Coming from a conservative Baptist church in middle America, a lot of traditional views were slammed into my head from an early age. Those views eventually came into question, and thrown under a philosophical lens, once I was in college and began actually thinking for myself… and honestly, the logic behind them still escapes me to this day (even after minoring in Christian Thought and Traditions).
Part of that ”confusion” comes from my more liberal beliefs and my adoration for process theology/philosophy. To sum up a few quick views about Jesus, on the day of his supposed resurrection, I’ll just say: that Jesus didn’t have to be supernatural in order to bring a revolution to the Jewish faith and bring about the rise of Christianity; that a virgin birth makes no real difference in the stories about him; that his death and resurrection could merely be allegories/metaphors or even stories made to give his “life” more purpose; and that his entire existence could be completely fabricated and still teach the same things as when someone believed he was completely real.
Those are just my beliefs about Jesus himself, the rest of my religious doctrine can be pretty clearly summed up by reading up on your Process Theology/Philosophy sometime… but to say the least, my very basic views on Jesus, God, the Trinity, the Apostles, and church doctrine are probably not what you would find in most Christian churches across the country (add to that the fact that I’m now agnostic, and you have a very interesting conversation with people of faith).
Part my move into agnosticism was based on how one percieves ancient writings. History, to the Jewish culture and most cultures of that time, wasn’t as much of a science as it is today. It was meant to teach a story, some of which was true, and some of which was “bulked up” to really give it a punch. The apocalyptic texts/writings of the day (eg: Daniel, Isaiah, Revalations, and more) are perfect examples of this sort of history telling and prophecy rolled into one. The events may or may not have happened in some instances, and the prophecies could detail a good number of things to come time and time again (both at the time and later, depending on who you talk to), but it tells a story and gives that story a very strong meaning which is clear to the reader.
That understanding of history explains away a lot of the differences between gospels, because they were written to different audiences. It explains why the prophecies of the Old Testament applied both to their own time, and the time of Jesus. They explain why some of the history, when compared to surrounding areas histories of the time, just don’t seem to click and why some does. And it describes a lot of things that just seem sorta out of place when compared to other writings in the same bible or from the same time.
And after that huge introduction we come to one of the most frustrating things I have ever heard a Christian say, and one of the main reasons why I can’t go to church without cringing upon stepping in the door… that “we know where the remains of every other great religious leader are buried, but show me Jesus’ and then I’ll question my faith.”
It seems like a pretty safe thing to say… after all, if he indeed was killed and rose 3 days later, his remains wouldn’t be on this Earth because he ascended to heaven. But it would also be impossible to find his remains if he wasn’t buried where he was said to have been, or if his followers moved his remains, or if grave robbers moved them, or if he never even freaking existed in the first place. Sure, we have other accounts of Jesus as a person having lived around the time we think he did. But that doesn’t prove that the Bible is right. It only proves that the bible has been dilligently translated and protected by its followers. If anything, the lack of remains is just one big piece of evidence against the faith, not for it.
But, what about miracles!? Divine intervention!? Magical bullshit, illusions, and trickery!? I say, “eh, what about them?” As a skeptic, it would take someone performing a miracle in front of me to really push me to believe it is something more than just a freak accident where the laws of nature are bent and that it’s actually a case of divine intervention.
What about the fact he called himself the son of God!? Wouldn’t that destroy his moral teachings if he was just a regular dude!? It might make me reconsider some of them, but honestly, after 2000 years, they need to be looked at and thought about under a critical lens anyway. Do we throw stones at adulterers? Do we take slaves in war? Do we make women shut up in church and stay at home instead of going to work? No… no, we do not.
What about the significance of his death, burial, and ressurection!? Those events have significance because you want them to. Just like most things in your life, significance is decided by you. If god really wanted to shake things up, I doubt he’d have to send his kid down to do the dirty work. He’s performed pretty big miracles in the past, I don’t see why he had to put his kid through hell just to rewrite how we interact with him. Makes no sense.
I could go on and on and on… but there really isn’t one defense of the faith that can’t be dealt with by prescribing a good does of reason. Of course, if you choose to believe, you’re obviously welcome to do so and I won’t think any less of you for it. I just don’t, anymore, haven’t really gone into depth with a lot of you on why I don’t anymore… and thought, “hell, I’ve been baptised on/around Easter twice. Why not write this now.”
And, I figure that, as a Baptist, the “once saved, always saved” doctrine will cover me just in case the Bible is actually right. Thank god for the conservatives attempts to secure their own faith. Loopholes, ftew.
