Sunday, May 15, 2011

Why I Am Not A Christian

Today is a good day.

We have finally got rain in this desert, and the climate makes me happy. Clouds give me courage. The sun pushes me away. No, I am not a vampire, but maybe I should have lived in Ireland.

Apart from me stealing Bertrand Russell's famous essay title, I'd like to talk about some of the reasons I do not call myself a Christian.

Before I begin, I'd like to state that I am aware of both sides of the recent mental struggle between Fundamental Christians and Fundamental Atheists (In other words, those who believe the other side should be eliminated). I am also aware there are many Liberal Christians whom I admire, one being philosophy professor Eric Reitan and another one being a fellow creative writer and friend (If you'd like to know what they think, I'm following them at The Piety That Lies Between and The Imaginary Blog, respectively).

I have to be honest: I used to be a fundamental anti-Christian. Every time I looked at an image of Jesus, I imagined the Crusades, the conquistadors, anti-feminism, antisemitism, homophobia, the Dark Ages, pedophilia by the Catholic Church, Fred Phelps and other less-loved characters in contemporary liberal media, etc.

But this aggressive stance brought me much suffering. I felt anger most days and blamed Christianity for almost everything that was wrong with western society. I "changed" my religion many times, trying to find a substitute for the Catholicism I was brought up in... but nothing worked. I was still angry... in fact, I blamed all religions.

Then I studied Philosophy of Religion in my last semester at OSU. In the beginning I kept trouncing those arguments in favor of belief in God, since those philosophies were based on western ideas (Ideas that are centered in duality, or in layman's terms: "Yes or No, no in-between").

I used eastern ideas to say that the world was not divided between those who believe and those who don't. I tried to bring an end to this fight of duality, which was ridiculous to me. I don't remember exactly the kind of arguments I used. I kept scoffing privately at those students who used the Bible as pure evidence for God's existence, rather than opening their minds to other types of philosophy...

...which was exactly what I was doing...

When I realized this, I opened my mind to Christian philosophy. I finally stopped being angry at Christianity, and gave it a chance to convince me. Perhaps being a Christian WAS what I had to do. It might have finally given me a place in American culture; I was going to be like apple pie and homecoming football games...

It never happened, but I finally understood Christianity, and the idea that might have fully convinced me was the following:
God sent himself to the world (as Jesus) in order to experience His own absence, just like we humans seem to experience His own absence everyday.
 ...and then, there was peace.


* * *

I guess this redeemed God's love for humanity, and I think most Liberal Christians will agree that Jesus' philosophy is not about picketing other people's funerals, but about loving others and ourselves in equal measure, so to create a brotherhood of humanity. This is exactly the reason why John 3:16 is the most used biblical quote in order to bring about converts:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16, NIV).
I had made peace with Christianity. I understood why people were Christian, which was something I was seeking in all the wrong places. However, peace does not mean conversion.

But how can you not believe in Jesus if you understand Christianity? you might ask me.

Well, just because I understand something, doesn't mean that I have to believe in it. Understanding is not the same as belief.


Now, I understand WHY people are Christian. You CAN believe in Christianity and be open-minded at the same time. But I do not believe in some aspects that are sometimes central to the Christian doctrine:


  • The Bible has no authority on me. It is simply a book written many years ago, that elevated its status from a simple collection of Jewish stories into the greatest best-seller in the world. It is not literary, it is merely symbolic.
  • I do not believe that Jesus is the son of God, nor that he died for my sins. I see no reason to purify mankind sending my only son to die for them.
  • The trinity is erroneous. I prefer unitarianism, because I believe that God is one, and not three.
  • I have never felt truly connected with Christianity, either Protestant or Catholic.


My final answer to Christians is


I understand why you believe. I think it's a beautiful thing that you are dedicating your life to follow Christ's example (and truly follow his philosophy of love). But I do not believe in your ideas, because they have not convinced me. Perhaps they will in the future, but for now I am happier not believing in them.

Thank you for reading. I hope this proved to be a rich philosophical post!

2 comments:

  1. First: Thanks for the mention, friend. I respect you very much as a person and I'm flattered that you mentioned me.

    Now onto the commenting!-

    Ah, but the trinity is probably something you SHOULD understand as one who is influenced by Eastern Philosophy, as I am. (I know there's a lot of other things going on in this post, but I have decided to pick out one thing for discussion rather than launching into a defense, so-called, of my religion).

    The Trinity is one of the clearest examples of the true "non-duality" of Christianity. I do not see Christianity as a dualistic religion, and this is one of the reasons why.

    God himself is a transcendent being. He is something beyond the true grasp of the human mind, as much as we'd like to put a face on him, slap him on a lunchbox and sell him to the masses.

    God is the Dao, he is the eternally empty and yet full, he is the chair next to you and the animus of our souls. He is also outside the universe and transcendent of it. He is you and me, and everything but yet nothing. As a Hindi may often put it, he is the screen on which a movie plays. The movie is nothing but rays of light without the screen, and yet it is separate from what is being played.

    I've come to find that enlightenment comes from understanding that you can't traditionally understand God. Understanding in a human sense means labeling and boxing away - it is a means of compartmentalizing things and reducing them to a definition, which is part of the problem with a lot of people and religions.

    If God is a transcendent being, can he not be three things at once? Does he fall to one label? He most certainly does not. God is everything. Hinduism would have called Jesus Christ (and Mohammed, all the prophets, and many others) an Avatar.

    I truly believe Jesus is the Son of God. I also believe in the Holy spirit and God the Father, because I believe they are different ways that we as Humans experience God. God the Father, to me, represents the Dao, the eternally empty, the undefinable transcendent force in the universe. The Holy Spirit, to me, represents the way we experience God on a day to day basis, in our hearts, and in everything around us. The trinity makes perfect sense to the student of Eastern philosophy, because they are simply labels that we've put on the many manifestations of God in our limited human experience.

    As for Jesus Christ, that's a whole other theological discussion that I don't quite have the time for right now.

    Wonderful post, my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for commenting, Allen!

    I think the lesson here is that peace comes from reconciliation with something, even if that something does not yet fit into my tiny head like other philosophies have.

    But I will be open minded and see where knowledge takes me.

    ReplyDelete