Mood: Contemplative
Music: Reel Big Fish
I'm in the process of reading Dan Brown's
The Da Vinci Code (I know, I'm the last person on Earth to pick it up...if you still haven't read it, there may be a couple minor spoilers below, but since I have yet to finish it, I can't exactly tell you the end or anything). Anyway, Dan Brown is a
terrible fiction writer. His characters are hackneyed, trite, one dimensional stereotypes; he has a surprisingly limited, monosyllabic vocabulary; and pardon me if I think that since people have been searching for it for millennia it would be nigh impossible to find the holy grail in a single day.
That being said, this guy is nothing shy of a genius. Just because he doesn't have a predilection for strong writing style doesn't mean in any way that he's not smart. This guy has done his research, that's for sure. And wow can he weave an intriguing plot. He's the type of guy that should come up with ideas and perhaps have a strong influence on plot, but let somoene else do the actual writing of the book (kinda like George Lucas).
Anyway, at one point, Mr. Brown, through his main charactrer Robert Langdon, posits the question: if we could disprove a religion, in this case Christianity, should we do it? On the one hand, Christianity is the world's single most influential faith, causing unimaginable levels of generosity and kindness throughout the world. On the other hand, however, Christianity is also responsible for some of the world's most horrendous atrocities in history (and, in many ways, is responsible for the continuation of many atrocities to this day).
Furthermore, what would disproving Christianity do to the people that followed it? Is it better for them to believe a lie? My experience suggests that the latter is correct.
I should point out if you have read
The Da Vinci Code, that none of the facts he cites about the founding of the Christian church are inaccurate. There really were over 80 gospels considered for the Bible at the Council of Nicea, where the Bible was compiled. Further, as Brown states, it was far more widely believed that Jesus was a mere human prophet, not divine in any way. Even the claim that Jesus likely had a wife, probably Mary Magdaline (who really was a princess and descendant of the Tribe of Benjamin, not the prostitue that most denominations suggest she was), while not provable, is much more sound theory and much more widely supported historically than his revered bachelorhood.
There are other facts left out that can also make these arguments more convincing. Though 80 were considered, over 240 gospels were reviewed for inclusion at the Council of Nicea. Also, the dating of the Book of Mark is around 60 AD, Matthew: 70 AD, John: 85 AD, and Luke: 120 AD. So unless Matthew was almost a century old (which is impossible considering the dating of his death) it would have been impossible for him to have written the Gospel According to Matthew. Same with the other Gospels. And don't forget The Revelation of John, but it's even worse than the Gospels, despite being one of them ost widely revered books that many Christians base their faith upon. Some dates don't even put it until the third century, over 200 years after John's death. Also, many documents from that time indicate that The TRevelation story is fiction, an account of how it could happen (much like that Left Behind tripe for a previous age). Martin Luther (you know, the guy that basically is responsible for the founding of Protestantism) was so skeptical of the validity of The Revelation, that he almost didn't even
include it in his first translation of the Bible.
Anyway, as I've suggested, there are numerous citations in the real world that discredit Christianity
as it is today. I'm not saying that Christianity is wrong (nor is Mr. Brown), I'm merely stating that the problem is that what was meant to be a moral compass guiding by allegory has become accepted by many as literal truth. Jesus existed, he was a very great man, and even I believe that he was a prophet of the One God.
However...
What people like Brown and myself want to do is show people that unwavering faith in an institution created by men is complete lunacy. I have news for all of you: the bible
did not fall from heaven pre-bound and written in King James English. Men wrote it, men compiled it, and men interpreted it. This is why I warn constantly that taking someone else's interpretation of the bible as your own is not only insane, but its dangerous.
If you've read your Bible - and I mean really read it, not read it through the lenses of your existing faith or the beliefs of your peers and what you hear from the pulpit - you know for a fact that there are problems with what is printed on those pages; forgetting all the problems with how what
is in those pages came to be.
I don't want to disprove Christianity. I think the idea of Christianity is great, even based out of what is in the Bible. The problem isn't even interpretation. The problem is omission; "turning a blind eye" to the parts that contradict whatever your personal beliefs are. let's look at a couple examples:
-Like it or not, Jesus despised the acucmulation of wealth. Those that were not willing to give freely of their posessions and money to the less fortunate, even to the point of their own poverty in his name broke the first commandment, for they place money on a station higher than God's will. Even in his time, Jesus understood that the poor were not poor because of their own failings (while not necessarily being required to wind up impoverished themselves, a the implication is that they would be willing to become poor if asked to).
-The main theme of the Old Testament is judgement. However, the main theme of the New Testament (dare I say, the ONLY theme?) is forgiveness and absolution of sin. Jesus speaks of the evil of condemnation repeatedly; "Why do you point out the the speck in one man's eye, when you do not behold the mote in thine own?" or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (paraphrased from memory).
Despite this and many other proofs against the institution of Christianity, the majority of these instituions exist undeterred, though much of that is changing in more progressive denominations such as Unitarians, Presbyterians, and to a lesser extent, Methodists and Catholics.
So is it right to disprove Christianity? Well I guess I should clarify. I don't want to disprove it. I want it to be what it was intended to be, not what it has become. The tragedy is the billions of people who are mislead by the corruption of a few. I think that a Christian should love unconditionally, not tell people they are going to hell. I think that a Christian should be happy with a modest, comfortable living, and be willing to give what excess they don't need to those that do. So that is my crusade, I suppose. Yes, Christianity needs to be disproven in it's current form, not because Jesus didn't exist or that I don't believe in God, but because Jesus's message has been tainted by those that came after.
In closing, I want those of you that might have found the above offensive to ponder one thing before getting angry. If you could
prove that Christianity as it exists today was the truth, would you? Of course you would. You wouldn't think twice about it, despite utterly ruining the lives of over 3 billion people who have dedicated their lives to other faiths.
Peace
VG Cats
Sinfest
Questionable Content
