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.
I'm not sure those letters are big enough, Dan. (I'll throw in my two cents on the post content when I have a bit more time)
ReplyDeleteMost wars are not fought for any god other than greed or revenge. just because people claim to do something for a god does not mean they are honest. most wars today are fought for the same reasons.
ReplyDeleteAs to the bible, for an ancient text, there is decent proof that the gospels were written by people and read by people who knew Jesus or at least knew his followers. They were written within that timeframe where people could've and would've spoken out against or at least tried to stop lies being spread about people they knew. More evidence than there is for many ancient manuscripts. greater proof than disproof. idk if the authors were actually those four saints, but I believe they probably were at least people who knew them and heard what they preached and wrote it down. there are small discrepancies in the bible, eye witness accounts of an occurance often have discrepancies from each other.
Love is not emotion but the essence of how we should live and interact with others. I believe God is Love. how can you seperate them? in speaking to his own followers, Christ knew they had received the Father and thus received Love. The command was to give that love to others, in word and deed. =caring for others. Not self-centeredness, not self-debasement (one and the same imho). Love.
I am probably ranting, so i will shutup now.
p.s. love you, Dan. (or i wouldn't care so much) :)
Stormy, religious justification is a part of every war--ask any neoright wing conservative about the current wars. Look at the middle east. WWII even. There are always religous aspects to wars. They may not be the sole reason, but they certainly help.
ReplyDeleteFor when the bible was written, I find it also interesting that the gospels were written AFTER the pauline epistles. So not only was there decades of oral translation (which often leads to embellishment) but also they were certainly influenced by paul's theology. Without a doubt John, the last gospel to be written, was.
as for separating God and love--it's easy. I have. I have a very love filled life. Jesus' thought of "loving thy neighbor" is a noble one but hardly original. That notion goes back thousands of years before Christ--it's in Bhuddist writings (who have no real god).
By saying his followers had recieved love when they recieved the father is to presume they didnt have love before then. I doubt that. Love has existed as an element of the human condition far longer than the notion of god has.
Great response, Dan! :)
ReplyDeleteOkay, I don't pretend people don't use religion in wars. But to use religion as a weapon, to persuade and manipulate people through whatever religion they claim, does not mean the war has anything to do with God. I make a deliniation between religious justification as the scientific artform we all know it to be and God. That was my point there. Lying beneath the outward sayings of these leaders, is the desire to bend people to their wills, to use them for their purpose, to obtain power, wealth, land, glory, or whatever else. Greed and hate are their drivers, not God.
I don't remember the dates of the gospels, but it is beleived they were written and passed around, but earlier manuscripts did not survive. Still even in Paul's time, many people were still alive who knew Jesus, who were followers of his teachings, who would have known if lies were being spread.
Dan, I know you have love in your life. And no, I do not presume they (followers of Christ) did not have love before. They had some form of love. Most people do have some love in their life. I suppose I mean a difference in TYPE of love. A purer, stronger, living love. I don't guess I explained it well. But then, I'm not really a theologian or philosopher, just someone who likes to talk things out. :)
And part of Christ's message was that messed up people need a way out of the mess they're in. That he came for the sick, not the well (spiritually speaking). He often spoke directly to people who did need help to not want to kill their brothers, to keep themselves from sin. Men and women are easily turned to hate and hate can easily turn to violence of some form or another. So he taught against hating someone in your heart, that it really was the same as murder. As for originality, he treated women with respect, as tho equal with men - a very new idea. idk Dan, i just don't think you can write off Christ that way. Even tho love your neighbor had been around before, it didn't mean it didn't need to be taught anew, or that God didn't know it had been taught before. Truth has always existed. Love has always existed. Because they are not new do we simply write off those who teach them? Or deny that new aspects can be found?