Religious riders

Most people with an interest in politics are familiar with the idea of legislative riders, but for those that aren't, they are unrelated laws thrown into a bill. It's a tactic to have an item passed by oversight, or because there is pressure to pass a bill at the time.

I have seen comment, posts and blogs from believers and non-believers alike asking, what's the harm in faith?

I have seen first hand how faith can lead people to kill others. I don't even have to specify the examples I'm thinking of because they are so numerous that anyone reading this can easily think of their own. Even so, it is still a minority of believers who hold views to such an extreme.

In fact you only have to look most likely to your nearest hospital to see the positive impact of believers. I spent most of my highschool spring breaks building homes for the poor in Mexico. I would say these are positive impacts motivated by religious views.

I don't know if those who are religious are more likely to give to the poor, but i know for certain it is commanded in Christianity.

Some will argue that everyone can give regardless of faith, but negating there is at least some connection is foolish. Maybe an individual would give either way, but there is an obvious vehicle and positive impacts are made.

Now, before i go on, i want to mention that the actions of those who are religious speak nothing about their religion, unless it's tied directly to it. If a Christian doesn't know how to do math, it doesnt mean Christianity is false, and if the Bible had a verse saying Christians would know math as a sign of salvation, it would only call into question the individual's belief. But what about commandments of a faith which are not quite so innocuous or charitable in nature?

Numbers 15:32-36 clearly tells the tale of a man who broke the sabbath and was stoned to death for it. Imagine if believers took this to heart as a precedent. They do not though. In fact they overlook most of the Old Testament laws, probably without ever condidering Matt 5: 18.

I have already written about others and i personally think the Bible would be a much more "holy" book without Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Some of the "riders" come from these books. I'm not familiar enough with the Quran to identify the riders there, but look at any woman who has to keep her face covered and you can see they're there.

Not every believer accepts all these riders, but most have at least one or two.

A great example of a religious rider is the pervasive negative view of any type of relationship outside of the monogomous heterosexual. The bible explicitly condemns most (except polygamy which as far as i know, most christians are also against.) Or creationism. Racism. Sexism. Death for apostasy. Bigotry.

This is where it gets ugly. This is where religion goes rogue from loving people unconditionally, or peace, to trying to keep them in a specific role ordained by God.

From an inside perspective of belief, if God prohibits or condones something, a believer should judge, shame and enforce his standard despite the damage it would cause someone, because the greater concern is the aguish it causes God. In fact, shunning someone from a family gathering, for example, for being gay is considered an act of tough love with the aim of breaking them down for reconciliation out of concern for their eternal well being.

From an outside perspective, these all boil down to the worst biases we have in society. And to top it off, they think this is love because it is directly linked to a specific book they believe.

From the outside, these biases, these religious riders, look like hate and discrimination, condoned and commanded by religious texts. I gave only a few examples of "riders" here and primarily from Christianity. Without delving immensely deep, i wonder if it's even possible to remove them all.

This is what makes religion evil and poisonous. Regardless of the good it does, there will always be room for greater evil. These riders sneak in under the guise of faith and "love."

The past actually proves repeatedly that unless we, as a society, make laws to prevent the religious from enacting the more gruesome portions of the Bible, we would still have slavery, witch burnings, segregation... I hear a lot of Christians in the U.S. cite God's law is higher than man's, but it sure doesnt seem that way since the only controversial views held onto are those which don't violate man's law.

I should take a moment here to specify i don't think religion should be outlawed, nor do i think we should start prosecuting for thought crimes. I do think we should continue to progress morally as a society through careful reflection.

The belief in a deity makes no moral act more moral, but in the mind of a believer, it can make the most heinous into a moral imperative.

Post religious stress disorder

Have you ever heard of anyone trying to disprove the Lord of the Rings? Or Game of Thrones? Aesop's Fables?
I have continued to study the Bible and examine it very carefully, but I have started to ask myself why. I have found numerous contradictions and falsehoods, the worst of which is Matthew 11:25. (Jesus literally thanks God for hiding his message.) So why do I continue down this futile path of studying what I know to be inherently false?
The truth is, I see a lot of others who have transitioned beyond religion that do the same thing.
It has been very difficult to move beyond the religion that I accepted as fact for so long. I'm not even sure I could have comprehended what it's like to not think I have someone in on my every thought. I still see things in an in-between state. I still see both sides of the Christian/non-Christian coin. I can have a conversation with a theist and see how they view things. Maybe it's overactive empathy, but I'm more inclined to think it's the years of thinking that way hanging around in my mind like Matthew McConaughey in Dazed and Confused.
This may be the reason why I have continued to study.
I still need to assure myself of what I know. That the religion I once accepted is false.
Transitioning beyond religion is not just a flip of a switch. It's not an on/off situation, it's a quantum state of being both or neither at the same time. I also think it's something most people will not understand.
In general, I think people prefer to have a stance on one side or another and have trouble being anywhere in the middle because it means they don't fit with either side.
That's where a problem lies for me. In my normal everyday life I don't have to justify where I stand on beliefs, but with my family it won't be that way. In fact, I don't really believe any amount of study on my part will change how they will receive this news. I honestly worry that when I tell them, the news will be met with disappointment. Is it strange that as an adult I still fear disappointing my family?
I think a large part of my studies and even in writing this is exploring my position so when this conversation happens I know where I stand.
I'm losing the drive provided by all this post religious stress disorder though. It gives me hope though, that I won't grow into an old man reading the Odyssey, trying to figure out why I ever really believed it in the first place.

The Easter story

I recently received a comment from a believer asking where I found fault with the scripture. I find it in many places which I've written about before but I thought in honor of the coming holiday I would lay out the Easter story as best as possible in chronological order.
Firstly I would like to thank On Things Above... for accepting the my challenge to post a rebuttal which I will link at the end of this post.
Many believers assert the Bible is the infallible word of God. I certainly believed that, but under close examination, it is far from it. The Easter story is a good example of an opportunity to examine a biblical story closely because there are four separate accounts of the same event and time. The question believers need to ask themselves is, can all of them be true? And if they cannot all be true some of them must be false, and if they are false, can they be the word of God?

 

Mark 16

 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 

 

Mary, Mary and Solome apparently bought spices the night before (the Sabbath ends at sunset.) Now Nicodemus had already put a lot of spice on the body earlier and was a sign of respect but maybe these women wanted to show more respect.

 

John 20

1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

 

This seems to be the earliest (chronological to the story) visit to the tomb because it was still dark. It is Mary Magdalene and mentions no other women and no spices. The stone covering the tomb of Jesus is already gone and she runs to report this to Simon Peter and John. She sees no angel or Jesus on the way back and still thinks someone stole the body.

 

Mark 16

2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

 

Back to Mary, Mary and Solome. Notice that it was just after sunrise and Mary Magdalene seems to be talking about who will move the stone when John says she already saw it was removed, but maybe it was her second trip and wasn't convinced of what she saw. Also they see a young man in white saying Jesus has gone ahead to Galilee, but the women say "nothing to anyone." It should be noted that this is the original ending to Mark. The rest of Mark directly violates several verses throughout the Bible which instruct not to add or take away. It leaves you wondering though, why leave off with the women saying nothing? But at least they got to see a guy in white.

 

Matthew 28

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 

 

Here we have Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" (presumed to be Mary mother of James) going to look at the tomb. Maybe they brought the spices too but the author didn't mention it, or come to think of it, Solome. Now the story gets really amped up with an earthquake brought on by an angel with a face like lightning coming down and the women see him roll the stone away. This is contradictory to all previous stories no matter how you try to time it. When the women leave to tell the disciples, Jesus shows up and they worship him. Call me crazy, but if this seems like a pretty significant development from the other two stories. It's the first appearance of Jesus raised from the dead. Why would Mary Magdalene think the body was stolen in John if she saw Jesus alive? And why would they not mention it in Mark? This is also the only story with roman guards.

 

Luke 24

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee:7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then they remembered his words.

9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

 

In this account three women are named and there are others, so more than four. At least they remembered the spices this time. This time we have two men in shiny clothes, but after they leave there's no mention of Jesus before they reach the Eleven. Peter runs to the tomb, seemingly alone, and leaves wondering what happened.

 

John 20

3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) 10 Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.

 

This time Peter and John (presumed) go to the tomb together and John believes.

Matthew 28 skips over this portion on favor of telling what happens with the guards. He makes no mention of any visit to the tomb and moves onto:

 

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

 

Maybe this was not the first time the disciples saw Jesus, but why would it mention that some doubted at that point? It should also be noted that this first recorded appearance is in Galilee.

 

John 20

11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”

Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).

17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

 

Plot twist: Mary Magdalene (aka the original M&M) makes a second trip to the tomb and this time she sees two angels and Jesus. This seems to fix some issues but only brings more questions because this means the disciples went to the tomb before the angels or Jesus appeared here. Do you think M&M brought the spices this time? Were there other women there? Did they have a time machine? Jesus appears to the disciples in Jerusalem. Why did Matthew not mention this? Also the disciples are granted the power to forgive sins by the holy spirit. I'm really not sure how this fits into non-Catholic Christian theology anywhere, but maybe it's just ignorance on my part. As a Christian i believed only the blood of Jesus could forgive sins.

 

Meanwhile, back in Luke 24 Jesus appears to "two of them" on the road near Jerusalem and "they" tell Jesus

 

22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”

 

The women said they did not see Jesus. Maybe these guys heard from M&M after her first trip... but wait, she didn't see angels then. Maybe this fits with Mark's account? No wait, that's not right either, because they saw one angel.

 

The author of Luke 24 goes on to say that Jesus met them in Jerusalem and says:

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

 

Didn't John just say Jesus gave them the holy spirit and they could forgive sins?
John ends with the famous appearance to Thomas.

 

Is it even possible for all of these stories to be true without parallel universes and time machines? If the authors did not have the truth about so many aspects of what is arguably the most important story in the Bible, how can we trust them elsewhere?

In school I heard a rumor that Marilyn Manson had two of his ribs removed. I believed the story and repeated it as true to others. A lot of people believed that rumor. So many that the singer addressed it in his own book. Imagine a time where rumors are much more difficult to verify, and you have to rely on the information given to you by others versus being able to verify it, or discredit it, through multiple ways as we can today.

The Gospels were written several decades (most scholars agree Mark, the earliest written Gospel, was written around 70 A.D.) after these purported events so at best the information came from someone who knew one of these people in the stories, but more likely it is further removed simply because of the years between the Easter events and when they were written. It would be easy for rumors about a man to become legend and reported as fact. The facts which are reported in the gospels. But if they are fact, why are they not factually the same?

I have done my best to lay these out to compare simply the chronological order and there are many, many other issues I haven't even addressed trying to maintain some sort of brevity, but am I wrong?

If you want a different perspective on Biblical thing including this article you can check out the On Things Above... blog here.

Marry your rapist

Deuteronomy 22

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

I have seen this verse many times in arguments against the Bible. As can be imagine there are quite a few articles around the interwebz which aspire to defend this virtuous piece of writing.
The two top results justify this edict as punishment for the rapist.
Seriously.
There are many cultural differences of the time which are crucial to note in regards to this commandment. Girls were regarded very much as property, as they are still in some middle east countries, and as such, if a man wanted to marry her, he had to pay her father. A girl whose virginity was not intact was not worth much because men wanted virgins and it might be that she would spend her life alone and have no man to support her, leading to a very difficult life.
This is where the possible benefit of this passage comes in. The rapist would be forced to care for her since he defiled her. It also helps the father because no matter what happens (even if he does not give the rapist his daughter) he gets his price for his daughter.
There's another matter which is also important to realize and that is the age of brides in that culture. 12 years and 1 day is old enough to marry with your parents permission and 21 was old enough to marry without. A lot of marriages were arranged in biblical times. So an "unbetrothed virgin" is in many cases a fairly young girl.
Perhaps my aversion to pedophile rapists is just a cultural difference, but i cannot honestly think of any culture where this is the optimal solution.
What is really scary to me about this, is that faith overcomes any rational obstacle to this passage being wrong!
I cannot imagine the hell many girls were forced into because of this passage, being subjected to their rapist throughout the rest of their life. As far as it being a punishment for the rapist, unlike one of the articles which jokes she might not be the right girl for him (seriously? Rape jokes?), i have a feeling the rapist being of questionable morality at the time of the incident, might use the opportunity for ongoing sexual gratification at the girls expense. And he, not being a philanthropist exactly, might not be so careful with her physical or mental well being either.
It's a rapist, not a purse thief! It's a complete violation of human dignity, not a prank.
I'm by no means an ISIS sympathizer, but those men believe they are doing what is righteous. How they can commit such heinous crimes is because faith allows them to overcome the obstacles of reason and morality, just like the two articles i referenced earlier. This is why so many in the atheist and agnostic community regard religion as dangerous, because it can lead good men to do terrible things and still feel like they're in the right.
Why couldn't the commandment say she had to sacrifice a sheep and should be considered a virgin from that point?
I understand that there is no perfect solution to rape, but I can't believe that this is the best an omniscient god could come up with which is why I cannot accept that this scripture is from any deity.
It could be that God's ways are well beyond mine and that the real issue is me, but I still don't think this lines up even biblically and it might be scarier if it does. Read Deuteronomy 28 for the prize and price, biblically speaking, of this passage.

Irreducible complexity

I was very much a subscriber to irreducible complexity as a Christian. There are many creatures, appendages, and organs which i could see no logical path for their evolution like the long neck of the giraffe and its small heart-like organs used to keep its blood flowing properly or the bombardier beetle and its explosive concoction of chemicals it uses for defense.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept, irreducible complexity basically a concept that systems could not have evolved because each piece is needed in order for any part to be functional and all parts cannot be functional throughout the evolutionary process meaning it would not be selected for.
I subscribed fully to this idea.
I used to describe it to others like this:
The wing of the bat works great as a whole, but in the evolutionary process it doesn't function and works against its survivability.
Imagine it's a mouse-like critter with long fingers and webbing, at some point it wouldn't yet be a wing and would impede the animals movement and it would reduce its survivability and we would have no bats.
Enter Wallace's flying frog.
It's pretty incredible amphibian that can glide up to 50 ft. And amazingly enough it's in that sweet spot of webbing to wing process. Isn't it crazy that a little further down the evolutionary tree we might have a full fledged flying amphibian?
As you can tell, it's not that a bats wing couldn't evolve, it's just that i lacked the imagination to understand how it might have happened. It probably didn't help i had a pretty strong confirmation bias against it.
Now I don't know if anyone else is using the bat's wing as an argument for irreducible complexity but christian scientists use a lot of other animal features such as the unusual aspects of woodpecker physiology.
In the same way the story I assumed spoke to the concept against evolution, the entire concept is flawed by a lack of imagination.
The truth can be just as strange as the fiction and our search for it shouldn't stop at our lack of evidence for the specifics of the how. Where we don't have evidence lies the starting point for truth, not the end of a path to a deity.

Can God lie?

At one point in time I thought that because God is all powerful that the reason he couldn't lie is because even if he tried to, whatever he spoke or thought would simply come into being anyway. I never thought of God as restrained by time or ability.
But when I started looking for positive proof of God's supernatural interaction with our world, I was forced to ask myself: Can God lie?
Repeatedly in the Bible it is reiterated that God is perfect by nature and cannot lie. As I learned more and more about how the universe works, the reality points to a conclusion which is quite contradictory to the biblical account of creation.
In the Bible God makes everything in six literal days starting at evening. (There are believers who trust the day-age theory, but this is not consistent with the original verbiage.) The seventh 'yom' could be debated though.
We now know that new elements are made inside suns and from their death and, with enough time, that's how we get the elements we need for life as we know it.
We know the geological layers took longer than 6000 years to form because radiometric dating confirms volcanic lava flows much older than this. We know that evolution happens, and not just natural selection of existing traits, but the development of novel ones as well. We know that starlight has traveled more than 6,000 light years to reach earth.
As a believer my initial answer to this was that God made it this way. It's such a simple answer for someone of faith, but it raises a glaring contradiction.
If God made it the universe 6,000 years ago, or even 10,000 or a million years ago, he created it in a way which is deceptive and unnecessary. It would have taken an active decision on God's part to make everything with the kind of age we find. It would mean that if Genesis 1 is truth, then God lies.
This was my biggest problem as a believer. If God lies, what does that say about his nature? If Genesis is not absolute truth, how can we trust that all scripture is the word of God, especially considering Jesus is quoted referencing Genesis?
In order to combat this whole idea, young earth creationists have suggested that radioactive decay rates have not always been the same (no evidence for this when it comes to isotopes used for dating,) that evolution only happens on a "micro" level (without the realization that small changes over time become big changes,) and that starlight travels at, or has traveled faster than light speed or completely deny relativity.
This is how I know the Bible is not truth, because either the biblical story is one of a lying God because Genesis is false, or our universe is a deception created by God and both nullify the entire biblical story.

Does God suffer from self loathing?

Proverbs 6

16 There are six things the Lord hates,
    seven that are detestable to him:
17         haughty eyes,
        a lying tongue,
        hands that shed innocent blood,
18         a heart that devises wicked schemes,
        feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19         a false witness who pours out lies
        and a person who stirs up conflict in the   community.

 

There is a lot of contradictions throughout the Bible which lead me from doubting my religion to the truth that is wholly false. This one didn't come to mind until recent studies though. In these verses I can think of two which are easily verified within the text of the Bible and I'm sure I could find more with little effort.

 

Matthew 10

 

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 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—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

 

Jesus says here he is creating conflicts even within households, the basis of community. In the word's of God as man (as told by the Bible,) he creates conflict. Is God mad at Jesus (himself?) for saying this or causing it?
As a believer I honestly would explain away such conflicts through a mask of interpretation and faith. Without even mentioning all the conflict God himself (again, as told by the Bible,) orders the tribes of Israel to enter into. If God really hates conflict then Israel should be known for its diplomacy!
The other one that really stands out to me is the "hands that shed innocent blood."
Biblically I think it's pretty easy to say no one is "innocent" since all have "fallen short," but I think most would agree babies would be considered innocent for the purposes of this verse.
Did God forget about the Passover event at this point? According to the Bible, God comes through Egypt and kills all firstborn of man and animals. How can a righteous God justify this massacre? God is omnipotent but he cant change pharaoh's mind without senseless slaughter?
Over and over again I see opportunities for the God of the Bible to be better. In fact, I'm sure a team of writers today could have come up with a more cohesive and compelling story. In all fairness, it's hard to collaborate with authors separated by so much time.
An omnipotent God can do, or will, anything, but does he spend his eternity in self loathing because even he does the things that he hates? Or maybe when he orchestrated the plot to shed the blood of the only "innocent man," he forgave himself as well?
I find it very interesting to be so close to faith that I can really see how absurd it becomes with a little reason. What do I expect from a fairytale though?

If creation story is false, can Bible be true?

The Pope announced that evolution and the big bang are fact and that God is not a wizard.
I think it's pretty interesting I haven't seen much ado about it since the week the story broke in the news. Is that because Catholics in general had already conceded that the creation story was false?
Seriously? Did he even consider the implications of it? It negates biblical faith. Period.
If there is no first man to create original sin, then what is the whole story about? Why would God need to send his son to die for us if we are just the way he created us, through evolution, to be. It means God created us all bound for hell and it wasn't the result of Adam and Eve's disobedience.
That doesn't jive with the Biblical story at all. In fact it's completely opposite (with the exception of a few passages which say God created people for hell, deceived them or gave them bad laws.)
Luke 3:23-38 lists the genealogy from Jesus to God through Adam. Does the Pope consider that false as well?
It's not as if Adam and Eve are confined to the creation account. They are mentioned and referenced throughout the bible.
If other authors of the Bible believed their story to be true, could they possibly have been inspired by God?
This is exactly how I came to a position of unbelief.
Part of me thinks this could spur a division in the catholic church and even an exodus from the faith. This may open the eyes of many that while existence itself is an argument for god, it does not necessitate the God of the Bible.
I have my doubts about that happening though. So much can be justified through interpretation and faith that those that believe can make up the gaps themselves to fabricate a cohesive vision of a Bible that is still "God breathed."
That's why it's so hard to break the circular reasoning of the Bible verifying the Bible through the interpretation of the reader.
For me it took overwhelming evidence to break free of it. The creation story proving false, or at best a lie, started me down a path of discovery of truth, but it was only the beginning. As people become better informed, less will believe in the superstitions of past civilizations, because they will be knowledgeable enough. I could have known all this during high school if I hadn't believed the lies of prominent creationists at the time.
I have to applaud Pope Francis for recognizing truth, even if just partially, in spite of theology. I know how tough that battle is, trying to reconcile reality with faith. The two will always be at odds.
Our imaginations are capable of nearly anything. It brings us to such wondrous heights and such ugly depths. It is egregious by both definitions. 
The Bible and evolution in the end are not compatible, regardless of the theological gymnastics of the imaginative mind. So if one is true, the other is false.

The scientific conspiracy

When I was a believer, I had a strong tendency to shrug off new scientific data contrary to my beliefs. I honestly thought there was a conspiracy to disprove God through their findings because they were mad at God, didnt want to believe, or so they could do whatever they wanted without consequence.
When I started to study the science of evolution, it was really an attempt to pick it apart and find the fingerprints of God in creation. I would often see the unexplained as "God" and so it didnt need to be explained for me. My faith overcame evidence consistently with the biblical stories of creation and the flood.
There are a lot of convincing arguments on christian sites such as answersingenesis.org, and all you need is a little faith to make them feel true.
There are a lot of terms specific to christian scientists that help distinguish false secular science from science based on truth, terms like microevolution and macroevolution, historical and observational science.
These terms werent exactly helpful in my search for God, because they truly cloud up matters which are relatively simple.
For example, what they label as macroevolution is actually a whole lot of "microevolution," and all of it is just evolution. Of course there was a time when all evolution was considered false, but they changed theories with mounting evidence and invented terms.
As for historical and observational science? These are ridiculous terms.
But they sounded so good when I had faith to make them true, but when you get the rest of the story, its all baseless assertions and accusations.
I really missed quite a big observation though in my effort to deny reality in favor of the fantastical. The group of people I thought was conspiring against my faith is made up of geologists, paleontologists, astronomers, and many other scientific disciplines. Interestingly enough, the people who should have the most access to the "fingerprints of God" as I imagined they would be in nature, are made up primarily of people who do not believe the biblical story. I always thought that being in the presence of God always changed people, why did I not stop to wonder why I thought this group of people would deny God if they had physical emperical proof of everlasting life?
Interestingly enough there's quite a different group who conversely have much more collective faith than the educated.
In July of 2013, of prison inmates who chose to disclose their religious preference,  only 0.07% were atheist.
What does that say about those who believe and do not? Why is it that the people who should know for certain God's existence, if there is evidence for it,  do not believe? Is it possible that some people believe the Bible so they can do what they want without consequence?
Im careful not to read too far into this because if everyone in the world believed, it would still be false, even if I was the only one that realized it. I dont base my rejection of faith on what's popular or not it is based solely on the evidence which speaks directly to religion being the flawed creation of man, and not the perfect story of God. I also know the Christian answer to this: It's not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.  The Bible is so clever in some of it's writings.
Im glad I am able to see the information with some objectivity and realize it is not scientists who have the agenda, but scientists who have to specify the religion they support who have a plan to deny reality, whether in ignorance or not.
There is an epidemic of invisible, undetectable, miniature, three-legged donkeys, which pop into existence with the birth of each child. They live off socks but are concerned with their weight so only eat them one at a time and they think live in washing machines. The evidence is overwhelming that they exist because there always seems to be one sock missing. Can you prove these creatures dont exist? You can prove my evidence is false, but you cant prove the creatures dont exist.
This is how "christian science" works. There is already a presuposition of God and so only the evidence which supports that is accepted, the rest is considered untrue, ficticious,  or tainted, and furthermore cannot be refuted because you can not disprove God exists.
With faith, God did it, is an acceptable answer, but what does the evidence really say?
There is a conspiracy, but the truth is out there.

Creating religion

"If I wrote a book and ran around and called it the truth, I'm sure I could get a few followers. Especially if I had a sword."
This is something a Christian told me in a conversation about religions. In my mind I thought "Exactly."
There are a lot of religions in this world and I'm sure there will be many more to come.
One reason I bring this up is because it was a little confusing to me how Christianity was started in the first place. Why would so many people follow it if it wasn't true to start with?
If the disciples weren't certain of Jesus' resurrection why would they continue to preach it until death?
If I had literally seen the events purported in the Easter story, I would have done the same thing, but there are some clues that the disciples might not have ever seen such events.
Mark, which is widely held to be the gospel written first, contains something in the Easter story which is curious to me. The women left the tomb and "told no one" of the empty tomb.
This phrase seems out of place to me. Why would they be afraid at the most triumphant moment of the man they had been following for so long?
I have a hunch this phrase is here for another reason: to explain why no one heard about this event at least until Pentecost.
Even if I'm wrong, it still doesn't address the differences in the Easter stories between gospels or why the tomb wasn't preserved by early Christians. Why tell people that Jesus has been raised when you could just show them an empty tomb? It wouldn't prove the resurrection, but it sures seems suspect that it wasn't preserved.
Could the story be a later fabrication to continue in a radicals teachings? Would the disciples continue to preach the gospel until death if it was false? The short answer is YES!
Enter Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church.
Joseph Smith met with an angel, got some new texts written on golden plates which were omitted from the Bible by generations past. He gave a lot of details about these plates and wasn't the only one who claimed to have seen them. His mom even vouched for him and there's no way I could get my mom to do that for me if she knew I was lying!
Joseph Smith is said to be a martyr be his church and despite having a mob which would have seemingly delighted in his recanting of his faith, that is not the story which has been passed down to us, especially through the Mormon church.
Does that mean the faith Mormon church is also "true?"
We have the same evidences as the disciples, only much more recent. We have a few people who claimed to witness something miraculous and even died continuing to preach it.
I, as a christian, would have rejected it immediately because it isn't the truth that Jesus taught, or archaeologically verifiable.
That isn't even the only modern sect which has similar claims. The motivation to present these lies as truth must be admittedly elsewhere then. I cant claim to know what it was for the apostles, but there may be a very heinous answer to that in Acts 5:1-11.
In this story a husband and wife sell land they owned and brought money to the apostles, but kept "some", no amount or percentage is specified, for themselves. The both fall dead for "lying to God." It says that the rest of the church was afraid when they heard what happened.
The context of this story is about the early church sharing everything so no one was in need. Interpretations here vary quite a bit as to what actually occurred, but I think that it's glaringly obvious that the goal was that believers should give their all to the church without holding back even "some."
It's a motivation well mirrored in the creation of the modern religion of Scientology.
L. Ron Hubbard has been quoted by several people as saying religion is where the real money is. Unfortunately we don't have a recording of his actual words and accounts as to the actual phrase vary so maybe he didn't say it at all, but the religion he started seems to fully support this mind set.
Everything costs money to be a higher "level." There are a lot of things in Christian churches that costs money, but at least the forgiveness of sins is free and what does cost money is optional (other than the tithe which I would argue those of faith give freely rather being required to pay.)
There are many devout Scientologist even though the religion's founder was a science fiction writer prior to his founding of Scientology.
Shedding the shackles of faith has not been easy for me. Even though I can prove portions of the Bible false, still many questions have lingered at the back of my mind that must be answered carefully in order to be sure of the truth. I have to be sure that I have not been mislead in some way by ignoring an imperfect story that truly is from God. Having modern instances of the creation of religion and how quickly they can grow with only a few devout believers definitely helps to provide some possibilities as well as discounting the evidence which once seemed so sure.
The Biblical continues to fall apart piece by piece under scrutiny. It fits the entire biblical story better for each portion to be legend sprinkled with some truth, than the most crucial story being the ultimate truth.

I still want to believe

One thing that is very difficult for me to explain or understand is that I still want to believe.
I would be willing to bet there are quite a few out there like myself in that respect. Even though I no longer believe, it doesn't mean I've stopped studying the Bible or looking for solid answers to questions I have.
The problem I repeatedly run into with the Bible is that at every turn there is some discrepancy. It is truly why I remain an unbeliever. Because the Bible proves false consistently.
Like I said though, it hasn't stopped me from searching its text. I'm sure some will see this as a longing for "the truth," but it's more like re-examining the scene of the crime.
Some of why I feel the need to continue to study is that I know I will get a lot of questions from my family and I need to be prepared to provide answers and I have never liked the answer of "I don't know." I do have to be comfortable with that answer sometimes though.
As a Christian I often looked at gaps in science with a mentality of "God did it" and I would just be amazed without wondering further on the how of it. I would be satisfied with not knowing because, to me, it was just another instance of a miraculous God.
It shouldn't surprise me that I still feel that way in some instances.
I have a hard time imagining an eternal universe and the evidence of the big bang seems to imply ours had a beginning, especially considering the universe is accelerating in it's expansion. Will the universe ever collapse? Or is it doomed to fan out until there's no way to observe its expanse? If it doesn't collapse will there be an end? Or will it just fizzle out like a bag of pop rocks in my mouth, losing its energy and slowly becoming black?
These type of questions lead me back to a place where I wonder, is there a God?
Lawrence Krauss has some very interesting talks about just this subject. It's all very compelling in the context of a theory supported by phenomena which cannot be observed directly. Sadly it's still more solid than the theory God did it according to Genesis 1:1 considering there is some evidence. But still the thought occurs to me, is God possible? Is it just an idea in my mind? Could the big bang have been caused by an external omniscient force?
I have to admit there's so many more possibilities than probabilities and honestly, with our limited scope of intelligence, an omniscient being may not be all that great in the end. Assuming something even close to what I imagine could exist, in the end God could be a lot more like the great and powerful Oz.
It's all conjecture coming from the mind of a dreamer. The last artifact of the faith taking its time to dissipate, like fog on an autumn morning in the forest.
Like i said, I still want to believe. Not in the biblical story, but in forever. Wanting something to be true, though, has no bearing on its actual merit.

Could another religion be true?

One question my wife asked me was if I thought I would find a new religion.
I think I can categorically answer that with a no. Although I'm not familiar with every religion, I can say I'm no longer comfortable with the premise of it.
Throughout the Bible there are many miraculous signs which would easily point to some other worldly power being in play. One of my favorites as a kid was when Elijah faced off against the prophets of Baal and called down fire from heaven. Such signs and miracles happen repeatedly throughout the Bible, God seemed to be especially eager in the old testament to prove he was above all other gods, but I have yet to see anything close during my lifetime.
Jesus performed quite a few miracles in front of the disciples that would make me never doubt, such as calming the storm. That's no cheap parlor trick. How on earth could the disciples ever doubt Jesus had supernatural backing after that?
The fact that the Bible says they ever doubted again indicates to me this is just a story. A man whom they saw heal the sick, feed the multitude with a few fish, and made a tree wither for not bearing fruit would be pretty convincing even in today's world of extreme magicians, but calming a storm that's something beyond anyone's capability.
I have to say, that it would be quite convincing to see someone calm a storm. I would be astonished beyond reason.
Once I realized that the Bible was not absolute truth, my eyes were opened to quite a few things I didn't realize before. As a Christian I looked at other religions as spiritual warfare with God's kingdom. Angels and demons all over the place influencing us for each side.
Religions are the concoctions of mankind originating from myths and fables. I've been fooled once and I don't intend to be again.
The thought has crossed my mind that maybe there is a spiritual realm and it is just beyond our abilities to observe it. Maybe its something akin to intuition where we know it exists but cant quite put our finger on it. It's kind of like dark matter in that respect, except with dark matter we have evidence it exists, even though we cant directly observe it.
I believed spiritual influence should fit perfectly into this category. Even if we couldn't observe God directly, it would be nice to at least see his unexplainable influence, it would even lead scientific minded down a road of evidence to God.
This is exactly what I expected to find when my transition started. I expected to find God's unexplainable influence everywhere.
I had been told it was here and assumed it was true, but it didn't take too long to unravel everything I knew considering how long I had spent weaving my own story of the universe along with just the right (mis)information.
The God of the Bible went to great lengths to show he was God, if that story was more than words on a paper, we should see it's continuation today. Even if only by a select few with a mustard seed's worth of faith.
Maybe most religions are making an attempt at describing this intangible but real thing, like the Greeks trying to explain natural occurrences by assigning them gods. But I have a feeling a larger majority are created by people with much less benign intentions. I would suspect most come as a result of men who seek profit and power, and are perpetuated by those who truly believe.
So forgive me if I don't run out to pick up a new holy book.
Not one of them can provide any evidence which would speak to a creator which intervenes in miraculous ways on a consistent basis. Not one.
Some would be quick to say that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and I would agree. Perhaps there is a supreme being that started it all, but unless he puts credible evidence into existence, I'll simply consider it a distant possibility.

Do what I want without consequence

One thing that has surprised me on this side of my transition is that many times when people find out I'm no longer a Christian, they think it has something to do with justification of my own actions so I wont have to think about eternal consequences.
I still get comments that I'm angry with God or disappointed in him somehow, which is certainly not the case, though. I would have to believe in a biblical God to feel something toward him. It would be like stubbing my toe on the couch leg and being angry at the couch, except I'm imagining the couch, and maybe my toe. 

My life is going pretty well I think and I'm genuinely happy, so for me that's enough to prove those aren't the causes. So, what is it that others imagine I am doing in my life, which is so important to me, that it would cause me to profess unbelief in order to "get away" with it? Do they think I eat babies in my free time? I certainly wouldn't have forsaken God so I could be more comfortable telling white lies or so I could think inappropriate thoughts, because it can all be forgiven, so I have to assume they imagine a my life as filled with sin and no remorse, and not your regular run of the mill type sin.
I'm not even sure I want to imagine all the possibilities.

In reality what has changed most in my life is that it freed up a lot of time I was spending in church or preparing for church events. It seems like I still do quite a bit of studying to be sure, but I'm no longer proselytizing.

I haven't turned to drugs or alcohol. I haven't murdered anyone, robbed a bank, or picked up any prostitutes.

As a Christian I always thought I would go off the rails without a biblical compass. I imagined I would spiral out of control with debauchery and that may be what others think, but I think the question stems from elsewhere.

First, I think that as a Christian I only understood morality from the Bible. I could always look to the Bible to provide me with some sort of answer on almost anything with the right interpretation. But that made it difficult to understand morality on a multidimensional plane. Not only that, it made it easier for me to tell myself others were running from God. After all, if they really didn't believe in God, why didn't they just go crazy in self indulgence? I really thought without eternal consequences, there wasn't much reason to not do whatever you wanted. 

This isn't how it really works though. I have a lot of responsibilities and I work hard to live up to my own expectations of who I should be.

I think the thoughts also come from a need for Christians to justify how I could leave the faith.

It's truly difficult to accept something outside of your frame of reference. I didn't understand someone who simply didn't believe in God because my thoughts were filled with a Biblical understanding of everything around me. It was only when the evidence was overwhelming that I could realize I was wrong, and that maybe this whole universe is a happy accident (in artistic terms here.) I still don't know the answer to that big question, but asserting an answer on it doesn't make it so.

In the end, I think it's unfair for people to put these assumptions on me, but I understand why.

They refuse to believe I could be right. If I left solely because the evidence speaks opposite of what I once believed, it means there is good reason to doubt the basis of their life. 

I think it's fair to stand your ground on faith as it permeates your life, I was once there and I thought all these things about others, either to defend my position or convince myself there was no reasonable evidence to the contrary of my belief. 

It worked, until my eyes were opened through real world evidence. But maybe I have been fooled and maybe this idea comes directly from the Bible.

II Thessalonians 2

11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Well, I don't think I "delight in wickedness", but now that I've brought the verse up I would like to say that being persuaded by an omnipotent being of a lie so I can be condemned for eternity really doesn't seem fair, just or righteous by any moral standard. At least the verse may explain why I get this question.

I try my best not to put my own ideas of motivation on others and situations like these are a good reminder to myself to be a good listener. Knowing someone is always more worth while than thinking I know them through assumptions.

Presuppositions

Ever since I began this religious transition I have had more doubt than I ever did as a Christian. 
In a conversation I had with someone I respect, they brought up the fact that I may be wrong and he mentioned presuppositions.
I was not familiar with the term before so I had to look it up, and it basically means stuff you assume to be true which supports other stuff.
I initially took this to mean that maybe my new found knowledge could be assumptions. I spent some time really thinking that over. Did I miss something? Is there some key evidence that the scientific community is overlooking? Are we only making assumptions about how the universe came to be with the big bang or life with evolution? The answer is yes I think. There's quite a hump from atoms becoming self replicating molecules, to the complex form of life we know and even though there's an awful lot of evidence to support that idea...
What if I'm wrong?
He wasn't even asking the question. Pascal just ninja'd his way into my brain. In Christian terms you could say I'm not firm in the unfaith. His real interest was primarily in how I came to the conclusion.
Our conversation left me thinking back through everything I had learned and ruminating on each point. I believe the Bible to be untrue because the evidence of reality speaks directly against it. If parts of it are untrue, how can I trust any part is true which cannot be directly verified?
A good example of this conundrum is Noah's ark.
I heard someone say the other day that they wished we could find a huge boat on a mountain matching the biblical description, so we could finally lay to rest that the flood story was fact. It would be very difficult to explain how a giant wooden boat made it to the top of a mountain, but it still wouldn't explain why we don't see the results of a global flood in geological layer. While the find would be quite curious, what if we never find this mythical boat? Does it disprove the story? NO!
You cannot prove something doesn't exist. Only proof can be offered for that which does exist. It's incredibly convenient to believe in nearly anything in that respect. I can assert that I believe in purple butterfly-winged unicorns as rulers of the universe and no one can offer proof it doesn't exist, but it only exists in my mind.
Even though my mind went through all this, the presupposition which he thought I might have been making incorrectly was that, as a Christian, I assumed the Bible was absolute truth.
What if the Bible is just a love story from God to us, written by the imperfect instrument of man?
I know it may sound silly, but I considered, is the Bible partially untrue in order to tell the greatest truth of all?
Faith is still not far off for me. I needed to consider this further. It made me consider again: what if I was wrong?
It lead me to the thinking of why would God allow so many lies to tell his ultimate story? Why would Jesus break bread on the Passover if it never happened. Why would Jesus be the true completion to a complete lie? I simply cannot reconcile the idea to what and who I thought God was. I thought of him as greater than the men who wrote his words in such a way that he could inspire them to write absolute truth. If God cannot overcome man's imperfection to write his story down, how can he have the power to make them perfect through the death of Jesus?
There it goes again. My presupposition that I have any clue about God and his power.
I should know something about God from all the time I spent believing in, trusting, and studying him.
I still find the idea of using a well orchestrated lie to tell the truth. I think it's the ultimate goal of every story teller, and if God is the ultimate story teller...
It is a very interesting concept though, one I'm sure will be running through my mind for quite some time, but in the end, the idea contradicts the evidence in the Bible, so I come full circle to the same belief that the biblical story can safely be put back in the category of mythology. Ultimately faith presupposes faith and therein lies the problem.
Part of this religious transition is learning about me and how I react to situations and questions. I know a lot more of these will arise as time goes by and I have to realize that I do have artifacts from my faith in my psyche which leave me with a desire to believe despite the evidence to the contrary.
I want to believe because I like the idea, but if I'm wrong, as I have been in the past, "believing" in order to gain what the biblical story offers in eternal life and salvation just in case, is not what the God I knew ultimately wants and if he does exist, he didn't build the case for my faith sufficiently to have true faith.

Blind faith

Many times I see Christians think that a believing evolution requires blind faith. I've read and heard over and over that evolution is just a theory or less and Pascal's wager weighed heavily on me throughout my transition beyond faith.
I need to constantly reevaluate what I know because I have been wrong in the past. I cant settle for the knowledge I have because I may be wrong, I have been before.
So, is my faith now in science? Or the scientists?
First, it's important to note that faith is a belief not based on proof or evidence. I can say with certainty I do not have faith in science. I analyze the evidence presented by it and make the best judgment from there.
One thing I know is that mankind is a prideful species and every scientist lives for a big discovery. If one scientist can prove another wrong they will gladly do so. Would it be easy to prove evolution false? No. There is mountains of evidence supporting it. The theory is so solid at this point it would take a lot to disprove it. One giant leap in the right direction to put some doubt in the theory and give the flood story a little more credence is if any fossil ever were found out of order in the geological layers.
I believed as a young earth creationist that the flood was fact and that it was the primary cause of the layers we see in the earth today. The flood story offers a lot of explanations to what we see around us when limiting earth to a 6,000 year time scale (aside from the god of the gaps idea.)
There's one huge glaring problem though. In a flood the water moves everything chaotically. If the flood was truth, we would still find tons of fossils, but they would be mixed up, as if there was no order to how life evolved. We would find mammals  prior to the Triassic period and some dinosaurs in the most recent of rock deposits. We don't find that in reality. If we could separate the geological layers like sheets of paper we could watch evolution occur like a flip book.
Even for animals as unique as the platypus we can view its evolutionary progress.
By the flood account, this is not possible unless God purposely made it that way, in which case it is a lie fabricated by God to lead people away from the Bible, which is contrary to everything I believed about God.
When I was studying through all this information,  I wanted to believe the creation story. I tried my best to reconcile what I believed with reality, but it just didn't match up.
Another big thing I learned during the process of learning about the origins of life as we know it is that evolution is a theory, but not as Christian leaders taught it. Evolution is a theory the same as gravity, planetary movement, or the expanding universe are theories. Gravity exists, you feel it's forces constantly, and not believing in it doesn't make it untrue.
I remember once in high school I was talking to another student about God and she said to me that her faith was that whatever you believed was true to you. I asked if she believed the chair she was sitting on was there, and she replied in the affirmative. I then asked, if I didn't believe in the chair would it cease to exist. She replied in the negative of course. I said it's the same with God and she said just because I believed, doesn't mean he exists.
Pascal's wager basically boils down to the idea that belief in God is better than non-belief because there is a lot more to gain in faith.
I love the idea that I could live forever. It is a wonderful thought that I could have eternity, but I cannot believe in God because I like the idea, and it doesn't make it true just because people believe.
I was in prayer constantly over everything in my life and it was easy to find a correlation with real world events. I didn't understand that I was creating an enormous probability that would be true. It all seemed real until I heard about an experiment with pigeons who developed their own "prayers" to get food.
I was doing the same thing as these pigeons. It just seems like God is there because I'm connecting the dots I created in the first place.
Over a long enough time scale you a correlation can be found between lots of entirely unrelated events, but it doesn't prove they're related.
So how can I be sure that evolution isn't just that, a correlation of unrelated events over time? The evidence. Evolution is reinforced constantly through DNA, dating methods, and fossil evidence.
My views on evolution are based on anything but faith. It's all based on evidence.
The fallacy here is in not knowing that all faith is blind. By definition it does not need proof. But believing, unfortunately, does not make it so.

What about my kids?

One thing I have contemplated a lot since my religious transition is how I will raise my children.
I had always imagined that my children would be raised as members of the Christian community and a big part of that would be my immediate family and their influence.
Before I had kids I would imagine us being late for church because it took my wife too long to get ready, and as soon as it was time for Sunday school you'd see how fast they could really run. I based these ideas off of my upbringing.
Church was such a necessity that even on vacation, it was part of the planning process to figure out where we would go to church.
Especially when I first realized the Biblical story was untrue I wondered how would I teach my kids morality. I considered continuing to bring them to church because I didn't understand morality without God. I didn't think there could be a standard of morality without God. And I was partially right.
Even within the Bible the standard fluctuates from person to person based on their knowledge and faith. For non-believers the standard ranges even more wildly, though.
How am I supposed to teach my children solid morality?
I still think the golden rule applies to everyone and is quite useful. Treat others as you would have them treat you, but this does not apply to every situation. To begin with, you must have a sense of responsibility in order to be treated fairly. If a thief comes to your home, do they deserve to be treated as you would treat yourself? The answer is simple, no. They have forfeit their sense of responsibility for their own sense of entitlement. They think they are entitled to what you have for whatever reason they have come up with to justify their actions.
I feel like most situations can be viewed this way outside of the Bible's version of morality.
I think it boils down to the simple concept of responsibility toward humanity vs. a sense of entitlement from it.
The biblical version of morality covers everything with a little bit of faith, but definitely defies what I see as right because it views God as entitled to all of humanity so whatever is written in his name goes. God even has guidelines for what you can think.
There are a lot of things the Bible says not to do that no one fights, so let me bring up an example that Christians fight hard on that falls outside my standard: homosexuality.
This has been the biggest fight for equal rights since Martin Luther King Jr. was around and there were a lot of Christians on the wrong side of that moral battle. Now most Christians would say everyone is God's creation whether they're black, yellow, red or white. (No offense, it comes from a Christian children's song.)
I wonder what Christians will say 50 years down the road now. I suspect that they will say homosexuality is fine. It's what happened with slavery and segregation.
These are all pretty good examples where entitlements outweighed responsibilities.
The Bible does not approve of homosexuality to clear that up for anyone who does not know, but does it present a truly moral obligation against it? I assume the obligation comes from the fact that same-sex relationships at the time didn't allow for children in a society where having a legacy to leave behind was pretty important.
The fight in the U.S. now is Christians want homosexuals to know they don't approve of their lifestyle by denying them a piece of paper and some tax benefits.  The truth is it doesn't change the way people will live, it only makes them feel like lesser people in the eyes of others. Sometimes people perceive others to think of them as less when it's not true, but in this case, it is exactly that which is happening.
I don't want my children to view others as less because of personal choices which have no effect on their lives.
Should anyone who's favorite color is green be ostracized? Perhaps if you're favorite flavor is strawberry you should be extradited immediately. Even more gravely, a farmer who uses crop rotation, anyone who wears clothes of more than one fabric, if you cut the sides of your hair, if you like your steak any way except well done, and if you don't stand in the presence of old people, you are in danger of the fires of hell. That's not all either. If you don't like immigration,  hell. Homeschooling mom with male children, hell. Seriously, this goes on and on and on, and Christians chalk up these rules to cultural relevance.
These personal preferences have no effect on another person's happiness unless they take they choices as an affront to themselves personally and who's fault is that? I have to admit, I don't like making other people feel bad and I do feel guilt over it at times, but its my problem for feeling guilty when I shouldn't.
Homosexuals aren't gay because you do or don't want them to be, its a part of who they are. Is it fair for anyone to force them to be disallowed their own responsibility for who they are?
The Bible does not allow for this view of morality.
I want my children to be leaders in a society that looks at humanity for the dignity and liberty it could have and moves toward more freedoms through responsibility.
My children are entitled to my love. It is my responsibility to give it to them and through that simple idea, I hope I can give them everything they need to succeed morally in life on their own terms.
But what if they believe in religion despite everything I know and pass on to them?
My children are their own people. Even though they are small now and I can make nearly every decision for them, it wont always be that way.
I can absolutely accept they may believe in religion down the road. I believed it once and had faith. I know that faith is a very small leap when you have truth, or at the very least good ideals, mixed with unverifiable statements, or even lies. Most importantly I would still love them, but I would also hope they didn't lose their sense of humanity, empathy and responsibility.

What I believe

I've talked quite a bit about different aspects of my religious transition, but I haven't talked to much about how it has changed how I think.
Over a year and a half I transitioned from a young earth creationist to.... something.
I don't really know about a lot of things. I wouldn't consider myself truly atheist, because I just don't know. I can prove the biblical story false on many fronts, but does that mean there is no God or spiritual aspect to life?
I wish I had direct answers to those questions, but I don't know.
It may be an artifact of my Christian beliefs, but I feel like existence itself may be evidence for God. I know it leads down a road of circular reasoning, but what is the cause? Even the big bang is a reaction. Hawking said time didn't exist before it, but I would disagree based on pure logic. Something happened, and if something is happening there is an element of time, and our universe came into being. So I wont discount there could be a God. (Every pure atheist is shaking their head asking what caused God right now.)
I believe my mind is my own, it's a private space that belongs only to me and I can share or keep secret whatever I like.
I have this one life to live, and even though I wish there was an eternity on the other side of it, I see no evidence for that, so I have to do the best I can with what I have.
As a Christian I took a lot of comfort in thinking I would have eternity to explore every crevice of the universe. I thought eternity with God would be awesome. I imagined millennia to spend learning everything I could possibly be interested.in. Now I have to learn and grow while I can and use my time wisely.
I have an obligation to treat others fairly and be respectful of their happiness.
The constitution of the U.S. was written for people who have a sense of responsibility, not a sense of entitlement. People with a feeling they are owed something mess up rules that work by taking advantage of the system. I cannot decide for other people what will make them happy, we are not all the same, but I can support others being happy as I would hope they would support my happiness. I cannot make decisions for people based on a set of rules governed by the authors of the book of the Bible.
I'm still on this journey and now that I'm not basing my opinions on the Bible, everything is fluid and changing on a consistent basis. Its wonderful to know I have the freedom to make up my own mind what works for me.
Having a Biblical standard works if you pick and choose, but following it in it's entirety?
I Timothy 2:9

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,

Go to a church and see how many women have gold or pearls, but homosexuality is an abomination. The truth is all Christians pick and choose and apply a few catch-alls to what doesn't work. Like Galatians 5:18 or I Corinthians 8 or simply citing the blessing of grace. I've used these same verses in my life, but the Bible can be used to argue against itself all day long. It's not the single cohesive work that I once believed it to be.
According to this article, God gives everyone enough rope to hang themselves in the pages of the Bible. What, in all the universe, is fair about that? God wants us to willfully ignore the contradictions in order to be saved?
There are a lot of excuses to explain these contradictions, but even the excuses tend to lead to contradiction. If all scripture is God breathed, does that mean he's points people in the wrong direction if they study too hard? I know the "Christian answer" here is that it's only me causing the contradictions and not all contradictions can be taken at face value because context must be taken into consideration but it still doesn't account for all.
My standard is looking out for my fellow humans with regard for their ability to be happy.
Who am I to make the rules for how someone else lives? As a Christian I thought that standard was set by God and was cut and dry, but life is not so simple. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of excellent lessons in the words of the Bible, but there are in any good story. If the Bible was 100 percent perfect and never contradicted itself, I would still believe in that standard as the word of God, but it does not stand up to that kind of scrutiny.
Even as I write this, I know my words do not perfectly explain every aspect of what I mean, but I will continue to flesh it all out in further posts as I don't think anyone has the time or desire to read a book of a post on that in one sitting.
I can also be wrong. As a Christian there was only one way and my biggest concern was always: does a person accept Christ as their savior? It was that exact thinking that lead me down this road.
Now that I'm beyond that, I have the freedom to view things through my own eyes, evaluate and re-evaluate them. Being wrong is okay. There are more lessons to be learned from mistakes than successes and I'm free to learn, change and grow as a member of humanity and not be a "slave to the law" as the Bible puts it.

The right to life... and death

Whenever i get on a plane, one of the first things i check is how far i am from the exit doors. I dont do this in case of water landings though. Im mapping out in my mind a what-if scenario where the plane encounters a catastrophic problem where i know a crash is imminent. I know the whole scenario is far fetched, but if the situation were to occur, my plan is to go out one of those doors. I would rather go out with one last thrill of my own choosing than hit the ground in a burning tin can with everyone else. I can imagine the investigation later wondering why this one passenger ended up a mile away from the rest of the wreckage. I dont think it would take too long for them to figure out that I decided on my last flight pattern myself.

Brittany Maynard ended her life recently. It stirred up a whole slew of reactions, good and bad, the internet over.

Because of my recent religious transition, I became very interested in the views of religious people concerning this specific matter because it shows a lot about how they view and relate to the world.

Maynard became the voice of a movement to die with dignity in the face of terminal illness.

For anyone who doesn't know, Death with Dignity laws allow mentally competent, terminally-ill adults to voluntarily request and receive a prescription medication to hasten their death. I would encourage anyone to read up on the process so you can see it's not a hasty one in comparison with the timeline one may have to take advantage of it.

I saw a whole lot of posts about this describing Maynard's actions as cowardly and suicide, but I have to disagree.

Death is scary for anyone, even Christians aim to preserve their own life. If someone has a terminal illness, I cannot judge whether they are brave for seeing it through to the last day, a coward for not, or a coward for ending their life early or brave for taking control of a terrible situation. I would say I cannot possess the knowledge of what fears are running through their mind and I think, out of human respect, that individual should be given the benefit of the doubt for whatever attitude seems better.

Why did so many feel that what Maynard did was so wrong? Why is it that so many people thought their opinion on her actions were more valid than Maynard's and that she should have suffered to the bitter end?

Maynard's personal choice has very little direct effect on me right now. I didn't know her or her family personally. I doubt I would have met her in these last few months of her life. I can't think of a reason to mourn her passing in light of the fact that it happened how she wanted in light of the circumstances, and to top it off, she made an impact in a cause she believed in. Part of me wonders, if she was completely made up, would people feel silly for the way they've acted. For all I know, she could have been and her story would have no less effect on me.

A lot of Christians would say she took away the opportunity for a miracle in her life. Many called her actions suicide, and to be fair, that is what she did. She killed herself, but not in the way we normally think of suicide, an action of peril done alone as a result of depression or other circumstances. She was going to die and said she wanted to live, but that wasnt an option for her. To be clear, I do not condone suicide, I believe situations like hers are an exception. She had the support of her family in her final moments, that speaks volumes about the situation of her death.

A lot of faiths consider suicide a mortal sin which cannot be forgiven and maybe that has a lot to do with the hate she received, even after her death, from christians. I guess it's easier to condemn someone to suffer in life when you think most of humanity will suffer for all of eternity.

I see her choice a lot like my plan for a catastrophic plane incident. She went out of her own choosing, at her own time, in her own way, in the face of death. I'll believe that what she did was brave because it was her decision in the depths of overwhelming circumstances.