Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Why I am no Longer a Christian

I have been wanting to write this entry for a long time but have not had the courage to do it, until now, and even though I don’t think everything I want to be included will be, I have faith that the message will get across. “What was the straw which broke the camels back?” you ask, well that would be the opportunity of sitting in on a Jehova’s Witness Bible study. The Bible study was being presented to a fifteen year-old girl her mom and her younger thirteen year-old sister. Though they have been Jehova’s Witnesses for a long time, they (the children) didn’t really seem to know much about what it meant, except that God had a name and it is Jehovah (though really this is just, as far as I understand the German pronunciation of the Hebrew Yahweh, which is the true name of God, though no one really knows what the true vowel sounds are, but the J and Y have been exchanged and, as is typical in German, the V and the W). The meeting started with a prayer to “Jehovah” and then they started talking about things such as the garden, Adam and Eve, perfection, and then how Adam’s sin which meant that humankind was no longer perfect and so God decided to make his son into man and send him to earth to die as a ransom to pay for our sins, as a result of which we could achieve the lost state of perfection again. This seems really close to the Christian message, at least to me, (I know there are differences between the JW teaching and “orthodox Christianity” but this is not necessary to examine for the purposes of this entry). Essentially the way I see the Christian message, it is at its very basic form this, God created perfection, humanity screwed it up, God sends his son/himself to pay for the damages, Humanity is saved and can be perfect again.

In the class Interpreting the Old Testament Narrative, a class I took while at Prov, I learned about two words “Utopia” and “Dystopia” these words essentially are words which describe a perfect state (like that which was in the garden, or ‘heaven’) and its direct opposite, a completely imperfect state (hell, etc.). When defining these terms we had to say how they were used in the text and so I did that and also said their purposes within texts in general. The idea of Utopia provides a positive reinforcement for following a system, (If you do these things, you can be perfect/have a perfect society), Dystopia provides negative reinforcement, (if you do bad things, all of these terrible things will be heaped upon you).

From my experience with visiting “the cult” that I visited when going to Prov, one thing that I noticed was the emphasis on “going to heaven,” and “avoiding hell”. Or in other words it was providing heavy reinforcement using Utopia and Dystopia. One key feature of “cults” to me seems to be heavy mind control used to keep people in the system, and this seemed to be how it was done at this church. Even amongst the JW meeting they talked heavily about Adam and the perfect state he was in and then how he fell away, and then talked about the dystopia we are in right now and how it will be even worse at Armageddon. Those who follow God until that day (which is Very very close) will be spared from his wrath and be able to enter his perfect kingdom. I find that this system of heaven and hell, or even just heaven (for those who don’t believe in negative reinforcement), is cultish and I, personally, am distrustful of anything which focuses, even a little, on “what is promised for us when we die”, or the “promises of God” etc. This rules out a large portion of Christianity, not just the sections which are actually labeled as “cult” by the rest of “orthodox” Christianity but a much larger section, I would even say mostly all of Christianity, as can be seen by the sales of the Left Behind series.

Though now that I am on the topic of “labelling” one thing that I found interesting was during the JW meeting when they were going through all of the other devilish forms of Christianity, like “Catholocism which was allied with Hitler during World War Two, the Pope and Hitler signed an alliance, you can read about it in the history books, and George Bush, look at the mess America is in with the war, do you know what he is?..” “ uh... I dunno Baptist” “yes that is right, he is Baptist... and what about the Monarchy in England, they are involved too and guess what they are.... they are Anglican... and do you know that all of them have severely edited God’s name Jehovah out of the Bible... etc.” so yah, one thing I noticed was how much the JW’s reinforced their beliefs by showing how wrong every other sector of Christianity is. And this reinforcing by the negation of others, has happened all over Christianity. I have had countless conversations with my Grandmother where she tells me how evil the Catholics are, or how she wouldn’t even allow a JW into her house, because her way is the only way to get to heaven and the catholics and the JWs and most of the rest of Christianity doesn’t follow the way and thus should not even be called Christian. It happened in Protestantism with the Reformation and Catholocism with the Counter-Reformation, and has been perpetuated by many even today, people are reinforcing their beliefs not by deeming them to be in-fact true, but by deeming others to be false. Should a student assume that because everyone else got a question wrong on a test that the odds that they got it right have increased because of everyone else’s failure?!

It seems to me very illogical to say “well everybody else is wrong therefore I must be right” how can we claim to have a monopoly on truth simply because we view everyone else’s truth as wrong. It is also an absurdity. The odds that we just happened happened to choose or be born into the “right” religion are highly stacked against us and chances are we are just as wrong as all the faithful in all the other religions we view as heathens. Though we can only judge them as heathens based on the “absolute truths” which our religion defines as truth, everything truly is relative to the religion of the viewer. Instead it is much more logical to say that there is no absolute truth to lean on to judge other things as faulted. Perhaps it is true that we are as Sartre states “condemned to be free” that there is nothing that we can turn to, and it is our dislike of being in control of ourself, and our realisation that we do not have a utopia and therefore we must be flawed, that we cannot deal with. We want a way out of the mess we are in, and something to look to so that we don’t have to take the responsibility for ourselves, and so we invent a perfect deity, who we can look to and turn to for hope, and in some cases a satan which we can blame.


The way I see it, it is us who are imperfect and therefore it is us who should fix our own situation. The illogicality of the Christian system was very easily noticed by the fifteen year-old at the JW bible study. As she was asked numerous times if she understood why God would need to offer a ransom, (a ransom similar to the one that would be payed by her mom if she was kidnapped), and she seemed very confused and said, “I just don’t understand why God would be paying a ransom to himself....” at this point, internally, I was like: wow her logic is much better than the adults in the crowd, but she was merely told “Questioning is good, it means you are thinking about it, and that she would understand eventually. Let’s move on.” To me this seemed like a form of cultish conditioning, a way that people are brainwashed into believing something ludicrous or nonsensical. If someone who a child views as older and wiser says to them that they will understand something such as the salvation message eventually, even if the child logically can see its illogicality he or she will still view themselves as wrong and not smart enough, until they eventually have lied themselves into believing it and truly stand up for it as “truth” even if they don’t know why, or they say they believe it because they don’t want to be viewed as an outsider or inferior.

Realistically, when it comes to salvation, why should “God” pay for our problems, it doesn’t seem to solve anything at all, we screw up and then God dies for us so that we can be not screwed up, though we don’t really learn anything from this except that we are supposed to believe that he died and then voila we have been saved from our “wretched state”. How does simply believing change the world? should it not be action. To me it is the message of Christ to follow him, not by believing that he died for our sins, but rather to be kind one to another, that was his entire mission in life, he even states at one point that it is much better to be kind to others that to offer sacrifice to God, this means that according to Jesus, the “author and finisher of our faith” that it is better to be kind to others than to rely on his “sacrifice” for our salvation. This seems to be a common thread between people who have become my role models, Jesus sought to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, as did Mother Theresa, and Gandhi too, they were all quite selfless, the Buddha also strived to be a selfless being. In my opinion, it is not our duty to have faith in God, but it is our duty to realise the human condition, and to work to help those who are not as well off as us, to be selfless, (which is endorsed by Christiantiy), and because it is our problem, our imperfections, really it is our responsibility to fix it. This perhaps is why I find Buddhism a much more attractive faith than Christianity. It does have Gods but they are not perfect beings that one can look to to distract one from one’s own faults, they are faulted just like everyone else. In Buddhism attempting to reach Nirvana is something that each person has to do for themselves, by striving for the love of all things, not by believing that loving all things is possible and believing in the somebody who accomplished it, but by actually attempting to do it ourselves.


So, am I Buddhist, no, but I cannot call myself Christian either, the closest I could call myself to this is a “Christ follower” meaning I see value in the way he lived his life, and would like to be able to do the same, I could easily call myself a follower of anything which leads one to love others. But overall, I want to be my own person, I want to be able to embrace the “condemnation to be free,” to not try to escape it, but to truly live as myself. Or in the Buddhist mind set, to live as no self, but to live a life of love in serving others.


I dunno, this may seem like one big ramble, but I do hope that it makes sense, or at least causes fodder for thought and self-research. and for those of you who have read this far... Thank you for reading!

~Justin Goodman

15 comments:

Mark Brown said...

Great post bro.. I like how you are asking the hard questions. One question I have, are JWs Christian? Please don't read this as judgemental, but simply enquiring. I thought they were a different religion altogether?

Mark

Kanadjin said...

Thank you, I would say that JWs are Christians, though many Christians would not, the large difference being that they view Jesus as a created being and don't believe in the trinity. There are a few differences, but the non divinity of Christ seems to be the defining difference. Overall though I think their message is similar enough to Christianity. (believing that Jesus died for our sins and that we have to simply believe that to go to heaven).

Anonymous said...

'christ-follower' is cool, just so long as you edit out the parts where it talks about hating your family for his sake, not bringing peace but a sword, crumbs under the table for a gentile woman, etc. ;) i see no problem with cherrypicking from the scriptures just so long as you're aware that you're doing it.

good for you, my friend. you have my support.

Laura Cave said...

I must say that this is interesting. But other than that i do not know what to say. I do tend to disagree with you on a lot of what you have said, but that is my choice. I think you are definately brave to post this and more power to you.

Your intellect is strong, but I think it might now begin to get you into a little bit of trouble. I hope you won't through everything you've been taught out the window because there are some validity to things we've been taught.

D said...

To be honest, if you're arguing anything I think it's a weak argument. Though I've already told you this on MSN.

I think you're reacting against Christianity as a whole based on one narrow, and largely ignorant vein. Your time at Prov should have let you be informed that there are many different veins of Christianity, and that they each have their strengths and weaknesses.

To be honest, I don't think your criticism of Christianity is really without bias. Actually I think your thoughts on the subject are absolutely dripping with a whole lot of unsaid history influencing what you're saying.

As I've said before I think you're incredibly post modern in that you're deconstructing things, which is fine I'm not one to fault that. But you seem to have strange motives, since you never seem to construct anything out of the rubble, you just leave it there and say it's bad. And you can say Jesus whole mission was just to preach love and acceptance, but we know that isn't true. I mean if you're really a Jesus follower, you have to accept that He said all the law and the prophets hang on those statements. That doesn't say that they don't matter, rather it shows that they matter a great deal and are worth study and consideration.

But the way that you're approaching things, I'll honestly say I think it robs the religious experience of so much beauty it's staggering. Instead of having this wealth of ideas, thoughts, and concepts to meditate on and sift through. You have this one simple thought, even then is relative to the whim of today.

It just, to be honest, I think it's juvenile and narcissistic. And coming from me, who is juvenile and narcissistic often, is pretty bad :P. It honestly believe that you're smarter than this. And I genuinely hope that you don't stay in this place, because I think you have a great deal more potential than this. There is a beautiful risk in allowing yourself to actually be wrong. And I think that your current refusal of any absolutes destroys that possibility.

I'll also say the entire sacrifice/payment, kindness paragraph... if I were a prof, and you wrote that in a paper for me, I'd have circled it and written a big WTF right beside it. Jesus statement does not diminish his own sacrifice. Jesus said greater love has no man than to lay down his life for his friends. Jesus death was His greatest act of fulfilling love for others. As to why the price needed to be paid, thus is the nature of sin. That's a whole nother point to think about and ponder and you're right it doesn't have a simple answer. It may not even have a satisfactory answer that can be understood. But when we throw out things simply because we're limited in our understanding...

Well this is getting long. But I'll just say, I hope you start building something more meaningful than fuzzy statements about kindness.

The Burdman said...

HOW COULD YOU SAY SUCH A THING. I HONESTLY CAN'T BELIEVE YOU DID... GEORGE W. BUSH IS A UNITED METHODIST. NOT. BAPTIST.

So the questions I would ask you then are:

1. What is the best way to live a life in service and gratitude for others?

2. How do you intend to live that life/what are you doing now? What is it that matters besides logic, argument, noncultishness, and freedom?

On a second note, I find all belief of any kind to be "cultish" according to my understanding of the term. I suppose the real difference between a cult and a religion lies in how many people they can convince, but I mean beyond that.

On a third note, in many senses of the word, the war in Iraq is freedom. I don't mean this necessarily to make a political statement, it is simply my train of thought, following the theme of being free that you wrote about.

Anonymous said...

I love how the religious argue that these concepts must be cherished and meditated upon because they are 'beyond our understanding'... while the non-religious are convinced that that they should be absolutely chucked out because they're TOTALLY FUCKING RIDICULOUS AND MAKE NO SENSE.

Saying something is 'beyond human understanding' is just cultspeak/groupthink for "Shut up, stop thinking, and obey."

Kanadjin said...

Dave,
As for my argument, which you are not sure I am making, it is simply that we cannot just “let go and let God,” as many Christian evangelists say, but instead we have a responsibility in the matter, I may even be willing to say sole responsibility and hope I don't step on too many toes. Secondly, I do admit that I have biases, yes I grew up in a cult, and I have said that on my blog previously, thus they are not unsaid. And thirdly, I also know that I am deconstructing the Christian religion, and no, I don’t think I need to erect anything in its place. If I did that I would be doing nothing but forming a different creed and a different cult people could follow. As for the entire sacrifice and payment for sins vs. kindness.. The verse you quote actually reinforces my point that we are to be selfless and love one another (Christ was so selfless and clung to his message of love that even when the authorities killed him he stuck to it). The idea that we/he can be so selfless that we can give up our own lives in order to serve others says nothing about an atoning sacrifice for our sins, but rather speaks heavily for acting out of love for others. So, forgive my repetition, but yes, I am deconstructing what I believe should be deconstructed, and I am not going to construct a new Christian creed to follow. in the words of Tolstoy, (from his book which inspired Gandhi to be who he was):
“If a man sincerely believes in the Sermon on the Mound, the Nicene Creed must inevitably lose all meaning and significance for him, and the Church and its representatives together with it. If a man believes in the Nicene Creed, that is, in the Church, that is, in those who call themselves its representatives, the Sermon on the Mount becomes superfluous for him. . . .
Let the Church stop its work of hypnotizing the masses, and deceiving children even for the briefest interval of time, and men would begin to understand Christ’s teaching. But this understanding will be the end of the churches and all their influence. And therefore the churches will not for an instant relax their zeal in the business of hypnotizing grown-up people and deceiving children. This, then, is the work of the churches: to install a false interpretation of Christ’s teaching into men, and to prevent a true interpretation of it for the majority of so-called believers” (Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You, Dover Publications, 2006. Pp 74.).

So yah, I am willing to study the words of Christ, and the Bible, so don’t think I am throwing the whole thing out, I am throwing the Christianity out because I don’t think it leads to love but rather divisiveness and dislike and distrust of other people. Back to the Bible, I am not willing to follow it as an absolute truth, because realistically, it is a man-made book, that is also full of biases (unless you believe that all homosexuals should be killed Dave). The material I see in it that I think would be beneficial to life and love I will keep and that which I think is not beneficial to living a life of love for others, I will toss.

Kanadjin said...

Andrew,
The only answer I can give you is that I don't know. and as for the Bush stuff, I was only quoting... don't shoot the messenger.

Sarah,
Thank you for sticking with me

The Burdman said...

Actually I was only kidding about that bush stuff. I thought that would be pretty clear. I guess not.

I simply meant the questions as a challenge. If you do perceive the world in this manner, it seems to me quite pointless in and of itself. It seems you have an ideal, but it doesn't have direction. That is the problem with it. How do your actions validate your philosophy? Is the kind of service that you would offer others simply existential, and if so would it be limited to recommending your own ideology?

I don't mean this necessarily as an argument, I am curious for one, and for two I think it is an important question to ask. If your desire is to live a life serving others, it is prudent to figure out how.

Kanadjin said...

I know it doesn't have direction, and I am still working things out, I am fine with its pointlessness, and realise that life is really what we make of it. My "Ideal" life would be one in service though I know I am completely incapable of this at the moment, I am doubtful that I can be a Gandhi, or a mother Teresa, or a Jesus, but I will try to let their philosophies affect my own worldview.

Chris H said...

You mention a number of times that you want to focus on the things that Jesus said about loving others, but you seem to ignore the number of times He refers to Himself as God. How, then, do you reconcile these two topics? If you wish to be a "Christ-follower," then you're going to need to decide whether He's God or not. And, if He is not, then why bother being the "follower" of such a great liar?

Chris H said...

Sarah,
Don't lump all of us into that group. I'm a very rational and intelligent Christian. My faith is not at odds with science, but supported by my interpretation of the evidence, just as yours is supported by your interpretation of the evidence. One of us must be wrong, but we can't know which of us it is yet.

Anonymous said...

how is it that someone 'rational' and 'intelligent' can so completely shut off his brain when it comes to such ludicrous ideas as the sun standing still, talking snakes and donkeys, all sorts of crazy antics put out by the prophets (see elijah for starters), most of what's in the pentateuch... it goes on and on. you must accept these things as reasonable on SOME level to continue to ascribe to your faith with such vehemence... my question is how?! How can you merge your knowledge of science and the real world with such obvious fairy-tales that you are supposed to believe in order to gain 'salvation'? It doesn't make sense.

Chris H said...

Sarah,

This is a simple enough question to answer: my belief in God allows for Him to affect the universe, which would include miracles like you've described. It's not a matter of shutting off a part of my brain at all. Where does an atheist get an explanation for the very real existence of some moral law? Even Dawkins admits there is one, though he cops out and says he doesn't want to get into it. Why is it that we appreciate beauty and justice? Are these things no more than the product of synapses firing in a certain pattern? Atheists have some explaining to do, themselves. And, if they say, "Well, we don't know that yet," then I'm prepared to say the same for how/why miracles happen.
Like I said before, you look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that there is no God. I look at the same evidence and come to the conclusion that there is. It is only a matter of conviction on either side, not knowledge; I can no more produce a jar of God than you can produce a jar of "no God" (I tried to explain that better, but "no God" is all I could come up with. I hope my meaning is clear).

Locations of visitors to this page