the progression (progress) of christianity

I listen to The Bible Geek, Robert M. Price. In this article he talks about how Christianity shifts its standards by following the cultural trends of its day in order to remain relevant to the next generation. The gradual acceptance of movies, dancing, divorce, women working outside the home, no eternal hell, and even ultimate reconciliation has changed the face of Christianity in just the past 50 years or so.

Dr. Price says that the next bastion to fall will be sex. The fundamentalists and evangelicals have a difficult time talking about sex as a normal function of the human being. At the same time homosexuality is accepted as natural by many Christians, especially young folks. The gay marriage issue may not be resolved anytime soon, but the fact that it's on the table shows the progression which Dr. Price speaks of.

is your god a little god?

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said—grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." — Carl Sagan

The universe is more awesome to me now than it ever was when I was a religious person attempting to believe in and follow a man-made god. Constructing make-believe gods is a self-protecting activity and thus self-centered. Now that I'm thinking this life may very well be all that there is, I am taking more personal responsibility for my thoughts, words, and actions here and now.

As a Christian I always thought "it" would all get worked out in the end by God. I was off the hook for having to figure out or give an opinion regarding some of the more controversial problems in the world. Passing personal responsibility off to God was one of the most debilitating things I did to myself during my 35+ years of following religious belief. My "thinker" became rusty.

Reasoning is not encouraged in the religious world. It's dangerous. Creeds and doctrines must be preserved at all cost in order to ensure religion's survival. Reasoning and dogma do not mix. I've proved it!

that pale blue dot

necessary skepticism

"The tenets of skepticism do not require an advanced degree to master, as most successful used car buyers demonstrate. The whole idea of a democratic application of skepticism is that everyone should have the essential tools to effectively and constructively evaluate claims to knowledge. All science asks is to employ the same levels of skepticism we use in buying a used car or in judging the quality of analgesics or beer from their television commercials.

"But the tools of skepticism are generally unavailable to the citizens of our society. They're hardly ever mentioned in the schools, even in the presentation of science, its most ardent practitioner, although skepticism repeatedly sprouts spontaneously out of the disappointments of everyday life. Our politics, economics, advertising, and religions (New Age and Old) are awash in credulity. Those who have something to sell, those who wish to influence public opinion, those in power, a skeptic might suggest, have a vested interest in discouraging skepticism."

The Demon-Haunted World, (p. 76-77) --Carl Sagan

reason fails religionists

apologists needed

A religion that employs apologists for its defense must have problems. If truth is not obvious to those sincerely seeking, and an army of apologists are needed for its defense and explanation, is it really worth following?

not to be found

Finding specific scripture passages in order to solve problems was always a problem during my years as a Christian. About five years ago I ended up needing real answers in my life. Going to the Bible was not the direction I took however. It wasn't because I didn't know the Bible. The problem was in getting its words to magically do the work of instruction and healing in my particular case. It hadn't worked over the years, why should it now, was my thinking?

Learning and understanding psychological processes inside me and others helped the most. A person can't really expect ancient Hebrew writers to know much if anything about psychology? It's a fairly new science, about 100 years old. Why would we expect answers from a book that primarily tells you what not to do? At the least it should clearly tell you what to do once you've messed up the first instruction... certainly something more useful than "forgiving and forgetting" would've been nice.