Had an interesting back-and-forth the other day with a christian friend of mine who offered to answer any question about Christianity or The Bible on facebook. I asked my question, he answered, I rebutted, he addressed those and now I'm currently waiting on the response for my third comment. The content of the discussion isn't necessarily that important, but there's one phrase he used that has stuck in my head, and not in a good way. Apparently I'd do well to "think of the implications if Jesus' story was true."
So, let's muse on this, shall we? If Jesus' story is true, well, let's see... first of all, physics is broken. Turning water into wine? Where, pray tell, did the extra atoms come from? Assuming the hydrogen and oxygen molecules could break down into composite protons, neutrons and electrons and recombine into the compounds that constitute wine, and assuming that we weren't all obliterated by the energy released from the atoms breaking apart, wouldn't there be considerably less wine than there was water, due to the different molecular weights? If there was the same amount of wine as water, extra molecules were created, increasing the net amount of matter (and therefore energy) in the universe, which has some pretty bizarre implications. Maybe the energy released by breaking apart the molecules was magically converted into protons, neutrons and electrons, thereby conserving the current state of the universe. Maybe it's just a story that isn't meant to be taken literally. Hey, maybe he managed to trade the water for an equal amount of wine, which is a fucking miracle in a country populated entirely by jews. I hate myself for writing that and hope I get the punishment I deserve.
Of course, this isn't the "implications" my friend was talking about. No, the "implications" are a well worn trope, and it's basically a veiled threat. The implications of Jesus' story being true are that the non-believers are gonna get hella raped. By Hell. What my friend is saying, in a very roundabout, psuedo-friendly way that has been used by both fundamentalists and moderates for quite a long time, is that I should be believing in his particular doctrine, because if I'm wrong, well I'm just plain fucked. It's Pascals Wager all over again. And it's just as silly.
First of all, I don't see him contemplating the consequences of his beliefs being wrong. "Oh, coz if he's wrong, he loses nothing!" Loses nothing my hairy arse, if the Islamic faith is correct he'd be even worse off. If you wanted to take Pascal's Wager seriously, you'd believe the faith which had the worst penalty for non-belief, because hey, why risk it? Of course, if you're of the mental standing to take Pascal's Wager seriously, you probably aren't a rocket scientist. In fact, I wouldn't trust you around sharp objects or small children, either. Secondly, if this is your belief, you actually believe I deserve burning endless torment forever. You could say that you personally don't believe that, but you're still subscribing to an ideology that does. So it's basically the same.
And it's not as if I have a choice in the issue! I mean, think about it, just for a moment:
"All you have to do is believe!"
"OK, but do I have to legitimately believe or can I just say I do?"
"No, you have to legitimately believe."
"I can't legitimately believe everything you've said, it contradicts prior knowledge I have."
"You have to reject that prior knowledge!"
"Wow, that's a big call... on what grounds should I do that?"
"Because if you don't, you'll burn in hell forever."
"Shit, that sounds bad... but how do you know?"
"You just have to believe!"
So yeah, pretty much that. You have to believe that you'll burn forever if you don't believe you'll burn forever for not believing that you'll burn forever. I have no idea why you'd sign up for punishment, especially not hypothetical punishment that isn't supported (and is, in a lot of cases, refuted) by modern science, logic or reason. I guess you really have to believe... oh, wait...
Thinking about the implications of Jesus' story being true leads me to the inevitable conclusion that any believer in the literal truth of the Bible, or even the context-sensitive version that's OK with the Big Bang but still thinks I'll burn for my heresy, thinks I deserve eternal endless punishment. Regardless of what I do, who I love or any of my acts, I'm an awful sinner who's getting what's coming to them. You can sugar coat it any way you like, but long story short: You think that little of me just because I don't buy what you're selling. So, my tip to anyone trying to get me onto the Jesus boat? How about making an argument that isn't just yelling "Hallelujah!" over and over again before telling me I deserve endless torture. You might earn a bit more respect from me than you're currently getting.
If the Jesus story is true, that is truth that Jesus brings concerning You and I then the consequences is that You are loved completely unconditionally and for ever and ever and there is nothing you can do that will change that. You can choose to deny it reject it as we often all do, if not always at least some of the time. This does not take away or make non-existent that what is, is, that you are wholly loved. Wine, the best wine, the most precious wine is water! And Jesus saved the best till last.
ReplyDeleteOK, resisting the urge to be a smart arse here, but... so what? I'm loved unconditionally forever by something that may or may not exist. Cool beans.
ReplyDeleteAlso, on the wine thing, I have no doubt that it is, if anything, a parable with some lesson about valuing what you have or something or other, but that was just an aside. I don't really care either way.
As strange as it seems, I'm not berating you for believing whatever you believe, I'm just frustrated by the claim that I should believe something which goes against a lot of other stuff I believe.
If I'm loved forever no matter what, there's no incentive to change my beliefs. If I'm going to hell for not believing, your belief is immoral and I want no part of it.
I believe you were asked to think of the implications to what if the Jesus story was real! Therefore what are the implications of being loved unconditionally? If Jesus story is real then so is the unconditional love for You and it is not a 'may or may not exist' story or reality for the sake of this consideration. If the Jesus story is real and You are unconditionally loved it begs a response, even no response is a response. Actually the wine thing has a lot to do with authority and mission. At Jewish weddings the Rabi would celebrate with the wedding party and the guests. The Rabi took on the role of monitoring the alcohol. Excessive drinking and drunkenness was frowned upon. A good Rabi would, and would have the authority to slow the drinking down. Mary asked Jesus to step into the role of the Rabi at the wedding. Was it his time to take on that authority? Obviously, as he did. He blessed wine/water monitoring the alcohol intake. He took on the authority to say enough alcohol, this water is blessed and good drink that instead.
ReplyDeleteOK, addressing those points:
ReplyDelete1) My response to being unconditionally loved by someone I've never met would be something along the lines of worry. I've never understood the appeal of an omnipresent being loving everyone all the time. It achieves nothing, there's nothing I can do with it. The love of friends or family is useful, they're companionship and support. To a person of a lifelong nonreligious background, it strikes me as a mental safety blanket and tool for dealing with hard times. I don't feel the need for another one, I have coping mechanisms.
2) So it's a metaphorical morality tale about being responsible with alcohol, and on top of that a lesson in being responsible when in a position of authority. Great lessons. Don't see why it has to be disguised as a divine magic trick. Unless it's just a story designed to teach us a lesson, not unlike Aesop's fables. I don't believe a hare and a tortoise ever raced, do you?
3) It's spelled "Rabbi".