Christian Living is about Living Christ’s Word!
Responding to what Christians believe is important.
Email From Christian
If you understood Christianity at all, then you would know that Christians live by Christ’s word but they are not Christ. We make mistakes because no one can be like Jesus. The only thing you prove is how arrogant you are to believe yourself better than Jesus or those seeking his grace.
Dear Christian,
Your illiteracy reveals when assuming I do not understand Christianity. I comprehend Christianity claims to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, but more importantly, how Christians use Christ’s supposed perfection to deflate culpability for wrongdoings and hypocrisy. Even more importantly, realizing how Christians derive these beliefs and poor thinking from biblical fiction proves I comprehend Christians better than they know themselves. Perhaps that rings with arrogance, but not for Jesus, just with Christians: well, as far as literacy is concerned. This must be the case since you have based your life on the teachings of Christ via the multi-translated, ambiguous, contradiction-filled bible.
Which Jesus?
Christian, you should not feel ridiculed since even your more literate brethren discuss the bible as though they received some powerful truth when they suffer a lie so obvious it baffles those witnessing the obliviousness. Christians wonder why people like myself adopt sardonic views of their beliefs, which they would discover if they read books and learned of the vast authorship that skewers their religion with facts,
Not to pick on the Judeo-Christian-Muslim Old Testament, of course — all religious texts routinely include reports of historical miracles that can no longer be scientifically repeated or verified mixed with prophecy. The Book of Lilith (p. 17). Robert G. Brown. Kindle Edition.
Most Christians never experience this literary criticism and ignore face-to-face and other interactions by projecting ignorance on critics: everyone who is not a Christian just doesn’t understand or hasn’t seen the light. Some critics correctly call this projection a fallacy or willful ignorance, but neither speaks to the true nature of this typical Christian reaction. The name should change to “a recursive state of ignorance” to elucidate this response more effectively.
Few atheists are raised in nonreligious families, and none live in an environment free of religious influence. Most atheists arrive at whatever brand of disbelief via their rationale, often by rejecting religion over time. Though often motivated by torment, at least these atheists benefit from critically analyzing beliefs. Most Christians, whether raised or converted, have not been so lucky to have an evaluation period because they are taught not to question faith. As such, most Christians hold a slanted view of faith that cheats them of proper analysis. Duke University Professor Robert Brown clarifies the need to study what one believes true, and most interestingly, by assuming it is the truth to
“see how the worldview that you derive from the assumption (together with other assumptions — axioms — you add along the way) works out. Then assume that it is no and repeat the process. Then just see which system you like the most. That’s right. I’m not going to ask you to adopt any particular set of axioms as “obviously right’’ as I have no idea on earth which set are “right’’ in the sense of absolute truth myself. In fact, I don’t think that any set is “obviously’’ right — quite the contrary.”
Being there is no means of absolutely proving Christianity, one can use this effective acid test to at least find what works best for them, to which Professor Brown states,
This process may prove so uncomfortable you blind your inner eye and return to a state of absolute adherence to one of the old sets (likely the one you were raised with). Or you may find it exhilarating and liberating — for the first time you may find yourself actually understanding your own beliefs; why you believe what you believe, what the consequences of your beliefs are.
If you have not tried to experience and test a contravening belief system’s axioms, you only have part of the story which threatens to trap you in a faith that holds no practical applications. For me, attending Christian schools, joining churches, reading the bible, and giving honest (and even more dishonest effort to this faith), I found the belief’s axioms not only did not work but created many of the problems in mine and others’ lives. This loss of faith occurred across decades, a mistake I urge you not to make to avoid wasting time and instead academically test your Christian and unChristian axioms by reading critics and opposing discussions since, as Professor Brown says,
You may find, for the very first time ever, that consistency of your belief set becomes important to you, rather than practicing the sort of spiritual schizophrenia experienced by many Christians, Moslems, and Jews, for example, when trying to reconcile “irrefutable’’ scientific evidence that the Universe is 13 billion years old or thereabouts and that we all evolved on this planet over roughly a billion years with Genesis.
You may find the opposite works for you, but you cannot simply accept what evangelists and teachers profess since you have only one perspective. Often Christians, instead of reading, obey these proselytizers because they offer god existence arguments that seemingly disprove the nonbelievers. Rarely do they present practical issues not easily circumvented by conceptual arguments.
For me, the battle with faith stalemated a very long time until I actively investigated Christianity beyond just belief in God: a step not possible for someone who reads only the bible and adheres to what other Christians claim. For instance, the bible has been rewritten and translated to the degree that the original meaning is controversial even amongst Christians, to say nothing of the different bibles used in various sects due to translation differences. If the bible is the word of God, then how can this be? Even if inspired by God, how can meanings be so radically different amongst believers? Language and meaning inconsistencies should concern you since this is the text upon which you found your life.
But it gets worse.
The Recursive Ignorance
The recursive ignorance of Christianity may never be a problem as long as you can endure the hypocrisy and contradictions. As I dug deeper into Christianity and, unavoidably, philosophy, axioms meant to prove God instead forced questioning and study of philosophy’s nature, bringing me to the conclusion that philosophy doesn’t exist solely to prove God’s existence or religion’s truth. A fundamental purpose of problem-solving or answer-finding underpins philosophical discourse to provide practical solutions based on plausible logical and theoretical frameworks, e.g., healthcare ethics, law, business ethics, etc. Christianity became implausible when faced with this vital function, not just due to its questionable history, translations, and bizarre beliefs needed to maintain faith, but because it lacked practical application.
But it gets even worse.
Not only did Christianity hold no plausibility, but rooting thoughts in this implausibility allowed irrationality and poor decision-making growth, which increased the risk of dishonesty and other harmful traits. This problem should be obvious to most Christians reading since they likely experienced in others or within themselves the recursive ignorance that relies on nothing but its own proofs and axioms. Recursive ignorance should be obvious to the Christian who finds herself arguing Christ’s perfection since the meaning obfuscates in translations and interpretations. This recursive ignorance should now become obvious as an attempt to fill illiteracy’s emptiness and missing experience when spouting idiomatic adages proclaiming the fictional perfection of Jesus. The recursive ignorance should be obvious to you now in your assumption that critics hold less knowledge than you about Christianity.
Christians are one-eyed people seeing the world with no depth perception, calling those around them “Two-eyed fools.”