This is a post I started drafting in early May...figured it was about time I finish it.
JT Eberhard posted a four-part series of email exchanges between his dad and a Christian from his home town. The Christian made a lot of baseless claims, but also said something I find quite scary (emphasis mine):
I feel no guilt about potentially damaging the world with this information, because it contains the very power of God to save those that are lost, and offers to believers glory in the Lord. What is wrong with that?
I, of course, realize that not all Christians agree with this. However, (1) there are likely many Christians who do and (2) such a statement is actually consistent with not only Christianity but basically any religion that promotes a personal god with a plan for humankind. In a recent post, I made the point that conservative Christians could argue that, in reference to gay rights, "God's law is higher than, and therefore trumps, human's law." (And they have.) A similar argument can be made here. In this case, it is reaching heaven that is the goal.
The problems of this are so enormous, it's hard to know where to start except with where it should be most obvious — managing the resources of our planet. Just over a year ago now, I was hosting a party mocking the idea of the rapture. Yet, "41 percent of Americans think Jesus Christ is returning by 2050." Chances are, this guy is part of that 41%. When you put these two concepts together, why would such a person be concerned with global warming? What do they care if we run out of oil? In another 40 years or less, we won't be here anyway, according to these people.
For anyone who cares about what we leave behind for future generations, religion should concern you.
Below is a video featuring Kalley Yanta, who, apparently, was a TV news anchor up in Minnesota and is still a media presence. She is railing against birth control in the video and makes some interesting arguments, which I will go over below the video and the break.
Father Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican's chief exercist (yes, the Vatican has a chief exercist in the 21st century!), says "Harry Potter and yoga are evil." Oh no's!!!
Father Gabriele Amorth, who for years was the Vatican’s chief exorcist and claims to have cleansed hundreds of people of evil spirits, said yoga is Satanic because it leads to a worship of Hinduism and “all eastern religions are based on a false belief in reincarnation”.
Reading JK Rowling’s Harry Potter books is no less dangerous, said the 86-year-old priest, who is the honorary president for life of the International Association of Exorcists, which he founded in 1990, and whose favourite film is the 1973 horror classic, The Exorcist.
The Harry Potter books, which have sold millions of copies worldwide, “seem innocuous” but in fact encourage children to believe in black magic and wizardry, Father Amorth said.
“Practising yoga is Satanic, it leads to evil just like reading Harry Potter,” he told a film festival in Umbria this week, where he was invited to introduce The Rite, a film about exorcism starring Sir Anthony Hopkins as a Jesuit priest.
“In Harry Potter the Devil acts in a crafty and covert manner, under the guise of extraordinary powers, magic spells and curses,” said the priest, who in 1986 was appointed the chief exorcist for the Diocese of Rome.
“Satan is always hidden and what he most wants is for us not to believe in his existence. He studies every one of us and our tendencies towards good and evil, and then he offers temptations.” Science was incapable of explaining evil, said Father Amorth, who has written two books on his experiences as an exorcist...
Wait a minute, reading Harry Potter encourages children to believe in black magic and wizardry, but exercism and Catholicism with it's "the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ" doctrine don't? I'm not sure whether to facepalm or laugh hysterically.
The video below is from July, though I only discovered this version recently. I had always seen one titled "Atheists Bitchslap" that ended after the woman, Kate Smurthwaite, said, "...I'm not an idiot." It was harsh, but a point with which I agree - it's not smart to believe in things without evidence. However, this extended clip shows the theists proving her point by claiming that she has faith that money exists. That's just a load of bull, and she gives some examples of why that is.
I think I understand where they are coming from, though. Money symbolically represents something else that has value. Money is essentially the solution to an overly complex barter system. By that I mean to ask what do you do if person A has something that person B wants, person B has something person C wants, person C has something person D wants, and finally person D has something person A wants? You can't necessarily get all four people together to exchange items, so you instead create something, money, that represents the value of the items. Nowadays, with computers, the exchange of money has even become symbolic. So you have symbology on top of symbology which creates an even greater disconnect from the physical objects that are represented. At some level, they know this, and I think the best response that I saw that would reveal this would be to ask them for some large amount of their nonexistent money. After all, if it doesn't exist, that shouldn't be an issue.
Alternative title: "The problem with liberal Christians"
One of the common defenses for the Bible is that one is "interpreting it wrong." This is usually used in defense of the amoral teachings of the Bible, like how to mark your slave as belonging to you. (Another defense for slavery is that it was the "culture of the time"...because God, you know, can't tell people that their culture is wrong, so he has to instead make the best of a bad situation.) Sometimes the defenses seem mostly legit. There are those who point out that the Bible does not allow one to harass homosexuals. OK, the Bible does say something about he who is without sin may cast the first stone along with everyone is a sinner, resulting in no one being able to cast stones. But, it does make clear that a man sleeping with another man (doesn't seem to say anything about women on this) is a sin. So, things like denying homosexuals the right to marry and reparative therapy are fine. (Also for reparative therapy, such a program is just trying to help people out of their sin, so it's really hard to condemn such a practice without also condemning Alcoholic Anonymous...at least from the Christian perspective.) Others are complete hog wash. The Bible says that women shall submit to their husbands, but Michelle Bachmann claimed in a debate that submit somehow actually means respect. Not buying it, Michelle.
But, there is actually a much bigger problem with these believers interpreting the Bible. They all interpret it as the "word of God."
There has been an analogy, apparently first used by Sam Harris, that has been going along the blogosphere as of late. It is that of the talking hair dryer. Basically the analogy goes as such (emphasis mine):
Let's say that you meet a person who says to you, "Every morning, I hear messages for me coming out of my hair dryer. They tell me to picket the funerals of AIDS victims and to demand that it be made illegal for gay people to buy health insurance."
Now let's say a second person cuts in with, "That's not true! Every morning, I hear messages from my hair dryer, and they tell me to donate money to the poor and volunteer at my local soup kitchen! That first guy has just misinterpreted the message of the Holy Hair Dryer."
Is the second viewpoint an improvement over the first? Sure. Would I rather live in a world with people who profess the second viewpoint rather than the first? Of course. But at the same time, isn't it obvious that there's still a problem with it?
The problem, of course, is that they both think their hair dryer is talking to them! Argue about misinterpreting all you want. It misses the larger problem.
...[A]ttacking only faith's worst manifestations, while giving faith itself a pass from criticism, would be like treating a sick person's symptoms without curing the underlying disease. As long as people are using the presumed will of imaginary supernatural beings as the basis for their decisions, there will be those who use this method to justify doing evil...
Richard Dawkins is out promoting his new book, "The Magic of Reality," and, for some reason, he was doing so on the O'Reilly Factor. (I'm not sure who he thinks, out of those viewers, is actually going to buy the book.) I have only seen the clips of the interview that are in the TYT video below, but what is there is pretty good. Cenk makes some great points, but there are things I want to add below the fold.
A friend at work shared this link about religious influences on epidemics. The idea seems to be that some religions encourage tending to the sick, thus putting more people, particularly those tending to the sick, at risk of infection. There are some transitional problems in the article that make it slightly difficult to follow. For example, one paragraph states that "between 800 B.C.E. and 200 B.C.E...several modern religions emerged." The next paragraph mentions Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, but, of those three, only Judaism emerged in that 800 - 200 B.C.E. time frame. (And Christianity and Islam were later derived from Judaism.)
Besides that, there were parts of the post that bothered me. First, it seemed to not only take a pro-Christianity slant, but neglected relevant information. Take this statement, for example (emphasis mine): "Helping the sick was one way to ensure a trip to Heaven, so risking death from a disease's spread was encouraged." If you read the New Testament, it seems quite obvious the early Christians believed that disease was caused by demon possession. One can also reasonably conclude that they didn't think demon possession was necessarily contagious. The problem with that statement, particularly the emphasized part, is that those early Christians didn't even realize they were putting themselves at risk! The article really seems to push a "look at those noble Christians risking their lives!" slant, but the truth is that their "nobility" was derived out of ignorance! These people would be like Don Quixote's -- absolutely clueless!
The article continues to discuss this influence in present-day Malawi, Africa.
...About 30% of the Christians regularly visit the sick, whereas only 7% of the Muslims do, Hughes reported. The survey also revealed that the prospect of getting help was enticing. In the past 5 years, about 400 of those responding have shifted religions, many of them moving to Pentecostal or the African Independent Churches, places where the promise of receiving care is greater and the stigma of having AIDS is less, Hughes noted.
I do not know a lot about the African Independent Churches, but I can tell you the Pentecostals are big on demon possession. Even here in the USA, many Pentecostal groups ban watching TV or listening to non-church-approved music because demons may use those as media (plural of "medium") to enter a body. I wish I were kidding! (I don't know where in this podcast the discussion is, but I'm quite sure this is the correct one. The whole thing is worth checking out, though.)
Austin Cline, who seems to write most, if not all, of the atheist related articles on about.com, says this about Pentecostalism in Africa: "The adoption of superstitions in Africa is also not harmless. Belief in witches has led to violent witch hunts in which women and children have been brutally slaughtered. Belief in demons causing illnesses will prevent people form seeking real medicine that might actually help them."
With that in mind, I find there is a valid point made in the subject article that religious belief may help the spread of disease, as people will not seek proper treatment, as pointed out in the about.com article. However, where the subject article goes wrong (and where it really annoyed me) is that it states that Christian beliefs encourage "extreme altruism," which is then implied to be the cause of the additional spread of disease. But I do not see how that word, altruism, which is the opposite of selfishness, can be used. I understand how these acts of helping the sick can be perceived as altruistic, but the fact is that these acts are derived out of ignorant beliefs. When Don Quixote goes about attacking windmills, is this altruistic? Likewise, when Christians go about fighting off demons, is this altruistic? Much like I would not call Don Quixote altruistic, neither will I apply that adjective to these religious bafoons fighting off demons that don't exist.
The other issue I have is that my view of altruism involves doing something good without reward, but the Christians are doing this for reward! I've already pointed this out with the quote about ensuring a trip to heaven above. So, even if Christians do realize they are putting themselves at risk, that risk evaluation is going to be different from the perspective of someone who believes in an afterlife than from someone who does not. If you are someone who honestly believes in an afterlife, then death isn't much more than a minor inconvenience. It should go without saying that the perspective becomes different if you don't or are hightly doubtful. If I haven't made it clear, let me state it dirrectly: If persons A and B are doing the same good deed, but person A thinks they will be rewarded and person B does not, person B is the altruist and person A is not. This is independent of whether or not a reward exists. In conclusion, we cannot call these Christians altruistic when they think they are working for a reward, even though that reward does not actually exist.
It is rare, but every now and then, Jon Stewart disappoints me. The surprise was when he said, "By the way, atheists, why do you give a shit?" It's one thing to hear that from the religious, because they usually say it to discourage atheists from speaking out against their mythology, but hearing it from people who are not only non-religious but likely atheists as well is quite frustrating. Imagine a extreme scenario, just to make a clear point--what if there was a group of people living in, say, 1930's Germany who found comfort in a cross that remained from a building that burned down, killing a bunch of Jews inside. The comfort, of course, was from the feeling that their god was giving them a sign assuring them that they need to purify their culture. Need I explain how they would go about doing that? Might that be something worth caring about for someone like Stewart?
In my last post, I talked about how ABC's Nightline was having a special on demonic possession. It turned out to be fairly lame. Most of the people on the show had admitted to having been heavy drug users in the past. And, frankly, that really damages their credibility to speak on the subject. My wife even pointed out that they could have fried a few brain cells during that time (paraphrasing). The most exciting part, for me, was the brief moment (maybe 10 seconds) when Darrel Ray appeared on the show. Unfortunately, I was too busy shouting, "Holy shit! It's Darrel Ray!!!" to really even listen to what he had to say. I think it was something about suggesting that people seek professional psychiatric treatment instead of exercisms, though.
The reason seeing Darrel Ray was exciting for me was mainly because what I wrote yesterday about hypnosis was influenced by him through what he has written in his book, "The God Virus," which I am currently reading and also have a signed copy of as I purchased it directly from Dr. Ray when he was at the American Atheist national convention in Des Moines, IA, this past April. (Damn, why didn't I get a photo of this?!?)
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion." - Robert M. Persig
Note: The following post contains ideas I have collected from researchers in pyschology and my own personal understanding of that research. I do not claim to be an expert in the field of pyschology. I am not any more than a "hobbyist."
Tonight, ABC will have a Nightline special - Beyond Belief: Battle with the Devil at 10 PM, EST. I am tempted to watch out of pure pschological interest. It is amazing (and scary at the same time) what the mind can do when it is manipulated emotionally to the point that hypnosis is induced. And that is what not only I find to be true, but former ministers like Rich Lyons, who claim to have performed exercisms, essentially say that is what it is - induced hypnosis. Let's first be clear on what hypnosis is. As Wikipedia states, "contemporary research suggests that hypnotic subjects are fully awake and are focusing attention, with a corresponding decrease in their peripheral awareness." It's not limited to this "you're getting sleepy...very sleepy" while watching a pendulum (usually a round pocket watch) swing by stuff that used to be portrayed in media.
I have had some experience with hypnosis. In my freshman year of college, a hypnotist put on a show on campus. I actually volunteered to go on stage to be hypnotiszed (OK, am I British now?). The procedure had us close our eyes to relax1 and then start accepting suggestions like, "Your arms are SOOOO heavy, it is impossible to lift them." This is what Wikipedia says is the induction technique. I like to think of this as a "warm-up," where the hypnotist is getting the subject loose and ready for more "powerful" (for lack of a better word) suggestions. I was about the second person kicked off the stage, though, as I wasn't really playing along well during that warm-up. They perhaps noticed that my response to the question, "What is your favorite flavor of ice cream?" was not as enthusiastic as those of the other participants. (On a side note, the most enthusiastic answer probably came from my old friend, Jory, who answered "Beer flavored!" Update: Actually, now that I think of it, I'm quite sure I laughed at that, though tried hard to cover it up. That might be where they noticed I was not fully entranced.) Yet, when they asked me to get off stage, the hypnotist was suggesting that the ice cream was melting and dripping on our arms. As I was walking off, he suggested that everyone like off the ice cream. Even though I was not hypnotiszed enough to remain on the stage, I did catch myself sticking my toung out and raising my right forearm up toward it. Even though I was not playing along very well, I still had fallen slightly into a hypnotic trance. Imagine if I had played along during the warm-up. I may have remained up on stage and been riding imaginary horses, or whatever else the hypnotist had people doing. 1 I suspect, as this was done in front of the audience, this was done so as to not hypnotize the audience by keeping them from following along with the suggestions intended only for those on stage.
Now, how does hypnosis come into play in exercism? The first and most important key is getting people to believe in demon possession, as suggestions will be much less effective without such belief, much like I could not be easily hypnotiszed as I was not going along with the idea that my arms were so heavy I could not lift them. This belief is developed and reinforced over time, though, and not in just one session, as in the case of my hypnotic experience. The suggestion does not necessarily come from the exorcist (hypnotist), either, though it will come from somewhere in the Christian church. After this point, a person then needs to believe they are possessed by demons, but this is an easy step to take. And this is the second important thing to realize: those people getting exercized already believe they are demon possessed, whether they convinced themselves of it or were convinced by family, friends, or the exercist. They already believe their arms are too heavy to lift.
Another important part should be to stir up an emotional response. For this, I'm not entirely sure how the emotions might be built up, which is a reason for me to watch the show. When it comes to the actual exorcism, I have heard that there can be a lot of screaming, some of which comes from the exorcist, and crying, coming from the audience. There is also another emotion that I had not before considered. As the reporter's notebook points out, "there is a triumph unfolding before our cameras -- a triumph over Satan." Need I explain how people tend to act when they are stirred up emotionally? Behavior is typically anything but rational. If I had not been thinking rationally during my hypnotic experience, I may have been more likely to buy into the suggestion that my arms were too heavy to lift.
Perhaps the last important part (unless I forgot anything) is the response from the hypnotic subject. This is where someone might not recognize exercism as hypnotism because the subject is not clearly being fed verbal suggestions. Well, like that key belief in demonic possession, the response is suggested prior to the hypnosis. People like Rich Lyons, who I mentioned earlier, who have performed exercisms believe the responses come from what they expect demon extraction to look like. If they expect it to involve seizuring, then they'll flop and shake on the floor. If they expect it to involve vomitting, then they'll vomit. These ideas can come from many sources, including literature, Hollywood, and other believers in demonic possession. The exercist does play a role, though. It is their job to trigger when these responses occur with non-verbal suggestions. Such an action may be placing their hand on the head of the subject, and then slowly pulling their hand away from the subject as though they had a hold of the demon, or even pretending to push the demon out. Just take Benny Hinn for an example. If Benny Hinn tries to heal you, what do you do???
...You fall to the floor. Why? Because that is what you are expected to do! Sometimes seizures are involved, as you can see.
Let's now dig deeper into the reporter's notebook. There are some other ideas that are important to the hypnotic suggestion:
"People have to humble themselves..." - This is part of the induction technique in which people prepare themselves for further suggestion; it is similar to the very start of my experience where I was told to close my eyes.
"...it looks foolish. But there's a verse in the Bible where Paul the apostle says that God uses the foolish things of the world, things that look foolish, to confound the wise." - This is another part of the induction technique to surrender rational thought. Let's change this quote up a bit and consider how it might have impacted my situation: "[The idea that you cannot lift your arms sounds] foolish. But there's a verse in the Bible where Paul the apostle says that God uses the foolish things of the world, things that [sound] foolish, to confound the wise." Of course, since I don't believe in the god of the Bible, this still would not have worked on me, but hopefully you get the idea.
Believers like to quote the old line that the devil's greatest trick was convincing people that he does not exist. - This is a way to rationalize that primary key belief in demon possession. It is a defense mechanism against skeptics/doubters who threaten this induction step.
In closing, the important thing to realize is that most of the induction techniques have already been completed prior to the subject arriving at the location. For example, someone who has never heard of Benny Hinn before will not be taken up on stage, or, if that somehow did happen, that person will not fall down like they are supposed to. Likewise, a person who has heard of him, but is certain he is a fraud, will likewise not fall down. A doubter, however, may very well fall down. Why? Because they will get caught up by the emotional part of the induction, which is the component that completes the induction. They have accepted enough of the other parts of the induction technique that they will give in completely once their rationality is subdued. And, being familiar with Benny Hinn, they know what to do when he gives them the non-verbal suggestion. I expect something similar out of this show - the people who go to these exercists already know the routine!
...Homosexuality is a sin against God and he said in his word homosexuals are going to burn in the lake of fire that burns forever but prior to this happening he turns those given to this deviant sexual lifestyle over to a reprobate mind. Keep in mind this is not me judging you but God himself. Romans 1:27-28 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know yes not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Notice the word effeminate! I implore you to repent of this sin turn to God for deliverance. And please don't buy into this I was born this way, God doesn't create people this way just so he can send them to hell. Hell wasn't created for humans but for Satan and his false prophet. Only people that are children of Satan will join him in the lake of fire. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I hope everyone learns a very important lesson from this and that is when you hire homosexuals and allow them to obtain positions of authority this is what you can expect. This thing "oh well they are good people" or "I know several really good people that are homosexual" still doesn't nullify what we are seeing and what we can further expect from people that are given to sexual lifestyle God condemns and their judgment while still in a natural state is to be given over to a reprobate mind as God calls it. He also refers to homosexuality as an abomination.
For you Christians notice Daniel gives you insight about the anti-Christ and a sign of where we are on God's time clock of the end time. The anti-Christ is a homosexual or at the very least a bi-sexual because of his affection or lack thereof of women. Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
Well, I guess I must at least thank the guy for some insight into the New Testament, which I have not yet read in full. However, this idea from Daniel (from the Old Testament) that "the anti-Christ is a homosexual" that does not "regard...the desire of women" does not really align with Matthew in the New Testament. "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. So, if a man regards his desires of women, he admits to being an adulterer. Otherwise, he could possibly be the anti-Christ. Seems to be a bit of a lose-lose if you are male (and a king, since that is what Daniel is talking about...trying to keep it in context as much as I can, though the poster seems to have taken that passage out of context himself). Am I surprised? No.
