Friday, March 27, 2015

6 Creepy and Disturbing Christian Songs

 (Edit: Trigger warning, for the third entry ("Wide Open") for talking about torture and rape.)

 I remember all of these songs from my (VERY) Christian days, as a teenager, and they all, looking at them now, are pretty fucked up. Most of them bothered me, for various reasons, even then, though the Casting Crowns entry only looks much worse today.
While looking these songs up recently, I commented on all of these videos, under the name "Atheist Journey," to see if and how someone would respond. If I get any responses, I will share them here on my blog in another post.
Here they are, in order from least troublesome to most:


1.) Having A Jesus-Gasm: "Trading My Sorrows" by Darrel Evans

Even when I was nine years old, I watched TV. And I knew that on TV, people tended to say "Yes, Yes, YES!" while rolling around naked under sheets with each other, likely having sex. So when, in church, I sang "Yes, Lord, yes, Lord, yes, yes, Lord," it made me rather uncomfortable. Even today, this song sometimes pops into my head while I'm masturbating (I thought of not sharing that, but the verse does talk about "trading my shame...".









My Comment:

"Even as a child, this song always made me think of sex (I watched TV). Sometimes I still think of the chorus while masturbating." (Update July 9, 2015: Somebody replied to me, "I am praying for your deliverance." Ha-ha!)



2.) Seducing Jesus: "Let My Words Be Few" by Rebecca St. James
(I've never understood why this song is so long, if the words are supposed to be so few.)
In this rendition, Rebecca St. James turns this classic praise song into an erotic, Jesus-seducing nightmare. All of the gasps and moans are especially creepy in a song about being "so in love" with Jesus.
The first gasp comes around 0:24. The next major one comes at 1:16. There's a little moan at the end of the word "awe," and in much of the song, she almost sounds flirtatious. At 2:20 there's an "ohhh..." (And those are not all; I've actually let my words be few about the total number of off-putting exhalations.)


My Comment:

"This song is as erotic as I remember, with all of the gasps and moans and "ohhh..."'s. :)


3.) Jesus Gets Nailed: "Wide Open" by Newsong

(Edit: Trigger warning for talking about torture and rape.)

Christian band Newsong has managed to create a song glorifying crucifixion, not Jesus. Though there are many songs that do this, this was the worst one that I have heard. Here are the offending lyrics:

"Wide open, wide open, they nailed his arms wide open
After three days, in a cold grave, the power of sin was broken
Now with outstretched arms, he welcomes in, everyone who trusts in him
His nailed-scarred hands hold heaven's gates wide open..."



I must admit that the verse is rather catchy and even inspiring, talking about God making a way to be reconciled to humanity. And yet he could only do it through brutal torture (which doesn't make him look either good or powerful).
But I was uncomfortable singing the chorus even as a Christian, due to the graphic nature of it.
To illustrate what I mean, imagine a similar sacrifice: A mother volunteers to be raped, in order to protect her child from the rapist. So I decide to write a song about the mother's brave sacrifice, and it goes like this:

"Wide open, wide open 
They spread her legs wide open..."

If that isn't offensive, I don't know what is. Torture should be treated with the same delicacy and tact that sexual abuse merits, especially if one loves the survivor as much as Christians say they love Jesus. Two thousand years may have been a long time to recover from something so traumatic, especially for a god, but it still feels like it's much too soon to me.

My Comment:

 "Really catchy tune, but this song always made me extremely uncomfortable. It's like it glorifies suffering rather than willingness to suffer."


4.) A Little Boy Is In Denial: "The Christmas Shoes" by Newsong


 Oh god, Newsong, not again. How did you make the list twice?
This song is basically about a little boy who, even though his mother is dying, leaves her side to buy her a pair of shoes:

"Sir, I want to buy these 
Shoes for my mama, please
It's Christmas eve and these shoes are just her size
Could you hurry, sir
Daddy says there's not much time
You see she's been sick for quite a while
And I know these shoes would make her smile
And I want her to look beautiful
If Mama meets Jesus tonight"

This song made me sick. The little boy is obviously afraid that he will not get home in time to give his mother her present before she dies. Then why is he even at the store? Did his dad send him there, so he wouldn't see his mother die, or did he think that the shoes "would make her smile" more than spending as much time as possible with her own child?
And does he think that she'll take the shoes to heaven with her? Does he think her body will just disappear, clothes and all (if so, he might be in for a traumatic surprise), or does he think that, because she had shoes in this life, she'll suddenly get a pair of fancy soul-shoes in heaven too? Does that mean that people will still be rich or poor in heaven? Any way you think about this, the implications are horrifying.
It even has an unitentional commercial message too:

"I knew I'd caught a glimpse of heaven's love
As he thanked me and ran out
I knew that God had sent that little boy
To remind me what Christmas is all about"

So Christmas is all about shoes and presents rather than being there for your loved ones? What does that say about "Heaven's love"? He hadn't even gone to the store having enough money for a present, so what was he there for? To look at potential Christmas presents while his mother dies?
Had he gone expecting to ask strangers for help, and if so, is there even a dying mother at all? Maybe his parents are making him run a scam so that they can resell the shoes or take them back for a refund. No one would dare refuse if he had that story.

My comment:

"He is obviously afraid that he won't get home in time to give his mother her present before she dies. Why isn't he at her side? Wouldn't she want that more than a pair of shoes? This is a horrible song. Is this the message we want to tell children of dying or ill parents? That their parents want presents more than time with them?"


5.) Horrifying Belief In Hell: "Here I Go Again" by Casting Crowns



In this concert video, I saw scenes that were all too familiar, that I lived: a teenage girl with her hands straight up in the air in worship, probably trying to "feel" God's presence (2:54); what I believe is the same girl, sitting down and holding her hands in a praying pose, probably praying desperately for a loved one (3:27); and what appeared to be a mother and daughter, arm in arm, singing along and swaying together with sad looks on their faces (3:40). It was very haunting, especially combined with the lyrics:

"Father, hear my prayer 
I need the perfect words
Words that he will hear
And know they're straight from You

I don't know what to say 
I only know it hurts
To see my only friend 
Slowly fade away

(bridge)
So maybe this time, I'll speak the words of life
With Your fire in my eyes
But that old familiar fear 
Is tearing at my words
What am I so afraid of?

(chorus)
'Cause here I go again
Talkin' 'bout the rain 
And mulling over things
That won't live past today

And as I dance around the truth
Time is not his friend
This might be my last chance
To tell him that You love him
But here I go again"

Literally all of the lyrics are disturbing, from an atheist standpoint (or even one that recognizes the effects of the belief in hell). The singer is probably afraid to say anything because he's afraid of how his friend will respond, or perhaps because he has doubts about the reality of hell, or whether it's really moral for God to send people there. Maybe he knows that mentioning his own beliefs will drive a wedge between him and his friend in the little time his friend has left, or maybe he knows that his friend needs to think less about death, not more.
Whatever the case, it gets much worse in the second verse:

"Lord, You love him so
You gave Your only Son
If he will just believe
He will never die..."

So "just believing" becomes a choice now? How can he choose to believe, if he does not believe? It sounds like the singer just wants him to pretend to believe, so he can "get saved." But then it gets even worse:

"But how then will he know
What he has never heard?
Lord, what he has never seen
Mirrored in my life..."

He thinks that his friend has literally never heard of Jesus as God. This is a white, western guy singing, so it's probably safe to say that his friend is white and western, or at least knows the singer's religious beliefs.
The last line is probably the one to incite the most proselytizing, in my opinion. It's a tactic to shame people into being more "loving," with strings attached (hearing the "gospel").
The rest is a repeat of the bridge and chorus, followed by a soft, "You love him, You love him, what am I so afraid, what am I so afraid of...?"

My Comment:

"This man in the song is losing his friend, and all he can think about is the friend burning in hell for all eternity. It sounds like either God is not all-loving (sending people to hell) or not all-powerful (helpless to stop people from going to hell). This is why I hate the doctrine of hell so much."

 And now, the worst offender of them all...

6.) Pain And Denial: "Never Alone" by BarlowGirl





This song sums up my Christian experience, and much of my early teens, all too well. Even as a very devout Christian kid, I recognized it for what it was. I knew all about the pain and anger and grief of praying my heart out, repeatedly, and getting no reply at all, not even a little feeling of peace.
I also knew what it was like to chant bible verses and Christian slogans, trying desperately to reassure myself.
I wished even then that this song was simply about her loneliness and grief, wondering what was wrong with her that God didn't want anything to do with her. The way she suddenly shifts gears feels very fake, and it's quite unsatisfying to see her swallow her pain like this.
 "She is in denial about her true feelings," I thought at the time. But of course I knew that no Christian song would be allowed to be about a real human struggle without a sudden bait-and-switch.
I had seen it many times before: "Oh, we're going to say something that could be remotely bad about God--here we go--oh, no, we're not! Fooled you!"
It was such an old "trick" that it was perfectly expected, and not at all surprising. I remember feeling very disappointed in this song. Finally, I had found permission to talk about what I was really feeling, finally I could process it all without having to add something "good" onto the end of it, without feeling pressure to have a "happy," god-fearing ending.
But no, this song had tricked me. I had that permission, and then I didn't, all because the members of BarlowGirl couldn't deal with their feelings towards God either. It's like their emotions are finally starting to be processed, they're finally admitting them, and then suddenly they're back in denial, and their true emotions are back in the closet, never to see the light of day again. They were finally being "real," real people with real struggles and real pain. Then suddenly, they're perfectly devout Christians again, having to put a happy, godly ending on every instance of pain. It was extremely frustrating then, and it still is now.

"I waited for You, today
But You didn't show, no, no, no
I needed You today 
So where did You go?

You told me to call
Said You'd be there
And though I haven't seen You
Are You still there?


(chorus):
 I cried out with no reply
And I can't feel You by my side
So I'll hold tight to what I know
You're here and I'm never alone


(2nd verse)
And though I cannot see You
And I can't explain why
Such a deep, deep reassurance
You've placed in my life
 

  (chorus)

We cannot separate
'Cause You're part of me
And though You're invisible
I'll trust the unseen


The song starts out sad and operatic, then slams the word "alone" into the listener with the guitar intro: "Neee-verrr...ALONE!"
And after all of the talk about "deep, deep reassurance" and, later, how God cannot separate from her, and how she will "trust the unseen," again the grief and denial is repeated: "I cried out with no reply, and I can't feel You by my side..."
This is the only one I found with an actual music video. In this song about grief and loneliness, the band members are actually smiling in some places in this video, especially towards the end. If they're anything like me, those smiles were to reassure themselves as much as others. There is also shown a man, tied up and hopeless. He eventually gets out of his ropes...alone. What is meant to be symbolic of God freeing him from despair, is in actuality the man freeing himself.

My Comment:

 "I always hated this song, even as a Christian. Finally, someone was being real about their struggle to get close to God, and then suddenly, they weren't. This song tricked me. They had to put a positive, Christian spin on everything, or they were bad Christians and God would get mad. I hated having to put a happy, hopeful ending on everything as a Christian. Why can't someone just be "real" for once?"

That's a question I often ask myself about Christians (and others): Why can't they just be "real" for once? I still haven't figured it out.

What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys

Saturday, March 21, 2015

"God" Hates It When Atheists Are Good

I was accused once in an argument on Twitter of "stealing" morality from God. The concept made me laugh. It sounded as if God was offended that an atheist would try to be moral or love others. But wouldn't that mean that God was at least a little pleased, in this case, that I was stealing from him? But stealing is wrong, so in this case it would immoral to have morals! The concept still makes me laugh today.
My accuser, Joe Cienkowski (whom somebody created two parody accounts of, probably to make him mad), seemed to be offended that I told him I loved him (repeatedly, and with the help of REO Speedwagon). He seemed offended that I apparently had morals, or at least considered myself a moral person. He wanted morality (or the perception of it) to be an exclusively Christian thing, a privilege saved only for Christians.

I have seen a variation on this sentiment expressed in the form of, to paraphrase, "I'm a Christian, therefore you can trust me."

In this video, Christian comedian Chanda Pierce, at about 3:49, relates how she tried to get a hotel maid to believe that there was someone already sleeping in her room (who turned out to be dead; she expresses no concern for his salvation or sadness at his death--she only talks about how it affects her). "I told them at the desk I was a Christian artist!" she says, about 5:00.

At 5:23, she self-righteously scoffs that the maid thought that she lying, even though she told the hotel staff she was a Christian (she probably made a very  deal of it, from my experience with people who have to tell you their Christianity).
"I told her I was a Christian!" she practically screeches, thoroughly offended that she was not taken at her word because of her stated religious beliefs. (Incidentally, at 5:55, she basically tells the maid that the man's health is the maid's problem, not hers. A man is possibly dead, or dying, and all she cares about is getting her things back.)
She then relates how she was disappointed that she had to help, because she had already told the maid that she was a Christian. In other words, she was disappointed at having to do the right thing. It was the "witness" that mattered, not actual morality.
She probably thinks that there are such people as hypocrites, or people who aren't "real Christians." But if that's true, with all of the "fake Christians" running around, it is up to HER to prove that she isn't one of them. It's not up to a stranger to assume that she's a "true Christian" when others say they are but are not. (I know this is the No True Scotsman fallacy, but I'm trying to address what Christians actually believe, even if they are logical fallacies.)
"I had already told her I was a Christian; now I'm gonna have to help," she says with a disgusted look on her face. She tries to do CPR, then when it doesn't work, she calls the front desk, angry at the corpse in her room. I'm sure it was traumatic for her, but I somehow think it was worse for the man who died.
When I found this video, it made me very angry, because it betrayed so blatantly what most Christians only think privately or subconsciously. When it shows up, it's usually a lot more subtle than this. For example, the question:

"Can you be good without God?"

What other group of people has their morality questioned or outright denied on a regular basis? There is the racist statement, "You're one of the good ones," sometimes used against racial minorities, but how many people do not even have the concept a "good atheist" (probably meaning one who doesn't question religious people's superiority, or who doesn't upset the theocracy that many people want to maintain and establish further). A "good" minority doesn't rock the boat and denies that there is such a thing as racism (not that racial minorities don't almost always have it worse overall than white atheists), but for some, just the word "atheist" is offensive (as this Alternet post by Greta Christina so brilliantly illustrates). We must pretend to be religious or at least "spiritual."

But the fact that we even have the concept of morals, of right and wrong, good and bad, says that morals are able to be separate from the question of God's existence or preference. 

Otherwise, why wouldn't we simply do what God wanted because we had to? Why would we call God good? Why not simply call him powerful? Why do we have to say that he is worthy of being obeyed, rather than that we have to obey him or he will burn us in hell or punish us?
If Christians believe in the concept of "The Fall," in which all of humanity gained a knowledge of good and evil through the eating of a forbidden fruit, why wouldn't everyone know right from wrong? Their own bible says that everybody knows right from wrong.

What they are really asking, then, is, "Why would you want to be good without God?"

But they can't put it that way, because that sounds accusatory. And it is. They are implying that the atheist doesn't want to be a good person (though everyone wants to be seen as such). Such character assassination is really at the heart of this question.

Other than the above, another useful response might be, "Why do you care if I'm good or not? According to your beliefs, it doesn't matter at all what I do, I still go to hell anyway. You're trying to manipulate me into changing my beliefs by implying that I'm a bad person." 

Morality is a hard concept to explain, much less knowing what is right and wrong in a given situation. It is much easier sometimes to simply look to a set of rules, or an authority that you believe speaks to you and tells you what to do, than to weigh the consequences of one's actions and make a hard decision, knowing that it might not turn out to be the best or least harmful option, after all. I can see why Christians and other theists may want to cling to God, or their conception of God, and his rules.

Yet if they are wrong, and make a wrong or harmful decision, and God is not there to provide a safety net or justification, will they then wish that their options had been less constrained? 

For example, if they deny a woman an abortion because of their beliefs, and she later dies from complications of pregnancy (or in an illegal abortion), they would probably cling to the concept that they did the right thing "for God." But if they later lose their faith, or find out that God is not real, what are they to cling to? They will have to live with the fact that their beliefs, combined with her desperation, killed a woman.
 Perhaps that is something to think about, when some are tempted to use Pascal's wager.


What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Useful Bible Verses (That Atheists Have Forgotten): Part One

Everyone knows the one about eating shellfish, often used to show the hypocrisy of accepting Old Testament verses condemning homosexuality, as well the "judge not" verse in Matthew. Here also is some handy charts of biblical contradictions and cross-references. However, there are many, many more verses which atheists could use in arguments, and which I have rarely if ever seen anyone use. These are just a few:

Psalm 14:1 

I will start with one that is used against us, but can actually be turned around to weaken its own "argument." This is actually the famous "gotcha!" verse that Christians often throw at atheists in an effort to end the discussion, or at least try to use to get away with calling us names. However, their version of it is actually incomplete; the whole verse reads like this:

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no god.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."

In other words, they take Scripture out of context--something that we are often accused of doing--in order to disobey Christ by treating us in a manner in which they do not wish to be treated. However, a cursory glance at the rest of the verse, much less the remaining seven verses of the chapter, serves to weaken their argument, and makes it clear that it is sin that is being addressed here, not unbelief (take a look at that footnote on the word "fool," in the link).
(I go into more details about this verse here.)


Proverbs 26:12

"Do you see the person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them."

This is another possible answer to the accusation of being a fool. Again, I talk more about this verse here, though I wanted to include it in this list for convenience.

Matthew 5:22

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

I'm not sure if a Christian would see an atheist as a brother or sister (though Jesus makes no distinction between believers and unbelievers), and I don't know if this commandment only applies to words said in anger (though why would it not apply at all times?), but I would say that it's not very Christlike to use Scripture to insult anyone. Jesus seems to be making that point here.

Revelation 3:15-16

"(15) I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! (16) So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth." (Here is the full chapter.)

Most people interpret this passage to mean that Jesus would rather a person be a "hot" Christian, "on fire" for God, or else that they lose their faith altogether. I know that if I were still compelled to be a Christian, I would be a "lukewarm" one, having many doubts but still trying to go along with my "beliefs" for the sake of fear or social harmony. So it makes me wonder: Is it not better simply to leave? Apparently my choice is between "losing my salvation" or, in some translations, having Jesus vomit me out of his mouth. Neither sounds very appealing, but this verse would be useful as a possible answer to Christians trying to threaten you with hell, or concerned for your salvation.

 Matthew 10:14

"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."

These words were addressed to Jesus' disciples in a specific instance, however I believe that the spirit of the words still stands: if someone does not wish to listen to a salvation message, they should be left alone.

Romans 14:4 

"Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand."

This relates to believers eating food sacrificed to idols, or celebrating holidays. I believe that it could also apply to atheists, though, especially those who were once Christians or who try to keep an open mind. It is clear that believers are not to judge the salvation of others, and it at least supports the case that only God knows who is "saved" and who is not.

Matthew 7:23

 "Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

If a Christian is trying to bully me into agreeing with them, or presenting their beliefs as fact without any evidence in the attempt, I like to throw this one out, adding, "That may not be the last time you hear that!" This is, of course, not a real argument, but if debate escalates to getting ugly, this bible verse is still handy to use.

There are many more useful and interesting bible verses, and I will have at least one more post about them, when I have the time. Have I forgotten any?


What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys