Friday, May 01, 2015

Lunch........... with a Twist

Usually I don't talk about personal matters on here, or anywhere, really, because I am a very private person.  However, sometimes I'll make exceptions depending on the topic.

So, the man who raised me..i.e..the person I called "Dad" is deceased. The guy who fathered me is alive, and while we have lived in the same town for several decades, we see each other roughly 2-3 times a year, max. The reasons for this sparse interaction are many, but mostly it's an issue of time and lack of a father/son bond(again, he didn't raise me).

I'm nearly certain that in previous posts from years ago I mentioned that my bio-father's side of the family is devout Christian. If I didn't mention it, I'm mentioning it now. IOW, I have gaggles of uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces, nephews, all of whom, to the best of my knowledge, are of the Christian faith.

Anyway, a few weeks back I met with my bio-father and his wife(yes, they have names, but I'm respecting their privacy) at a local bar and grille. Let me say straight away that these are good, nice, down-to-earth people, albeit, I'm not what you could call very close to either of them. It's a work in progress.

Anyway, the topic around these lunches usually centers around the things that he and his wife are into, which is mostly the stuff he repairs and/or the various domestic projects he takes on. They also own a cabin in the mountains, and he recently built a fence around the property. His wife had pics' on her phone and she showed me his work. Suffice it to say that he's a very creative individual, especially when it comes to trouble-shooting.

As for me, they inquired about my musical endeavors and what I do to occupy my time. When the subject of music comes up, I usually find myself giving a crash course on the music industry and why playing music, alone, just doesn't sustain me(or 99% of musicians out there, for that matter). Part most of the reason for this is illegal downloading. But this is for another discussion.

This might come as a shock, but I do everything in my power to avoid the topic of religion or politics. Why? Because I know I won't be able to bite my tongue if I sense that some good 'ol fashioned evangelizing is about to come my way. As I've said before, I don't particularly care that there are cultural Christians out there. Where I do begin to care, however, is when/if said Christians attempt to lure me back into the fold. Think of a scenario of a guy who goes waltzing into an AA meeting and says, "Have you tried Miller Lite, yet?".

Now, of course I know that any Christian readers would likely say(or think), "Yeah, but that's different because your eternal soul is as stake!". So, yes, I know that they believe this, but at the end of the day they cannot demonstrate this in any meaningful way, and I'm sorry to have to report that my bio-father was no exception. I love the guy, and all, but his apologetics fell flat.

So, how did we end up on the topic of religion? When our waitress dropped off the bill, I ask my bio-father if he had change for a ten dollar bill. He handed me two fives. I stuck one of them in my pocket, and dropped the other on the table(yes, only 15% that day because our service was quite bad). He looked at me funny and asked if I noticed anything different about the money. I didn't bring my readers, so I picked up the bill and noticed that something was stamped on the face of Abraham Lincoln. Upon closer inspection, I could make out:


YOU ARE FORGIVEN
ACCEPT CHRIST
FOR ETERNAL LIFE

I immediately took the other five out of my pocket and checked it, and sure enough, it had the same stamp on it! Eee-gads!

At that point - and taking the affectionate smirk on my bio-father's face into consideration - I knew what was up and what was about to go down. My biological father actually had a stamp made that says "YOU ARE FORGIVEN. ACCEPT CHRIST FOR ETERNAL LIVE", and he evangelizes by stamping bills and sending them out into circulation. Can anyone guess my first question to him? It had something to do with the mentioned passage. I'm sure a few of my fellow non-believers will guess it. It's this: "So, are non-believers forgiven, too?"

Paraphrased from memory, the (roughly hour and a half) conversation continued ...

"Yes....everyone!....everyone is forgiven"

Me: "So? Then what's the problem?"

(laughs)

Him: "There is no problem!"

Me: "Then why the need to stamp money with this message?"

At this point, he went into some of the central tenets of the Christian faith...e.g..."sin", "the devil rebelled", "Jesus died on the cross", "the bible says", etc., etc. IOW, preaching to the choir, telling me all of the things I was taught as child and young adult, all of the things which, as an adult, I now reject because it just doesn't stand up to reason.

We covered all topics..e.g. "sin"(and how one or two people making a one-time poor decision that adversely affects other people, spits into the face of personal accountability). We discussed "mercy"(and how God cannot be both infinitely merciful and infinitely just). We discussed "Salvation"(and how substitutionary atonement makes a mockery of "justice"). We discussed "faith"(and how "faith" and "trust" are not necessarily interchangeable, including how the latter of which is built upon a proven track record). We discussed "evil"(and how it's not necessary for "free will" if there can be no "evil" in "Heaven", but yet, there can be "free will")

All of his apologetics that day were met with calmly delivered counter-arguments, none of which he seemed to be able refute. But perhaps the most disturbing thing to me was when I asked him how he could be happy in "Heaven" knowing that his own flesh and blood was being eternally tormented. He sat quietly for a few seconds and offered, "Heaven will be like starting over".

Me: "Oh? What about J***?"[i.e..his wife and mother of my half sisters, sitting silently next to him]

Him: "Well, yes.....I'll remember her."

Me: "So, what you're saying is that it's not really like starting over. It's just that God will erase your memory of nonbelievers, including me. Right?"

Him: "Yeah"

13 comments:

Robert said...

I suppose if you wanted to continue the discussion you could have asked, "So, can you show me in the canon of your faith where god/jesus specifically lays out the "starting over/mind format"?"

But I can see that was just as good a place as any to just let it be what it is - an unpenatrable wall of ignorance that haphazardly makes stuff up on the fly.

Family - we all have some of "those" :/

Peace my friend :)

boomSLANG said...

"I suppose if you wanted to continue the discussion[....]"

It actually got to the point where I didn't want to continue it, because I felt bad for the both of them that they couldn't defend their faith with anything better than what I was hearing. At one point I said that it doesn't add up, to which he replied, "It doesn't have to add up".

"[...] you could have asked, 'So, can you show me in the canon of your faith where god/jesus specifically lays out the "starting over/mind format'?"

You and I both know that nowhere in the bible does Jesus, or anyone else, for that matter, say anything about starting over once in "Heaven". As you say, believers make this stuff up as they go, either that, or they get it from their church leaders who make it up as they go. This, I contend, is done for one reason, and one reason, only, and that is to attempt to quell the cognitive dissonance. And really, now, how could any sane, decent, compassionate person not have any cognitive dissonance over the belief that their own children will be kept alive and tortured with fire for all of eternity?

This is what religion does to people's minds. Extremely sad, isn't it?

Robert said...

"It doesn't have to add up"

Try that line on the IRS ... yeah ... it certainly DOES need to "add up" everything does ... The problem comes when you have no concept of the formula to use to get the answer ... so their "answer" is "someone else knows the formula and I am simply not smart enough to understand it so I'll just take their word for it ... and now you have complete gullibility

... and one reason, only, and that is to attempt to quell the cognitive dissonance.

Not only that but it comes from a place/position of authority that many ASSUME has inside/in depth information that they have not yet seen or have yet to learn ... making it all the more insidious that the authority continues the runaround to keep the flock in the dark to the truth ... or absence of truth

Extremely sad, isn't it?

Extremely ... yet not surprising considering the conditioning and fear instilled in many of us from the earliest moments of cognitive awareness - it BECOMES a truth only because it's about the ONLY thing we've known since our birth - like who are parents are and that they love/care for us ... ans we see all too often how some people "love" and "care" for their children in the most depraved ways yet often to the child, they are unfortunately unaware that this is not "normal"

boomSLANG said...

"it certainly DOES need to 'add up' everything does"

'Depends, I think. I'd say that when it comes to any philosophy that claims to have a monopoly on Truth and/or claims to answer the most important questions in life...e.g..where we came from, where we're going, how we should live our lives, etc., etc., then yes, it most definitely needs to add up.

An instance of where something might not necessarily need to add up before we trust it as true might be, say, geometry. We might not fully understand geometry; it just may not make perfect sense to us.....at first. But we are being reasonable to trust that geometry is true, prior to seeing how it's true.

Another distinction is that our (supposed) "eternal souls" aren't at stake if we happen to reject our geometry teacher's explanations. The worst thing that can happen is that we get an "F" in geometry. If we reject our Pastor's explanations, we get an "F", and we get incinerated. 'Slight difference, I'd say.

That is a crude, simplistic example, but it illustrates my point, which is that there are those rare times that things don't have to make sense, but we should believe it's true anyway. Religion? It ain't one of 'em.

Robert said...

I get what you're saying but I'd counter that just because we are ignorant (classic definition) of how geometry (or anything) may not "add up" TO US ... does not mean it doesn't add up ... it DOES, we just may not know how. That said, religion does NOT "add up" in any sense and according to many of the religious that you and I have talked to, it doesn't HAVE to ... AT ALL, at ANY level of understanding.

See, any other subject, if it doesn't "add up" at SOME level - whether us serfs understand how or not - it MUST, or it's false. But religion is all based on "It's true because I say it's true and a guy said that another guy said that the book says that god said it's true so it IS true" ... but it never adds up and since their god supposedly said it's true (through dozens of interpretations and translations) they take it on pure faith (absence of evidence) and never even try to see that it doesn't come remotely close to "adding up".

Sometimes I feel very stupid at myself for having gone so long tacitly accepting the existence of god(s) when it was always right in front of my face how patently silly the concept was

boomSLANG said...

"I'd counter that just because we are ignorant (classic definition) of how geometry (or anything) may not 'add up' TO US ... does not mean it doesn't add up ... it DOES, we just may not know how." ~ R. Hall

We're in full agreement, so then I guess I'm just not sure why you'd label that as a "counter" to what I said, since it essentially underscores the very point I was attempting using the math example.

We seem to agree that there are rare instances where things may not add up to us(at the time), and that that fact, alone, doesn't mean that what's being proposed doesn't add up. Well, I agree with that. The problem is when theists try to use this same sphere of thought with atheists. For example, they say things like, "Maybe God is beyond our understanding!"..or.."Maybe God allows [X] for reasons that we don't understand!"..or.."Maybe our minds are too small to comprehend God", yadda, yadda. All of these apologetics (and more just like them) allude to taking a leap of faith..i.e..despite that the idea of "God" may not add up, believe it anyway. Welp, again, no, and I say "no" because trusting that something's true and having faith that something's true aren't necessarily the same thing. E.g...math teachers and what they are proposing have a proven track record of adding up(no pun). Thus, I trust them. What preachers, creationists, etc., are proposing, does not have a proven track record of adding up, and in fact, there is mounds of evidence that what they propose does not, and cannot, add up. I am being reasonable to not trust them.

"Sometimes I feel very stupid at myself for having gone so long tacitly accepting the existence of god(s) when it was always right in front of my face how patently silly the concept was"

Been there, done that, got the chain with the miniature torture device on it, albeit, I knew from the onset that certain elements of Christianity didn't add up, but I believe it anyway, since I was taught (brainwashed) to not question and just believe. Pathetic, isn't it?

boomSLANG said...

Addendum: I mentioned in the post that my biological father and I don't have a close father/son bond. The natural reaction to this might be for one to say, "Well, spend more time together to improve the bond".

That certainly makes sense, however, easier said than done when I factor in his sentiments on where (he believes) I will spend eternity, and worse, that *he feels that I deserve it :(

I will nonetheless do my best to overlook his religious convictions and focus on what I know is most important, and that is how we treat each other in this life.

*I do not for one second believe that he feels I deserve "hell". What I believe is that he'll allude to the notion that I deserve it if/when confronted, doing so in order to preserve the only belief system he's ever known. Inside? Inside I know he's wrestling with some things, as he should be.

Robert said...

... so then I guess I'm just not sure why you'd label that as a "counter" to what I said ...

You're right - my bad... sloppy reading/distractions on my part made my mind not register key bits of your response

mea culpa

Pathetic, isn't it?

On one hand - yes, but I think on another I'm not so sure ... I think as pups, we're wired to trust our closest elders as an evolutionary survival mechanism so the crap they pump into us, which has been time tested by the church, is a know quantity - it's both ingenious and insidious to take advantage in such a way of human evolutionary nature in this manner ... equally surprising that religions outright reject evolution while simultaneously staking their very existence on it.

Addendum ...

Good for your readership, but I have a pretty good grasp of the dynamic at play since I was adopted (yet have no knowledge of who my birth parents are). I have often considered scenarios regarding any such potential meeting and while not anything as detailed as your actual situation - I'd long concluded that I'd probably be some level or "distant" or "stand-offish". Additionally, my mom (adoptive) passed well over a decade ago and I have a similar situation with my dad's "new" wife although we have a fairly close relationship, but we also steer a wide berth from religion in general. That said, I go by the "When in Rome ..." philosophy. So when at her home for holidays, I bow my head and quietly wonder what the score is for the hockey game while if incantations are uttered over the cooling food. Then join in the in unison obligatory "amem" and commence to stuff my pie hole like everyone else.

I don't know if I ever told you ... I didn't have the same strict/fundie religious indoctrination as you, I was brought up in a more liberal sect of Lutheranism. None the less, the same stories and value produced many of the same unsettling feelings and contradiction within me yet, of course, as a child, I was compelled to trust and believe as I was told and instructed by those who had proven endlessly to otherwise have my best interests and safety and happiness at heart.

Thankfully, I wasn't forced to continue attending church once I was confirmed as Lutheran, but by then, I was already well versed in all the greatest hits and it was as natural to believe as it was to breathe even without wasting my Sunday mornings.



boomSLANG said...

"You're right - my bad..."

No biggie.

"I think as pups, we're wired to trust our closest elders as an evolutionary survival mechanism so the crap they pump into us"

I agree, but I didn't necessarily mean it's pathetic that we trust our elders or that we have survival mechanisms. When we're children, we're just doing what comes naturally, which is to trust our caretakers, which are usually the people that we love the most. No one can fault a child for that. However, when we become adults, we should know better, and generally we do know better. But here's the problem(and the part that's pathetic): We've been indoctrinated with a meme, and part of that is when we're told not to question and not to trust our own reason, one of the most, if not thee most, important attributes that we possess.

It's worth repeating: Our ability to reason keeps us from being duped at every turn. We'd be extinct without it. Yet, strangely, religion and many "spiritual" philosophies, tell us not to trust our own sense of reason. The bible tells us that our own wisdom is "foolishness". If that's not a red flag, then hell, nothing is.

Robert said...

However, when we become adults, we should know better, and generally we do know better. But here's the problem(and the part that's pathetic):...

WE're pretty much in agreement ... except I can't help but think that in practice, once the doctrine has been installed into the young child, despite having the capacity and ability to "know better" ... because we are generally surrounded by a society that generally views the doctrine as "truth" or at minimum passive acceptance as "the way it is" ... there isn't all that many opportunities to "revisit" the foundational belief/rules because by and large, they "work".

Much like I and probably you did as well, took Algebra in school, we don't find much "use" for it in its pure form in our day to day lives ... but the mathematical foundation and thinking concepts are now installed and used to solve other issues, may of which have no obvious basis in mathematics at all ... but the problem solving skills, regardless of how much we might protest, are there and in the tool kit and frequently used even though it may not "seem" like we EVER use it. Years later we "might" be able to solve a couple simple algebraic equations but we recognize that we only took the Algebra class because it was a prerequisite or requirement to something we REALLY wanted to know.

Same as it may be with religion that was installed early - and why it's so HEAVILY cherry picked - but once we're done with the "class", we (humans in general) don't go back and question and doubt the whole concept of Algebra. That is until something "big" comes along to make us REALLY need to review this foundation that we've been running on for a loooong time with relatively few major issues.

Now, I get that you and I have different experiences with religion and that our families approach it differently ... as is with many other people/families ... for a plethora of reasons, some people may or may not find a need to take a new hard critical look at such a thing as religion whereas others might be forced to tackle it early and often. In any regard - you and I are pretty much now walking lockstep on the same page where theism is concerned - and I may not have ever looked at it under a microscope had you not put some pretty pointed questions in my face (not purposely and not specifically). SO I don't know that this happens to many people in such a way or at such a time that they're receptive to actually absorbing new information. Especially in this era of memes and soundbytes - people like simple easy to digest and regurgitate answers - god/religion for all it's obvious flaws. superficially fills this "need" ... of course you and I both know it's just a painted and polished turd ... once you get under the paint, it's all sh!t ;)

PS - the religion/algebra analogy is meant as a broad comparison not meant to be "exact" by any means. Your thoughts on it would be appreciated.

boomSLANG said...

"WE're pretty much in agreement ... except I can't help but think that in practice, once the doctrine has been installed into the young child, despite having the capacity and ability to 'know better' ... because we are generally surrounded by a society that generally views the doctrine as 'truth' or at minimum passive acceptance as 'the way it is' ... there isn't all that many opportunities to 'revisit' the foundational belief/rules because by and large, they 'work'."

Staying focused on why we should know better as adults(compared to children), I'm merely saying that, regardless of the indoctrination that has taken place, as adults, we know when other aspects of life don't add up, regardless of what we've heard or what we've been taught.

Another simplistic analogy would be, as children, we have no reason to distrust the man in the white van who asks us if we'd like some candy. It totally adds up: "Hey, I'm a kid, and I like candy!" "Hey, that nice man is giving me some candy!", etc.

As adults, we don't let strangers lure us into their vehicles. A stranger asking another stranger to come hop into his van for treat is plain creepy. It doesn't add up. As adults, we know better, and I'm contending that we should know better when it comes to religion, specifically, the parts that don't add up.

The problem is that the meme that has been "uploaded" onto the religious adult's "hard drive" attempts to dissuade them from doubt and questioning a particular thing, and in fact, there's even scripture that says that keeping the "mind of a child" is optimum.

Again.....red flag much? Children are gullible, and that's precisely the way that the church (AND the "message") want you as an adult.

"the religion/algebra analogy is meant as a broad comparison not meant to be 'exact' by any means. Your thoughts on it would be appreciated."

It's all good---analogies don't prove anything, nor are they meant to be "exact". In any case, I've clarified what I meant, so I hope that helps.

Robert said...

Another simplistic analogy would be, as children, we have no reason to distrust the man in the white van who asks us if we'd like some candy. It totally adds up: "Hey, I'm a kid, and I like candy!" "Hey, that nice man is giving me some candy!", etc.

As adults, we don't let strangers lure us into their vehicles.


Agreed ... except ... the creeps trade in their white van and candy and instead use the lure of "can't miss" stock opportunities. All manner of more nuanced methods of bilking people out of their money are used in more complex versions of the white van/candy, and people NEED to be reminded throughout their lives that "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't true"

(INSERT: "It's a Trap!" meme here)

Moving on... I wonder if... wait... let me back up a bit. I seem to recall, not a specific time/date, but a general time - say late elementary/early jr. high age - when I think my brain started functioning on a parallel track where religion and reality are concerned/clash. Seems I recall when I had to seriously study in catechism for my confirmation into the Lutheran church, that It just seemed ludicrous to square the known physical world with the biblical world ... but how does one adolescent tell a very serious institution that the things they are teaching in church are conflicting with everything that we learn in secular school? Stuff that has been tested and has evidence etc? It seems during this time of my life, my brain created two compartments that operated semi-autonomous from the other ... one a religious worldview, the other a realistic/scientific worldview.

The religious side was like a serious type of fantasy land where reality was suspended, while the real/science side was based on everything we know and can prove and see. I kept the two sides mostly separate but the realistic side would generally trump the religious side because I HAD to deal with the reality of here and now - NOW.

So ... I wonder if many people don't operate under a similar structure where they keep the two separate in their minds? At least until there is SUCH a clash and conflict that they MUST reconcile the two sides or choose only one I know I walked the fence for decades and I think you may be aware of where I was when we (you and I) first started discussing this topic in earnest.

Musings and reflections ... I digress, I wasn't ever questioning your points - on those, we agree - I was just trying to flesh out possible motives and possibilities of how people handle/view these types of internal and external conflicts in their minds

boomSLANG said...

"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't true"

Agreed, but sometimes it's not so cut'n dried. In Christianity's case, "Heaven"..i.e..the notion that after we live a hard life with our fair share of set-backs and suffering that we will then be magically reunited with our loved ones in a place of never ending, unadulterated bliss, yes, sounds too good to be true. Seriously, if anything ever sounded too good to be true, it's that. And yet, millions of people believe just that. Of course, they must also deal with the idea that some of their fellow human beings, even blood relatives, will be kept alive and incinerated 24/7 in a "lake of fire". Nice, huh?

But in any case, I'd venture to say that many(most?) of these believers feel that this part of Christianity is too horrible to be true, and this why you see the more compassionate believers toss the doctrine of "Hell" out of their bibles(even though Jesus spoke of no other subject more, according to the Gospels).

So, all-in-all, I still contend that, despite the indoctrination process, our adult, Christian counter-parts should know better when it comes to trying to square up the central tenets of their "Faith" with reality. Unfortunately, the idea of "Heaven" - which is their alternative to the idea that we just cease to exist when we die - keeps them believing, since said alternative is too scary to them, just as it use to be too scary to me, too, until it finally occurred to me that there's nothing to fear. When we die, it is only painful for those we leave behind. For us, we won't know that we've died, nor that we ever existed. This is also the simplest of explanations, if one wants to consider Occam's Razor.