Throbert McGee

Peace be unto you, my freethinking brethren...

Those of you who've read some of my posts in threads like <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=000035&p=5" target="_blank">this one</a> may know that your pal <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00002542" target="_blank">Throbert</a> is quite unapologetically and enthusiastically homosexual. Well, for the past several weeks I've been dating an Episcopalian guy who's just as skull-crackingly intelligent and funny as I've ever met (and he looks so good naked, too!). And in the past few days I have been smacked by a startling epiphany. One of the things that makes him so very attractive -- to a confirmed atheist like me, mind you -- is the particular brand of Christianity that he exemplifies, and especially the way he seems so completely immersed in agape.

Now, so let me preface my story by saying that I'm still just as steadfastly atheistic as ever, and I can't imagine that changing. I don't believe in God, souls, or the afterlife; and everything from our existence to our consciousness to our moral sense to our artistic impulses strikes me as being adequately explained by naturalistic science. It's *not* that I think it's necessarily stupid to invoke God as an explanation; it's just that I, personally, side with LaPlace in saying Sire, je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypoth&egrave;se.

Furthermore, I think that much of the purportedly-inspired Bible is full of moral horrors -- the OT is of course notorious for this, though there are a few astonishing moral breakthroughs here and there, like Isaiah 1:11,17 ("To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.... Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.")

Even in the NT, Jesus (whose historical existence can be reasonably disputed, though I personally accept it) sometimes says some foul things, like comparing that Syrophoenician woman to a dog, and the whole hellfire concept. (As an atheist, I obviously see no need to explain these passages away; it seems perfectly reasonable that even a man who was overall a smart and kind-hearted guy could've had feet of clay -- viz., an unreasoned contempt for Syrophoenicians, until one
particularly clever woman forced him to examine his preconceived notions a bit.)

But, aaaanyway, back to my new squeeze. It's not that he's perfect, I'm sure, but he does seem to have figured out, with rock-solid conviction, which things cannot reasonably be termed sins (e.g., honest and affectionate sex) and which are most definitely sinful (e.g., selfishness and jealousy and irrational anger towards one's fellow humans).

Morever, despite having been raised a Baptist (he just told me this yesterday) and having gone through a fairly fanatical fundamentalist stage as a teen, he has entirely abandoned the insane notion of a brutal, self-obsessed God who would, say, consign good-hearted people to Hell because they had the gigantic impertinence to pronounce his name "VISH-noo" instead of "JEE-zus." I mean, if you were in charge of the whole fuckin' Universe, and knew that your adversaries could never pose a genuine threat to you, why NOT be infinitely full of affection and noblesse oblige to poor li'l humans who screw up once in a while (or merely call out to you with the wrong phonemes) because they lack the advantage of infallible wisdom?

So this guy has now ventured that I might be an "anonymous Christian," which I guess is a literary reference of some sort. As for me, I suspect he's mistaken, because I really am a diehard atheist -- but, strangely, I don't mind if he wants to think of me in those terms. And I'm too grown-up to call it love at this early stage, but man oh man, do I like my Episcopalian hunk a whole lot.

Okay, end of sermon; everyone go get brunch now.

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Throbert McGee ]</p>

Gurdur

um, Throbert, first off: I wish you and your new friend all the very best.
Second, I've known great atheists - and great Christians too.

-DM-

Throbert:

It seems to me that your Episcopalian friend essentially has a religion of his own making, one that is not in accord with the teachings of Christianity. He is not, of course, the first such person whom I have known who nevertheless calls himself a "Christian," but I always wonder why they bother, why they don't throw out the bath water and find out the truth: there was no baby there to begin with.

--Don--

HelenM

Hi Throbert

It sounds as though your friend has some kind of desire to depict you as a 'Christian', which hints at him thinking that Christians are better than atheists in some way. Or, if not 'better', more favored by God, I suppose. Although perhaps he doesn't actually believe non-Christians go to hell - you didn't say about that. Maybe you don't know.

Anyway that might not bother you now, but one day it might bother you if he really does think Christians are in some way superior to atheists and that's why he wants to think of you as a Christian. Generally in relationships we are more willing to not be much known at the beginning but after a while we'd rather have people know who we really are and respect us that way, rather than have a wrong understanding of us. In ones that are close and meaningful, anyway. Or that's my experience, at least.

love
Helen

DRFseven

Well, gee whillikers, they'd better think Christians are more favored by God, if they're Christians.

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: DRFseven ]</p>

Throbert McGee

Maybe so -- but then, since you and I don't believe that the teachings of Jeebus have an iota of supernatural authority behind them, does it matter if any individual is a "real" Christian or not?

Of course, that'll depend on what we, as atheists, take "real" Christianity to be. I think one of the participants on these boards observed that, while a minority of self-identified Christians do conceive of a God who is genuinely benevolent and loving, such believers are, by any historical measure, heretics. (Because the overwhelming majority of Christian sects have adhered to such pornographic doctrines as eternal damnation for finite sins.)

This fellow is clearly at the very liberal, Spong-y end of the scale, with heavy emphasis on agape and good works and social justice as the truly important expressions of devotion to God. I don't yet know how far his theological radicalism goes (e.g., whether he insists on a literal bodily Resurrection, and what exactly he takes the "divinity" of Jesus to mean). For that matter, although I've told him I'm an atheist and he seems untroubled by it, I haven't yet articulated the details of my position. (As you may have guessed, my atheism is simply one consequence of a broader metaphysical naturalism. But it's possible he assumes, wrongly, that I'm one of those people who calls himself an atheist because of some negative experience with the church.)

But in between walks in the park and museum visits and extended lip-mashin' sessions on the couch and the plain old X-rated stuff , we've already had some interesting discussions about religion, so I guess our respective positions will come to full light eventually. And I don't think either of us will be unpleasantly surprised by any of the other's beliefs, though of course we may have to affectionately disagree on some points.

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Throbert McGee ]</p>

-DM-

The reason that it matters to me is that I want such "Christians" to get over it and move on. I don't like the idea of a watered-down Christianity which is made more palatable to the masses so that it can hang on longer than it otherwise would. I want it to die a natural death, and the sooner the better.

--Don--

Heath Anderson

I'm just going to be pedant and say that LaPlace didn't actually say that. It is reported that LaP gave Napoleon a copy of "Mecanique celeste" to read through, and General Munchkin asked him why he didn't use God in the book. Lappie then replied above. Well apparently, it was actually Napoleon that said it LaPlace. Now isn't that weird. [Source - "The Celestial Mechanic and the Earthly Naturalist" Stephen J Gould]

Anyway - getting back to your original thread - I don't think I could EVER date a guy that was even the slightest mystical/spiritual. It'd do my head in.
So bravo to you for that tolerance which I so woefully lack


<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Throbert McGee

But so long as it has been 100% purged of all that bloodthirsty, "I am a jealous God" filth, what's wrong with watered-down Christianity (or Judaism, Islam, etc.)? I mean, the humanist values I adhere to do not require any sort of magical superbeing to give them moral force, but if a person shares all of my values and wants to believe in a magical superbeing also, I ain't gonna make a stink out of it.

Granted, I will admit the danger of believing in any anthropomorphized deity, because even if one's god is initially benevolent, all sorts of human vices can become attached, with the sort of consequences we saw on September 11. (And to my mind, flying an airplane into a skyscraper to serve your god's ends is not merely evil, it's quite manifestly unnecessary in light of god's supposed omnipotence. As William Shatner asked in the otherwise awful Star Trek V, "What would God need with a starship?" Or, what would Allah need with four fuel-laden jetliners?)

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Throbert McGee ]</p>

Throbert McGee

Well, I've very little patience with mysticism. In fact, I met my Episcopalian fella through an online personal -- and in my ad, I wrote "I admire Richard Dawkins' blistering contempt for religion," and that "if I had to choose between stupid or mean, I'd take a man who kicks puppies over someone who believes in astrology." So, either the guy was desperate for a boyfriend, or he wasn't frightened off by my beliefs...

Anyway, as I said, he seems more concerned with those aspects of Christianity that originate in us, like kindness and general decency, than with the miraculous, supernatural jive. (Though he may well believe that Jesus was the hybrid offspring of Mary and some invisible sky-creature, and that JC popped back to life after gettin' his ass crucified -- in which case I'll be gently tolerant, because the guy is otherwise very smart, and a great kisser!)

Edited to add: I was just poking around and saw <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ought.html" target="_blank">this essay</a> by Richard Carrier, which beautifully points to the common ground that I, the atheist, have found with the kissable Episcopalian. In particular, I like this closing passage, which I think he would "get":

I believe an atheist ought to live her life so that she can say this: "even if God's existence were proven, I would change only my understanding of the facts, and not the values by which I guide my conduct and thought."

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Throbert McGee ]</p>