Former Fundamentalists: christians

Showing posts with label christians. Show all posts

Martyrdom, Fundamentalism and Christianity

Fundamentalism and Christianity

by Edward T. Babinski

Jonathan: Ed, I find your characterization of Kevin to be grotesque. The guy was sincere, honest and genuinely doubtful about what--if anything--he believed.

Ed: I'm sorry, I think I must be confusing my memory of Kevin with the person who was citing fundamentalist apologetics concering things like Sodom and Gommorah and the fall of the walls of Jericho and trying to reconvert everybody in here. THAT person seemed rather intent on regurgitating funda-gelical apologetics. If that wasn't Kevin, then I'm sorry for confusing him with someone else.

Most recently though, Kevin came at me all claws, then danced out of here, which reminded me all too much of similar encounters with a fellow at the Lion's Den discussion group. He'd listen to some unorthodox argument and then storm out, then come back meekly after his blood pressure calmed down, and tell us to forgive him for being such a bad witness to Jesus. None of us really thought he needed forgiveness so much as a course in courtesy, self control, or self awareness and maybe biofeedback or meditation classes, or better yet, leaving the fold. That guy took every question about the Bible or about Christianity and Christian history as a personal affront to himself.

Actually, I was aghast at Kevin's standard evangelical reply to the quotations from those historians that I shared. I also ran up a white flag to try and get in touch with him on a personal e-mail basis after he left the list, though I haven't heard back from him. If you'd like to see the restrained manner with which I responded to his last e-mail to me, I'd be happy to share it with you.
Best, Ed

Jonathan: Just because his search didn't lead him to *your* logical conclusion doesn't mean he has ulterior motives as you suggest.

Ed: I don't have any "conclusions" other than the standard historical one, namely, taking the long view of Christian history, Christianity does not appear superior to other dogmatic mass movements in politics and religion.

Jonathan: To portray him as an evangelical fundamentalist is beyond inaccurate. It's absurd, IMO.

Ed: Based on his final lengthy reply to me, and the arguments he used, and the way he ran out of here, it would not appear as absurd to me as it does to you. I hope you will try to contact him at his personal e-mail address as I have done. Here's what I've sent Kevin thus far:

Ed: Kevin, If you'd allow me to explain myself, and also answer your final post to me, I'd be happy to do so.

Sincerely,
Edward T. Babinski

I rec'd no answer, so I then sent...

Kevin,

I am not a monster, neither do I think you are one. Neither do I think that all Xns are monsters. Neither am I trying to wipe out Xnty, neither would I vote to outlaw religion. I invite people to leave the fold, yes, should they decide to do so, partly based on any information I may happen to share or discuss with them. I am also sure my attitude mirrors your own, which is to invite people to join Xnty should they so decide, partly based on any information you may happen to share or discuss with them.

I am of the opinion that Xnty has as many skeletons in its closet as every other dogmatically led mass movement in the past two thousand years, whether it be political or religious. And for that reason, I do not think Xnty superior to other religions or faiths or nonfaiths. That's all I was trying to point out. If you thought otherwise it was probably because I didn't mention anything good about Xnty, I leave it up to Xns to do that, and they do, on radio, in weekly sermon columns in the nation's newspapers, on Xn TV shows, in Xn book sections at Wall Mart, in Xn bookstores in malls, on billboards, on bright scrolling advertising marquees in front of mega-churches, across the land, etc.

I think there is a lot of material we can reach an agreement on in your e-mail to me if you will give us the chance to discuss it. I promise not to employ any sarcasm with you. And I invite you to discuss matters with me however you wish, in whatever words you wish, as I am not offended.

Best, Ed

Again, no answer from Kevin, so I sent...

Kevin,

Here is a sample of how rationally and peacefully we can discuss matters. You may respond however you wish. But I think we can agree on much. If I have overstepped any bounds of civility below, please point it out to me.

Best, Ed

Kevin: Christians in the Roman empire were subject to bloody persecutions (not government patronage) for the first three centuries yet continued to grow. "The blood of martyrs is seed", as Tertullian observed. This assertion also fails to account for Christianity existing in places where it has experienced persecution rather than government support, e.g. India, Sudan and China.

Ed: Estimates vary as to how much Christianity "continued to grow." Certainly it proved itself a faith capable of surviving, a faith which promised much to its adherents, and added an apocalyptic touch and flavor which competing religions lacked.

But the estimates I've read say that only ten to thirty percent of the Empire was "Christianized" by the time Constantine gained the Emperorship, and those Christians were divided amongst themselves. I've also read that there were more Mithraists than Christians in the Roman Empire at the time when Constantine first took power.

Tertullian's observation that "the blood of the matryrs is the seed of the church" does not take into account that Christians were disputing and decrying one another even during the Roman persecution period, so there never was any one "church." Even Tertullian was considered a heretic by "the church" that was later to become the "Catholic church." About 207, Tertullian joined the Montanists, an apocalyptic heretical group advocating rigorous asceticism. Within a short time he became a leader of his own party, called the Tertullianists. As you may know, Constantine outlawed "Montanists" along with many other rival (non-Catholic) Christian groups by issuing a special Edict (this special Edict was decreed after his Edict for "religious freedom." (If I am wrong about this, please correct me.)

Do you dispute that more Christians killed Christians (and pagans) during the three centuries following Constantine,than were killed during the preceding three centuries when the non-Christian Roman emperors were in power? Ramsay McMullen has a nice footnote in his latest book, _Christianity and Paganism from the Fourth to the Eighth Centuries_, that cites a wide number of references on this point.

As for "Christianity existing in places where it has experienced persecution," North Africa used to be a stronghold of Christianity and of famous Christians bishops, like Augustine and Ambrose among others. But via persecution, the Moslems took over North Africa. So Islam challenged Christianity and "won" the Middle East, North Africa, parts of Eastern Europe, parts of Russia, parts of India, and parts of Indonesia, to become the most widespread non-Christian religion on earth, martyrs or no martyrs.

Also, Communism's expansion was more explosive than either Christianity's or Islam's, and even after the decline of Communist influence, it has left behind billions of "practical atheists" when it comes to religion.

In late medieval Japan a warlord reacted to attempts by Christian missionaries to convert the Japanese people. He killed, I think, ten thousand Christians (missionaries and their Japanese converts). And to this day, Japan remains a soil ill suited for Christian conversion, with 50% of the population remaining unbelievers in any kind of spirit, and the others mainly Buddhists/Shintoists, with Buddhist bookstores in each city (kind of like Zondervan books here in the U.S.). CHRISTIANTY TODAY magazine even ran an article that admitted these and other facts from history that disputed the notion that "the blood of martyrs was the seed of the church." The article cited that exact verse from Tertullian and admitted that it was not always so.

Neither does martydom prove the truth of anyone's beliefs, it merely demonstrates the lengths of passion with which they remain held. And there are a host of different beliefs that have passionate subscribers. In fact, most believers seem quite ready to die for their beliefs rather than live a long life quietly practicing them. There is something in man's make up that makes us want to share ideas and beliefs (not just Christian ones), and when affronted, risk all to continue to do so, rather than simply live our beliefs quietly by ourselves. It's the social instinct I suppose, and the fact that we are social creatures longing to touch one another's minds not just each other's bodies.

Speaking again of the universality of the phenomenon known as martyrdom, human beings have "suffered" at each other's hands for as long as human beings have had hands. "Suffering" for almost any conceivable reason, including "suffering for the Gospel," is therefore not unique. Throughout history and in fields of human endeavor as diverse as religion, politics, science, art, and education, great minds have suffered at the hands of little minds; great hearts and souls have suffered at the hands of the heartless and the soulless; obstinate hearts, minds and souls have suffered at the hands of equally obstinate hearts, minds and souls. Those inflicting the suffering often thought they were "right" to do so. And those experiencing it took succor in believing that their faith, or ideas, or actions, were "right."

Speaking of non-Christians who have suffered: Jews have suffered for over a thousand years at the hands of Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Moslems, and Germans. Which reminds me of the Jewish story of a rabbi facing the Inquisition, who was asked to deny his faith. He asked for time to think it over. The next morning he said, "I will not become a Catholic, but I have a last request - before I'm burnt at the stake my tongue should be cut out for not replying at once. To such a question 'No!' was the only answer."

Christian antisemitism has been the cause of much Jewish suffering over the past 1900 years. To understand the Biblical roots of antisemitism, I would suggest reading a book such as _Antisemitism in the New Testament_. It is of course a topic that you perhaps do not believe has any basis in the Bible as you understand it. Fine, I accept that you see things that way, but I do not necessarily agree that there is nothing in the Bible than cannot be understood in other ways, and has been understood in other ways by devout Christians other than yourself.

And what about the growth of the religion known as "Bahaism," despite fervent persecution? It began when the Persian holy man, Ali Muhammad (1819-1850) set out to reform Islam and bring people back to the worship of a purely spiritual God (not unlike how Jesus set out to reform the Judaism of his day). His movement caused much religious ferment. This led to his execution in 1850 by order of the Shah's chief minister and at the instigation of Muslim clerics who saw his movement as a threat to orthodox Islam. Besides Ali Muhammad, 20,000 of his followers were martyred for their beliefs. Yet the "Bahai" religion survived, and it has communities in 205 countries.

The early Mormons were persecuted by the "orthodox" Christian majority, and the founder of Mormonism was killed by a mob. Yet that religion continues to grow at a rate exceeding even the Southern Baptist Convention.

And what about agnostics, atheists, "heretical" Christians and "heretical" Muslims, all of whom have suffered at the hands of "orthodox" Christians and "orthodox" Muslims for daring to speak and publish their "blasphemous" or "heretical" ideas? Christians and Muslims have publicly burnt the books of their critics, so that even today, the words of Christianity's earliest critics only survive in the form of excerpts in the works of their Christian opponents. In colonial America, there were laws that made "blasphemy" or non-belief in the Trinity, crimes punishable by death. Even till the early 1900s, the authors of "blasphemous" literature in Great Britain and America could be put on trial, fined, and/or imprisoned for their "crime." Some Muslims still view "blasphemy and heresy" as crimes deserving the death penalty.

As I said above, human beings have "suffered" at each other's hands for as long as human beings have had hands. "Suffering" for almost any conceivable reason and belief is therefore not unique.

[More will follow in a similarly civil vein should you wish me to continue to reply to your letter. Please let me know.

Best, Ed]

Great Awakening, Revivals and Calvinism

The Great Awakening, Revivals and Calvinism
by Edward T. Babinski

Edward T. Babinski
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Trevor (Calvinist), Grt.Awaken, My Calvin research

Trevor writes:
Hello;

You mentioned briefly that the Great Awakening had no lasting effects, in our last email.

Here is further food for thought that verifies your conclusion. I have attached several quotes about the after-effects of the Great Awakening. There did seem to be some social effects, such as how life was conducted and how beliefs were changed (i.e. altar calls, prayer benches or weeping benches were commonplace for people to cry at in front of the church, the rise in millenial fervor, etc). American Christianity actually took on a sour note after the Awakening. To be truthful, the fervor of the awakening made people get into an uproar of emotions and hysteria over the feeling of religion and guilt, etc, but no lasting intellectual effects resulted (except the writngs of some of the Calvinists who were critical of the awakening.

SEE ATTACHED FOR QUOTES.

Also, you are proably busy (too busy...like me). But if you ever get the chance, the best analysis of the Great Awakening I have read has been "The Religious Affections" by Jonathan Edwards, who stated the hogwash in most of the manifestations of the Awakening. And HE was the one who supposedly started it...only to become its harshest critic. You might enjoy it.

G'DAY

Trevor J.

SEE ATTACHED. Tell me if it accords with your conclusions on the Great Awakening.

Thanks Trevor!

I forgot about Edwards being The Awakening's harshest critic.

Reminds me.... There was a famous Catholic, Cardinal Neuman (Newman?), who wrote a thick, highly praised book titled ENTHUSIASM in which he critiqued religious enthusiasms of the past. Actually when you study the Reformation and the subsequent Catholic Counter Reformation, you find the Protestant and Catholic scholars agreeing that serious thought takes precedence over religious enthusiasm. Scholars do not seem to appreciate religious enthusiasm very much, they are much more concerned with trying to "prove" things to one another via the intellect.

Here's a quotation I ran across that mentions ye olde "mourning bench":

ROBERT INGERSOLL ON "REVIVALS"
I regard revivals as essentially barbaric. The fire that has to be blown all the time is a poor thing to get warm by. I think they do no good but much harm; they make innocent people think they are guilty, and very mean people think they are good.

In the days of my youth, ministers depended on revivals to save souls and reform the world. The emotional sermons, the sad singing, the hysterical "Amens," the hope of heaven, the fear of hell, caused many to lose what little sense they had. In this condition they flocked to the "mourner's bench" -- asked for prayers of the faithful -- had strange feelings, prayed, and wept and thought they had been "born again." Then they would tell their experiences -- how wicked they had been, how evil had been their thoughts, their desires, and how good they had suddenly become.

They used to tell the story of an old woman who, in telling her experience, said, "Before I was converted, before I gave my heart to God, I used to lie and steal, but now, thanks to the grace and blood of Jesus Christ, I have quit 'em both, in a great measure."

Well, while the cold winter lasted, while the snows fell, the revival went on, but when the winter was over, the boats moved in the harbor again, the wagons rolled, and business started again, most of the converts "backslid" and fell again into their old ways. But the next winter they were on hand again, read to be "born again." They formed a kind of stock company, playing the same parts every winter and backsliding every spring.
- Robert Ingersoll, "Why I am An Agnostic"

HOW DIFFERENT ARE MOST "CONVERTED" PEOPLE?
Were it true that a converted man as such is of an entirely different kind from a natural man, there surely ought to be some distinctive radiance. But notoriously there is no such radiance. Converted men as a class are indistinguishable from normal men.

By the very intensity of his fidelity to the paltry ideals with which an inferior intellect may inspire him, a saint can be even more objectionable and damnable than a superficial "carnal" man would be in the same situation.
- William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience

Oh, I had no idea you were an Aussie! (But your "G'day" gave it away.)

I look forward to seeing your paper and/or your collection of quotations concerning the abominable fancy! Wish I had time to look in the book I already mentioned to you, for the Isaac Watt's quotation. (Some of those books must include an index of "topics" that might include "hell" or "the saints" and make it easier to find the line that we would both like to verify.)

Lastly, I recently completed some Calvin research, regarding two questions in particular, whether a "rebellious" child was exectued in Calvin's Geneva (at least one was -- see my references below), and adulterers as well, and what Calvin's complicity was in those events, and whether those events were unusual even for their brual time period. Kingdon (who has edited the definitive modern day translation of the Registers of the Consistory of Geneva in French, as well as publishing the first three years of them in English), admits that the executions for adultery In Geneva were unusual even for their time period, and Calvin argued for executions in both the case of adultery, and "rebellious" children.

Best, Ed

My Advice About Debating With Christians

My Advice About Debating With Christians
by Edward T. Babinski

David Lee:
Hi, I had a mini-debate with a man named Jason Gastrich. As soon as it became obvious I was doing well in a debate he booted me from his list and on a public newsgroup made remarks accusing me of making slanderous remarks. He also claimed to know you and said he was a good friend of yours. I told him I knew Ed and that post was the one that was booted from off his "forum." As soon as he starts losing he starts accusing you of using foul language. Jason also deleted a URL I made claiming it wasn't allowed, but let Charity post two of his. I just wanted to know if you knew of this man?
David

Ed Babinski:
Hello David, (you can also pass this along to Jason and his group, or anyone else for that matter),

Jason Gastrich rings a bell from a while back, we exchanged some emails and nothing was decided between us. *smile* I strive to remain polite in most cases with everyone I meet. Hey, making enemies is easy, especially when discussing "hot" topics. Keeping the pot from boiling over is the difficult part.

I have not been on Jason's list, but of course, if you join an Evangelical Christian group you should expect the Referee's judgment calls to be at least a little slanted in favors of the Ref's favorite team. I have noticed that most Evangelical websites I've visited, notably the young-earth creationist ones, and the hard line conservative apologetics ones, do not provide links to "heretical" sites of fellow Christians (like old earth creationists! or moderate historical Bible scholars), let alone links to freethought sites that question the Bible's history, science, etc. While the freethought sites do tend to provide links to conservative Christian sites. *smile*

When worse comes to worse in an email conversation there are a few things you can do:

1) Take a long walk or shoot some hoops, take a deep breath, stretch, and only dive back in after you're calm, relaxed and refreshed -- keeping in mind that taking whatever you do 'too seriously' is also one of the signs of an imminent nervous breakdown. *smile*

2) Remind yourself that you're just one person, you can't change the world, and that people are addicted to their beliefs, they identify their beliefs with their own egos and defend them like their own children, and that the mind of man is wonderfully versatile at inventing the most imaginative excuses rather than admit things it doesn't want to admit.

3) Keep in mind that people avoid change until the pain of remaining the same is greater than the pain of changing.

4) Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance.

And...

5) The only books or ideas that usually influence us are those which have gone just a little bit further down our particular path than we have gone ourselves.

The wisdom of Line 5) may explain why most people, Christians included, do not usually seek to debate those with views near their own, they usually prefer people with views further from their own. There is less chance of such views connecting with their own and altering them. (Kind of like the way an immune cell needs SOMETHING to latch onto on the surface of an invading bacterium before it can interact with it and destroy it.) If young-earth creationist Biblical inerrantists debated mostly old-earth creationist Biblical inerrantists their interactions would have the most chance of being the most friendly and productive. But neither side really wants that. They want to destory the "infidels" who live far off in the distant land of evolutionary biology. *smile* It's more fun to hack your way through a thick jungle of views you differ with much more, cutting and slashing the thick vines in your way with your machette.

Oddly enough, Evangelical inerrantist Christians agree they have an inerrant perfect book along with the Holy Spirit "leading them into all truth," but even with those two BONUSES, they can't get fellow Evangelical inerrantists to agree on the meaning of a host of verses in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

It seems that they should tackle their fellow brethren, those who agree with inerrancy and the Holy Spirit's truth leading ability, i.e., before trying to convert others who don't share those two HUGE supernatural bonuses. I mean, theoretically it should be a piece of cake getting brethren to agree on lesser matters of Biblical interpretation if they first agreed that they had a perfect book, and they both prayed beforehand for the same Holy Spirit to guide them both into ALL truth. Yet in practice, conservative inerrantist Christians have a habit of not even being able to get along with fellow members of their own denominations. It's been that way since Calvin and Luther didn't get along (Luther thought Calvin's view of the Eucharist was "damnable" and threatened people with hell who agreed with it). See the first website below.

Calvin, Luther and other Reformers, and their animosities

Protestant Divisions and Mutual Animosities

Dialogue: John Calvin's Letter to Philip Melanchthon Concerning Protestant Divisions: Its Nature, Intent, and Larger Implications

Martin Luther the "Super-Pope" and de facto Infallibility With Extensive Documentation From Luther's Own Words

The Protestant Inquisition ("Reformation" Intolerance and Persecution)

John Calvin (what a guy)

Quotes from John Calvin

Quotes from Martin Luther

Luther the Deranged Theologian

Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (an entire BOOK on the web)

I would also add that Europe was set ablaze by hosts of armed Christians who agreed with both the Trinity and Young Earth Creationism, but still wacked at each other for thirty years of perhaps the bloodiest battles Europe has ever seen, Catholic nation against Protestant nation. Oh well.

EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE THIRTY YEARS WAR (THE THIRTY YEARS WAR? WHAT'S THAT?)
By the division of Christianity at the Reformation, religious authority itself became the cause of conflict. The Protestant states thereafter rejected the right of the Universal Church to judge their actions, while the Catholic states took that rejection as grounds to make war against them in clear conscience. The outcome was the Thirty Years War, the worst thus far in European history, which may have killed a third of the German-speaking peoples and left Central Europe devastated for much of the seventeenth century.
- John Keegan, War and Our World (the Reith Lectures, 1998, broadcast on the BBC, recorded at the Royal Institution, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, King's College, London)

Herbert Langer in The Thirty Years' War, says that more than one quarter of Europe's population died as a result of those thirty years of slaughter, famine and disease. Ironically, the majority of Europeans who killed each other shared such orthodox Christian beliefs as Jesus' deity, the Trinity, and even "creationism." So you cannot blame the horrific spectacle of the Thirty Years' War on modern day scapegoats like atheism, humanism or the theory of evolution. Such a war demonstrates that getting nations to agree on major articles of faith does not ensure peace, far from it. Some of the most intense rivalries exist between groups whose beliefs broadly resemble one another but differ in subtle respects.
- E.T.B.

The Thirty Years' War was the last great religious war in Europe. Starting as a civil war between Protestants and Catholics in Germany, it burst into flame in 1618 when Protestants in Prague stormed the royal palace and threw the [Catholic] governors out the window (they landed on a pile of manure and survived). Shocked, Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II sent troops into Prague to force all Protestants into exile, leading the Protestant king of Denmark, Christian IV, to attack Ferdinand in Saxony. The battle then raged through France, Germany, and Sweden with nations and religious groups fighting a long series of battles over both territory and theology. - Jerry MacGregor & Marie Prys, 1001 Surprising Things You Should Know About Christianity

The underlying causes of this devastating, general European war were conflicts of religion: Protestant verses Roman Catholic reform, pluralistic tolerance versus arbitrary imposition of faith, Lutheranism and Calvinism and the Protestant Union versus the Catholic League. - George Childs Kohn, "Thirty Years' War" (1618-48), Dictionary of Wars, rev. ed.

There was a time [during the Reformation] when religion played an all-powerful role in European politics with Protestants and Catholics organizing themselves into political factions and squandering the wealth of Europe on sectarian wars. English liberalism emerged in direct reaction to the religious fanaticism of the English Civil War. Contrary to those who at the time believed that religion was a necessary and permanent feature of the political landscape, liberalism vanquished religion in Europe. After a centuries-long confrontation with liberalism, religion was taught to be tolerant.

In the sixteenth century, it would have seemed strange to most Europeans not to use political power to enforce belief in their particular sectarian faith. Today, the idea that the practice of religion other than one's own should injure one's own faith seems bizarre, even to the most pious churchmen. Religion has been relegated to the sphere of private life -- exiled, it would seem, more or less permanently from European political life except on certain narrow issues like abortion.

Religion per se did not create free societies; Christianity in a certain sense had to abolish itself through a secularization of its goals before liberalism could emerge.

Political liberalism in England ended the religious wars between Protestant and Catholic that had nearly destroyed that country during the seventeenth century: with its advent, religion was defanged by being made tolerant.
- Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man

Christianity is Both Cynically and Laughably Offensive

Imagine how offensive and in-your-faceChristianity as a whole has been, even laughably offensive! (see below) Christians do more to make people cynical about religion than any other religion does. By the way, my Mom had me nailing up crucifixes above every door in the house just two days ago. I find the image of a half naked man nailed to two pieces of wood "offensive."

CHRISTIAN KITSCH

These days, when it comes to kitsch, it seems like Christianity has been kitsched by Satan. For instance, during Pope John Paul's visits to the U.S., you could buy Pope-on-a-rope soap, a Pope watch (like a Mickey Mouse watch, only holier), a Let Us Spray Lawn Sprinkler (a spinning Pope with outstretched arms waters your lawn), and a T-shirt with George, Ringo?and John Paul on it. Other Catholic kitsch products include Rosary tapes, so you can drive around town and recite the Rosary accompanied by whichever background music you prefer (including jazz, classical, gospel, light rock, even country and western.) There's even a "Jesus doll" that Nancy Pulte Rickard felt she was inspired to create ("One of the big things about the doll," she says, "is it makes it hard for people to deny his presence. They look across a room and go, 'Oh, there's Jesus.'") I am not making this stuff up.

Protestants on the other hand, have not only been kitsched by Satan, but I think he slipped them the tongue too. For instance, there's a company called Living Epistles that sells a T-shirt on the front of which is a muscle-bound Mr. Universe Christ doing push ups with a cross the size of Kansas on his back (labeled "The Sins of the World") and blood gushing from his crown of thorns. Beneath the picture it says, "Bench Press This!" (Yeah, like whenever I see an image of Jesus hanging from the cross, I can't help but think, "Nice abs.") Emblazoned on the back of the T-shirt is a picture of Jesus' blood drenched hands pierced with railroad spikes, and the caption reads, "His Pain, Your Gain." Another T-shirt reads, "His Blood's For You."

Cashing in on Power Rangers' popularity with children, a Vermont toy maker in 1995 marketed violent Holyland Heroes sets (Samson & Philistine; David & Goliath, Moses & Ramses II, Joshua & Canaanite), featuring muscular, grimacing toys wielding spears, swords, and, in Samson's case, the jawbone of a donkey - which the Bible says, he used to smite 1,000 men.

There's also Christian toilet paper that has, "Get Thee Behind Me, Satan" printed on every sheet. I reiterate, I am not making this stuff up.

And whenever a popular band creates a new kind of music (reggae, rap, or alternative rock), Christians copy it and market it, but only after "baptizing" it with simplistic slogans and syrupy sentimentality. In nearly all cases they hold it under the waters of baptism too long to cleanse it of the least bit of devilishness, and it emerges brain dead.
- Skip Church

On the brighter side, there is at least one thing that Christian baptism hasn't hurt. And that's? coffee. A long time ago, when coffee was but a beany baby, it was denounced as "the devil's brew" and outlawed by rulers who viewed it as an intoxicating beverage that leads to "discussions of rebellion and slander of those in power." At that time it was sold in popular coffeehouses nicknamed, "seminars of sedition." Church opposition ended in 1594, when Pope Starbucks VIII tried a cup (O.K., I lied, it was Pope Clement VIII) and liked it so much that he baptized it. "We will not let coffee remain the property of Satan," he announced. "As Christians, our power is greater than Satan's; we shall make coffee our own."
- John Dollison, Pope-Pourri

THE HOLY LAND EXPERIENCE
Zion's Hope, an evangelical group based in Orlando, Florida, is putting $10 million in pledged and donated money up for a seven-acre park, to be called The Holy Land Experience?It will feature biblical characters telling their stories and re-creations of Jesus' tomb and the cave where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.
- Liz Langley, "I'm Going to Graceland," Orlando Weekly, Sept. 2, 1999

Funny, isn't it? Followers of the man who drove out the moneychangers from the temple, charging seventeen bucks to see a replica of his tomb. I don't suppose they'll have Gay Days.
- Jonathan

Sixty residents of the Seminole Health Club nudist camp near Miami comprise a Christian mission that worships twice a week in the nude. According to leader Elijah Jackson, "We're not trying to start a cult here, but I think nudity adds something to Christianity."- News of the Weird, "Weird Clergy"

A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back, he's gonna wanna see a cross? Maybe that's why he hasn't shown up yet. "Shit! They're still wearing crosses. When they start wearing fishes I'll go back, this is ridiculous. They've entirely missed the meaning of this thing."

It's like going up to one of the Kennedy clan with a rifle pendant on. "Just thinking of your uncle, the former president. We love him."
- Bill Hicks, Rant in E-minor, CD

We Christians neither want nor worship crosses as the pagans do.
- Minucius Felix (Christian author, circa 200 A.D.)

It was only in the third century (after 400 A.D.) that Christian communities increasingly used "covert" crosses, which have survived in the murals of the catacombs and on tombstones. They might be an anchor with a crosspiece, a ship with a mast and yard, a human figure with outstretched arms, or a juxtaposition of the initials of the name Jesus or Christ (in Greek or Latin) to produce a cross-like shape. It was in the fourth century that the cross became an openly Christian symbol. By that time crucifixion as a method of state execution had been abolished and the cross ceased to have its former cruel and negative associations. Several hundred years later it was deemed a terrific symbol to use to ward off vampires, demons, etc.
- Skip Church

If Christ was executed today I bet Christians would wear little electric chairs around their necks.
- Dick Gregory

After the missionary explained the Bible's superior civilized plan of salvation to several natives, one of them stood and said, "Like you, we love our gods and seek to love one another. What we do not understand is why your god tried to pin down sin by using His son as a voodoo doll."
- Skip Church

Christianity is merely paganism with a more successful advertising campaign.
- Skip Church

Orthodox Christian theology teaches that Jesus had to die before God could forgive sins and send people to heaven. If that's true, then why isn't there a "Saint Judas?"
- Skip Church

Whenever I forgive someone it's relatively easy. But for God, it takes a bloody miracle.
- Skip Church

CONVERSATION, A.D. 33

A: Have you heard the latest?

B: No, what's happened?

A: The world has been redeemed!

B: You don't say!

A: Yes, the Dear Lord took on human form and had himself executed in Jerusalem; and with that the world has been redeemed and the devil hoodwinked.

B: Gosh, that's simply lovely.

- Arthur Shopenhauer

CHIPMUNK CRUCIFIXION

No chipmunk had to be crucified
on a tiny cross of twigs
To save all the other chippies,
Had to have nails pounded
through his little paws,
Had to take upon himself
all the sins of all the chippies
that ever were or would be
and die in agony
So that after they died
all the chippies
could live again forever,
But only if they believed
in all the sayings and doings
of the chipmunk crucified
on the tiny cross of twigs.

- Antler, Last Words

Christianity has a built-in defense system; anything that questions a belief, no matter how logical the argument, is the work of Satan by the very fact that it makes you question a belief. It is a very interesting defense mechanism and the only way to get by it, and believe me I was raised Southern Baptist, is to take heroic doses of mushrooms, sit in a field, and just go, "Show me."
- Bill Hicks

It seems to me that the most spurious of all the great religions is Christianity. Its biblical miracles are childish, pre-scientific myths. Its theology has been taken right out of the caldrons of blood sacrifice and appeasement. For God so loved the world that he allowed the crucifixion of his only son to appease his own wrath, and then he denied eternal life to billions of human souls who refused to accept the gory myth.
- Paul Blanshard (former minister), Personal and Confidential

Isn't it ironic that Christians keep repeating, "Civilization will fail without Christianity" on computers built by Buddhists in Japan?
- Source unknown

Christians are generally creepy people as a direct result of the dysfunctional dynamic of worshipping a dead naked hippie.
- Die Warzau, Engine Tour Shirt, 1995

Judas and Christianity

Orthodox Christian theology teaches that Jesus had to die before God could forgive sins and send people to heaven. If that's true, then why isn't there a "Saint Judas?"

- Skip Church

It's like going up to one of the Kennedy clan with a rifle pendant on. "Just thinking of president John F. Kennedy, your uncle. We love him."

- Bill Hicks, Rant in E-minor, CD

We Christians neither want nor worship crosses as the pagans do.

- Minucius Felix (Christian author, circa 200 A.D.)

- Skip Church

If Christ was executed today I bet Christians would wear little electric chairs around their necks.

- Dick Gregory

After the missionary explained the Bible's superior civilized plan of salvation to several natives, one of them stood and aid, "Like you, we love our gods and seek to love one another. What we do not understand is why your god tried to pin down sin by using His son as a voodoo doll."

- Skip Church

Christianity is merely paganism with a more successful advertising campaign.

- Skip Church

Whenever I forgive someone it's relatively easy. But for God, it takes a bloody miracle.

- Skip Church

CONVERSATION, A.D. 33

A: Have you heard the latest?

B: No, what's happened?

A: The world has been redeemed!

B: You don't say!

A: Yes, the Dear Lord took on human form and had himself executed in Jerusalem; and with that the world has been redeemed and the devil hoodwinked.

B: Gosh, that's simply lovely.

- Arthur Shopenhauer

CHIPMUNK CRUCIFIXION

- Antler, Last Words

- Bill Hicks

Isn't it ironic that Christians keep repeating, "Civilization will fail without Christianity" on computers built by Buddhists in Japan?

- Source unknown

Christians are generally creepy people as a direct result of the dysfunctional dynamic of worshipping a dead naked hippie.
- Die Warzau, Engine Tour Shirt, 1995

Twenty Thousand Different Christian Denominations Can't Be All Wrong! (OR Can They?)

"Ed, your research reveals a disturbing trend throughout the centuries. I have to wonder what the point of all this mayhem was, which was done "in the name of god."

Taking the long view, mayhem is mayhem whether done in God's name or not. I'm afraid that once religion was defanged after the religious wars of Europe, politics and nationalism became the new religion, and caused more wars. Mankind just doesn't seem to be able to get it. Today we have a resurgence of fundamentalism in religions like Xnty and Islam, Judaism, and even militant Hindus and militant Buddhists (the later live on the isle of Sri Lanka). Each individual is attracted to the prospect of becoming a part of something larger and more long lasting than their one short life. That's why people join groups in the first place (the less secure the person the more absolutist the group they join, or, they are secure people but feel even MORE secure when joined to an absolutist group).

The horror of Christianity is dual in that it has convinced bold bad people that they are good, the chosen, the elect of God; and it has also convinced sensitive and compassionate people that they are egregious sinners who have to spend their whole lives in penance and fear.

And history reveals of course that Christianty and Christians fall time and again into the same dirty ditches as every other dogmatic absolutist group in history, regardless of the fact that Christians boast a perfect book to guide them perfectly and a perfect holy spirit to lead them into all perfect truth.

And they also believe that regardless of a couple thousand years of evidence to the contrary, only THEY are right in THEIR beliefs and only THEY are "forgiven" when they fall into the same dirty ditches as every other absolutist group on earth. Today there are over 20,000 different Chrisitan groups and denominations and missionary organizations. And the diversity of views among them are amazing.

CHRISTIANITY RUNS THE GAMUT?
From silent Trappist monks and quiet Quakers - to hell raisers and snake handlers;

From those who "hear the Lord" telling them to run for president, seek diamonds in Uganda, or sell Lake of Galilee beauty products - to those who have visions of Mary, the saints, or experience bleeding stigmata;

From those who believe the communion bread and wine remain just that - to those who believe the bread and wine are miraculously transformed into "invisible" flesh and blood (and can vouch for it with tales of communion wafers turning into human flesh and wine curdling into blood cells during Mass);

From those who argue that they are predestined to argue in favor of predestination - to those who argue for free will of their own free will;

From those who believe everyone will eventually be saved - to those who believe most everyone will be damned;

From Christian monks and priests who have gained insights into their own faith after dialoging with Buddhist monks and Hindu priests - to Christians who view Eastern religious ideas and practices as "Satanic;"

From castrati (boys in Catholic choirs who underwent castration to keep their voices high) - to Protestant choirs (who sing Luther's hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," based on the melody of a drinking song) - all the way to "Christian rap;"

From Christians who reject any behavior that even mimics "what homosexuals do" (including a rejection of fellatio and cunnilingus between husband and wife) - to Christians who accept committed, loving, homosexual relationships (including gay evangelical Church groups);

From Catholic nuns and Amish women who dress to cover their bodies - to Christian nudists, and born-again strippers;

From those who believe in sex between married couples for pleasure - to those who believe in sex primarily for procreation - to those who believe celibacy is superior to marriage (Catholic priests, monks and nuns & the Shakers) - all the way to those who believe in cutting off one's genitals for the kingdom of God (the Skoptze, a Russian Christian sect);

From those who believe sending out missionaries to persuade others to become Christians is essential - to the Anti-Mission Baptists who believe that sending out missionaries and trying to persuade others constitutes a lack of faith and the sin of pride, and that the founding of "extra-congregational missionary organizations" is not Biblical;

From those who believe Easter should be celebrated on one date (Roman Catholics) - to those who believe Easter should be celebrated on another date (Eastern Orthodox), which resulted in the Roman Catholics excommunicating all the Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire;

From those who worship on Sunday - to those who worship on Saturday (the Hebrew "sabbath" that God said to "keep holy" according to one of the Ten Commandments) - all the way to those who believe their daily walk with God and love of their fellow man is more important than church attendance;

From those who stress "God's commands" - to those who stress "God's love;"

From those who teach that being "baptized with water as an adult believer" is an essential sign of salvation - to those who deny it is;

From those who teach that "baptism in the Holy Spirit" along with "speaking in tongues" are important signs of salvation - to those who deny they are (some of whom see mental and Satanic delusions in modern day "Spirit baptism" and "tongue-speaking");

From those who believe that avoiding alcohol, smoking, gambling, dancing, contemporary Christian music, movies, television, long hair (on men), etc., are all important signs of being saved - to those who believe you need only trust in Jesus as your personal savior to be saved;

From pro-slavery Christians - to anti-slavery Christians;

From Christians who defend the biblical idea of "kingships" and oppose "democracy" as "the meanest and worst of all forms of government" (John Winthrop, first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and today's Reconstructionist Christians) - to Christians who oppose "kingships" and support democracies;

From "social Gospel" Christians - to "uncompromised Gospel" Christians;

From Christians who do not believe in sticking their noses in politics - to coup d'etat Christians;

From "stop the bomb" Christians - to "drop the bomb" Christians?

All in all, Christianity gives Hinduism with its infinite variety of sects and practices a run for its money.
- Skip Church

____________________________

THE WORLD'S NEED

So many gods, so many creeds,
So many paths that wind and wind,
While just the art of being kind,
Is all the sad world needs.
- Ella Wheeler Wilcox (1850-1919)

Banned Book: About Leaving the Fold by Edward T. Babinski

"The book was recently removed from the shelves of the Anderson County Public Library in South Carolina (Babinski's home state), due to complaints from patrons. The book contains nearly three dozen first-hand testimonies from former fundamentalists who have become liberal Christians, agnostics or atheists. According to Babinski, 'I've tried to get the local newspaper to interview me since writing my book, but they never had the time. Sales have been slow. Now, miracle of miracles, the book is being mentioned in newspapers, television and radio. God bless those Christians!'"

The Secular Humanist Bulletin

Your comments are welcomed!

Controversial Book: "Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists"

by Edward T. Babinski

This book is primarily a collection of testimonies by people who were Protestant Christian fundamentalists and who later left fundamentalism (with the exceptions of Tom Harpur and Harvey Cox, who were moderate Christians whose views underwent a broadening similar to what some fundamentalist contributors experienced).

A hard-line fundamentalist may wish to warn the authors of this book's testimonies, and anyone reading this book, that "hell" is probably their "next destination." But he will have to do better than that if he hopes to convince his former brethren to rejoin him in his "straight and narrow" appreciation of the Bible and Jesus. He may even have to read this entire book to understand where his former brethren are "coming from" rather than simply predict where he thinks they are going.

I first tried marketing this book in parts. The testimonies of those who had left fundamentalism but remained Christians were to be published by a moderate liberal Christian press; the testimonies of those who had left both fundamentalism and religion were to be published by an atheist or agnostic press. However, some testimonies, such as those by William Bagley and Ernest Heramia, did not fit easily into either category.

I contacted several moderate and liberal Christian publishing houses and found that none of them were interested in "testimonies." I think that is a defect of moderate and liberal Christian sensibilities. Perhaps they do not wish to "lower" their standards, so to speak, by copying confrontational evangelistic techniques used by conservatives and fundamentalists, one such technique being "testifying." (Can I hear an "Amen," brother?) Yet personal testimonies are remarkably effective at conveying feelings, not merely facts; deeds, not merely dogmas; and they incite people to act as well as to think. For many years evangelical Protestant Christianity has used the power inherent in a single person's "testimony" to win new converts and buoy the faith of old ones.

So, after several rejections from moderate and liberal publishing houses, I offered the testimonies to the largest free-thought press in America, Prometheus Books. At first I was skeptical whether a "free-thought" press would print testimonies by people who had remained Christians, but I was assured that promoting genuinely free thinking was more important to the press than selectively chopping up every hundred-thousand-word manuscript they bought until it resembled a ten-page primer for atheism. Prometheus has published three full-length autobiographies of people whose faith in Christianity was shattered after they had witnessed the unethical or demagogic practices of church leaders and the naivete of their followers (i.e., Salvation for Sale, Don't Call Me Brother, and Jesus Doesn't Live Here Anymore). None of the authors of those books is an atheist. Furthermore, printing only testimonies advocating atheism would be to fall into the same error as that of the fundamentalists, who feel it imperative that everyone believe exactly as they do.

I suppose that the nearest that fundamentalist Christians ever came to advocating greater diversity rather than greater uniformity was when Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority, which, until its demise in 1986, focused on the moral (and political) concerns of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. Considering what fundamentalist Protestants teach about the grave errors of Catholicism (not to mention Judaism), that was quite an amalgamation for a fundamentalist like Jerry Falwell to construct. But, as they say, "politics makes strange bedfellows." For that matter, so does televangelism."

(Chuckle.)

This book exemplifies how an even more diverse array of people (far more diverse than the Moral Majority) is willing to band together to speak out on an issue that has intimately affected all of them, hoping thereby to increase the volume and scope of their declarations.

Once you have read all the testimonies, certain threads linking them together become apparent: the dilemmas and fears each person faced in leaving fundamentalism behind; their gradually dawning courage to ask crucial critical questions, and to continue asking more questions; their discovery of how wonderful it can be to allow one's innate curiosity the freedom it craves; and the blossoming of their distinctive personalities and beliefs. Anyone who enjoys a novel with idiosyncratic and markedly diverse characters will enjoy reading what lies ahead.

Of course, people who have left fundamentalism can differ markedly in their reactions to it. At one end of the spectrum are those who bid fundamentalism a "fond farewell." They had fun as fundamentalists, particularly in their youth. They also remind us that belonging to a fundamentalist church is a healthy alternative to drug addiction, alcoholism, and crime. A fundamentalist church setting can provide some with the social and psychological context that helps them to legitimize and catalyze radical changes they wish to make in their lives. (Of course, individuals must also want to change in the first place. No mere context can do that for you, as groups like Alcoholics Anonymous have pointed out.)

At the other end of the spectrum are those who aim both barrels at their former fundamentalist lives and beliefs. They view fundamentalist organizations as robbing people of their money (through "tithing," "giving till it hurts," and phoney come-ons to garner more contributions than a television ministry knows what to do with); robbing people of their time (every minute involved in church activities); robbing people of their health (phoney promises made by "faith healers"); and robbing people of their individuality, their freedom of thought, or even their ability to appreciate life.

Both perspectives can undoubtedly be true, depending on each individual's personal experiences. It was left up to each contributor to discuss in whatever terms they chose their entrance into and exit from fundamentalism, and to explain where they are today.

If you are a Christian, you may be interested primarily in testimonies by former fundamentalists who remained Christians. If you are not a Christian, but open to non-Christian spiritualities (wiccan or eastern), then you may find testimonies of that nature more to your liking. If you "don't know" which part of the book you might enjoy reading first, try the testimonies of those who became agnostics. If you are an atheist, your curiosity may be peaked by that section. Or, if you are a historian, you may wish to flip to the final section of testimonies of historical figures.

Readers of all persuasions should peruse the annotated bibliography that lists further testimonies. Or, you may wish to advance directly ahead.

Preview This Book

Read the Editorial Reviews

Read the Reviews by Other People