An Introduction Part One: Who I Am

An Introduction Part One: Who I Am

I once happened to find myself wandering through a New York City bookstore one afternoon when I stumbled across a section called “Christian Fiction.” Imagine my surprise when I found no trace of a Bible! Is not the term “Christian Fiction” something of a redundancy, an oxymoronic play of words? For is not all of Christianity, and thereby the Bible, just fiction, fantastical stories from the minds of over-imaginative primates struggling to grasp the answers to their surroundings, the very keys to the universe they are a part of, bottled and sold still by a corrupt ad hypocritical regime of the “Holier-Than-Thous” and bought and consumed still by those so afraid to think for themselves, those individuals for whom logic and reason is so easily overridden by the briberies of a paradise after this life in exchange for servitude and a “pick and choose” application of archaic, sometimes contradictory, and often oppressive, laws and edicts?

Were it that I were still able to curl up in my mother’s arms and believe her tales of Santa Claus with visions of sugarplums still dancing in my head, to be childlike and impressionable and susceptible to every early indoctrination, then, and only then, would I know truly what it is to be called “Christian,” for did not Jesus himself allegedly say that, “Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3) Not at all those who call themselves “Christians,” however, are ignorant and hypocritical. Quite the contrary, while they may be misguided, there are a great many who accept the differences in others while simultaneously understanding that the Scripture on which their faith is based upon is something allegorical and figurative, rather than a literal and historical account of what has been, is, and ever shall be. I have been invited here to present a series of dissertations against those we shall the “Literalists.” These are the men and women of the Christian faith (which sect, pick one!) who claim the Bible is perfectly true, historically accurate, and “straight from God’s brain to [their] hands,” to quote one Bartholomew J. Simpson.

Throughout the course of what I hope will be several weeks, I shall be providing various commentaries and arguments on topics ranging from how religion in general, and Christianity in specific, is inherently divisive, to the incompatibility of an omniscient God with a truly free will, from how the Virgin Mary was likely anything but to the historical and even blatant textual inaccuracies in the whole of the Bible, particularly, for the sake of this website, in the New Testament, from “Tastes great!” to “Less filling!” Be forewarned: I will ramble at times. I will draw examples from sports, from history, from television shows, from hypothetical situations to argue my points. I will be sarcastic at times, yet serious, firm, and yet fair. I will draw upon such sources as the Bible itself, Gnostic texts, alternative texts such as those by Timothy Freke, scholarly texts such as those by Shelby Spong, and philosophical texts such as those by David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, Plato, Aristotle, and Martin Smith. For the other side of the argument, I will address those with stronger arguments such as C.S. Lewis and Father William O’Malley, the latter of which was a mentor of mine in high school and college, and those with weaker but more forceful arguments such as Jerry Falwell and Lee Strobel, the latter of which uses his “journalistic skills” and takes the notion that since no one ever recovered Jesus’ body, that is proof of the Resurrection. That’s some fine detective work there, Mr. Strobel. Perhaps Jesus is hanging out with Hoffa sipping lattes somewhere in the Southwest then?

My purpose here is not to prove that Christianity is wrong per se, but rather that it simply is not correct. There is a difference. Christianity, the spirit of it, the core of it all, is something I find to be very real. There is a certain beauty and comfort in the belief that after all of the hardships of life, there is a better place for us all. Where Christianity crosses the line is where it begins to dictate who gets that better place and how they get there. Despite the messages of inclusiveness, once you define yourself and your fellow believers as possessing criteria A, B, and C, you automatically by extension create an “Other,” those who possess criteria D through Z, i.e. those who do not belong. This divisiveness is at the heart of every religion, no matter what benignity it clothes itself in disguise. This is an attack, for lack of a less militaristic word, on the Literalists to, quite simply, show them the errancy of inerrancy. So, hang on tight and bear with me as I lose my “blogging virginity” here and I promise to do my best to create an open dialogue with those from both sides of the fence, and everywhere in between. All comments, questions, challenges, love and hate mail are always welcome. Now kindly read on to Part Two, which can be read here..

8 comments:

Kaffinator said...

Not sure if I should comment at DC any longer…after Loftus’ removal of his thoroughly debunked Rick Warren post, it seems the new policy ‘round these parts is to erase all trace of successful criticism.

So with the expectation that my efforts may end up in the bit-bucket…

> My purpose here is not to prove that Christianity is wrong per se, but rather that it simply is not correct. There is a difference. Christianity, the spirit of it, the core of it all, is something I find to be very real.

Baserap schisms what is “real” from what is true (“correct”). Can you hear Reason weeping?

> There is a certain beauty and comfort in the belief that after all of the hardships of life, there is a better place for us all.

Is there a certain beauty or comfort in the belief that my home is made of sugar wafers? Or that if I flap my arms hard enough that I can fly? I believe Jesus Christ rose from the grave, Baserap. Pity me, scorn me, even ignore me if you wish. But do not condescend to me by labeling “good” what is to you a false belief. It cheapens us both.

> Where Christianity crosses the line is where it begins to dictate who gets that better place and how they get there. […] This divisiveness is at the heart of every religion, no matter what benignity it clothes itself in disguise. This is an attack, for lack of a less militaristic word, on the Literalists […]

Despite Baserap’s scorn of exclusivity he cannot help but exclude “Literalists”. And so we see that divisiveness is at the heart of Baserap’s religion as well. A classic case of sawing the branch upon which he sits.

Anonymous said...

Kaff, I'm going to try to edit the thing about Warren and repost it later, with your comments intact, so don't worry. The timing wasn't right, and the aim wasn't achieved.

Kaffinator said...

Hi John, I appreciate the explanation.

Kaffinator said...

I appreciate the cordiality of your response, CJ.

> What "cheapens us both" is to see only negative and be unable to accept a genuine compliment, my friend.

So it seems to me that by “real” but not "correct", you are simply saying that the Christian’s self-delusion is real to him, and you might respect his fervency, and perhaps even share a sort of optimism that you wish what his beliefs were indeed true, but ultimately you do hold that it IS a delusion. If this describes your position accurately, I am sorry but I only view this as a deeply ambivalent compliment.

> As for the "divisiveness," I can understand your point. I never claimed, however, that I had all the answers, let alone have a "religion."

Why don’t you re-read your opening paragraph, in which you allege that all of Christianity is nothing more than “fantastical stories” sold by a “hypocritical regime” to people “afraid to think for themselves” but are bribed by a false paradise in exchange for “contradictory” and “oppressive” edicts.

Someone who writes a paragraph like that is most certainly claiming to have the answers and is without question engaging in a holy war. You have chosen to enter the battlefield with a specific position to defend, so … defend it! This mock-casual “But, hey, that’s life! And that’s fine” business that compares our very belief (or disbelief) in God to be a matter as casual as sports team allegiance is demeaning to anyone who takes their faith (or lack of it) seriously.

Scrivenings said...

allege that all of Christianity is nothing more than “fantastical stories” sold by a “hypocritical regime” to people “afraid to think for themselves” but are bribed by a false paradise in exchange for “contradictory” and “oppressive” edicts.

Sharon: First off, I've read C.J.'s post(s) and I find what he wrote thought-provoking and well-stated. Pleased to acquaint another Agnostic.

Second, I think many Christians misunderstand when non-believers make statements that may seem "abrasive" .. they take it too personal, - because it's their belief system in discussion. The Christian really ought not to take it so personally. The anger is not being directed at them personally -- but a system that is broken, at least that's speaking for myself. Most non-believers are addressing the position, not the person. We too were Christians once, and many of us were devoted, reverent God-fearing believers... often sincere devotees, so naturally as deconverts you'd expect us to be equally as passionate in our non-belief as we were when we were believers... many of us found ourselves let down. Once bitten, twice shy.
I fervently believed with blind faith for a couple decades of my life that the Bible was God's one true inerrant word, and will never forget the shock and grief that evening when I read "The Bible Handbook", I set there comparing scriptures until the sun rose. I was cooked -- I was sick to my stomach... for several days I was in a state of shock... I felt like my safe little world had caved in beneath my feet -a second time. (The first was when the Church itself began falling apart in 1991). I went a couple years hanging on to the Bible in blind faith --and had that taken out... it was a spiritual freefall I did not ask for and I did not want. The Bible had contradictions in it. The most traumatizing thing was, all my life a preacher had a patent answer for everything. Every question in life, was filled in with God or a scripture... and now I found myself very alone. I had invested two decades of my life in a lie.
I had been told all my life, that it was a lie to say a contradiction was found in scripture --I was told it was inspired by God himself --and a perfect book -- I defended that book with strong convictions -- I would have done anything to please God, but I knew what I was seeing / reading with my own eyes. Contradictions... errors... so how can I ever respect these people again? They lied to me.
I believed the preachers when they said with all conviction, "Live your life just so... and God will reward you just so." I *expected* those promises to fulfil, but it never happened that way. As Farrel Till put it, "I was sold a bag of damaged goods". I have personal grievances with religion... I have a right to feel angry and betrayed toward the system of religion. I'm sure C.J.'s got his own story, everyone here does. Many of us took our religion that seriously, most of us, we believed with all our heart, soul and mind... what are we suppose to feel like?

Kaffinator said...

Sharon and CJ, I do believe I’ve been misunderstood. By quoting CJ’s initial paragraph I was not responding from some kind of deep personal offense. Nor was I demanding he substantiate every contention in that paragraph. I was simply pointing out that his position was in fact being expressed in a form stronger than opinion.

Scrivenings said...

Kaffinator: I was simply pointing out that his position was in fact being expressed in a form stronger than opinion.

Sharon: Of course. For most people ranging from Christian to Atheist to everything in-between spiritual views are almost always much more than an "opinion".

Kaffinator said...

Well, Sharon, I guess you'll have to take this up with CJ since he's the one who used the word (not I) :-)