More Jesus related foolishness

I came across a handful of article this past week that just seemed so patently ridiculous even by the low standards of religion. I've picked just two to name; "The miracle of Jesus is not needing a miracle at all" on Examiner.com and "Who, What, Why: What language would Jesus have spoken?" from BBC's blog Magazine Monitor.

Reread those and take a few moments to spot why the titles (the content is actually worse) are so idiotic.

If you strip away the Jesus figures supernatural elements what is left? This, of course, assumes you didn't pick up on the semantic issues. Miracle - miracle = nothing. Without the miracles doesn't that make Jesus just another wandering preacher? The world has always had plenty of them.

Why would the language matter that much? Even after you make the huge assumption that the guy ever existed most of the claims about him would make his preferred language a rather trivial point. It is also problematic since it is an assumption in itself that he would have a favored language or be limited to a specific language(s). Isn't he supposed to be divine? Isn't one of the main points of his preaching to pass on his/God's teaching? If a divine being can't communicate their message effectively how impressive can that being really be?

And theists wonder why non-theists mock and ridicule their beliefs.

On Occasion Answers are Simple

Even though it rarely works out that way, there are sometimes very simple answers. A recent American Buddhist Perspective blog post recently asked a fairly routine question: "Buddhism: religion or philosophy?" It's a religion. Buddhism by its basic principles is a supernatural based belief system, which therefore makes it a religion. It may be true that it is one of the more philosophical religions but that does not make it any less of an organized religion.

Mr. Whitaker throughout his piece seems to make comments to the effect that he knows this already. Throughout he seems to be trying to reconcile himself to the possibility that it could be equally both. I disagree mainly because it ignores a number of common critiques of common theistic assumptions. It doesn't matter if religions are capable of being a specific way if it is possible to be that way without any religious elements. He talks about reducing Buddhism to "techniques" which is the same half-assed argument used in promoting Yoga in public schools. "Yoga" the way many people "practice" it is a matter of technique/method devoid of its original religious overtones. That isn't really Yoga. Essentially you are mixing calisthenics with meditation. It does not require any supernatural beliefs let alone a belief system. Adapting meditative and relaxation techniques from Buddhism does not make you a Buddhist.

If individuals adopted some but not all the various religious based principles along with the methods then you might have more of a debate/question. That does not seem to be what Whitaker is talking about. Buddhism is by its nature a religion. It is just as attached to supernatural thinking and concepts as any other faith.*

I have previously written about Buddhisms supernatural underpinning;
How Atheistic is Buddhism? (12/31/11)
Buddhism and the God Concept (2/24/13)

Insert head in sand box

Thanks to yet another disaster a number of theists and non-theists are revisiting that age old conundrum of reconciling an all powerful all good God with evil. Personally, I find it foolish to accept it as a conundrum at all. I see it as a pretty simple straightforward choice. Either you accept reality unadorned or you subscribe to a personally/socially constructed fantasy. After all, the "conundrum" is by its own terms irreconcilable. Once you accept that God is all powerful then God has to be the source of everything. How can God be "all good" and yet be the only possible source of evil?

I do understand that choosing between reality as it is and a comforting delusion can be a very difficult and emotionally charged decision. I in no way want to belittle the thoughts and feelings of theists but I also see no reason not to point what seems so blatantly obvious from my own perspective. It also leads to a basic choice on my part when I come across these types of discussions and arguments. I can either scream in frustration or find some type of entertainment and reassurance that our species isn't completely loopy. I prefer the latter.

There were a few sections of a recent Religious News Service piece that did make me chuckle a bit. I came across this little gem in "Where is God when evil strikes?" and had to laugh.

"But they still skirt the central question. Why did an omnipotent God allow Newtown? How can a vicious tornado kill kids when God is good?
There is, alas, no good answer."

Yes, there is. God is a human construction. Sometimes answers can be simple. I still am amazed that such blatantly obvious answers go ignored. If a person shoots lots of people. That individual bears direct responsibility. We as a society may also bear some of the responsibility. Why look beyond those two sources? It has far greater explanatory ability and can be verified. If a tornado tears through a town the damage is directly attributable to that example of extreme weather. Why add the element of an unverifiable highly disputable supernatural agent? What does it really help?

I had to laugh. I don't have enough hair left to risk ripping it out over such foolish nonsense.

Religion is Innately Supernatural

Recently the question of whether religion is automatically supernatural in nature and whether it is possible to deny the supernatural and still be Christian came up on Roger Olson's Patheos blog. It was an odd piece in that I found myself somewhat impressed by Olson's immediate admission that Christianity and religion are, or at least contain elements of, supernatural.

I was rather less impressed with the reason it came up and how he set about writing about the connection. He seems to have just assumed that one of his readers assertion about a notable theologians position on the subject was precisely what the reader claimed it to be. This reader claimed that Karl Barth did not believe in the "supernatural" and insisted that Christianity did not require it. I am by no means an expert on Barth's work but I have read some of it and don't recall his making such a definitive claim. Not only does Olson not indicate that he bothered to review any of Barth's writing to determine if the claim had any merit (being dead we can't just ask him), he spends most of the piece trying to reconcile Barth's supposed view with his own.

Though the mental gymnastics were amusing it seemed rather futile. Even if Barth did make such a claim it would not be the first time a theologian had deluded himself into believing something that is blatantly incoherent and contradictory. There is no aspect of Christ's supposed life and ministry that is not laced with the supernatural. Miracles, for instance, are by definition outside the natural laws. So is one of the most important aspects of the Christ narratives: resurrection.

Basically, whether Barth believed that religion, specifically Christianity, was innately supernatural does not change the fact that Christianity has to be. Without the miracles, the resurrection, and the transfer of sins as a result Christ would be just another itinerant preacher/reformer.