The Dead Baby Routine or God 'Splaining

[truethat]

I know this might come across as bloggy so I apologize in advance but in light of my recent foray into the world of faith I've had this thought.

One of my reasons for going to seminary was that I am not the angry atheist type. I've never had a problem with living and let live. In spite of my aggravation with regard to the oppressive nature of religous belief, I do feel that the personal peace many people seem to get in believing far outweighs the cost. Also I don't think religion can necessarily be blamed for the consequences in the world that we seem to easily blame on religion. Eg, I think that religion is not the cause of homophobia but merely an arena of where it is played out.

But I think I can begin to understand the frustration that people feel with "believers" and I welcome our favorite believers like plumjam and kathy to contribute to this thread. I'm really curious to hear a dialogue about this.

One of the problems I had in Paul Knitters class was the fact that he was as an ex Catholic priest, willing to deconstruct faith. His book "Without Buddha I could not be a Christian" really digs into many of the problems that atheists have with Christianity. It is a bold book on that regard.

The floating understanding in the class seemed to be that there are problems with the Bible and God belief and the idea of Jesus as the blood sacrifice that God needed to forgive us of our sins. In addition there was really an awareness of the problems created by suggesting there was "one way" to salvation. What about all those who never heard about Jesus? Are they going to hell?

So what I found in this class was a real willingness to examine and deconstruct......but up to a point.

Although many people seemed willing to accept the flawed nature of the bible and the evidence that shows a redactor's hand bent by political influence, the consensus seems to be that we "shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water."

In other words "There's some good things in this book about God and you wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water would you?"

And to me the answer is "Yes I would if the baby was dead!"

The issue here is not to argue if the baby exists in the water but to understand that the concept of the baby with just the simplest investigation turns out to be a dead idea. One that was influenced by Canaanite and Egyptian mythology and gone awry. And just as Ra is no more, so too is this God Baby.

When we realize the baby is dead we don't throw the baby out. Rather we put it to rest with dignity and understanding. We mark a grave with the understanding of the once sacred aspect of the dead baby and we also understand that the baby dying, in and of itself is a sacred event that impacts many of us on a psychological and emotional level. A dying baby is a serious matter, as is a dead God.

But to me what many believers seem to do is prop up the baby ala "Weekend at Bernies" and try to pretend that the baby is still alive. At first there is a part of any atheist who understands the need to do this, the difficulty with accepting this and the emotional denial. We are after all, human, despite our difference of opinon.

For me, I have no problem with people who have faith and use God Jesus and Buddha or whatever they need to get through their day. I understand that not everyone can "do it alone." And so I've not had any sort of hostility towards believers in my heart of hearts.

But now I do. The reason is, that after a while, proping up this dead and decaying baby gets grotesque. It is difficult to watch people deconstruct a religion without being willing to desconstruct the God theory upon which it was based.

Can believers out there understand how horribly corrupt and sick it seems to pretend a baby is still alive and go through the motions of feeding the baby, washing the baby, and changing a dead baby's diaper?

Can you not understand how horrific this seems to an atheist and why there is a growing need to face reality and deal with the fact that the baby, God, is indeed........no more.

[truethat]

Hello? Not a single reply? I'm not sure why?

[Cathoskeptic]

To me the problem of faith is not just in the believing it's in the "not knowing." I don't know why things happen the way they do, and looking into emptiness and accepting that nothing happens as a matter of faith, or even fate, at times can be disturbing.

I envy others their faith, because with it usually comes an inane, inexplicable happiness. It's like a relief to them that there will be something wonderful after death, when the real heaven or hell is in death itself.

I would prefer a life of faith because it would be so comforting to know that this life I try to live isn't all that there is.

But faith isn't mine to have, it's not a decision to be made. When it comes down to it, all there really is is truth.

[Maia]

To me the problem of faith is not just in the believing it's in the "not knowing." I don't know why things happen the way they do, and looking into emptiness and accepting that nothing happens as a matter of faith, or even fate, at times can be disturbing.

I envy others their faith, because with it usually comes an inane, inexplicable happiness. It's like a relief to them that there will be something wonderful after death, when the real heaven or hell is in death itself.

I would prefer a life of faith because it would be so comforting to know that this life I try to live isn't all that there is.

But faith isn't mine to have, it's not a decision to be made. When it comes down to it, all there really is is truth.

(coughcoughcough)

(at home, sick, while friends are off playing Scrabble. :( )

Anyway, quick post before lying down.

I honestly don't think that a belief in life after death is the biggest reason why people have faith in God, religion, or the Bible. I think that it's for the sake of the belief that God is sitting around up in heaven watching over them, rewarding and punishing good and bad behavior, acting as a parental figure, and especially answering prayers for them during this life. All of these things are used to control what people do while we're all walking around on this earth. The only way that behavior or thinking can really be reinforced is by the supposed results of whatever God is supposedly doing right now. I have a theory that in a strange way, most Christians don't have a true core belief in life after death.

[HansMustermann]

I envy others their faith, because with it usually comes an inane, inexplicable happiness. It's like a relief to them that there will be something wonderful after death, when the real heaven or hell is in death itself.

I would prefer a life of faith because it would be so comforting to know that this life I try to live isn't all that there is.

But does it?

Not saying it's everyone, but look at all the types who have to preach, have to proselytise, just _have_ to make everyone like themselves, just so they can then quell their own doubts that way. Do those look happy to you?

Or I remember the recent statistics, where the more religious kinds actually were the least ready to die. They're the most likely to demand any treatment, no matter even if it works, just anything but accept death. If anyone asks me, it doesn't seem to me like that lie about the wonderful afterlife actually works.

If you want to know what accepting death is, think the Battle Of Bravellir, where the old king arranged his death in battle 3 years in advance so he could go to Valhalla like a true warrior. Or the thrall (slave) girl in Ibn Fadlan's account of the Vikings, who actually volunteered to be sacrificed at her master's funeral to go to Valhalla with him. (You had to die in _some_ violent way that shows you're not affraid of death, to earn eternal life in Valhalla, see?) Those proved that they actually firmly believed in that afterlife. Stupid acts, from the perspective of a non-Norse, but you can't accuse them of not having faith.

Or take the early martyrs of the church, who actually went and trolled the Romans to get themselves executed and thus earn an automatic ticket to Heaven. Stupid from the perspective of an atheist like me, but, say what you will, you must really believe in that afterlife to go get yourself crucified to get there.

But it seems to me like most fundies aren't like that. And that that lifetime of trying to deny it, inherently means a life spent getting yourself properly scared of death. You spend your life convincing yourself that death is something so horrible, that even brown-nosing a heavenly monster, and lying to yourself and your friends and your kids, and just about _anything_ has to be worth it if it saves you from death. It's not just not lopping off that scare at the end, it's turning it into a lifetime of getting yourself scared of it.

Basically: It seems to me like there is a reason why denial isn't good in just about anything else.

[SezMe]

...

Although many people seemed willing to accept the flawed nature of the bible and the evidence that shows a redactor's hand bent by political influence, the consensus seems to be that we "shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water."
...
Up to this point, I was enjoying your post. Then you carried your metaphor of the baby=god way too far for me to follow you.

Could you say your piece from this point forward without use of metaphor. Thanks.

[Brian-M]

From the title of this thread, I expected it to be about Christians trying to argue that dead babies still go to heaven (even though they've never had the chance for salvation by accepting Christ), or about how a just, living, kind, omnipotent and omniscient God would allow babies to die.

I think a dead horse would be a better metaphor. ;)

But to me what many believers seem to do is prop up the baby ala "Weekend at Bernies" and try to pretend that the baby is still alive.


That's an awesome idea for "Weekend At Bernie's 3"... I can just imagine the movie now. :)

[Cathoskeptic]

After holding my stillborn baby in my arms trying desperately to take her place, I do agree that the dead horse would be an easier analogy. But the truth is, babies die, sometimes before they're born and there's no reason. I doubt anything except an end when I die, and I'm not afraid of that.

Maybe those who fear death, even with the most profound faith in an afterlife, are grasping for that last chance to get past their sins and utter humanity to make sure they make it to the Disneyland that might await them.

[Hux]

People have faith, usually because they are born into it and they get the religion of their zip or post code. It is that contingent and that suspicious. I think atheists only have one main problem with Christianity; it is not true. No one rises from the dead. It is all a con trick.

It is all control and fear. Fear of the unknown that we all fear on occasion.

(I understand that dead babies apparently go straight to heaven, bypassing limbo which no longer exists - by choice of committee) thus thousands of people throughout history have been told a lie. However, its is difficult to see where the lies start and end.

There's nothing to accept about death; it is inescapable and will happen to us all. What we therefore do while we hold this all too brief sensation of consciousness, should be of concern to all of us - not the false promise of unsupported, uncertain destinies.

[HansMustermann]

After holding my stillborn baby in my arms trying desperately to take her place, I do agree that the dead horse would be an easier analogy. But the truth is, babies die, sometimes before they're born and there's no reason. I doubt anything except an end when I die, and I'm not afraid of that.

Maybe those who fear death, even with the most profound faith in an afterlife, are grasping for that last chance to get past their sins and utter humanity to make sure they make it to the Disneyland that might await them.

Well, I still doubt it. Some of them have been chest-thumping all their life that they _know_ that that Disneyland exists, they _know_ what the rules for getting in are, and they _know_ they're among the chosen. Half the protestant denominations even call themselves "saints", fer FSM's sake.

Somehow it doesn't add up.

E.g., I know what's beyond my front door, I know how to get through it, and I know I'm perfectly capable of getting through it, and I don't go "OMG, please don't let me go throgh that door yet! Oh God, anything but that door! Just five more minutes, God, please please please." (Well, ok, unless I haven't had my coffee yet.;)) There is no reason to be horrified of going through that door, if I _know_ what's behind it and I _know_ that the worst that can be there is a bit of rain on the way to the car.

So it seems to me like these folks have been lying through their teeth all their life. Either about being that sure about what's behind that final door, or about their being that clearly on the winning side.

[HansMustermann]

There's nothing to accept about death; it is inescapable and will happen to us all. What we therefore do while we hold this all too brief sensation of consciousness, should be of concern to all of us - not the false promise of unsupported, uncertain destinies.

Actually it seems to me like the thing to accept is just that: it happens anyway, to everyone. Might as well get over it. From the very day you were born, you have a counter ticking down to death of old age. (See, telomeres.) Or you might get killed earlier than that, and avoid the christmas rush ;) But it'll happen anyway. No point in spending your entire life scared of it.

And certainly no point in actively convincing yourself that you must keep being scared of it, and that you _must_ try to cut salvation deals with an invisible heavenly psychopath. That as soon as you can walk and talk, you must spend as much of your conscious life trying to earn salvation points.

That's just forcing oneself to spend their life thinking of their inevitable death, and thinking that it must be scary enough to warrant that kind of effort that goes into that earning salvation. You _have_ to convince you that it's somehow worth spending your free time knocking on people's doors and being treated like dirt for it, like these Onan's Witnesses... err... Jehovah's Witnesses, or they'd stop doing it.

That's not a comfort, that's a horrible way to spend one's life.

Screw it, it'll happen when it happens.

And I'd even agree with your assessment that we must hold on to it, if it weren't for their keeping telling me that they already knows what awaits them behind that final door and how utterly wonderful it be compared to their current situation. Well, then why be affraid of it? Or are they just a bunch of liars and hypocrites?

[Simon39759]

Although many people seemed willing to accept the flawed nature of the bible and the evidence that shows a redactor's hand bent by political influence, the consensus seems to be that we "shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water."
In other words "There's some good things in this book about God and you wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water would you?"


That's the problem with your metaphor here, we can not easily argue that 'it is ok to throw the baby, I have another one'.

But it is easy to argue that, no matter how much good is still in the Religion's teachings one can get these teaching without the Religion.
We can be good without God.

In fact, considering how the good of Religion always come with many bad, intolerance toward homosexuality, a history of violence and such... One would be well advised to abandon this cyanide-farting baby and replace it with its non-farting clone, similar in all the good ways, but you can reject the bad ones...

[Maia]

Maybe those who fear death, even with the most profound faith in an afterlife, are grasping for that last chance to get past their sins and utter humanity to make sure they make it to the Disneyland that might await them.

So heaven consists of eternally waiting in line for three hours to ride It's A Small World? :rolleyes:

I love, love, love John Shelby Spong's latest book (Eternal Life: A New Vision, Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell), and I wish it were possible to get all Christians to read it (not holding my breath for that one). I'd like everyone to read it, but some may be scared away by the horrible Deepak Chopra blurb on the back cover. (Yet more proof that Chopra an idiot: he doesn't understand that Spong very nicely and sweetly and subtly says he's an idiot.) Anyway, Chopra's "buy this book" quote was this:


Fear of death is the most fundamental fear of human existence. The only way it can be conquered is through knowledge and experience of your eternal being. Eternal Life: A New Vision is an elegant invitation to find this part of yourself and be liberated.


I'm not even sure that Chopra really read the book, but he certainly didn't get what it's about. I can't blame him in a way, because it's not an easy book to understand, but it's not about somehow "getting rid of fear of death" or of fear of anything else. That's one of the reasons why I like Spong's work so much, but I don't think he could possibly ever attain guru status for this very reason. His theology doesn't offer any easy comfort or nice fuzzy feelings or visions of eternal trips to Disneyland if we all offer the correct prayers to the right anthropomorphic God. It will never please anyone who wants to believe in magical thinking, but I have to say that I think he's right when he says that this type of theology will represent the only viable alternative to theism.

[Maia]

Sorry-- duplicate post.

[Darth Rotor]

So heaven consists of eternally waiting in line for three hours to ride It's A Small World? :rolleyes:.
You just described Hell ... :cool:
Fear of death is the most fundamental fear of human existence.
While that might be roughly true, I concur with your assessment that Chopra is an idiot.

@truethat:

Since you asked:

Too bloggy, the OP you spent a bit of time on does not invite conversation, nor discussion.

DR