How many religions?

Found a web page that claims there are 10,000 distinct religions with Christianity broken down into 34,000 different versions. It's statistics like this that really make me doubt that the few hundred sitting in the pews at the church I go to are the ones going to Heaven.

That same page does state that about half of the 34,000 sects of Christianity are independent churches that choose not to associate with a larger group. Add to that the fringe type sects (Branch Davidians, Phelps) and you're still left with thousands of churches thinking that their teachings are the true teachings of Christ and that everybody else is wrong. And my experience is that a Christian church will talk bad about another Christian church much more than they will about a Muslim mosque. It sure looks like there are a lot of us going to Hell. I guess I'll see you there.

Christian != Moral

A quick rant, and a little of my nerd side coming out in the title.

I had a relative tell me that he was unable to find Christian friends where he lived, and was willing to drive to find a church to find new Christians to socialize with. Ok, sounds pretty normal. I can even imagine myself saying the same thing about 6 months ago.

My problem is in his description of the "non-Christian" people he works with. He described them as "far from Christian as possible." He went on to explain that they would drink, look at other women, cuss, etc. He wasn't looking for someone Christian, he was looking for someone who shared the same morals.

So when did Christianity become associated with having good morals and being an ethical person? Yes, I know there are some very moral, ethical Christians; and some of the Christians I know are some of the nicest people I know. But that's not because they're Christians. That's because they're good people. I believe this is a backwards assumption. I believe they are Christian because they are moral, not moral because they are Christian. It just works out that many of Jesus's teachings were on subjects that moral people will agree with.

My thinking is that we try to lump people in to groups to make it easier to get to know them. It's the same idea as racism. It's easier to see someone's views as Christian and base your opinion on that label than to really get to know them. If you use the label Christian, you're already making assumptions. They are against abortion. They are against homosexuality. They are against drinking (some denominations).

Labeling someone as an atheist does the same thing. The assumption is that they are immoral, promiscuous, drug-using adulterers. I only know two atheists personally. Either of them would go out of their way to help a neighbor. They've both been married to the same woman for decades. I've never seen either drink, do drugs, or talk badly about another person. They certainly don't fit the normal perception of an atheist. But I believe they fit the true definition – one who just doesn't believe in a god. In fact, I've never seen either even bring up religion. They just seem to accept others beliefs and go on from there; unlike Christians following the "Great Commission" who feel they must force their beliefs on others.

To me this is no different than labeling a Mexican a "wetback". (My apologies to anybody with Mexican roots. I'm using this as an example, not as an expression of my views.) The view is that of a lazy person who is just in this country to take work away from Americans. Again, faulty assumption.

I understand wanting to find people to associate with. And I understand that you want those friends to have similar views. But using a term to group yourself with them only makes you guilty of not being willing to truly get to know them. All you do is use a superficial label and assumptions.

And yes, this was a rant. Once I start writing I have trouble stopping

Baptists begat Baptists

So, if the truth is the Truth, why is it so regional? Why is the US considered a Christian nation, in the sense of a majority of believers? Why are most Muslims found in the Middle East? It's what you're born in to. Look at the following map.

This shows the percentage of Americans that adhere to a religion. Some areas are obviously more devout that others.

But let's take the following three maps that break it down in to Baptist, Catholic, and Church of Christ.

Click on 'em if you like. It'll bring up a larger image. These three maps obviously show that these beliefs are regional. If the truth is in fact the Truth, then the area shouldn't matter. It shouldn't matter what your parents taught you. God should answer your prayers and tell you that the religion to which you belong is the wrong one and set you on the right path. But He doesn't. He leaves that to your parents. And if that's the way religion works, there are a lot of us on the way to Hell because our parents taught us the wrong religion.

But He doesn't do that. Apparently God is not willing to correct those that belong to the thousands of "wrong" denominations and would prefer they go to Hell instead of leading them in the right path.

Sin to go against the government?

Rom 13:1-2 NIV
¹Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ²Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Rom: 13:1-2 KVJ
¹Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
²Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

I picked up these two verses after reading a posting over at Ex-Christian.net. It started out as a discussion on whether the United States was truly formed as a Christian nation, or simply formed by Christians. The first verse quoted above came in as a discussion point. I included KJV because there are those that feel that's the only true translation.

It has often entered my mind that Christianity was created, or at least allowed to continue, to keep the lower classes in check by the authorities. The early version of the Man (Romans) keeping me down. The relationship between Christians and God seems to parallel the Feudal system of medieval England too closely to be coincidental. But these verses take it a step further. They flat out state that we should submit to the governing authorities as "good Christians".

So, is it possible that Christianity was allowed to flourish due to its design that Christians were to be humble and submissive. Admittedly these are both good traits for the peasant class to have. The ruling class has a much easier time when they don't have to squash rebellions.

Of course the other side of that is that Jesus was executed for his protesting against the Roman government. My current thinking on this is that having a martyr as a God is a good position for Christians to be in. The serfs of the time would be likely to want to rebel against authority. But they didn't have to because their God rebelled for them. Their God risked everything so that they didn't have to. Almost seems too convenient.

But let's take this one step further. Nowhere does it say to submit to your government, but fight against others. At the time a Roman citizen would have been so far away from any other governments that it is doubtful they would have even known of another governments existance. The wars fought by Romans were against barbarians, a word that implies a group without government – at least not government up to the level of the Romans. It's possible that a typical Roman citizen didn't even imagine another government body existed.

Of course we now know that there are many governments in the world. But the verse doesn't say to submit to only our government, or only the higher powers above us if you're reading the KJV. It says submit. So does that mean we should submit to all governing bodies? When the war in Iraq (or Germany, or Japan) started was that a sin against God because we did not submit to Saddam Hussein?

Look at how America was founded. It was a group of people rebelling against a government. Therefore it was created by sinners. Our forefathers went directly against the word of God to create the US. If the United States was created as a direct result of a sinful action, how could it possibly be a Chrisitan nation?

Why is God only involved in positive events?

Clicking on the "Next Blog" links can bring you to some interesting postings. But it also can bring up some questions.

One that I was reading was on the topic of hope and how it applies to faith; a pretty good topic for the week leading up to Easter. And I'm intentionally not linking to this posting because my opinion of the posting is pretty much exact opposite of what the writer was trying to say. If the author happens to stop by and post a link that would be great. The comments on that posting are very uplifting as well, albeit a little misguided in my opinion. For the same reason I'm not commenting directly to the posting.

It started out with her husband being struck by a car alongside the highway. After the collision and being dragged his heart stopped. A passerby performed chest compressions and his heart restarted. But the doctors didn't give him much of a chance at survival.

One of the physicians was of the opinion that not much could be done and told the writer so. I understand the idea of always hoping for the best, but part of a doctor's job is to prepare the family for the worst. The doctor used her experiences to know that most people in the husband's condition would not survive.

The point was that he survived and it was a gift from God that he did so.

My question is why is his survival the only gift from God. Why is being hit by the car just considered a fluke accident? Didn't God cause that as well? Or at least allow it to happen? Why shouldn't she be angry at God for allowing her husband to be injured in the first place rather than praising Him when the husband survives?

Age of accountability and the handicapped

There is a common Christian defense to the idea that children go to Hell before they can understand their faith. This defense is the age of accountability, and my understanding is that until a child is mature enough to accept Christ on their own they are not held accountable by God for not accepting Him.

Let's ignore for the moment that of all the articles I've read on this topic, none quote scripture that mentions the age of accountability. If it's true that the Bible doesn't speak on this topic, then it is a man-made idea that should be dismissed as it's not the word of God.

What happens to those that will never reach a point of mental maturity to really understand the implications of accepting Christ? There are adults in the world that are mentally infants. Are they going to be punished by God because they never reached this level? If so, aren't they being punished for His actions? Hasn't their life been punishment enough?

Blind faith and Darwinism

The Easter service I attended yesterday focused on those that are doubting Christianity. To me it makes perfect sense. The church had readied two extra services under the assumption that the pews would have more people than usual because of Easter. And the planning was correct. We went to the early morning service and there were hardly any empty seats. This compared to the about 50% filled the week before. So you've got 4-5 times more people attending services on this "special" Sunday than attended last week. Of course there will be many in the group that doubt Christianity. There will be many that are there just because of obligation to family rather than actual desires.

Which leads us to the topic of the day. The pastor promised to counter arguments against Christianity on 3 levels – intellectual, logical, and emotional. Personally I think that he should have reversed the order, but that's just my opinion. My guess is that most people who doubt Christianity do so on an intellectual level, not emotional. If I were doubting only on an emotional level there really wouldn't be a reason to doubt. A blind faith in God is an emotional crutch.

I was actually looking forward to this topic to see how Christianity and the Bible counter many of the doubts I've been having. Was I ever disappointed.

The pastor actually used the term "blind faith" in reference to Darwinism. That accepting Darwin's theory was a "leap of blind faith" that was too great for intellectual people to take. Sadly he was serious. Apparently blind faith only works with religion. It's ok to have blind faith Jesus walked on water. It's ok to have blind faith that Jesus healed lepers. It's ok to have blind faith that Jesus was resurrected. It's not ok to have blind faith that we and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. Oh wait, that last one isn't blind faith. They just found a common ancestor in Africa. But we should have (blind) faith that the bones found were planted by Satan and that this ancestor is just a ploy by Satan to separate us from God.

And before I get any comments about faith in God not being blind because of the Bible, I can use the same argument. The Origin of Species says that we evolve, therefore it's not blind faith. One book arguing against one book.

Honestly I pretty much shut down after he used blind faith as the intellectual argument against Darwinism. My first thought was that he was using an argument against Christianity for Christianity.

The only other part I really remember was using emotion and hope as a reason to accept God. The "without God, there's no hope" line that is so overused came up. And I understand the idea. But it's the same idea as a child waiting for Christmas has knowing that Santa Claus will bring toys instead of the boring clothes that his parents always give.

Human ego and Christianity

This one's been on my mind for a while. What is so special about humans? Why would God single us out for his favor to the detriment of all the other creatures on the Earth?

Ok, I hear the answers running through your head. We were created in God's image. To that end I don't care what the Bible says, we were not created in the image of an omnipresent, benevolent (or vindictive depending on which chapter you're in), all-knowing, all-seeing deity. We are functionally closer in image to a pet dog than we are to a deity.

My thoughts – it's our ego that makes us think we're more endowed than any other creature on the planet. We are biologically very similar to other living things, but we feel that we were singled out for greatness.

So we're self-aware and with that comes our need to be special. We can't just admit that we're one of several billion of a species, on a planet with millions of other species.

Happier without Christ?

I "found Christ" about the same time I entered the working world. It was about a year after I graduated from college and started working at my first real job.

Since that time I've gone through times where I have been very stressed out and unhappy. My assumption was always that the real world is tough, and that the stress and worries are just part of it.

But I've realized something since my beginnings of doubt. I think Christianity played a large part in that stress and worry. I find myself a much happier person since I've stopped considering myself a Christian – agnostic is probably the most accurate term for me today.

Let me explain. As a Christian I believed that every bad event was either Satan trying to tempt me away from God or God punishing me for something I did. Neither of these are good options. Satan tempting me meant that the embodiment of evil was working specifically on me. The most evil creature ever created was focusing their time on me. Picture Hitler focusing on one specific person. That's how I felt. Or, I was being punished for something I did; or for something an ancestor did thousands of years ago. And that punishment may have been for something I didn't even know I did. I could have picked up a dollar from the ground that God had put there for a homeless man to buy dinner with. My greed for that dollar just caused God to punish me with cancer for less than the cost of chicken nuggets.

Having taken God, and by extension Satan, out of the equation I find myself in a much happier place. No longer is everything that goes wrong specifically focused on me or my family. No longer am I the cause of every negative action. It is now a case of bad things just happening. And I am much more able to accept that than the alternative.

One additional benefit, I've found myself living a much healthier life. I've never been much for drinking heavily or smoking and have never taken any type of recreational drug. But I've always eaten more than I should and never exercised enough. Now that I've realized that I will die when my heart decides to stop working and not when God decides to pull the plug I've been more motivated to eat right and exercise.

Things said…

I've noticed as part of this process that Christians say things with the intent of "bringing you back around" that really don't have that effect. 

As an example, one discussion I had involved us talking about Hell and how I believe that a truly, loving, father-type God wouldn't subject his children to that simply for something that was done hundreds of generations ago (hint, think Adam, Eve, snake, and the tree).  One of the replies was asking whether it was worth risking Hell for my beliefs.  

So here's my problem.  If someone is questioning how God can be considered all-loving and yet still send his children to eternal torment, why would bringing up the threat of Hell as a reason for belief be considered a good idea?  If I'm already considering the idea that Hell doesn't exist, why would threatening me with it convince me of its validity?   

Reading back over that, it really doesn't flow as well as it should.  I apologize for that.  But rants are allowed to be a little choppy