A Christmas Card for a Closet Atheist

Peace Be Unto You

Yes . . . I still receive Christmas cards. But, I don't mind.

Since the cards I receive usually come from acquaintances, friends, and loved ones, I still take time to read them. The fact that I no longer consider myself Christian is still largely undisclosed to most people who know me. So, it makes sense that people still send me Christmas cards.

And who knows? Perhaps they would still send Christmas cards to me if they discovered how I really felt about Christianity. Maybe they would try to use the cards as a means to stir up convictions in my heart concerning my apostasy. Nonetheless, the fact remains; I don't mind the Christmas cards.

So, I get a particular card wishing me peace for this holiday season. I honestly appreciate the sentiment. They even took the time to hand write a personal note which also wished me a happy New Year. That felt good to read.


Peacemakers-- the Children of God

This lovely card concluded with an afterthought from Matthew 5:9 which reads:

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

After reading that, I tossed the card aside. But then, I started to wonder about the implications of that verse.

Next, the questions flooded my mind.

Exclusive?

The verse from the book of Matthew implies that peacemaking is a virtue that can identify one as a child of God. If such a virtue identifies one as a child of God, then is the virtue of peacemaking exclusive to Christians? In other words, are the only people capable of pursuing peace the children of God?

What if a Muslim acted as a peacemaker and denounced the radicalized versions of his or her faith? Could that person then be called a child of God based on the teachings attributed to Jesus concerning peacemakers?

What about an atheist who engaged in peacemaking endeavors? Could that individual be named as a child or God?

The Nobel Peace Prize

Could the Nobel Peace Prize be a reliable standard for declaring someone a peacemaker? If so, what if an non-Christian became a Nobel Peace Prize laureate? I wonder would that individual still qualify to receive the label "child of God".

What about an atheist laureate? Perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't have a high enough standard to be use as the criteria for a true peacemaker. The award seems to hold at least some integrity because the laureates have usually pursued an outcome of peace in the face of adversity on a national or international level. But, perhaps this standard isn't what Jesus had in mind during his sermon on the mount. If that's true, then what do those standards for a peacemaker look like?

What Did Jesus Mean?

Is it possible that being called a child of God had more to do with how one behaved rather than the religious doctrine one professed? After all, being called a child of God carries the connotation that one is saved and has a relationship with God as a Christian. Perhaps that verse from Matthew records an attempt by Jesus to suggest that the children of God only need to be peacemakers, rather than adhere to any specific religious doctrine. These are, after all, the words of Jesus, right? Couldn't he have meant that?

Did Jesus even mean to equate peacemaking with being a child of God? How can one think that peacemaking is an identifier for the children of God after considering the following quote attributed to Jesus?

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

(Matthew 10:34-35 KJV)

Since Christians generally accept Jesus as the only begotten Son of God-- and often call him the prince of peace (Isaiah 9:6), it would make sense that Jesus would equate peacefulness with being at least one identifier of God's children.

But according to Matthew 10:34, Jesus would not have us be confused or mislead-- peace on earth is not his objective. Yet, the same source that revels Jesus' teachings about peacemakers being called the children of God also revels to us that Jesus has no interest in bringing peace to earth. Instead, bringing a sword to divide people against one another is an expectation we should have concerning Jesus.

Perhaps peace requires strife and that was the true idea Jesus wanted to convey. Is this what Jesus, the son of God, means when he says that he came to bring a sword to earth to cause strife while still at the same time says that peacemakers are called the children of God? Does this mean the true peacemakers are those who cause strife in the name of a higher purpose or cause? Could killing for God, should he ever command it, be a possible action of peace?

Hoodwinked?

Though all this line of questioning, I do not mean to suggest that Jesus ever lied to us about what he really means concerning peace. I don't claim to know exactly what he said or meant; I was not at the sermon on the mount 2,000 years ago and I don't have authoritative understanding concerning his declaration that he came to bring a sword-- not peace-- to earth. Therefore, I do not have enough evidence to accuse him of deception. However, as I contemplate the quotes which both come from the book of Matthew, I can't help but wonder if people added words to Jesus' teachings over the centuries as the book of Matthew entered circulation.

How can we be sure the words of Jesus were never altered once they were written down-- assuming his words were correctly recorded in the first place? Consider the book of Mark: an ending by a second author was appended to the book of Mark according to many reputable scholars. Even a few main stream study Bibles make a note of this occurrence. How then can we know that the book of Matthew never had revisions by multiple authors? And in those possible revisions, how would we know if words were attributed to Jesus that he never actually said?

And Again, I Say: Peace Be Unto You

Shall we solidly conclude then that only children of God are the peacemakers of the world? This is a worthy question to ponder during the holiday season.

Also to consider: Can non-believers be peacemakers? And . . . what can we all do-- believers and non-believers alike-- to spread more peace throughout the world and towards those close to us in our lives.

Think about it. I'll try to think about it, too. I see nothing wrong with endeavoring to be peacemakers if that means making the world around us a better, safer place.

May peace be unto you all-- not only for this holiday season, but to the fullest extent possible!

Happy Holidays!

The Arms of Jesus

Both of my kids participate in the my local county soccer association. This results in my sometimes mingling with other soccer parents that I'd probably never meet otherwise.

One parent happened to be a semi-pro soccer player himself and (to me) seemed quite fit and active. His son looked like he may very well be on the same path to becoming quite adept with a soccer ball.

This gentleman that I just described recently experienced a serious heart condition that was obviously lurking for some time; however, it's manifestation was sudden and surprising. He ended up staying in the hospital for weeks.

I finally saw him at one of the games recently. I didn't recognize anything about him except his voice. He was frail and he couldn't walk due to atrophy, so he was going to watch the game from the passenger side of the parked, family van. He called my name as I was making my way out to the field to watch my son play; I was unwittingly passing by where he sat.

He talked about how he was totally caught off guard by his turn in health. He talked about all the tubes he endured-- even feeding tubes-- and all the lost weight. He talked about his sense of helplessness and his newfound dependency upon others for simple things such as getting a decent shave.

He strongly alluded to also having a near death experience. He described how he had a feeling that he was leaving this world when his heart condition finally came to the surface so suddenly.

He began to cry as he continued to describe how he thought he was going to die, but then he seemed to be in a warm place. He felt as though he was wrapped in an electric blanket. He became calm and felt safe.

He said that he didn't want to leave because he realized he was in the arms of Jesus.

I never had a near death experience, but I suspect that I'm slightly familiar with the feelings he described because of my exposure to Pentecostalism. I remember many such warm feelings during worship and praise. I have known moments of ecstasy where I totally lost my sense of where I was. I think I could identify with some of the feelings he described.

But, then he spoke of how he saw his wife and children. He thought of them and realized that he couldn't leave them. So, he chose to come back despite the beaconing warmth of Jesus' arms.

He was still crying as he talked. But, I became curious. Was he crying because he was so overjoyed to have felt the arms of Jesus, or was he crying because he almost died and could only barely hold on to life because he didn't want to abandon his family?

I wondered this because he spoke of the fear of never seeing his family again with a sense of agony. He talked about how his children have reacted to his being gone from home for so long. I do think he was very afraid-- but I cannot know his deepest thoughts.

He admonished me to trust in Jesus because now he's certain that he's real. He already assumes I'm a Christian-- and he already believed in Christ. But, he just couldn't help but be sure to mention how real Jesus has become to him now that he's had such an experience.

I was very much like that after I had spoken in tongues for the first time. I remember it quite well.

His appeal was emotional and certainly compelling. But, I also know that such feelings can come from totally within ourselves.

I didn't debate him. That was not the time for such a conversation. I'm just glad he survived his life-threatening aliments and remained in the land of the living.

But, I'm still not convinced his tears were of joy for being in the arms of Jesus. I believe he was simply afraid for it all to end so suddenly-- without any warning.

Again, I cannot know how he truly felt. I can only speculate and impose my own bias thinking upon his words.

Besides-- even if he did cry because of fear (and not joy), I certainly cannot say that I blame him for his tears. I'd probably cry just the same.

The AFA is Right; Not Censoring New JC Show Would Be Unfair

I saw this e-mail today. I'll quote it first, then expound upon it:

Comedy Central set to blaspheme Christ with "JC" show

The Comedy Central network is planning a cartoon series about Jesus Christ entitled "JC."

June 7, 2010

Dear (name removed)

In its promotional material for the program "JC", Viacom describes Jesus as a "regular guy" - rather than the Son of God - and depicts him moving to New York to "escape his father's enormous shadow." The Father is depicted as an apathetic dad virtually addicted to video games and totally uninterested in his son's life.

So Comedy Central is set - unless we intervene - to blaspheme two-thirds of the Trinity on a weekly basis.

A depiction of Jesus on Comedy Central's "South Park" (Courtesy of Comedy Central)See how we expect Comedy Central to mock Christ by viewing this previous offering of anti-Christian bigotry from the show "South Park." Warning - It is offensive, but depicts the animosity the network has toward Christianity.

Yet in recent weeks Comedy Central bowed to pressure from Islamic groups and heavily censored an episode of "South Park" that showed Mohammed in a bear costume. The hypocrisy here is staggering.

Comedy Central shows more respect for Mohammed and for Muslims, who represent two percent of the American population, than for Jesus Christ and the 83% of Americans who believe in him.

We need to send a loud, clear message to Comedy Central and all potential advertisers of "JC" that this kind of insulting programming is completely unacceptable. If we speak with one voice now we can keep this program from ever seeing the light of day.

Sign our petition today and make your voice heard. This petition, with your signature on it, will be sent to the decision-makers who will determine whether this program airs.

At first I thought, "these people have no right to suppress free speech".

Then I realized something else-- the violent, threating members of Islam have already done this when the most recent South Park's depiction of Mohammad was censored on television.

This is not fair after all.

We pick on Jesus because Christians probably won't come together in larger numbers and threaten to murder. One might kill, but a community of Christians won't come together and threaten everyone with misery and death if the JC show airs and offends the majority of America.

But we won't dare say anything about Allah or his (so called) prophet Mohammad (why should peace be upon him? he certainly isn't generating peace upon us after he's been gone for centuries!).

Just that comment above could get me killed if I had a wider audience. I could have this blog pulled because I defamed the name of Mohammad.

Until our society realizes that we need to have the balls to own up to our rights of free speech, free inquiry, and freedom to criticize, then we sure as hell have no business making fun of Jesus Christ without censoring him in the same way that South Park's recent depiction of Mohammad was censored.

We must not forget where we came from. During an era of witch hunts, despotic kings and governors, kidnappers and slave traders, inquisitions, and spreading of religion by dominant force-- a beacon of reason and Enlightenment declared that enough was enough. The people wanted a government that gave a rats ass about the people, a ruler that was respected, but could be taunted, and a freedom to pursue happiness and liberty.

And the people knew that in order to have this, an environment needed to be created where someone could discover controversial truths and express them openly for the ultimate betterment of human kind.

If people can't say something negative or controversial about Mohammad, Jesus Christ, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, or even yours truly, then we will find ourselves too afraid to point out danger when we see it. We will hold on to delusions out of fear. We will dismiss the reasonable when insanity is handed to us. We will fall into a well of ignorance and usher in a new Dark Age.

Mohammad doesn't have the right to do that to us. But until we get that into our heads, we don't have a right to pick on JC while cowering in from of Allah.

I Have My Doubts About Mary

While participating in a group conversation, someone expressed to us how the virgin birth of Jesus never sounded quite right to her growing up.

During my religious days, I never gave the issue much thought. It was a miracle. That was that. The Holy Ghost planted the seed in Mary's womb. What's so hard to understand about that?

Then someone else brought up the point that teen-age pregnancies are highest among the most religious regions of the United States.

She then pointed out how odd it was for Fundamentalists to believe that abstinence only programs can work when Mary still got pregnant as a virgin.

Oops!

Then the originator of this topic quipped:

Well . . . I have my doubts about Mary.

Yup.

Me, too . . . me, too.

The Four Legends of Jesus: Part II

In part one of The Four Legends of Jesus, I stopped with the Jewish revolt of 70 A.D. ending in massacre by the hands of the Romans. Shortly after the failed revolt, the gospel of Mark emerges as the first written gospel. Recall the possibility that Jewish Christians and mainstream Jews alike were expecting a Messiah to rise up and secure the new kingdom during the revolt against Rome. While Jewish Christians were possibly looking for Jesus to return and establish the kingdom, the mainstream Jews were probably looking for a different Messiah to rise up from among their ranks.

Either way, the revolt failed and Jerusalem was sacked; the Temple--so precious to the Jews of Jerusalem--was desecrated and laid to waste.

Mark

The "new Jews" probably needed new encouragement to help them endure the deep disappointment of an absent Messiah. But what could facilitate healing after such a brutal pounding from the Romans? The survivors lost loved ones in a bloody massacre as well as their central symbol of God's presence-- the Temple.

Many scholars of textual criticism point out that the gospel of Mark is short and abrupt relative to the other canonized gospel writings. Consider the original ending of Mark before it was edited. The women who want to anoint the body of Jesus with spices are last seen frightened and fleeing the tomb, telling no one what they saw. Also, we find that Jesus is absent from the tomb, said to be away in Gallilee.

Jesus was absent from the revolt, too. He didn't make his way back down from Heaven.

The traditional ending of Mark found in the typical bible was added on later. Mark actually ends in chapter 16 verse eight. Someone apparently didn't like how Mark originally ended and needed to smooth over Mark's bewildering ending. But in doing so, the editor of Mark may have covered up an intentional literary device by the original author.

The goal of Mark seems to be consolation towards the followers of Jesus after the failed revolt. Again, someone needs to smooth over the disappointment caused by failed expectations of prophesy. The gospel of Mark seems to depict Jesus as a reflection of the people who suffered through the horrors in Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. Also, Mark seems to reach out to the diasporic Jews who saw the outcome of the failed revolt from afar. Mark attempts to help the followers of Jesus feel as though he identifies with and knows their sorrows. For instance, Jesus falls prostrate in the garden before he is crucified, begging God to take the cup of suffering from him. He exclaims to his disciples that he is overwhelmed with sorrow, to the point of death before he is arrested. Likewise, many of the people who endured the punishment of the Roman army no doubt fell prostrate, begging not to be slaughtered by the sword.

The women leave the tomb during the resurrection scene not knowing what to think and terribly afraid--wondering where Jesus could be. In like manner, those who endured the failed revolt were probably thinking the exact same thing. Those who were "new Jews" were probably afraid and wondered where Jesus could be. Why hasn't he returned like he said? Yet, the mysterious man standing at the tomb insists Jesus is alive somewhere. Perhaps Mark also attempts to leave a subtle glimmer of hope concerning Jesus. Maybe he's challenging the reader. Will you continue to look for and hope for Jesus? Will you go to Gallilee and find him? Or will you run away in fear, never reaching past his empty tomb?

On a side note: the prophesy of the demolished Jewish Temple was added in hindsight in my opinion. If the disappointed early Christians can be persuaded that Jesus predicted this, they may very well accept that he has a higher purposes and meaning to his words than they could have possibly understood. But if none of this was divine to begin with, the only way the "prediction" of the Temple could appear in Mark is for if the revolt happened first.

Matthew

Matthew seems to work towards depicting a new kind of Jesus-- Jesus, the King of the Jews. The dating of Matthew is debated (as well as Mark), but many think Matthew was written next. In this gospel, Jesus often speaks of fulfilling the law and acts as a literary type of Moses by going up into the mountains and coming back down to the people with a message or miracle from God. Jesus has a pedigree that links him directly back to Abraham. The actions and words of Jesus are quite often a fulfillment of an alleged Old Testament prophesies (many of which Jews contest or claim to be gross misinterpretations by Christians). The author of Matthew is attempting to attract mainstream Jews into accepting Jesus as the real Messiah. I suppose the first failed revolt left a bitter taste in their mouths and Jesus' promise needs to be fulfilled soon. In the meanwhile, an appeal needed to be made to the rest of Israel to rally behind their soon to return Messiah.

Luke

Later comes Luke. Again, the dating is debatable. But since so much of Mark is contained in the other three Gospels, Mark is considered a literary source. Unlike Matthew, Luke is written largely to a pagan audience. Luke takes time to explain Jewish laws to his audience, which wouldn't be necessary with a largely Jewish readership. Luke also traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way to Adam-- who is the son of God. Luke alludes to the divinity of Jesus in somewhat of a pagan manner-- reminiscent of mystery religions in my view. Jesus is the son of God, much like Caesar was probably seen as the son of God. Human, yet divine.

Luke also tried to stress to the Greeks that one could still be safe under Roman rule while converting to Christianity.

Honest. The Romans won't become suspicious of you if you openly became a Christian.

Honest.

According to many scholars of textual criticism, the gospel of Luke is written with pristine Greek-- the finest of the whole New Testament canon. Luke is said to write on the level of a Classical Greek novelist. I'm sure this helped to hold the attention of his sophisticated, Greek audience. Also, many people forget that the book of Acts was part of the gospel of Luke. And with Paul often depicted as a missionary to the Gentiles, he appears in Acts. Paul's "Roman" citizenship is played up a few times in Acts. His citizenship even prevents Paul from getting flogged or mistreated by Roman guards when he's arrested. The Book of Acts even ends with a "happily ever after" feel as Paul preaches the gospel in Rome unhindered.

But secular history tells us that Paul returned to Jerusalem just before his arrest-- years before Luke and Acts were even written. The Romans arrested Paul as a rebel rouser and executed him. Likewise, the Romans went after Peter and the other leaders as well because they suspected this fringe movement of Judaism was creating dissension towards the Roman government.

Yeah, being an early Christian in Rome was really safe.

John

In the gospel of John, Jesus is sometimes depicted as a superman. Jesus embodies the full divinity and majesty of God. Contrasted with Mark-- Jesus delivers a beautiful prayer in the presence of his disciples before he is arrested (John 17). When the Roman guards finally come to arrest Jesus, they inquire of his whereabouts. When Jesus responds, all the Roman guards fall back onto the ground! To me, this expresses that Jesus willingly goes away with his captors. These guards clearly didn't have the power to apprehend Jesus; he is only letting them take him away and nail him to the cross. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. Compare the story of Jesus' arrest with all the other gospels within the context I've presented so far. Do you still see four people telling different angles of the same event? Or do you see four different "Jesuses" pitched to four different audiences, written by four different authors who have four different religious or political agendas?

Another fascinating feature of John (and perhaps found in the other gospels) is the constant rivalry between Jesus and the Pharisees. They argue with Jesus constantly when he claims authentic Judaism. But . . . if Pharisees were truly Abraham's children, they would love Jesus-- not hate him. But the Pharisees don't love Jesus at all. So then, the Pharisees cannot be the real Children of God-- but rather only the Children of the Devil.

But according to some historians, Pharisees weren't prominent until years after the Temple fell and synagogues became more important than ever. Interestingly, this phenomena seems to match the time that John was probably written-- decades after the fall of the Temple. So then, Pharisees seem to become some sort of anachronism within the gospels.

Hmmmm . . . .

As the synagogue and Pharisees became more important in Judaism, the mainstream Jews were finally making a full split with Christians as John was being written. The gospel of John was the final cry of an outcast group demanding to still be called Jewish as they were being thrown out of the synagogues. By now, the mainstream Jews had a new Messiah by the name of Bar Kokhba and strong tensions for a new revolt were forming again.

Eventually, Bar Kokhba was believed to be the true Messiah and lead a second Jewish rebellion that was also smashed by the Roman government.

The "new Jews" sat out on this failed revolt. By now, they were too Christian to be Jews and were too smart to be creamed a second time by the Romans. Christians now have their eternal, divine Jesus as their Messiah. His return is still soon, but he is otherworldly now and can flutter down from the Heavens to establish the kingdom whenever he sees fit. At this point, many first generation Christians were passing on. So then, the return of Jesus and the establishment of God's kingdom finally needed to transcend time and place so that Christ's followers could still maintain hope in rising above any political situation that kept them oppressed.

If it had not been for Constantine, Christianity would perhaps be regarded as nothing more than a myth or legend by now. Probably not too different from the ancient mystery religions or the ancient religions of Greece and Rome that finally fizzled out from that time period. And if Christianity did hang on without Constantine, I have a feeling the believers would only make up a very small religious order.

With this new perspective, I don't see Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the four gospels any longer. I now see them as the Four Legends of Jesus.

I don't think I could ever bring myself to become a fundamentalist Christian again.

Just so you know I didn't make all of this up on my own, you can see the documentary that inspired this post:

From Jesus to Christ

DISCLAIMER

I also want to stress that I'm mainly stating my opinions based on what I've understood from the documentary, some extra reading, and a few suspicions I've held in the back of my mind since my deconversion. I don't make any claims at being a biblical scholar and I understand that my analysis could be wrong in many places. But, I personally feel like my presentation is a rough idea of how Jesus evolved from a Jewish political rebel, to the Messiah, and then into the very person of God in the flesh.

I believe the followers of Jesus changed who he was over time-- from a fringe group's Messiah to the Christian's Jesus Christ.

The Four Legends of Jesus: Part I

For all my life, I understood the gospels to be four harmonious accounts of the same events. Even after becoming an atheist, that idea remained uncontested in the back of my mind.

Not anymore.

First, let's apply the context that has shaped my new opinion.

The earliest of Christians (You know, Peter . . . Paul-- those guys) probably saw themselves more so as enlightened Jews rather than "Christians". And like most mainstream Jews in the first century, these "new Jews" were eager for the re-establishment of their former Davidic kingdom which was to be accomplished by the Messiah. Thus, the kingdom of God was initially an exclusive desire of the Jews. The first Christians, then, are best viewed as newly enlightened Jews who would follow along with their newly realized Messiah (Jesus) who will bring about the establishment of the Davidic kingdom of God. The establishment of God's kingdom would require the overthrowing of Roman rule. A defining quality of the Messiah is to accomplish the resurrection of the kingdom; mainstream Jews reject Messianic claims from anyone who accomplishes less than that.

So, these "newly enlightened Jews" believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the real Messiah. They trusted him and expected him to fulfill the required work of the Messiah by saving Israel from Rome.

But before anything significant happened against Rome, Jesus was executed.

No revolution. No Davidic kingdom. No overthrowing of Roman rule.


No Messiah.

So, now what?

I suspect that the words of Jesus suddenly needed new interpretation as his followers struggled to understand why he died without even sparking a revolution. They eventually rationalized that Jesus must rise from the dead; after which, he will return to Earth from Heaven and establish the new kingdom of God.

But, this peculiar fringe group of Jews were probably dwindling fast after the death of Jesus. And the truest followers who invested the most into Jesus were probably dealing with cognitive dissonance. Once they saw that Jesus did not immediately fulfill the required role of the Messiah, the key followers of Jesus rationalized that he would return to fulfill his Messianic requirements after making certain preparations in Heaven. In the meanwhile, the "new Jews" needed to recruit new followers. However, the Jesus-movement couldn't seem to bring in very many mainstream Jews.

Why not?

Because mainstream Jews were looking for a living Messiah who would establish the kingdom presently. Right then. Jesus did not fit that description. The mainstream Jews were not going to follow a "failed" Messiah. And as the decades turned into centuries, this "new Judaism" evolved into the familiar Christianity of today. And this Christianity is quite opposed to Judaism concerning the nature of God. Not only do Jews reject Christianity because of the failure of Jesus as Messiah, but Jews also reject Christianity because most (not all) Christians understand Jesus to be more than just the Messiah; Jesus is divine. Jesus is God. For many Jews, the Godhead has no room for Yahweh and Jesus, too.

Hear O Israel, the LORD your God is one LORD.

So then, the new Jews had little choice. Go ye therefore and teach those pagans!

Er, I mean . . . teach all nations . . .

The "new Jews" invited Gentiles into this new flavor of non-exclusive Judaism. Paul seemed to be the greatest champion of this cause. And as the Gentile base grew within the "new Judaism", it slowly became less Jewish and more Christian.

Keep in mind that at this point in history only the letters of Paul where being circulated. No gospels seem to have been written at this point. Perhaps a general document containing the sayings of Jesus was floating around, but the gospels as a literary work do not seem to be in circulation just yet.

While the "new Jews" were growing, tensions grew between the Romans and Jews of all flavors. This tension built up over decades until it finally exploded in Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. The Jews in Jerusalem staged a revolt against Rome.

And the Romans responded with hot and heavy-handed anger. They brutally crushed the attempted rebellion of the Jews.

Many of the "new Jews" were probably expecting Jesus to return during the revolt to finally establish the kingdom. But instead, the "new Jews" and mainstream Jews alike were burned, maimed and killed in the streets. Those fortunate enough (unfortunate, maybe?) to survive these horrors fled out of Jerusalem for their lives.

Shortly after the revolt, the gospel of Mark appears-- the earliest of the four main gospel writings.

In my opinion, the historical context that I just presented sheds light on the true purpose behind each canonized gospel writing. I think this context also provides a better understanding of who Jesus and the earliest Christians truly were.

And with that, I will conclude part I of this post.

In the meanwhile, you can see where I'm coming from and where I'm going with this post by visiting the link below:

From Jesus to Christ

Stay tuned.

Salvation at a Discount

One aspect of Christianity that often bothered me was the attempt to reconcile contradictory concepts.

God is one -- but he's also Father, Son, and Spirit.

Jesus is God. Yet, Jesus is God's Son.

Salvation is by grace alone. Only the blood of Jesus can save you. Yet, if you don't live a holy life -- even as a spirit filled believer -- you might not make it to heaven.

So, even if I have faith in Jesus' sacrifice, I still need to live by a particular standard.

(void where prohibited, your denomination may vary)

Even though God forgave me through my faith in Jesus, I can still frustrate his grace.

So then, salvation isn't a free gift if I'm still required to follow a certain life style and maintain my salvation. Me and Jesus have to go dutch for my soul.

Yeah . . . I only get salvation at a discount. Salvation is not free.

Two Thousand Years too Late

Look! He comes with the clouds of heaven. And everyone will see him--even those who pierced him. And all the nations of the earth will weep because of him. Yes! Amen!

Revelations 1:7

In a recent blog post, I wondered what would people start to say when another whole millennium passes and Jesus still hasn't returned.

After some reflection, I think I might know what would happen now.

Nothin'. Christianity will still be going strong.

Here's why I think this:

The first Century Christians seemed to believe that Jesus was to return within their lifetime. But, Jesus never returned as expected. Yet, Christianity still rolls on. After Jesus' failed promise to return, one would think the church would have died out.

I won't try to defend the argument that first century Christians expected Jesus to return within their lifetime in this post. Rather, read this article by Dave E. Matson. Edward Babinski posted the article on his website.

So if the over due return of Christ is well founded, how can Christianity still survive with this glaring failed prophesy?

Robert Cialdini cites an eye opening study in his book Influence: Science and Practice. Cialdini cites how a group of social psychologists infiltrated a cult that believed a UFO would come and carry them away from earth just before the "great cataclysm". The study was done by Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter.

This team also produced a book entitled When Prophecy Fails as a followup to their experiment.

This group of social psychologists predicted that the exclusive UFO cult would change their habits and proselytize others once their cult leader's prophecy failed. The psychologists based their prediction on the principle of cognitive dissonance.

Keep in mind, the cult was exclusive before the UFO was expected to arrive. This cult grudgingly accepted new members, did not actively proselytize and shunned interviews from the news media in their town. That's another point which makes this study interesting. The three psychologists had to make personal sacrifices to "join" (infiltrate) this cult and get reliable data for their study.

The UFO cult waited in eager expectation to be exported away to another world. But, nothing happened! The group had to do something to deal with their disappointment because of the large amount of personal sacrifice each cult member had made -- particularly their leaders. While some members left in disgust, many members still stayed and hoped for answers. Soon, the leaders "rationalized" that the earth was spared for now; therefore, they should spread the message to the world and actively take new disciples into their cult.

Sound familiar?

I found the results of that study quite chilling when the implications finally dawned on me.

Perhaps since Jesus never came back from the dead, the disciples had nothing left to do but spread the gospel in order to deal with their disappointment. And, since he never came back for his growing church -- nothing was left to do except spread the faith even more.

And since the return of Jesus is constantly delayed, nothing is left to do but spread the Christian belief perpetually. Surely this could apply to any belief system where people make great personal investments and sacrifices.

Such a cycle just goes on and on -- far into the future.

Nonetheless, the fact still remains; Jesus is still 2000 years too late.

Santa-God

I read an article that gave suggestions on how parents might deal with their child's belief (or non-belief) about Santa Clause; this following paragraph really stood out:

One example of how to deal with a child questioning Santa might go something like this: "Yes, Tommy, Santa Claus is very real, and if you listen to the laughter and excitement of children at Christmas you are hearing him. It is true that many of the stories you have heard about Santa are fantasies to help you have fun. Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Santa's workshop at the North Pole and Santa squeezing down your chimney are all fun things to imagine, but they are not real. But the love and joy that Santa represents to us, the kindness and the generosity that we show each other in his name are all very real and very special. You see, Santa is really a feeling - a part of the spirit of Christmas - and when we are filled with that spirit we become like Santa ourselves. So, yes, Santa, like love, kindness and generosity, is real and lives in the heart of every one of us."*

My thoughts: touching, but no thanks. Being an atheist now, that just sounds so very strange to my ears. Cult-like, even.

I'm surprised that at the end of this paragraph the author didn't add:

In the name of the Santa-father, and of the Santa-son, and of the Christmas Spirit. Amen.

Or maybe the author should have made a parody of Colossians 2:9 & 10 and said: In St. Nick dwells the fullness of the Santa-God bodily, and Christmas is complete in him.

*Unfortunately, the link to the full story: Psychology: When it comes to Santa Claus, you've gotta believe is dead now. Maybe you can use your Google-Fu to dig up the original article somewhere.

Santa Clause versus the baby Jesus

I saw a nativity scene where Santa Clause was kneeling down and praying to the baby Jesus.

But honestly, I think the scene should have gone the other way around.

Santa Clause owns Christmas.

I know, I know, Jesus is the reason for the season.

Well, actually, as I've read in other places, the tilt of the earth's axis is the reason for the season.

Anyhow, Ole Saint Nick seems to have true supremacy over the Christmas holidays.

I think Santa Clause has an advantage. You can't listen to Christmas songs for too long without hearing something about Ole Saint Nick. I don't think too many popular movies hit the box office about the baby Jesus either -- not like you see movies about Santa Clause. Besides, you can find Santa Clause in any color! Caucasian-American, African-American, or Asian-American.

Besides, who can resist that magical sleigh with reindeer, that jolly laugh, and all those free gifts?!

I bet in a few years, you'll even find Hispanic-American Santa Clauses running about.

But, I've never seen anything other than a blond haired, blue eyed baby Jesus.

Now, with grown up Jesuses, I've seen all kinds. I've even seen an African-American Jesus with a perm.

Or, maybe he just had good hair. Naturally, Jesus would have good hair; he's the Christ, for Christ's sake!

Maybe if baby Jesus would let people depict him as other races, he could finally get one up on Ole Saint Nick and take Christmas back.

At the very least, baby Jesus should let people depict him as Jewish -- don't you think?

And he should bring all the kiddies lots of new toys. That always helps.

Exactly Where is Heaven, Anyway?

My son has become hypersensitive to how a person uses his or her "middle finger".

He feels that every time someone throws the bird with his or her middle finger, that person is pointing that finger directly at God.

While I'm not eager for my son to become religious, I'm not eager to flood him with my current philosophy.

I can't have him blowing my cover. My son is an all-in-one tape recording blabber mouth machine. My son would blab about my skepticism and force me out of the closet!

But, I couldn't resist when my son persisted to talk about how the bird was a direct insult to god.

I clearly expressed to him that I certainly do not want him to use this gesture. However, I did not want him to obsess over the matter either.

So, I had a little talk with him:

"Son, where is up, anyhow?", I challenged.

"Up is up there, Daddy. Don't you know that"? (yeah, my son is a smarty pants).

"Ah, but son, we live on a globe. From your present location, pointing up is not the same direction as if you were -- for example -- pointing up while at the South Pole".

"Yes it is", he corrected. After all, my son is seven and knows everything.

I showed my son an apple and preceded to further illustrate my point.

"Do you see what I mean, now?" I thought my illustration was definitive, but he still didn't want to give up.

"But, you're still pointing out to heaven . . ."

"How so?" I further challenged. "Where is Heaven, anyhow? It's not in the sky or the clouds. Heaven isn't at the moon or the stars. Where is up? Where is heaven?"

"Well", my son surmised, "Heaven must be in the fourth dimension".

Well, at least I got my son thinking . . .

Then my son really got wacky . . .

"I wish my birthday was on Christmas . . .", he said, out of the blue.

"Why?" -- I thought his mind was still chewing on the Heaven paradox.

"I'd be closer to God because my birthday would be on the same day as God's."

"Son", I replied, "we celebrate Christmas on December 25th only because it's a tradition. No one knows exactly when Jesus was born."

Maybe I should have just let that one go . . . but I didn't want him developing a complex over this idea, either.

"My bible says Jesus was born on December 25th." My son seemed so confident.

"Nope. No date is given. People can only speculate." I could see he didn't agree.

"I read it in the Bible", he proclaimed.

"In which Bible? Where? I can tell you that you did not read such a thing. I dare you to look for a place that says Jesus was born on December 25th within the scripture text. If you find it, show me. I'd like to see it."

But then I added, "Don't just take my word for it. Look it up yourself one day."

With that, he gave up.

I didn't directly tell him that Heaven or Jesus were myths. But, I wanted to remind him to think beyond what he's told by various people and seek out reality for himself.

For Heaven's sake! I sure hope he was listening.

Six Silly Sayings

I recently ran across some material that made an attempt to prove God's existence in six points.

I will share each of the six points. Following each point, I will give my opinion about why I think these are weak arguments. I'm not saying that my rebuttals will disprove God -- but these arguments are not strong enough to prove that God exists.

1. Our planet's complexity points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

My rebuttal: Science shows us that at the very least the Biblical account of creation is a myth. Science proves the Earth is billions of years old, not just thousands or a few million per the Biblical account. If God did create us, he used evolution to do it.

But more importantly, the perceptions and assumptions we humans have concerning the "obvious" are often flawed in critical ways. We assume that everything with structure needs a builder because we must build and design. That assumption does not have to be true for our universe.

For example, observe the image to the right:

The two lines that run across the star burst pattern appear bent; however, they are parallel lines. If you could print out this image (or one similar) and check the lines with a ruler -- you would observe that they are indeed straight lines. Our perceptions can be fooled. We assume the lines are bowed at first glance. But upon further inspection, the lines are actually straight lines.

A complex universe and complex life doesn't mean a creator is necessary. Evolution is a complex process that took millions of years -- yet few people want to say that God created us this way.

2. The complexity of the human brain shows a higher intelligence behind it.

My rebuttal: This second point is really just restating of the first point. I will only add here that evolution shows us that our brains developed over a painstaking process over millions of years. Biologists have found caves where no sunlight reaches inside them. Therein, you can find a pond that has formed from a stream of water that flows inside. Fish swim around in the ponds. Since there is no light, these fish have no eyes! They only have nodes or bulbs that have formed. Biologists surmise that the ancestors of these fish had eyes. After millions of years of swimming in the dark, natural selection decided not to bother forming the eyes in these fish any longer.

Is that intelligent design?

3. Natural causes and chance are insufficient explanations for our existence.

My rebuttal: This third point is barely different from the first two points. Evolution, again, shows us that our course of development is left to a process of natural selection. Perhaps this isn't pure chance, but the survivors and offspring in any given species continues to thrive as long as they are well suited for the environment in which they live.

Also, scientists have found that when non-organic elements found in asteroids are mixed with non-organic compounds found in earth a chemical reaction happens and organic compounds are created. Just like taking oxygen and hydrogen and putting them together -- you get water. Or, just in the same way that you take sodium and chloride and form table salt. Asteroids pelted the earth during it's early formation. Life easily could have formed from this natural occurrence.

Besides, saying that God created everything is insufficient as well. We still have questions. Who made God? Saying that he always existed is no different from simply saying that the matter and material of this universe has always existed.

4. The enormously vast number of people who are passionately convinced that there is a God must be ignored should you say God does not exist.

My rebuttal: Galileo Galilei had to ignore the enormously vast number of people who were passionately convinced that the earth was the center of the universe. Nuff said.

5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

My rebuttal: You cannot say that this pursuit is true for everyone because you have not met everyone to ask them if God has sought him or her out. Besides, why is God so subtle if he is pursuing us?!?!?! Also, since so many people have a vast difference of opinion in who God really is, (because he's so subtle in his "pursuit") how can you say the same God is calling a Muslim to pray when at the same time he calls a Christian to prayer? Perhaps God only exists because we still have questions about ourselves. The more questions we answer with science, the less we need God and scripture to explain everything.

6. Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.

My rebuttal:

The Pagan Origins of the Christian Myth
The Bible's Buried Secrets
The Hidden Book of the Bible

And that's just for starters . . .

I'm not declaring that I've disproved God's existence in my rebuttals. However, I am saying that the six arguments offered for God's existence are not sound and cannot prove his existence, either.

What If?

Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.

That's logic.

-- Lewis Carroll

Someone asked me once, "What if you were not born in America? Do you really think you'd still be a Christian"?

I stuck my chest out, "Why, of course I would! I know God would lead me to this way".

My challenger pressed me a little harder, "So, you mean to tell me that if you were born in Saudi Arabia or in Africa, or anywhere that Christianity was not main stream -- you'd still magically be a Christian"?

The incredulous tone in his voice caused me to reconsider my previous reasoning.

"Well . . . I supposed not. But, I'd like to think God would reach out to me and show me the way". My response even sounded weak to my own ears.

"So then" he replied, "what of all those who never see the way? Why would God reach out to you if you were born into another religion and not do this regularly for everyone else?"

Hmmmm . . .

So, what would I be today if I were born in a non-Christian environment?

Why did I get this "privilege" while others who were born in non-Christian environments have an increased chance at being doomed to hell?

I was forced to realize that I grew up Christian only because my dear mother made me one; I didn't choose Jesus. Jesus didn't choose me.

Momma chose Jesus for me.

That day, I decided to become a Christian for myself by my own choosing.

That was also the day I (unwittingly) proceeded to unravel my ties to religious faith.

So then . . .

If I was born Jewish, I might still be; and if I were born Muslim, I would still be; but as it isn't, I grew up a Christian. And, now . . . I ain't.

Thanks to logic.

A Broken Friendship

I do admit -- sometimes I miss god.

Sometimes.

He was my friend.

He gave me comfort and I felt secure when I trusted him and stopped worrying about imagined and actual problems I faced in life.

I could cry out to him and feel better. I could praise him and fall into a world of euphoria. I could fall out before him and have a cathartic outburst and feel relieved.

He was a true friend to me.

Among my favorite hymns was What A Friend We Have In Jesus. I would sing that song and wonder why anyone would ever feel troubled. Just pray. Like the song said:

Oh what peace we often forfeit! Oh what needless pains we bare.
All because we do not carry, everything to God in prayer.

My troubles would melt away.

When I first realized real evidence existed against the Bible, my heart sank.

Whoa! All that time and energy I spent!

But worst of all . . . I lost a really good friend.

God changed from a Person into an imaginary friend.

I didn't want to stop believing in god at first. But, once you have that moment -- that stroke of insight and reason -- your mind just stops believing; your faith just shuts off. This is really no different from realizing your parents were playing the role of Santa Clause all along. You catch them wrapping your gifts and placing them under the tree as you sneak into the living room to catch Santa visiting your home.

After that, you just can't go back to believing Santa Clause exists.

I lost a friend when I lost my faith in God.

But, that's okay. With a little time, I could happily move on.

And so I have.

Soon and Very Soon . . .

What if another century goes by and Jesus never returns?

What about another millennium?

Two?

What if during that time, a cure for cancer is found? What if cloning technology allows us to make genetic material from scratch and clone humans? What if we eventually map out DNA in all life and then discover how to turn off the aging and "death" signal to our cells? What if mankind eventually achieves immortality?

What if our conscience could be uploaded from our minds and one day downloaded into a new clone of ourselves -- allowing us to not only live forever but also move forward into time?

Okay, that last one might sound far out.

But think about it. What if Jesus never comes?

I know what some nearby Christian is thinking, "What if he does come? Then you'll burn in hell!"

When I read comments like these from Christians on message boards across the Internet, I get the feeling that they relish the idea of non-Christians burning in hell for eternity.

This eagerness and enjoyment sounds sick, vengeful, and evil to me. If you can't wait to see me burn in hell, then you should wonder whether or not you're saved.

Ah, I digress.

Growing up in church, we often sang a song:

Soon and very soon, we are going to see the king.
Soon and very soon, we are going to see the king.
Soon and very soon, we are going to see the king.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! We are going to see the king.

And after converting to Pentecostalism, we were bombarded with the idea of Jesus coming at any moment.

Could that moment happen right now while I'm writing this?

Could that moment happen right now while you're reading this?

Has Jesus come and gone already and I didn't even get to finis . . .

People have been waiting for Jesus for a long time. Some argue that the disciples expected Jesus to come in their lifetimes. And since Jesus obviously hasn't . . . well . . . I guess that would be the end.

In the Pentecostal church I once attended, people felt certain that Jesus would come in our lifetime. That was back when I was a teenager. Well, sure it's still my lifetime. But, people didn't think the pastor of that generation would fall ill and die after reaching just over eighty years of age. People thought he was too close to God and too important of a spiritual leader for him to die before Jesus would come.

I've read a saying that circulates on the Internet among other skeptics:

Today's Religion is Tomorrow's Mythology

How long until Christianity becomes commonly known as mythology in the United States?
Not very soon, I'm afraid -- especially since Jesus' 2000 year delay is still considered soon.