More on Christian Science

The more I read about Christian Science, the less I like it. Much of it makes no damn sense; a lot of it is based around the idea that matter is not real. And that being the case, coupled with the fact that God is good and wouldn’t hurt us for Christian Scientists = there is no pain. Pain is considered an illusion we need to pray ourselves out of. I’m all for avoiding pill popping when possible- but this seems to go far beyond that. Like never visiting a doctor farther. If faith is supposed to get you beyond the illusion of pain, it will be extrapolated that those requiring a doctor are faithless. This sounds so dangerous and seems like it could only be harmful. I’m having trouble wanting anything to do with this group, and based on my reading they are the least deserving of the title ‘Christian’.

Now, all that said, I will as usual give them the benefit of the doubt in case I’ve misinterpreted parts of what they believe or how strongly they believe it. But only if I come across it or it gets handed to me. I’m not going to go seeking more. What I already read was depressingly confusing and I’m not up for more of that type of negativity.

Church #17, First Church of Christ, Scientist

Date: 9/2/11

Church name/type: First Church of Christ, Scientist

Format summary: mostly familiar parts stacked in an odd way- also no peace passing and no communion

Overall Impression: not too lively but very interesting

Thoughts:
This place didn’t actually seem that weird. The room and overall tone were a bit austere, but the people were friendly and approved of my project. Attendance was summer-low; about a dozen people.

Several things were striking about this church:
1) They don’t really have a sermon. The time you’d normally expect a sermon to fill was filled instead with readings from the bible and follow up readings from writings by the founder, Mary Baker Eddy. These followed a theme and were from various biblical books. I learned afterwards that these readings change yearly, but the themes are the same each year. So there is never new interpretation going on. Just whatever Mary Baker Eddy already wrote over a century ago.This makes Christian Science seem rather static and locked-in. Whatever they have, for better or for worse, they have to keep.
2) Lots of unique phrases are worked into the service. God is referred to as “Father Mother God”, “Mind”, and All in all. This makes the flow of sentences very poetic sounding and bit mystical.
3) The word science is used a great deal- seemingly stuck in Eddy’s writings at random. “Science removes the penalty only by first removing the sin that incurs the penalty.” “Science denies all disease, heals the sick, overthrows false evidence, and refutes materialistic logic.” So I went ahead and looked up the dictionary definition of science to see if I’d been confused as to it’s meaning. Basically it refers to knowledge or learning. So study of Christianity and how it works could be called a science. Many scientists use to word science to signify scientific method. This is a specific way of testing things and then forming better ideas based on the results. Scientific method is less about proving, and more about creating a progressively clearer picture about how stuff works as testing continues. The science used by Christian Scientists does not involve scientific method. I’m not quite sure why Eddy chose to call it science at all, except perhaps to make it sound smart. I asked one woman why and she told me because Christian Science proves these things are true. So not much help there. I was given a confusing book to read. We’ll see if I have the energy for that one…

Whadja learn today?: Christian Science is not actually a combination of Christian and science. Go figure. Also, do they really not go to the doctor ever? It never came up so I really have no idea.

What’s up right now

No church this week. I’m trying to do a few things at once recently and things have gone towards hectic. Also I’m working on slimming and streamlining my posts without sacrificing too much content. I want to be posting these things by Wednesday of the week.

A few interesting items are coming up. A Christian Science church is next on my list and in a month or so I’ll visit a Greek Orthodox place. Stay tuned like your favorite guitar.

Church # 16, Slingerlands Community United Methodist

Date: 8/19/12

Church: Slingerlands Community UMC

Pastor: Pastor Laurel Phillips

Time Spent: 10-11:5am

Overall Impression: good, small, friendly

Type: United Methodist Church

Format summary: the usual- songs, prayer, scripture message and closing

Thoughts: What a good Sunday! I’m starting to realize how much appeal churches have when it’s sunny out and everyone is smiling. Another key to what I take from my project seems to be seasonal in nature. I guess the moral should be for churches to remember that people may be grumpy in winter and adjust accordingly. How to do it? I’ll gather more data for a future post.

Slingerlands community held their outdoor service the day I picked to show up. It was a beautiful day. The message had to do with the idea of webs and linkage. I participated in children’s time as an adult because there were only a few children. We created a pattern by each holding a portion of a long ribbon. It looked a little like a web, the takeaway point being, we are all connected.

The sermon was about David, Bathsheba, and Uriah the Hittite. Because I love this story I will tell it to you twice. The VeggieTales version goes like this:
King George loves rubber duckies. Duckies are his favorite thing in the world. He has an entire closet full of duckies, but he sees one of his subjects with a cute little duckie and he wants it. He wants it so bad, that he intentionally sends this subject into the front lines of the great pie wars hoping he will get ‘creamed’. Then he takes the duckie for himself. Meanwhile at front lines, his faithful subject does get creamed- by lots of pies! He becomes delirious, babbling to himself about pies. After all this happens, a self-proclaimed ‘slightly odd wise man’ named Melvin shows up. He tells King George a story about two men. The first man is rich and has many sheep. The second is poor with just one little lamb. The rich man has dinner guests over. Rather than slaughter one of his many sheep, he takes the lamb of the poor man and they eat that for dinner. King George is very upset about what the rich man did and asks for his identity so he can be punished. Melvin points out that King George has done the same as the rich man and in fact his story was just a metaphor. King George is sorry for what he’s done so, to make amends, he invites his subject over for a nice bubble bath and gives back his only duckie. This brings him out of his pie-delirium and all is well.

The bible version has a far less-happy ending I’m afraid. King George is King David. The duckie represents Bathsheba, a woman David actually knocks up. Problem is, she is married to Uriah and they haven’t slept together since he’s been at war for his king. So David and Bathsheba can’t even pretend that the resulting baby is Uriah’s. David offs Uriah by sending him into the thickest part of the fighting. With Uriah gone, David can take Bathsheba for his own. Here’s where the Melvin analog (Nathan) shows up. He tells the story about the sheep, knowing that David used to be a shepherd. It moves David to anger against the rich man’s cruelty. Nathan reveals his trick and David realizes he is in trouble with God. Nathan says, “You are forgiven. You will not die.” However God punishes David by taking the child Bathsheba is pregnant with. It does not live longer than a week.

Why do I love this story? Probably because of the amazingly good VeggieTales episode. Also it’s very juicy, like reading tabloids. Something about it really draws me in. The sermon points again to a web. Not of good feeling and humanity among all people this time, but of lies and murder. David let one sin lead to another. He became so stuck in what he wanted that it messed up his life. In some ways God is totally harsh in this story. God takes the baby that Bathsheba gives birth to. In other ways God is very lenient. He doesn’t harm David, even though he deserves death as punishment for murder. The way it works out is very old-school old testament. God’s mercy saves a king but kills an infant. Punishment is doled out to a person’s progeny instead of that person. I’m sure this portion of the story spoke much more clearly to audiences back in the day.

It kind of makes me wonder about the whole abortion debate. God killed a full term child already born because he was inconvenient. Maybe all the people who quote the old testament missed this part. It seems to me there should be a big group of religious folks pushing for the exact opposite of what they are now. Clearly the full grown adult life was more important to God than the baby.

Looking at it another way, maybe that’s just an instance of ‘God does everything’. Old testament explanations sometimes take the tack that whatever happened, God willed it for a reason. Did the baby look sick, then Nathan came along to explain why?

Either way it’s a pretty good story. And by good I obviously mean interesting. Because its totally NOT good for nearly everyone involved. No word on how Bathsheba felt about all this. She’s just a woman so maybe no one asked her. But that’s a post for another time.

Anything Else -?: I must fit in pretty well- the Pastor asked me how I’ve been even though we’d never met. Turns out that I look like someone else. That’s starting to happen now and then. I wonder if it’s something specifically nondescript about me or just my smile.

Church #15, Delmar Presbyterian

Date: 8/12/12

Church: Delmar Presbyterian Church

Pastor: Reverend William Dodge, filling in for interim Pastor Foltz-Morrison, who is the fill-in until a more permanent pastor is chosen

Time Spent: 10-11:30am

Overall Impression: good! they seem cool and normal

Type: Presbyterian Church (USA)

Format: announcements, responsive call to worship (congregation says some parts), hymn, prayer, musical chairs passing of the peace, scripture, more responsorial stuff, prayer intentions and Lord’s prayer, hymn and closing

Thoughts: To my memory, this is the first Presbyterian church service I’ve attended. I liked it and it seemed not too far off from Methodist and Reformed churches. I am happy to get once again, both the doxology and musical chairs style peace.

The sermon was about the unexpected and how it can change everything. Jesus came and his ministry changed people. Unexpected things happen to us today, but we have to respond when they do. Specifically we need to remember to live out our faith everyday. Unexpected things may challenge us and we have to be ready. In this particular sermon we didn’t get many details of what that means. I suppose growing up Presbyterian, one would know. I did not however, so I’m left to wonder whether it was meant to convey a political stance, conversion efforts, or just helping those you see in need. I hope it was the last, because that seems to be one of the most beneficial things coming out of religion.

After service I spoke with several regular members of the congregation. All of them were very positive about my project, which is always a really great sign. I spoke a little with one woman about the upcoming change in Pastor. They have a committee made up from the congregation that chooses someone. Coming from a Catholic background, I see so much benefit for them to be able to a) pick a Pastor themselves and b) have more than one choice. I also mentioned to her how important it is to have active leaders from among the congregation. I’ve noticed that churches able to define themselves without a pastor are better at keeping their identity (and attendance) when a pastoral change occurs.

Overall Feelings: great! What more can I say?

Two posts at once?

Yeah the church visit post is below this one. I wanted to post twice this week. I need to get my project thoughts in order again. Vacation has me distracted and I’m wanting to refocus.

So I missed some weeks. One was due to a shift change at work. One was vacation. And one was just a weird bad week. There are some kinks I’m working out with my time balancing act, but I’m hoping they won’t cause major damage to the project format. There is another project I’m taking on this summer- I will able to talk abut it more once it comes to fruition.

This project however, is one I’d like to still keep. Posting thoughts and book reviews are ok, but church visits drive me in different ways. For one thing, I always meet new interesting people. I often encounter new ideas about God and scripture. It makes me think, and I hope it makes them think too. Thinking is so good. And even better when you can compare new and old ideas. Maybe something will be revealed that you wouldn’t get to by thinking on your own.

I think it stimulates me to get a large variety of beliefs from the visits. And sometimes it is hard. They say your brain is a muscle and whatever metaphors go along with that. Sometimes new stuff makes my brain sore in a good way, but sometimes it gets pulled and I have to ice it. It’s still worth the risk though. I feel like I’m doing something no one expects. I really want to follow through with it and get to where I’m going.

Which is? I don’t really know yet. I didn’t intend to use the project to choose a church. That would mean I’d have to stop at a certain point and never explore all the places I’d set my mind to. But it’s possible I will see a place I just need to be and want to go back. It’s hard not to be wary though. My experience with OldChurch proves churches can change. Still, part of my project is being open and seeing what happens. So I guess that’s where I am right now: keep thinking, be open, and see what happens.

Church #14, First United Methodist Church

Date: 8/5/12

Church: First UMC Delmar

Pastor: preaching: Reverend Iona Dickinson

Time Spent: (oh I knew I forgot something, how long was I there?) 9:30-11am? I think?

Overall Impression: good, especially given that it’s a million degrees out and that makes me cranky

Type: United Methodist Church

Format: This church had no musical-chairs greeting time; I guess they might be nearing the size limit that would work for. The format had a lot of following along with group spoken parts, interspersed with single verses from the hymnal. This was only slightly confusing and I did pretty well once I realized the the format was actually wrapped around the bulletin full of other church announcements.

Thoughts:
So, when I first walked in I thought maybe I made a mistake. The feel was so formal I thought maybe it was a different denomination. I’m used to a more relaxed feel in Methodist churches. It’s probably also related to the fact that I help a friend with youth events in Methodist churches and those are super relaxed. The First UMC building looked pretty and formal with stained glass windows and this stately organ music playing and people in kinda nice outfits. Well I went in and sat down. No one greeted me, but I came in almost exactly as the service started. And one woman smiled at me while I was giggling at the children’s time. The sermon was about being hungry for God and remembering to feed ourselves spiritually. One of the kids claimed he was hungry in his heart at lunchtime.

Anyway the format did have mostly components I recognized from other Methodist churches. And it was a communion week so I got some bread and juice. Methodists make no requirements on partaking in communion- zero. So you can always just show up and know that they’re cool with you eating with them.

After service one man near me immediately greeted me. I spoke with the pastor and was domino-cascade introduced to about five more people. I’m actually surprised I didn’t already know anyone as I tend to know Methodists here and there from the camp I used to be involved with. Everyone seemed pretty cool and open. And the pastor had a tiny little baby I got to hold. So this is my favorite church- or at least my favorite church baby.

Overall Feelings: Dressy formal looking, but still low-key. Everyone was happy to welcome me and low pressure to return. Just what I was hoping for from the now familiar Methodist church.

Regarding homosexuality

This week I want to do a post on my thoughts regarding homosexuality. Specifically, how I think it’s ok. Well, for starters, I’ve always thought of love as a positive thing. Everything I’ve heard suggests homosexuality (and heterosexuality for that matter) is basically about love. So it seems, to me, love is good and other people should stop bothering about how or who you love as long as there’s mutual consent. But, since condemning homosexuality is a religious topic, I decided to check out the biblical basis for this.

Among Leviticus laws:
It’s illegal for a man to lie with a man as with a women. Punishment is death.
No mention is made of any problem with women lying with women. I am not aware that it is mentioned at all in any book of the bible.
It is illegal to give your children to Molech. (Who is Molech?) Also punishable by death.
It is illegal to commit adultery. This one is also punishable by death. These are all mentioned in Leviticus 20.
In chapter 24 we are told a little story illustrating that anyone who blasphemes God’s name will be killed.
Ok so, just comparing these pieces I could say IF sex between males is bad, adultery is just as bad, and blaspheming God’s name is even worse, because we were given a cautionary tale. Since I don’t believe taking God’s name in vain is too terrible, I should be even less upset by adultery or men having sex. And it does sound like the law addresses just the sex part, not the being in love part. Even those taking every little bit of the bible literally should still be ok with the emotional aspect of a same sex relationship.

Where the laws could have come from:
If the laws in Leviticus had to do with keeping healthy, it seems possible they are out of date. There are instructions to take sores of a possibly leperous nature to priest- nowadays we’d go to a doctor who is far better equipped than a priest. There are restrictions against pork-we know how to kill trichinosis and other microbes now so it can be eaten safely. There is a ban on men having anal sex- we know that sex in that area can be problematic because of bleeding and germs, but we now have condoms to prevent disease. I’m thinking Leviticus needs an update real bad.

Sodom and Gomorrah:
I have some problems with this story that make it difficult to take it as is. Here’s my paraphrase of Genesis 19:

Lot lives in the town of Sodom. Two angels visit Lot and he invites them to stay overnight. That night, all the men in town surround the house and pound on the door. They ask Lot to send out his two guests so they can “know them carnally”. Lot says, “Please, these men are my guests. I have two virgin daughters, take them and do whatever you want with them.” But the men instead try to grab Lot. The angels pull him inside and they shut the door. The next day God destroys the city.

How seriously can I take the morality in a story that involves a man offering his innocent daughters as a bribe for an angry sex-crazed mob? It’s also difficult to say the problem in Sodom was man on man sex. To me it sounds like a story condemning rape, or possibly stressing the importance of hospitality. And some books of the bible indicate that Sodom had other issues including treating the poor badly, idleness, and being prideful. In short, it sounds like a lot of exaggeration has gone on about what the bible actually says. Even assuming no distortion, there are so many old biblical things we’ve moved on from worrying about. Generally we aren’t too concerned with mixing fibers of two kinds in one article of clothing. Or with breaking any pot that a mouse or chameleon has died inside. There are many things we’ve left behind. It’s time this was another one.

Book Review- Christianese, a terrible book

Book review!

So you may or may not remember I was given a book called Christianese written by Donald E Moore. I got it after talking to the pastor at Solid Rock church. We had some conversation about the odd phrases used to describe Christian concepts. The book was a response to that. So I read it, and now I’ll tell you all about it.

So I’m not gonna lie to you, I had a lot of problems with this book. It was hard for me to keep reading to the end. The back of the book (and title) make it sound as though it’s a book explaining Christian language sensibly. In actuality it teaches a very narrow view of exactly what Christianity means. And there was a lot of really negative stuff in it. I found maybe two pages worth of anything positive or interesting. The rest was kind of a loosely arranged mish-mash of confusion and negativity. I wrote down some of the things that stood out to me and put them into categories.

Positives:
Let’s start with what little good stuff I found. There is an interesting section which describes ‘Abraham’s Bosom’. This is a phrase Jesus uses in a story he tells around Luke 15:22-23. In Jesus’ story, a good man who has died goes to Abraham’s Bosom. I found many translations also say ‘Abraham’s Side’ or just ‘to be with Abraham’. He also says that a rich man who dies ends up in ‘hell’ ‘Hades’ or ‘torment’. In the story, the rich man wishes for the good man to bring him cool water and also warn his brothers to change their ways. Apparently the good man is not allowed to do either of these things as he cannot cross into ‘Hades’. This little phrase ‘Abraham’s Bosom’ is actually the origin of the idea of purgatory as taught by the Catholic church. Even though Donald Moore obviously dislikes Catholics (he calls them a cult) he nevertheless believes in a place for holding souls that is neither heaven nor hell. He just believes that it is now closed, since Jesus opened heaven to us when he died.

There is a spot in the book which mentions how Jesus loves the Jews as children of Israel. I like it when Christians make a point of loving others, and specifically when they try to combat that whole “let’s blame the Jews for stuff” business.

The author makes mention of anointing being a practice used by shepherds. They would put oil on the heads of their sheep to protect them from parasites getting in their ears and eyes. God and Jesus are both often compared to the shepherd taking care of his sheep. From this the symbolic use of oil developed and the meaning of ‘anointed’ moved to something like a ‘chosen’ status.

This author actually seems to know the patriarchs pretty well, and a lot about the festivals and sabbaths listed in the bible. I’ve always thought it strange that Christian groups ignore their Jewish roots and don’t really celebrate any of the same holidays as Jews do or did. Moore thinks we need to get back into these old-school holy celebrations. I think that might be neat. I could be up for holidays involving eating flat crackers or building a tent.

Negatives:
Contradictions-
I ran into a few spots with a claim followed by a contradictory claim in the next paragraph. I find it difficult to want to follow the ideas of someone who can’t even keep his own ideas from opposing each other. One such paragraph was explaining that if you are evil, evil will come to you. Moore states “What goes around, comes around.” Then a couple sentences later he says “Trouble comes to us all.” So which is it, does trouble bother only evil people, or everyone?

In a particularly confusing section, Moore talks about “sheep that are not of this fold”. Apparently Jesus told his disciples that there are others doing good that they (the disciples) don’t know about and those are still ok with Jesus. These are the sheep not of this fold. That sounds nice, and a great way to give other Christian groups the benefit of the doubt. It’s really too bad that Moore then contradicts himself to say that we can in fact know about which ‘sheep’ Jesus approves of and which he disapproves of. It’s a really stupid way to end what otherwise would be a nice little section on openmindedness.

It is explained that old testament rules, such as those regarding sex practices, must be followed because God knows best. A paragraph later we hear the opposite regarding dietary rules.- “we can eat limited amounts of prohibited foods…under the New Covenant.” If Moore thinks I can eat pork sometimes, by his own logic he ought to think I could have non-biblical sex just as often.

Uninformed-
There are a few claims in this book that seem to be based on incorrectly understood information. One such idea is the claim that “gene studies have proven…all came from the same mother. We call her ‘Eve’.” I would guess that this is a misunderstanding of the ‘mitochondrial Eve’ concept. It’s a term some geneticist came up with (probably thought they were being cute) to describe the tracing of human lineage using mitochondrial DNA. Nuclear DNA is the classic DNA that most of us know; babies get half from dad (in the sperm) and half from mom (nucleus of the egg) and it contributes to our characteristics and tells our bodies how to grow. Mitochondria are components of human cells and they happen to have their own DNA which is totally separate from the nuclear DNA. The DNA in the mitochondria (aka mtDNA) is pretty much just for details of making more mitochondria. Furthermore, sperm don’t carry any mitochondria, so babies get mtDNA virtually unchanged from their mom. Over time small random changes would happen to inherited mtDNA, but nothing like the complex changes in nuclear DNA. Scientists realized this could be a really easy way to trace maternal lineage. The ‘mitochondrial Eve’ is a really ancient lady, but not the very first. She represents a woman who had at least one daughter, then at least one granddaughter then at least one great granddaughter, so on until today. Any women living before ‘mtEve’ had all sons, or at some point their lineage was only sons and thus mtDNA they possessed died off. I can understand that this stuff might be a bit confusing for the non-science types, but to say that science proves a biblical Eve is ridiculous.

It is casually suggested that the ideas of the big bang and evolution caused atheism. “Our forefathers had not invented the big bang and evolution yet, so they all gave thanks to a deity.” This shows not only a misunderstanding of the big bang and evolution (ideas which did not even develop in the same field of science) but also a misunderstanding of the existence of atheism. As I understand it, atheism is way older than either of those theories. It’s also silly to believe an atheist would necessarily need either theory as a precursor their atheism.

This guy really loves to attack evolution. In one section he explains that evolution can’t be right because it is “impossible to reproduce in the laboratory”. Yeah, of course it’s impossible to reproduce in a lab. So is butterfly migration to Mexico. The scale of both things in terms of time and space could never be contained in a lab, unless we are going to dedicate an entire continent, and most of our global resources to building a lab for a single experiment. I don’t see that as a possibility really- ever.

The most striking example of the author being rather uninformed is far into the book. It follows a tirade against tolerance and how tolerance is making Christians into weaklings. We are ‘reminded’ that Jesus was intolerant of sin. Yeah I’ll agree Jesus did have some major beefs with a few things that went on in his time. But Jesus ate with sinners, and saved an adulteress from being stoned saying “I do not condemn you.” Jesus seems like he was a pretty tolerant dude who was more about helping people than judging them.

So my last example of this section fits someplace between this category and the next one. Moore says, “Great is the volume of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived and died.” Actually no, not as far as I know. If you are looking for evidence outside the bible there is little to none. Several historians mention the Jews demonstrating at the instigation of Christus or Cherstus, but they don’t say a lot more about this person, so it’s even possible it’s not Jesus but another dude with a similar name. Josephus mentions Jesus, but there is some debate that his work may have been altered to include the reference. Altogether that’s certainly not a ‘great’ volume of evidence . But then I guess it’s possible Moore means the bible itself and the many books therein. To me that’s more like a single source though. I’d feel the same confidence in a single news report that 20 different people described to me. I’d still just count it as one source.

Unreferenced-
So basically everything in this book that was not a biblical quote was without external reference. A few of them stood out as probably wrong or just weird, but I was unable to figure out where the ideas could have come from, making them difficult to address.

The twinkling of an eye = 1/100th of a second. I’m not sure why this was defined or where the definition comes from. Is it important to my Christian faith?

Monogamy = health, wealth, and longevity. Could be true or false as far as I know. And I definitely lean towards false based on the other ‘facts’ provided by the author.

An increase in believers from 1992-1996. What type? Is this just Moore’s denomination or all Christians, or what?

Incomprehensible-
A few sections of this book were written in what I find to be the most confusing manner possible. Several sentences didn’t seem to be syntactically correct.

Soul defined?
Soul was defined as 1) mind and emotions 2) mind, will and emotions 3) mind, will, emotions, heart, and personality… I feel like I’m in a Monty Python sketch.

Moore talks very fervently about what I can only guess is an account of something from his own church. He says that sometimes people backslide and fall into their old ‘ fleshy’ ways. Then they say things like “I’m not playing church and it’s not about me.” He repeats the phrases as though they are some magical beacon by which we will see those backsliders and do whatever it is you do to backsliders…

Towards the end of the book, I don’t know maybe Moore was getting tired or something. It starts to dissolve into long pieced together bible quotes. Most of these I can’t follow what he’s getting at. There is a bunch of stuff from Revelations including this enigmatic quote: “You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy.” My best guess here is that God is a big fan of clean laundry. I’ll have to get myself some extra strength bleach- gotta be holy, right?

Pot vs Kettle-
Several sections had this feel that the author was trying to describe what’s wrong with other groups, but also wound up describing his own group. Mainly this was regarding descriptions of cults. The takeaway points seem to be that a cult is exclusive and rearranges bible verses. Exclusive like the way Moore says only his interpretation is correct? I also see a bunch of bible verses all rearranged in the last several chapters of Christianese. So I guess the author is in a cult too.

Demons and disease-
According to this book, demons figure heavily into our lives. Demon oppression or possession can trouble people who are either weak, or choosing sin. Mental illness is seen as a sign of demon issues. This idea strikes me as particularly dangerous, because it then makes it easy to blame the sick for their illness. Then furthermore if treatment is faith-based, those not healing are even more at fault for not having faith enough to heal.

Another section describes a second set of possible reasons for all your problems. God may have cursed you or maybe he’s just angry. Yes, it is suggested in this book that sickness, poverty, insanity, and natural disasters are all results of Gods wrath. If anything, this is worse than blaming demons because it implies you did something soooo bad, even the good guy is pissed at you. I’ve worked really hard to shed the idea that my God is one who punishes. It just doesn’t seem consistent with the many examples of good people afflicted and bad people living the easy life. So it’s really annoying and discouraging to find the idea given weight in this book.

Insulting to women-
So there’s at least one spot where Moore appears to be trying to bring in the idea of equality for women- which I would applaud if he didn’t do such an awful job of it. There is a spot in one of Paul’s letters which mentions women who are too vocal in the church needing to shut up. This is explained away by saying that yeah, that’s how society was at the time. Moore also cites a few instances where Paul says women are spiritual leaders in one church or another. And this might have been fine with me. Except that the section ends with this: “If God can speak through a donkey (numbers 22) He can surely speak through anyone.” Yeah our God is one wacky guy. Of all things he could choose to talk through he chooses donkeys and even women. What crazy thing will he do next?

I cannot believe you just said that-
Here’s a list of things I can’t believe anyone would say, much less print in a book:

“A lack of Faith is often because self-talk (thinking) causes Faith to turn into doubt.”

(Don’t think!)

“how far would Hitler have gotten if the Christian world…used their free will to stop Hitler’s evil free will?”

(apparently Christian free will was the only factor in WWII)

“AIDS…seldom plague(s) those who keep God’s laws.”

(I suppose for example babies born with AIDS were breaking commandments in utero?…so offensive)

Last but not least, wacky!-
I had to end with something vaguely amusing. This entire book review has taken me two weeks and is depressing me like crazy. So here are some concepts from the book I found a bit wacky.

Christians are like Christ but not “joining a mind melt of Christ’s”.
(You are not winning over dorknerds with the inaccurate geek slang.)

Ghosts and aliens people think they’ve seen are really demons and human/angel hybrids.

Heaven is in space. Hell is in earth’s core.

Yoga, tai chi, and acupuncture are all dangerous pathways. Spirits can gain entrance, just like what happened to this one pastor the author knows…he lost his mind!

Thanksgiving was declared a holy day by government officials and atheists miss the point of the holiday because they are incapable of thankfulness. Also they are selfish.

Harry Potter leads us the wrong way, but Tolkien is just fine.

Injected microchips fit with revelations talk of the end times.
(Aren’t those for dogs? Dog rapture is near! Repent ye hounds!)

Alright so, I’m tired to death of this book. I’m surprised it exists, and surprised it was recommended to me. It seems to want to be a book to recommend Christianity to the non-Christian. As a Christian I find it to be a better recommendation against the religion. Don’t bother reading it, it will just make you want to cry.

Nearly an update

I am working on a couple posts even though my Sunday did not include a project church visit. My week is becoming a long series of snags that are really bumming me out. So posts are coming, just not quite yet.