Reflecting on Easter, as I do this time of year, I see that Wikipedia lists something like 21 life-death-rebirth gods. I expect the popularity of this theme has something to do with the natural cycle of things – with life dying in the winter and being reborn in the spring.
But, really, what I got to wondering is how those of you who believe in the divinity of Jesus went about determining that his story is a true one while the stories of the rest of these gods were false ones. Because, at the end of the day, I think it was knowing of the multitudes of gods in which people had sincerely believed in the past that led me away from Christianity. I was raised Presbyterian. But, at a certain point, I realized that humans had faithfully worshiped Ra and Zeus and Jupiter and Odin and hundreds (thousands probably). With that knowledge, it was tough for me to look at Christianity and conclude, “oh, but this time they got it right.”
I’m not terribly interested in a debate over who is right, at this point. But, I am interested in knowing if others went through the same thought process but took a different turn.
the majority of the world’s population still doesn’t take Christianity very seriously at all …
If you lump together all Abrahamic religions, you get to about 50%, I think.
You ask not for a tome on Christian apologetics, but for a personal account, so that’s what I’ll try to give.
First, I never had the sort of crisis you describe, perhaps because I had a different sort of crisis. I never came to believe that all other religions were utterly false, and I never really agonized over people having believed in other gods. (Glib answer is that most of them were mythological and were probably understood as delightful and edifying myths even by their adherents.)
My crisis had to do with Christians behaving badly, and it made me want to stay the hell away from them. That would eventually, I think, have led to a loss of faith in Christ, but something intervened.
That something for me was the conviction that there were no good explanations for Christ’s Resurrection except that it actually happened. That He lived and that He died by crucifixion is well enough attested that few dare claim He’s mythological, like many other gods. But as I was in crisis over Christian louts, I solidified my belief that Christ rose from the dead as a matter of historic fact. Books have been written about the inadequacy of other explanations.
That’s not exactly where I remain today in Christian apologetics, but it’s the story of my late adolescent crisis.
From there, I was greatly edified by the essays of C.S. Lewis, including, in parts relevant to your question, his essay “Myth Became Fact” (God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, edited by Walter Hooper) and The Case for Christianity (where Lewis notes that Christian faith does not require belief that all other faiths are rubbish and lies).
All that only takes me to my mid-20s. Lots of water has gone under the bridge since. But it seems to me that all the spiritual epiphanies of my life have built on each other, maintaining a sort of coherence even if my path outwardly looks the trajectory of a pinball.
And, no, I’m not a hypocrite defending the faith from my LazyBoy when I should be in Church. We had our Paschal Vigil last night from 11:30 to my turning in around 3 am. I’ll be back at Church for Agape Vespers, a joyous denoument, in 90 more minutes.
Thanks Roger.
I also went through a “Christians are behaving/have behaved badly” Holden Caulfield period in my religious thinking. But, I think, that’s less relevant to my thinking today. For me, that aspect was probably just more or less standard-issue adolescent rebellion stuff.
“Abrahamic religions” ??
I guess I must have missed the satellite transmission of the Easter sunrise services from Mecca…
My first split from Christianity came when I was about 14 (I was raised Catholic.) I just couldn’t reconcile myself to the fact that I had to attend Mass every Sunday or suffer the eternal fires of damnation. Unless I confessed my sin to my friendly, neighborhood priest. At this point it became obvious to me that Organized Religion was all about control. So it’s doctrines were lies designed for such. If the doctrines were lies, then the mythology (Bible) it was based on was probably interpreted so as to keep people in line. Therefore the mythology was written by men, not God. Therefore God was invented by men. If Christianity was a device for elite control, than so must all religions be. Therefore, there is no God.
Sorry if this sounds convoluted.
One interesting tool I came across for thinking about religions was the notion of memes. The basic concept is that ideas sometimes function in a fashion similar to viruses in that they occupy a host for the purpose of propagating itself.
Casting it in those terms sounds pejorative, but that’s not the useful part of looking at religion from this angle. Rather, I think looking at religion as an organism “struggling” to survive helps understand how various themes become embedded in the doctrine. A religion without any directive to proselytize is a little like an organism born sterile, it’s not going to pass along its DNA. A religion that doesn’t deny the legitimacy of other religions is like an organism born without defenses against other organisms competing for the same scarce resources.
“……where Lewis notes that Christian faith does not require belief that all other faiths are rubbish and lies).”
I confess to never having read CS Lewis on the subject, so take Roger’s characterization at face value, but certainly a significant segment of evangelical Christianity would seem to insist on that kind of dismissal of other faiths (currently any form of Islam……tomorrow who knows what form of “otherness”).
@Manfred: For now, let’s just say that I can use a little controlling sometimes, though I experience it more as redirection (think “reality check”).
I tried three times to write something that a) wouldn’t start a fight and b) didn’t make me come off as some sort of self-righteous idiots. Sadly, I failed.
I’m right there with you Doug. I don’t believe, and don’t hold a lot of respect for those who wear their religion on their sleeves. And I especially dislike and distrust those who throw it at me, hoping it would stick. Especially those who use make believe to hold power over others.
My introduction to Christianity came from people in the small town I grew up in. I was called “dirty Jew” and asked whether I had a tail, among other expressions of Christian love. My struggle with my own religion began when I was twelve, and began to suspect that the notion of a personal God was pretty anthropomorphic. I value my Judaism for the worldview it transmitted–and the emphasis on justice and social justice. But like Dave, Doug, Don and others, I am pretty impatient with people who believe they, and only they, have found “truth” and that they must therefore impose that truth on the rest of us.
If religion works for you, great. I won’t try to disabuse you of your “truth” and I’d appreciate some respect for my right to my own.
American Evangelicalism is not, despite its pretentions, historic Christianity. It was born in the revival tents of the frontier roughly 200 years ago. And I think it’s fair to say that Lewis was not an Evangelical; he was a low church Anglican, with pretty strong roots in Christian history, and with a strong appeal to Christians of all sorts.
It’s not so much as Christians having access to special information that others lack. It’s more about epistemology. If one applies logic and reasoning, then anything having to do with faith will ultimately make little sense. Faith is about revelation: a connection to truth that lies outside of logic and reasoning.
So yes, every Christian will eventually come up with lots of questions about the world that will confound him. The different turn they make is to realize the limits of their reason to find the answers.
@Roger: I guess it’s all in how you look at things. Freedom vs conformity, that sort of thing, and which you value more.
Since you’re asking, I considered myself agnostic for years. There was simply a lack of evidence, and a bunch of people that just seemed to have their faith simply because it was what their parents taught them. Add to that the typical “Christian love” that was demonstrated, and I pretty much had my fill of it.
However, I finally found someone demonstrate what following Jesus was supposed to be about. Someone was lying about this person, treating him poorly. Instead of the normal reaction to behave the same back to him, he actually defended his accuser & wouldn’t speak a bad word about him. It got me curious.
I was recommended a book *similar* to this one.
(I’ve tried to find the one I had, and will post if I find it)
The book I read was more of an outline of logical points that either attempted to prove that God does exist, or at least establish a reasonable evidence that he might. It was the first time I heard a proper logical argument for God instead of “You just need to have faith”.
It was enough to get me to really read more of the Bible. At the end, I determined that if I followed Christ’s example as well as I could, my life would be better for it. That was 14 years ago, and I must say that I feel that assumption has been correct so far.
Even if God does not exist, my life is better off following the 2,000 year old teachings of the son of a Jewish carpenter. So, if I’m completely wrong, then I have had a rich life before I decompose to dirt. However, if I’m right, I also have a rich life long after I’ve left this world.
To that point, I have to respond to Dave’s point: “I don’t believe, and don’t hold a lot of respect for those who wear their religion on their sleeves.”
How much would you have to hate somebody to believe that Hell is real and do nothing to try to prevent that person from going there? Don’t take my word for it, listen to Penn Jillette.
An interesting observation is that humans have had a need for “religion” even from very early times. Whether we considered it a civilized group or clan or whatever an almost constant is that they had something they worshipped or paid homage to. Just an interesting thought. Likewise there is a very large common thread among the various beliefs even when some very devout would deny it.
Jack,
I’ve noticed the same thing.
An Atheist would see this as proof that God is a human created thing, some sort of survival mechanism.
A person of faith would see this as proof that God has hard-wired us be aware of his existence.
“how those of you who believe in the divinity of Jesus went about determining that his story is a true one while the stories of the rest of these gods were false ones.”
I took my Mother’s word for it.
Fair enough, Charlie. I wasn’t such a good son!
cf. Lord Raglan.
Dave, I am of the same mind. When I look at the spectrum of faiths, both past and present, I have a hard time following any particular one. Being a student of history and being fascinated by just how many times humanity has screwed things up over the years, many of those screw ups being rooted in religious belief or the conflict thereof, solidified my staunch lack of support for any particular belief.
Raised Catholic. I went through no such analytical process to arrive at agnosticism. But I began to turn against my upbringing and indoctrination in 3rd grade, when Sister Margaret yelled at me in church, “Sing, Goddamn you!” That was an eye-opener. I was a shy kid who didn’t like to sing out loud for public consumption. But starting with that jolt, I just resented religion at that point for many years to come, until I learned of Aquinas’ proofs. Now those seemed to be nothing at all like ‘proofs’ of anything, and I was incensed by it, due to the prominent place it seemed to occupy, and was convinced there absolutely was no god. Perfect teenager position to take.
Over time, I came to find that position fairly arrogant, because there I was spouting typical humanist spiels about reason and lack of proof of existence, but then at some point I realized I could do no better in supplying proof of non-existence. I know that’s not possible in any case, but it at least took the arrogance down several pegs, and left me as an agnostic, in some of the same fashion as Jason, above.
The SubGenius lexicon was great catharsis for me. I especially could relate to Rev. Ivan Stang’s line (one of many great ones), “I’m fine with Jesus. It’s his fan club I have a problem with”.
Doug, are you aware of Vincint Bugliosi’s (the Charles Monson prosecurot, among other notable undertakings) new book “The Divinity of Doubt”?
He takes to task both the “true believer” and the “militant athiest”, and taking an agnostic position on the issues this thread has wrestled with.
Oooops, I need to spell-check before clicking. I’m sure my reference to Vincent Bugliosi as “the Charles Manson ‘prosecurot’ will be viewed as more than an innocent slip by one side of the great debate!
I could never reconcile who created God or if God created us, why would he stack the deck against us by making us all not worthy and only by His grace are we even allowed in. Sounds like a wife-beating husband to me, which makes us all codependents.
I finally stumbled upon the Philip Gaulley? Books that boil down to everybody is going to heaven, even Charles Manson and hitler. That works for me.
As far as all the other religions, there are enough main themes that are similar I figure it’s almost like different learning styles. Some learn by doing, others by reading, etc. some “get” mormon, some islam, etc.