Internet Ethics

My daughter and I were watching “Harvey” last night. A movie made in the 1950’s. A scene in the first act was at a Tea in which Veta Simmons invites numerous ladies of high society to hear a lady sing.

My daughter turned to me and said (as only a 15-year-old can) “That would be SO boring!” I reminded her how, prior to Television, people were entertained differently. Speeches were events. Variety shows were the highlight of the year. How people could not just turn on a box and watch something 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Whether we like it or not, how we relate has changed. Prior to telephones, the only relating we could do is face to face, or by letter. The idea of relating to another person in another continent would be a commitment. Not an afterthought.

Life progressed with telephones, automobiles and airplanes. We sat on porches in the evening to talk to our neighbors. We were on bowling leagues. We were in 4-H.

Life progressed more and faster. Front porches gave way to back yard decks. Rather than attend a church because it was within walking distance, we attended a church we liked within driving distance. And if we became disenchanted with that church, we found another within driving distance.

We began to pick schools, not because of where we lived, but the quality of the academics or the programs offered. Our friends live 10 or 20 or 30 miles away. We no longer knew our next-door neighbors first names, let alone how their children were doing.

But even with that, we have a limited resource by which to develop our relationships. Our pool was church, school, work or locale. Each of us have been faced with a situation in which we have had to make a decision whether to continue a friendship within this set of people, either because of offending the other, or being offended, or some other moral reason.

Along came the internet. Our “pool” has now developed into a world-wide relationship base. If I want to find a white male, unmarried, who has converted from Mormonism to Islam, a google search and some effort, and the next thing you know, I am talking to not one, but five or six. What would be the chance I could find such an individual within the old social circle of church, school, etc.? Not very great.

And with this new gang of people talking, chatting, blogging, foruming and e-mailing, I wonder how our old ethics system will fair. It is not designed for this much interaction.

Take the adage: “Love your neighbor.” In my average day, there are only so many people I can encounter and utilize that principle. I can only offend so many! Maybe a few drivers on the way to work, I let cut in front of me. Or a tip and a smile to the harried coffee clerk. A help to some co-workers. An extra effort for some clients. Then back home (letting in a few more drivers) to help my wife and children.

Here, on the ‘net, I can encounter millions. Now, I seriously doubt that millions of people are reading my blog. Frankly, without a counter, it may only be a faithful dozen. BUT, the potential is there that any person of millions, could inadvertently wander in and be offended. What is my responsibility under “Love my neighbor”?

Can I start a blog called, “ChristianityCanSuckMyBigToe” and seriously be considered as “loving my neighbor”? Yet we have a site called “AtheismSucks.” Is that “Loving your neighbor”? Would Jesus be a contributor at “AtheismSucks”? (WWJB?) I wonder how a Christian can effectively write on-line, yet constantly maintain a “love your neighbor” attitude. Somebody, somewhere is certain to be offended. Can we just write that person off?

In real life, we have a limiting factor by time and locale. Here, on the ‘net, I can probably find a way to offend somebody at any time of the day. What do I do about that responsibility? Sadly, I see most simply shrug. “Hey, you can’t please everybody.” No, you can’t. So what ethic do you develop by which enough “somebodys” are bothered that you change?

Imagine I write a blog entry. And one Christian writes in “Hey, this was offensive to me.” My personal moral is to treat others as they would like to be treated. This person does not want to read what I have written. Do I delete it? Do I explain myself, in the hopes of convincing them otherwise?

Another Christian writes in that this was offensive. And another. Eventually 100 Christians write in, all claiming it was offensive. And not a single Christian said it was fine. I would think we all agree that I have violated my personal moral. I did not treat others as they would like to be treated. But what if 1 out of the 100 said it was O.K.? Or two? Or it was divided 50/50?

How many Christians does it take for me to violate my own ethic?

Of course, the most dramatic shift is the ability to be anonymous. In real life, I am immediately aware of when I have offended another driver. That middle finger she is waiving at me communicates effectively. When we offend or hurt another in life, it is very often face-to-face. We see the person. Or we will see them next Sunday.

That personal interaction tempers our speech and tone. We have all read internet battles. Have you ever read one as if the two (or more) participants were speaking face to face? If you saw that on the street, you would be certain that a physical fight was imminent! But when “DagoodS” is writing to “PapaBear 352”* I can call them an “ignorant buffoon who couldn’t outsmart a rock, and should do their personal effort to help increase the average I.Q. of their country by moving somewhere else. Like an unpopulated island.”

We think nothing of such statements on-line, yet in real life we would be aghast at the affront of someone saying such things. (Add the capital letters and we could REALLY see a fight!)

I don’t know PapaBear 352. I literally do not know what hemisphere of the world they live in, their sex, age, marital status, or anything. And that “not knowing” coupled with them not knowing mine, gives me license to write what I want, when I want and how I want?

Is what is transpiring on-line going to cross over to real life, or are we developing a completely different moral system here? I see us as an evil Superman, with a secret Identity.

Clark: Morning Lois! Boy, this is great coffee! Anything I can help you with?
Lois: No, Clark. Thanks.

Clark: Great! I’ll just check my e-mail.
*Logs in to ‘EvilSuper’*
*Reads e-mail from ‘JimPhoto’*

EvilSuper: What?! [typing] You senseless TWIT! It is PEOPLE like YOU that give newspapers a BAD NAME! How you EVER got a job is beyond me! You can’t even spell ‘hawsehole’ correctly! Its one word—moron! Come back when you have a third-grade education. DUMBASS.
*logs off*

Clark: Hey Lois, can you call Jimmie? He’s such a nice kid; I want to take him to lunch.
Lois: Not right now, he got an e-mail from some guy called ‘EvilSuper’ and is typing out a response…

Is the internet making us worse, the same, or just different by being able to communicate anonymously? Is it the real us, or a different side of us?

In addition, thanks to the commonality of the set we associate with, there is bound to be someone that agrees with our statements. Who can stroke our ego and support us. “Naw, you were fine. That silly thin-skinned Christian was too sensitive when you called posted a picture of a naked Jesus in Chocolate. Not your fault.” We can offend others AND receive encouragement at the same time!

Where can we do that in real life?

And the neat part is that it is so immediate. In life, when we offend others, or are offended, we pause and reflect. Sometimes we will not even see the person for a period of time before we can respond. That gives us a moment to stop and consider what to say, and how to say it.

Here, we have hardly finished reading before we have clicked “Reply” and start banging out a venomous response. Our brain does not have time to kick in and say, “You know, maybe you should re-think this…”

Another interesting dynamic that has recently come across my radar—how do we communicate that what we find is unacceptable to us. To use another example—what if I am on a forum. And another poster makes a comment about me, or another, or in general that I find completely distasteful. I respond, to no avail. I PM, to receive either hate-mail or no response. I complain to moderators who are uninterested.

What do I do? What does my ethic require of me? Do I shrug it off and continue? Do I walk with my feet? Do I demand an apology over and over and over? We don’t have a great many options.

Do any of us like those blogs were all of a sudden a seemingly rationale person begins to type about how “CrazyEight”* over at “bobo.blogspot”* wrote something mean about them, and now the blogger is going to show THEM by telling the world about what has transpired, and how they were hurt, and let’s see the whole history…

Yes, I know it may be cathartic for that blogger at that moment…but after having read the first dozen—are they that interesting? Isn’t just another internet battle with different names and different issues, but the same words?

Recently I have been struck by the difference between internet ethics and life. Sorry—no answers in this blog entry. I almost feel as if this is too big of a creature to wrap my arms around.

Any thoughts?



*completely made up moniker(s). If there IS someone who happens to have this as an internet name, I most certainly did NOT mean you!

The Amalekites

When I discuss the mass killings of the Tanakh, I normally rely upon Numbers 31 and the Midianites, because it introduces concepts that are difficult to explain.

I have, however, fallen into discussions surrounding the Amalekites of 1 Samuel 15:1-35. Thought I would plot out some ideas on the matter.

Biblical Description of Amalekites

(with some of my reflections in italics)

The first mention we have of the nation of the Amalekites, is when the Hebrews were leaving Egypt, during their sojourn through the wilderness. To give a little background: Pharaoh had decided to let the Hebrews go. They were on their way to Canaan (modern day Israel.) The simplest route, and the trade routes that existed, would be to travel along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea between Egypt and Canaan.

However, this area was controlled by the Philistines, and God felt that immediately having to battle would discourage the Hebrews, and they would return to Egypt. (Ex. 13:17) Odd hesitation, considering we are about to view them engage another enemy in battle. Therefore God sent them into the Wilderness of Zin. This is the land mass between the two fingers of the Red Sea. The Sinai Peninsula. An area of approximately 130 miles by 240 miles.

Being a desert and wilderness, and considering having 2 million people to sustain—food and water become a priority. God resolves the problem of food with manna, but they still relied upon natural sources for water. After resting at Elim (12 wells and 70 palm trees for 2 Million), they travel on to Rephidim. No one knows exactly where these locations are in Sinai. The closest we can surmise is “somewhere on the peninsula.”

It is at Rephidim that Moses strikes the rock with his staff in order to obtain water. It is also at Rephidim that we first encounter…the Amalekites! They came as aggressors to attack the Israelites. But where did they come from?

We have no archeological evidence of the Amalekites. We don’t know their language, their customs, or even what area they occupied. We don’t know their religion, their architecture, their pottery. If it was not for their mention in the Bible, we would never know they existed at all. Therefore, any knowledge we have regarding these things comes from the Tanakh. Nowhere else.

When Moses sent spies into the land, they report that the Amalekites are in “the south.” Numbers 13:29. They are roughly placed in the southern portion of Israel and northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula. Very near the land of Edom. (Amalek (who the Amalekites are presumably named after) was the grandson of Esau (who the Edomites are named after.) Thus most scholars place their locales close together.)

No reason is given for the Amalekites to attack the Hebrews. In an equivalent account (Numbers 20,) Moses requests the Edomites to pass through their land, and this is the cause for the Edomites to attack. (A good offense is the best defense.) Curiously, while the Amalekites are hated for attacking the Hebrews on their wanderings, the Edomites are forgiven for it. (Duet 23:7)

O.K.—so we have the Amalekites attacking the Hebrews at Rephidim. God tells Moses that as long as Moses holds up both arms, the Hebrews will prevail in battle. But if Moses lets his arms drop, they will begin to lose. This is exactly what happens. Eventually Aaron figured out that Moses would need some help (he is 80 after all!), so he and another fellow hold Moses’ arms up for him. (Ex. 17) (Apparently the Philistines were too smart to fall for that hand-holding stunt, and that is why God couldn’t use it on ‘em.)

The Amalekites fail. God takes this attack pretty hard, and swears enmity between the Amalekites and the Israelites from generation to generation. God vows to wipe out their memory. (Ex. 17:14-16) (And yes, we all get the humor of the fact that God says, “Write it down so we can blot out their memory.”)

Numbers records an incident regarding the Hebrews rebelling against God, and leaving camp. God uses the Amalekites to punish these miscreants by attacking and killing the Hebrews. Numbers 14:43-45.

In Deuteronomy, Moses gives his farewell speech to the people, and reminds them of how the Amalekites attacked them from the rear, and killed the stragglers. Moses tells the people to wipe out the Amalekites. Duet. 25:17-19. Oddly, although Moses is telling the people to “remember” no such incident is recorded in Exodus, Numbers or Deuteronomy. Further, Moses fails to mention the attack at Rephidim. (Yes, I know that the author of Exodus could know about Rephidim and choose to not write about the guerilla attacks, and the author of Deuteronomy could write about the guerilla attacks and not write about Rephidim, and the author of Numbers could be recording a totally different incident about Meribah—but to me, this has the marking of different stories being merged together.)

There is one other unusual incident regarding the Amalekites before we leave the wilderness. The Hebrews had destroyed the Amorites, which gave Balak, the king of the Moabites reason for grave concerns. Balak aligned with the Midianites, and sent a call out to Balaam the diviner. We know the story of Balaam; the fellow with the talking donkey!

Balak desired Balaam to curse the Hebrews, but instead Balaam keeps blessing them. After blessing them three times, Balak withholds his fee (not surprisingly) and Balaam then pronounces a curse on the Moabites, saying a star shall come out of Jacob and beat Moab. (Clearly a prophesy about David.) But out of nowhere, Balaam turns to Amalek and says it was first among the nations, but it shall perish. Numbers 24:20. We never knew the Amalekites were involved, it is uncertain as what it means by the Amalekites being the “first.” We do not hear how the Amalekites are involved after. It is as if this statement comes out of the blue!

However, there is a tie-in. When Balaam is offering the last blessing on Israel, he said, “His king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted.” Number 24:7. Israel doesn’t have a king. Won’t for another 200 to 400 years to 1400 years (depending on when one prefers to date the Exodus.) But the very first king that Israel has is ordered to slaughter the Amalekites who have a king named “Agag.” Either Balaam is an incredibly accurate prophet, or this portion of Numbers was written after the period in which Saul is claimed to be king. (I’ll let the reader decide for themselves.)

The Amalekites are not mentioned throughout Joshua’s campaign, although the land in which they would have been living was given to Judah. Joshua 15:1-12

Continuing the history between the Amalekites and the Israelites, after Joshua conquers the land, we enter the period of the Judges. We read the same cycle throughout the book of Judges:

1) Israel Sins.
2) God has an enemy attack Israel as punishment.
3) Israel repents; asking for a deliverer.
4) God provides a deliverer through a Judge.
5) Once they are delivered, Israel goes back to sinning.

In two of these cycles, the Amalekites receive a nod.

Eglon, the king of the Moabites was strengthened by YHWH to attack Israel as punishment. (Judges 3:13) So Eglon aligns with the Ammonites and the Amalekites, attacks, and prevails. The Amalekites are not mentioned again in the encounter.

Instead, it is noted that Israel must pay tribute to the Moabites. Until God raised up the left-handed Ehud who manages to sneak a knife into Eglon’s throne room, ending Eglon’s reign and the Moabite oppression.

On of the most famous judges was Gideon. Who fought primarily the Midianites. But at the very beginning of this cycle, it is indicated that the Midianites were burning the Israelites’ corps, and the Amalekites were doing so as well. It is the Midianites and the Amalekites that fall for the broken pitchers with candles in them in the famous story of Gideon. (Judges 6-7)

With that as our background, we arrive at 1 Sam. 15-- the famous genocide passage. God says he will punish the Amalekites for ambushing the Israelites during Exodus. (vs. 2) (This could be either the attack at Rephidim recorded in Exodus or the flanking attacks on stragglers from Deuteronomy. Or Both. Unclear from the brief statement.)

God tells Saul to kill every Amalekite, making specific mention that even if it is an infant, or a baby so young it is still nursing. (It is this specificity as to why skeptics raise this particular genocide, I think.)

(Unexpectedly, Saul tells the Kenites to flee, as they showed kindness to Israel during the Exodus. I can find no story about this kindness. Only that Balaam (the talking donkey fellow) gives a blessing to the Kenites at the same time he was cursing the Amalekites. A tale that is lost in antiquity. However, at times we hear the claim that “Kenites” is synonymous with “Midianites.” Having read our history so far, how persuasive is it that Saul tells Midianites to flee because of “kindness” to Israel?)

As we learn, Saul does NOT do as God ordered. He doesn’t kill all the animals. He doesn’t kill the king—Agag. He doesn’t kill all the Amalekites. Although it is recorded that he killed all the people. (vs. 8) Samuel the prophet learns of this from God, goes to Saul, and informs him that his progeny will not be kings. To demonstrate the point, Samuel lops off the head of Agag. (there are also intriguing concepts of God not relenting and God having regrets within the passage, but this is not the focus of my discussion today.)

If we stayed within the four corners of 1 Sam 15, especially vs. 8, we would believe that the act was successful. That the Amalekites were wiped out.

Yet we learn they still existed. Saul was attempting to kill David, so this caused David to seek safety by living in the Land of the Philistines. While living there, David attacked numerous neighboring people, including the Amalekites. (and the Kenites!) 1 Sam. 27:1-8. Again, it is emphasized that David killed all the men and women of the Amalekites.

While the Philistines were off killing Saul, David returns to his home at Ziklag (in Philistine country) to discover that that Amalekites had raided his home, and taken all his possessions. 1 Sam. 30:1-2 (It is specifically noted that the Amalekites did NOT kill any of the women. They treated their Hebrew captives more kindly than the Hebrews treated their own. Who is the monster in this story?)

David pursues the Amalekites, attacks them, and kills all but 400 young men who escape. 1 Sam. 30:17. As a final postscript, and an uneventful ending, the remaining Amalekites are finally killed by skirmish during the reign of Hezekiah. 1 Chron. 4:43.

Thus ends the history of the Amalekites. Skeptics raise this story, due to the uncomfortable nature of a God ordering the death of babies that are breast-feeding, for something that their great-great-great-great-great-grandparents did. There are numerous Christian responses to this act; I will address a few.

It was not a Genocide

In reviewing what Christians say about this act, I came across this Christian Think Tank article which made the rather bold claim that this was not a genocide. (This would still leave the orders to kill all the non-combatants, including babies, which, however you want to term it, is not a moral thing to do.)

The article defines “genocide” as “generally denotes the deliberate killing of someone solely because of their indelible group membership (indelible is the term used for race, ethnicity, nationality etc.--that characteristics that are 'indelible').” I am uncertain as to how the Amalekites do NOT fit this definition. Saul could clearly determine who was an Amalekite and who was not, the Kenites were also identified and deliberately removed from the midst of the Amalekites, and the Amalekite babies were killed for being…well…progeny of Amalekite parents.

It would seem, on the face, that an Amalekite was killed for being an Amalekite.

The article goes on to make four (5) distinctions between the Amalekites and other genocides:

“1. They are NOT an internal group
2. They are NOT a minority group
3. Amalekites are NOT targeted because of their Amalekite-ness (since they were welcome as immigrants in Israel)
4. They are never under the government control of Israel.
5. They are not pursed and hunted in other countries for extermination.”

As to the first, “not an internal group,” the land in which the Amalekites were living was within the area specifically scouted by Joshua’s scouts. The land was within the borders given to Judah. Whether Saul had actual control over their land may be a question, but remember, we are talking about God ordering this thing. And in God’s mind, these Amalekites appeared to be “internal” to the land God had given Judah. The same issue with not being under the “government” of Israel. In God’s eyes, they were under Israeli punishment.

Given the fact we have no numbers as to the Amalekites, and inflated numbers as to the Israelites during this period, any claim as to “minority” seems premature. And it reads as if they were killed for their Amalekite-ness. (Why, for example, were the Kenites not allowed to adopt the Amalekite babies? Why must the babies be killed because of their parents DNA?)

I agree with the fifth point, that the Amalekites were not pursued and hunted in other countries, although the author does not seem to realize this contradicts the first point of them not being an internal group. If they were not in Israel, then Saul would have had to pursue them in other countries—namely their own!

I guess I am a little surprised at the tactic of claiming this was not genocide in that it has all the markings of genocide, is not distinguishable from genocide, and it is still an atrocity, regardless of whether it fits some technical term.

God is Sovereign

This is couched in the terms that God gave life, so God can take life away. That God reigns supreme over his creation and can, in essence, do what he wants.

There are two key limitations in exercising authority within sovereignty—physical ability and legal permission. For example, the President of the United States may have legal permission to wage war, but he cannot order his generals to use the “De-Atomizer Gun” upon the enemy. There is no such gun. Even within his sovereignty, the President cannot do that which is physically impossible.

Likewise, the President could physically utter the words, “You’re Fired!” to the United States Supreme Court; however he does not have the legal permission to fire a Supreme Court Justice.

I seriously doubt, when discussing the sovereignty of God, that either the believer or the skeptic is raising the question of physical ability. It is not as if the non-believer is questioning a God’s capability to exert enough power to harm the fragile human body to the point it ceases to function. We all get that a God would have enough “whammy” up its sleeve to kill one or more humans. In the present situation, this is a bit irrelevant since God himself does not do the act, but orders other humans to do so.

It must be something else the Christian is referring to when claiming, “God can create life; God can end it.” It must be within the legal permissive end.

Which raises the colossal problem of how to determine what a God has legal permission to do, within its sovereignty. It is not as if the Christian proposes a limitless God. They, too, impose legal restrictions upon Him. If the believer claims that God is solely moral, this would limit God from performing an immoral act.

Despite the physical ability, and sovereignty of God, the moral limitation would restrict God’s complete sovereignty. If one claims God is bound by logic, this would be another legal restriction. We see claims all the time, limiting God’s sovereignty. The claims that he is bound by Truth. That he is bound by Justice. That he is bound by his covenants. Even claims that he is bound by allowing free will in the restriction of immoral acts and suffering.

Which brings us back to the question—how can we possibly know WHAT God is legally entitled to or bound to not do within his sovereignty? It creates a curious kind of being that cannot lie to humans, but can kill them at will. A being that must be Just, but can exert mercy when and where it chooses to do.

This results in the problem of assuming a conclusion in order to prove it. A circular argument, if you will.

How can we know if God can permissively do an act? Because he did it.
Why is he allowed to do it? Because he has legal permission within his sovereignty.

Simply claiming that God is sovereign provides us no new information about God. We gain nothing by way of verification as to what, if any, limitation is imposed on his sovereignty. This comes across as an excuse, by which the believer attempts to absolve God by claiming it is within God’s right, when we can all see with brilliant light that there is no way to determine how God is limited or not.

God is Moral

Another statement brought up is that God is moral, so His ordering this genocide must be moral. Besides assuming the conclusion (again) this doesn’t provide us any new information. It is God’s morality that we are questioning, here. To simply declare, by definition, that “God is moral, so what he did was moral” is completely unhelpful.

Look, assume I told you that “Bob” did something against the law. To confirm or deny my statement, you require two key pieces of information—what it was that “Bob” did, and what the law is. If I simply tell you, “That Bob killed someone” we are still left with the inability to determine whether it violated the law. What if it was self-defense? What if Bob’s job was an executioner? What if Bob was a soldier in war? Likewise, if I told you that the Law says “Do not step on the grass” but fail to inform you as to how Bob acted relative to the grass, you are still left puzzling as to how Bob infracted the law.

In this situation we see God order what is apparently genocide. From what we have observed of genocide in history, we would declare this was an immoral act. Yet the Christian is informing me God did NOT violate some law. When I ask what law it is—it cannot be verified and is assumed to be…what?

What, exactly, is the law by which God can order Genocide and God cannot? When is it acceptable? When is it not?

Those questions (and inability to answer them) is what demonstrates this is an after-the-fact defense of God’s actions. There is no predictability in this method. If God orders Genocide—it must be moral. If God does not—it may or may not be moral.

Although to a Christian talking with another Christian, the blanket statement of “Whatever God does is moral” may be met with nods and affirmation, to a skeptic, we question two things—what is it that God did, and what is the law regarding those actions. Since the Christian has no way to verify that second statement, we are left wondering: If God did something immoral—how would you know?

The Amalekites were immoral

We have also heard the claim that because of the vast and terrible sins of the Canaanites, God was justified in wiping them out. That the Canaanites performed child sacrifice, homosexuality, temple prostitution and (cover your eyes) ate BLT sandwiches.

And, of course, due to these temptations the Israelites would never be able to withstand the strip clubs, so the only way God could possible hope to even remotely reduce the amount of sinning the Hebrews would do is to kill all the strip club owners. (Oddly, as we see through Judges, God never notices how ineffective this methodology is.)

There are two problems.

First, even assuming that the various peoples residing in Canaan were this hideously evil, the group that is NOT included is the Amalekites. In two distinct passages of Deuteronomy, God orders the Hebrews to wipe out nations for fear of turning the people away from YHWH by their abominations: Deut. 7:1 and 20:17. The nations listed are the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.

Need I mention who is conspicuous by their absence?

Imagine we have a table with an apple, an orange, a banana and a pear. They are just sitting there. Questionable as to whether you can eat one or all of the fruit. Then I say, “Do not eat the apple, the orange or the pear.” By designating which ones not to eat, implicitly I am providing permission as to which ones to eat—namely the banana.

God is aware of the Amalekites (Deut. 25:17-19) God wants to wipe them out. In fact God wants to wipe out a number of nations. God gives reasons for wiping out the various nations. And God does not list the Amalekite reason as its immorality.

Secondly, this is bolstered by the very reason God gave Saul to kill all the Amalekites—NOT because they were evil. But because of what their great-great-(and so on) grandparents did to Saul’s great-great-(and so on) grandparents, by attacking them while they wandered in the desert. God had every opportunity to declare the Amalekites as being bad influences on the Hebrews and never did. Even when listing other nations that were.

Often when discussing God’s various orders of genocide, we see the claim of how immoral, and what a bad influence these peoples were. As if the human Christians are attempting to justify, in their own minds, a reason for why this was a “punishment” for sin, and not an arbitrary order by God.

Much easier to think of a God ordering the death of murderers and rapists and pedophiles. We don’t want to consider God ordering the death of people who were just…well…people. That is distasteful.

And so the Amalekites are lumped in with all the other heathens as being “bad, bad, bad.” Yet that is distinctly the opposite of what the Bible actually says.

Which brings back a question from the previous section—when can God order Genocide? Perhaps, in some uncomfortable fashion, it can be slightly palatable when considering God ordering the deaths of horribly immoral people. But the Amalekites do not present us with that situation. They don’t give us that option.

In looking at the Amalekites, what other reason can we determine that makes genocide allowable? What did the Amalekites do? Well—they attacked the Israelites in war. Unpleasant, and not very gentlemanly, true. But how does that differentiate them from the Edomites, or the Philistines or the Moabites or the Midianites or the Amorites or the Assyrians or the Egyptians or the Perisans or…dare I say…the Israelites?

If attacking the Israelites is justification for God to order Genocide…oh…wait. That seems to be more of a 21st Century concept, doesn’t it? How many Christian Americans secretly contemplate genocide of the Arabs would be a Godly and just punishment? We hope none.

Further, God does not order the genocide of the Amalekites that attacked Israel in the desert. Nor the ones that joined the Moabites in the time of Ehud. Nor the ones who joined the Midianites in the time of Gideon.

No, God chooses to wipe out the Amalekites in the time of Saul when they weren’t attacking anybody!

Gangrene

In light of this, the troubling aspect is why did the babies have to die? God specifically orders the death, and makes mention of babies who are breast-feeding, emphasizing the young age. What did they do wrong, other than be born to the parents of the great-great- (oh, you get the point) grandchildren of some ancient battle?

One apologist (who will go nameless) attempted to explain the question of why even these babies must be killed by comparing it to gangrene. He pointed out that doctors have to reluctantly cut off healthy skin (i.e. babies) to eliminate the disease (i.e. the parents) in order to save the body (must be the Hebrews. Which were technically another body, but we should be charitable in our review of the analogy.)

Of course the first and most obvious problem is that if doctors had the capability to remove the gangrene and ONLY the gangrene, without damaging the healthy skin, they would. This analogy is a testament to the limitation of human ability. Is God as limited as human doctors? Would Jesus have had to sever an arm that was gangrenous?

Why is it that God can do no better than humans? Couldn’t God rehabilitate the Amalekites? Could God not “save” the healthy babies, while destroying the diseased parents?

Secondly, as pointed out above, this is not very applicable to the Amalekites, as their only disease was the actions of their ancestors.

If the Hittites and Jebusites and Canaanites would have repented of their evil ways—what would God have done? Interesting question. But not one available to the Amalekites; they could never repent for what their forefathers did.

In fact, in reviewing the history, we see remarkable forbearance and restraint on the part of the Amalekites. After Saul almost wiped them out, David was busy attacking their cities, equally killing all the men and women. Yet when the Amalekites attacked David’s city, they do not kill a single women or child. Not one.

Can you imagine your parents or grandparents all but eliminated by Saul? Your cousins and brothers and sisters are currently being killed by David. And all are claiming the mandate of a God, the blessing of the Creator to kill you, your children and all you know.

And you have an opportunity to fight back. A moment to attack the dreaded enemy. And you do NOT do to them what they did to you. Sounds like the Amalekites had pretty good handle on the Golden Rule long before Jesus came along.

To no avail. God has no mercy when your grandparents went to war…

All of which leads me to the $64,000 question—how does a skeptic tell the difference? We see people justifying their actions all the time: “The Devil made me do it,” “I was a product of a broken home,” “He hit me first!” Certainly a God is a convenient justification.

Here we have humans killing humans. For reasons that are not acceptable. Yet it is justified with the claim “God ordered me to do it.” How do I tell the difference between humans using God as an excuse to do what humans have always done, and a God that has the moral ability to order genocide? An ability in which I have no feasible way to verify or even view the law by which God is supposedly conforming?

A small story to make my point:

When I was in the early stages of deconversion, I was struck by the unsettling issue of whether we were giving the benefit of the doubt to incidents in the Tanakh, simply because they were “Christian.” How do I remove my own bias from the equation and treat the story as if it came from another religion? How would it be considered then?

One day, in Sunday School, I mentioned how I had been studying the Qur’an. And that within the Qur’an it indicated that Allah had granted the land of Palestine to the Muslims, giving them the right to kill all non-Muslim inhabitants within. Further, that the Qur’an clearly states those of us outside of Palestine are Infidels, and if we did not convert to Islam, the Muslims are entitled to kill all the males, taking the females and children as rightful plunder.

There were statements of “Tsk, tsk” and “How awful” and “Can’t they see how wrong that is?”

I then indicated that those statements were NOT actually from the Qur’an, but were taken directly from Deut. 20:10-18. That it was YHWH, not Allan. And the Hebrews, not the Muslims. After an uncomfortable silence, and a few “Harumphs” as the people openly displayed their indignation at being deceived into condemning the Bible, a person coughed out, “Well, that was a different time…let’s move on!” and the whole uncomfortable affair was left behind.

I didn’t care. My fears were realized. We DO give the benefit of the doubt, and grant the God of the Bible concessions we never would in any other religion.

If Chemosh ordered the Moabites to wipe out the Hebrews for their attacks on them in the past, would any person claim that this was a moral act? Why would we do so for YHWH?

Finally, a common trend is to sweep the Tanakh atrocities under the rug. We see people emphasizing the God of the New Testament, and basically try to ignore the God of the Tanakh. I hear focus on “Love your neighbor” and not “Kill the Amalekites.”

At times Christians act as if their Old Testament is an albatross they wish would quietly go away. Oh, the Psalms and Proverbs can stay. And those neat prophecies in Isaiah. But when it comes to the conquest of Canaan, and the killing of people for some historical event…well… that is when the fidgeting begins, and the “hurry-up-let’s-get-this-over-with” comes in.

That distinct reluctance to embrace the God of the Genocide is more telling and screams louder about the immorality of the situation than anything I can write.

A Question I can’t get my mitts on…

How does an eternal being create fear of death?

I often see theists make claims that “because WE have such-and-such a trait, GOD must likewise.” A very common one is that we are social and desire relationships, therefore God must be more than one person. Or that we have an innate sense of Justice that reflects God must be just.

But isn’t this picking and choosing what attributes to attach to a god, and avoiding some problematic ones?

One of the most convenient reasons for being theistic at all is to answer that question, “Where did ___ come from?” “How did the universe come into being?” Why is there anything instead of nothing? And for this “god” is created as a reason. A god that is necessary (non-contingent) and eternal (without beginning or ending.)

To be honest, I haven’t wrapped my hands around the idea of how time can begin. (With or without a god). But assuming that somehow god is outside of time, or can start time without time already existing, this would mean god would have the requisite knowledge of what time was. That god may not be able to experience what it is to have time pass, but has the knowledge of what that would look like.

That is hard enough to grasp.

Yet even with that knowledge, in order to create entities that had the fear of the passing of time, god must have that knowledge too. Unless we are going to say that god fears its own death (!) then we must limit God’s understanding to being head-knowledge only, and not experience-knowledge.

By way of an inadequate analogy, I may have knowledge of what it means to give birth, but I have no experience in that regard. (“Inadequate” because my knowledge comes through interaction with women who have. Where would a god get knowledge of fear of death from?)

However, if there are items in which god has knowledge, but no experience, isn’t it possible this includes the ability to have relationships? To be just? To love? That the creator of the universe understands the existence of such things, but has never experienced them for itself?

The question I can’t get my mitts around is this: if we experience it, MUST a creator as well? If “yes” what does a god experience that we do, if “no” then what can we say about a god that has any meaning?

Not My Fault

We all cringe a bit when we see someone get caught for doing something wrong, and they begin to throw the blame on someone else.

“Not my Fault!”

Not to pick on her in particular, but Paris Hilton was just found guilty of probation violation. What did she say? “My Publicist didn’t inform me I was not able to drive.”

“Not my Fault!”

Anyone who has small children can watch this repartee occur in almost machine-gun like precision:

“She hit me!”
“He hit me first!”
“She called me a name!”
“He made a face at me!”
“She started it!”
“He started it!”

It seems as if our natural human tendency, upon being discovered in the wrong, is to defensively determine some other person or circumstance to blame, in order to alleviate (even if just a bit) the responsibility of the action. To spread the blame. To share the fault.

I was recently struck by how Christianity is able to do this with the Sin Nature. To spread the blame, just a bit, with the fact that this is simply who they are. They can’t help it. If you get nothing else out of this blog entry, please get this:

It is not a sin nature. It is you.

If you think about it, Christianity put together a pretty smart package. For 1000 years, Judaism placed the blame squarely on the humans. The Israelites failed to follow God. God punished them. The Israelites followed God’s laws—God rewarded them. One was held (sometimes immediately) accountable for one’s own actions.

It would seem it was decided that this wasn’t working. Humans were not getting better. Humans were not getting worse. The same problems that existed 1000 years earlier, continued to exist. Tradition was perpetuation of the sameness, with no apparent end in sight. And therefore the concept of “Grace” enters Stage Right. An idea that God will pardon you upon the far simpler action of belief, rather than this constant retribution/reconciliation cycle.

In one fell swoop, one can be sanctified, justified, rectified, glorified, purified and –fied in every good way possible. Almost seems too good to be true. And it was. Because these sanctified, justified, etc. people continued to sin. Exactly as before. As Paul says in Romans 7:14-15, 17-21

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do…. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Paul rightly sees that even after the belief, after the justification, after the salvation, the person continues to struggle with moral decisions. There is no “quick fix.” No “magic bullet.”

Notice that last verse carefully, though. “It is no longer I who do it but sin that dwells in me”

“Not my fault.”

Oh what a convenient excuse to rest the blame. The person genuinely doesn’t want to sin. Of course they end up sinning anyway. They are genuinely repentant and will to never again. Of course they blow it. What is to blame—the person? Nope—it is that insidious sin nature within.

It is not a sin nature. It is you.

The Christian can claim it is the fault of Eve. Wicked, wicked Eve. Once she bit that fruit, all humanity, including the person, was doomed to inherit a sin nature. But for Eve…it would not be there. It is not their fault. Or they can blame biology. That they were “born into sin.” It is the fault of the human condition of existing in which each person is given, through their parent’s DNA this pernicious sin nature that no amount of praying, pleading and prying will ever remove.

If they are born with it, and cannot rid it (even with God’s intervention)—how are they totally to blame? We may as well “blame” them for breathing, or having a heartbeat!

This attitude was brought forcefully to home when I read a Christian blog raising that stale, oft-repeated observation that women must dress modestly in order to quiet the sex-crazed beast found in every heterosexual male on the planet. And as I was shifting through the familiar, “We are Men and can’t help it. It is who we are. We see a belly button and go ape” (you probably know the routine better than I) all I was hearing was “It’s not my fault. It’s not my fault.

I see Christians that blame the female for what she is wearing, but not the male. “Oh, he can’t help it, the ol’ horn dog! That’s just who he is.” wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. “You shouldn’t dress like that, because the boys will think you want sex.” Nothing about the boys being the problem—they have that sin nature. Can’t help it. Not their fault.

In fact, it is almost treated as a game. That the boys will think that way regardless of what a female wears (by the by, doesn’t this say more about where the focus should be made?) so cover up as much as possible to make the “game” as hard as possible, but they will be thinking those nasty thoughts regardless. ‘Cause that’s just who they are.

“Not my fault.”

I’ll let you in on the worst kept human secret of all time. If I see a woman in a bikini, my mind will wander for a moment. However, likewise, if I see a money-stuffed wallet on the ground with no one around, my mind will wander for a moment then, too. If I hear a particular juicy piece of gossip, my wind will wander.

Each of us is constantly barraged with opportunities to make moral decisions. Do I let that car in? Do I give money to that homeless person? Do I respond to this phone call in anger? Do I take the money and run? Do I share the gossip? And yes—do I initiate contact with the woman in the bikini in hopes of being unfaithful to my wife?

There is nothing spectacular about having a moment. An instant where, as creatures that have the ability to weigh moral consequences, we think, “What if I take this farther in that direction?” It is not having a moment that makes anyone special—it is what we DO with that moment.

A problem with Christianity is that it has become so sex-conscious that while it recognizes and attempts to deal with “moments” in a variety of other fields, when it comes to sex, it fears having that moment at all! Because while that moment may be justified with greed, or slander or hate, it is never, EVER to be allowed with sex. Even the thought is wrong.

Yet men recognize that is biologically impossible. That thought comes regardless. Rather than recognize it for a moment and deal with it—Christians must determine a way by which to never have that moment.

And the easiest thing to do is cover up the female. Make it their fault. The poor male is stuck with his sin nature—not his fault. The poor male must avoid this moment—not his fault. So impose restrictions on the female and if they fail their part, then the man is one-more step removed from fault.

“Not my fault. Is the sin nature. It is her fault.”

It is high time that Christianity realizes that it IS their fault. That, as a human, they need to start taking full and total responsibility for their actions. They need not feel shame, nor honor in it. All of us have regretted a moment where we wished we hadn’t done something we did, or didn’t do something we wish we had. Stop laying excuses on some “sin nature” and start owning up to being human!

It is also high time that Christian males realize those thoughts ARE going to come, it is not a matter of fault as much as a matter of biology, and to start dealing with them appropriately, rather than attempt to quash them by placing the blame on the female. While I don’t hold the Garden of Eden story to be historical in any fashion, it sure was spot on with Adam’s response as to his own decision—blame the woman!

It is not some biological inheritance of a sin nature, like your dad giving you a propensity for heart disease or your mother giving you a propensity for breast cancer, in which you are doing the best you can with the heredity you have—this is you! You make the decisions. You take the credit. You take the blame.

Please stop telling me you couldn’t help it because of something you have no control over. You do. You chose not to. That’s O.K.—it comes with the package of being human. But start taking responsibility for yourself, rather than surrender to the inevitability of laying the blame on something you claim you have no control over.

At best that is biology. At worst—it is an excuse.

Tip the Scales in my Favor

Much of the practice of law involves negotiation. The opposing attorney, the judge and I already know the law and the likelihood of the outcome, based upon the facts. The only thing left to do is see who can negotiate out a settlement.

We often “split the Baby.” (A term we use, ripped right from the story of Solomon. 1 Kings 3:16-28) A remarkably simple idea that if one side is willing to pay $10,000, and the other is willing to accept $20,000, then we will “split the baby” at $15,000. We even play with the concept, by demonstrating righteous indignation that we most certainly will not split the baby, and come up with a resolution of $15,500 or $14,500 to demonstrate to the world how we have justifiably defended our client’s position.

With this idea ever prevalent in the back of our mind, we are extremely careful as to what number to initially commit to. If I am pursuing a case, and they offer $10,000, requesting a counter-offer, I know that a $20,000 counter-offer will likely result in a $15,000 settlement. A $25,000 counter-offer in a $17,500 settlement. Of course, the other side knows that too, so their initial offer is likely to be $5,000.

My opponent starts extremely low, I start extremely high, and we play cat-and-mouse in attempting to see who will move the fastest to some middle ground.

Thanks to Guy Sonntag, I recently read a discussion between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris regarding those old stalwarts: “Faith” and “Reason.” Sullivan concluded that his position was the most valid, partly because he does not rely solely on faith, nor solely on reason, but has a “balance” of the two.

I see that come up so many times in our discussions. “I am not a fundamentalist. I am not an atheist. I am ‘balanced’ because I am a liberal theist.” “I am not this extreme. I am not that extreme. I am ‘balanced’ because I am in the middle.”

Somehow, we have come to glorify “balance” as if it is always the better position. “Extremism” is bad, so “balance” is good. There are two problems with this.

First, there are some things that the extreme actually IS correct. We would find the following statement silly, “I am not a geocentric theorist. I am not a heliocentric theorist. I am balanced because I hold that the sun and earth orbit each other.” On some things, we have to pick sides.

But the second, and greater problem I see, is that we can almost always make ourselves balanced, by determining the two extremes. A fundamentalist wants to be balanced? Pick the extremes of “hyper-Calvinism” and Pentecostal. Landing nicely in the middle. An inerrantist wants to be balanced? Pick the extremes of errancy and inerrancy in the copies. Claim inerrancy ONLY in the original writings and bingo—you are balanced.

Watch—I can do it too. “I do not hold to the Christian God. I do not hold to the non-Christian God. Look at me! I am nicely balanced between those two!” Do you see how easy it is to be balanced?

Just like a lawsuit that I want to settle at $15,000, I try to get the two extremes to be $10,000 and $20,000; that way, I am sure to be “balanced” right where I want to be--$15,000.

I got to thinking—how DOES one claim they are in a “balanced” position on faith and reason. Where is the middle ground, and how do we know when we have achieved it?

Perhaps it would be helpful to first understand what the balancing act is not. It is NOT the battle between opposite contentions. I would hope no one claims that “faith” is the opposite of “reason.” The opposite of “reason” is “unreasonable.” We are not saying that faith is “unreasonable.” Further, the opposite of faith is “lack of belief.” It is quite conceivable to reasonably have the lack of belief in something.

It is not as if we pile all the reason at one end of a line, and place all the faith at the other, and claim they are opposites. Assuming a “1” as reason and “10” as faith, we are not saying that a “1” has all reason, and lack of belief, and a “10” has unfounded belief and no reason. That some balance person must be at the 5 – 6 range. Treating these two as contrary and opposite only leads to trouble.

Secondly, I think it is important to see that none of us is 100% faith or 100% reason. The reality of the scales of balance is that we have a mixture of faith and reason, at times employing them both on the same premise. Humans are multifaceted, and rarely make decisions based solely on one category or the other.

I think what the person is implying when they say they are balanced between faith and reason is more analogous to the scales of justice. The scales with two free-standing platforms in which one places weights on each side to see the scale tip back and forth, eventually to rest either perfectly level (perfectly balanced) or demonstrating which side is heavier by being lower.

That faith and reason are not contradictory as much as separate creatures. We place 5 pounds of “faith” on one side of the scale and 5 pounds of “reason” on the other, and the scale tips to an even balance.

Two questions immediately pop out at us: 1) How do we measure the quantity of “faith” or “reason” and 2) Where is it written that we must have perfect balance between the two?

What does 5 pounds of faith look like? We understand that if we put 6 pounds on one side of the scale, and 4 pounds on the other, that the scale would tip heavily to the 6 pound side. If I see a Christian exerting 6 pounds of faith and only 4 pounds of reason, can I confidently point out, “A-ha! You have too much faith!” That seems silly. And how do I measure 2 pounds of reason to be applied to the premise to bring them back to “balance”?

Further, is it not possible that some decisions have more reason, and others have more faith? If I am making a religious decision, and my scales are at 6 pounds faith and 2 pounds reason—is that balanced enough? Or MUST I apply more reason, in order to claim the title of being “balanced”? If I am taking a math test, should my scales be at 2 pounds faith and 6 pounds reason? What about determining inerrancy? Or scientific evidence for the universe’s existence?

There are so many different discussions that take place with different amounts of proof, and different possibilities, that to claim perfect balance between faith and reason seems an impossible task.

What becomes clear is that there really is no way to measure faith or reason, nor weigh them, nor determine what an appropriate “balance” between the two is. I fear the claim of “balance” is more of an accusation toward the other person (no one wants to be “un-balanced”) than with any real meat to the concept.

Just as I cleverly appear to be very, very “fair” in setting a number in my negotiations so that we end up at a middle number where I really want it to be—this seems to be a tactic to claim that one (unlike their opponent) is seeing BOTH sides of the picture, and applying BOTH faith and reason. No lop-sided decision here, no sirree!

I am less than impressed with a person claiming to be “balanced” between faith and reason. I suggest we call the person on this claim, questioning where it is written that we must be balanced, how we know when we are within the correct zone of balance and how we can add an appropriate quantity of the immeasurable concepts of “faith” and “reason” to reach that balance.

Who is it reading these scales and shouting out, “We have Balance!” and how can we know when we have achieved it?

Right back at ya!

Even as a Christian, I was surprised at the blurring of the distinction between Christianity and the American concepts of “Rights.”

I recall a Sunday School teacher talking of how the government was questioning one of his contributions to the church and whether it was a legitimate deduction. What I remember so vividly was his outrage followed by the statement, “This is a form of persecution on Christians.”

Excuse me?

Let me get this straight—something unheard of under both the Bible and U.S. Constitution, yet if you don’t get it, it is some sort of “persecution”? I am sure all those martyrs in Fox’s Book of Martyrs would go pale in the shock of how abusive this concept is—to NOT get a tax benefit for doing something you should do doing anyway. Shocked, I say!

A “Right” is a benefit conferred upon citizens by the will of the general populace, usually reduced to writing in the form of a Constitution. While “inalienable human rights” may be referred to, try convincing cancer you have a right to “life.” Or your boss on a sunny Friday afternoon that you have a right to the “pursuit of happiness.” Sure you have that “right.” You would also discover the “right” to find new employment!

What surprised me, and continues to surprise me is that Christians in America elevate their rights under the Constitution to at least the equivalent of the Bible, if not eclipse it. The First Amendment under the Bill of Rights is considered pragmatically more divine then the Song of Solomon.

How many times have we heard, “As a Christian I have the right to pray in school”? Or “…have the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse”? or “…practice my religion by doing _____”? Here’s a news flash—you obtain that “right” as a citizen of your country; not because you are a Christian.

In America, this confrontation over religious rights rests squarely on the first clause of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…

And the perpetual question we have wrestled is the meaning and limitation of what “establishment of religion” is or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Clearly, in reviewing our history, we HAVE limited the free exercise of religion. Ask the Mormons how polygamy is going. If I started a church in which one basic tenet is that we do not pay taxes in any way (property, state or income) I may have a large membership, but I would quickly find the government impinging our “free exercise thereof.”

Rather than focus on the legal machinations that have wended our way through this minefield, I would like to ask a more simple, basic question—with all the competing theistic beliefs, can we as humans manage a system by which we respect the other’s beliefs?

Let’s get two things out of the way. First, I understand that every person reading this blog entry has the correct theistic belief. I also understand that the simplest method would be to impose the correct theistic belief, which coincidently is yours. However, I hope you understand that many people with…slightly…to greater to even vast differences in belief also say theirs is the correct one.

If we say, “Use the correct belief” and then try and determine what “correct” means we are right back to where we started. Which is nowhere. We are all going to have to concede the fact that others believe differently than we do. Oh, sure they are wrong, but if we don’t respect their ability to be wrong, they will fail to respect ours.

Secondly, the reality is that not every situation will be to your liking. In fact, you are going to actually have to suck it up and realize that, on occasion, you will have to self-limit your own belief.

We often see the claim that atheism is a religion in the context that by not acknowledging any God, this results in the “establishment of religion.” A no-no. For example, if the courts determine that no prayer can be given before a football game at a public high school, a Christian may shout out that by NOT allowing a prayer, the courts have established the “religion” of atheism. (The poor agnostics never get a break in the “rights” department.)

Assuming that is true, we are left in a Catch-22. Allowing the prayer will impinge the non-theist’s “free exercise.” Prohibiting the prayer will impinge the Christian’s. Either one, somebody is not going to be happy.

If you are a parent, you learn that it is easier, sometimes, to follow Nancy Reagan’s advice and “Just Say ‘No.’” It is easier to draw a hard line in the sand and say NOBODY is getting ice cream, rather than hearing the bickering back and forth as to who was good enough, or who does not deserve the ice cream.

The courts have, in essence, flopped onto this policy. If the Christians get a prayer before the football game, then so do the Muslims. And the Jews. And the Branch Dividians. And the Moonies. And the Catholics. And the Baptists. And the Lutherans. We could never play football! While these groups may not be asking for the opportunity now, if they do, and we have allowed one…

It is easier to “Just Say ‘No.’” to all. However, I am talking about how WE need to get along, not what the Courts have done.

We could claim that the majority rules. That the minority must defer to the majority belief until it becomes the majority opinion. There are two significant problems with this.

First, it is not courteous to the minority position. Nor loving. If we start to lord it over the minority position, it is quite possible that someday our own position becomes the minority, and we would regret this policy. We learned in the schoolyard that just because you are the biggest and can beat the smaller, this only makes you a bully. Not better. I would hope we would want to be “better.” Not bullies.

Second, determining “majority” position becomes a difficulty. Is it the majority of people in the city? In the County? In the State? In the Country? In the World? And what do we do—keep taking surveys and votes to determine what religious belief happens to be the majority at that moment?

Even with “majority” difficulties arise. If we use the Abrahamic God, do we lump in all the Jews, Muslims and Christians, and claim that God as “Majority”? Or are those separate categories? Or do we use a method by which we label the categories in a way which best helps us? Like including the Jews (but not the Muslims) if we need their numbers to take us over the top.

And within each belief—what is the majority? For example, do we include the Catholics in our count of Christians? But a prayer to a saint! The Protestants may NOT want to include the Catholics. Unless they then lose their majority…

We all know what we would see. If convenient, certain theistic beliefs would be included in order to obtain a majority. If not, they would be excluded.

We non-theists are smart enough to play this card as well. See, the Muslims agree that the Jesus was not God. We could include them and the Jews and every other belief to “Oust” the Christians from their majority. Because a majority does NOT hold Jesus as God. Or we could join the Christians and Jews to “oust” Allah from being the majority.

Determining a majority would become a battle similar to what we have now. (And Perhaps the non-theists would be the constant swing vote! O.K. I can dream!)

Can we do better? Can we find a way by which we agree to self-limit our theistic belief, for the greater good of getting along? Oh, I still encourage all parties to go to the court system. (Have to pay the bills, ya know!) It is what is it there for. If you think that it is of vast import and having some person in a black dress tell you how to act with your neighbor—go for it!

I would prefer that we could rise above it as humans and not need the court to give respect to each other. Let me give an example.

Our American currency, from each coin to every bill in circulation contains the statement “In God We Trust.” I don’t trust in a God. There isn’t one. I am forced to use currency by virtue of living in America. Each day, I am passing around little statements that tell the world something I would prefer to not tell the world.

So what.

I mean REALLY—So What!

As actions speak louder than words, what I am actually saying is that I am relying on these little bits of green ink on paper to obtain those things that sustain me. In fact, the use of every single penny, every nickel is NOT saying “In God We Trust” but quite the opposite—“In Gold We Trust.”

By obtaining money, I am saying that I don’t expect God to provide for me—I expect this money to do so. By saving it, I am saying quite a bit about my anticipation for God to take care of me in the future—I think more of Alexander Hamilton doing so than God. By spending it, I am saying that God can’t get it for me—but Abraham Lincoln can!

Being a person that appreciates irony wherever I can find it—I truly enjoy it every time I see “In God We Trust” on money. Come on, Christians—do you see Jesus teaching how to pray:

“Our Father who art on the Ten Dollar Bill,
Unwrinkled be thy name,
Your picture come,
Your crisp smell done,
On earth because we ain’t in Heaven.

Buy us this day our daily bread.
Your portrait for debts
Both Public and Private.
Retain your present value compared to the Euro,
But deliver us from that blasted penny!”

Do you think God is excited about having his name on—of all things—money? I can see “In God We Trust” on Bibles. On Churches. Even on homes and plaques and pillows. But money?

O.K.—it is important to you for some inexplicable reason. As if that has some meaning. Can you take what you dish out? In England, Charles Darwin is on the 10-Pound note. Any Christian have a problem with that?

Christians: there is no prayer in school. Is it THAT important to have prayer? Yes, I know it impinges your free exercise of religion. (Sorta. You can pray to yourself, of course.) But in order to get along with your fellow humans—can you give it up? Could you have voluntarily given it up for the betterment of humans?

Non-theists: our money mentions the “G” word. Yes, I know that impinges on your theistic belief. (Sorta. You can write checks.) But in order to get along with your fellow humans—can you not care? Can you use it voluntarily for the betterment of humans?

Perhaps it is just me, but I am seeing a polarization of beliefs. We are DEMANDING that how we believe must be imposed on others. I want prayer--give me prayer! I don’t believe in god--remove it from my coins! If we can’t rise above this, we are but two short steps from the sectarian violence we see in the Middle East.

Can we be better? Rather than insist on our “rights” can we suspend that demand, and allow others to exercise theirs? It may be someday, we will realize that the group that can do that is the most Christ-like.

(Posted on ExChristians.net as well.)

Want Ads

In our discussions we occasionally hear the claim, “But you atheists are trying to convince others to become atheists just as much as Christians are trying to convince others to be Christians. You are an atheist missionary. Why are you complaining about our evangelistic efforts?”

Probably because if Christians would stop proselytizing, so would most atheists. Let’s look at this idea of “convincing others.”

First of all, I will make I perfectly clear—I am out to convince others to be atheists. What is so unusual about that? I am an atheist. I think atheism is correct. I want others to be correct. But it doesn’t unpack quite that simply.

I always found it funny when someone tells me, “You think you are right.” No surprise here, Sherlock! Obviously, I think I am right. If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn’t think it—I would change to thinking I am right. However, I am also bright enough to review my history and see that, at times, when I equally thought I was right, it turns out I was wrong. Therefore, while thinking I am right, I am open to the possibility of being wrong.

Further, if the other person wants to be wrong and disagree with me—what do I care? They are free, as a human, to choose to do so.

I have traveled to my current office for almost seven (7) years. I think I know the fastest route to there from my home. If someone asked for the quickest route, I would attempt to convince him or her of my route. ‘Cause I think its right. Now, they may argue with me. They may disagree with me. Fine by me. If they don’t want to take my route—take another! Plenty of roads for everybody.

And, there is a slim possibility they may just find a quicker route. Since it is only to my benefit to discover such a thing, I would be very tempted to listen to them…

What is so terrible, so shocking, to declare that we are trying to convince others of something we believe? We do it all the time. We think that hot woman at the bar would have a much better life if she dated us. We saddle up, put on our game face, and use every word in our repertoire to convince her how “wrong” she is to think otherwise.

We try to convince our kids that they will be so much happier if they ate broccoli. We try to convince our spouses that we need some particular item found in a catalog. (And often attempt to convince our spouse they don’t need some silly item found in a dumb catalog.)

We even attempt to convince complete strangers without saying a word! Ever have a driver zip past a long line of cars waiting for construction, only to attempt to merge at the last minute? He (or she) is attempting to “convince” drivers to let him (or her) in by “nudging” the corner of the front of his car in-between bumpers. And some cars “convince” him (or her) that they are asking for an accident by firmly planting their bumper about 3 millimeters from the car in front of them.

Persuasive speech in real-time action!

All day, every day, we are in a constant state of attempting to convince someone, somewhere that what we think is correct. Why, then, would anyone be reduced to a state of abject shock to discover that (gasp!) Christians are attempting to convince others to be Christians and atheists are attempting to convince others to be atheists?

The difference may be a matter of scale, but that, too, should not make our heads pop or eyes bulge with surprise. (Too many kids’ cartoons, I fear.)

Due to the wonderful variety of humanity, an issue that is compelling to some, and causes them to be anxious to persuade others, may be a matter of complete indifference to others. If you happen to flip off some comment about the poor system of justice that America provides, I am likely to roll up sleeves and proceed forward with numerous bullet points, arguments and twelve Russian experts, all to convince you of how wrong you are.

But mention the sad state of Lifeguard training, and I may paste that polite look of “I’m listening” on, while my mind is racing with far more weighty matters like, “Do I need to organize my sock drawer by color or by size?” Frankly, I could care less about Lifeguards, and you will get no opinion from me one way or another.

Likewise, I am sure there are some theists that their particular beliefs are of such import, that to challenge them, or to question their “rightness” opens us up to a long dissertation as to how wrong we are. Some theists are out looking for such discussions.

And, certainly there are atheists who are equally vehement.

However, it is nowhere near my highest priority. If I had a “highest priority” of what I desire to convince others, it would be to start implementing that “love” thing. To start caring other humans. Yes, it would be grand if we gave of our riches and helped those less fortunate, but there is so much more we can do besides.

How about common courtesy? “Please,” “Thank you” and “You’re welcome” have gone by the wayside. To hear those words (outside parents teaching small children who promptly remove that part of their brain upon becoming teenagers) is becoming a rarity.

Holding the door for people. Being patient in line. Hanging up the cell phone once in while. Allowing that driver in.

Part of the reason that I do appear adamant in this debate is that I see such discourtesy among the participants. People who dig in and refuse to even be polite to other person. How many times have you seen someone say in a blog discussion, “Oh I am sorry. I misunderstood you. My fault”?

OR do we see, “YOU did not describe YOUR position ADEQUATELY. YOU need to learn how to WRITE!”

My second priority is just to get theists (and non-theists) to recognize that the other side is NOT a complete idiot, and they actual have some valid points. Sure, they may not be convincing to you, but the other person is convinced by them. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

I have priorities about explaining the law is not completely stupid. Priorities about helping others when they need a hug. Getting a hug when I need one. Priorities about being the best parent, best child, best brother/sister/relative. A huge priority about being a good friend.

There are so many things I want to convince you that I am right. I can understand for a Christian who believes in eternal torment how convincing me to be a Christian would be a priority to them. The opposite is not for me. Please don’t presume that YOUR priority is mine.

I have a friend who is very interested (read “completely obsessed”) with farm tractors. No kidding. (Do you think I could make that up?) We all know to avoid that topic like avoiding a root canal. In fact, going to the dentist for a voluntary root canal would be preferable to getting into a conversation with him about this topic. He can tell you the history of John Deere from the very first tractor to today’s newest model. Every engine type, every body model, every thing you never wanted to know about tractors.

And if you dare ask which is the better tractor, be prepared for a long speech as to the comparisons of various models, years and what-not. Not to mention about 50 places to obtain each distinct tractor.

I once made the mistake of telling him I simply didn’t care about tractors. His face froze with terror. I think if I had stood on his coffee table, unzipped my fly and proceeded to pee on his brand-new sofa--he couldn’t have been more shocked.

He presumes that since he loves tractors—so too must the rest of the world. To not is…well…unthinkable.

Christians—just because I say I want others to be convinced of the viability of atheism please do not presume that means I have the same depth of commitment to that endeavor as you do to yours.

In fact that reminds me of another priority—that others will realize we all don’t have the same priorities. Can we respect the other person’s difference?

Yep. I want you to be an atheist. I also believe you should have at least 16 songs from ABBA on your iPod. So what do I know? *shrug*

Judge Not; Lest Ye be Judged

In my, what seems to be perpetual, wandering, I came across a parable of what a theist felt judgment day would look like. How God would dispense justice. Let’s look at that for a moment.

We have a complete absence (as I previously discussed) when trying to determine what God’s Justice looks like. It is a void. A blank. And, since we all feel like there is this thing—this concept of “Justice”--we fill in the void as best we can. With our own personal sense of Justice. What is right and what is wrong.

Imagine being at Judgment day. God busily doing what God needs to be doing. You are observing. Then God turns to you and says:

“Hey, I’m going to go grab a bite to eat. Can you fill in for an hour or so? It’s easy. We have your hell on this end, heaven on the other and whole world of possibilities between. I don’t have a certain set of rules I follow rigidly. Kinda gut thing, if you know what I mean.

“Sit right here. This is my computer, it gives you complete access to the person, including their true thoughts and motives (don’t listen to what they say, ‘kay?) and if you get into real trouble, Gabriel will come get me. Never fear, use the sense of justice I gave you and it will be fine. Back in an hour…

Case One. The first person you get is a murderer. (Thanks a LOT, God!) This man is a white supremacist that helped a group of his club lynch a black man. You see on the computer he really didn’t want to, and was caught up in the peer pressure of the group. He felt guilty and in fact God’s computer says that it was this guilt that cut 10 years off his life from worrying. But still and all, he is a racist murderer…you dispense justice.

Case Two. Another murderer. (Did God do this on purpose?) This is a woman that was high on crack, and desperate for a fix, held up a convenience store. She stole a grand total of $46. God’s computer informs you that she didn’t know what she was doing. Her brain did not even record her pulling the trigger. But still and all, she voluntarily began to take drugs, and she did kill someone…you dispense justice.

Case Three. Another murderer. Sorta. (This cannot be a coincidence. That tricky God!) Bit of a twist on this one. This is a woman who hated her neighbor. With good reason as near as you (and God’s computer) can tell. The neighbor was one of those miserable people that the whole world hated. Yelled at the neighborhood kids kicking a ball in his yard. Never joined the neighborhood picnic. Picked up each leaf that blew in from her yard with a grimace and condemning glance.

One day, she noticed that he had crumpled over in his lawn chair while monitoring the neighborhood. For a passing moment she thought of calling “911” but the stronger, second thought was, “if he WAS to die, all the better. Maybe a better neighbor could move in.” He did die. She never had a moment of remorse. God’s computer says that if she had called “911,” they would have saved him and he would have lived another 10 years. This one is tricky, but…you dispense justice.

And over the course of that hour, as you make your ruling, a pattern would develop. What we would see is that you provide justice based upon your own experience. Perhaps, if you were a minority, you would be less compassionate on the first person. If you had been addicted to drugs, you may be more understanding on the second. If you had a particularly rotten neighbor, you would be more forgiving of the third.

Or not, depending on who you are. See—our sense of justice has a great deal to do with the era in which we lived, our surroundings, and our upbringing.

If God (the lazy bugger) kept having different people filling in for Him, we would see different justice dispensed. In our current century, we would consider a slave trader a most reprehensible creature. Yet a person from 400, 500 years ago may not even bring it into consideration, other than it was the person’s occupation.

Depending on the person; when and where they came from, some would be harsh on prostitution, others would shrug. Some would be aghast at polygamy, others wouldn’t notice. Smoking pot? One person would dispense justice, another would ignore it entirely.

Remember that TV Commercial where the Native American sees the garbage dump, and a tear rolls down his face? Imagine, with our consumerism and “throw it away” mentality, what his hour would be like. The hour before, the fellow that tossed Fast Food wrappers out the window would be overlooked. That Native American would be tossing him in hell for a very, very long time.

All of which is a long and round-a-bout way of saying that our intuitive sense of justice varies dramatically from person to person, from time to time and from place to place. It is derived from our different experience.

If this is how we derive our justice, would a God do the same? If God’s sense of justice was established prior to creation—what experience did God draw upon to determine what was right and wrong? The only thing that existed would be God. He couldn’t interact with anybody but…God. He couldn’t punish anyone but…God. He couldn’t reward anyone but…God. He couldn’t even conceptualize of a person not doing what God says—no one ever had before. There was no one to do so.

If I ask, “is it O.K. to hit someone?” your mind starts to crunch and analyze. What are the facts surrounding this hitting? How hard? What is the relation of the people involved? What led to this hitting and what was the reaction. And, as our brains are processing, we are comparing to past experiences and knowledge in our life.

God wouldn’t have that luxury. Nothing to draw from to answer the simple question “is it O.K. to hit someone?” ‘Course we could say that he looks into the future as to what could happen, but by virtue of that, God’s reflection on what happens in the future becomes an event in the past. God sees the future, but thinking on that is based on something that happened in the past—God’s seeing the future. (Bakes one’s noodle a bit, eh?)

But God would have to create that future (at least the possibility) first. That, too, is in the past. How can God create something that he has no knowledge of, in order to review it, and after that reflection, create justice, to learn how to implement it on the future event? Good luck with THAT one!

I often read what theists propose God will do at justice-time. Many, horrified (rightly in my opinion) at the concept of eternal torture, do not hold to an everlasting Lake of Fire. Yet in this discussion, what I see is a description of what God’s justice looks like, premised with the two-word qualification, “I think…”

How persuasive is it? This “I think…”? Sure, we “think” that human sacrifice is a reprehensible concept. Our “intuitive” justice would say that this is a problem. Yet, if within that hour on the Judgment Seat, an Aztec sat in that throne, they would not consider human sacrifice anything more reprehensible than a necessary event, like clothing or eating. Over the extensive course of history, that “I think…” would be extremely different between different cultures and different times.

This is one of many areas that I see humans making god in their own image. They determine what they think justice should look like and voila—so does their god. They cannot image a god dispensing justice in a manner they would not and voila—neither does their god.

Seriously, we could not have a clue. We can’t verify what God’s justice is, AND we cannot share with God the basis of our own. Thus it is useless to imagine any such justice is similar to ours. We have experience. God wouldn’t.

When I see a theist indicate what God’s justice will look like; two thoughts come to mind. First, dependant on the type of justice is often a reflection of who that person is. I see some gleefully proclaiming an everlasting torture chamber and wonder if, in life, they equally feel a sense of revenge in punishment. Not retribution, not rehabilitation. Revenge.

Secondly, I wonder if the theist realizes that their imposition of their own sense of justice on god is another nail in god’s coffin. If God is a human construct, it follows that God’s justice would be a human construct as well. If humans cannot agree as what is “just” it equally follows that the god(s) they create cannot agree either.

It’s nice to have an idea of some sort of “ultimate” justice with rewards and punishments for rights and wrongs. But what are the chances, in reflection of history, that God’s sense of justice happens to correlate with our very small vision of our time? Our place? Our culture?

Can't Relate

As humans, we can only relate to what we have experienced. It is possible that, due to some similarity, I can partially relate to an experience. Other things I couldn’t come close. For example, having been in pain, and having been a parent, I can partially relate to the experience of labor.

But upon talking to my wife (and other mothers) I come to realize that my concept of pain is miniscule as to what the pain of labor is, and my feeling of fatherhood is not at all similar to the maternal instincts and rush of hormones/adrenalines that accompany motherhood. I can talk with mothers, I can attempt to correlate with my own experiences, but in the end I recognize that having a baby is something I can only truly relate to about 2% of the their experience.

I have never been to war. I cannot even begin to fathom the idea of living in rough conditions, fear of one’s own life in an almost constant basis, while attempting to kill other soldiers from another country bent on killing you. In digging through the past experiences of my life, there is simply nothing that comes even remotely close to that reality. I can read their stories. I can watch films. I can talk to soldiers. While I may gain some head knowledge to what they have or are going through, I cannot relate to their experience in any way.

Even so, when humans meet, we attempt to relate to each other. Find common ground. All of us have been at the proverbial party, in which we reach a point of initiating a conversation with someone we have never met. We nervously start a list of twenty questions, until we strike on a similarity:

“What do you do for a living?”
“Married?”
“Kids?”
“Watch the game last night?”

“You did! Oh, man, wasn’t it great when they got that break away, with only 1.5 seconds on the clock and…”

We have found our relation—the affinity by which we can both relate.

In fact, our brain words so hard to make sense of the world about us, we will find relationship even when there isn’t one. If I say, “That tasted purple” we know that “purple” is not a flavor—it is a color. Yet our brains will translate that, in order to understand it, to the flavor most associated with purple. We will relate that statement to tasting like grape. While most of us have never tasted crap, by the same token we understand the phrase, “That tastes like crap.” We can conceptualize that whatever that taste may be--it isn’t good.

The problem with a God, is that our mind is left constantly attempting to find some relational base by which to understand the concept, and never able to reach it. It is as if our mind is running at full tilt, but never can quite make that connection.

What does it mean to always exist? How does one create laughter? Does God ever need a hug?

We can strive and compare and give analogies, but in the end our mind is unable to grasp. Unable to relate. Might as well be a soldier asking a college boy to truly understand what it means to go to war.

Recently (due to other discussions elsewhere) I was thinking about an afterlife. One common disgruntlement with naturalism is that there is no afterlife. Somehow this is automatically equated with hopelessness while living. (Talk about not being able to relate!) As humans—can we truly relate to this concept? Or is it outside our grasp?

First of all, let’s take the Judgment idea. You know—where God lines up the human race, sitting on a throne, and each person takes their turn to appear before him. In some manner they are weighed and either found wanting or deemed worthy. Of what depends on the particular theist’s vision of judgment.

Some theists inform me the Scales of God’s Justice are weighted on belief. It is not what you do, nor how lived, but what you believed. Believe the correct item, the scales tip in your favor. Do not, you are condemned.

I have no way to relating to that. To me, as a human, I would take opportunity, and knowledge, and understanding and information, all into account. And other theists inform me that God does as well. I still can’t relate. What of a person that strived to believe the right thing all their life, but was denied due to their location? Or their community? What of a Mesoamerican that strived to know of Jesus, but couldn’t until the Europeans brought news of such an individual one and a half millennium later?

I can’t relate to a pass/fail based upon possibilities. In fact, it is often at this point that theists shrug and say it is up to God as to how much a person is held accountable for their belief. So a God I cannot understand is dispensing justice in a manner I cannot envision, and I am supposed to understand this?

Other theists tell me the Judgment will be on what I do. Fine—by whose standard? Imagine the ridiculous nature of attempting to determine God’s laws. We have no way to confirm them, no way to deny them, and no way to look up what we should do at a particular moment. The Christian idea of Jesus’ appearance doing away with portions of Mosaic Law, specifically the food limitation has always been amusing to me. The claim is that, at one moment (whenever that is) the food laws are in effect, the next they are not.

A Jew, in the First Century, is eating a ham sandwich. Between bites, he stopped sinning!

Does God approve of slavery? Polygamy? Masturbation? Violent Video Games? 12-year-olds in PG-13 movies?

Sure, it is possible God is no list of Do’s and Don’ts. Perhaps there is a sliding scale that for one person smoking pot is a sin, yet for another it is not. How, exactly, does this help us relate to a Godly Justice System?

Now I am told that I will be judged on what I do, but no one can determine what one needs to do, in order to be judged!

Is there universalism? No Judgment at all? While this may seem pleasing at first, it does cause one to wonder why, then, God is playing hide-and-seek now. If we all get in anyway (or all get torched anyway—works both ways, you know!) why the charade of three-card Monte as to which one has the correct God? Out with it, man, let us see the God we should have and be done with it!

Secondly, a heaven. Not sure how that one works either. It is supposed to be a happy place. But if there is a hell—how can I truly be happy? Due to the variety of humanity, regardless of the process of judgment, there is bound to be someone I personally know in Hell. Someone I would prefer not. That does not sit easy on me now. I can’t relate to it sitting easy on me in heaven.

Perhaps I will be so thrilled to get in, I won’t care about the poor sods that didn’t. Again, though, that is not who I am, so I can’t conceptualize it now. I did not know a single person effected by Hurricane Katrina. Just don’t know anyone in that part of the country. Yet my heart went out to them in their situation and I gave as best I could to correct the situation.

If I (and billions of other people) do that for complete strangers now—do we all lose that in heaven? In order to get in, we are commonly informed that we must be selfless to the poor, the needy and the hungry. Apparently once in, though, we can become selfish whores! “Too bad for those other blokes; pass the champagne and caviar—we’re in, we’re in, we’re in.”

As humans we bore. Over the course of billions of years, trillions of years, will God have to keep coming up with new ways to entertain us? At what point does God get tired of providing new creations for whiney teenagers? Or does he wipe our minds every morning, so each day is a new mystery to be discovered.

The reality is that I cannot relate to the concept of endless time stretching before me. Sure, it would be fun for the first 100 years or so. But how much of time can one take?

Thirdly, what of a hell?

Any Baptist worth his or her salt has had the image of hell tossed their way enough that some of it sticks. We get the concept of pain, fire, loneliness, torture. Again, though—for all time? Human bodies accommodate pain. (Imagine the pain threshold one could develop!) Even if the new bodies were designed to not be damaged by the implements of hell, only the experience of pain, within a short period of time, our brains would go mad.

Have you ever pounded your hand with a hammer? What do you do? You start shaking your hand in the air. Do you know why you do that? Your brain, as wonderful as it is, can only process so much. By shaking your hand, you are sending an overload of signals through the nerves to your brain. You are drowning out the pain in your thumb by sending so much information down a narrow highway that the pain can only take up so much of your brain’s time.

From what we know now, Hell would be such an overload for our brains, they would shut down. Of course, God could step up the program, and keep our brains from overloading, or wipe our memories like those in heaven. But now we have created a creature that, to what we can relate, is a sadistic monster. This goes way beyond punishment.

Further, within our human minds, we equate punishment to fit the crime. Here, we are uncertain of the crime, let alone a punishment of such monumental proportions. As much as we can each comprehend punishment and justice, if I told you I tortured my two-year old child because they wet the bed—can you relate? You understand punishment. You understand an imposition of justice. You understand wetting the bed. Yet even putting all those concepts together, your human mind says, “What a minute. Something is not right here.”

Even theists inform me that my puny mind cannot process the ideas of God, and his Justice, and an afterlife. O.K. If I cannot relate, then why should I bother? Haven’t they just undercut their arguments on the existence of such things?

How am I to spend my life worrying about things that I have no basis, no way for my mind to fit into a slot and say, “I may not fully understand it, but at least I have a slight grasp”?

I am planning a trip this summer. I have no control over whether it will rain, whether it will be sunny or hot or cold. It is useless energy to worry about such things. Whatever will be; will be. I feel much the same way about any afterlife. I seriously doubt any exists—but if it does there is nothing I have by which I can understand what it would be like.

And I find that makes my life here on earth very hopeful indeed. Rather than worrying about getting it right, or avoiding getting it wrong, or what it will be like, or what I need to avoid, all on things that are completely unknown I can focus on tomorrow. Here. On earth. And what better things I can do for others, and what good things I will happily receive.

If you think atheists are hopeless, I can vehemently assure you this is ONE atheist that is very hopeful indeed. Right now: for a bit of sun on a particular week in August, if you want to know the truth.

I Lost a Blog Friend this week

Luckily not the blogger themselves. Just the blog. I do not have to provide a link to it; it is already in my blog roll under “Zoe.” (I use my blog roll for sites I find interesting. So I name them as I see fit. I am trying to do better at naming them the blog name, but I’m not perfect.)

When I first met Zoe, I was a fresh deconvert, literally wet behind the ears. She was far ahead of me in the process. So I read her story. She started at a different point than I did, went about it a different way, and ended at a different point than I.

Sounds like we should relate quite a bit. Not! Yet through it, I have always felt that she did a better job of describing the humanity of it. To give an inadequate comparison, it was like I was describing a paint-by-numbers by explaining how “2” really meant “Azure Blue” and who drew outside the lines, whereas she described the reality of discovering it was a picture of a garden.

She often summed up in a few words what it seems to take paragraphs for me to say.

And so her blog will be missed. I was not alone in enjoying what she wrote, and was often surprised at the various people that commented on entries that she posted.

The world of blogsphere is truly “publish or perish.” If we don’t regularly post soon the blog fades into oblivion. Only to be seen by some person who happens to click on “Next Blog” and then quickly dismissed when the last entry is more than six months old. “A Complicated Salvation” deserves more than that—because it was a full, rich story.

I am glad for Zoe, and hope she picks up the torch elsewhere.

Zoe’s blog provided a wonderful insight. Its passing should get more from me than just a comment.