I’m not sure it’s 100% true; certainly people can be honestly mistaken about what they might have witnessed, and can also get caught up in the excitement of a crowd. We see this in UFO reports and ghost sightings all the time. Not that this makes these claims reliable — just that they’re not universally malicious, deliberate frauds.

Still, I think that followers of mainstream religions would do well to consider what’s so strange and untrustworthy about those sects they condemn as “cults,” and whether it might just be possible that those same problems could apply to their own traditions and beliefs.

Many times when talking beliefs with atheists, they’ll start a sentence with, “I just can’t believe in a God that…”

And I say, “You’re right…”  I’ve got a lot in common with the atheists.

In my experience, Christians try to get me to start sentences like that. They literally say, “Tell me about this god you don’t believe in.” I don’t like to play this game, because there are so many gods and the person I’m talking to generally only believes in one of them, so 99.999% of what I could say is irrelevant to them. So I reply, “You tell me about your god, and then I’ll explain why I don’t think your god exists.” They don’t like the game as much when it’s reversed.

As Matt illustrates, it’s much easier to explain what properties God doesn’t have than to list the ones that he does. (We disagree on the reason for this difference, of course.) While I obviously agree with his conclusions about these particular gods, I have to say I’m really not sure why or how he’s reaching them. He still considers himself a Christian for some reason, and as far as I can tell still values the Bible as an important and meaningful reference at least, divinely inspired scripture at most. So, what distinguishes the “real Christian god” (so to speak) from these false gods Matt lists? Let’s go through a few of them and see.

I stopped believing in a god who doesn’t need me to do anything to save myself…except have enough faith, and don’t lose it, ever.

This does sound pretty silly. It makes a small bit more sense when you account for the fact that when Christians talk about being “saved,” they don’t mean from earthly suffering, but from an afterlife in hell. Still, it does seem like a strange system to invent, doesn’t it? You can be the biggest jerk you want, but as long as you hold this one (obscured, unwarranted) thing to be true in your mind, you’re all good in the eyes of the almighty. But … there are lots of Bible verses that say very explicitly that this is how it works. Here is just one, from Acts 16, which I pick because it’s so straightforward. “How do I get saved?” asks a dude, and the apostles answer, “Believe, and that’s all there is to it.” Then they rejoice.

And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

So … I guess we’ll just toss out all those bits of the Bible, because they don’t really click for Matt, but we’ll keep the rest. What’s next?

I stopped worshipping this idol god who rallied us like troops to fight our neighbors instead of being a light to our neighbors.

Whoa, yeah, that god would be awful, wouldn’t he? It’s a good thing the real Christian god never rallied believers like troops to fight their neighbors –

And the Lord spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you and destroy all their figured stones and destroy all their metal images and demolish all their high places. And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it. … But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. And I will do to you as I thought to do to them.” (Numbers 33)

Oh. Right. Well, I guess we should throw out those verses too. But keep the rest, because that’s probably the part that explains the real God!

I beheaded this god who prefers swords to plowshares.

Um…

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)

So that strikes out this direct quotation of Jesus in one of the Gospels, then. Yeah, probably safe to ignore that because it makes us feel icky….

There are a bunch of other rejected gods in Matt’s list that I would love to talk about (especially “I stopped believing in a god who gives people what they deserve”), but this post is long enough already, and I think my point is clear enough: the truth doesn’t care whether you like it or not. Reality is reality, regardless of what we want. If the Bible is a reliable source for information about God, then it’s a reliable source and you have to care about what it says even if it’s unpleasant.

On the other hand, if you’re going to reject all the parts of the Bible that are cruel, or bizarre, or illogical, or have been proven wrong by scientists or archaeologists, intellectual rigor demands that you be thorough about it. It’s ridiculous to decide to ignore the illogical bits that you personally dislike, but keep the illogical bits you happen to enjoy. (And no, it’s not sufficient to wave your hands in the direction of “context,” as Matt does in one of the comments. You need to look at the whole context, including when, how, and why the Bible was written, and what we know now compared to what people had to work with then.) You need some basis for ignoring this thing Jesus says, but believing that one as absolute truth. Or, perhaps, once you’ve trashed that much of the Bible you could acknowledge there’s no real reason to trust the remaining tatters.

Matt writes, “As I’ve believed fewer things about God, God has only become bigger.” Maybe it seems this way because the parameter space in which his god exists has become less defined and more mysterious. But that isn’t a description of God; it’s just baroque trappings disguising an “I don’t know.” I’d love to see Matt write about the identity of the god he does believe in, and why he thinks his god has those attributes. Until then, I have to echo his own sentiment from the close of his post — I, too, expect that there are lots more things he’ll one day stop believing.

I followed a link to the Prodigal Magazine article, “My Divorce and the Lies I Believed.” Prodigal is an online collection of personal stories written by Christians, intended to demonstrate “that every story, everywhere, has the fingerprint of a God who loves His sons and daughters so much that He shows up, even when they aren’t looking.”

Now, if you’re writing from a religious perspective and you open with a title about believing lies, you’ve got my attention instantly. The story is about the author’s feeling unworthy and unlovable when she went through a divorce. Here’s how the piece ended. Formatting is all original.

In order to talk myself out of the lies, I have to start telling myself the truth again.

I am the reason Jesus had to die. I am loved.

My sins nailed him to the cross 2000 years ago. I am loved.

He died for me before I even existed. I am loved.

And he died so I would be free. I am loved.

So I would be forgiven. I am loved.

So God would look on me and see the righteousness of his perfect son. I am loved.

So I would not have to live in a spirit of condemnation. I am loved.

This is my identity. This is the truth of who I am in Christ.

I thought this was unfortunate, because the emotional suffering she was writing about is real and fairly common in any kind of rejection situation, but she had to go and act like the only solution to that grief was to be found in Christian mythology. So now, if some atheist tells her that belief in Christianity is baseless, it feels like they’re saying that she should feel worthless and awful — although of course we’re not saying that at all. To top it all off, these kind of statements sound to me like they tear down self-esteem, rather than build it back up. I wrote a comment saying as much.

“I am the reason Jesus had to die. I am loved.”

Whoa, what? Normally, “Because of you, someone had to die” is not really a happy, comforting, loving thing to say. If anything, *this* is the message that you are unworthy and terrible. Honestly … no one had to die because of you. No one was punished on your behalf, just because you are the way you are. That is a horrific, emotionally abusive message, and I dream of a world when people stop sending it as though it is a way to express love.

I know that that’s exactly what my comment said, and that it went through their system successfully, because it was emailed to me along with this message:

Thank you for your comment on Prodigal Magazine! You are so valuable to us, especially when you engage with the conversation. Without you, we’re just a group of people telling stories, but when you read and participate with us we believe that the stories we tell have the ability to change lives.

The email went on to list some links and other ways I could “stay connected” — follow them on Facebook, subscribe to their RSS feed, and so on and so forth. I thought that was really nice! A little cheesy, and obviously a form letter, but a nice gesture. I thought it was especially nice of them to extend it to me, even though my comment came right out and said I didn’t think Christianity was true. (But I suppose Prodigal Magazine would be uniquely able to look past that and welcome even apparently unwise and disobedient children into the fold. Right?) I clicked the link back to my comment, to see if anyone had responded to me, and …

… it had been deleted. Really? You email me about how much you value my participation, and then you excise my participation? I would think that at least you’d want to keep me around as an object lesson on your “ability to change lives.” I’m an evangelism opportunity, aren’t I? Surely, a community devoted to sharing the “good news” would be willing and eminently able to correct my perception that the message of atonement by crucifixion is gruesome and manipulative.

But no. Apparently my comment of less than 100 words was too much for this fragile community to handle. Couldn’t have anyone here be reminded that some people don’t believe these fairy tales! Better to silence the dissent rather than let the website attempt to function as it claims to. Sigh. Like I said, it’s totally within their rights to delete my comment. I just wish they’d at least decide which comments are getting deleted before sending the “You are so valuable to us” email.

It doesn’t matter whether your religion says that being gay is wrong. It doesn’t matter whether your religion has a particular prohibition against same-sex marriage. It doesn’t even matter if your ancient scriptures specifically say verbatim that the United States, in the 21st century C.E., should pass state constitutional amendments to cement their existing bans on same-sex marriage.

Because guess what? Your religion probably says it’s wrong for women to speak their mind, for men to shave their beards, or for anyone to wear poly-cotton blends. It’s plain to see, we don’t base our nation’s laws on your religious beliefs. And you know what makes this point particularly vivid? Your religion also says it’s wrong to be a different religion. That’s like, the most wrong thing you can do, in the eyes of basically every religion ever to exist. Unless you actually want to advocate repealing the First Amendment, making the US a theocracy and legally forcing everyone to believe your religion, please shut up about what your religion happens to say against civil rights and equality. Because it doesn’t actually matter here in the United States that actually exists.

The US is a plural society that tolerates — no, accepts — no, welcomes a variety of viewpoints. That means not everyone is going to share all your opinions and assumptions, and you don’t just get to pretend that they’re universal. So, if you can’t make a decent secular argument (not an atheist argument, a secular one) for why your policy position is good, please get out of the political discourse. You don’t belong in it.

The illustration shows a beaten and bloody Jesus, arms outstretched on the cross, thorny-crowned head hanging limp. Jesus wears a scrap of clothing at his waist, and it is drenched with the blood that is dripping down his abdomen. It looks like he has been rolling around in a pile of razorblades. The title of the tract captions the image: “All this I did for thee.”

I understand the Christian interpretation — Christ as the Lamb of God, sacrificed to atone for the sins of the world. It’s a blood sacrifice, so of course you show the blood to illustrate the sacrifice. (We’ll save our criticisms of the theology of penal substitution for another time.)

But as a non-Christian, and as the apparent target of this evangelizing effort, I’d hope that Christians would give some thought to how this looks to me. My first association when I pulled this tract from by door was that of a severely suicidally depressed person cutting his wrists so he could bleed to death, leaving a spiteful suicide note reading, “You made me do this. You have killed me. I hope you’re happy now.” Which, come to think of it, isn’t that different from the Christian angle after all. And I guess, like the one from the suicide victim to his grieving family, the message being sent to me is: This guy died a horrible, gruesome death because of you, so the least you could do is feel personally guilty about it for the rest of your life.

Maybe this kind of message works on people who have been primed with Christian beliefs already. Maybe the primary audience of this tract is made up of people who were raised at least nominally Christian and are now non-practicing, with the goal of shaming them into being more devout. There’s also a righteous self-congratulatory aspect to it, I think, exemplified by the orgy of suffering in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ or by those sects of Christianity that practice, or historically did practice, flagellation. Wallowing in the violence of the crucifixion story is literally a religious experience for them.

As for me, though, I don’t feel any personal moral responsibility for the apparent execution methods of some Roman provincial government nearly two thousand years ago, or what some individual Judaean might have decided to do that led to his being executed. (Going back to the suicide analogy: While I’m sure that reading an accusatory suicide note from a friend or loved one would yank on my heartstrings, I do at least know intellectually that I am not to blame for someone else’s clinical depression or their desire to self-harm.) I’m not going to become a Christian because you show me a really gross drawing of Jesus suffering to try to manipulate my feelings. It would require some kind of actual evidence or logical argument in favor of Christianity to get me to believe. This is nothing more than a blatantly fallacious appeal to emotion.

I follow blogs using Google Reader, but I know not everyone uses RSS feeds, so — if you use Facebook more than you use an RSS reader, maybe you’ll find this a handy way to keep up with content here. (I’ll also sometimes post unique tidbits there, the same way I do on Twitter.) Maybe you’ll find it a useful way to share thought-provoking posts with your Facebook friends. And maybe you’re just feeling friendly and want to “like” me. Whatever the reason, if you’re a Facebook user too, please check it out.

But I’m not sure that I buy the idea that a Christian radio station is “family-friendly.” Many of the songs they play carry the basic message of: I’m a broken, horrible person who doesn’t deserve to exist, but thanks, Jesus, for loving me anyway. I understand why this sounds happy and uplifting to Christians, who accept the degrading premise, but this sounds like pretty classic emotional abuse. If I had kids I certainly wouldn’t want to leave them listening to those kinds of songs for extended periods of time (or, really, ever).

When they’re not playing self-deprecating love songs to God-as-emotional-abuser, Christian media outlets of various kinds can be found telling Bible stories in cutesy, kid-targeted ways, or even just reading aloud from the Bible. (I’ve even heard long, droning readings of genealogy and population counts, as though that’s interesting or relevant to anybody.) The idea seems to be that if something’s in the Bible, it must be good to tell our children about.

But the Bible has plenty of examples of scandalous, even nonconsentual sex:

Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.

grotesque violence:

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

and terrifying threats of cruel punishment:

The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say:

“You are just in these judgments, O Holy One,  you who are and who were; for they have shed the blood of your holy people and your prophets, and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve.”

And I heard the altar respond:

“Yes, Lord God Almighty, true and just are your judgments.”

The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.

(Those are just a few highlights. The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible has a longer list of Biblical “family values” here.)

And I can certainly understand why a parent wouldn’t want to expose a young child to all of that! Of course, they tend to ignore these less-than-family-friendly stories and passages — which only underscores the fact that they don’t get their values from their supposed holy book after all. So let’s all stop pretending that Christian doctrine and the Bible are good for children, please. If you want to tell nice little fables that teach kids to be kind to each other, you don’t need the Bible to provide them. And cherry-picking the nicer bits from among the Bible’s genocides, rapes, and plagues is a pretty misleading strategy for spreading the “good word.”

In case you can’t play the video, here’s a transcript.

You’ve probably heard a thing or two about Mormons. But how much of what you’ve heard is really true? This is Mormon Myths. Made Simple!

Myth number one: most Mormons live in Utah. Actually, of the church’s approximately 13 million members, only 12% live in Utah, and more than half live outside the US. Per capita, Utah does have a very high percentage of Mormons, at around 60% of the population. This is because in the mid-1800s, Mormons settled in Utah to escape religious persecution.

Myth number two: Mormon men have multiple wives. For a brief period in the 1800s, some members of the church did practice polygamy. However, this practice was discontinued in 1890, and monogamy has been practiced since. Over the years, several groups have broken away from the church. Some of these have adopted the practice of polygamy, such as those portrayed on HBO’s TV series, “Big Love,” and those living in the FLDS compound in Texas. However, these groups are not Mormons or in any way affiliated with the church. In fact, if a member of the church was found to be practicing polygamy today, they would immediately be excommunicated.

Myth number three: Mormons don’t believe in the Bible. The Bible is an important part of the Mormon set of scripture, known as the standard works, which also includes the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Mormons use the Bible extensively in sermons, in Sunday school, and during personal study.

Myth number four: Mormons are not Christian. The term “Mormons” is actually a nickname. The church’s real name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Mormons claim to be the reestablished, original Christian church, with Christ at its head. Mormons follow Christ’s teachings, partake of his sacrament, and pray to God in his name.

Myth number five: Mormons worship Joseph Smith. Mormons revere Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, just like Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, and other Biblical prophets. Mormons believe their prophet can communicate with God and receive guidance for the church. As a prophet, Joseph Smith played an important role in reestablishing Christ’s church on the earth. However, worship is reserved exclusively for God and Jesus Christ.

Myth number six: Mormons don’t drink or smoke. Actually, this one’s true. In 1833, a commandment was given to the church through the prophet Joseph Smith, which prohibited the use of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea. This code of health, known as the Word of Wisdom, is practiced by all faithful members of the church.

Okay, now you know! And next time you hear one of those rumors about the Mormons, you can say, “Actually….” For more fun and educational videos on the Mormon faith, please visit mormonsmadesimple.com!

Yeah, so, I have a couple responses. My first one is, these don’t really qualify as the nasty rumors I was (half-) hoping to see debunked. (Of course, you can’t debunk it if it’s true, but still.) How about, “Joseph Smith was a known charlatan who, before founding the LDS church, worked as a ‘treasure hunter’ employing exactly the same methods”? How about, “The Book of Mormon was supposedly translated from a nonexistent language via that scam treasure-hunting method of looking at stones placed inside of a hat”? How about, “Mormons believe that a handful of ancient Israelites somehow traveled to North America and set up a civilization that somehow left zero archaeological evidence”? Oh, and how about, “The Book of Mormon says that a ‘skin of blackness’ is a punishment for being sinful”? When I hear people say disparaging things about Mormonism, these are the things they talk about.

Secondly, doesn’t it seem odd that myth #2 is all about how polygamists aren’t “real Mormons,” while myth #4 is all about how Mormons are “real Christians”? It’s hard for me to imagine that these points are being made with zero awareness of the irony. Fundamentalist Mormons (the video even refers to them as “FLDS”) certainly consider themselves to be real Mormons, as they follow LDS teachings the way they were originally given. Their first prophet Joseph Smith and certainly his successor Brigham Young practiced and endorsed polygamy. But more importantly, their reason for excommunicating polygamists is basically, “They might agree with us on everything else, but we disagree on this one key point of doctrine.” Meanwhile, mainstream Christians saying Mormons aren’t Christian for the same reason.

Anything else about this video strike you? Feel free to sound off in the comments. As I said before, this is a series of videos so there are several more — but I think I’ll spread them out a bit. There’s only so much Mormon silliness a person can be expected to ingest at one time.

On top of all that reading, though, there’s a nagging feeling I have about the Catholic Church that I just haven’t been able to shake. Wait. That’s not right. There’s a blood-curdling rage that I have about the Catholic Church that I think more people should have to think about too — so that they actually have to decide whether it makes them furious as well or whether they’re going to continue looking the other way and whistling innocently.

The argument I’m about to make applies to many religious organizations, in my opinion. But I think in the specific case of the Catholic Church at this point in time, its truth is undeniable (whereas in other cases we might quibble over the details). So let’s walk through it together, shall we?

Let’s say that you had an organization that claimed to be based on the instructions of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, perfectly moral, loving being. Let’s say that the leadership of that organization claimed to communicate directly with that being in order to get further guidance for their decisions and actions. What could we expect if such claims were true?

I think it would be totally reasonable to expect that the members of this organization should be happier and better off than the average non-member. Also, we should expect that the advocacy and rules of this organization should be good for the world, clearly improving the planet and the human condition wherever they are. Acting on principles of love and benevolence, and under the guidance of a being with perfect morals (and the omniscience and omnipotence to be able to communicate those morals flawlessly), I’d expect this organization and its members to be kind and gentle to each other as well as to the rest of humanity. This is without getting into the nitty-gritty of specific scriptural verses — expecting prayers to be immediately granted, believers’ immunity from poison, or other sorts of miracle-working. All I’m asking you to buy here is, the real followers of this sort of deity, supposing that the deity does exist, should be unambiguously good. I really don’t think that’s too much to ask at all.

We can, as I said before, go back and forth over how well this description should be expected to apply to any specific denomination or sect of any particular religion. You could sputter about free will or mystery if you wanted, in most of these cases. But I really hope we can all agree that even granting a very generous leeway on these expectations, there is not room for the organization in question to be correct about its claims of divine guidance and moral superiority and for it to be an international criminal syndicate whose crime of choice is sexually assaulting children.

And seriously, guys, that’s what the Catholic Church is and has been for decades at least. There’s really no room to deny it at this point. Child molestation by priests has been an epidemic problem in Catholic congregations. The Catholic leadership has been aware of it, and rather than turn these criminals in to the police, or even just to fire them, they’ve enabled, even facilitated the continuation of this morally repugnant activity. They’ve built up a bureaucracy devoted to keeping the victims quiet and covering up any scandal (obviously, though, this dam has relatively recently started to break). They actually joke about the abuses they’ve committed. It is absolutely disgusting and appalling that anyone would take advantage of other people in this way, let alone young people already drawing the short straw in a power asymmetry, let alone on such a massive scale around the world … and add to this the fact that they are doing it while pretending to have not just the moral high ground, but absolute moral perfection on their side!

Could there be anything more viscerally compelling than this, to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is not a true church of a real, loving god? How are there any Catholics left at this point? I just don’t understand. Honestly, it makes me want to vomit.

Click on the picture to see the other half of the strip. And don’t miss part 2 and part 3. If there was a historical event behind the Biblical story, this is roughly how I’d imagine it most likely went down (minus the anachronistic weapons). … Creepy, huh?