Thoughts on the Necessity of Christianity

Let me begin by saying I feel all organized religion is more or less unnecessary. I single out Christianity because it is the religion with which I am most familiar and it is the most popular in today's America.

I am currently reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. In it, Bryson chronicles the history of all the sciences. He covers all of the major discoveries and breakthroughs and gives us background on the men who made them. What is amazing to me is that more often than not, the wrong person is credited with the initial discovery. Some of these discoveries go as far back as the 1600s, though the majority (of what I have read so far) are in the 1800s. For one reason or another, usually due to the quirkiness of the initial scientist but often political or geographic reasons cause the second or even third person to make a discovery to be the one who gets the credit. Sometimes there were specific reasons the first idea was kept quiet, other times it was simply a matter of paperwork.

This begs the question, then, if as late as the 1800s people were making earth-changing discoveries and were writing about them and publishing their works as soon as they could yet we still get misinformation how could it be remotely possible that 2000 years prior true, honest-to-goodness eyewitness accounts of Jesus were recorded by the men whose names are the Gospels? Saying "God did it" or that he "protected" these works is much to easy and lazy of an explanation. Even as a Christian I would reject such notions. If God is the God of everything, he is the God of reason (another interpretation for the word "logos" which was often translated from Greek to mean "God") then it follows there would be a reason for everything. In other words, God's action would not fail due to the logical investigation of man.

I find it interesting to note that the Pauline epistles are the closest we have to knowing it was the actual author who wrote the books, and yet there it is these epistles that changed Jesus' messages. Many credit Paul, not Jesus, with the creation of Christianity.

My point here, is that no matter how much faith we have, the bible is a book written by many different people over hundreds of years. To claim it as "the word of God" is simply gullible.

Now I've heard many more liberal Christians say "there may be little inaccuracies in the bible, but it is the message that is perfect. It is the message that counts." When asked what exactly that message is, usually the answer is "To love god and love others as yourself." Now I have to ask, is that really a perfect message? Really?

I had a similar conversation with my friend JAY SWIGER (he told me to reference him with big letters) the other day. The thought that this "perfect message" is far from what it claims to me first donned on me then. "Love others as yourself." What if you hate yourself? I know most people struggle with self esteem issues. If I treated my neighbor according to those, I'd come across as an awful person. On the other side, there are people who love themselves too much. To love their neighbors that much would result in idolatry and blasphemy, would it not? True, these arguments are fairly nit picky. The point is to put others before yourself, and I agree that is a good message--I don't know that I would go so far as to call it "perfect." If given the choice between saving a serial killer's life or my son's life I will selfishly choose my son. To truly put others before myself, would I not, by the merits of Christianity, have to save the killer?

And the idea that "loving god" is good for you is far less than honest. Atheist know that murder, rape, theft, etc are bad. Through evolution we have learned that these actions are bad for the tribe, bad for society and thus bad for us and counter to our survival. And if you need some supernatural being to tell you murder is wrong to keep you from doing it, then you have some other issues to work out.

Then there are the atrocities carried out in the name of "loving god." Not only the wars and killings, but also the judgement and resentment that kills relationships and tears families apart. No one has killed or excommunicated someone in the name of atheism. They have in the name of God. Yes, many churches help the poor and create charities, however, those things exist in the secular world as well. Does the charity make up for the physical and emotional damage caused in the name of God? I say no. If we remove God from society, we will still have love, charity, and selflessness. We would also have less wars and hate.

The purpose of God and loving him, then, seems ultimately to give us comfort in death. The promise of heaven makes death less scary. To me, this is supremely selfish and not worth all of the other atrocities. The more God is involved, the more disagreements, the more judgement, the more death and hatred--the more sin there is in the world. I say, remove God and you remove the evils that come along with religion. Society improves. Keep the love, lose the God. Contrary to popular Christian belief, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Time to weigh in on LeBron

It is incredible how short our attention is. I blame MTV with their quick cuts in videos and crappy new music that forces us to look for the next big thing all too quickly. Lebron is a "monster" and "cowardly"? Are you serious?

How quickly we forget that one of the most beloved big men of all time left his initial team titleless to join forces with a young amazing 2 guard and subsequently won 3 straight championships. What multi-nick-named, rapping, law-enforcing, unable-to-make-a-free-throw seven-foot 300 pound superstar am I talking about? Why Shaq of course. Why did he leave? My guess is he left an organization that had never won to go to one that almost always wins.

Oh and how about just a couple years ago Kobe went through THE SAME THING that LeBron just did. Now, sure, social media wasn't the cyber-king that it is now so there wasn't as much attention on it, but if you recall, Kobe was done with the Lakers. There were all kinds of rumors he was going to Chicago (ring a bell?). He had even demanded a trade before he became a free agent and then, well, he decided to stay. Why? My guess is because he was already on a WINNING ORGANIZATION!

"But Michael, Magic and Larry would never have teamed up just to win a title," you may say. Well that's probably because they were all part of organizations that built teams around their superstar giving them the ability to win. Sure, Chicago is not a historically great team, but Jordan did play with Pippen (one of the NBAs 50 greatest players), all-stars Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong and more than serviceable role players. For the Bulls' second three-peat Pippen was still there and so was one of the best defensive and rebounding forwards of all time in Dennis Rodman. Larry Bird played with Hall-of-Famers Kevin McHale, Bill Walton, Robert Parish and probably more that are slipping my mind. Magic of course played with James Worthy and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (arguably the best center of all time) and, as has been discussed, he played for the LAKERS.

My point? Lebron didn't cold-heartedly, cowardly, deviously or any other adjective you wanna give him leave the fans of Cleveland. He smartly yet reluctantly left a BAD organization. James gave them the better part of a decade and they gave him squat. He had them in the FINALS with nobodys. By the time they got a big name, that big name was the aforementioned Shaq who has been reduced to a shell of is former self. They have done nothing but take the money that The King brought them. One could argue it's not their fault that big-time free agents wouldn't come to Cleveland. Then whose is it? It's their job to sell their organization, to prove that they are a good team to play for. Don't blame LeBron because Dan Gilbert is a bad salesman.

Why are Jordan and Barkley criticizing James? Probably because James and Wade and Bosh figured out a way to do something that they couldn't--not wouldn't but COULDN'T. The player was not nearly as powerful in their era as he is now. To me, it just sounds like sour grapes.

Not to mention the fact that LeBron WASN'T EVEN PLAYING HIS GAME in Cleveland. He is a born passer, a facilitator, a Magic Johnson not a scorer, ice-veined Jordan. He was unhappy. He didn't want to leave his home but did for the sake of his own happiness. Now, he gets to play HIS game, with HIS friends with an organization that has WON and has Pat Riley. Given the two options, who would not have done the same thing? It's not like this was his first contract. He gave Cleveland 7 years. It then became obvious that the relationship was clearly one-sided. So he left them. And I should feel sorry for them? Do you feel sorry when your lazy, selfish and short-sited friend gets dumped by a 10? No. Because you knew all along that it would happen unless your friend shaped up.

Sure, The Decision was awful and poorly ran. Should LeBron have spoken with Gilbert? Probably. But did the hottie call your loser friend or did she just take all her stuff and move out. Exactly.

I'm a Bulls fan so I will always root for them, but I wouldn't mind it if the Heat do go and 7-peat. A big middle-finger to every cry-baby owner who is upset that they didn't get their way. As a free market society, the better salesman (Pat Riley) will get his bonus. And LeBron, "King" James will be remembered as one of the best ever. Winning is the ultimate memory eraser. We always forgive the "villans" in sports if they win.

And a side note: Interesting that LeBron's nickname is "King". True leaders make tough decisions. And they make them usually to lengthen their reign and better the lives of those they love. The King made a tough decision. He left his home land because they wouldn't work with him. And his new Kingdom will reap the benefits. I say, "Long Live The King!"

In the begining....

....is how I decided to start my first official blog. OK, I guess that's not completely accurate. I had a blog back on Xanga (anyone remember that?) before MySpace and subsequently Facebook took over my computing habits. If you desire some background on me or want to see an almost day-by-day 2 year chronicle of a once devout Christian finding the path to a loose Atheism, check out my old Xanga blog at:

http://ineedtruth.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=ineedtruth&nextdate=1%2f28%2f2006+15%3a41%3a45.467

(the old blog starts just after my engagement ended in January of 2006 and goes through April of 2008)

Now, on to this NEW and IMPROVED blog that is actually on BLOGSPOT!!!

Why here? Why now? Why not? I've noticed myself getting increasingly lazy having many things to say but lacking the outlet or the creative energy to make my own outlet. So my hope is that regularly blogging will once again awaken the creative juices that once flowed like the oil currently gushing into the Gulf. (too soon?)

I chose blogspot because I heard it gets the most traffic and I am a whore for attention, so there you go.


Now as for the title? I tried to come up with something that would describe what I talk about most of the time, that being religion, sports, and occasionally politics but also everything else. I generally will just rant and rave about whatever is currently garnering my attention. Sometimes it may be gold, other times it may be fool's gold, others maybe Ari Gold (obnoxious but entertaining) still others may turn out to be Traci Gold (empty--like anorexic, get it?--but mildly attractive).

This will be a completely self-indulgent ongoing discussion of all of my interests. And hopefully some of yours as well.

Stay tuned!