Monday, January 23, 2012

Viral Semantics

Recently, my daily social media feed has been cluttered with reposts of a viral video of Jefferson Bethke's entitled "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus: (VIDEO HERE)

The sentiments expressed in this poem seem to be common among the modern day non denominational Christian, mainly that we should use Jesus' message as inspiration to do good and reject the nasty extremism of religious group-think. While this is generally a message I like to hear from the faithful (at least in contrast with the extremists), religion being replaced with Jesus doesn't change the fact that a religion is indeed still being practiced.


Before I'm accused of completely missing the point of the video, let's pull back and examine each part of this video.

What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion.
What if I told you voting republican really wasn’t his mission.
What if I told you republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian.
And just because you call some people blind.
Doesn’t automatically give you vision.

Right off the bat, the first sentence doesn't seem accurate. Did he not come to build a church? Did he not instruct his disciples to follow him? Most of Jesus' instructions to his followers seem right in line with the very definition of religion. If defining the word "religion" is the problem, I'd like to hear some clarity on the matter. In spite of the semantics, it seems clear from the bible and the legacy of Christianity that if Jesus did come to abolish religion, he not only failed miserably, but did not demonstrate any desire to remove the faithful life from the people of his time. Of course, this is all assuming he existed at all. The rest of that stanza seems fine, if a bit obvious.

I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars.
Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor.
Tells single moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce.
But in the old testament God actually calls religious people whores.
Religion might preach grace, but another thing they practice.
Tend to ridicule God’s people, they did it to John The Baptist.
 He's right about one thing, the Old Testament sure didn't contain much love the for the flock. In any case, using parts of the bible to dispute other parts of the bible seems to be a bit of a self contradicting exercise, as is most of the sentiment in this video.

They can’t fix their problems, and so they just mask it.
Not realizing religions like spraying perfume on a casket.
See the problem with religion, is it never gets to the core.
It’s just behavior modification, like a long list of chores.
Like lets dress up the outside make look nice and neat.
But it’s funny that’s what they use to do to mummies.
While the corps rots underneath.
Not much to argue with here. Still waiting on exactly where the difference lies in Jesus the Religion vs. Jesus the Non-Religion.

Now I ain’t judgin.
I’m just saying quit putting on a fake look, Cause there’s a problem.
If people only know you’re a Christian by your Facebook.
I mean in every other aspect of life, you know that logic’s unworthy.
It’s like saying you play for the Lakers just because you bought a jersey.
You see this was me too, but no one seemed to be on to me.
Acting like a church kid, while addicted to pornography.
See on Sunday I’d go to church, but Saturday getting faded.
Acting if I was simply created just to have sex and get wasted.
See I spent my whole life building this facade of neatness.
But now that I know Jesus, I boast in my weakness.
 Here we come to our first problem. In this Stanza, Bethke seems to be painting "religion" with a brush of hypocrisy, and using Jesus as an influence for moral consistency. He seems to imply that religion itself is simply a routine, and that living life through Christ is a much better way. With this description, I would probably say that he's more religious than the ones just going through the motions, and the argument is once again going back to confusing semantics. Furthermore, boasting in weakness is probably not a very good thing to do, in my opinion. We should be acknowledging our weaknesses, and striving to improve them. Perhaps I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that's what he meant.

Because if grace is water, then the church should be an ocean.
It’s not a museum for good people, it’s a hospital for the broken.
Which means I don’t have to hide my failure, I don’t have to hide my sin.
Because it doesn’t depend on me it depends on him.
See because when I was God’s enemy and certainly not a fan.
He looked down and said I want, that, man.
Which is why Jesus hated religion, and for it he called them fools.
Don’t you see so much better than just following some rules.
Now let me clarify, I love the church, I love the bible, and yes I believe in sin.
But if Jesus came to your church would they actually let him in.
See remember he was called a glutton, and a drunkard by religious men.
But the son of God never supports self righteousness not now, not then.

This part of the poem is loaded with all the things I dislike about Christianity in the moderate sense, at least personally. Since when do your sins and your failures not depend on you? Vicarious redemption through human sacrifice is one of the most immoral lessons in the bible, as it poses that you can be stripped of your responsibility. He goes on to say that following Jesus is better than following some rules, and again, I wonder what the difference is.

From wikipedia: Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

Seems like it all fits so far.

Now back to the point, one thing is vital to mention.
How Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrum’s.
See one’s the work of God, but one’s a man made invention.
See one is the cure, but the other’s the infection.
See because religion says do, Jesus says done.
Religion says slave, Jesus says son.
Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free.
Religion makes you blind, but Jesus makes you see.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere besides semantics... turns out he's just wrong. One's the work of god, and one's a man made invention, eh? Turns out they're both man made inventions. Most of the scholarly research suggests that Jesus, as he's most often described, was merely a legend. Bart Ehrman is one of the best New Testament scholars out there, and I'd suggest looking into some of his work if it peaks your curiosity, but even without corroborating sources, the gospels alone make it quite clear that his story is dubious. The amount of contradiction in the gospels about when and where Jesus was born, how he interacted with the people, when he died, and whether he was born of a virgin should be enough for anyone to question whether or not one or any of the accounts is true.

On top of that, considering oneself free by replacing one ideology with another seems faulty to me -- freedom is breaking away from ideology, and interpreting reality as it presents itself.

And that’s why religion and Jesus are two different clans.
Religion is man searching for God, Christianity is God searching for man.
Which is why salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own.
Not based on my merits but Jesus’s obedience alone.
Because he took the crown of thorns, and the blood dripped down his face.
He took what we all deserved, I guess that’s why you call it grace.
And while being murdered he yelled. “Father forgive them they know not what they do.”
Because when he was dangling on that cross, he was thinking of you.
And he absorbed all of your sin, and buried it in the tomb.
Which is why I’m kneeling at the cross, saying come on there’s room.
So for religion, no I hate it, in fact I literally resent it.
Because when Jesus said it is finished, I believe he meant it.

Bethke neglects to mention Hell in all of this, and it seems pretty integral to the idea of "salvation." All in all, that doesn't sound so free to me, especially if you believe the stories.

The idea of a god that duplicates himself and sacrifices himself in order to solve a problem that he himself created is not only ridiculous, but immoral at the face of it. Even if you buy the premise that this is actually a sacrifice (since Jesus did not actually die, one could argue that no sacrifice was made at all), the fact that the torture and murder of a Palestinian Jew  could somehow save human beings from themselves is a fantastical claim without any evidence to support it -- religion in a nutshell.

Overall, the sentiments expressed in the video, in spite of my criticisms, seem to be mostly positive. When an immoral idea is expressed, it's clearly framed in the kind of language that makes it seem humble, honest and good, and that is the danger of religion. It's the very thing he criticizes in the first half of his poem.

Jefferson has a lot of good ideas and criticisms, and while I can't agree with most of what he says, I still kind of like that this is the video being spread around by the faithful. Just because I agree with his tone, however, does not mean I can agree with his religion. Or should I use a different word? I guess it doesn't matter, it would mean the same thing.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

So I'm Reading the Bible

I've been posting Facebook statuses lately with brief comments on the bible, which I've now begun to read from front to back.

While I try not to judge any book by its first few chapters, I'd like to at least say that I'm not impressed so far. I've read from Genesis to Joshua, and it's quite astounding how much of it has already confirmed what I had learned indirectly: this book is quite fucked up, and its moral instructions are thus far much worse than I thought they would be.

Anyway, since I'm only a few books into the Old Testament, I will respectfully reserve judgment until the end. I'll see for myself how many of those Old Testament laws apply to the New Testament as well.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Why Skeptics in the Pub is not "Church for Atheists"

I know that there's at least a few of my friends that feel this way -- that my efforts in skepticism are basically my replacement for religion.

Here's what happens at Skeptics in the Pub: I go to the pub and hang out with like minded people, drink a few beers and talk about science, politics, social issues, and basically shoot the shit with people that I would like to become closer to. This is not much different than any social gathering, and admittedly it's not unlike what many believers do in their Sunday church gatherings. But there is one big difference.

That big difference is that there is no doctrine, and no truths are taken for granted. Churches usually reinforce preheld beliefs through scriptures and sermons, and in many modern churches, through music and pop culture elements. When we meet as skeptics, we get together and talk, offer our opinions and open our minds to new ideas because new ideas tend to always get exposed.

Today, I chatted with my peers about sexism and gender roles, dealing with death and loss, the heroes in our lives, the doomsday predictions of the year, and the difference between how we behave online versus in person, among other things. Each of these issues was approached with opinions going in, but we all seemed to gain some insight into contrary points of view by hashing things out, playing devil's advocate, and genuinely disagreeing about certain issues until mutual understanding could bring us to a form of consensus. Doesn't sound much like doctrine, closed-mindedness and faith to me.

The main criticisms and comments about my skeptical attitude are "It takes just as much faith to be an atheist" and "Skepticism is just like his religion" (as if to say, "my views as a spiritual person are just as valid as your views as a skeptic just because we have similar ways of thinking), but I think this is intellectually dishonest, and ignores the disagreements we have. For example: if someone believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy enacted by the US government, and I do not, we disagree completely. Our ways of thinking, even if they were similar (which they are not) do not excuse the fact that we are at odds on this issue. Agreeing to disagree may sound like the most diplomatic and respectful solution to our problems, but it gets us nowhere and advances nothing.

Skeptics in the pub is very casual, and represents the more communal aspect of what many churches may do, but there really is nothing about it that reinforces my preheld beliefs about the way things work, nor does it make me any stronger in my conviction that the nonsense advertised by pseudo-scientists and theologians is bullshit; the conversations we have always challenge my assumptions and remind me of how humble I really ought to be. I always find myself inspired that I should question things more.

When was the last time, in your church, that you were told not to just accept the preacher's content at face value? When was the last time anyone said to you, "you know that Jesus thing? You ought to question whether or not it's really true." Chances are, never. If so, I'm very impressed with your church, and I'd love to invite the priest out to the pub some day for a glass of Christ's blood to mull over the biggest issues of our day. Unfortunately, the clergy want nothing to do with that discussion, and would rather preach to the flock that which has already been proven bunk by the best of the skeptical community, ignoring we exist at all.

There's nothing I'd love more than to have a panel discussion with people that disagree with me right there at the pub. Think I'm closed minded? Arrogant? Unable to listen to the other side? Try me.

Monday, January 2, 2012

Families, holidays, etc.

Ah, a break. How wonderful it is that Christmas and the new year come one after the other so I get an extra long break from the hustle and bustle of life (hehehe, hustle and bustle... inside joke)

Along with the standard time off that comes with Christmas (unless you work retail, that is), I also have taken some time to count my blessings and reflect on how the year's gone. Having not posted in a while due to laziness, I thought I'd type out what's been on my mind and see where my stream of consciousness takes me.

Starting things off with something sort of depressing, the skeptical community lost Christopher Hitchens this year, who is arguably the greatest English speaking orator and journalist of our generation.  For those not familiar with Hitch, I'd suggest looking up the word "Hitchslap" on youtube for his more quotable moments in debates and speeches. He was a controversial figure, and there's much to be said about his approach to the issues he participated in, but as for me, I always admired how Hitchens was unique in that any time he wanted to make a point, he made clearly, effectively, and powerfully. His style of argument always used awesome examples, good humour in the proper places, and a command of the English language that was unrivaled by his opponents.

I can't really say much about Hitch that hasn't already been said, so I'll move on. What else is on my mind? Christmas. Fuck. Everyone everywhere this year has been bitching about people who don't say "Merry Christmas." I do say Merry Christmas, because I love the Christmas traditions that I grew up with -- Christmas Carols, the tree, Santa, candles, snow, nativity scenes, decorations, presents, consumerism -- it's all a part of me this time of year and I've always had good memories of it. Christmas is the name of the holiday in this culture, and as an atheist I have no reason to avoid the word. As long as it's a national holiday, it is in effect a secular holiday. But on to what bothers me -- people are pissed off that "Happy Holidays" is being used, and that's stupid as shit. As far as I've been able to tell, advertising seems to want to use Happy Holidays as often as possible in an effort to try and sell shit to as many different cultures as possible, which makes sense, because you want to sell as much stuff as you can to as many people as you can include. They DON'T use the phrase "Happy Holidays" to deliberately snuff out religion, yet Christian pundits all over the newswire have been going apeshit about a "WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!" for the last several years. For the record, I've never met an atheist who gets angry at the word Christmas. And now, all of it has been flipped around, and if you say anything OTHER than "Merry Christmas," the very same thing these Christians are afraid of will happen to you! I dare you---next year, try saying Happy Holidays to everyone you meet next year, and see how many of them reply to you with "MERRY CHRISTMAS!!" as if to punch you in the face with the words, as they express how pissed they are that you're rejecting their favourite holiday myth. I'd love to see some data on that.

Now, on to something else. Another recurring theme that comes about this time of year is family. I have a wonderful family, and while I take them for granted as much as any other person in a position of privilege, I do try my best to love them as much as they deserve and be the best person I can be for their sake. But I'm one of the lucky ones. The older I get and the more people I meet, the more I realize that almost every other person I've ever met has a less than ideal family, and that can be really hard this time of year. On top of all that hardship, this year has marked some significant family events for me and my fiance. As implied by that sentence, we recently got engaged; prior to that, we had to move her out of her evil stepmom's house, effectively straining any relationship she can have with her dad; we moved in together; her sister had twins and everything seems like it's really dramatic, and no one wants to make it easier. When it comes to families, we tend to take it for granted that blood is thicker than water, and we end up taking advantage of our kin, and we find it easier to ignore when we hurt each other because we know we'll be forgiven. It's a grim reality that I try to always avoid, but as I grow more familiar with the new family that's coming into my life, I need to be even more aware of it, and I'd implore anyone reading to try and do the same whilst also not becoming the victim.

As new years day comes to a close, and resolutions get sort of made and broken, I think it's valuable to at least have a personal assessment of how things are and how things could improve for yourself and others. Thinking skeptically about this kind of thing is difficult, because it's not so easy to apply the scientific method to the emotions associated with death, families, rituals and personal reflection. Yet, it is the best method we have; either our methods for dealing with these situations work or they don't, to varying degrees. The best we can do is make an educated guess, design an experiment, see whether or not our approach works, and modify our methodology to improve our results on the next trial. Thinking about things that way always seems to help me because when things go wrong the first time, they usually improve the next time. A lot of people never seem to learn their lesson.