Jesus can Save You...

[Will]

...from religion.

The following is a recent blog post written by atheist writer Sarah Braasch entitled "Maybe Jesus Will Save Us After All". The gist is an instance where Sarah was speaking to a Muslim friend and a conversation about the mistakes in the Bible lead to the lie that there's any historical evidence for Jesus. Sarah uses the fact that there are inerrant arguments to be made that Jesus is nothing but an amalgam of sun gods (something we're all used to on HAF by now) to prove the perfect word of allah in the Qu'ran is in fact imperfect.

I think I destroyed someone's faith yesterday. Or, in truth, I think I may have struck the definitive blow. This doesn't bother me. Unlike what many atheists espouse, for fear of being labeled evangelical proselytizers of disbelief, I actively seek the de-conversion of humanity. I actively seek to destroy religion. Not spirituality, but organized religion. I believe that if we do not destroy it, it will destroy us.

And, when I say de-conversion I mean just that. I mean de-conversion, not conversion to an atheist creed or dogma or doctrine, because none exists. Atheism is simply the absence of faith. It is not a similarly blind faith in science or logic or reason or philosophy or individualism or liberal constitutional democracy or anything.

But, I admit, I am feeling some qualms since yesterday. I am struggling through some pangs of conscience since egging on a crisis of conscience.
In order to protect the innocent, I have altered all identifying characteristics.

Amina is a beautiful black French Muslim girl. She is a French citizen, but her family hails from Guinea in West Africa â€" a former French colony. She speaks Mandinka. She is Mandinka. She also speaks fluent French, decent Arabic, and very little English. She is very proud. She is very religious. She is also very sweet and loving. She would never wish to hurt anyone's feelings, but she does not hesitate to defend her faith, even from the mildest of chastisements. She does not wear the hijab or headscarf. She looks like a typical French teenager in her blue-jeans and t-shirts.

Amina was struggling with the burqa question. She supports women's rights, but she feels the possible ban in France as an attack on her religion and her culture. She doesn't want to think about Islam as inherently misogynistic. She still believes that Islam is God's (Allah's) final revelation to man. She still believes that the Quran is the infallible word of Allah. If Islam is inherently misogynistic, then that means that Allah hates her, because she is a woman. She cannot cope with the dissonance that this creates in her head. She asserts that women absolutely do freely choose to don both the niqab and the burqa as expressions of their love for Allah. She avers that women absolutely do freely choose to fulfill their God given roles as women in Islam according to the Quran.

She asked me what I thought about the potential burqa ban in France. I paused and sighed deeply. She said that it is a difficult question. I agreed.
I told her many things. I told her that I am an atheist. I told her that I abhor all religions as the sexual slavery of women and the psychological torture of children. I told her that I do not believe any of them to be true. I told her that I have read all of the so-called holy books, and that I was not convinced that any of them could have been divinely inspired or dictated. Not in the least. I told her that I think religion must be destroyed in order for humanity to survive.

She told me many things. She told me that she does not think that religion is the problem. She told me that she thinks men pervert and misapply and manipulate religion for their own aims, sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly, and sometimes disingenuously.

We looked upon one another with the same vaguely supercilious, rather patronizing pity. We felt sorry for one another. I pitied her ignorance and inculcation, and she pitied my ignorance and inculcation. The difference being that I had escaped the iron grasp of a cult through years of struggle and effort. I could fully demonstrate my knowing choice to be free of dogma and superstition.

She told me that she had not read the Bible, but that when she reads the Quran, she knows that she is reading the words of Allah. She spoke of so many of the same arguments one hears by Christians defending the Bible. The alleged way-ahead-of-its-time science in the Quran, including something about salty seawater and fresh ground water, and something about the earth being round, and something about embryology. She spoke of the evil and dissolution of the surrounding societies during Mohammed's time and how Mohammed introduced an as yet unheard of morality. And, she spoke of women's rights. She told me that the Quran lists right after right for women. She told me about the entire chapter on Mary, the mother of Jesus. She told me that men pervert the message of the Quran, but that the Quran itself is perfect.

Needless to say, I was hardly won over by these arguments.

And, even after having told me that she had never read the Bible, she began to compare the Quran to the Bible and disparage the biblical text. Of course, this is neither here nor there to me, as I find both texts equally unconvincing.

She told me that the Bible contradicts itself and is incoherent. I agreed. She then told me that the Quran has a single, singular and coherent message from beginning to end. I was silent.

She told me that the Bible was written and assembled by the clergy. This is why there are so many perversions and errors and mistranslations of God's intended revelation. She told me that there is no clergy in Islam to muddy the waters of the direct conduit between Allah and man, as, originally, there were no intermediaries between Allah and Mohammed (save Gabriel). She proudly proclaimed Mohammed's illiteracy as ostensible proof of the Quran's greater authenticity.

This claim has always left me perplexed. First of all, there is most assuredly a clergy class in Islam. It just isn't referred to as such. (Much in the same way that Muslims do in fact worship Mohammed; they just say that they don't.) In fact I have seen very little evidence of the vaunted ijtihad in Islam, which is individual study and reflection and interpretation. In my opinion, Islamic scholars have a stranglehold on Quranic exegesis and doctrinal interpretation, including the hadiths, Sharia and issuing fatwas. Second of all, the fact that the Quran is allegedly the secondhand account of a series of direct revelations to an illiterate peasant doesn't seem to be much of an improvement over the Bible's divinely inspired theory.
But, I agreed with her arguments regarding the Bible. I saw an opening. I lambasted the Bible and Christianity mercilessly and, in particular, the divinity of Jesus.

I told her that the Bible is ridiculous. She nodded fervently. I told her that the Bible contradicts itself relentlessly. She nodded and smiled assiduously. I told her that the Bible excludes many apocryphal texts, which were left out for this or that reason by men. She nodded and smirked avidly. I told her that the Bible was obviously written by and for men in the pursuit of their earthly preoccupations, namely conquering lands and raping and enslaving women. She nodded forcefully. She beamed. I understood.

I moved on to Jesus. I spoke of the seemingly limitless number of almost identical Sun God myths floating around the Mediterranean and the Middle East for thousands of years before Jesus Christ showed up. She concurred. I spoke of all of the ways in which Jesus' story matches these other Sun God tales of virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection. She agreed.

I rattled on about the Nicene Creed and the Council of Nicaea and Constantine and the Roman Empire. I spoke of Constantine's desire to unify his empire under a single Christian creed. I spoke of how the divinity of Jesus was brought to a vote at the Council of Nicaea, along with other doctrinal elements of this new religion. And she nodded approvingly and encouraged me.

I spoke about how the gospels were written at the very least 3 or 4 decades after the supposed death of Jesus Christ. How they conflict with one another. How they are plagiarisms of one another. I spoke about how Paul and the other earlier, but still not contemporaneous, biblical authors, wrote not of an earthly man who had been born, lived, performed miracles, preached, and died, but of the same Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Sun God as heavenly archetype as everyone else had done.

Then, I hit her with the punch line. Given all of this information, all of these facts, many, not all, but many scholars do not believe that there is any evidence at all that anyone by the name of Jesus, as described in the Christian Bible, ever existed. Jesus was an archetype. He was an amalgamation of the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Sun God myths. Not a single contemporaneous historian ever speaks a word about anyone named Jesus who even comes close to matching the Jesus in the Christian Bible. First century Palestine is a very well documented era and geographic location. Had someone actually been walking around performing miracles, causing turmoil for the Jewish and Roman leadership, been crucified, and, finally, been resurrected, in front of eyewitnesses, someone would have recorded it. Someone. Anyone. But, no one ever did. He never existed at all. No man. No rabbi. No preacher. No traveling salesman. No prophet. No farmer. No leader. There was no Jesus. No one at all.

Her beautiful, proud eyes that had flickered with the fire of her religious conviction fell into a momentary downward glance as she grappled with a fleeting spasm of doubt. I read the doubt on her face, clear as day.

She caught herself after just a moment, just as she was about to fall off the edge of her flat earth. One of her flailing hands caught a shrub, and she was able to pull herself back up to a more secure footing. She became an automaton. She fell back into her rote, prepared spiel. She said, "Me, I believe that he existed. But, he was just a man. I do not believe that he was the Son of God. He was a great teacher."

But the hairline crack of doubt remained in the slight, barely visible furrow of her brow.

I decided to lessen some of her pain. I explained to her that, for the most part, the scholars who believe that there might have been an actual Jesus believe so for a single reason. This reason is the great labors and pains taken to match Jesus' personal history with the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. If there hadn't been an actual Jesus, there would not have been any need to go to such arduous lengths to get him to Bethlehem, for instance, and into the house of David.

I suddenly felt a spasm of guilt. What had I done? Had I tricked her? I knew what I was doing. I had manipulated her. I argued my point in such a way as to lure her into a boxed-in corner. I wasn't upset, because I had caused her to doubt her faith. On the contrary, that was a victory. But, I was upset, because of my methods. I felt slimy and smarmy and unctuous. I felt like a Jehovah's Witness. I was reminded of all of my childhood witnessing tricks of the trade â€" the specious and disingenuous arguments, the rhetoric gymnastics of semantics and semiotics, the fatuous and fallacious non-logic. I was a little bit disgusted with myself.

But, I hadn't said anything untrue. My only sin was the fact that I knew where my argument was heading, and she did not. Predestination in microcosm. I think I just empathized with her emotional pain. I know it. I knew it. Leaving one's faith can feel like tearing one's self in two.

Then, something occurred to me, which I am sure is no great revelation to anyone else, but it was a tremendous personal revelation.

Jesus is the key. Jesus is the key to destroying the three great monotheisms. Judaism is out of luck. The Messianic ship has sailed. No one in their right mind could ever be made to believe that someone yet to come is the Messiah. Anyone from here on out claiming to be the Anointed One will be sent straight to the loony bin. Unless, of course, some as yet unknown alien civilization attempts to take advantage of our credulity and shows up in a space ship more advanced than our wildest sci-fi fantasies. Islam is a very poorly cobbled together plagiarism of both Judaism and Christianity. Despite their seeming antipathy for one another, Islam is wholly reliant upon the other two. Islam is discredited the second that either or both Christianity and Judaism are discredited. Jesus' existence is the easiest to discredit. There isn't a shred of evidence that he ever existed at all, while there is a mountain of evidence that he was merely a knock off Egyptian Osiris. While Mohammed may have been a bloodthirsty pedophile warlord, he was also an actual flesh and blood human being who managed to hold sway over the minds of thousands upon thousands of credulous souls. But Jesus probably didn't exist at all. Muslims want desperately to concur with all of the criticisms of Jesus, every single one, right up to the point where you say that he didn't exist at all, not even as a lowly man. And, the Quran lives and dies with Jesus. Every word of the Quran is supposedly the infallible word of Allah. The Quran is all about Jesus. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.

Thank you Jesus.

Daylight Atheism > Maybe Jesus Will Save Us After All

I really enjoyed this story because it highlights a personal battle I'm going through now.

For the longest time I've maintained a live and let live policy with theists. You can believe all the lies and mythology you want, just don't drag others into your delusions and don't hurt anyone. Recently, though, I've been questioning the logic of such a stance. Do people really have a right to be deeply ignorant and hateful without being challenged? Isn't that how things stay the same, never improving? I truly don't know.

Anyway, thoughts on the article?

[karadan]

Thank you for that article Will.

I often hold my tongue in the presence of a religious person because i don't want to offend them. I'm lucky that i don't usually come across rabid religious people in my every day life. The quiet, happy, tea-drinking christians i currently know just keep their religion to themselves and accept other people and their beliefs without any animosity or scorn. I'd feel very bad if i thought i'd been instrumental in stripping away one of their largest sources of comfort. It is certainly a difficult question because i have a fairly large chip on my shoulder about religion and i agree completely with the article. I'm just too chicken to see the look on someones face after sowing the seeds of doubt to their entire faith-based belief structure. Afterall, i don't believe all religious people to be ignorant and hateful. I wouldn't want to hurt anyone who is already peaceful and happy, no matter how abstract their beliefs.

I guess the problem is geographical as well as ethical. There are some parts of the world where people of opposing faiths (or non-faiths) seem to get along just fine.
I agree that religion is the bane of humanity, though. If it were to be wiped from the face of the Earth tomorrow, i'd party hard.

[AlP]

Thanks for posting this. Good read.

I think that unless someone's religious beliefs are causing harm to themselves or other people, they are free hold them. They should not be obliged to keep it to themselves or otherwise restricted and nobody is obliged to try to change them. On the other hand, so long as one is not making a nuisance of oneself, for example by proselytizing, I think it is fine to attempt to change or at least challenge someone's religious beliefs, for example in friendly debate.

[Renegnicat]

It think it can only be claimed a crime to believe the wrong thing if, and only if, a definitive, objective set of standard absolute truths were discovered. Without that, we really can't force our views on others, because we are not 100% sure that our views are correct.

We should, on the other hand, encourage self-reflection and questioning of our own beliefs. Here's how I do it:

The person starts telling me about god. I raise my hand and say, "Hold it right there. I'm sure you want to tell me all about your experiences with god. I'm also sure that you have many questions about your own religion as well. First answer your own questions. Then you can answer mine."

Usually, this'll stop them dead in their tracks. Very few people understand completely their religion. And there's always the obvious questions that even christians hide under the rug. But this isn't about me converting or not. It's about encouraging questions. And if they want to convert me, then they will have to tell me their questions about their god.

It's very interesting to ask a proselytizer what their own questions are about their own religion. Try it sometime. You might learn a thing or two.  

[Ellainix]

I told her that I abhor all religions as the sexual slavery of women and the psychological torture of children.

This is how I feel.

[Renegnicat]

EVEN BUDDHISM??!?  

[Tanker]

EVEN BUDDHISM??!?  

Budhaism is no more free from persucuting non adhearents, disbelivers, and rival sects then any other religion (ie: many Japanese in WWII used a sect of budhaism as justification for thier actions). Hitchens hits on this in God is Not Great. While the princaples of buhdaism are altruistic so are the princaples of Judeo/Chrstianity and the adhearents can warp any religion to suit thier needs.

[jrosebud]

A good portion of those who aren't hurting anyone with their religious beliefs are, in reality, scarring children with tales of Hell or voting down same-sex marriages.  As someone who grew up with loving, peaceful parents who raised me in the Catholic religion, I can attest that I was harmed substantially.

[Mark L Holland]

To Will

  I have believed for years that Christianity has to be openly challenged, that their doctrine and dogma must be openly challenged.  The one critisizm that I have for the Atheist movement is that they limit themselves to the stay in your yard and I will stay in my yard attitude does not work with christians.

[Whitney]

Atheist movement is that they limit themselves to the stay in your yard and I will stay in my yard attitude

I guess you are referring to New Atheism or something like that since there isn't a movement that includes all atheists.  Have you paid attention to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins et all within the past few years?  They certainly aren't staying in their own yards.

I personally do  not see a problem with a stay out of my yard and I'll stay out of yours approach.  I personally do not want to have to evangelize free-thought to every religious person I come across; to me that is not only a waste of my time but also potentially detrimental to efforts to get free-thinkers more accepted in mainstream society (no one likes evangelists other than themselves).  I save my criticism of faith for those who are actively trying to spread their views or who otherwise bring it up for discussion.  

There is no reason, for instance, why I should hound my Christian sister about her beliefs since they are harmless due to her not caring if other people are believers or not.  If she takes a turn towards fundamentalism and randomly decides evolution is a conspiracy and that jesus is about to return any moment; then I'd see a reason to snap her out of it since such views are harmful to herself and society.

[Mark L Holland]

To Whitney

  There is a difference between us, you are an Atheist I have heard few if any tales of Atheists when faced with a loaded gun to there head would not at least give lip service to those holding the gun.  Non Christian or even Christian theists have had loaded guns put to their heads and said "you are wrong" and been killed for their Theist beliefs.  You do not comprehend the danger that lies with Christian dominence of this nation.

  The only Atheist that I respect is Michael Newdow; he not only argues the Atheist views but he fights Christian authority in the courts.  When I made my $40 dollar donation to American Atheists it was a tough choice between them and Michael Newdow.  I do not see American Atheists doing for the cause that Michael Newdow does for the cause.  But I would also hate to see American Atheists go under for lack of funds.

  Michael Newdow can do wonders on a shoe string and a prayer (pardon the pun) and trust that that man will die in his efforts in protecting non Christians against Christians.  You talk of other Atheists doing this or that and frankly I do not care because I see little to no results from them.  Michael Newdow on the other hand even when he loses he wins in publicity and exposure.

  But until you challenge the foundational authority of Christianity you will lose.  So long as the Christian zealots believe they are doing their Gods work they are unstoppable, and the average Christian that supports the zealots financialy or other wise supports the zealots believe that they are doing Gods work the amount of damage that can be done by these people is unimaginable.

  While changing the Zealots is impossible you can challenge and threaten their base of support.  The average Christian is willing to support and give lip service to the zealots so long as they themselves are not threatened.  But if the Atheists and more importantly the non Christian Theists start burning their bibles on the street corners and start denouncing their holy book as a fraud, full of lies and contradictions.

  The moderate Christians will soon begin bowing out of the fight, and the only thing left will be the Christian Zealots facing the Atheist and non Christian zealots facing each other and without the support of mainstream Christianity the Christian Zealots will fall.  Do not tell me that the Atheist movement has done all it can to check Christian Authority because obviously they have not.

  When you and I stand on a street corner burning or shredding Christian bibles and denouncing them to be nothing more then books of lies, then you have not done all that you can to challenge Christian authority.  You do not view the threat of Christianity as I do.  I consider their threat to be greater then the threat of Russia at the hight of the cold war.
 

[LARA]

Wow, Will, that was an excellent essay thanks for sharing and posting it.

I thought about the pangs of conscience the author had and I had an odd visual of me taking a candy bar away from my daughter.  I think the feeling of guilt I would have for taking someone's faith is the same feeling of guilt I get for taking sugar away from a child when she has had way too much already.  'Damn, Child I feel sorry for you, I love you, but enough is enough!'

We all have to grow up sometime.

But what's interesting to me is the larger issue, as active atheists work to clear people's heads, where do these issues stand in the arena of religious freedom and first amendment rights?  The author says something to the effect that anyone claiming to be the Messiah will be sent straight to the looney bin.  A bit of hyperbole there, I gather, but interesting to me nonetheless.  

And Mark, do you mind?  You don't burn Christian texts, that's for Hindu and Buddhist works.  Christian bibles are more appropriately disposed of with a proper burial after rites are read.  A stake through the book to prevent resurrection is recommended, but not necessary.

[curiosityandthecat]

Christian bibles are more appropriately disposed of with a proper burial after rites are read.  A stake through the book to prevent resurrection is recommended, but not necessary.

 

[Mark L Holland]

To LARA

  LOL actually I believe in the conservation of energies.  To give burial rights and stakes through the unholy books would not only take the rest of eternity to accomplish for the hundreds of hundreds of millions of copies that exist.  But you would have to deforest the entire US to get the stakes needed to put down these books permently.

  I prefer sending them back into the blazing fires of hell from where they came from myself.  Saves on time and saves trees from being turned into stakes.
 

[karadan]

To LARA

  LOL actually I believe in the conservation of energies.  To give burial rights and stakes through the unholy books would not only take the rest of eternity to accomplish for the hundreds of hundreds of millions of copies that exist.  But you would have to deforest the entire US to get the stakes needed to put down these books permently.

  I prefer sending them back into the blazing fires of hell from where they came from myself.  Saves on time and saves trees from being turned into stakes.
 

I'm sure they can be composted so that they can nourish the growth of new trees.