Those of us without religious belief sometimes will casually say things like "It's all the same babble to me", implying that arguments between theists as to which religion is "better" are silly.
That has some truth in it, but it also isn't quite right. Certainly we see "soft" religious belief as far less threatening than fundamentalist Bible /Koran /Whatever thumping. At the far extreme where some Deists live ("some god created the Universe and hasn't been around since"), there's no threat at all and if there is "threat" from someone who says they admire the "teachings of Christ", it's a threat of being tolerant and non-judgmental. That might (ironically) upset some of my Right Wing friends, but it is no threat to me. I rather like it, actually.
Admirer of Christ?
Yet I can't help feeling some dismay when "soft" theists say that they "follow" or "admire" Jesus Christ.
If we take away all the silly walking on water, water to wine and resurrection stuff and only look at the philosophy without the religious trappings, sure, I could be a fan. I admire the intent.
But I admire the philosophy of Robert A. Heinlein in a "Stranger in a Strange Land" too and this "Jesus" character is likely every bit as fictional.
No, I'm not saying there might not have been some wandering preacher with this or a similar name who might have sparked or helped spread early Christianity. That part could be true. But the rest?
Any intelligent person should know that all the "miracles" never happened, so that part of the story is obvious fiction and many of the softer theists will agree. They do hang on the words, though, and that's a place that I have more trouble.
The Gospels
We don't know where these stories came from. We note that the Christian Bible titles them as "The Gospel according to..", which implies that Mark, Luke and the rest were writing down material from some other source. Given that they were writing long after the supposed time of their character's supposed life, they had to be using other sources, oral or written.
None of the pleasant and lovable philosophies in the words they wrote are unique. These ideas didn't suddenly spring into being with Jesus - they all existed in prior religions and prior thoughts. Even if this particular preacher did mouth some of them or even all of them, they didn't necessarily originate with him. He may have learned them elsewhere, refined them, and spit them back out. He may have tied a lot of ideas together into a specific philosophy, but realistically it seems more likely that the Gospel writers put words in his mouth - literally.
The Other Gospels
Many Christians are aware that what their sect considers as its Bible may not match what another sect has. Most should be aware that all of these Bibles were put together by human beings who selected specific part from religious writings.
For example, consider The Gospel of Mary. You can probably easily imagine why this was rejected as being suitable for the official Bibles, but why should it have been disregarded? Did those doing the assembly know that it was false or was it just that it didn't fit with the story they wanted to tell? I would say the latter is the more likely explanation.
What of The Gospel of Thomas? Why was that left out? It is probably older, but it's just things Jesus supposedly said, with little context or narrative. It could very well have been a framework around which the later story tellers wove their tales - they took a very few words (which may not even have been factual, of course) and spun them into something longer and more exciting.
Admire the words of whom?
So what we have is people who admire the supposed life of someone who might never have existed at all. If he did exist, everything that we can read about him is second hand hearsay or utter fiction.
Even the Gospels that are in traditional Bibles contradict one another in small and even large ways, so the fiction charge is rather unavoidable. This is a story just like "Stranger in a Strange Land" and I'd think it rather funny if you told me that you are a Heinleinist or (more in keeping with his story) a Valentinist. Yet that's exactly what the miracle-rejecting "soft Christians" are doing.
Of course they can convincingly argue that calling themselves "Christian" or a "follower of Christ" is just a convenient short hand - we know what to expect without getting into great detail. I can agree with that.
All the same babble?
No, it isn't. I'm not entirely convinced that all of these people really should label themselves as they do, but labels are their business, not mine. I think it might help delineate ideas and philosophies better if they were more accurate or just made up some other label entirely - like "Christishian", to be somewhat facetious.
Overall, I like these "Christishians" much more than those who label themselves as Catholics or Pentecostals or whatever - though I also realize that for many, the church they go to is just a place to see their friends and their real beliefs may differ widely from what their sect says they should believe, so I might like them as individuals also.
Religion is so complicated for those of us without it.
No comments:
Post a Comment