The Atheist Preacher

[southernhybrid]

I know that many of my atheist peers as well as probably most Christians do not think it's possible to be an atheist and a Christian. I have no problem with the concept and I have met two people who consider themselves Atheist Christians. I have no doubt there are many more of them in the pews of churches on Sundays, and I suspect there are probably more than a few Atheist Preachers. But, I found a piece about a real life atheist preacher and I thought I'd share her experiences here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/world/canada/gretta-vosper-reverend-atheism.html

The Rev. Gretta Vosper hadn’t noticed the giant industrial metal cross rising in front of her church for years, hidden as it was by a bushy tree. But then someone complained about it.

Since Ms. Vosper does not believe Jesus was the son of God, the complainer wrote in an email, she should take the cross down.

“The next day, a storm took the tree out,” she said, peering up at the cross with a benign smile.

Some Christians might call that an act of God. But Ms. Vosper does not believe in God either. Instead, the parable says more about her determination. Despite being an outspoken atheist, Ms. Vosper has steadfastly maintained her place in the United Church of Canada, which with two million followers across the country is Canada’s pre-eminent Protestant church.

Since I am the type of atheist who doesn't hate religion or blame it on all of the world's problems, this story delighted me. Consider the positives of religion, such as community, charity and in some cases, activism for social justice causes. Why couldn't religion be secular while using the mythology and morality tales of religion as guides for a secular life? I'm not saying that we must have these things to live a moral life. No, not at all. I'm saying that secular religion could be a way to bring people the community and purpose that many desire, without all of the nonsensical claims that religion makes.

The thrice-married reverend has also driven a deep rift into a progressive church considered as Canadian as maple syrup. In 2015, a public letter she wrote sparked so much ire, the local jurisdiction of the church launched a review committee to examine her beliefs.

After a much-publicized hearing, which she called a “heresy trial,” the local panel ruled her “unsuitable” for ministry since she “does not believe in God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit.” She was on the verge of being defrocked. But, just as the national church’s final review of her case began last November, the local jurisdiction settled with Ms. Vosper and agreed she could continue to minister her congregation in Toronto’s gritty east end.

“This doesn’t alter in any way the belief of The United Church of Canada in God,” the church announced, to the confusion of many. Since the terms of the settlement are confidential, congregants were left to divine for themselves what these two seemingly contradictory positions meant.

She was confronted with death threats and criticism when she first announced that she was an atheist. ( nice people those "true" Christians are ) But, she was able to maintain her status as a preacher in spite of her lack of belief in god.

After graduating from college with an arts degree and in search of adventure, Ms. Vosper moved to the far north of Canada, where she was married and had a daughter. After her marriage broke down, she returned to Kingston as a single mother and enrolled in divinity school.

“I wanted to learn how to make the world a better place through it,” said Ms. Vosper, who is sprightly, with short salt-and-pepper hair, chunky glasses and a penchant for bubbling over with language.

Divinity school cemented her metaphorical views of God. But once she began preaching, she realized many congregants thought she was talking about an all-knowing, all-seeing spirit who answered prayers and called some to heaven and others to hell.

“I realized how little of what I said got through to anyone,” said Ms. Vosper, 61.

So four years after she was hired at West Hill United Church in Toronto, she delivered a sermon called “Deconstructing God,” laying bare her disbelief in a theistic God.

She recalls congregation members hugging her afterward.

“Most of the congregation was in a similar place theologically,” said Debbie Ellis, a member at West Hill, where Ms. Vosper was first hired in 1997.

I get the impression that there are probably a lot of atheist or agnostic Christians in Canada, and while it's not as acceptable in the US, I have no doubt that atheists Christians are more common here then we know or are willing to admit.

To me, this could be a wonderful way of maintaining the better parts of the Christianity, or any mainstream religion, without destroying the cultural implications and positive works that many churches do so effectively.

For example, in my small city, many churches provide food banks, free or low cost medical clinics, and other types of help to people in need. They sometimes have counselors to help people going through difficult times and of course, they provide community, which most people need in order to live happier more satisfying lives. This is especially true of single and older adults.

When I hear Christians speaking in general, I frequently get the impression that their church communities and charity work is what they value most about their religion. Of course, this doesn't apply to the most extremist versions, the ones who condemn and judge the non believers, but it is common in the more liberal and moderate Christian organizations. Why can't one find purpose and enjoyment in some of the religious mythology without taking it literally?

If religion was simply to vanish, without anything to replace it, that would be a great loss to many communities. While I've often thought I might make a good UU, there are no UU fellowships within 50 miles of me. I've known plenty of atheist Unitarians and sometimes I've envied the community they've found in the UU religion, despite the fact that now and then they've complained to me about their fellowships putting too much emphasis on Christianity. For those who aren't familiar with Unitarians, anyone with a liberal version of religion, including atheists who identify as humanists or some other moral organization are welcome to become Unitarians. Still, UU Fellowships are fairly rare these days in many parts of the US.

Why not put more emphasis on the better parts of religious mythology and take the teachings as metaphors, parables, and morality tales, without taking any of the supernatural parts as literal?

A few months ago, I received a letter from a local church inviting us to join. The odd part was that the invitation said it welcomed both believers and non believers. Now, it's possible that this church is just desperate for money and new members, and it's possible that this church simply wants the opportunity to try and "save" us heathens. That's certainly naive of them. Still, I wondered if it might be possible that some of the local churches were beginning to realize that religion doesn't have to be all about specific beliefs in the supernatural, but more about community, and metaphorical views of the Christian ideology rather than taking the Bible stories as truthful and literal.
I don't expect many of you to agree with me, but I think having some openly atheist preachers in the world, is a step in the right direction. Praise Jesus!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't expect many of you to agree with me, but I think having some openly atheist preachers in the world, is a step in the right direction. Praise Jesus!

I like your use of the word "openly." I think it is appropriate because there have got to be tons of clerics who got into their careers and have since changed their religious ideas. But a job is a job, money is money. Plus if you just observe people, including preachers, generally you find they pretty much all behave identically regardless of religion. The vast vast majority live like atheists.

Do you really think the loss of religion would be bad for communities? I just don't see it making a difference. Most of the money that churches collect stays with the business. I don't have numbers but a lot of secular institutions give a lot of money to charitable causes and devote a lot of time via their employees and it has nothing to do with religious affiliation.

The reason religion isn't taxed is because it was presumed that they spent their money performing social services, and not buying gold plated dog dishes. If that changed we would find out how much people really value their religion.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think a "Christian atheist" is stretching the definition of Christian beyond the breaking point, sorta like someone calling themselves a "vegetarian that eats lots of meat".

OTOH I can certainly see atheist preachers. Someone can like the religious ritual and community and still not believe in a god. I did know a monk in a Catholic monastery that was an atheist. I met him through a bonsai club I once belonged to. He was a monk because he liked the structure, regimen, and security it offered.

 

[Lion IRC]

Christian trapped in an atheist body?
Married bachelor?
A bat that's really a bird?
A child with two fathers?
The changeable status of Pluto as a planet.

We seem to be drifting further and further away from empirical definitions.
#PostModernism

But we have known for quite some time that there are a lot of atheists masquerading as clergy.
...I never believed those artificially low atheists-in-prison demographics either.

 

[steve_bank]

As has been said on the forum, the basic themes of the gospel Jesus is common to most traditions. Universal love at least as an ideal.

One can be Christian as a morality based on things attributed to Jesus but reject the supernatural.

 

[Rhea]

Why not put more emphasis on the better parts of religious mythology and take the teachings as metaphors, parables, and morality tales, without taking any of the supernatural parts as literal?

In my experience, and the supporting evidence of history seems to suggest, that for as long as you leave the nasty parts of the holy book in the holy book, you are condoning and inviting the evil that it spawns.

If the "nice parts" of Christianity are really needed by communities, I believe they would do better if ONLY the "nice parts" were in their books. But as long as they choose to hold the nasty evil parts in their hands while they pray, then the nasty evil people will consider themselves validated and be emboldened.

And then, the "nice parts" of Christianity have just emboldened the evil parts,

And that is not a net win.


That, to me, is why I disagree with the oft-made claim that the nice parts have value. Because those people never think they are responsible for the toll on what the "nice parts" have enabled. As long as they carry the book with the evil parts, I reject their claim that they are not responsible for them.

Do you really think the loss of religion would be bad for communities? I just don't see it making a difference. Most of the money that churches collect stays with the business. I don't have numbers but a lot of secular institutions give a lot of money to charitable causes and devote a lot of time via their employees and it has nothing to do with religious affiliation.

I strongly believe it would not harm those communities. The good people will stay good. The bad people, though, would lose their validation and that would be beneficial.

The good people will sign up for a charity as soon as they can. Because that's who they are - the religion did not make them that way, IMHO. I can't think of a single one of my religious "nice parts" friends who would turn bad without their church.

 

[Elixir]

I grew up in an environment where "Christian" was both a noun and an adjective. Christian (noun) is a religion, or the people who call themselves Christians. Christian (adjective) is also a word for a generous, compassionate or empathic person or act. The notion of a christian atheist was perfectly plausible, but an atheist christian was never considered a thing. It's kinda like that carnivorous vegan Skepticalbp referred to above.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I have long called myself a "spiritual atheist," and by that I mean to say that all cults--just like everything else we do--is simply a reflection of what we intuitively understand (over time) of ourselves and our surroundings.

Iow, it's all ass backwards. The conscious "self" (a construction of the brain) is ignorant of its construction and so whatever it infers is always about itself and its "nature," but it is imbued with a sense of arrogance/narcissism and so thinks that it's the center of all being (and understandably so).

So, for example, what it calls "God" is actually a reference to the brain. The brain is unknowable (literally); it is all powerful (from the perspective of the constructed self that gets placed into dreamscapes and exists entirely within various virtual realities); it created "us," (ex nihilo, no less), because our selves are actually emergent constructs (animations) due entirely to process, etc..

All of that is objectively true in regard to the true nature of the "self," which would be analogous to the "soul" or "spirit" or, in Christianity's case, "Jesus" (as in the trinity); not fully god, but fully god as in not fully brain, but at the same time, fully brain.

Once you understand all of that, it's even easier to see how things like "prayer" is really the constructed self (which is a feedback algorithm originally created by the brain as an analogue for the body to use for strategic, survival-based problem solving virtual "war games"-if you will), "speaking" to the brain and that "answering" a prayer is when the brain happens to react to the feedback in a manner that seems to the self to be an "answer."

Iow, the self is really dumb. It has imbued autonomy, but compared to the brain, it's like a village idiot, generally speaking. It's always easy to fool, because, of course the brain is what imbues it with any "knowledge" (or, technically, the illusion of knowledge). It can rummage around inside the brain and "find" some bits and pieces here and there on its own--again, it's imbued with a sense of autonomy--but it never actually pieces things together, the brain does and then just imbues that experience to the self as an automatic function (or "expression) of the symbiotic relationship.

This all SEEMS to the self like it's happening out in the world and therefore god in the sky and all that rot, but it's all just happening in our skulls.

The brain also seeks a lower energy state (like all of the matterenergy in the universe) and when things are discordant, it's problematic and when things are in rhythm, it's harmonious.

So when the self and the brain are in sync, it's "positive" and when not, it's problematic and negative and the goal of "life" is always to find harmony (i.e., agreement between brain and self, but on a fundamental, vibrating string kind of level, not on an "intellectual/academic" level).

As to the larger universe, the self is in fact separate from it in a very particular way (but of course can't be completely separate from it) and would seem to be discarnate, because it's ultimately an animation; an illusion; an algorithm that only "experiences" when the brain is in process. So it SEEMS to the constructed self like there can be non-material existence, but it's a misnomer.

Brain dies, the self dies, but the way the self thinks it can be immortal/live after death is precisely because a sense of chronological time is likewise imbued, but not actual. The brain does this all the time in dreams and in the DMZ for that matter. In a car crash? Number one experiential anecdote? "Time just slowed, man!"

And since the larger universe is all energymatter and the body is made of energymatter (but the self is not, at least not in the same sense), the self can nevertheless be discordant not just to the brain but to the universe as well via the brain (like tossing a thought pebble in an actual pond that results in an actual ripple).

Iow, yes, the universe/brain/god is objective and reacts objectively to the self, which is, much like merging energymatter, objectivesubjective. It's objective in that it's a defined construct, but it's subjective in that its utility only emerges from the illusory quality, like a thaumatrope.

The bird is never objectively in the cage, but the subjective experience of the illusion of the bird in the cage is still useful to the brain, which, again, originally constructed "us" (in an evolutionary sense) in order to war game potential scenarios for survival purposes before acting in the "real" world.

So the brain uses the self as a sort of highly complicated analagous thaumatrope in order to see what it would look like if the bird were in the cage before it instructs the body to actually put a bird in a cage. Capisca? But from the self's perspective, it thinks--it experiences--being a bird inside a cage, but of course never actually was either.

Believe it or not, all of this tracks 100%, even if I have not exhaustively laid it all out. But it is FROM this fundamental nature that literally everything humans have ever written about is in reference to, because our writings/art/expressions are all at the dumbest end of that existential funnel. We--the constructed selves--are always looking outward for answers that are all inward.

But, again, the idiot self thinks (is "imbued with") the notion that IT is the end-all-be all and therefore the mouth of the funnel, but precisely the opposite is the objective truth.

And to bring it all the way around, being "spiritual" in this actual, fundamental context of our natures makes perfect sense. We--the constructed selves--are all brain worshipers, while the brain is almost entirely indifferent to the constructed selves. They're just constructs to assist in strategic planning for the purposes of continuing survival.

And that, meinen freunden, is ALL religion in a nut. We seek understanding of our true selves; gods don't give a shit (aka, their ways are "mysterious" and they are "ineffable" and all that shit).

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't expect many of you to agree with me, but I think having some openly atheist preachers in the world, is a step in the right direction. Praise Jesus!

I like your use of the word "openly." I think it is appropriate because there have got to be tons of clerics who got into their careers and have since changed their religious ideas. But a job is a job, money is money. Plus if you just observe people, including preachers, generally you find they pretty much all behave identically regardless of religion. The vast vast majority live like atheists.

Do you really think the loss of religion would be bad for communities? I just don't see it making a difference. Most of the money that churches collect stays with the business. I don't have numbers but a lot of secular institutions give a lot of money to charitable causes and devote a lot of time via their employees and it has nothing to do with religious affiliation.

The reason religion isn't taxed is because it was presumed that they spent their money performing social services, and not buying gold plated dog dishes. If that changed we would find out how much people really value their religion.

I do tend to think that if all religion were to vanish it would hurt communities unless something else were to replace it. Of course, you must understand that I live in the heart of the Bible Belt, a place where Christianity has deeply influenced the culture. But, aside from the really kooky Bible thumbers, most of the Christians I know are good people who seem to enjoy their church communities above all else.

Atheists have tried but haven't done a great job or creating communities and giving to charity. I have often joked that we need more UU fellowships because the Christians are so good are herding the cats and doing good works.

Where I live, the greatest among of charity work. is performed by the churches, especially the more moderate and liberal churches. There is one small church that has a lot of wealth members. Among other things, the built a low income senior housing apartment building, and the best assisted living facility in the area. One doesn't need to be a Christian to qualify for either of these places. Perhaps if the US had a much better safety net, we wouldn't need this type of charity.

Atheists do have several church like organizations in the Atlanta area, like the Atlanta Freethought Society, but we've had a very hard time keeping members in our very small group that was started about 8 years ago. The atheists in my town are often very involved with other things.

I see no reason why secular religion couldn't be successful in the future as more people give up the most literal versions of their religions and still find the need for a group where they can find community and purpose. So, when I read about the openly atheist preacher who had been permitted to remain a part of her Christian organization, I thought it was quite progressive and interesting.

All non profit organizations are tax exempt, including The Atlanta Freethought Society. It would be good if churches did have to do tax returns and justify what they use their money for, like the AFS does. The IRS considers Secular Humanism to be a religion, so when I was treasurer of a Humanist organization, I never had to do a tax return. Not that my Humanist friends were very generous.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If churches are going to be tax exempt they should be required to spend 80% of their income on charitable work such as mentioned. If such a law existed I don't see a conflict.

 

[Angry Floof]

Of course a person can be a Christian and an atheist. No one has to take Christ or God as literal. Gods are much more useful in their proper metaphorical place. Most of the teachings of Christ according to the New Testament are compatible with a humane modern world view.

What I don't agree with is the idea that Christianity is a useful candidate to symbolize the realities of the human experience even in metaphorical form. I get that rising from the dead represents dying of the self and rising to a new level of consciousness and spiritual understanding, but the world is full of other, more humane symbols of such ideas than the convoluted and horrifying symbols of Christianity. You don't need to worship human sacrifice or violent torture to remember your spiritual nature. In fact, to do so seems counterproductive. There are much better ideas and symbols to represent a truly humane and enlightened world view.

Religion is a human artifact. Just because one religion might go away (as they all do) doesn't mean we won't replace it with more relevant and realistic, not to mention more humane, symbols and concepts through which to bond as a community and inspire us to strive for a higher consciousness or whatever. Humanism is a religion in that regard. No spooks required. Anyway, we already do engage in the kind of thinking and behavior that equates to all the supposed benefits of religion. We value altruism without a god telling us to. We recognize the importance of community and cooperation and taking care of each other. It's in our DNA to do so. No need for human-created fear stories to bond us together through animal brain fear.

When people voice fears about not having religion to bind us in shared meaning, they're usually talking about that animal brain fear-based tribalism, and not about some higher, more noble purpose in making us better humans and inspiring us to rise above our instinctive urges, egos, and cognitive pitfalls. And I would say that by and large religion as we see it in the world today actually inhibits us in that goal much more than it inspires us.

If you see all of humanity as your tribe and you have enough critical thinking skills to not be taken in by small, closed, fear-based religious views of the world around you, you don't need any such religion. If you value human beings over group identity, problem solving over prejudice, and questioning over dogma, then you already have a religion that is relevant and has the power to breed peace and well being for our tribe of seven billion. It doesn't need a name and it doesn't need a group identity other than "human."

It seems weird to me that this is not more obvious among non-religious thinkers. Such is the power of deeply ingrained cultural assumptions.

 

[southernhybrid]

Thanks for you post AF. I do agree with some of what you've said, but my point about secular religion is if the culture is already full of the symbols of religion, and if these symbols are taken as metaphors, then I see no reason why secular versions of religion couldn't work, as a way of maintaining community and charity. It doesn't have to be Christianity. It could be any religion. In the American south is would obviously be Christianity.

Consider this. The Jewish identity is very strong among those who consider themselves Jewish, whether due to ethnic reasons or due to conversions to Judaism. But, most of the Jewish people who I've known personally, are secular Jews. In other words, they are agnostic or atheist when it comes to god, but they often like the rituals, habits and community that they get from their Jewish communities. Why couldn't that be done with any other religion? I'm not saying it would be easy, but it's something to consider. Of course there are some extremist Jewish sects that do some awful things, but that's true of all religions as they are currently practiced.

I have a feeling that in some European countries, this has already happened to some extent. I'm not expecting this to suddenly become the norm. I just think it could be a positive way of maintaining the more positive elements of the culture of religion, without the nonsensical supernatural elements.

Of course, not everyone needs a community to help them be loving and charitable. I ended up giving money to two Christian friends during the holiday season because they really could use some help and I could afford to help them. As an atheist, I am perfectly capable of being loving and charitable without any group influence, but there have been times when being part of a group has influenced me to be more charitable. A well adjusted person usually feels happy when they do something nice to others. And, of course not all Christians or atheists, for that matter are loving or charitable. Some people are positively influenced by a group that does helpful things for others. Some people might even need a group to be more charitable.

Of course, when a church is one of the hideous ones that takes the Biblical scriptures literally, such groups can have a negative influence. They can cause arrogance and a feeling of superiority. All we have to do is look at the damage that the current crop of evangelicals has done to this country to understand what I mean. While the Methodist church on my corner uses a lot of their money for charity, the Baptist evangelical church I was forced to attend as a child, used all of its money for foreign missionaries and a fat salary for the pastor. It was the supernatural elements that were the cause of this negative influence.

But, at the same time, I sometimes envy the strong Christian communities that are all around me. It gives people a sense of belonging. I just couldn't fake their beliefs myself. I am a member of two atheist groups, but the more active one is in Atlanta, so while I consider some members there as friends, it's just too far away from me to feel as if I am really a part of that community. I am the type of person who really enjoys being a part of such a community. I get a nice happy buzz when I have the motivation to attend the AFS. I'm convinced that what Christians think is joy from god, is simply the nice buzz that most humans feel when they are around people who they relate to and share commonalities. I enjoy this community as well, but a cyber community isn't exactly the same thing. I prefer real hugs to cyber hugs.

I suppose I just found the idea of an openly atheistic preacher, who believes that God is a metaphor for love was a very attractive concept to me. And, I thought it might be something interesting to discuss or consider.

Instead of religion ending, it could transition to be less about the supernatural and more about humanity's better qualities. Communities that give support and love to their members would remain intact without the supernatural elements. I like that idea, but I'm not expecting atheists to agree with me. Plus, I admit it's very idealistic to think such a thing would happen. Perhaps it's just a thought experiment, inspired by the actual openly female atheist preacher in Canada.

( Sorry if I've missed some of my typos. I need new glasses and soon will be ready for cataract surgery, I hope. I sometimes don't see the errors until I come back and reread my posts. )

 

[southernhybrid]

If churches are going to be tax exempt they should be required to spend 80% of their income on charitable work such as mentioned. If such a law existed I don't see a conflict.

I have no problem with that.

 

[Angry Floof]

Thanks for you post AF. I do agree with some of what you've said, but my point about secular religion is if the culture is already full of the symbols of religion, and if these symbols are taken as metaphors, then I see no reason why secular versions of religion couldn't work, as a way of maintaining community and charity. It doesn't have to be Christianity. It could be any religion. In the American south is would obviously be Christianity.

Consider this. The Jewish identity is very strong among those who consider themselves Jewish, whether due to ethnic reasons or due to conversions to Judaism. But, most of the Jewish people who I've known personally, are secular Jews. In other words, they are agnostic or atheist when it comes to god, but they often like the rituals, habits and community that they get from their Jewish communities. Why couldn't that be done with any other religion? I'm not saying it would be easy, but it's something to consider. Of course there are some extremist Jewish sects that do some awful things, but that's true of all religions as they are currently practiced.

I have a feeling that in some European countries, this has already happened to some extent. I'm not expecting this to suddenly become the norm. I just think it could be a positive way of maintaining the more positive elements of the culture of religion, without the nonsensical supernatural elements.

Of course, not everyone needs a community to help them be loving and charitable. I ended up giving money to two Christian friends during the holiday season because they really could use some help and I could afford to help them. As an atheist, I am perfectly capable of being loving and charitable without any group influence, but there have been times when being part of a group has influenced me to be more charitable. A well adjusted person usually feels happy when they do something nice to others. And, of course not all Christians or atheists, for that matter are loving or charitable. Some people are positively influenced by a group that does helpful things for others. Some people might even need a group to be more charitable.

Of course, when a church is one of the hideous ones that takes the Biblical scriptures literally, such groups can have a negative influence. They can cause arrogance and a feeling of superiority. All we have to do is look at the damage that the current crop of evangelicals has done to this country to understand what I mean. While the Methodist church on my corner uses a lot of their money for charity, the Baptist evangelical church I was forced to attend as a child, used all of its money for foreign missionaries and a fat salary for the pastor. It was the supernatural elements that were the cause of this negative influence.

But, at the same time, I sometimes envy the strong Christian communities that are all around me. It gives people a sense of belonging. I just couldn't fake their beliefs myself. I am a member of two atheist groups, but the more active one is in Atlanta, so while I consider some members there as friends, it's just too far away from me to feel as if I am really a part of that community. I am the type of person who really enjoys being a part of such a community. I get a nice happy buzz when I have the motivation to attend the AFS. I'm convinced that what Christians think is joy from god, is simply the nice buzz that most humans feel when they are around people who they relate to and share commonalities. I enjoy this community as well, but a cyber community isn't exactly the same thing. I prefer real hugs to cyber hugs.

I suppose I just found the idea of an openly atheistic preacher, who believes that God is a metaphor for love was a very attractive concept to me. And, I thought it might be something interesting to discuss or consider.

Instead of religion ending, it could transition to be less about the supernatural and more about humanity's better qualities. Communities that give support and love to their members would remain intact without the supernatural elements. I like that idea, but I'm not expecting atheists to agree with me. Plus, I admit it's very idealistic to think such a thing would happen. Perhaps it's just a thought experiment, inspired by the actual openly female atheist preacher in Canada.

( Sorry if I've missed some of my typos. I need new glasses and soon will be ready for cataract surgery, I hope. I sometimes don't see the errors until I come back and reread my posts. )

I get you. I just think the long and deeply ingrained history of Christianity would always be also deeply ingrained in those symbols and stories. It would need a major overhaul to root out the elements that perpetuate us vs. them identity worship. Christianity is inherently tribal in its saved vs. unsaved, eternal punishment for not believing, etc., core framework. It might temporarily work, but it's not really suitable to represent the desire for the peace and well being of all of humanity regardless of what anyone believes.

Jewish culture is rooted in community and education first. That's why their extremists tend to remain fringe, unlike Christianity, which has no such reverence for debate and education and community first at its center. Its core is "believe or die," "you're shit worthy of eternal torture if you don't believe this horrifying and nonsensical story of magical human sacrifice," "take no other God before me," etc.

One exception to this is The Friends, aka Quakers. They put pacifism and respect for autonomy at the core of their faith and doctrine, and don't just pay lip service to it like mainstream Christianity. But then again, by removing some of those poisonous elements from their faith, the Quakers have rendered themselves nearly extinct. That's why mainstream Christians consider Quakers (if they're even aware of them) as heretical, false, and probably satanic.

It seems Christianity cannot grow and thrive without the very things that make it poison to humanity.

Anyway, if someone reaches a level of understanding of human nature and dept of care and concern for humanity that rises above tribalism, violence, hatred, etc., I don't know how they'd have the stomach to want to hold Christian symbols as dear and meaningful.

As for strong Christian communities, I certainly don't envy people who feel the need to bond through excluding the rest of the world. Human beings are innately capable of strong, peaceful, cooperative communities under all manner of symbols and stories. We choose what we value whether we are individually conscious of that or just blindly following the group. We're capable of both. Why not encourage consciously choosing humane values and principles without regard to religious identity? I think it's worthwhile to continue making this suggestion in spite of the sheer size and strength of religious influence on all of our thoughts and minds.

 

[steve_bank]

A real preacher is someone who understands human nature and social dynamics, using biblical references to make points with his comigration on n issue. Refernces are used to help people. At the precrural social level inconsistencies in the bible do not matter.

I read a book pf MLKs sermons. An educated man who used the pulpit to make a moral case with the bible as a talking point.

Black Christians have always used biblical metaphors to frame their hopes and suffering.

A secular preacher is a moral philosopher. Ancient Greek philosophers had schools and follower's. Today one can choose between any number of the old moral philosophi

 

[Angry Floof]

A real preacher is someone who understands human nature and social dynamics, using biblical references to make points with his comigration on n issue. Refernces are used to help people. At the precrural social level inconsistencies in the bible do not matter.

I read a book pf MLKs sermons. An educated man who used the pulpit to make a moral case with the bible as a talking point.

Black Christians have always used biblical metaphors to frame their hopes and suffering.

A secular preacher is a moral philosopher. Ancient Greek philosophers had schools and follower's. Today one can choose between any number of the old moral philosophi

Preachers use insight and understanding of human nature to manipulate people all the time. C.S. Lewis was arguably one of the most insightful thinkers into human nature, and he wrote some amazing stuff to inspire people to look within themselves and see that evil begins with small, ordinary human tendencies, but then he took that power and twisted people right back into a stunted, nonsensical and inhumane ideology identity after all.

I listened to a sermon recently where the pastor used a good understanding of human nature, particularly Jung's work, to do exactly the same thing. One of the main concepts he talked about was guilt. Yet the entire sermon rested on the unspoken assumption that everyone's guilty. Mainstream psychology and ordinary observation show us clearly that human beings can easily be manipulated into feeling guilt and shame when they've done nothing whatsoever to justify it. So why couldn't this pastor teach his congregation that? Why not teach them to protect themselves against manipulators who would use that human tendency to harm or control them? Well, I think we all know damn well why not. Because if they understand how they can be manipulated through shame and guilt, they would see the Christian guilt/shame manipulation for what it is. Too much of that and pastors would not have congregations looking to them for spiritual guidance, and fewer people would be manipulated into the identity group.

Ask any pastor or religious teacher about how cruel and inhumane it is to shame innocent children into self loathing and they will agree. But find one who teaches his congregation how to protect themselves against such manipulation if you can. What you'll get is a flood of justifications for NOT teaching their flocks how to protect themselves against the manipulation of shame and guilt.

 

[Elixir]

...find one who teaches his congregation how to protect themselves against such manipulation if you can. What you'll get is a flood of justifications for NOT teaching their flocks how to protect themselves against the manipulation of shame and guilt.

Surely the shame and guilt they suffer from not teaching people how to protect themselves from shame and guilt, is just punishment for their failure, right? Or have they learned how to protect themselves from that?

... religions... sheesh.

 

[southernhybrid]

A real preacher is someone who understands human nature and social dynamics, using biblical references to make points with his comigration on n issue. Refernces are used to help people. At the precrural social level inconsistencies in the bible do not matter.

I read a book pf MLKs sermons. An educated man who used the pulpit to make a moral case with the bible as a talking point.

Black Christians have always used biblical metaphors to frame their hopes and suffering.

A secular preacher is a moral philosopher. Ancient Greek philosophers had schools and follower's. Today one can choose between any number of the old moral philosophi

I love my black Christian friends. They are so warm and forgiving, amazing people. While I realize that plenty of them don't understand why someone like me would be an atheist, I have shared that I'm an atheist with my closest black friend and we've both agreed not to let our differences come between us.

Still, the black preachers can be just as judgmental as the white ones. The biggest difference is that black Christians seem more savvy when it comes to understanding that issues like abortion are better left to the individual, while government should be more about supporting all of its citizens. Black Christians don't seem to want to inflict their personal morality on others, and they seem more respectful of SCS.

Unfortunately, due to the significance of the black church, black nonbelievers often have it harder than we white atheists do.

I know religion isn't gong to become more secular in my lifetime, but I really loved reading about the atheist preacher and thought she was a wonderful influence on her congregation. There should be more like her.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Atheist Christian -- in other words, the sort of fellow that the orthodox used to cheerfully tie up and set fire to.
So why not just accept humanist as a self-description? I do think there are more atheists in pulpits than we'd generally suspect. After all, these folks have usually read their Bible cover to cover, and the rationalizations they were given in seminary probably wear thin after they think about them enough. Just imagine being a preacher and realizing how many bushels of crazy the Bible contains -- all those passages about genocide, beating slaves, recoiling at the horrors of menstruation, etc., etc., that you can't possibly use for your Sunday homily. Or imagine preaching on the Nativity, knowing full well that the 4 accounts have glaring discrepancies -- who showed up, where was the rock, whom did they see, was there or wasn't there some sort of thunderbolt and earthquake. Sheesh. An honest person should grow a few doubts about old tribal lit like that.

 

[southernhybrid]

Atheist Christian -- in other words, the sort of fellow that the orthodox used to cheerfully tie up and set fire to.
So why not just accept humanist as a self-description? I do think there are more atheists in pulpits than we'd generally suspect. After all, these folks have usually read their Bible cover to cover, and the rationalizations they were given in seminary probably wear thin after they think about them enough. Just imagine being a preacher and realizing how many bushels of crazy the Bible contains -- all those passages about genocide, beating slaves, recoiling at the horrors of menstruation, etc., etc., that you can't possibly use for your Sunday homily. Or imagine preaching on the Nativity, knowing full well that the 4 accounts have glaring discrepancies -- who showed up, where was the rock, whom did they see, was there or wasn't there some sort of thunderbolt and earthquake. Sheesh. An honest person should grow a few doubts about old tribal lit like that.

Did you read the link? The atheist preacher is a woman, who is openly atheist. Her denomination permitted her to remain in the church as an openly atheist preacher. I thought it was an interesting topic for discussion. She's not trying to hide anything, just looking at religion from a metaphorical, secular perspective.