Tag: Personal Development

Posted on

Why I Left Christianity

Since I was a little girl, I’ve always loved reading. The way an author could weave words together to create a world my mind could escape to was always fascinating, and as I got older, words became even more meaningful. I learned that the purpose of vocabulary wasn’t just to know a lot of words for the sake of knowing them. The purpose was communication; to have the tools necessary to be able to say exactly what I was thinking or feeling at a given moment. As such, I try to be very intentional about saying what I mean and meaning what I say….and that is why I could no longer continue calling myself a “Christian.”

A label is “a descriptive or identifying word or phrase,”  and the purpose of any kind of label is generally to provide additional information about the person or thing it is being used to describe. A lot of people don’t like being “labeled”, and I get that. Labels can be restrictive and even inaccurate if applied incorrectly. However, I do think they’re useful when they’re used correctly because an accurate label can tell you a lot about a person without them having to say much at all. And I think, in the context of spirituality, calling yourself something is supposed to do just that: give context about who you are and what you believe in. So what exactly is a “Christian” and why isn’t that an accurate reflection of my beliefs? 

A Christian is “a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.” I think this particular definition is important, because I think people like to classify themselves as “real Christians” based on a very broad conception of what it means to be a “follower of Christ.” However, what “following Christ” actually looks like in practice depends on who you ask, and I think we need to be more intentional about defining how much of “Christianity” is actually a reflection of Jesus. 

Christianity is “the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies.” Christianity is the largest religion in the world with over 2.4 billion adherents worldwide. There are 30,000 different groups, branches, or denominations that fall under the banner of “Christianity”, and more than 1,200 in the United States alone. 30,000 groups of people reading the same book, examining the same beliefs, and coming to very distinct conclusions about what it all means. Most, if not all, of those groups teach that they have a monopoly on “the truth” and anything that conflicts with “the truth” is inherently false. That in itself was reason enough to make me stop and think for a second, because using such a broad umbrella to describe the beliefs of that many people is bound to create some confusion. 

Further, I don’t think enough attention is given to the second half of the definition. I think a lot of people stop at “the religion derived from Jesus Christ” and don’t necessarily understand how much of what is “derived” from Jesus Christ gets filtered through the Bible as professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies. Now, don’t get me wrong. Most people who read any kind of “holy text” just do the best they can to understand what someone who lived thousands of years ago was trying to communicate. That isn’t the problem. The problem is taking something that was originally communicated by an imperfect human being, translated multiple times by multiple imperfect human beings over a period of time spanning hundreds of years, interpreted by multiple imperfect human beings, millions (if not billions) of whom cannot reach any remote sort of consensus on what’s actually being communicated, and then calling any of of those interpretations “absolute truth” as it pertains to a supposedly infinite God. Even if all of that boils down to some basic belief in Jesus’ role as the Son of Man and His blood as atonement for sin, how that belief ultimately translates to the life one lives and the way one treats the people they encounter, particularly people who don’t identify as “Christian,” often presents a stark contrast to the Spirit of the Man that person is supposed to be representing. 

Let’s just be honest for a second, okay? If “just” believing in Jesus was really enough (John 3:16-17, anyone?), why is there a need for tens of thousands of different denominations and doctrines? Why isn’t it enough to just say “I’m a Christian” as a full expression of your beliefs? Or, if calling yourself a Christian only communicates that you believe in Jesus, why do so many people feel the need to follow up a statement of “I’m a Christian” with a long list of things they don’t agree with or subscribe to? If being a Christian were really just about Jesus, wouldn’t the teachings, the culture, and its standing in the world reflect that? 

A popular argument I encounter often (and one that absolutely drives me crazy) is that people are imperfect and any group of people coming together is going to have its flaws, which is true. However, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot believe in a theology that hinges on reaching a state of spiritual perfection and then blame your humanity for your group’s inability to achieve said perfection, especially as you put your “truth” on a pedestal over those who don’t aspire to the same standards you do. You cannot say “God is all-powerful,” “God can do anything,” or “God is not the author of confusion” and then argue that God is “still in control” of mediocre institutions that often cause more harm and damage than they do good. You cannot say “nobody is perfect” when someone tries to hold you accountable for your shortcomings as people fill your pews (or watch your services online) week in and week out just to hear how terrible they are and that they haven’t “overcome” yet because their faith isn’t strong enough. You can’t tell people to have a “real” relationship with God just to dictate what that relationship and the fruits of that relationship are supposed to look like. You can’t scare people into submission to what you believe is the truth by insinuating in any way, shape, form or fashion that disconnecting from toxic, dysfunctional people automatically means disconnecting from God. You cannot center yourself as a victim when people who have been marginalized, abused, and left spiritually destitute by your institutions aren’t interested in hearing your version of the gospel. You can’t call that “Jesus” when what you’re reaping isn’t something He would have sown.

You might be thinking, “So what’s the answer? If Christianity is so bad, what are people supposed to do?”, but that’s not a question I can answer for you. I don’t believe you can call yourself a “Christian” and separate a pure belief in Jesus and His sacrifice from the harm Christianity has caused and continues to cause so many throughout the world, but that’s me. I cannot call myself something that isn’t a truly accurate reflection of what I believe and the God that I worship. Personally, I just did the work to find a label that did accurately communicate what I believe. I’m a Christocentric Agapist, which means that I believe that love is the highest moral imperative and that my belief in love is centered around my belief in Jesus…and only that. There are no boxes I have to fit into. There is no long list of doctrines I have to adhere to. I can ask as many questions as I want and I don’t have to limit myself to one perspective in my pursuit of the answers. I can say, “I don’t know” if I don’t find the answers right away, or if I don’t find them at all. I can say, “I don’t think I need to change this,” or “I know this is a problem but I’m not ready to change it” without feeling like I have to stay away from my spiritual community until I’m ready to live my life on their terms. I don’t have to worry about whether I’m doing everything “right” or who is going to judge me if I do something “wrong.” My beliefs aren’t reflected in the clothes I wear, the day I worship on, the kind of food I eat, or the doctrines I claim. My beliefs are reflected in how I try to treat the people I encounter on a day-to-day basis, the kind of person I try to be, and the peace I have within. I’m not perfect, but it is a keen awareness of just how flawed I am that allows me to have compassion for the imperfect people I can relate to and that allows me to pray that God gives me compassion for the imperfect people I struggle to have compassion for. 

I do not believe in a theology that hinges on a state of spiritual perfection. I believe in a theology that teaches that Jesus lived a perfect life to pay the penalty for sin so that I could live a life of gratitude, compassion, empathy, and security in the fact that I am loved wholly and completely by an infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing God who has not only began a good work in me, but will see it to its completion. On God’s terms. In God’s time. All I have to do is let God be God.

Posted on

A Manifesto on Transparency

By Kara M. Young

I’ve been doing a lot of contemplating recently, and one of the biggest revelations has been that I have been tailoring my social media presence to people who are not my audience. I’ve been afraid to say certain things or post certain things because I’ve been afraid of being judged as “unworthy” or too flawed. I’ve been afraid of the sentiment being “You have a church, so how can you be doing x,y, and z?” But that’s a flawed way of thinking, for a number of reasons.


1. I live my life in alignment with my beliefs. I am very intentional about that. And the truth is that my beliefs do not fully coincide with those of Adventists, nor those of mainstream Christians. Further, I do not identify as either, because I believe both are irredeemably flawed and, to be perfectly clear, I do not believe that either entity is “the truth,” nor do I believe either entity has a monopoly on truth. I am an Agapist. A Christocentric Agapist, but an Agapist just the same. As such, I can’t be held to a standard that I don’t agree with, don’t believe in, and refuse to hold myself to because I genuinely and firmly believe that it facilitates an inaccurate and damaging depiction of the character of God.


2. I can’t preach unconditional love and acceptance while maintaining an unrealistic portrayal of my life. I can’t tell someone else to “be who you are” while simultaneously being afraid to publicly own ALL of who I am, especially when I am not ashamed of me. In fact, I’m really proud of the growth I’ve achieved thus far and the person I am continuing to become. I like me, and that’s something I have fought long and hard for.


3. I am aware that I am probably not “qualified” by many people’s standards to do what I’m doing, but I believe I’ve been called to it because I can’t be anything other than what I am. Life literally isn’t worth living to me if it means spending even one more second trying to fit myself into other people’s boxes. I have tried. My entire life, I have tried. And I’ve finally come to accept the fact that I can’t. That acceptance has opened my eyes to the fact that there are plenty of people out there who have had a similar experience and have ultimately opted to just be alone spiritually rather than compromise their liberty of conscience and liberty of thought for the sake of community. But those people…my people…need community, too.


4. Church as it stands isn’t designed for people who don’t “fit”. It’s not meant to accommodate people who want the benefit of community without the pressure to conform. So many people feel like you’re being disingenuous if you say you believe something and then don’t adhere to its tenets, and in a lot of ways, that’s not entirely untrue. If being a Christian means living my life like ________, and I don’t believe in that, am I really a Christian? And if I’m not, is that such a bad thing? I would call myself a Christian if doing so meant that the only thing anyone assumed about me was that I believed that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died to be the propitiation for sin itself. But realistically, saying you’re a Christian comes with a ton of other premises that MUST be relied on, otherwise your spirituality gets called into question, i.e. “How can you say you’re a Christian if you ________?”

The establishments that currently exist can only change or evolve so much before they become something they are not. And I realized some time ago that there’s no amount of change that could occur that would ultimately make room for me and all the other people that organized religion has either pushed to the fringes or excluded completely. So many of us wanted to belong, but even after the church began to say “come as you are,” it added, “once you get here, you’re supposed to change, and this is what your journey should look like, your questions should look like, your conclusions should look like….this is what you will look like. And if you don’t, something is seriously wrong.” There’s an underlying acceptance of certain fundamental “truths” that you are required to internalize and you literally cannot belong the the community if you don’t accept them. Some may call that “godly”. Some may call that “accountability.” Some may call that “the truth.” Personally, I call it presumptive, limiting, and unreflective of the God I have come to know and love. I want community that doesn’t require me to limit who God can be for me, doesn’t ask me to draw the same conclusions as everyone else, and gives me room to journey on God’s terms, not anyone else’s.

5. I’m not perfect, but I don’t think I’m supposed to be. I think that’s the point of real transparency…it’s the only way God’s strength can truly be made perfect in my weakness. If I’m too afraid to own that, how can I inspire anyone else to own it for themselves? How can I tell people that God is with them when they aren’t struggling, when they’re not wrestling, when they don’t feel the need to “repent,” when they’re asking questions other people don’t have answers for and drawing conclusions that other people condemn….and then be unwilling to transparent about how God does that for me every day? I know and believe in the depths of my heart that I am loved unconditionally and I know that because that love has been tested….tried with fire….and it hasn’t failed me yet. People think that they have to believe a certain way or live a certain way to experience God’s presence fully and I’m here to say that that simply isn’t true. Nothing can separate me from God’s love and my experience has been that God will always give as much of the Spirit as I am open to receiving. It’s in my darkest moments that God has shown up for me in the most profound ways and if God has done that for me, I have no doubt it can be done for you, too.

All of that being said, I am committed to doing my best to be more vulnerable and to live transparently. My target audience isn’t the people who think they have the truth. My target audience is anyone who is seeking truth, those who believe that truth-seeking is the journey of a lifetime. My goal is to be a part of a community that prioritizes love in a way that heals rather than does harm. And I just want to be myself. I want others to know that they really can be who they are and not be treated differently because of it. I don’t care who you are or what you believe. Boundaries are drawn based on how we treat each other. Do your best not to do harm. If you mess up (as we all inevitably do), acknowledge it, take responsibility for it, and try to do better moving forward, understanding that the love doesn’t change and grace is sufficient.

My hope and prayer is that we can all find freedom in the journey, and thus a greater sense of compassion, patience, kindness, self-awareness and acceptance, personal accountability, and unconditional love. -ky<3

Posted on

Biphobia, “Preferences” and Why Personal Accountability is the Answer

By Kara M. Young

If you’ve been on social media within the last couple of weeks, you know that Netflix’s “Love is Blind” has taken the internet by storm, not only because of “The Experiment”, but also because, *Spoiler Alert*, male bisexuality seemingly ruined one of the relationships. This sparked a Twitter firestorm and #BisexualMenExist has been trending. In particular, people have been debating whether or not it’s “biphobic” for people to “prefer” to date someone who is not bisexual. It got my wheels turning, and I think this discussion illustrates an issue a lot of us talk about, but few of us seem to fully grasp: preferences.

Society has taken a turn towards broader inclusion and representation of demographics who have previously been relegated to the fringes. This has been met with both praise and criticism, but one of the mostly hotly debated aspects of the conversation has been acceptance and inclusion on a personal level, particularly with regard to romantic relationships. Things that were previously viewed as mere “preferences” are now being associated with the negative stereotypes and biases against certain groups that have been perpetuated by society. On the one hand, many agree that it is important to address personal biases that cause one to have an irrational aversion to certain characteristics. However, many people feel attacked when what they feel are harmless preferences are labeled as being rooted in bigotry, patriarchy, misogyny, phobias, self-hate, ignorance, etc. Preferences in favor of marginalized characteristics are less likely to be criticized and, generally speaking, the most vocal opponents of a given preference are those whom the preference excludes.

The biggest question in my mind when I encounter these debates is, “What do we do about it?” I think a lot of conversations are had about a lot of things but, in my opinion, very few of those conversations end with practical solutions that make sense for everyone. For example, we can acknowledge that it’s wrong to mistreat or exclude people from entertainment and media solely based on what they look like or who they love, but how does acknowledging that and re-working the system ultimately change what people believe or feel towards others? Fun Fact: the Supreme Court kind of addressed this in Shelley v. Kraemer. In Shelley, a Black family sued after buying a house that came with a restrictive covenant that did not allow Black or Asian people to occupy the property. The court held that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause doesn’t allow states to enforce racially discriminatory housing covenants. However, the court also held that private parties could abide by the terms of racially restrictive covenants. Essentially, the government isn’t supposed to be racist, but people can be, and while the government can protect its citizens to an extent, it can’t change what’s in someone’s heart or mind. Society can’t really do that, either. We can bully people into silence, but we can’t make them appreciate or agree with things they’re dead-set against supporting. If anything, bullying the bullies just creates resentment and makes them double-down on the negative views they already have.

So what can we do? For starters, we can inform ourselves and take the time to understand the differences between preferences and biases, phobias, bigotry, etc. Next, we can self-evaluate and figure out what about someone else’s opinion makes us feel insecure and what our own preferences and biases are. Lastly, we may not be able to change other people, but we can work on ourselves and impact the people around us and the spaces we occupy.

What are “preferences” versus what makes a person “phobic”?

Preferences and phobias are not the same thing, but sometimes they’re used interchangeably for the sake of making a point, so let’s clarify: phobic means “having or involving an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something”; a preference is “a greater liking for one alternative over another or others.” Now, let’s illustrate using the conversation surrounding biphobia as an example. Biphobia is an “aversion toward bisexuality and toward bisexual people as a social group or as individuals. It can take the form of denial that bisexuality is a genuine sexual orientation, or of negative stereotypes about people who are bisexual (such as the beliefs that they are promiscuous or dishonest).” A preference is a greater liking for heterosexuality over bisexuality, homosexuality, etc. There is a difference, however, it is possible for preferences to be informed by or based on an irrational aversion to certain characteristics based on negative stereotypes, bias, ignorance, etc. This is often demonstrated by people using negative stereotypes or other statements rooted in bias/ignorance as a basis for justifying or explaining their preferences.

Continuing to use biphobia as an example and based on the definitions we now have of preferences versus phobias, it’s fair to conclude that it is not inherently biphobic to prefer to be with someone who is heterosexual. However, it is biphobic to allow stigma and ignorance to inform your preferences, and that’s an important distinction to make. For example, saying “My religious beliefs don’t align with the beliefs of someone who feels comfortable living that lifestyle and being in spiritual alignment with my partner is important to me” or “I’m heterosexual and I want to be with someone who is heterosexual” is not the same as saying   “I can’t be with a bisexual man because he’s obviously a closeted gay man who’d probably end up cheating on me with men and infecting me with HIV (I know that sounds harsh, but it’s a summation of some of the more common myths associated with bisexual men).”

The takeaway is that you can have preferences and like who you like without perpetuating stereotypes and bigotry as a means of justifying your preferences. That applies to everyone and everything, not just biphobia.

The Big Picture

Taking what we just learned about preferences and phobias and applying them more broadly, I think it’s important to take a hard look at how and why we convolute the two. Often times, it appears that people immediately get defensive at any expression of a preference that doesn’t include them or any criticism of people they share certain characteristics with, automatically being offended by it….but that’s not really fair, is it? First, why do so many of us have such a “knee-jerk” reaction to hearing that there’s something about us that someone else doesn’t like? What causes that? And is it that person’s fault for saying how they feel, or is something going on inside of us that sparks a visceral response? Second, why assume the preference is rooted in something negative? Or, even if it’s clear that the preference is rooted in something negative, what does that mean for you? Are you bothered by it because this particular person’s preference actually impacts your life? Are you bothered by it because you’re taking it personally? Are you bothered by it because it speaks to old wounds caused by someone else? And what can you actually do about any of it? Are you managing your expectations and being honest with yourself about what is actually within your power to change/control, or are you investing your time, energy, and emotions into responses/solutions that ultimately won’t address what’s going on inside of you and/or make you feel better?

These questions are important to consider because the answers have serious implications on how we address issues of inclusion and what we require from others versus what we require from ourselves. Inclusion and acceptance are important, especially systemically, but taking it to extremes on an interpersonal level suggests that everyone has to be open to involvement with anyone who might be interested in having a relationship with them (this can apply to platonic relationships, too) because there aren’t any “valid” reasons for preferring one characteristic over other alternatives. That doesn’t sound like too much fun, does it? Because the truth is that, if we’re being honest with ourselves, we all have preferences. We all have biases. We all have things that we are and are not attracted to and things that we are and are not willing to bring into our everyday lives and spaces. And maybe most importantly, we all have things about us that someone somewhere probably doesn’t like. At what point do we decide to own who we are rather than looking for outside validation and start appreciating the people and the spaces that make room for us as we are? Or if those people or those spaces don’t exist, creating them rather than trying to force our way into places where we aren’t wanted?

It’s a lot to think about lol but that brings us to the accountability piece. How do all of the questions and all of the thinking translate to change? First, acceptance is the initial step. You have to accept that you aren’t for everyone and everyone isn’t for you and that is OKAY. Second, you have to ask yourself some questions and give yourself some honest answers, because those answers will give you clarity for the last step, which is: figuring out what you have to do to heal and move forward and then doing it.

The Solution: Personal Accountability

As has already been stated, You can’t change other people; you can only change yourself. It may seem a bit cliché to say, but it’s true. We can’t make other people be different or do better, but we CAN heal, we CAN set an example by holding ourselves to a higher standard, and we CAN show compassion towards others because we understand that personal accountability is a journey, not a destination.

Healing requires accepting that you’re responsible for your own healing. It’s nice to receive apologies or to have our feelings validated, but we can’t put our own healing on hold while we wait for someone else to acknowledge that they’ve mistreated us. That day may never come, meanwhile we’re stuck at a standstill because we’re looking outside of ourselves for something we can decide to overcome on our own. Personally, I usually only find myself getting defensive when someone touches on something I’m already insecure about. If I’m not insecure, I usually don’t care, because my emotions or my past pain aren’t clouding my view and I’m able to see that that person’s opinion isn’t personal, or even when it is, it has no bearing on my reality. I’ve really had to learn to be intentional about focusing less on what someone else said or did and focusing more on why it made me feel the way it did and what I can do on my end to avoid feeling that way in the future. Healing takes back your power. It allows you to refrain from getting defensive about things that aren’t personal and that most likely don’t actually matter in the context of YOUR life. It allows you to have clarity on situations where bias and phobias are exhibited, which enables you to address those things effectively, in a way that generates real solutions rather than mere catharsis. To be clear, I am NOT saying that we shouldn’t speak out against injustice, bigotry, hate, ignorance, etc. I AM saying that lashing out at people in anger/pain has proven to be ineffective. It often just serves to make things worse. There are ways to firmly and clearly communicate that something is wrong without attacking and alienating your audience. Also, keeping a clear head enables you to keep things in perspective, i.e. does it really matter if I don’t fit a specific person’s preference? Is this someone I really want to be involved with, especially given the information I have on their feelings toward characteristics that apply to me?

Personal accountability also means holding yourself to the same standards you hold others to. You can’t expect to receive a love and respect that you don’t give. You can’t perpetuate negative stereotypes or bigotry toward others and then be upset when someone else does the same to you. You can’t reserve the right to have your own preferences about what you do or do not like and then be upset when someone else has preferences that exclude you. Again, you’re not for everyone and everyone isn’t for you. The sooner you learn to own who you are and everything that comes with the territory of being you, the sooner you can stop worrying about the people who you don’t fit with and the sooner you can start focusing on the people who you do fit with.

Lastly, compassion is free. It takes nothing but intention and a little bit of effort to treat others the way you want to be treated. You never know what someone has been through and the world desperately needs people who are more committed to loving and setting the standard than they are committed to being “right” and giving an eye for an eye. You may not always receive compassion and you can’t control that, but you can choose to be kind to yourself. You can control what you put out into the world and how you choose to treat people. If you don’t like to be stereotyped or belittled or viewed as less-than because of someone else’s bias, don’t turn around and do that to someone else. Don’t be ashamed of being yourself and liking what you like, but be aware of what informs your preferences and always treat others with the kindness and respect you want to be treated with.

When we know better, we do better, so know better and do better because you CAN.

Posted on

Does “Original Sin” Nullify Free Choice?

This week, we’ll be examining the nature of humanity and how that impacts whether we are free moral agents. “Sin” is “an offense against religious or moral law.” Every culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a sin. In the Christian tradition, the concept of “original sin” is based on the premise that “the tendency to sin [is] innate in all human beings, held to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall.” This western Christian concept was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. Other church fathers, such as Augustine (AD 354-430), also shaped and developed the doctrine. Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as an inclination or tendency towards sin (referred to as a “sin nature without collective guilt”) to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt. Moreover, as a further consequence of the first iniquity, humanity is hopelessly lost in a state of sin and is powerless on its own to obey the will of God. That said, does “original sin” nullify our ability to choose “right” from “wrong” without direct intervention/influence from God?

Here’s what we know:

  1. The concept of sinfulness being an inherent tendency in humanity is unique to western Christianity. For example, the Eastern Orthodox version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil. They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine’s notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.
  2. The doctrine of “inherited sin” is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam and Eve for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some others who believed that mortality was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam’s sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.
  3. The concept of inherited sin does not exist in Islam. Islam teaches that Adam and Eve sinned, but then sought forgiveness and thus were forgiven by God. Quotes from the Qur’an:
    • But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been. And We said, “Go down, [all of you], as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.” Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.— Surah al-Baqara:36–37
    • Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance.— Surah Ṭā Hāʼ:121–122

This question is important to consider because the concept of original sin implies that humans are incapable of making genuinely “good” choices without God being the direct source of that choice. But to be clear, the issue is less about whether humans are inherently “good” or inherently “bad” and more about whether we actually have the ability to choose one way or the other. If the bad things we do are ultimately the result of our “sinful natures” and the good things we do are the result of God’s influence rather than our own decisionmaking/will power, does freedom of choice even exist? Both the Qur’an and the Bible seem to suggest that it does. The Qur’an says this with regard to individual responsibility:

That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best [fair] recompense

Surah an-Najm:38–41

Further, consider this portion of an extraordinary sermon delivered by Moses before his death as the Israelites prepared to enter the promised land:

“…when you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.  It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.”

Deuteronomy 30:10-14

What do you think? Does “original sin” nullify free choice? Is humanity inherently good, inherently evil, both, or neither? Do we have any control over the good and the bad things that we do? Let us know in the comments below!

Posted on

Fear and Faith

Most world religions teach some form of an afterlife. Further, the idea of “bad” behavior being punished, both in this life and in the “life” to come, is often used to discourage people from doing what is considered to be “bad”. For example, 58% of adults in the United States believe in hell (according to the Pew Research Center). The word “hell” usually describes “a place regarded in various religions as a spiritual realm of evil and suffering, often traditionally depicted as a place of perpetual fire beneath the earth where the wicked are punished after death.” If the wicked are punished, it stands to reason that people would want to avoid being wicked, right? So this week, we will look at the relationship between fear and faith. Is fear a useful tool that God uses to get us to obey?

Here’s what we know:

  1. Fear is “an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.”
  2. A deterrent is “a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.”
  3. In the context of the criminal justice system, “deterrence — the crime prevention effects of the threat of punishment — is a theory of choice in which individuals balance the benefits and costs of crime.”
  4. The National Institute of Justice summarizes some of the research on deterrence:
    • The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.
    • Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn’t a very effective way to deter crime. Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Inmates learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment.
    • Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished. The police deter crime when they do things that strengthen a criminal’s perception of the certainty of being caught. Strategies that use the police as “sentinels,” such as hot spots policing, are particularly effective.
    • Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.
  5. Most world religions teach that reaching “heaven” (or paradise, nirvana, etc.) and avoiding “hell” is at least somewhat dependent upon doing and/or being “good”.

In an experiment involving 61 ethnically and religiously diverse undergraduate students at the University of British Columbia, the participants were asked to use mental math to solve 20 addition problems. Before the test, a monitor explained that there was a glitch in the computer program being used to administer the test and that the participants needed to press the space bar key immediately after each question appeared in order to avoid seeing the answer. Cheating behavior was measured according to whether participants followed these instructions. Once the test was completed, the participants were asked to fill out a “View of God Scale,” which gauged their conceptions of God as “positive” (i.e. forgiving, loving, gentle, etc.) or “negative” (i.e. vengeful, harsh, angry, punishing, etc.). Next, the participants were asked to complete a suspicion probe, the Hoge (1972)
scale of intrinsic religiosity, a Views of God scale, and a set of demographic questions.

The results published in 2011 in The International Journal for Psychology of Religion indicated that the students’ differences in religious beliefs had no bearing on whether the students cheated or not, but the participants who applied more punitive attributes to God cheated less than those who attributed positive traits of character to God.

Fear can be a powerful deterrent, but perhaps we should be less focused on whether fear itself is a bad thing and more focused on who and/or what we are afraid of. For example, should the good things we do be motivated by a fear of going to hell? Or should the good things we do be motivated by a “fear of” (it may be better worded as “concern for”) how the negative things we do impact us, the people we love, and the world around us?

Further, is a fear of going to hell really an effective deterrent? Is the fear of what may or may not happen when we die or some other time in the future enough motivation to do good now? Is the threat of more immediate consequences even effective? Children disobey their parents all the time, knowing that they could be (and oftentimes are) caught and punished. Discipline works up to a point, but ultimately, each of us has to decide for ourselves what kinds of people we want to be and the kinds of choices we want to make.

What do you think? How does fear interplay with your faith? Do you think fear is an effective deterrent? If so, why? If not, what motivates you to be the best person you can be? Let us know in the comments below!