A view on the Personal Rejection of Christianity
CHAPTER ONE: Religion and Logic
I want to start by pointing out a few beliefs I have established since I quit going to church.
I do believe that there is a creator of life, and that it could possibly be the creator of all known life in the universe, but is at least responsible for all life on Earth. I don’t agree with most scientific belief that life on this planet came from the primeval ooze. It seems to me that nature is much too chaotic and random for something like that to happen, even in stable elements. I have always accepted that some sentient being is responsible for the design and perpetuation of all species of Earth herein. To prove this, I always point out the structure of DNA. Without getting too specific, DNA, the building blocks of all life, consists of groups of nucleotides in a variety of short repeating arrangements from a few basic chemical compounds, like the alphabet arranged into words on a page from strokes of a pen. This suggests that whatever created life that we understand it as, had to think in symbolic and semantic terms like we do. That is, it had a sophisticated protocol or language in which to build all things living and in which each form of life could perpetuate itself based on this microscopic blueprint. This is no random accident. The near perfect balance of the Earth’s ecosystem we as humans are slowly but surely destroying is another example of what appears to be the design of a great global architect.
I also believe that this sentient being is flawed like we are, and have accepted this due to the fact that so much of animal instinct and behavior stems from their inevitable mortality. Every living thing must die, and something like it must replace it for it to continue to exist in similar form. All things living also must transform matter into energy in a most crude fashion. The entire ecosystem and global food chain on Earth is based on life forms either consuming one another or symbiotically depending on one another, whilst battling the elements. Each form of life gets defined by its role in the ecosystem. It’s not really impressive work for a being that is supposed to know all and be all, in my opinion. Certainly better than anything man has yet to devise, but that has little to do with faith. We as human beings are capable of collectively creating things far beyond the capacity of what one or a few individuals can. Things such as jealousy, greed, a unique sense of purpose, and an unevolved imagination are limiting traits that keep us from going further.
But back to God…
There is also the “Typhoid and Swans” issue, to steal a line from Thomas Harris. The comment plays on the assumption that both of them came from the same creator. Many people accept that God is love and love is all there is. I have a lot of trouble believing that. I prefer to believe that if God is all knowing, all seeing, Alpha and Omega, that God must both be good and evil. There certainly seems to be enough of both in nature if you choose to interpret it that way. There is so much suffering in the world that it makes it very difficult for me to believe that God is only capable of love. And certainly God cannot be in control of all that goes on, or divine intervention would be too commonplace to need a word to describe it as such.
If all events in human history were part of God’s infallible plan, then there would be no need for prayer other than to make people feel a little less anxious. Our fates pre-determined, there would also be no reason to make any choices in life with any vigor or enthusiasm until first being assured of God’s approval. In fact, if all of our choices in life are part of a great scheme crafted by God, they really are not choices at all, merely a tiny inkling of a VERY large sequence of pre-meditated events. With all decisions now based on glorifying God, who has already mapped out your life, your only motivation in life is to await the next life where things don’t have a predetermined end and to serve and cajole the author of your pre-defined existence in the meantime. Thus, worship and devout practice become a means to perpetuate the belief in the divine plan. A never-ending cycle of worship-causes-belief-causes-worship ensues. What a dull and senseless life this suggests. It does attempt to explain away the helplessness and uncertainty we feel in life, when events beyond our control take place, but only in a closed-minded and demeaning manner.
One of the things that most people seem to admire about the idea of a compassionate and benevolent God is that a being with such power chooses not to wield it unless His wisdom dictates such displays. In the case of mankind, the power of the gods can only be abused and ultimately cause only suffering. In other words, it is accepted by many that mankind will never posses the wisdom to responsibly and benevolently use the power that God has, and thus, mankind is inferior in every respect.
Why then, does mankind continue to suffer, including the devout? The two possible logical explanations I came up with are that either the creator of life has not visited the Earth for millennia and therefore cannot display any wisdom or power, or He cannot change the course of history already set in motion and stands idly by as an observer on-high as we continue to exploit, enslave, torture and murder each other, even if it is done in his name.
Why should violent, diabolical, hateful people live for generations and even attain wealth and power? To put the blame on Satan is to suggest the possibility that the divine plan is one that can be interrupted by the outside influences of deception and cruelty. Therefore, the divine plan either contains flaws or includes evil in its design. A more logical reasoning is one I will get into momentarily, but basically is explained by mankind’s will to dominate and our ability to deceive.
As far as I’m concerned, divine intervention is just a faithful follower’s interpretation of cause and effect. It suggests a reward system for those that remain faithful, which is an animal instinct and should be dismissed as such. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of it recorded after the Old Testament anyway, the majority being in Revelations, after that.
I also know of many faithful people, ones that were as kind and giving and compassionate as could be admired by God or man, who have suffered needlessly to disease, personal peril or tragic loss. To attribute such tragedy (ie. write it off and accept it) as the wisdom of God is both contradictory and foolish. True, tragedy can often bring strength to others, possibly bring people together, but this kind of thing can only be truly resolved by someone who never asks “Why”, when such tragedy might occur. I think most people at least privately question needless suffering. A difficult subject to ponder to be certain….
To reject the belief in the divine plan shifts the abstract of the future into the form of a personal destiny. Each and every individual has their own desires and personal aspirations, be it the immediate goal to get to 3rd street before lunch or to have that much needed hit or drink before the withdrawal symptoms come creeping in, to the lifelong dreams of seeing your child grow up safe and sound, being a big success and retiring in the countryside or aspiring to dominate the will of mankind through terror, mass hysteria and lies. I believe all of these aspirations stem from choices made throughout life and that these choices, along with all circumstances beyond your control, shape your personal destiny. Most of these aspirations stem from mankind’s natural tendency to desire dominance over something. This feeling applies to all of mankind, from the most subtle form of growing a garden or raising pets, to the most radical form of ruling a nation of people with an iron fist. Mankind reached the top of the food chain centuries ago, and has continued to abide by the will of nature in adding new tiers within our own species to this structure of survival. To reach the top of this structure by way of dominance has often required methods of cruelty, intelligence and deception, but can also be obtained by wisdom, trust and honor, which are God-like qualities. There usually is no “top tier”, as no single individual can remain in power without subordinates to maintain and enforce this power, and this power only holds as long as you have acceptance by the masses that you are in control, be it by honor, wisdom, fear or deception. Therefore, every person, even a dictator or president, will either be dominated or depend on another at some level.
Religions throughout the world also accept that human nature dictates every man and woman must have a master of some form or another. They choose to accept that your personal destiny and this “master” are one and the same. This assumption makes you jump to the conclusion that your destiny is shaped by who or what you serve, instead of what choices you have made in life, regardless of those things in life that are beyond your control. I have found the philosophies of Christians, Muslims and Jews, just as a few examples; do away with free will and rational thought in favor of absolute trust and humility for their deity of choice, forgoing all elements of the unknown in the process. Most likely, they accept this because they believe that since they were created by God, they owe their life most-precious to Him, and He must be the ruler of all mankind for this reason alone. This is very similar to the human notion that any craft or design created by mankind was made for the express purpose of obedience or service. I also believe, as I said before, they accept this because they assume that God is only capable of love, and is the only one who possesses the wisdom and authority to rule mankind. Therefore, they are indebted to return their love through obedience. The next step in this line of thought is that all things unknown to mankind are known to God, and therefore we are not destined to understand the principles of science, philosophy and psychology. To attempt to do so can only be interpreted through means of the self, and therefore knowledge of such things is harmful and dangerous. This reasoning does not take into account the natural curiosity and adaptability that mankind possesses, however. Human nature dictates the need to learn and adapt as part of survival. I believe that to dismiss these traits as destructive is foolish so long as the knowledge that mankind attains is accompanied by the wisdom to see both the destructive, as well as the beneficial uses for it. In other words, the religious line of thinking has no hope for the future of mankind without God.
Religions in general hide the fact that common thought and common aspirations among mankind (such as a religion dominating a person’s way of life) are shaping the destiny of mankind throughout human history by transforming religion into common law. The underlying intent is to not only preserve their philosophy, but to preserve a form of order that keeps the masses docile and content for generations, allowing those in power to stay in power. It can often be done in a way just as effective as cruelty and deceit. In the case of deceit, what separates lies from the truth is often only your perception of it, so the lines between the two can be blurred. It seems ‘truth’ and common thought are one and the same. Therefore, those in control of common thought are truly powerful indeed.
History tells us that many a religion has been destroyed by a mightier race of peoples, causing the defeated culture to be absorbed, and their religion lost. Does that mean the way of life they took so seriously meant nothing and was all a lie? What about the vast number of religions that exist throughout the world today? I’d bet most all of them claim their way of life is the only way to achieve everlasting happiness in life and beyond death. What makes Christianity the only true way to achieve this?
CHAPTER TWO: The Christian Ideals and Principles
I can easily see the appeal of Christianity compared to other religions. Religion, to me, is the ultimate form of self-discipline. The accomplished and ever sustained mission to keep one’s self in check for a cause greater than one’s own individuality. It gives people hope who have none. It calms their fears and binds those together who worship together, thus making the religion itself more powerful.
Christianity has the added bonus of being one of the few religions that has done away with daily ritualistic practices in favor of “amazing grace”. To immediately be forgiven of all wrongdoing no matter how severe, knowing that all your mistakes in life have been paid for; “just ask and you will receive”. The mere suggestion that God had a son and put him up for slaughter suggests that God was trying to first unite with humanity and prove His existence by sending a human version of himself into the world and then sacrificing him as an offering like the Jews were instructed to do with their animals many years before. This sacrifice is symbolic of your ticket to paradise in exchange for your everlasting soul. This sounds appealing to just about anyone who is well in touch with their own mortality (that is, afraid of it).
To me, I see two sides to someone who offers unconditional forgiveness when it’s just a person and not God. They can be seen like the prodigal son’s father who showed mercy to his son who had squandered his fortune, and takes him in to be part of the family. Or they can be seen as someone who wants you hook, line and sinker and tells you what you want to hear. Now telling me my creator is dangling my eternal soul in front of me whilst offering forgiveness for all my wrongdoing, guilt ridden or not, makes me first ask “Is it fair or even sensible to judge something that may have created you and if so, is judging you for all your life’s deeds?” This is a moral decision in itself and one that most people will find too intimidating to confront. The decision to judge God and the Word is also difficult to do based on fact since most of what we know about Him is based on faith. This goes back to the common belief most religions share that God is both the wisest and most merciful of all, and therefore can be trusted utterly. But what proof do we have of this when such merciless violence has been committed in His name?
The second question I should ask is most notably “Do I value my individuality?”. This kind of question can reach as far down as Socrates asking “Who am I?”.
Is your individuality the definition of your soul? The righteous would have you believe the soul was never yours to begin with, and therefore, cannot be your individuality. They tell you that if you are born with basically nothing, and your individuality is defined by your choices in life, then your soul has to be a separate component of who you are, independent of life’s choices, since it lives on beyond corporeal death. This suggests that your individuality dies with your body and your soul becomes one with God or is separated from God, which has been accepted by the faithful for countless years. It also suggests that the soul has a beginning, but not an end. But it fails to explain why an eternal soul should be judged for disobedience of God’s laws, when on the same page, you are told that you are loved by God unconditionally. Any Christian will tell you that mankind’s judgment could never equal God’s since God knows every event of your life and God’s law is eternal. It is true that Earthly justice is most often handled by courts and lawyers, or at least a group of people trusted to be wise, who are subject to corruption or biased points of view. Even this form of leadership has evolved from the ancient beliefs that kings were gods to be worshiped as well as obeyed. But more to date, in the vast number of cultures where justice by your peers and ‘innocent until proven guilty’ are unheard of, or are unfairly ignored due to bigotry, the judgment of God will look more appealing. Does this mean that nations that practice democratic justice fairly have made the holy judgment inferior? Just how much of God’s law is found in mankind’s law?
This is why Christianity is so popular, I think. The act of unconditional forgiveness by Christ attempts to resolve the issue of God’s judgment. If, for example, a criminal commits horrible and brutal crimes, he or she may be put in prison and possibly executed for their crimes, but if they give their life to Christ while in prison, like the faithful criminal next to Jesus on the cross, their wrongdoings are all forgiven and they may spend eternity in paradise with their newfound master. But having said this, there seems to be no point in being born at all if a person can just ask for the keys to heaven whenever they are given the “good news” and feel they are ready to accept it. By that logic, the act of submitting yourself to Christ (of making that choice) seems to be the only reason you were born of flesh and blood to begin with; that this life is all just a test of faith so that your soul can have the opportunity to be reborn. Being born again possibly implies that the soul has been purified from the knowledge of good and evil (which is most likely the definition of free will, which Christians say only God should posses) inherited by Adam and Eve. Otherwise, by this logic, mankind is deemed cursed by separation at ‘spiritual birth’ by God, and can only be redeemed by Christ, causing ‘spiritual rebirth’ now in fellowship with God. Another possibility is that you are innocent until you commit your first sin. Sin is defined as disobedience against God, knowingly or unknowingly. But this implies that sin is expected and unavoidable. I choose to instead believe that the Christian interpretation is that since you are born a sinner, you must be born again to be blessed with mercy in the eyes of God. Both beliefs show an inconsistency. A born again Christian can also subsequently be corrupted, and/or lose their faith, becoming separated from God again. The act of purification could occur numerous times in this case, throughout a person’s lifetime, by way of the act of forgiveness by Christ. These inconsistencies are enough to show that the Christians’ definition of redemption is not well thought out.
The act of redemption itself seems to just be the acceptance that mankind never truly possessed free will, only the choice to obey or disobey God, and admitting this in the presence of God while admitting everything you feel guilty about to Christ as your sacrifice will open your eyes to the hidden reality that was in front of you all along and save you from the curse you were born with. “I once was blind but now I see”.
The act of salvation by Christ is not necessarily consistent throughout a person’s lifetime, as I have said. It also does not take into account those that have been given biological life but are never given the opportunity to hear and understand the Word of God. This applies to infants that die of complications in the womb or shortly after birth, the severely mentally handicapped, as well as the millions and millions of people in third-world countries the missionaries never get the opportunity to witness to. If these unfortunate multitudes are given immediate access into the
The act of forgiveness, to me, just appears to be the bait that lures you in. It’s probably why the Romans decided to ultimately go with Christianity as their official religion by end of the 3rd century. They discovered over time that it was the perfect offer: Whether you’re good or bad, rich or poor, meek or powerful, you are loved by Christ and will be accepted with open arms into the
To return now to the definition of the soul and what it is to be human:
What is the soul? When does it begin? I don’t need to even TOUCH the controversy that surrounds the beginning of human life. But regardless of WHEN it begins, what may be more important to ask is WHY it begins. Why should something considered eternal have a beginning? Was this idea fabricated to justify that mankind was inferior to God, who also is eternal, but has no beginning or end? If you ask the right participant in Eastern religion, they’ll tell you that life itself is the definition of the soul, and all things living are a part of it, taking new forms throughout time. It’s not until you can quiet your mind of daily chatter that this starts to become clear though, so this may be why most Westerners never get the opportunity to discover it. ;)
The decision to first define your soul and then identify the master of it is no light one. (Unless you are vain, shallow and narcissistic – a fool will find this decision easy) But a decision as seemingly vital and permanent as this leaves many, including myself, in turmoil of making a decision they are satisfied with, if for no other reason, than both of these questions (“what is my soul?” and “who is its master?”) are debatably not even relevant. What if I have no soul and am merely a complex pattern of neurons firing off in rapid succession? And if that is true, how relevant are my emotions; my feelings of love, of hate, of passion, of utter despair and loneliness? To fear asking these questions is natural and I believe, one of the reasons people reject scientific thought and turn to some form of religion so that they may get the answers they want to hear.
CHAPTER THREE: The Christian Way of Life
I think educated people that get converted to Christianity have at least two principles of logic going for them. The first comes from Einstein. Whether the ancient Word is true on all accounts or not, it’s better to be safe than sorry. The second is a bit more consoling. Christ can be a guide, a friend and a brother and has suffered unspeakable torture and returned from death when no other human being could. Sounds like a fascinating guy , someone you can always count on and be inspired by.
A lot of my thought on me being part of the congregation again had centered around these two notions in the past (not that I consider myself educated).
I want to go through eight common statements that Christians choose to accept when summing up their own personal commitment to Christ, and follow up with my reply for these statements:
1. Jesus was the Son of God and his teachings were more than just lessons to instruct the masses on how to live: they are divine insights in which I can build my life with confidence.
Is it divine insights or common moral sense based on the keen observations of an upright mentally sound citizen? Why should someone be elevated to a status “greater than human” just because they can look around and say “This isn’t right”? If you want your ideas to go down into history, you or your ideas must win the respect of every succeeding generation. It seems Christ has achieved that status in spades. There is no question that the teachings of Christ were radically pacifist in nature and unique during his lifetime. What made his teachings unique was his refusal to discriminate against anyone based on race, sex or creed, and the offering of forgiveness by God for all wrongdoing. Christ wanted all people to love God and one another as much as he loved them and as much as he loved God. Sort of a Utopian vision, and ultimately what made him a martyr. The teachings of Christ from a Protestant point of view could almost be attributed to the foundations of American democracy, except that the founders of the United States Constitution were probably more interested in free enterprise than free religion. There is still merit in these moral lessons, though. Even today, discrimination is difficult to overcome and forgiveness is an alien concept to most. It shows strength when you can achieve something above mere tolerance. You don’t have to be a Christian or a participant of any religion to understand this, though.
I will admit that many nations, including the
2. Jesus has set the standard for right and wrong. I can use these principles as a steadfast and infallible foundation for my choices in life rather than laws and morals set by mankind, which are based on selfish and ever-changing values.
Everything I ever needed to know I learned in Kindergarten. Those folk who lack fine standing moral background (read heathens) are a product of their local upbringing. Those who manipulate the law for their own advantage (read corruption) are most likely aware that what they are doing is wrong but don’t care.
Our public acceptance of what is right and wrong varies subtly from culture to culture and over long periods of history for a culture, but enough that some cultures at any given time in history would consider something good in one culture and evil in another. Human sacrifice is one such controversy found in primitive cultures. An example of this is in the Aztec culture in the years just prior to their extermination by the Spaniards. The Aztecs believed that if they did not sacrifice a human life in the evening (I forgot exactly how many evenings per week), the sun would not rise at the expected morning hours. Since they did not want to murder their own citizens, they waged war on all the neighboring civilizations and clans so that they could take prisoners. Their prisoners of war were their ticket to the next sunrise. It is obvious that the idea of human sacrifice is more or less obsolete today, but the fact remains that at one time in history, people lived and died by such morals. The Aztecs were practicing these rituals long before the Spanish missions could spread the word of Christ, yet centuries after Christ had set his standards for living.
To say that the rules Christ laid down 2000 years ago are the de-facto moral standards is to ignore the afore-mentioned cultural differences throughout the world and throughout history. If there really IS a true standard for morality, that all people follow without question, it could only relate to our basic civilized behavior that is necessary for an individual to survive within a society. But even these morals will fluctuate somewhat. While it is true that from early in life, humans need love and attention in order to survive, this doesn’t go beyond the kind of attention baby apes get from their mothers in infancy or the companionship that monogamous mammals seek so that they may mate and perpetuate their species with one set of parents for their children. These cannot be what are defined as morals. Morals must instead be defined as rules based on generations of a given society or culture trying to live together as both a collective and as individuals in an orderly manner. If these rules did NOT change somewhat throughout human history, there would be chaos simply because mankind has changed through history.
Many of the most commonly accepted morals are simply weighted on degrees of severity.
Example: Sex between two people who are in love is ok, but sex with many partners is usually frowned upon, mostly because it’s too difficult to feel anything more than lust for them. Bigamy would imply an excessive amount of either love or lust. It seems like most religions frown on an excess of anything except love for their particular deity. Rape is a crime since there is only extreme lust and often hate from the offender, and the victim’s freedom and dignity, often their life, is threatened and violated. (i.e. the extreme case of lust combined with hate) Sexual perversion, which simply is severely excessive sexual behavior, is also considered evil by the righteous.
There are also levels of immoral tolerance and intolerance that vary greatly from culture to culture. In one society you may be smacked on the hand for a crime that in another culture you will lose it. It should all come down to choices since morals are a tool to help you make a choice that will be most beneficial for both your survival and your honor and respect among others.
Even if you only follow the finest moral upbringing you know, you still are unconsciously making moral choices that can cause harm. This is often necessary for survival and can’t be avoided.
For example, let’s say it is wrong to steal one of your neighbor’s cattle because he cannot replenish his supply and the cattle he owns and sells doesn’t belong to you; but it’s ok to go into the forest and cut down trees for shelter and heat, as God provides these things for us to use. This is fine until everyone in the village uses all the local forest and it cannot replenish itself with seeds and time to grow. The exact same concept is there. The only difference was ownership and the amount taken on an individual basis. (For God’s role in my example, the trees belong to Him and the supply of trees is determined by the cycle of life in the forest). There aren’t very many Judea-Christian morals against breeding excessively, which encourages an increase in the population; but the forests are a necessary part of the ecosystem being consumed at an accelerating rate as the human population increases. The obvious recourse in this example is for the village elders to decree more conservative use of the forest, which could be announced as a command by God, but in actuality was derived from the foresight of a wise leader concerning the village folks’ survival of another winter.
To trust in someone like the Almighty to tell you what is right and what is wrong after you’re old enough to make decisions for yourself will free you of guilt in such case that someone else is suffering the consequences of your morally rooted deeds. Some (ancient) examples? The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the
3. Jesus has risen from the dead and lives even today. I can speak with him on a personal basis whenever I am ready.
First of all, this tends to confuse the idea of corporeal death with spiritual death for most people. Most people have a natural intuition that something awaits us beyond the grave and we assume it’s everlasting, since both the future and ‘forever’ are concepts that we as mortals will never truly comprehend.
But more to the point, this one reminds me of Elvis. He has millions of fans from both the time in which he was alive and the time after his almost shameful death. They adore and respect him for the one thing he loved in life: his music. Most people think they love “Elvis the Man” without ever knowing him, and I’ve heard several interviews of people saying he was a nice guy but could be a little intimidating. Anyway, people get this idea of who they think he is/was based on their own creative interpretations of their observations of both the man and his music. Then there’s that crowd that swears he’s still alive, because the idea itself gives them hope and brings them great satisfaction. I like to attribute the same ideas to Jesus. There’s no way you could really know what he was like. His name wasn’t even Jesus or Christ. It was Yeshua bin Nazara. The name Christ was attributed to him by his followers to mean the messiah, after his death. His disciples were mostly smelly old fishermen that didn’t even believe half of what he said at the time. Most of his disciples didn’t even want to be part of the new Christian religion either. Saul/Paul is mostly responsible for giving the Christian religion a chance to survive because of his ties with Roman authority, and he ultimately died in prison fighting for his beliefs. Most historians agree that the miracles performed by Christ that cannot easily be explained (calming the storm, raising the dead, healing the sick) never happened. The events were falsely recorded by the authors of the gospels in the hopes that they could convert more pagans to their cause by inserting miracles performed by Christ that were similar to ones recorded in pagan religions, but had a more pacifist tone. This was during the times Christians were looked upon with disdain and ridicule by the majority of people living in or near
You have to make the decision whether or not Christ is your savior based on things people have been passing down for millennia. Their interpretations of other people’s interpretations. It is an act of pure faith, and in my eyes, this stems from something deep inside yourself, that relates to the most intimate and rudimentary traits of your being. It’s a decision that shakes you to the core, and most of the time, is for the cause of bettering yourself for a greater good. It’s a noble trait found in most everyone, I think.
As for talking to Christ like a friend and also like a father, it’s in our nature to want to have someone to look up to and be inspired by. If you can find no enlightenment and inspiration in your travels, the first natural step is to turn to someone you think can. I tend to think it was there all the time, you just need the right frame of mind to find it, and the life experiences to interpret it. If you look at all cultures in many time frames, you can plainly see that a randomly picked handful have a different path to righteousness. There’s more than one way to find harmony within yourself.
4. Since Jesus conquered death, he can show me the way to eternal life.
I assume this means eternal life with God, not separated from God, which I always assumed what Hell really is. Several people, like Saul and James, were converted to Christianity after apparently witnessing the risen Jesus, who had a mission for them from the afterlife. They seemed to accept these holy visitations without question and completely changed their life thereafter, so this begs the question, why didn’t they reject the notion of being visited by Christ, and why doesn’t Christ visit anyone in this way anymore? The first choice is probably because in modern times, people would think they were nuts. In the time of Christ, something like this was more believable. Now, this is something that goes back to that intimacy I spoke of earlier. I like to think that the apparitions are purely symbolic and men like Saul and James just interpreted their new life turn-around experience, inspired by the WORDS of Christ, as a vision from the Son of God. It made them really popular and influential with the church, I’m sure, and gave them a place of authority over those that merely prayed to Christ instead of being blessed with a mission from Heaven. Both of these men died for their beliefs, which is to be expected. For a decision as serious as that one, once you’ve found a life-changing solution you are truly happy with, it IS worth dying for from your personal point of view, I think, whether it’s true or not. It’s all in the eye of the beholder. My personality is such that I haven’t, as yet, found much of anything worth dying for. ;)
5. Jesus has the power of God, therefore he has the ability to miraculously transform me into a faithful servant of the Lord.
While it’s true that everything cannot be explained away by science, and never will, to live a pious life and face temptation daily is not something I would consider miraculous. The act of submitting your soul is perhaps, for some. But the former seems to just take daily meditation and prayer. These are activities which calm the mind and prepare a person for life’s ups and downs. Nearly every religion has practices for this in a large variety of ways. If this miraculous transformation implies someone you would never expect to become one of the faithful, I should remind you of my observations up to this point: The act of defining yourself, your soul, your priorities, and all the satisfaction weighed in contrast with all the guilt that comes with those intimate questions: all this can be triggered by someone merely passing judgment on things you may not have even thought of before. It’s amazing how much personal guilt and remorse for one’s actions, which are NOT divine or holy in any shape or form, can change a person’s attitude, and their outlook on life. This is especially true for converts to Christianity, as they are first told to feel guilty for their sins and then told they don’t have to continue feeling guilty as long as they join the club. And if that doesn’t work, the second phase is to remind the heathens of their inevitable mortality. ie. they are vulnerable. This type of brainwashing is the daily work of those considered righteous and the most devout.
6. Jesus has experienced both terrible loss and unbearable suffering. Therefore, in times of turmoil, which he has warned are inevitable in a world tainted by sin, he can bring comfort and encouragement.
Sounds like a scare tactic to me. The suffering Christ experienced the day he was crucified is very melodramatic, but Christians want you to believe the TRUE suffering he went through, even after hours of torture, humiliation and finally bleeding to death while suffocating, took place in Hell, and this short time that Jesus was separated from his Father was what paid for all of your sins. Surely his suffering was no greater than those that will dwell in the deepest bowels of Hell, who will have an eternity to wish they had made the correct decision in life for one forever-repeating instant. Show me what the Bible has to say about suffering beyond the corporeal state and you’ll find nothing that isn’t symbolic of simply eternal life without God. So if this is what Christ suffered, then I don’t sympathize, because at least he was able to ultimately return to his Father’s side. We as mankind get to stay there for eternity if we do not swear our life to him? He should still be there paying the enormous debt he seems to owe those that don’t care if he even exists. New souls are being born at an accelerating rate as we enter the new millennium. If he is to also pay the penance for all the sins of mankind yet to be born, his trip should have ended in Hell. Oh, but then he never would have come back from the dead and no one would really believe in him. Where’s the real sacrifice here?
As far as a world of turmoil and turbulence goes, that is the way of things. The way of nature. The way of our cultures. The way of the universe. The never-ending battle of chaos versus order. Good versus Evil, as some like to interpret it. Sin is only a crumb in the big enchilada. Sin is based on right and wrong, which I have observed isn’t 100% standardized.
7. Jesus loves me and wants only the best for me. This means I have nothing to lose and can only benefit from committing my life to him.
This idea suggests that your individuality and your soul is nothing. Nothing to lose, that is. It suggests that Christians have rationalized they do not need to make moral decisions anymore because they have someone else to do it for them. They must now consult the Almighty through prayer and reverence and forever reject the notion that they could ever make proper moral decisions for themselves. Sad. My opinion, anyway.
8. Jesus has claimed to be God, the Word made flesh. No leader of any other major religion has even pretended to be God. As my Creator, he rightfully deserves my allegiance, obedience, and worship.
Isn’t this a bit old fashioned? Sounds pretty noble, and some people like that, I guess. Saying Jesus is your creator implies that the Father and Son are really one and the same, when the Gospels go out of their way to point out that one is the path to righteousness and the other simply is righteousness. How about a little consistency? Early Christians had to invent the Holy Trinity just to make sure they had all the bases covered, and the clergy almost decided not to include the Holy Ghost in the Gospels. I also don’t agree that no other religious leader has claimed to be God.
CONCLUSION: Breaking Free
I come from
I have explored enough philosophical possibilities to see a lot of foolishness and inconsistencies in the Christian faith and in the Bible. Not just stuff I didn’t agree with, but things that could be interpreted nine ways to Sunday. One literal example I always give is that when a word is translated from Hebrew to Latin and then to English as ‘Wicca’ or ‘Witch’, it is interpreted in Hebrew as ‘Poisoner’ or someone who murders with poison, and not the witch in the sense we think of as being a servant of evil. I even noticed early on that certain things in the Gospels occur in different places in time or tell a completely different story altogether. Jesus’ altercation at the money changer’s tables is chronologically different throughout the Gospels. Each Gospel gives a different story of what the women at the tomb did and what they saw there. That’s only two examples.
My own quest for the divine is one of mixed emotions on trying to marry reason with feeling. I gave up on the search for “truth” quite some time ago, as truth is only as clear as your own interpretation. I never have gone for anything without a gut feeling. Without it just feeling “right”. I’ve always felt that in the end, surrendering my life to God and Jesus was not quite right, and never really felt right with myself about the decision, each time I decided to surrender myself. Did I back out each time? Most times I did. But when I really meant it, my first reaction each and every following day naturally was to question it and make sure I did the right thing. That’s part of my personality, even for things I DO believe in. I would always succumb to doubt by way of carefully weighing both sides of my confusion, and rationally concluding that my decision was naive and made in haste. It could have been fear at first, but the result has always been the same. If it was only a matter of trust, with all of its simplicity, I would have already submitted myself to Christ based on the assumption that all arguments against faith in God came from fear or the influence of evil, instead of doubt brought on by rational thought. If all my reasons for not trusting God are influences of evil, of the devil and of his influences on the world, then things are a lot more black and white than I perceive them to be. Those gray areas my logic seem to point out are lies and will ultimately destroy me. But somehow, I don’t think this is the case. I was never able to even completely trust those who claim to know God and love him utterly as being anything more than nice people with ‘good intentions’. I have yet to hear an interpretation of the Gospel that has convinced me I am truly free by showing obedience to an entity that can only exist because of unconditional belief. Christianity in particular has always failed to impress me by saving the “good news” for the end of the sermon. This news attempts to use my own guilt to convince me I am hopeless without a guide from the heavens. That I was born with a curse of evil but it wasn’t my fault. That I may be redeemed if only I contribute to a group of people that, if not for
Try not to get the idea that I think I’m in complete control of my own destiny, because there’s too many outside influences both environmental and subconscious. But my freedom and choices in life are something I treasure, and I won’t give them up to something that has never proven it has complete control over me and my own destiny. When such an entity manifests itself and forces me to change, then I will do so only to survive. For those of you living in a country where you cannot express and practice this kind of freedom, you must understand that you have been placed in a set of circumstances from birth where those that dominate you have the final say. I am thankful to live in a country where people have given their lives for over two centuries to allow people to think freely. Perhaps if you live in such a country, you should consider a geographical relocation, if that’s at all possible, if you agree with any of the thoughts I have laid out in this document.
Many of the questions I’ve been asking also are of little consequence, since they are most likely questions no one person possesses the wisdom to answer. I’m pretty sure I’ve already found my inner peace (which is what’s important) and it has little to do with the creator of life.
If all of this is wrong, and when I die, I’m doomed to spend an eternity without God just because I’m over analytical and my deeds judged with fire leave nothing but ash when I stand before the heavenly host, I’ll have the satisfaction of spending eternity knowing it was MY decision and not God’s. I can be confident of the fact the he created me that way, then chose to jettison me from the
No comments:
Post a Comment