The most sensible approach if you really must be religious…

It’s like a breath of fresh air when a person is not defensive about his religious beliefs. Prevailing congregants could seriously benefit from Episcopalian bishop John Shelby Spong’s views on religion, but he is unfortunately now retired.

People don’t need to be born again, they need to grow up. – John Shelby Spong

<>

Spong postulated 12 theses for the reformation of Christianity specifically, but these have unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly been widely criticized:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ’s divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God’s image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one’s being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

Now if that’s not reasonable, I don’t know what is. And if religion must needs prevail, Spongism is the way to go…

The only mystery here is why this guy isn’t behind bars already

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This may sound a trifle conceited, but my regular followers will have noticed that I don’t post blogs that attacks religion directly, as often as I used to. You see, I’ve found over time that religion (aided and abetted by its adherents of course) does a bang-up job of trashing itself, all on its own.

However, I do make a point of posting about religious incidents that are so outrageous, as to make one seethe in anger at its imprudence. This is one such incident…

Pope Benedict XVI, has been under the cosh of late, and for good reason. His un-thoughtful utterances have not only further damaged (if that’s at all still possible) the Catholic faith, but his own credibility too. Over the weekend he told Irish Catholics that it is a mystery why priests and other church officials abused children. While the many years of denial has finally been exposed beyond any doubt, the Catholic Church is now dealing with the fallout, but instead of trying to make things right (is that possible?), or amends (what could possibly compensate?), they continue to act like the reasons for the abuse were beyond their human ability to control. Take this statement for example:

How are we to explain the fact that people who regularly received the Lord’s body and confessed their sins in the sacrament of Penance have offended in this way?

The attempt to make out that the rampant child abuse was a “mystery” is not only laughable, but outrageously mendacious. It is also an insult to the many that were hurt as a result of this dastardly behaviour.

His Unholiness should be told in no uncertain terms that there is no mystery here. The answer or part of it, is right there in that ridiculous statement he made. The repulsive ideology of the Eucharist, that man can “eat” of the body of Christ and “drink” of his blood, may not be the full answer, but it certainly points to it.

It’s your party and you can preach if you want to

Dear (name removed),

I thought it was a really cool idea when your new wife decided to throw you a surprise party for your 50th birthday. Dude, I thought that it would be great to see you again after so many years and reminisce about the glory days of boozing and the card games you so loved.

I had no idea that Jesus was going to be the star attraction at the event. To be fair, I don’t suppose you knew either, it being a surprise and all. But I guess you would have had no objections, as I learned that day that you had been busy over the years…. becoming a pastor.

When I walked into the hall with a few other friends and glanced at the tables and people already sitting there, I noticed a few vaguely familiar faces; faces that I’d not seen for many years. With the band at the front warming up or something, it appeared [at that instant] that my Saturday evening was going to be fun and entertaining. I was so looking forward to doing some catching up…

Still standing at the hall entrance, I was looked around, trying to spot the bar or some such facility when you walked in, dressed in a suit; I don’t ever remember seeing you in a suit before. When the cries of “surprise” died down, I reached over to shake your hand; it was good seeing you again after so many years.

Failing to spot the bar, we walked over to an empty table right at the front of the hall and sat down. Having being seated for barely a minute, we were asked to rise for an opening prayer. “No sweat,” I thought, “let’s get the obligatory waste-of-time out of the way.”

The opening prayer was followed by a couple of gospel tunes from the band and then a couple of songs of praise for Jesus. We were still standing. I grimaced through it all; at least the band was good, the singing not too bad. And then came another pastor with another prayer.

We were still standing. It was becoming mildly annoying. I glanced over to my companions, and they appeared to be in the same frame of mind.

Thankfully the pastor asked us to sit down, but the party that had degenerated into a crusade for Jesus, continued. The pastor launched into a sermon about family, occasionally reading passages from the bible. The pastor’s patronising, and patriarchal diatribe about how the father was the boss-dude of the family was starting to turn my mild annoyance into anger.

[During this sermon from Proverbs, I was surprised to learn that god hates six things, but positively abhors or detests a 7th thing, namely, sowing discord among brethren; although the pastor adapted it for his particular use. I guess the next time a see a Christian fundamentalist waving a banner that “God hates fags,” I will ask him or her ” but does God really detest/abhor homosexuals?”]

It was now nearly an hour later.

After that ghastly sermon, a teenager came up to pray and besmirch Jesus some more, in a sort of lilting, but disconcerting tone. That’s when my companions and I decided to leave.

Dude, I really appreciate that your wife cared enough to want you to celebrate a key milestone in your life with friends you had got to know over the years. And I would have been glad to be there, but I should not have had to compete with Jesus for your attention.

For me a party is a party, is a party, preferably with booze – lots of it. Dude, I just have to say it –  proselytizing is a party-killer… for me at least.

I hope you had a good evening and 50th birthday nonetheless. I’m sorry I couldn’t stay to celebrate it with you. Perhaps we’ll get together again, without Jesus this time.

Your secular friend,

Lenny

Admit it, the Pagan Roots of Christmas is what makes it so festive

A whole lot of us, mostly non-Christians and atheists delight in calling Christmas the silly season; I’m no exception.

However, I’d venture that even the most die-hard atheist, anti-theist, or hater from another religion will admit that this time of year is the most festive, particularly those days between Christmas and the Julian New Year. Seriously, you’d have to be pretty psychotic not to enjoy Christmas.

By now, it should be common knowledge [see video below] that the celebrations usually associated with Christmas are in fact of pagan origins, and have been borrowed or annexed by the Church to satisfy various agendas of their own. But that’s what makes Christmas so enjoyable; all the things that are so un-Christian.

I just love the music [yes, the Christmas carols], the parties, the food, ungodly amounts of alcohol, and the fact that we get to spend time with friends and family, who usually reside miles away. And let’s not forget the time off work, the annual bonus, and the chance to spend wildly on things you usually wouldn’t. Only the pathologically pious shy away from these simple pleasures to commemorate a dour tale of religious improbability.

So, whether you’re a Christian or not, indulge yourself this Christmas; god knows [or not] that it’s one of the rare times for partaking in true pleasure we’re allowed in this harsh world.

Wouldn’t you like to fly before you die?

A debate I’m having with a commenter on one of my blog posts has got me thinking about the nature of inquiry. Is it possible to simply stop inquiring when you believe you have found the right answer, and is it desirable?

When does one stop inquiring about stuff? When the answer makes you feel comfortable, or satisfies a need? What if someone comes along with a different answer or shows you another way? Would you shrug it off, because you’re quite happy with what you have found already? Is comfort better than the disquiet of being doubtful? Would you rather shoot yourself up with some drug because it makes you feel safely exhilarated, or would you rather experience the natural thrill of sky-diving. Both is probably going to kill you, but wouldn’t you rather fly, before you die?

Remember when as a child you constantly peppered your parents and others with those why questions? Why is it when you grow up, you stop asking why? Why do you settle for easy answers? Is it possible that a child understands the nature of inquiry better than an adult?

M, the young [I assume] and no doubt bright women who stirred up all these questions, posed the following:

I’m puzzled by the fact that if a discovery or inquiry leads to anything other than Christianity, it is accepted and applauded. If the road of inquiry ends at the cross of Christ, it is argued that you need to keep searching until you find the truth..Here’s the big question. What does one do “IF” this is the truth…

What I’m curious about is her starting point of inquiry? Did her questioning take her through a gamut of scientific literature, before she settled for the answers provided in the realm of the supernatural, or did she start at the bottom end of the supernatural and settle for the most pleasing or needs-satisfying version? Just a question mind you, not an allegation.

When it comes to inquiry, I would rather have ten different scientific suppositions about something, which leads me to more inquiry, than have one neat, comforting, but supernatural explanation, that stops all enquiry because it relies on the authority of someone you can never question. The end to questioning whether it be self-inflicted for comfort, or enforced through coercion and fear, pronounces the death of human intelligence. When inquiry stops, you might as well be dead.

Viva la Vida: A second take on the meaning of the lyrics

In October 2008, almost exactly a year ago, I posted an essay about a popular Coldplay song titled Viva la Vida. My interpretation of the meaning of the song, is not only my most popular blog post (eliciting in excess of 5000 views), it also generated a heap of comments which lead to some very interesting discussions, and alternate proposals for what the song means.

On the whole, I agreed with the comments that suggested that the song could have multiple meanings. I however still maintain that the less obvious ones could be closer to the meaning that Chris Martin intended; but it’s unlikely that we’re ever going to find out. But that should not stop us from speculating further.

Strangely enough, while on the road today between business meetings, I heard the song played on a radio station; and it hit me like a ton of bricks, that my first attempt at extracting meaning from the song could indeed be wrong; but not entirely so. While my first impression speaks of god and religion in general, I am now convinced that Chris Martin was actually much more specific about which supernatural entity and the religion itself, as you will see from my explanation below.

The first verse:

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sweep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own
I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:
“Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!”
One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of sand, pillars of sand

Consider that the song is being sung from the perspective of someone who was considered a king; a person who had supernatural powers and could command seas to rise when he gave the word. Imagine this person who by virtue of his sovereign status, owned the streets of a certain city, sweeping his detractors aside as he advocated a certain doctrine which made his followers sing his praises, while instilling fear in the eyes of the former. Consider this person, having lost that power and now feels alone. Consider that for a long time this doctrine sustained a key belief system; but which has now been exposed as standing on unsound pillars. Now consider that this person is the biblical Jesus Christ, the city is Jerusalem and the doctrine is Christianity.

The second verse:

I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can not explain
Once you know there was never, never an honest word
That was when I ruled the world
(Ohhh)

Confirmation of the city and the era in the first verse is evidenced, in the context of biblical teachings, by the mention of Jerusalem and Roman Cavalry. The mirror, sword, shield and missionaries could have multiple meanings within the context of my interpretation, but for the purposes of this interpretation, they are biblical metaphors for Christ’s followers (missionaries) who fought (sword and shield) to spread the doctrine by imitating (mirror) their Master. The last two lines are a metaphor for the biblical troubled times (never an honest word) in which Jesus ruled over the world.

The third verse:

It was the wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in.
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People could not believe what I’d become
Revolutionaries Wait For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?

The first four lines of this verse reflect the biblical narrative of Christ storming into a temple (wild wind blew down the doors) to disrupt the “unholy” activities being perpetrated there. People were shocked (could not believe what I’d become) when Jesus brought down the temple (shattered windows and the sound of drums). The fifth line is a biblical metaphor for the Romans (revolutionaries) wanting to kill him (Wait for my head), with an added reference to John the Baptist (head on a silver plate). The cryptic last two lines of this verse reveal that Jesus laments his lonely job as a leader (who would ever want to be king), while his actions are being controlled (puppet on a string) by someone else (ostensibly Christ’s biblical father, god).

The fourth verse:

I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can not explain
I know Saint Peter won’t call my name
Never an honest word
And that was when I ruled the world
(Ohhhhh Ohhh Ohhh)

Not much different from the second verse except for 6th line. In the context of the biblical teachings, Christ reveals that as the son of god, he does not have to account for his entrance into heaven (I know Saint Peter won’t call my name), as other mortals have to.

The last verse:

Hear Jerusalem bells are ringings
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can not explain
I know Saint Peter will call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world
Oooooh Oooooh Oooooh

As with my original interpretation, the apparent contradiction in the 6th line, with the fourth verse is easily explainable. This being the last verse, the metaphor Saint Peter will [now] call [Christ’s] name, reveals the end of the road for Christianity, when Christ is relegated to a mere mortal and has to account for himself at the Pearly Gates. A clever metaphor for the decline of a doctrine and its purported teacher, as evidenced in the world today by the shift towards atheism, secularism, agnosticism, humanism and even new-age spirituality.

I don’t know why I didn’t see this before; it makes a lot more sense than my previous interpretation. Chris Martin is surely a genius…