Fired Pastor Ryan Bell Receives Staggering Donations From Atheist Community

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/ryan-bell-donations-atheist_n_4551225.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Fired Pastor Ryan Bell Receives Staggering Donations From Atheist Community, Led By Blogger Hemant Mehta
Posted: 01/07/2014 9:32 am EST


Ryan J. Bell / Facebook

Former Seventh-day Adventist pastor Ryan Bell decided to critically examine his faith by embarking on a year-long journey to "try on" atheism, but his philosophical experiment has already led to some serious consequences. Since he began his year without God on January 1, 2014, he has been fired from his positions as adjunct professor at Azusa Pacific University and Fuller Theological Seminary.

He wrote in a blog post:

So I find myself, on Day 4, without any employment. My savings will run out in about two weeks and I’m scrambling to find immediate work doing, well…anything—manual labor, waiting tables, other teaching and consulting, or whatever I can find.

Luckily, giving up his faith in God didn't mean that he had to give up his faith in humanity- and a generous initiative by atheist blogger Hemant Mehta has demonstrated the power of community.

Though Mehta initially criticized the methodology of Bells' approach, he set up a GoFundMe page to support him, writing that, "As an atheist, I want Bell to know that we appreciate what he's trying to do and that we'll support him even if his Christian community will not and (more importantly) even if he decides atheism isn't for him when the year is over."

more at link

[Thinkingabout]

1. I wonder if this is going to start a trend, there are others which when finding out about the

donation will join him.

[cbayer]

2. Mehta is becoming quite a leader within the atheist community.

I like what he did here and agree with you that this could really take off.

[trotsky]

3. In other threads, you have criticized atheist groups for not doing enough...

to fight global poverty. Here you praise them for giving money to something other than the fight against global poverty.

Thank you for demolishing your previous criticism.

[Arkansas Granny]

4. I'm a little curious as to how you "try on" atheism.

You either believe or you don't. Am I missing something here?

[cbayer]

5. Here is a link to a DU thread with more information on what this guy is doing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218105213

[Brettongarcia]

6. The language of high theology is endlessly equivocal/ambiguous/"poetic"polysemic

So as to accommodate many readings, and contrasting theologies

[dimbear]

7. More good PR for the Christian community. Reminds me of the episode where Jesus went among

the publicans and prostitutes, and the disciples got together and fired Him.

[Leontius]

8. Just like the one where Jesus says, "Screw this belief in God thing now here's the sermon."

[Brettongarcia]

9. In some ways, that sort of happened; Jesus acknowledged, but differs from, the Old Testament & God

Jesus said "it is written"; but then said "but I say unto you." And somewhat changed the old laws written in the Old Testament, by God. Jesus issued his own, rather different commands.

Among other things for example, Jesus justified working on a Sabbath. Which was prohibited by God in the OT, in the 10 Commandments and elsewhere, on pain of death. Jesus offered some kind of precedent for that; but his argument seems legalistic to many.

Then? St. Peter also began to change the Old Testament food laws. The laws from God that did not allow people to eat pork or shellfish. Peter has a "dream" - in which God now suddenly allows and even commands believers to eat almost anything.

So in effect, Jesus kind of DOES do what you are describing; he starts to change the old laws of God.

Groucho Marx was a smart guy; almost as smart as Karl.

[Humanist_Activist]

13. That's the problem with religion, it prioritizes Gods over people...

at least in the theistic religions. It should be the other way around.

[cbayer]

14. How does it prioritize God over people?

[Humanist_Activist]

15. Jesus teaches people to leave their families for him, Abraham teaches that we are to do...

everything we can to satisfy Gods desire, up to and including killing our children. That is what total faith in God demands! And look what it has wrought, parents abandoning LGBT children to the streets, honor killings, blasphemy laws, punishment for apostasy, etc. Its disgusting

[cbayer]

16. Well, that's one extreme way of looking at it, I guess.

Religions also teach people to take care of others, particularly those most in need.

I guess if one cherry picks a few extreme examples, one might come to that conclusion..

[Humanist_Activist]

17. The other way is also cherry picking, but the GOOD kind, am I right?

I mean, there is ONLY ONE WAY you can possibly interpret something as clear cut as the Bible, or the Quran, right?

[cbayer]

20. Yes it is the good way.

Taking a collection of books with contradictory messages and picking out the parts that both make sense in current context and speak to what one believes are good things is the right kind of cherry picking.

Leaving the dead and rotting fruit on the tree is a good goal.

There are so many ways to interpret something as contradictory and old as the Bible and Quran.

Some people see the extremes. Others can see all the other colors in between.

[trotsky]

26. You are absolutely correct, cbayer.

Some people do see only the extremes. Such as those who tell us that there are just two types of things to be found in a religious holy text: good, sweet cherries, and "dead and rotting" ones.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. For the abrahamic 'based on OT' religions, that is not an 'extreme' way of looking at it.

That's the core, stated, carved in stone way of looking at it. (Literally carved in stone, actually)

[cbayer]

27. No, it's the extreme way of looking at it.

It's cherry picking, just like anyone else who looks at the bible does.

Carved in stone? Are you referring to the ten commandments?

I must have missed the parts of the commandments that speak to abandoning your family and killing your children. While there are stories in the bible about these things (which many see as allegory or parable), these things are not addressed in the ten commandments.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Matthew 22:37-38

Cherry picking my ass, it's in the new and old testament.

But yes, the 'god first' commandment by Jesus in the NT is slightly different than the spirit of the first three commandments of the OT, so fine, not actually carved in stone, in this instance.

[cbayer]

30. Ew, you cherry pick your ass, lol?

So loving god with all your heart, soul and mind is equivalent to abandoning your family and killing your children?

The only way you can read this as evil is if you believe that you can only apply this to one thing.

I love all of my children in this way. Loving one does not exclude others.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. I guess that didn't sound right.

That 'commandment' per Jesus seems to be the bedrock of his message of the NT. That's how all the folks I consider 'true Christians' hold it, going on to the next about 'loving your neighbor as yourself', the golden rule, etc.

It's the core 'flip' from the god of the OT, to the salvation/love/forgiveness of the NT.


I find that first commandment morally deplorable, but I understand why it is important to believers.

[cbayer]

32. It does sound like a bedrock of Jesus's message.

So what? If one believes in god, then what would be wrong with this commandment?

Why would it be morally deplorable? It doesn't say "and don't love people". As you go on to point out, the other messages make it very clear that part of obeying this commandment is to treat others well and taking care of those most in need and not hurting people.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Because that wasn't all he said.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%209:59-62;&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:51-53;&version=ESV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:28-30;&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:46-50;&version=NIV

That family-disowning abandonment thing is also central to that commandment.
That's fucking awful, right there.

[cbayer]

34. I guess if you read these literally instead of as allegory, you might

find that fucking awful (do you find fucking awful, BTW?).

Anyway, I was taught these as allegory. They were conveying the message that all people are your family and you should leave the comfort and security of your family to do good (god's?) work.

As with so much of the bible, it is all in how one interprets it. And context is important.

No doubt that there are some pretty horrible and alarming parts of the bible, but literal interpretations lead to extreme and rigid positions, imo. Looking for the underlying meaning may lead to quite the opposite.

[dimbear]

10. Bell's blog:

http://yearwithoutgod.com/

"I am shocked and overwhelmed a the outpouring of support that I have received after Hemant Mehta (aka Friendly Atheist) asked people to support me financially. I am grateful. But just as I am leaving behind the fear and sometimes hate-inspired religion of my past, I am deeply uncomfortable about raising support by casting my friends in the Christian community in a negative light–especially one which is not true."

[cbayer]

11. What an thoughtful post.

If this is the tack he intends to take, I think this could have a very positive outcome.

[dimbear]

12. People are jumping the gun on this story.

It's going to be worth watching.

[rexcat]

18. How in the world...

can someone "try" on atheism. I am having a hard time grasping that concept. There should be no surprises that Ryan Bell was thrown under the bus by his "community" for such a lame concept of "trying on atheism." I can see if he was having doubts about his beliefs and would want to explore other avenues but this borders on the ridiculous. There are some very good charities that deserve the money over this fellow.

I missed the memo concerning Hemant Mehta becoming quite the leader in the atheist community. Can someone forward that memo to me? I feel somewhat left out in the cold on this one!

[eomer]

19. Why not? Don't most people come by their beliefs in a no more legitimate way?

Have you noticed the large number of "Baptist children" in Baptist areas? (Meant a bit tongue-in-cheek but hopefully you get my point.)

In other words, most people are told "believe this", and they do! Why can't one tell oneself what to believe then? Or maybe many people who supposedly believe some particular brand don't really, not so much.

[rexcat]

22. Your "point"...

is really not needed. Your comment was taken as condescending because I see it as one of those "no fucking shit Sherlock" comments and your comments did not really address the main points that I posted.

I do understand the concept of where and how religious beliefs are formed. I don't live in a vacuum. As an atheist I came about my views rather young. I started questioning things around the age of 8. The whole concept of god(s) was absurd to me. It took me a while to come out of the closet and say that I was an atheist. This was based on the bigotry seen in this nation to nonbelievers and the cultural norms of the time, which in my opinion, has not really changed that much from when I was a young man. I am in my early 60's so I hope you get my point.

As I stated the whole concept of this obviously religious gentleman critically examining his faith by embarking on a year-long journey to "try on" atheism is absurd. One does not "try on" atheism. On the other hand critically examining his faith is a good concept. Something that everyone should do on a regular basis. But again, let me emphasize my point, one does not try on atheism because if is a rather absurd concept, at least IMO. You either don't believe in god(s) or you do and I will leave out agnosticism in this debate for it will just muddle the discussion. The main points to my post you responded to is outlined below. If you want a meaningful dialogue you should at least try comprehending the points I was trying to make concerning this situation and respond to them instead of the trivial in your response to me. Let me outline them below:

1. There should be no surprises that Ryan Bell was thrown under the bus by his "community" for such a lame concept of "trying on atheism." (he has been thrown under the bus but that should not surprise anyone considering the intolerance of a lot of theists in this country)

2. I can see if he was having doubts about his beliefs and would want to explore other avenues but this borders on the ridiculous. (emphasis is on "explore other avenues" but "trying on" atheism is an absurd concept)

3. There are some very good charities that deserve the money over this fellow. (I would rather give to Doctors without Borders, Planned Parenthood, NAACP, local charities, etc. This guy would never see a dime from me as I see it a waste of good money that could go to better causes, but to each his/her own).

[eomer]

28. I appreciate that, just am not so sure it can't be done.

And I think it's an interesting thing to think about, even though it seems to make you angry. It seems to me that there may be some times and ways in which people practice a belief more than truly believe it but that in those cases we routinely call it belief. Maybe this guy just committed the breach of saying in his out loud voice what other people might acknowledge if we could drill down into the truth of it.

[cbayer]

21. Here is a DU thread with a link to a more explanatory article on this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218105213

Also, he has a website.

I see it as something of an intellectual exercise. How it plays out could be interesting.

There was no memo and you can hold the snark. Mehta has become more vocal and more visible. He appears to appeal to a growing audience. His ability to coordinate and bring attention to this shows some leadership.

Disagree with that, that's just fine. I don't expect you to agree with pretty much anything I say. It's part of the play book.

[rexcat]

23. I think a more appropriate remark on your part...

would be Mehta is a "voice" in the atheist community. Just like Dawkins, Harris, et al, they are voices in the community since no one in the atheists community (whatever that concept means) has elected anyone as their spokesperson. The only consensus among atheists is a lack of belief in god(s). Other than that it is a crap shoot.

Semantics is important here. I don't necessarily disagree with you all of the time but I may or may not respond to those comments. I have been on this board since 2001 and if you look at my post count that should say something. When you are inconsistent, as all of us can be, it should be called out and that is a two way street. I do agree with you at times. At times I disagree with you and will make comment. Other times I disagree with you and all I can do is shake my head and responding is not worth the effort.

As you told me you can also hold the snark based on your comment about some playbook.

[cbayer]

24. Ok, he's a voice in the atheist community.

Better now?

and, IMO, he is becoming a more influential voice. While I don't agree with everything he says, I like the way he says things. I am in general support of his "voice" within the atheist community. He's no shrinking violet, but he isn't generally hostile towards those that see things differently than he does. He's an activist and appears to have a growing audience.

To be frank, I think you have formed some erroneous ideas about me and only ask that you reflect on that. Everyone here is inconsistent at times, particularly when what they write is rigorously parsed by some other members (and continually parsed years later). I also sometimes change my mind when presented with new information or a different perspective. You can call that inconsistent, or you can call it open-minded. It would all depend on how one wanted to paint someone.

This I can assure you. I post in good faith. If you feel that some of what I say is not even worth the effort of response, that's fine with me. I can't see you shake your head.