Not gonna lie, after that last ask I was kind of expecting someone to ask this!
Side A and side B are two of three views of the morality of homosexuality. The third is side X.
Side X takes the view that LGBTQ+ in any form is an affront to God, wrong and sinful. This view is linked to things like conversion therapy, "pray the gay away," and the idea that even feeling homosexual desire is sinful. Some side X people consider anything aside from straight attraction to be wrong, including asexuality.
Side A (for Affirming) takes the complete opposite view. They believe the Bible, rightly interpreted, does not condemn homosexuality as we understand it in a modern context, but only condemns pederasty and power imbalances--so, an older man with a youth would be condemned, but two people of about the same life experience in a committed relationship would be okay.
Side B is the middle ground, as it were. This is the view that LGBTQ+ relationships are sinful, but the desires themselves are simply part of who we are. What makes it sinful or not is how we choose to act with those desires.
Side B Christians would describe themselves as gay or bi and simply choose not to have same-sex relationships. Sam Allberry, a British pastor, is a prominent example of a man who acknowledges his same-sex attraction and chooses to live celibate in obedience to Christ.
I would describe myself as a side B ally. I'm entirely straight, but I have multiple side B friends whom I support and love. I have a couple of side A friends, and while I disagree with them, I do believe they truly love the Lord.
As for side X, most of the circles I grew up in are side X. I strongly disagree with them and how they approach the LGBTQ+ community, but I know most of them simply have a strong desire for holiness and for obeying God.
If you wanna talk about any of these further, let me know!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Well. This one is the real doozy, isn't it? How do you define a term which means so many different and contradictory things, to so many people? "Atheist" and "agnostic" may have several definitions with different nuances, but "Christian"... Where do I even start trying to explain what I mean when I call myself a Christian, in a way that will make sense to everyone??
I could say that it means Jesus is my lord and savior. And that would be absolutely true. But... not at all in the way that my atheist and agnostic friends are thinking (and are probably horrified by). And not in the way a lot of Christians would think, either (and would slap a "heretic" label on me for saying it could possibly mean anything else).
I could say that it means I had a life-changing experience of repentance and being born from above (a more accurate translation of what's commonly translated as “born again”). And again, it would be completely true. But also, again, utterly useless in communicating information to anyone who doesn't already understand how I'm using those terms. And to be honest, it sounds awfully melodramatic. But it wasn’t some dramatic, emotional experience, and I wouldn’t have trusted it if it was. Cause if I learned anything from years and years of honing my skeptical toolset, it's the danger of allowing emotion to suppressing critical thinking, and how doing so sets people up for manipulation or self-deception. (That's not to disparage emotion – critical thinking and passionate feeling are both immensely valuable, but serve very different purposes such that neither can substitute for the other.)
So I'm afraid this post is, by necessity, a bait-and-switch (on top of being rambling and meandering – worst. post. ever.) To explain what I mean when I say I'm Christian, I'll have to explore what I understand Christianity itself to be all about. Which is a pretty tall task – I mean, I started a whole blog to explore that very question, so it's not exactly something I can adequately sum up in one post. But to start, at least, I'll be reviewing Speaking Christian: Why Christian Words Have Lost Their Meaning and Power – And How They Can Be Restored by Marcus J. Borg. That’s one of several books which completely demolished my previous belief that modern-day fundamentalism represents "real" Christianity, and everything else is just watered-down from there. That fundamentalism may be abhorrent, but at least it’s intellectually consistent, while everything else is largely inoffensive but utterly devoid of intellectual grounding. So yeah, surprise. Turns out that’s bullshit. I know, it’s hard to believe. That’s why it blew my freaking mind.
Tune in next time to start exploring what that Jesus guy was really all about!
Oh geez, cause it’s not like theologians have wrestled with defining “God” for centuries, or anything! But I kinda wrote myself into a corner with that last post, so here goes...
Having already covered what notions of God I don’t believe in, you might be wondering, what’s even left?
I know exactly one thing about God, and it’s that God is love.
Not just a loving being – God is love itself. I’m not talking about warm fuzzies – I mean the kind of love James Baldwin talked about:
Beyond that, I don’t know and I honestly don’t care. If God objectively exists, then I trust that he’s got a good reason for staying hidden, and that he’ll use my doubt as a tool for good. And if “God” is just a poetic way to talk about radical, life-changing, world-changing love, that’s good enough for me, too. Cause either way, it was enough to dramatically change my life (but that will have to wait for a future post).
Consider the 2000 movie Pitch Black. The torches are going out. The monsters are closing in. Riddick turns to the Imam and asks, “Where the hell is your God now?”
Later, Riddick scouts ahead and has a chance to save himself. But instead, he goes back to the cave where the other survivors are hiding so he can lead them to safety, too. As Riddick appears at the mouth of the cave, the Imam proclaims, “There is my God, Mr. Riddick!”
The first time I saw this movie, I thought that line was total nonsense – God didn’t save them, Riddick did! But now, I get what he meant. Riddick had a change of heart. That’s what the Greek word for “repentance,” metanoia, really means. Just “to turn around.” To realize you’re going in the wrong direction, and make a change. Riddick showed compassion for the others, and at great personal risk, no less. That’s God happening. Any act of compassion, any act of justice, that is God. I don’t mean that God actively intervenes, from the outside, to bring about all such acts. I don’t mean that credit for the act should go to God, rather than to the person doing the act. I mean that “God” is synonymous with compassion and justice.
Another pop culture example: In the third season of Orange is the New Black, Cindy converts to Judaism. When telling the Rabbi why she wants to convert, she explains one of the things that attracts her to Judaism:
“And as far as God’s concerned, it’s your job to keep asking questions and to keep learning and to keep arguing. It’s like a verb. It’s like … you do God.”
For a real life example of “God” as a verb, consider Bree Newsome’s famous 2015 protest in which she climbed the flag pole outside the South Carolina State House to take down the racist Confederate flag.
Ms. Newsome was well aware of the holy nature of her endeavor. She told the police officers who ordered her to come down, “In the name of Jesus, this flag has to come down. You come against me with hatred and oppression and violence. I come against you in the name of God. This flag comes down today,” and recited Psalm 23 as she was arrested.
The James Cone quote paired with the image of Ms. Newsome speaks of a God who, far from an alien being who may (or may not) intrude into our human lives from the outside, exists within humanity when we take action to end oppression.
I’m sure that to nonbelievers, this all sounds like moving of the goalposts. And thoroughly addressing that goes far beyond the scope of a mere “definitions” post. Future posts will at least partially address this objection. For now, it will have to suffice to say that I’ve become convinced that the “invisible wizard in the sky” understanding of God is not the most historically grounded, and more intelligent and nuanced understandings have a far greater historical and intellectual basis than I’d ever suspected.
The theologian Paul Tillich defined God as the “Ultimate Concern.” To be honest, trying to read his work gave me a headache. I think what he meant, though, was that God is the ultimate concern, but whatever happens to be your own personal ultimate concern, that’s your god. A friend from church told me that he’s Christian because everyone worships something, so it had better be something worthy of it. The “everyone worships something” claim is abused a lot to trash talk atheists, but I find it plausible that everyone has an ultimate concern – something they consciously or subconsciously believe holds ultimate meaning, and can provide ultimate fulfillment. The problem is, most things we imbue with this power can’t follow through – in religious terms, they’re idols. Even in the atheist community, hordes of people have downright religious faith in Objectivism, transhumanism, the technological singularity… And we all know of people who are obsessed with money or power, who don’t realize that no matter how much they gain, it will never be enough to satisfy them. Hell, there are plenty of religious folks who yammer on about God, but make it clear through their actions that money or power is their true ultimate concern. So if I have to have an ultimate concern, I choose love, the only thing truly worthy in the end.
Agnostics aren’t sure if God exists. Atheists are sure God doesn’t exist. Simple, right? *sigh* Except, no. That’s not what these terms mean.
Atheism and agnosticism are one of those situations where if you ask ten people what they mean, you’ll get twelve answers. Even in the atheist and agnostic community, people use these words in slightly different ways. Some definitions, however, are more useful than others for precisely articulating one’s position on the God question. Here’s the formulation that I find most useful.
The top diagram shows the common, less useful understanding of atheism and agnosticism: A single axis, with belief on one end and disbelief on the other, and uncertainty in the middle.
The bottom diagram shows a more useful understanding: Atheism and agnosticism describe two different things, and each concept forms a separate axis:
Agnosticism-Gnosticism: Being gnostic or agnostic concerns whether or not it is possible to have reliable knowledge about God’s existence. (Note that in this context, “gnostic” simply means “having knowledge” and has no connection to the mystery religions of antiquity sometimes referred to as Gnosticism.) A gnostic believes that it is possible to know, one way or the other. An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know, one way or the other.
Atheism-Theism: Being theistic or atheistic concerns whether or not one believes that God does exist. (Again, note that in this context, “theistic” simply means “believes in God” and is not related to this word’s use in discussions about e.g. theism vs. deism.)
Thus, it’s possible for a person to fall into any of the four resulting quadrants:
So an atheist may state that they lack any belief in God, or that there is no God. These are subtly different statements. It may seem like splitting hairs, but many attacks on atheism presume gnostic atheism, when in reality the vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists.
Where do I fall?
Well, that depends what we mean by the word “God.” Many people, theists and atheists alike, act like this word’s meaning is self-evident. But the fact is, there are a number of different understandings of “God” and where I fall on this diagram depends on which one we’re using:
A God who does not intervene in the world at all, i.e. the “Divine Watchmaker” of Deism who “wound up” the universe and then abandoned it
Don’t know, don’t care. (This position is called apatheism.) This God has no relevance to our lives whatsoever. Why even call them God?
An invisible wizard who lives in the sky. An all-powerful being who directly intervenes in the world. He’ll help you find a good parking spot at the mall if you pray sincerely enough. He punishes sinners with misfortune. And he cares a great deal about whether or not you believe in him.
ROFL, yeah right. I’m very comfortable stating that this God absolutely does not exist (i.e. I’m a gnostic atheist). I didn’t believe in this God before, and I still don’t.
A God who intervenes in the world in subtle ways, such as by nudging someone’s heart in the right direction
By its very nature, this God would be impossible to prove one way or the other – so agnosticism is the only option. I’m gonna be perfectly honest – I want this God to exist. I really do. So that would make me an agnostic theist, yeah? Except for two little problems. First, how arrogant would I have to be to presume that just because I want something, that means it’s true? Who exactly do I think I am, that the very fabric of reality bows to my preferences?? And second, Occam’s Razor.
Occam’s Razor is the principle that between two possible explanations for something, the simplest answer (which still accounts for all the data) is more likely to be true. Technically, it’s the answer which requires the fewest new assumptions – that’s what “simplest” means here. For example, Ptolemy was able to account for the motion of the planets with a geocentric model, but Copernicus’s heliocentric model does the same thing while dispensing with all those epicycles.
So if someone changes their mind and does the right thing, maybe they changed their own mind, or maybe God nudged them in the right direction. But the second explanation requires extra assumptions – that God exists, and does that kind of thing. So according to Occam’s Razor, I shouldn’t accept the “God did it” explanation. It’s possible, but it’s not the most likely explanation.
So as much as I may want to be an agnostic theist to this God, I’m stuck at agnostic atheism.
So what God DO I believe in?
This post is getting long, so I’m gonna have to save that question for another one. Stay tuned!
Welcome to Brother Faith, Sister Doubt: The Journal of an Agnostic Atheist Christian
Sooooo there have been a handful of posts already, since some of them were time-sensitive, but lemme back up and do a proper introductory post.
"Journal of an Agnostic Atheist Christian" – chances are, most people who read that subheading (if I kid myself that anyone is going to read this, lol) are going to be rather confused. How can someone be atheist, agnostic, and Christian all at the same time? Aren't they mutually exclusive? Well, that depends on key nuances in how each term is defined. So I guess defining terms is a good way to start.
Defining Terms: "Journal"
For the purposes of this blog, I'm defining "journal" as– yeah no, not gonna start out that stuffy. Still, I want to establish what this blog is and what it isn't.
Keeping it casual
"Journal" means, in part, that I intend to keep things somewhat casual.
References, yes when possible. Meticulously sourced footnotes, hell no.
Casual language at times
Use of phonemic elements strung together in sequences which have been arbitrarily designated as "crude" by social convention (i.e. I reserve the right to curse)
Who am I writing this for?
Firstly, for myself. I discovered long ago that the best way to organize my thoughts, evaluate them for thoroughness and cogency, modify them as necessary, and develop them further is to write them down.
Secondly, for my friends in the atheist and agnostic community. You may well fear that I've lost my mind and abandoned the principles of scientific skepticism and critical thinking we once shared. I haven't. If I had, I dare say you'd have noticed it already at some point over the past five years since I started attending church and thinking of myself as Christian – and I'm going to hazard a guess that this is a huge shock, because I haven't changed in any of the negative ways you'd associate with someone "finding religion". So I'm gonna hazard a guess that you feel surprised, confused, perhaps even betrayed, and not very reassured at this point. Hopefully my future posts will clarify things and put some fears and false assumptions to rest. Until then, I can only ask that you extend the benefit of the doubt and avoid leaping to any conclusions until I've had a chance to explain what I even mean when I say I'm Christian. Again – if I'd gone off the deep end, don't you think you would have noticed by now?
Thirdly, for fellow Christians. A condition I set when I started calling myself “Christian” was that I had to be honest about it. That I wouldn’t just sit in a pew (er, folding chair), self-satisfied that I knew what I believed, while letting others make inaccurate presumptions. Obviously I don’t want to constantly rub “Well I think that...” in people’s faces. But I certainly don’t want to passively let others just assume that I agree with them, if they hold certain harmful beliefs. So blogging about it is one step in trying to find a healthy balance. Finally, being part of a faith community means being part of a, well, community. Perhaps in sharing my wacky faith journey, I’ll say something that’s useful for someone else wrestling with faith and doubt. Perhaps something I write will start a conversation in which I’ll learn something. Perhaps I’ll get flamed for being a massive heretic. Let’s hope it’s not that last one.
Proselytize, schmoselytize
I have no interest in converting (or de-converting) anyone. Having had both de-conversion and conversion experiences, I'd say that's a fool's errand anyway. Sincere changes of mind and heart come from the inside. I can't change anyone else from the outside, so why waste any time or energy trying? What I can do is share what I've experienced, what I believe, what I don't believe, and what has led me to those conclusions. Insofar as my thoughts and arguments are sound, they don’t need a hard sell. Insofar as they are unsound, they don’t deserve one. I trust that thoughtful people will take them into consideration, accordingly.
What will I write about here?
Some examples of what I have planned:
Definitions – introductory series
Spiritual autobiography series
A post or series on my moral code
Book reviews
Fandom and Religion
"Why didn't you tell me we weren't fundamentalists??" Why liberal Christians are absolutely correct that atheists don't understand Christianity – and it's Christians' own damn fault
"Do Justice" series
"God is Eros" series – Sexuality, chastity, and repression
Believer/Nonbeliever [Mis]Communication
Inspirational and thought-provoking quotes
Inspirational and thought-provoking Bible verses
Reblogged posts from other religion blogs
Comment Policy
I doubt this blog will get enough attention that serious comment moderation will become necessary, but for the record, I fully recognize that Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism and will act accordingly. No one will be banned for disagreeing, but I reserve the right to ban people for being assholes about it. Mutually respectful dialogue is welcome. Arrogant soapboxing is not. Sealioning is not. Personal attacks are not. Tone trolling is not. Derailing is not. Basically, just don’t be a douchebag, and you’ll be fine.
Okay, I think that about covers it for this post! Stay tuned for Defining Terms: "Agnostic” and “Atheist”
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The patriarchy is not people, it's a system. When we say "fuck the patriarchy" we do not mean "fuck all men." What we mean is, "let's destroy the lingering attitudes of a long standing social tradition that treated women as glorified property and, furthermore, let's dismantle any remaining inequalities in the distribution of power." That's it. That's the whole thing. If anyone's getting offended by that, it's not a result of self preservation, but a desire to cling to some illusion of superiority.
The terms Déanism and Filianism have evolved in recent years due to the greater growth of the community and the new Traditions that have been formed. Déanism, in general, has come to mean devotion to the Divine Mother God as Supreme Deity. (Déa is the Latin for “goddess”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dea https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deus )
Most Déanics share the same basic creed in either the long or short form and the same basic scriptures. Déanists only use Living Stream Images for Déa. This is one of the things that separates us from the Pagan community. See: https://deanic.com/becoming-a-devotee/
Déanists might worship Déa as a Trinity (One God in Three Persons); as a Triplicity (One God in Three Forms) or simply as the One Divine Mother.
Déanists may or may not believe in the literal Death of the Daughter. Their Feast Days may focus on the Trinity and the Janae. Janites foster personal devotion to the Janae and encourage the daily practice of Their Virtues. The calender does not necessarily follow the Mythos of the Holy Daughter as closely as does the Filianic calendar.
Some Déanists interpret the doctrine that we willfully turned away from Our Mother at the Dawn of Time and for this fault we needs must suffer from
an entirely different point of view. Janites take their teaching from the LKM or the lesser-known Madrian teachings that do not originate with Lux
Madriana. From a Janite point of view, we did not so much willfully turn away from Our Mother as it was a desire to know that which we did not know.
We wanted to learn the things that exist outside of the Realm of Perfection.
To honor our sovereign will, Déa sang into being and skillfully fashioned Manifest Creation. She did this for us, Her children. And yes, by leaving
Perfection and entering a state of imperfection, which is manifest Creation, we suffer. But, we are able to learn so much from suffering and from all
of our experiences and interactions here, from our failings and our triumphs and so we evolve our souls and are able to greater appreciate joy, wisdom, harmony and all the things that we might take for granted in the Pleroma if we had never experienced the opposite.
Filianics tend to be Trinitarian and focus their worship on the Mother and the Holy Daughter. Most Filianists believe in the literal Death of the Daughter and closely follow Her Mythos throughout the year. Filianists teach that we willfully turned away from the Celestial Mother at the dawn of time and for this fault we must suffer. They focus on the higher Powers of the Janae/Janyati. (Further teachings may be found at mother-god.com.)
We have a saying similar to that of Wicca/Paganism:
Not all Déanists are Filianic, but all Filianists are Déanic.
Basically, it all comes down to the fact that we all believe that Déa is Our Divine Mother God and most of us believe that the Holy Daughter or the Divine Mother in Her Form of the Holy Daughter is our Savioress and that is really all that matters.
All the rest is simply a matter of devotional focus.
Let us Bless The Holy One,
Blessed is She.
Let us thank the Seven Janae of Power.
Thanks be to the Seven Janae.
