Attack of the Theist

I think differently.

I have different opinions.

I don't agree with some people.

Am I allowed to talk about it? Share it? Be passionate about it? Why not?

Ever notice how theists have a strange double standard about sharing beliefs and what is sacred? They become to angry and defensive when anyone says anything that might contradict, mock, or challenge their faith. And yet, demand ultimate and complete respect for what they say about non believers (sinners). I just don't get it.

Do I consider myself an atheist? No. Because I still hope for a deity and a life after death. So I guess I'm more of an agnostic. Kind of on the fence. Because I like things about religion, and I there are some things I don't like. I believe in being kind and charitable to everyone, for allowing everyone to share what they believe and live the way that makes them happy. But to do so without fear and without judgement.

Coming from a very religious background and family, it is very difficult to openly share what I believe without making them uncomfortable or upset. They resort to attacking my character, saying that I am openly mocking their faith by sharing what I think. They delight in misinterpretation, or misconstruing what I mean. How dare I say something that would belittle their sacred religion? It becomes very hard to be honest about what I think because I'm always so scared of offending them, and opening up a theological airstrike all over my Facebook page. I can't say anything that I feel or believe, even as civilly as I do, without them coming after me. And yes, I admit, I do become equally nasty when someone attacks me as a person. Attack my ideas fine, but don't attack me.

So tell me, is this what religion teaches? To publicly scorn people who think differently? To bring people down by attacking who they are as a person instead of their ideas? If it is okay for someone to "Defend" their beliefs, why am I not allowed to do the same thing?

I have never, not once gone onto one of my religious siblings walls and attacked their beliefs as they have so publicly done about mine. I have posted a total of two things to share my opinion. One of them I removed because of how ugly it got, and how embarrassed I was that my friends would see my family treat me the way that they did. The second one, I merely said I thought a bolder move by the church would have been to not excommunicate a member for "apostasy", but again, people got defensive, twisted what I meant, and attacked my character. Is this truly what religion teaches you to do?

And then I realized, yes it is. Part of religion is about shaming a person into repentance. You are a sinner, imperfect before God. You must repent of your wrong doings and come unto God. You must defend your beliefs, even if it means hurting those closest to you. Because in the end, if you lose your family, it doesn't matter. All will be made well in the eternities, and God will reward you for hurting someone you should have loved, because it was in his name, and lets face it, for their own good.

Do you see how religion can be a very ugly thing?

I am very passionate about what I believe, and I am going to keep sharing it. Because I hope, just as any theist hopes, that what I share will have an impact for the better. If I were sharing negative things about Warren Jeffs, of course people would agree with me. But his followers would be mortally offended, and they would say to me, you cannot shake our faith, because we know he is a prophet. The problem is, every religion feels that exact same passion. And what they don't realize, is those of us who don't believe, or don't believe fully, are just as passionate.

I believe the unfair treatment of women in theology is wrong. I believe the unfair treatment of homosexuals, and in the past, different races, is wrong. I believe that excommunicating a man for his beliefs, while totally up to the organization, is counter productive. And I am going to share it. I don't understand how me sharing what I believe is any different than religious people sharing what they believe. There is just such an arrogant attitude of "we are right, you are wrong, you offend God" among theists, that they will use empty rhetoric to tear you down for sharing your belief because it contradicts their own. They will attack opposition to their faith wherever they can, even if it means harming someone they should love.

I am embarrassed about my family's (certain members, not all) conduct. And I am saddened by the nasty, snarky, arrogant personal messages attacking me as a person, and saying that I am the one in the wrong for sharing what I believe. I am saddened by the untruths and lump statements used to misinterpret what I am saying, or to accuse me of something I haven't said at all. They keep tacking on, but it's up to you, you can believe what ever you want. Except, I can't share it, because if I do, I know the reaction I will get. I have to be secretive about what I feel. I can't be open about it. I can't discuss it. I can't be honest and seek support. Because then I might offend someone. Do you have any idea how lonely that feels? To feel completely ostracized from your own family because you don't think the same way they do?

One family member even went so far as to say I continually post anti religious things on my FB wall (pretty sure she meant my husband, but is so indoctrinated into the church's teachings, she assumes I do his bidding??). I do not. If you need proof, scroll through my profile, you will find one, about John Delin. And it was not rude at all, it was  very neutral!!! The only controversial things I post are about vaccinations! VACCINATIONS! Because I think kids should be vaccinated. Good Lord people, actually read what I'm posting before you accuse me! I commented on two friends posts that were gay bashing. TO DEFEND GAYS! How is that wrong?? Holy crap, am I just blind and stupid, or is it actually wrong to discriminate?? (In the name of religion yes, which is why doctrine of the church used to state "The Negro may make it to the Celestial Kingdom, but as a ministering angel in an eternal servitude to his God". Messed up, right?? )

And guess what? Theists offend me! And the only time I have spoken up is when something was particularly harmful, like telling gays they can't live in certain homes or purchase from certain businesses. That is wrong, and I'm going to say it. And I know some people aren't going to like it. But I am trying to change that, I am trying to fight for the rights of all people to live happily and not be afraid to be who they are of share how they feel. Religion doesn't allow that. It doesn't allow you to think for yourself. You have to believe what the leaders say, you cannot question. And if you do, you will be publicly humiliated, shamed, and eventually expelled if you do not shut up. But it will all be turned right back on you, telling you are in the wrong, you are the bigot, you are the one humiliating people, you are the one causing harm. It's funny, because you are also the one that was attacked.

I'm not going to shut up. In the words of Tracy Edna Turnblad: Things need to change. And I won't stop trying to change them.

One man's salvation is another man's damnation

There are a bunch of things I have been thinking about lately, and one of them has been the concept of agency and moral objectivism. And my conclusion is this: if God exists, I don't think even he believes in moral objectivism, and he certainly does not believe in agency.

Let's step back for a moment, and argue within the realm of theology, and then afterwards we can go without it.

When I say, one man's salvation is another man's damnation, I mean that what God commands one man to do would not be acceptable for another man to do. For instance, God commanded murder, and yet there is a commandment specifically states not to kill (David and Goliath, the genocide of an entire group of people in the Bible, Nephi and Laban). God condoned certain persons to lie, (Esther about her identity, Mary and Joseph about her pregnancy) and yet many Christian religions maintain that God viewing lying as a sin. Eating pork during the law of Moses was a sin, while drinking wine was not. Today it is the opposite.

One thing that always bothered me about "commandments from God", is that they seemed to constantly be changing. And a lot of them reflect social trends. Having grown up with the view of moral objectivism (that things are moral or immoral regardless of people practicing them, and they exist eternally, independent of God), it was very confusing to me why one person would be commanded to kill, and another person would be condemned to hell for it.

Then I realized something. There is no such thing as a moral absolute. It is never absolutely wrong to kill, and it is never absolutely morally right to turn the other cheek. Which is why God commanded wars while at the same time commanding charity and love. There is no such thing as black and white. There is only gray. And anyone who thinks differently, is not seeing reality for what it is. And if God exists, he understands that. Simply put, arguing from a theological perspective, a person's entrance into eternal bliss is dependent upon one thing: obedience. Not objective morality. But obedience to God's ever changing whims. So, going from an LDS perspective, the test was to come to earth to see if we would obey God in whatever he commanded us to do. From large orders to entire groups of people, down to the little man commanded to slay an unarmed drunken aristocrat in the street.

Now the real question, how on earth does this make sense? Shouldn't the pathway to salvation remain the same regardless of the individual, regardless of the century, regardless of social media, scientific breakthroughs, genetic studies, and anthropological publications? If God is an all knowing, omniscient, perfect being, then why are his commandments and methods and tolerances in a constant state of flux? Saying that salvation is a personal thing is unfair, and unjust. One person needs to die from ebola, while one person needs to live in a rich mansion and give away millions of dollars to charity to maintain a decent image in the public eye. How is it fair to give them a similar reward if they didn't come to it under similar circumstances?

Basically, theological salvation hinges upon obedience to an unseen being's subjectivity.

The next problem is agency. I know not every religion believes in agency, or free will the same way the LDS church does, but that is the viewpoint I will speak from, because it the one I am familiar with. It is taught that each man is given the ability to choose right from wrong. Though now we can see how right and wrong are a little skewed and really, there is nothing objective about what is right and what is wrong. (Christmas example: A child out of wedlock with an individual that is not the husband in an era where it was perfectly okay to stone [murder] a woman for such actions by religious law. [Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery or fornicate]). But back to the concept of agency as it is understood, is actually a complete paradox. Most religions believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God. Roughly translated, it means God knows everything, past present and future. If this is the case, God always knew and always knows what we are going to do, even when we do not. And yet, creates commandments, rules, and restrictions for us to adhere to, knowing perfectly well when we will and when we won't. We are then punished eternally for not adhering to the subjective commandments of a being who already knew we wouldn't obey in the first place. Thus, the concept of agency exists only in the mind of the individual experiencing it, and therefore cannot be an eternal truth. How can we say we can always choose when what we will choose is already known by the one condemning or saving? Seems a little rigged. Like the whole system was created for the eternal one-per-centers to stay on top.

And if we are going to talk about what is moral, how can we in good conscience accept a an eternal being who treats different groups of people differently? Who has favorite races? Who condones the continued unfair and chauvinistic treatment of women? Who commands love for all, but condemns love when it exists outside of what is Biblically acceptable in terms of family? And who, above all, allows imperfect men to make all the decisions in his kingdom on earth? Where individuals are looked at differently for having tattoos or multiple piercings, but not for abusing prescription narcotics because it comes from a doctor. Where an abusive husband is valued more than a gay couple. Where the only life that is sacred is a week old fetus and not an enemy civilian murdered in the horrors of war, or the countless animals that are killed and used at man's leisure.

So tell me then, how can objective morality possibly exist? And how can we ever believe we are free to choose anything? I'm not saying life is a free-for-all and "I was going to kill him anyways".....but I'm saying eternal damnation and salvation can't happen the way religion teaches it based on the facts that agency can't exist with an omniscient God and everything of that nature is subjective. The only things that aren't subjective? Math.....and yeah, math.  2+2 always = 4