in Matthew 22:35-40:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Matthew 22:36-40
Now, a person could make the case that loving a God with all your heart isn’t as good as it comes off, as it implies anyone that doesn’t love the correct god, or doesn’t believe in a god and therefore cannot love a god even if they wanted to, are damned. Also, you can make an extremely good case that the biblical understanding of “your neighbor”, is nothing more than your fellow believers. And in fact, in Andrew Seidel’s new book, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American, he makes these points very clear. These two commandments aren’t remotely what I would call ‘good’. I’d call them exclusionary, tribalistic, and precisely what is wrong with religion in the first place. But I digress.
You can also quote Paul and make a case that the old law no longer applies. But the fact that you can make a strong case for either view is precisely where my issue with the Bible lies. Who is correct? Which verses are the correct view? Are any of them correct? Has God really “always been like Jesus” as Brad Jersak and these other Christians were trying to say? Or is God unchanging and is still the same vindictive Old Testament God of wrath? Are the correct verses just the ones we agree with and make us feel good? Or are the correct verses the ones that we actually don’t agree with and make us feel gross? Or some combination?
Today, if you were to ask me about the Bible, I’d say it resembles an entirely human constructed book. It displays much of humanities best qualities, and also much of our very worst qualities. But in no way do I believe it is in any way shape or form, divinely inspired, influenced, or “God breathed”. Human fingerprints are all over it, from beginning to the end. If it is divine, I’d say that the God that inspired it is an incompetent, narcissistic, nincompoop (if you really want to know). Even if parts of it was inspired by a god, I don’t know how you could tell which ones.
As Richard Dawkins puts it in his book, The God Delusion:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
This, of course, got a lot of pushback and criticism from Christians. I remember hearing the quote as a Christian and feeling bothered by it. Mostly, I was troubled by it because I had similar feelings.
Personally, if we are talking about evolution, Dawkins is a very good source to turn to, as that’s really the core of his expertise. While he certainly has said some things that I absolutely agree with when he criticizes religion, there are far more knowledgeable people in that area. Which is why Dan Barker, a former evangelical Christian preacher of 19 years, and a man much more familiar with the ins and outs of the Bible, wrote a book addressing each quality, that thoroughly backed up the God Delusion quote, with scripture, called, God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction. If you haven’t read it, I recommend it.
Or, just read the Bible…
I tried to hang on to as much of Jesus as I could. Near the end, for much of the same reasons I rejected all the claims of God commanding genocide and condoning slavery, I had completely stopped believing in all of the miracles, including the virgin birth. I assumed a man named Jesus probably lived and that he was probably crucified. But I no longer believed that he was actually resurrected (mainly because I believe men wrote the Bible, and if I can’t trust men from 4,000 years ago, why should I trust anyone from 2,000 years ago?). My faith was dwindled down to, a man named Jesus, whom may or may not have existed, but the story, true or not, made me want to be a better version of myself. It was powerful. It didn’t matter if it was actually true, I had no way to know if it was actually true, but it was true to me.
Except it did matter if it was actually true.
It didn’t matter how the story made me feel, it mattered if it actually happened. Surely some of it happened. Right? But which parts?
Some folks will try to argue that if someone’s faith brings people together and makes them better people, how is that a bad thing? It’s bad because religion doesn’t bring people together. It brings people that agree together, but religion divides people from people that don’t believe it. That can’t believe it! It isn’t meant to unite people, it’s meant to divide people.
Even Jesus said that he didn’t come to bring peace, but a sword (division) Matthew 10:34.
For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law–a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
Matthew 10:35-36
I used to defend these words from Jesus and explain that his message was so radical, so life changing and selfless, that it would divide his followers from those that chose to continue living in opposition to it. And that sounds like a great thing if your version of Jesus is the Matthew 22:36-40 Jesus that says the whole law can be summed up in two verses, “Love God, Love others”. But if it’s the Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus, that talks about following the whole law, and “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”, then we have a whole different situation.
Religion, and maybe more specifically dogma, doesn’t unite people, it divides people. You don’t even have to look outside of Christianity to see it. Just look at the thousands of denominations and sects of Christians! Not to mention all the other completely separate religions around the world fighting each other over whose God is the correct God, or whose interpretation of their book is the correct interpretation! It’s craziness.
And it’s not good.
(I will be writing another post in the future addressing dogma, even outside of religion, that divides people as well. There’s divisiveness in all forms of dogma. It’s not just in religion. And I fully admit that.)
Eventually, I began to see that I didn’t need religion to be a better version of myself. I was already taking the parts of the religion that worked and seemed moral to me, and throwing away the parts that didn’t work and seemed immoral, anyways (like all brands of Christians and religious people do). I wasn’t going to all of a sudden start being a terrible person if I dropped the Christian label. With the exception of a few ritualistic things that would no longer be practical for my life, such as trying to make excuses for a text that I didn’t agree with, I could still behave pretty much in the exact same manner as I did before. And so, eventually, that’s what I did. Finally, after about half a decade of trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole, I admitted, “I think I’m an atheist.”
And that’s where I’ll pick it up, next week.
Stay tuned!
Nathan The Skeptic 