October 11 was National Coming Out day, and in support of our gay and lesbian friends, my husband used his Facebook status to "come out" as an atheist. We haven't believed in any deities for quite a while, though this was the first time either of us had officially announced it. About a week later, he got an email from a relative who suggested that perhaps we shouldn't come visit for Christmas so the family could spend Christmas with people who feel the same way about the birthday boy (even though December 25 isn't actually his birthday) as they do. This relative was also puzzled as to why we would celebrate Christmas at all, since we are atheists. I will add that the letter was polite and well-intentioned, but it still came as a bit of a shock. I know plenty of Christians who go to costume parties and take their kids trick-or-treating. Why would they do this since Halloween is a pagan holiday? Or is it? A little bit of digging unearthed some interesting tidbits:
- Halloween originated as a celebration of the Celtic new year, a time when the Celts believed that the spirits of the dead returned. They would try to disguise themselves a ghouls to fool spirits into thinking that they were other spirits instead of vulnerable mortals ripe for tormenting. They also left treats on their doorsteps to appease these spirits and keep them out of their homes.
- But, the Christian Church, in its grand tradition of hijacking indigenous celebrations and supplanting them with their own, replaced the new year celebration with All Saints' Day, a time to honor the deceased saints, which evolved to All Hallows' Day, with the preceding day becoming All Hallows' Eve, or Halloween.
That's the gist anyway. You can visit history.com if you want more details. My point is, Halloween--like all holidays, including Christmas--has its roots in multiple traditions.
Why do I celebrate it, or any holiday? Because it's fun and life was meant to be enjoyed. Because I loved the creativity of going to thrift shops with my son and piecing together "junk" to make a costume. Because I can't wait to see the grin on his face when he comes back with a sack full of candy. Because traditions like carving a jack-o-lantern every year are the stuff memories are made of.
Does not believing in Jesus make you unworthy to enjoy the traditions of Christmas, most of which have nothing to do with Christianity anyway? I, like plenty of non-Christians, celebrate Christmas as a time to strive toward human ideals like kindness and generosity, a time to express love and appreciation for my family. I doubt that the actual Jesus was as perfect and benevolent as his followers make him out to be, and I certainly don't think he was God, but many of his teachings--like loving your neighbor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, the whole concept that we have an obligation to take care of our fellow human beings--have alleviated a great deal of suffering in this world.
You'd have to have a heart two sizes too small not to celebrate that.
I am in the process of reading Angels & Demons, and I just read a part last night where the whole Christian-holidays-rooted-in-pagan-holidays was discussed. In fact, not much about Christianity is original; it's largely modeled after other religions. Interesting stuff!
ReplyDeleteI applaud you and your husband's courage and support of fellow LGBT friends. What you are doing is important to be heard by others, even if some do not initially embrace it with open arms.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
Leah, you mentioned the actual Jesus in this post. Do you then not deny the historical existence of Jesus? If so, may I ask to what source you turn for your historical evidence?
ReplyDeletePatrik, I turn to the same source that I imagine you do: the New Testament. We know that the Gospels are not first-person accounts, but I think it's unlikely that the story is 100% made up either. I think the Gospels are probably based on a person who actually existed and through the years the story became diluted, exaggerated and altered until people were claiming that his mother was a virgin and his father was God. Purely my own speculation.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I appreciate the kind comment!
Latha, almost all of our holidays have mixed origins. It's like asking, Why do you celebrate Cinco de Mayo if you're not Mexican? or, Why do you celebrate St. Patrick's Day if you're not Irish and/or Catholic? St. Valentine's Day is a Catholic holiday too, if you want to get technical about it.
Is the gospels not being a first person account a Mormon teaching? Because Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus. Doesn't that make them first person accounts? Luke got all his info from consulting the eye witnesses. Being a physician you can trust he was probably diligent in his work. He was an eye witness of the events that occurred in Acts as he traveled with Paul.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the historicity of the gospels, they soar above and beyond that of any other ancient writings. For one, when you consider the sheer volume of surviving manuscripts (over 5,000 in greek and 25,000+ in other languages) to other ancient writings there is no comparison. Take Homer for example; there are around 600 surviving copies of the Illiad. Then if you take into consideration the time gaps between the original and the surviving copies there is again no comparison. Some of the surviving copies of the greek manuscripts are dated with 25 years of the actual events. This is well within the life time of the eye witnesses of Jesus, which includes most of the disciples. And if there were some gross changes made then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the eye witnesses would have corrected the errors? Most other ancient writings have time gaps between 400 and 1,400 years from the originals and yet their historicity is never questioned.
And John, being an eye witness, is the Gospel that gives some of the strongest arguments that Jesus was God. And not just a god who rose up through the ranks as Mormons believe he did and is possible for us to do as well, but THE God. Yahweh. John Chapter 1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Then later on it says "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Jesus referred to himself as the I AM, which is how God referred to himself and for that they tried to murder him for blasphemy (which in the Jewish society was defined as claiming to be God or of equal status as God). Disciples worshiped him as God, which in the Jewish society was a big no no since they only worshiped the one true God, Yahweh. Jesus openly forgave peoples sins, which again for the Jews was something reserved only for God, and he was again accused of blasphemy. So to prove to them that he had the authority to forgive sin he healed the man of whom he had forgiven of paralysis. I say all this because you said that he certainly was not God.
If you are going allow for portions of the gospels to be true, isn't it a bit convenient that only the portions you can agree with (which sounds very Jesus Seminar-ish) are the portions that happen to be the true portions. That of Jesus' teachings about loving your neighbor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and humanitarianism and not the portions that are harder to come to terms with, such as his claim to be the Way, the truth, and the life and that no one can come to the Father EXCEPT through him? That he died to pay the punishment for our sins. That he was resurrected from the dead and appeared to over 500 people at once. How are we to know which are the parts not made up and have survived through all the errors of transcription that has occurred over the years and which are not?
Interesting post,Leah. I look forward to the next.I think I had that same make of hat that the pumpkin is wearing when I was about four. It went so well with overalls...
ReplyDeleteSome of my favorite memories revolve around carving pumpkins with my parents; learning how to put the special Frasier family ears on them.
@Patrik,
ReplyDeleteI thought I remembered hearing somewhere that the Gospels were written a couple of hundred years after Jesus (from some scholarly source, not a Mormon teaching). However, I can't remember where I heard that and a bit of googling seems to date the Gospels between 50 and 80 C.E. So I will assume that my memory was incorrect and concede that it's possible that the Gospels could have been written by eye witnesses. These were still written several years after the events supposedly took place (especially since our current B.C./A.D. system of wreckoning didn't come into use until 525 and Dionysius pretty much just guessed at when year 1 was. Scholars think Jesus was probably born 10-20 years before year 1.) The possibility (and the motivation) for embellishment and distortion still remains.
And you can't use circular logic for your claim that Jesus was God (Son of God, God himself, mysterious 3 in1 entity, whatever, it's all equally silly). I'm fully aware of that the Bible says that Jesus was God and that the Bible claims to be the word of God. Neither of those claims is verifiable. There is no evidence that the Bible was formed under any more special circumstances than any other book.
So, yes, I absolutely think that you have to pick and choose through the Bible to find whatever might be valuable among all the bullshit. I wasn't saying that Jesus definitely said to feed the hungry and take care of people, only that it's a good teaching. How do I determine what's worthwhile and what's not? I use my brain. I ask myself, What's more likely: That a virgin had a child and he grew up to raise the dead and raise himself from the dead and that he paid the price for some debt I supposedly owe to the universe and everyone who doesn't believe in him will be miserable in this afterlife that we have no evidence even exists? Or that someone made it up? The Bible is no more special than any other book. You can find good teachings in Hemingway and Harry Potter too.
And by the way, I'm not sure if you were trying to use Homer as an example of an ancient text whose historicity isn't questioned, but if you were, it's a poor example. Everyone thought it was pure fiction until Heinrich Schliemann found archaeological evidence of places that matched the descriptions in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Even now, no one reads them as history, only as legend based on some actual history. Certainly no one believe in all the Greek deities that were supposedly intervening.
If you somehow think I was corrupted by Mormonism and if I'd only been raised in a "better" religion then I wouldn't have turned my back on god, I have to correct you there. After I left Mormonism, I explored mainstream Christianity and many other religious and spiritual traditions. And while they all have something interesting to offer, they also all run into their own brand of crazy sooner or later. Mormonism is no better or worse than any other religion.
@ Bobby, Thanks so much for reading! My son is just a little into trains, to put it mildly. I saw this conductor's hat in a gift shop and couldn't resist. He has matching overalls too, but unfortunately has outgrown them.
ReplyDeleteI’m going to try to not drag this out but there are a few things I’d like to say in response to your last post to me.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would have to argue that Jesus was born circa 6-4 BC and not 20-10 BC.
Second, with the exception of Judas and John, the other 10 disciples were all martyred because of what they taught and believed about Jesus. (Judas committed suicide and John was exiled to the island of Patmos.) And Paul was also martyred for his belief and teachings about Jesus, most likely during the reign of Nero. People are often motivated to embellish/skew the facts especially for personal, political and monetary gain. But what motivation would the apostles have had of dying for the sake of Jesus if he was just a run of the mill good guy with some positive things to say? I think that historically we would find that anytime someone has convinced others of some radical truth they are able to also convince them to follow them even to their death, but not for regular old ‘be nice to others’ type teachings. That doesn’t require death. Who would want to kill you for teaching people to look after the poor and the sick? Take David Koresh for example. He was able to convince all those people that he was this great prophet and they all died. The same for the Heaven’s Gate suicide associated with Hale-Bopp comet. If those people didn’t honestly believe what they were being told then why would they be willing to die? So, since the apostles died for Jesus, what was their motivation? It couldn’t have been for political gain, or monetary gain, especially under Roman rule. What’s the use of fame and fortune if you are dead? What was the radical teaching of Jesus that he was able to convince them so deeply that they would be willing to give their lives for his sake? If they made it up then they were all willing to die for a lie.
Finally, there are non-biblical writings that lend support to what the gospels say. Two examples are Josephus a Jewish historian and Cornelius Tacitus a Roman historian.
Sooo... are you saying the teachings of David Koresh are true because he convinced people to commit suicide over them?
ReplyDeleteCouldn't you use the same reasoning on Jesus? That he was able to convince all his apostles and all his followers that he was a great prophet so they were willing to die for him?
Being a martyr for a cause doesn't automatically lend any truth or validity to your cause, it just means you really, really, really believed it. What about all those Muslim suicide bombers. Their religion MUST be true because they're willing to die for it, right? What about Joseph Smith, and all those pioneers who died trekking across the plains? It must mean Mormonism is true!
Yeah, not so much. Being able to convince someone of a lie so thoroughly that they believe it enough to die for it doesn't make the lie true.
MIke, I'm actually working on a post along these same lines, hope to have it up sometime tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI was NOT implying that just because the followers of Koresh believed what he taught and that they are willing to die for it that that automatically makes his teachings true.
ReplyDeleteIn one of Leah’s earlier posts she stated that the Gospels had been modified through the years to the point of becoming supernatural, like the virgin birth, and that the real Jesus was certainly not God. She suggested that there was motivation for people throughout history to embellish the gospels. So I was pointing out that whatever it was that Jesus DID teach the disciples believed it was worth dying for. (the history of their deaths are all based on non-biblical sources with the exception of James, whose death is recorded in Acts) The teachings of Jesus immediately resulted in people being killed for following it rather than two or three centuries later after it has had time for the embellishments to grow. And it had to have been something radical. People don't get killed for going around feeding the poor. So my question is what was that radical teaching if the gospels are a product of centuries of embellishments? History shows that all those Christians that died at the hands of the Romans in the first few centuries were killed because they refused to worship the pagan gods of the Romans which included worshiping the Emperor as God. They worshiped Jesus, whom they believed to be the one true God, which was pretty much against the law in the Roman world until Constantine.
So, if the gospels have been embellished throughout the years, then for what reason were thousands of people willing to die all those centuries at the hands of the Roman government dating all the way back to the disciples? That was the point I was trying to make and NOT that every person who comes along and convinces people to die for their cause is necessarily telling the truth or that their willingness to die is evidence of truth.
Who knows what Jesus said or did to make people die for him? It didn't have to be anything any more radical or significant or supernatural than any of the other fakers who got people to die for them.
ReplyDeleteActing the part of a spiritual authority and claiming the authority of being able to forgive sins was probably enough in and of itself. I'm not seeing how Jesus differs from anyone else who inspired martyrs, or how his followers' immediate willingness to die for him in any way validates the tall tale contained in the New Testament.
It must be pointed out that the people who followed the teachings of Joseph Smith were immediately killed and persecuted as well, and since that time the mythos surrounding Joseph Smith has likewise been embellished and smoothed over, so whatever. It's a pretty weak argument for trying to prove the ridiculous supernatural claims surrounding the story of Jesus (which is what it seems you're driving at).
I think the piece that everyone is missing is faith.
ReplyDeleteWhether you have it or not is entirely up to you. If you don't have faith, and need evidence to live your life, then that's all well and good.
However, if you live a different sort of existance that doesn't "all lead itself to some sort of crazy" that is also up to you.
The thing that people who do not believe in a God tend to miss about those who do is the faith part. Faith doesn't rest on evidence. It just doesn't. It rests on believing that the holy books are less "bullshit" than not. To me, the Bible is a guide. "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." If I choose to defend every word of the Bible and my God, then I have turned my back on my faith. It's the verse from Hebrews "Faith is being certain of what we hope for and sure of what we do not see."
For example: your kid gets sick. You take them to the Dr. Do you have faith that the doc knows what he's doing? Yes. Why? He may have the degree, knowledge, background, etc. - all the evidence to say that there's a reason you should have faith in him.
Your kid doesn't get better and in fact, dies. What then of your evidence? Did the evidence help your case? No.
It's just a differnt way of viewing the world and life. For me, faith gives me more hope than not. I've turned my back, picked through the logic and the reason, and at the end of the long internal struggle, found that the lack of evidence wasn't the hinge for me...
So you admit you have faith in very specific things without any evidence to back up that faith. So I have a question for you: why do you have faith in THOSE SPECIFIC things? Why don't you have faith in any of the other thousands of unsupported religious claims?
ReplyDeleteHow did you make up your mind that the specific articles of faith you believe in are true, while every other article of faith is false?
I want to take a minute to side with the non believers on this thread. It doesn't matter what religion you were brought up in. People from all religions turn away from God. It doesn't hinge on being Mormon, and to believe so is incredibly close-minded.
ReplyDeleteOn that same note - I am curious how one's faith experience affects the evolution of turning away. I have not ever been in a church (and esp. not the past 1 1/2) where anything but grace, mercy and love is taught. In the year I've been in my current church, we've talked about sin during the message a total of 0 times...
MIKE:
Thanks for the question. By very specific things, I assume you mean (in my case) Jesus, grace, mercy, love.
You have to remember (and hopefully respect) that while you may not believe that I have evidence, I believe I do. I have all the evidence I need in the Bible and my experiences. I completely respect that you have a different point of view on that from me.
But I can answer the second one. How did I make up my mind about Christianity as opposed to other religions (is that what you are asking?) It was just what made sense to me. I made up my mind based on my study and understanding about who I am and what I hope for. Did the fact that I was raised in the church guide me to that? Yes.
But.
I will be honest with you. Until 18 months ago, I was not a Christ follower. I was a Christian. A RELIGIOUS person. Not a faith person. These are two very different things in my opinion and experience.
I also do not make claims that every other article of faith is false. That's not my way of following my faith. If, for example, a Jewish person is strong in their faith, who am I to tell them they are wrong?
How did I make up my mind? Well, I read the Bible. I pray. I research. I think about what makes sense to me. And I think about the message. The message of my faith is that God loves his creation. What's not to like about that? Evidence or not. It's a hopeful message and many, many, many times in my life, I have gotten more hope and comfort from that message than any amount of doubt or non-belief would have brought me.
For me, my relationship with the God I choose to beleive in makes it a lot easier to swallow what life has thrown at me. Leah wrote in her post the other day "These are the times I wish there were some creator." I don't have to wish - for me, I know. And I've never once - in my entire existance - uttered the words "these are the times I wish there WASN'T a God."
And because I, too, am reading Angels and Deamons...
ReplyDelete"Skepticism has become a virtue. Cynicism and demand for proof has become enlightened thought. Is it any wonder that humans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have at any point in human history? "
"Faith is universal. Our specific methods for understanding it are arbitrary. Some of us pray to Jesus, some of us go to Mecca, some of us study subatomic particles. In the end we are all just searching for truth, that which is greater than ourselves."
- Dan Brown, "Angels and Deamons"
But apparently can't spell today! :) lol.
ReplyDeleteSo wait, wait, wait. I thought you said: "Faith doesn't rest on evidence. It just doesn't."
ReplyDeleteBut then you said: "You have to remember (and hopefully respect) that while you may not believe that I have evidence, I believe I do. I have all the evidence I need in the Bible and my experiences."
I just have to call people when they say "Faith is something you believe without evidence, by definition," or something to that effect, because everybody—and I mean everybody—has some sort of "evidence" they use to justify their beliefs. And every religious adherent believes their religion is "more true" than other religions, else why the practice of one religion to the exclusion of all others? Faith is just a truth-claim supported by evidence, like any scientific claim. And as such, the evidence deserves the same unbiased questioning as any hypothesis.
A few other points I want to pick over...
For me, the existence of God doesn't hinge on the truthfulness of Mormonism, and I don't think anyone here meant to imply that it does. Truth be told, I still believed in a god or a higher power of some sort for many years after leaving Mormonism. The blog happens to have a Mormons slant probably because that't the religion the author grew up in and is most knowledgeable about.
I don't think anyone's ever wished there wasn't a God. As Leah has pointed out, it'd be really nice if there were a God that loved and looked after humanity and concerned himself with your day-to-day affairs. But all the wishing in the world doesn't make it so.
I have to wonder what the statement, "humans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have at any point in human history," is based on. I'm godless and happy enough; the future looks pretty bright to me. Have you watched many of the talks on ted.com? The most skeptical among us—that is to say, the scientists who are the dreamers and makers of the future—seem pretty optimistic to me. Breakthrough after revolutionary breakthrough doesn't seem to constitute defeat and depression to me.
As for the second quote, religion isn't so much a search for truth as it is a claim to have already found it, and hence to have abandoned the search. We don't further our understanding of the universe by saying we already know all the answers, and then claiming that those answers should be exempt from proper examination, skepticism and scrutiny.
Thanks so much for all the comments. I just want to add one quick thing. Demanding evidence before being willing to believe something doesn't make one depressed and hopeless. I'm happier now than I ever was as a person of faith. I think that's true for the world at large. Is Dan Brown trying to say that this is a more bleak time to live in than the Dark Ages, when the Church had a stronghold on everything? The Renaissance happened because people began to dare to trust empirical evidence over scripture and Church authority. We came far, and it was this kind of questioning that made moderate church's that preach love and grace more than sin and hell possible, but it doesn't change the fact that religion is based on fiction. Moderate religions are still dangerous because they idealize faith, which fosters an environment where extremist religions can breed. We need to start questioning more. We need another Renaissance.
ReplyDeleteI guess it's pretty clear I can't win here - not in having anyone agree with me - I really don't care one way or the other - but more so helping you to understand and respect my experiences.
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to be argumentative or agressive - simply trying to explain myself. I think if you asked Latha (who does know me) she'd agree that I am not an agressive, cruel or argumentative person. That's the problem with writing instead of dialogue. You can't read inflection, tone, etc.
I'm not interested in talking in circles. The reason I wrote what I did about evidence is because you wrote:
"So you admit you have faith in very specific things without any evidence to back it up."
I was simply trying to explain that to me, that is evidence of a reason for faith, even if you don't believe it is. I was not saying that I need it - just that I believe it is...
Actually, somewhere in an earlier post (it's actually Leah's @ Patrik) that gave me that impression. I was attempting to support your views by acknowledging that people from all religions turn to athiesm/agnosticims/deism... so I was trying to be supportive....
The other posts were simply quotes from Brown's latest book. Didn't mean to make you angry - I just found it interesting. I also know a lot of people of faith who are incredibly happy - and they too are dreamers and shapers of the future.
And finally.
It saddens my heart that in this day and age, where we claim to be open minded and open hearted to differnt points of view...
That while I FULLY respect and understand your point of view and appreciate the logic, reason, time and experience that went into coming to that conclusion, that you do not offer the same respect.
I never asked you to agree with me or any other person of faith. I was simply attempting to explain why I believe what I do.
I don't intend to come across as angry, so if that's how my tone is interpreted, I apologize. I didn't see your comments as aggressive or argumentative either; I was just questioning some of your points in a factual manner.
ReplyDeleteSo bear in mind, I'm not angry when I say the following:
There's a difference between respecting someone's beliefs, and respecting someone's right to believe what they want. I don't respect religious beliefs because they are not grounded in facts and logical consistency. Not only that, but the beliefs are harmful to its adherents and society at large. In the same way that Christians hate the sin and not the sinner, I hate the belief but not the believer.
I respect you as a person—as a fellow human being. But I do not respect your beliefs. Does that make sense?
No, not really, because I respect your beliefs. I also respect your right to believe. So I guess I don't know what that means.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think it's a blanketed statement to say that the beliefs are harmful to it's adherents. How have I been harmed by what I beleive? I can respect how relgions can be harmful to society if taken out of context.
And the concern is that you hate my beliefs. But don't hate your beliefs. Hate is a pretty strong word. Why do you hate my beliefs? And why do I not hate yours?
ReplyDeleteAnd don't say it's because I think you might be on to something because I definitely do not think that ;) lol
ReplyDeleteYes, hate is indeed a very strong word. Let me say it again: I absolutely HATE religious beliefs. I long for the day when people will realize it's all nonsense and we can finally move on.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the worst things about religious belief is that people often don't realize it's harming them or making them unhappy, and it's next to impossible to convince people that their religious beliefs are mistaken and/or harmful. I can't say how your religion might be harming you because I don't know you personally, nor the specifics of what you believe.
If you want a more general statement on why religion is harmful, Leah summed it up pretty well in her first blog post.
I stumbled across this from the Kiva group, and wanted to say that I had a very similiar experience with an aunt of mine. I hope everything turned out well with the family over the holidays!
ReplyDeleteKyle
www.badideagoggles.com
Thanks, Kyle! Everything went pretty well. There was one "incident," but it wasn't anything to do with religion or lack thereof. It was just because I don't get along with my mother-in-law!
ReplyDeleteAnd don't say it's because I think you might be on to something because I definitely do not think that ;) lol
ReplyDeleteI want to take a minute to side with the non believers on this thread. It doesn't matter what religion you were brought up in. People from all religions turn away from God. It doesn't hinge on being Mormon, and to believe so is incredibly close-minded.
ReplyDeleteOn that same note - I am curious how one's faith experience affects the evolution of turning away. I have not ever been in a church (and esp. not the past 1 1/2) where anything but grace, mercy and love is taught. In the year I've been in my current church, we've talked about sin during the message a total of 0 times...
MIKE:
Thanks for the question. By very specific things, I assume you mean (in my case) Jesus, grace, mercy, love.
You have to remember (and hopefully respect) that while you may not believe that I have evidence, I believe I do. I have all the evidence I need in the Bible and my experiences. I completely respect that you have a different point of view on that from me.
But I can answer the second one. How did I make up my mind about Christianity as opposed to other religions (is that what you are asking?) It was just what made sense to me. I made up my mind based on my study and understanding about who I am and what I hope for. Did the fact that I was raised in the church guide me to that? Yes.
But.
I will be honest with you. Until 18 months ago, I was not a Christ follower. I was a Christian. A RELIGIOUS person. Not a faith person. These are two very different things in my opinion and experience.
I also do not make claims that every other article of faith is false. That's not my way of following my faith. If, for example, a Jewish person is strong in their faith, who am I to tell them they are wrong?
How did I make up my mind? Well, I read the Bible. I pray. I research. I think about what makes sense to me. And I think about the message. The message of my faith is that God loves his creation. What's not to like about that? Evidence or not. It's a hopeful message and many, many, many times in my life, I have gotten more hope and comfort from that message than any amount of doubt or non-belief would have brought me.
For me, my relationship with the God I choose to beleive in makes it a lot easier to swallow what life has thrown at me. Leah wrote in her post the other day "These are the times I wish there were some creator." I don't have to wish - for me, I know. And I've never once - in my entire existance - uttered the words "these are the times I wish there WASN'T a God."
I think the piece that everyone is missing is faith.
ReplyDeleteWhether you have it or not is entirely up to you. If you don't have faith, and need evidence to live your life, then that's all well and good.
However, if you live a different sort of existance that doesn't "all lead itself to some sort of crazy" that is also up to you.
The thing that people who do not believe in a God tend to miss about those who do is the faith part. Faith doesn't rest on evidence. It just doesn't. It rests on believing that the holy books are less "bullshit" than not. To me, the Bible is a guide. "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." If I choose to defend every word of the Bible and my God, then I have turned my back on my faith. It's the verse from Hebrews "Faith is being certain of what we hope for and sure of what we do not see."
For example: your kid gets sick. You take them to the Dr. Do you have faith that the doc knows what he's doing? Yes. Why? He may have the degree, knowledge, background, etc. - all the evidence to say that there's a reason you should have faith in him.
Your kid doesn't get better and in fact, dies. What then of your evidence? Did the evidence help your case? No.
It's just a differnt way of viewing the world and life. For me, faith gives me more hope than not. I've turned my back, picked through the logic and the reason, and at the end of the long internal struggle, found that the lack of evidence wasn't the hinge for me...
@Patrik,
ReplyDeleteI thought I remembered hearing somewhere that the Gospels were written a couple of hundred years after Jesus (from some scholarly source, not a Mormon teaching). However, I can't remember where I heard that and a bit of googling seems to date the Gospels between 50 and 80 C.E. So I will assume that my memory was incorrect and concede that it's possible that the Gospels could have been written by eye witnesses. These were still written several years after the events supposedly took place (especially since our current B.C./A.D. system of wreckoning didn't come into use until 525 and Dionysius pretty much just guessed at when year 1 was. Scholars think Jesus was probably born 10-20 years before year 1.) The possibility (and the motivation) for embellishment and distortion still remains.
And you can't use circular logic for your claim that Jesus was God (Son of God, God himself, mysterious 3 in1 entity, whatever, it's all equally silly). I'm fully aware of that the Bible says that Jesus was God and that the Bible claims to be the word of God. Neither of those claims is verifiable. There is no evidence that the Bible was formed under any more special circumstances than any other book.
So, yes, I absolutely think that you have to pick and choose through the Bible to find whatever might be valuable among all the bullshit. I wasn't saying that Jesus definitely said to feed the hungry and take care of people, only that it's a good teaching. How do I determine what's worthwhile and what's not? I use my brain. I ask myself, What's more likely: That a virgin had a child and he grew up to raise the dead and raise himself from the dead and that he paid the price for some debt I supposedly owe to the universe and everyone who doesn't believe in him will be miserable in this afterlife that we have no evidence even exists? Or that someone made it up? The Bible is no more special than any other book. You can find good teachings in Hemingway and Harry Potter too.
And by the way, I'm not sure if you were trying to use Homer as an example of an ancient text whose historicity isn't questioned, but if you were, it's a poor example. Everyone thought it was pure fiction until Heinrich Schliemann found archaeological evidence of places that matched the descriptions in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Even now, no one reads them as history, only as legend based on some actual history. Certainly no one believe in all the Greek deities that were supposedly intervening.
If you somehow think I was corrupted by Mormonism and if I'd only been raised in a "better" religion then I wouldn't have turned my back on god, I have to correct you there. After I left Mormonism, I explored mainstream Christianity and many other religious and spiritual traditions. And while they all have something interesting to offer, they also all run into their own brand of crazy sooner or later. Mormonism is no better or worse than any other religion.
I’m going to try to not drag this out but there are a few things I’d like to say in response to your last post to me.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would have to argue that Jesus was born circa 6-4 BC and not 20-10 BC.
Second, with the exception of Judas and John, the other 10 disciples were all martyred because of what they taught and believed about Jesus. (Judas committed suicide and John was exiled to the island of Patmos.) And Paul was also martyred for his belief and teachings about Jesus, most likely during the reign of Nero. People are often motivated to embellish/skew the facts especially for personal, political and monetary gain. But what motivation would the apostles have had of dying for the sake of Jesus if he was just a run of the mill good guy with some positive things to say? I think that historically we would find that anytime someone has convinced others of some radical truth they are able to also convince them to follow them even to their death, but not for regular old ‘be nice to others’ type teachings. That doesn’t require death. Who would want to kill you for teaching people to look after the poor and the sick? Take David Koresh for example. He was able to convince all those people that he was this great prophet and they all died. The same for the Heaven’s Gate suicide associated with Hale-Bopp comet. If those people didn’t honestly believe what they were being told then why would they be willing to die? So, since the apostles died for Jesus, what was their motivation? It couldn’t have been for political gain, or monetary gain, especially under Roman rule. What’s the use of fame and fortune if you are dead? What was the radical teaching of Jesus that he was able to convince them so deeply that they would be willing to give their lives for his sake? If they made it up then they were all willing to die for a lie.
Finally, there are non-biblical writings that lend support to what the gospels say. Two examples are Josephus a Jewish historian and Cornelius Tacitus a Roman historian.