Tonight, more than 35 years after completing 12 years of Catholic education, I find myself re-visiting the claim that it was God's gift to humankind to allow Jesus to die. Specifically, I'm re-reading my earlier posts on the "illogic of atonement" and the application of the "moral accounting metaphor." I believe the latter theory would actually shed light on why an omnipotent God couldn't simply snap his fingers and forgive humans, instead of sacrificing his son. Then again, none of this would explain why a God would blame all of humankind for the allegedly bad act of Adam and Eve, especially when their alleged transgression was trying to partake of knowledge of good and evil. That doesn't sound like a crime to me. In fact it befuddles me. Hence, I'm not a Christian. Rather, as usual, I'm looking at Easter from the outside in.
You don't need God -- to hope, to care, to love, to live.
Why is such a campaign necessary? CFI answers:
One popular myth is that the nonreligious are immoral, or at least that they can’t be relied upon to be as good as those with religious beliefs. If you know any nonreligious people (and almost everyone does—see below), you already know this is not true. Human decency does not depend on religious belief. There are good believers and good nonbelievers; there are wicked believers and wicked nonbelievers. You can’t predict a person’s moral character just from knowing his or her metaphysical beliefs.
I agree with this concern, based on the fact that hundreds of people who have no idea what kind of life I am leading are willing to condemn me for my lack of a belief in "god." I've written about this proud ignorant judgment repeatedly.
I've run into more than a few fundamentalist Christians who have insisted that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
"Then please explain the results of radiometric dating," I typically ask, adding that even carbon dating can accurately date materials up to 60,000 years old, far older than 6,000 years.
Most modern savvy Young-Earthers won't fight me on the general usefulness or accuracy of carbon dating. Instead, they will insist that A) God has created an Earth that only looks like it is billions of years old, and B) I need to have faith. That is how they would explain everything older than 6,000 years old, including the Old Tjikko tree in Sweden, which certainly appears to be 9,550 years old. God must have transplanted it from another universe when he made this universe.
The Young-Earthers thus offer an provocative argument. I don't believe it, but there's would be no way for me to disprove it.
I'm not yet far into Bart Ehrman's newest book, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Ehrman's answer, however (and he warns that his conclusion will annoy many non-Christians--of which he is one--and please Christians) is that a man named Jesus most definitely did exist. I'll be posting on Ehrman's book once I finish it. I should also mention that Frontline has produced a show on the search for the historical Jesus [Here is the video of the entire show].
Assuming that a man named Jesus once walked on the planet, what did he look like? At Popular Mechanics,Mike Fillon discusses what Jesus must have really looked like. Hmmm. He's not the tall blonde haired blue-eyed British-accented guy I've seen in more than a couple movies. Nor could he have been like any of the seven art images of "Jesus" created through the centuries. And what Jesus looked like is no academic exercise. There are real and serious real-world ramifications. For instance, Rudy Giuliani once became perturbed at an exhibit depicting Jesus as a black man. People tend to concoct the Jesus they worship in their own image and likeness.
What is the method by which one might recreate an image of Jesus using other Galilean Semites of his era? It's the field of forensic anthropology, and the assumption guiding this enterprise is that Jesus would, indeed, look somewhat like most other men who lived in that area of the world.
With three well-preserved specimens from the time of Jesus in hand, [medical artist Richard Neave] used computerized tomography to create X-ray "slices" of the skulls, thus revealing minute details about each one's structure. Special computer programs then evaluated reams of information about known measurements of the thickness of soft tissue at key areas on human faces. This made it possible to re-create the muscles and skin overlying a representative Semite skull.
What Neave has offered, then, is not actually the face of Jesus, but how Jesus likely would have looked. Here is a video showing Neave at work.
Based on this reaction, we have some confidence to say the following to European, African and Asian Christian congregations, each of which tend to display a version of Jesus that looks like themselves. "So sorry, but Jesus didn't look like any of you. Will you still worship him?"
I'd love to run the following experiment. Let's put a big reproduction of the photo offered by Neave at the front of Christian churches all across America, right next to the altar. Then I'd like to observe church attendance over the next few months to see how dramatically it suffers. My prediction is that church attendance would fall by 50% within a year.
For more on this topic see this article by BBC News.
[Above Image by BBC].
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
