Thursday, May 17, 2012

Naive, Idealistic, and Ignorant, but not Controversial

I'm not sure why some have sought to portray Jeff Bethke's views on religion as controversial. That is not to say I don't understand why many object to his interpretation. However, it should be noted that his views are no more valid or dismissible than those of any other Christian. His "Why I hate Religion, But Love Jesus" makes some interesting points and works well as a discussion started but in the end is loaded with various assumptions and based more on ignorance than any real understanding of scripture.

Both Bethke and the various critics and reviewers, like Huff Po's Hanrahan, fail to understand one key point that essentially nullifies his whole outlook. Without religion, specifically scripture, there is no Jesus. Even if you insist on making the huge assumption that Jesus Christ actually existed it would not change this point. Without scripture no one would "know" anything about Christ regardless of whether he is mythical or real. Basically, when it comes to Christianity you cannot "love Jesus" and still hate religion. You may hate a particular interpretation/version of Christianity but that is not the same. There is also no objective way to show that one sect/denomination of Christianity or interpretation of who Jesus was is any better than any other. Scripture is too subjective, ambiguous, contradictory, and incoherent to reach any conclusions of substance.

No comments:

Post a Comment