Christians speak of a loved one getting “called home.” That it was “their time.” Why did the person die? Because it was time. Why was it time? Only their god knows.
That god has the phone manners of a telemarketer. Some poor Joe, while making love to his wife, gets called home just prior to achieving the big O. What timing. Why not let Joe get his rocks off one last time?
Apparently, the Lord was planning this event for awhile, letting plaque build up in Joe’s coronary arteries. That way he could make it look like Joe had a heart attack. But the heart attack isn’t what really caused Joe to die. By picking up his phone and dialing, a god did.
Think of Joe’s poor wife. What a bummer of a last moment to have branded onto the folds of your memory. One moment she’s thinking, Joe’s really having at it. The next, What in sweaty hell! Then panic. Then heart-wrenching sorrow. Embarrassment when talking to the EMTs and coroner. Private shame when telling friends, “He died in his sleep.” Unspoken anger when they lamely respond, “Well, that’s the best way to go.” The burning urge to scream, There’s no best way to go. They all result in his being gone!
“God called him home” is a cognitive Band-aid placed over a whopper of a boo-boo . . . to use the technical term. It may help blunt the pain. But then again, it may not — the little, real research I’ve seen on the matter is mixed.
The sometimes helpful, sometimes harmless god-talk always perpetuates a way of thinking about the universe that humanity needs to outgrow. Just as children grow out of belief in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, we need to shed the fantasy that there is some invisible big daddy making the important calls in our lives.
Fantasy worlds are for children and playtime; reality is where adults live.
[recycled post - first appeared here]
The past few years have seen the release of a number of controversial books about religion (such as Sam Harris’ The End of Faith, Daniel Dennet’s Breaking the Spell, and Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion). Thanks to these books — books I may not wholly agree with — my thinking has been stimulated. I have come to view religion as something that provides both a personal and a social raison d’être. A reason for being.
On the personal level, religious beliefs and practices can provide meaning, with reasons why and how to live. A personal raison d’être consists of those aspirations and relationships that give life meaning, as well as the activities that generate feelings of awe and/or immersion in something greater. On this level, religion is frequently referred to as spirituality. Many a person will say, I’m not into organized religion, but I am a spiritual person.
Established religions can and do provide ready-made blueprints for personal reasons for being. The personal and the social overlap significantly, but to differing degrees among individuals and cultures. In our highly individualistic culture, believers need not be one-brand shoppers. Rather, beneath the single roof provided by the label “religion,” there are whole aisles dedicated to differing types of belief. Seekers will pick and choose to suit their needs. Sometimes they grab items from separate aisles that don’t necessarily go together: a pint of Jesus, a gallon of Buddha, a quart of Deepak Chopra.
As for this individual, my own raison d’être could be summarized as “to love and to learn.” I don’t need religions in general, or Biblical teachings specifically, to motivate nor guide me in either pursuit. In fact, I believe Bible-based religions might limit how and what I learn and possibly impede to whom I extend a loving intention.
As for the personal raison d’être of my associates and community members: so long as they are not hurting themselves nor harming others, it’s none of my business. That said, if I am dragged or invited into a discussion about values or claims to truth, I’m not going to pretend I concur, nor apportion someone’s values or claims greater respect simply due to the tradition or language their raison d’être may be steeped in.
Much is made of a line between science and religion. To me, a better line to draw is that between public and private. A personal reason for being is necessarily a private thing.
Social reasons for being are another matter, and I will be addressing those in part III of this three-part post.
[recycled post - first appeared here]
Some people argue that religion has done bad things, and then fail to acknowledge any good. Other people claim that religion does good things, and then either ignore the bad or attribute it to political, economic, or other factors. Neither group is acting fairly. And both are at least partly mistaken.
Consider this country’s civil rights movement. It is claimed that religion helped push progress along. And although it is true that church groups marched, and from numerous pulpits the message for change was broadcast, Christianity — our nation’s dominant religion — had nothing to do with it. Why? Because groups such as the Ku Klux Klan used their own version of Christianity and Bible passages to resist the very same progress.
Apologists might insist that the KKK distorted the real message of Jesus, while those in favor of civil rights had the correct understanding. The real message? Certainly the historical figure of Jesus made a number of pro-social statements about loving thy neighbor and honoring the meek. But equally essential components of his teaching included the exhortation that judgment, justice and reward awaited in the afterlife, that people must acknowledge his divinity and follow him or hellfire awaited, and that individuals were either for him or against him. Furthermore, there are at least half a dozen verses in the New Testament that unambiguously support inequality (i.e., 1 Peter 2:18 — Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.)
Would you say that the person who inspired those ideas was suited to lead an important social movement today? I wouldn’t.
What is true Christianity? This is a nearly absurd question. Both Jesus and Christianity are largely what have been made of them. An honest reading of the Bible, extra-canonical gospels, and scholarly works about the origin and evolution of the early Christian churches makes that eminently clear.
It wasn’t Christianity itself — the religion — that played a pivotal role in the civil rights movement. Rather, it was the set of values that individuals and groups held and acted upon. Jewish and Buddhist individuals and groups also protested and marched, as did countless other uncategorized people. To understand what was really at work, we must look beyond labels.
One summer, while driving between immense corn fields in South Carolina, I listened to a Christian, mental-health call-in show. Got a delusion that’s bothering you? Here, try this one on for size. I learned that most cases of anxiety and depression are caused by un-governed thoughts and emotions.
Hmm. Why hadn’t I, a psychology professor (at the time) current with the field, known that? Anxiety and depression, two very common forms of mental illness, are caused by “un-governed” thoughts and emotions. Logically, the cure would be for a person to govern their thoughts and emotions. Whatever that means.
According to the Christian therapist, if you are anxious or depressed, you’re basically not trying hard enough. You’re not praying enough. It absolutely has to be your fault because Jesus is ready to bless you, if you just let him. The Christian version of Dr. Phil informed the listener–a concerned mother of a teenage boy nearly crippled by anxiety–that the boy must cast down his un-governed thoughts and replace these with thoughts about their god and his words.
Yah, that ought to help. Poor kid is buckling under some load (biological, psychological, social…), so they inform him he’s got to shoulder some more.
Their god is all-powerful, the creator of everything, but what happens to you is your responsibility. If your corn crop gets ruined by drought, you must have fallen from grace. Or perhaps you broke your covenant with Monsanto. If your child is having problems, and it’s not the outright work of Satan, then your god is testing you. As the mother learned her god was testing her, by way of her son’s troubles. So she needed to pray more, too.
But why would a god test his people? Is he afraid they’re going to flunk the Eternal Aptitude Test without serious tutoring? Or is he testing them “just because”?
Our complex world can be frustrating, with few simple causes and few guaranteed cures. Treating illness by pressing your palms together and mumbling some words makes as much sense to me as using a garlic poultice for everything from a head cold to a broken leg.
Is religion always harmful? Of course not. Always helpful? Of course not. What religion does consistently represent and promote, however, is an outmoded way of viewing the world.
He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. (Matthew 27:42)
Why didn’t Jesus do just that? He wasn’t limited in terms of the types of miracles he could perform, was he? Just doves up his sleeves, no rabbits in his hat? Too bad. Jesus could have made believers out of the Romans then and there. Instead, it was up to wandering prophets who, rather than witnessing anything first hand, heard about it through the stories of others, eventually establishing a dominant religion.
Had Jesus pulled himself from the cross, hopped on down, walked up to the priests and government officials who mocked him, brushed off his hands, and said, “You guys got nothing on me,” can you imagine the morning’s headlines! And had Jesus stuck around to perform his miracles for the widest possible audience — and why not? — there would have been no need for the whole Inquisition thing and all those annoying, well-scrubbed evangelists ringing our doorbells.
The world could have been such a nicer place.
—
[Illustration source: the Onion]
P.S. The latest Carnival of the Godless has been posted.
Were the ideas of the mythologies of earlier cultures, expropriated by Jews and Christians, merely God’s rough draft? Should we now consider more ancient versions of such things as a great flood, a virgin birth, a hero’s resurrection after death, etc., as crumpled paper balls in “God’s” wastebasket?
On a vase from the 5th century BCE is the illustration of the sun-god Helios riding his chariot across the sky, as it was believed he did every day. Rays of light surround his head. Ever wonder where the idea for a halo came from? It certainly didn’t originate in the observation of the rings of Saturn — which you need a telescope or a very specific prophesy to know about. Many religions worshiped the most visible celestial body (other than the one beneath their feet). What do you know, the Christian holy day is called Sun-day.
The halo is a crown of sunshine. In Greek mythology it has been depicted as a crown of rays, or sometimes even a crown of thorns (sound familiar?). It was designed by the Greeks for their Greek god of the sun, Helios. So no, Mary didn’t acquire her halo by being virtuous. She bought it at Pier 1 Imports.
Christians who haven’t studied some of the complex history of religion may be unaware that the celebrated birthday of their champion — December 25th — was appropriated by Rome. Originally the day served as the popular festival for, among a number of things, the birthday of the god Mithra. (Mithra began as a Persian god who moved west — Go west young god! — to many regions, including what became Italy.) The Roman citizens traditionally celebrated that day. So the Christian powers-that-be engaged in not an act of car-jacking, but tradition-jacking. Or maybe you could say they re-wrapped a gift toaster to present anew.
Even the edict, “Thou shalt not steal,” may have been stolen from the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi.
It seems the Christian god believed in recycling. He re-used a number of essential elements that had been created earlier and elsewhere. Shouldn’t this reduce the confidence believers have in the divine authority of their religion?
Sure, there are those nuts who claim diabolical mimicry: Satan went back in time to create this confusion, this challenge to Christianity that only true believers can surmount.
Satan traveling in time to bedevil unbelievers? Who believes that?
Now, Jesus as a flesh-and-blood son of a god, born to a virgin, well that’s another story.
Or is it.
