A Mending Shift

a bird sings, not because if has an answer to give, but because it has a song to sing … this is my song

Jesus Was a Heretic

jesus_heretic.jpg

The moment in our history finally came when God himself decided to step into humanity in a physical, human way. The fancy word for God doing this is incarnation. God, in his truth and love, became human. And shortly after he did, he became a heretic.

A heretic (according to Encarta) is a holder or adherent of an opinion or belief that contradicts established religious teaching, or somebody whose opinions, beliefs, or theories are considered by others to be extremely unconventional or unorthodox.

Jesus was clearly a heretic. In fact, from an earthly vantage point, this was the precise reason he was mocked, slaughtered and killed. His teachings and practices fell well outside of the established and orthodox religious teachings and practices of the Jewish culture of his time. Others, namely those in power of the religious establishment, considered his teachings and practices to be extremely unconventional and unorthodox. So much so that early into his public ministry they began to try to find ways in which they could convict and kill him. Mark barely gets into chapter 3 of his gospel before “…the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.” Jesus was just getting started and they began talking about killing him!! KILLING him!! That’s bad. Clearly heretical.

Here is why Jesus was a heretic, at least according to his surrounding religious culture. (Note: I am not going to site chapter and verse. To do so would rob you the opportunity to personally read the gospels [Mark is a good starting place] for self-discovery).

  • Jesus broke the Sabbath and other religious rules (in fact, he even declared himself the Lord of the Sabbath).
  • Jesus declared he was the Messiah and then, to make matters worse, God himself.
  • Jesus publicly forgave sins.
  • Jesus associated and ate with unclean people and sinners (he might have even eaten non-kosher food…maybe even meat sacrificed to idols!)
  • Jesus was labeled a glutton and drunk.
  • Jesus attacked the religious establishment, and those leading it, both verbally and physically.
  • Jesus talked to Gentiles (equivalent to non-Christians for us today) and accepted their worship.
  • Jesus said the Temple, the heart of the establishment, would be destroyed.
  • Jesus healed and cast demons out of people indiscriminately (they even said his powers were from Satan).

Now every single one of these things that he did (I am sure there are more than what I listed) were horrendously appalling and heretical to those who claimed God’s (his) name; to those who benefited from the religious system; to those who clearly knew what the Law said and were scholars of his word. This fact is why they killed him: he was clearly outside of God’s ways and was threatening everything sacred and true—so they believed.

Sadly, I don’t think religion has changed much over the past 2,000 years. I mean, we call Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, and Rob Bell heretics? Common, they have nothing on Jesus. Jesus would be much too radical and unconventional for Christendom’s taste (what would a homeless carpenter from Snelling with a rag-tag group of followers know anyway?…and under whose authority would he do these things?…and how could he dare say he forgives sins?… and then he has the gall to attack those who claim his name and bless those who don’t?….and…and…and…).

I honestly wonder: If Jesus were to step into our world of Christianity today, in the same way he stepped into first-century Israel, would our religious establishment call him Lord or Heretic? Would they praise or kill him? Would they follow or fight him? Sadly—and I mean it…my heart groans—I think, for some, the later would be the case.

What would I do with the incarnate Jesus? What would you do?


About The Author

Jeromy Johnson
I live in Folsom, CA, with my wife, Jennifer, and three kids. I am surrounded by and cared for deeply by some great friends. Their love for me is truly a moonlit reflection of Papa's love, and for that, I am deeply blessed and grateful.

Comments

  • doubtingthomas426

    Do you remember David Koresh? He claimed to be the second coming of Christ and most dismissed him as the liar he was. But not all. Some were persuaded, much like those original followers of Jesus were. The fact is, there are many who, in their desperation, would quickly jump on board with any charismatic person claiming to be the second coming, and there are many who would need some sort of substantial proof (perform a miracle) and there would be many, who even after witnessing said ‘proof’, would remain skeptical.

    Seriously, if a woman claimed to be pregnant, having never had the semen of a human male enter her womb, few of even the faithful would believe her. Basic biology shows us that without the seed of a man, no woman can conceive. At least, not without the help of a laboratory. Have you seen some of the feats David Blaine, or his clownish, posing cousin, Chris Angel perform? If a con man had it in his heart to pull a fast one on the faithful and had their skills, think of what could happen. Scary.

  • Jeromy

    Good points. There would be all sorts of responses and opinions of Him…and he would probably step on all kinds of holy and pious toes. Add to it that Jesus would not take the human name Jesus (much too deified) but would probably use again a very common name like Robert or Sam.

    How do you think you would respond to him?

  • http://theghettoquilter.blogspot.com/ raquelamisto

    a “glutton and a drunk”??

    Did I miss that verse?

  • Jeromy

    Both in Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel narratives he was labeled a glutton and drunk.

  • http://theghettoquilter.blogspot.com/ raquelamisto

    Just to clarify, Jesus was neither a glutton nor a drunk.

    He was accused of such by the Pharisees – the true heretics
    .

    I would even go so far as to say that Jesus being a heretic is impossible as He is the one who defines true orthodoxy (right thinking). I think that if you check out the Greek translation for heresy (the only version of heretic I could find in the Bible) you may find a very different definition than the one you gave. I’m actually really surprised by this post. Usually you take your time and are really careful…

    But you always keep me on my toes and investigating the Bible ;)

  • Jeromy

    But one does have to associate (possibly even eat alot of food and drink alcohol, though not to the point of gluttony or drunkenness) with gluttons and drunks to be labeled as such.

    Where did you find “heresy” or “heretic” in the Bible? Did I miss it? What was the Greek definition?

    According to God and his way, Jesus was obviously not a heretic. But to his surrounding religious culture, he was…so much so they killed him in the name of God as a heretic.

  • Jeromy

    I re-read my post and what I wrote was unintentionally misleading. You’re correct…Jesus was labeled a glutton and drunk, not was one. Thanks for holding my words accountable. I have changed it…

  • doubtingthomas426

    Bravo, Jeromy, on ‘fixing’ your post after raquelamisto’s comments. So many bloggers seem completely unwilling to even admit they made an error (and I’m not even claiming that you did) and if they do adjust their post, they do it on the sly. Anyway, I hope you’ll check out my site http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/ to get a better idea of where I’m coming from. But understand, I am not a believer and my site is all about how I lost my faith. I hope this doesn’t dissuade you from checking it out and I look forward to your comments.

    BTW, a little off topic but I just saw the movie Juno and it was GREAT. I highly recommend it.

    Take Care, my friend.

  • Jeromy

    Thank you. Your words help reiterate that people today are looking for authenticity, transparency, and openness to admit error, not perfection. I have a long way to go in all three areas…

    That definitely does not dissuade me from checking it out, dialoging, or a friendship. I’ll see you at your place…

  • http://theghettoquilter.blogspot.com/ raquelamisto

    I had to go OLD SCHOOL style. KJV Acts 24:14, “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets”
    The Greek: hairesis, with root haireō (G138 & G139)

    I do admire you for fixing it… Looking back I should have asked you if that was your intention. Sorry about that.

    And if you look contextually, I think that Jesus’ point wasn’t that he was over-eating and drinking but rather the absolute contrast of what was really up. He used the Baptist as an example of the silly things that they were saying, “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ ” to continue to prove the silliness that they accused Him of. But my favorite part in this passage is Jesus saying, “But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

  • Jeromy

    Well, one cannot say for sure that he did or did not eat a bunch of food, or did or did not drink wine. Clearly, even his presence at such parties was enough to vilify him. Heck, he even made some kicking Cabernet…

    But the precise definition of heretic or whether or not he ate and drank was not the point. Did you hear the heart of the post? What are your thoughts about the questions I posed?

  • http://daughter0fzion.wordpress.com Nicole

    I thought the heart of the post may have been better presented without a controversial title…

    If Rob Bell said the things Jesus did – he would be a heretic – because to make the claims Jesus did, and not be God, is heresy….

    “A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make the choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.” C.S. Lewis

    My point being (a different point than Lewis’) – just because Jesus revamped/went against the religion of the day does not necessarily make those who do now in the right….

  • http://mattythestranger.wordpress.com Matthew

    Jeromy,

    Loved the post, title and all. According to Mirriam-Webster (m-w.com), heresy is defined as “adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma”. If we understand that “church”, in this instance, refers to the Jewish establishment in Israel at the time of Jesus life and ministry, then you are 100% correct; Jesus was a heretic. And so am I, damn it!

    Love your words, brother! Keep on doing it!

    SDG,
    Matty

  • Jeromy

    Nicole – I believe that if Jesus did the things Jesus did we would call him a heretic.

    Do you think I am saying that Jesus is a literal heretic?

  • Jeromy

    Matty – They declared him as nothing less…and their violent reaction to his “heretical” words and actions is the pudding of proof. Do you suppose we would react differently? I would hope so, but I fear not. What says you?

  • http://stellathinks.wordpress.com Laurel Esser

    It will always amaze me that people will defend the meanings of words or phrases rather than teaching behind it. We can argue for hours on the meaning of the word heresy and we still haven’t gotten to the heart of the matter.

    In the most recent blog on Nikks page I defined heresy from Webster’s as, “someone who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine.” If we agree that the accepted belief or doctrine would be the doctrine of Christ based on the Word of God (the Bible, which I suppose we could go in more detail to) the question would no longer be who is a heretic, but who is basing their beliefs and actions on the Word of God. Christ was in fact fulfilling all of the profesies of the Old Testement, aligning Himself perfectly with scripture, which would not make Him a heretic. But if we like or don’t like that word, it doesn’t matter. The issue is not if we are heretics or liars, or dilustional or truthful, the question should be, are our actions or teachings based on the Word of God or not. Christ was not going against scripture when He fulfilled it, and neither should we.

  • Jeromy

    Laurel – I fear you missed the point of the post.

    Jesus was going against THEIR VIEW of what scripture said, thus they labeled and killed him as a heretic. Do you suppose we would act differently?

  • http://theghettoquilter.blogspot.com/ raquelamisto

    To our original discussion:
    Because Jesus was God, He was sinless. Not only did Jesus make wine, serve wine, but the Bible clearly states that He drank it. Did Jesus eat? Clearly. To leave whether or not Jesus could be a drunkard and a glutton up in the air is to leave His deity in question. Do you know whether or not that Jesus was/is God?

    I dunno, Jeromy. To compare the way that (the three guys you listed) are being called heretics to what the Pharisees thought of Jesus… that’s some serious business. Pretty much, I think that… every human is a human. I think that these guys in their cozy homes (just like me) have nothing on what Jesus experienced. I think to compare Jesus’ abandonment by all of humanity to what these guys are hearing (from a select few, I might add. they are getting MUCH more good publicity than bad) is weak.

    And to your final comments on the post, Rob Bell (in a sermon I read somewhere… I’ll hunt it down if you’d like) said that anyone who called him a heretic was a Pharisee. EXCEPT for you, my experience with the EC church has been say-one-thing-above-love-and-acceptance-but-do-another. How is that different from the “establishment” that was originally disagreed with and departed from?

    If Jesus were here right now, I can only hope for what my reaction would be.

  • Jeromy

    Jesus being a glutton or drunk, for me, is not up in the air…I don’t think he was.

    Very true, they have nothing on what Jesus received.

    I too can only hope what I would do with a Robert from Snelling who did what Jesus did (again, Robert from Snelling being Jesus from Bethleham, just today). Sometimes the thought of my possible reaction scares me…

  • Jeromy

    By the way Raquel, I accept your compliment about love. Thank you…and I have a LONG way to go!

  • http://stellathinks.wordpress.com Laurel Esser

    Sorry if my comments are little unclear – the point I was making was that Jesus was not a heretic. Although the Pharisees may have thought that Christ was going against what they believed, He was in fact, fulfilling it.

  • http://daughter0fzion.wordpress.com Nicole

    Jeromy – who’s the “we?” that would call Him a heretic?

    The elect recognised Christ, and worshipped Him as God. That’s good enough for me.

  • http://daughter0fzion.wordpress.com Nicole

    more unclear comments – I meant in the “what would I do with Him?” sense as far as the elect being good enough for me. I do not fear I would not recognise Him, because He is living in me.

    as for Rachel’s comment – I was a little confused at first when you said “Well, one cannot say for sure that he did or did not eat a bunch of food, or did or did not drink wine.” Because, obviously, gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins, and Christ is perfect. Maybe that’s where her extended concerns came from – but thank you for clarifying.

  • http://mattythestranger.wordpress.com Matthew

    Radical teachers who shake up the “Christian Bubble” are often referred to has heretics or apostates at the time they are teaching. It is then clear, only by hindsight, that they were not. The same has been true outside of Christendom. Scientists who declared the earth round were ridiculed, insulted and vilified. Guess what? The earth is round. Guess what? Jesus came to bring a message of love and acceptance and brotherhood to all people, not just to the spiritual elite. That was heresy in the eyes of the Pharisee’s (Jeromy’s point) but it was perfect fulfillment of the Plan, in the eyes of GOD.

    What would I do with Robert from Snelling? I don’t know, honestly. Nicole said, “I do not fear I would not recognise Him, because He is living in me.” I wish I had your/her confidence. I know myself too well to claim that in my own life. In addition, I can’t imagine the kind of hubris it would take to say, “I would recognize GOD’s son on earth in an instant”, because no one did the first time around.

    meh…

    Matty

  • Jeromy

    We = us, those who identify with Jesus and his name.

  • Jeromy

    Matt – the earth is not round ;-)

  • http://daughter0fzion.wordpress.com Nicole

    I was thinking about this again this morning…. About where my confidence comes from.

    If I thought salvation had anything to do with me, I would be lost Matt. I would be very uncertain. But, I believe that I can only love Him because He first loved me. I believe that He pursues All of His sheep, and that He will not lose any. I believe that, if He chose me before the foundations of the world – then I can stand firm in the fact that the Holy Spirit, who first opened my eyes to see – who awakened my heart out of spiritual darkness… that He would confirm within my soul that I was, in fact, looking at Christ in the flesh…

    It is only a faith rooted in His work that can make me confident – because the human, fleshy part of me knows that my rebellious soul would want nothing to do with Him, apart from what He opens my eyes to desire. It is a faith in God, and nothing else… does that make sense? “He who began a good work in you is faithful to complete it.”

  • doubtingthomas426

    Nicole, first, thanks for going over and checking out my site. I appreciate any religionist who is willing to read/comment on my collection of ideas/observations/questions that clearly don’t agree with your faith. Also, I added the Recent Comments Widget like you requested (good tip, that. Thanks!). Now, in your attempt to explain where your confidence in your Christian faith comes from, you state that “It is only a faith rooted in His work that can make me confident”. To me this is not an explanation for how you can be so confident that the religion you’ve dedicated your life to isn’t utterly fictitious. That’s like if I based my confidence in the fallacy of the biblical story of Noah and the flood on my (fingers crossed!) HOPE that this story was a fairy tale. Instead my confidence comes from all the evidence that has shown it never occurred as well as the following obvious observations:

    • In the time it took Noah to gather up all the animals (7 of every ‘clean’ beast & 2 of every ‘unclean’ beast & 7 of every fowl of both sexes (14 each) , and a male & female of every ‘creeping thing’) and construct the ark (even working with his sons and the wives it would have taken years), how many women became pregnant? How many gave birth? How many babies did God murder with the flood?

    • How is it neither Noah, his sons, nor their wives were at all concerned about worshiping and blindly obeying a God (really Noah as he was the only one in direct communication) who was determined to kill all their friends and family? Did they all really believe everyone they knew deserved to be murdered?

    • The tools required to build such a large vessel (100? times larger than any built at the time) didn’t exist at the time.

    • The lumber required to build such a large vessel (500ft long, 85ft wide, 60ft & 3 stories high) wasn’t readily available & would have been VERY expensive. Gen 6:15 – “…The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.” The size is the equivalent of 522 standard stock cars or 8 freight trains of 65 cars each.

    • The weight of the ark, filled to capacity with animals, food and supplies would result in a non-buoyant vessel.

    • How did all these species of animals migrate across numerous foreign continents in their return home after the flood and yet leave no trace behind? The fossil record should basically show that all species originated wherever the Ark landed (Turkey).

    • How did Noah keep the birds from eating all the insects? And what about the parasites they (and the other animals) carried? Do those count for the two of each living thing?

    • It would have been impossible for Noah, his wife, his three sons and their three wives, (8 people total) to both crew the vessel and care for and feed and clean up after all the animals.

    • Only an expert ship builder could hope to construct a vessel never before imagined and hope to make it sea worthy.

    • Why all the trouble? Again, why didn’t God just snap his almighty fingers and poof there is the ark and snap all the animals are on board? Did he want to sit and stew in his anger while Noah and his sons attempted to obey his command. And better yet, why not just snap his almighty fingers and all the bad people just drop dead or disappear in a puff of smoke? Why the need to kill every living thing?

    • Insects must have been included (creeping things maybe) in the to be saved list, otherwise the majority would have drowned.

    • Were all fish excluded? What happened to the fresh water fish when the seas rose and mixed with their water? And vice versa?

    • As any zoologist will tell you, a male and female of any species aren’t necessarily compatible as mates and there is no guarantee if they were that they could produce an offspring.

    • And in case any believer suggests at any point that God interfered in order to guarantee his plan worked out (i.e. all animals mated and produced offspring, never attacked one another, no sickness on board) I again ask why not just snap his almighty fingers and make all the offending humans fall dead? I mean if he is going to use his infinite powers to take part in the great plan, why not that?

    • How many ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’ beasts are carnivores? How about the 14 of each fowl? And the creeping things? How many extra animals were brought on board to feed them? Or did God once again conveniently interfere to make the lions herbivores for the duration of the voyage?

    • And what about after the voyage? What did all the carnivores eat then? How many generations of animals would have to be born before they could all safely start preying on one another again?

    • Noah, one of only 8 people on earth God deems worthy of sparing his wrath, at one point lies about naked and is spied on by his son, Ham. He gets drunk from wine of his own vineyard. How long does it take to get a vineyard going? How much priority was given to creating wine when they needed to repopulate and regrow the entire world? Gen. 9

    • After the waters receded the whole of the earth would have been covered in rot and death. Disease would have been unavoidable.

    • Pork too? – After the flood, of the few remaining animals left on earth, God tells Noah, “…every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you.” Gen. 9:3 How quickly would each species become extinct if such an occurrence had actually taken place? And what happened to kosher?

    • “And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” Gen 7:23 Please don’t suggest that fish, or whales, or plants survived God’s tantrum.

    • What about the food stores? Where was all the food kept to feed all these animals (7 of every ‘clean’ beast & 2 of every ‘unclean’ beast & 7 of every fowl of both sexes (14 each) and a male & female of every ‘creeping thing’)? How many other ‘Arks’ would have been necessary to hold all the food to feed Noah and his family and all the animals for the 4+ months they were trapped on board the Ark? And what about all the drinkable water?

    • Were there no currents to carry the Ark? 4+ months at sea and they apparently only drift, at most, a few hundred miles?

    • How many of the extra special, trained, land-seeker doves did Noah bring with him? It must have been MUCH more than the 7 of every fowl of both sexes God commanded seeing that MANY of them must have perished from exhaustion and fallen into the sea when they couldn’t find anywhere to land.

    • God so despised (so much for ‘good’) the offspring of the first nine generations of his creation he decided to not only kill them all (why bother with trying to save them?) but to kill every other living thing upon the face of the earth! No exception was made for children, pregnant women or even babies. Only Noah, his three sons and their four wives were spared. How convenient that Noah and his sons had such perfect taste in women.

    And, Nicole, to be absolutely confident that your teenager isn’t doing drugs I sincerely hope you would require A WHOLE LOT MORE evidence than just your HOPE that they aren’t.

    You also state in your explanation of why you are so confident:

    [[[I can only love Him because He first loved me.]]]

    Huh? Please explain what in the world this is supposed to mean.

    [[[He (God) pursues All of His sheep, and that He will not lose any]]]

    Can you please define ‘sheep’ for me. I have to assume you mean Christians and not simply humanity. If so, then your statement suggests that your God would never allow a Christian to ever become anything but. Obvious this is not true. If, instead, ‘sheep’ refers more to the all inclusive humanity then, again, this is obviously an untrue statement.

    [[[He chose me before the foundations of the world - then I can stand firm in the fact that the Holy Spirit, who first opened my eyes to see - who awakened my heart out of spiritual darkness… that He would confirm within my soul that I was, in fact, looking at Christ in the flesh…]]]

    You state you were “awakened out of spiritual darkness”. What does this mean? Were you raised in a different religion (or none at all)? When did you ‘awaken’? How did this ‘awakening’ happen? And when you were “looking at Christ in the flesh” are you suggesting you’ve seen Jesus live and in person? If so, can you please provide details (when, where, etc.).

    And finally, and this is to ALL religionists, when trying to defend or explain your faith, can you please, please, please stop just spewing out these empty, fanciful, prosaic, unoriginal, lyrical, nonsensical phrases? They sound pretty but have no meaning and serve no purpose. A non-believer, like myself, is just left bewildered, while the believer simply nod their heads, comforted by these familiar slogan-like sayings.

  • http://daughter0fzion.wordpress.com Nicole

    Matt wrote: “In addition, I can’t imagine the kind of hubris it would take to say, “I would recognize GOD’s son on earth in an instant”, because no one did the first time around.”

    Couple of things I need to clarify – perhaps my last post did – I did not say “I would recognize God’s Son on earth in an instant.” I don’t know if you were referring to me or not… but, I believe there were those who did recognise Him immediately – the Three wise men, the shepherds, the old prophet (Simeon I think) and the prophetess Anna (both in Luke chapter 2).
    AND, it’s not hubris – it’s the Holy Spirit – I think immediately of the passage in Matthew 16:16,17 Jesus asks His disciples who they think He is – and Peter tells Him “You are the Christ, the SOn of the living God.” to which Jesus replies “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” God revealed to Peter who He was, and I trust the same for my life….

    Thomas (can I call you that?) I had to turn your post into a word document – will take a few days to reply. I like you. So does my sister. You have put more thought into disbelief than most put into their beliefs. I will try and answer as much of your post as I can – I am just not sure where… Jeromy won’t agree with the majority of my doctrine :) – and I am not sure I want to take over his blog with it – perhaps you can copy and paste on my page, and we’ll go from there… ?

    More thought provoking discussion Jeromy – thanks!!

  • Pingback: Waiting for an atheist… « Verity

  • Jeromy

    Feel free to comment and interact here…I have no quams. My friendships are not based on whether or not I 100% agree or disagree with the other, if they were, I would have to say goodbye to all three of my friends!

    Thomas, I don’t really get hung up over the literalness of figurativeness of such stories…take creation, if God wanted to use an evolution process to create things over a period of millions of years, cool. I try not to miss the forest for the tree. I would rather listen, converse and get to know you more as a person. By the way, did you see my questions on your post?

  • http://daughter0fzion.wordpress.com Nicole

    I knew you would not mind Jeromy, or we would not have had so many conversations over the last few months – I just know too that we see things very differently, and I don’t want to highjack your blog….

  • doubtingthomas426

    Jeromy, first, I apologize if my last GIANT comment ‘highjacked’ your post. That wasn’t my intention. I was just fired up after reading Nicole’s comment. And I’m not sure which question you’re referring too on my site, I got the one about the RSS feed (still looking into it) but I’ll search for any overlooked comment and respond asap.

    Nicole, probably best to call me DoubtingThomas. I think that will better represent me to whomever might not have read whatever comment you or another responds to. And you can reply on my site (http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/) if you like (just put a link to the original post at the top of your comment for whomever wants to understand the context) so as to not ‘highjack’ Jeromy’s blog.

  • doubtingthomas426

    Jeromy, I think I found the question on my site you’re referring to. I thought I had already replied but I can’t find it so I will do so again here as the post containing your comment has moved way beyond that point. Hope that is ok.

    JEROMY asked — Are you put off by God and Jesus? or by church, religion, and Christendom?

    My issue isn’t just with Christianity. That may appear to be my focus when you visit my site but that is a result of being raised in the faith and my extensive study of the bible. I am put off by RELIGION. All religions. I don’t discriminate. Don’t make the error that so many Christians do of thinking atheists are anti Christian. We aren’t. Remember, atheism is simply a title and I don’t have to tell you that we are all much more complex than whatever label is placed upon us. Labels are designed more for the person viewing it than the person wearing it.

    JEROMY asked — Was there a breaking point where you said enough is enough? What was it?

    No. There was no breaking point. My evolution was a gradual one. I never knew an atheist (that I was aware of) and wasn’t ‘converted’ into one. In fact, I don’t think it’s possible to ‘convert’ someone into an atheist. It seems to me that all the atheists I now know became one completely on their own. My transformation began almost immediately after I graduated my Private Christian High School and was no longer surrounded (suffocated) by a continuous religious reinforcement of theory. I won the ability to think freely and with a clear mind. The clouds depart and the scales were lifted from my eyes. I finally began to see reason and logic and realize that TRUTH is never a ‘claim’, it is always a fact. I began to study this book I had once revered and quickly discovered that when one TRULY studies the bible it becomes extremely difficult to have any ability to believe the words written there, let alone worship the god(s) depicted in its pages.

    You also asked if you could add my site (http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/
    ) to your blogroll. I’m surprised and flattered. I imagine very few of any faith would be willing to do so. Feel free, my friend.

    Take Care

  • Jeromy

    DT – I never felt you highjacked my blog…post whatever you like whenever you like to whomever you like…no worries here. It is just HTML code after all ;-)

    “we are all much more complex than whatever label is placed upon us. Labels are designed more for the person viewing it than the person wearing it.” – well said. Labels unfortunately help us place people in a compartment (I am picturing those huge metal freight containers, but with windows), shut and lock the door, and then view them safely through the windows. Then if they get too bad, we can ship them off to the appropriate island.

    I can see your story of how the 100% factual/scientific/documentary approach to scripture seems silly and mistaken. I believe it is as well. Part of it for me is realizing that, much like different genres in books and movies, the Bible is a mix of genres. Some stories, like Lord of the Rings, were never intended to be a documentary of fact, but rather stories that convey deeper meaning. After all, the early Jews were very tribal and nomadic that had a verbal tradition of conveying their stories. It is not a stretch for me at all to think of God using fictional-stories to convey meaning. After all, Jesus seemed to have a fascination with fiction. I plan on posting more on this.

    I understand your approach of disproving biblical stories with a scientific approach when we claim they are scientifically true. But if their intended genre was fiction, then to approach disproving Lord of the Rings via scientific fact, or even at all, is a mute point. But our traditional 100% factual/scientific/documentary response forces your factual/scientific/documentary deconstruction approach.

  • Jeromy

    Regarding my bloggroll, I consider it a collection of my friends who also blog. Even with my friends currently listed, I don’t always agree with what they say or believe. But I would have a coffee or beer with them in a heartbeat. So, cheers!

  • http://daughter0fzion.wordpress.com Nicole

    Jeromy – need to digress for a minute…

    “Thomas, I don’t really get hung up over the literalness of figurativeness of such stories…take creation, if God wanted to use an evolution process to create things over a period of millions of years, cool.”

    and

    “It is not a stretch for me at all to think of God using fictional-stories to convey meaning. After all, Jesus seemed to have a fascination with fiction.”

    I don’t understand why you think God would inspire men to write a book that is to be read as fact, but allow us to interpret it as fact or fiction, depending on how much of a stretch it seems to our imagination. In referencing the Jews as “nomadic story tellers” you are usurping the acts of the Divine with the life style and practices of His people.

    I don’t see verses that talk about the figurativeness of a passage – unless it’s a parable… Would it not be misleading of God to talk as if the Bible is literal, if it isn’t? Would He not be deceiving His people? What benefit would there be to things being stories or myths, rather than fact?

  • Jeromy

    Stories have tremendous power in conveying truth, even thought they themselves are not true. The Bible never says it is an encyclopedia, scientific textbook, or documentary. It is the inspired word of God useful for teaching, correcting, etc. We, mostly through the influence of modernity and the Enlightenment, see it as such, approach it as such, and teach it as such.

    Again, I am not saying that 100% of the bible is fiction (which is not a bad word – fiction is a VERY powerful and common medium – one that Jesus used often). But for too long we say it is 100% literal (meaning a non-fictional documentary account). There are many different literary techniques and genres in the Bible.

    I met with an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi (the conservative side) here in Sacramento last year. I wanted to learn from him about the OT. Part of our conversation centered around this idea. I asked, “Was the Genesis account ever meant to be a scientific account of creation?” He chuckled, “No, it was intended to show that God created. How does light come before the sun or stars? And why does there seem to be two accounts?” He also said that Christians come into his office with the NIV version to argue with him about the OT, a text he works with in the original language and has been doing so for the past 4-5,000 years.

    Nicole, you’re smart, what benefit is there to stories? Not everything has to be fact in order to convey truth or influence people. Seen any good movies lately or fiction books?

  • Jeromy

    I am planning on posting on this in more detail withing the next couple days…perhaps we comment then?

  • Pingback: A Mending Shift » My Unbiased Favorites of 2008

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1453448664 Anonymous

    Liked this post… and I do agree that if Jesus were here today, the religious Christian establishment would label him a heretic (at the very least)–but I would not say that only “some” would, I think the majority would. People are still essentially the same as we were 2000+ years ago.

  • http://www.jeromyj.com/mendingshift Jeromy

    I agree. I think most would waiver from Hosanna to Heretic within a short period of time. Perhaps I would be amongst those as well, though I hope not.