Christianity, The World's Most Falsifiable Religion?

I find myself not writing about religion very often anymore mostly because I’ve got the gist of Christian apologetics at this point and am rather bored by it, so I’m much less often inspired to respond to something I read. Still, something extraordinary does occasionally drift by, like this article from Michael Patton, Th.M., (presumably not the Mike Patton from Faith No More) entitled “Christianity, The World’s Most Falsifiable Religion.” It struck me as odd that someone with a background in theology would write so confidently about the historicity of the core claims of the Christian faith. Then again, the major endeavor of Christian apologetics is to attempt to muster up some kind of argument other than “you just need to take it on faith,” even though most believers would not cite “the overwhelming persuasiveness of Christian apologetics” as the reason for their belief. Apologetics is not for convincing nonbelievers, it’s for reassuring believers that they have legitimate, non-laughable reasons for the beliefs that they already hold, beliefs that don’t actually have their origins in the cosmological argument, or the teleological argument, or the moral argument, or the [insert apologetic du jour] argument.

Here is Patton’s thesis:

“Christianity is the only viable worldview that is historically defensible. The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, as they are based on public events that can be historically verified. In contrast, the central claims of all other religions cannot be historically tested and, therefore, are beyond falsifiability or inquiry. They just have to be believed with blind faith.”

The TL;DR version of my response: No, Christianity is not historically defensible. Its claims, like those of all other religions, are not falsifiable, and you do just have to take it on faith. Here’s the long-winded version:

What is History?

To explain why the claims of the Christian faith cannot be investigated historically, the first thing that needs to be done is to define what history is, and just as importantly what history is not. (I’m borrowing heavily here from the work of Dr. Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar and historian.) History is not the past. History is what we can show probably happened in the past. This is not a trivial distinction; there are things that certainly happened in the past but cannot be shown to have happened with any high probability. For example, there is a factual answer to the question “What did Benjamin Franklin eat for dinner on October 23^rd, 1778?” Unless we’re fortunate enough to discover Franklin's journal meticulously detailing his prandial selections on that day, we have no method of seeking the answer to this question. So although the question asks about a particular event in the past, it is not a historical question – it can’t be investigated historically. Let’s look at the claims of the New Testament and determine if they are historical claims, i.e. claims that can be investigated historically.

History as a Genre

Not every piece of writing that talks about the past is historical. “History” is a specific literary designation, and any writing deemed to be “historical” must meet certain criteria, just as any writing claiming to be satire or science fiction or biography must meet certain criteria. So, what exactly is history? The word itself comes from Herodotus, the 5^th century BCE Greek writer commonly referred to as “The Father of History” (an honor conferred upon him by Cicero, no less.) Herodotus begins his famous work with the immortal words “Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε,” “This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus.” The Greek word whence comes our word history means an investigation or inquiry. In this hugely influential work, Herodotus establishes many basic features of the genre of historical writing. First of all, he clearly identifies himself by name and place. Second, he often gives multiple conflicting accounts of a story and identifies to which people each perspective belongs. In the case of events he didn’t witness himself, he tells the reader where he got his information and reports it neutrally, inviting the reader to decide which side is telling the truth, if any.

Thucydides, Herodotus’ 5^th century Greek contemporary wrote a detailed history of the war between Athens and Sparta as it was unfolding before his very eyes. His methods are even more mindfully scrupulous than those of Herodotus, and he tells us explicitly in Book I, section 22 how he gets his information:

“And with reference to the narrative of events, far from permitting myself to derive it from the first source that came to hand, I did not even trust my own impressions, but it rests partly on what I saw myself, partly on what others saw for me, the accuracy of the report being always tried by the most severe and detailed tests possible. My conclusions have cost me some labour from the want of coincidence between accounts of the same occurrences by different eye-witnesses, arising sometimes from imperfect memory, sometimes from undue partiality for one side or the other.”

Thucydides’ work is also noteworthy for his inclusion of long speeches, about which he gives the following disclaimer in the same section:

“With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one's memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said.”

So, history as a genre was established more than four hundred years before the New Testament: a transparent inquiry into events by an author who identifies himself, dutifully reports on sources, and declares any biases. It should already be clear that the writers of the gospels make no effort to be historical in their approach to narration. But wait, there’s more!

Investigating the Historical Past

Having established what historical writing looks like from its ancient roots, we should mention what modern scholars of history look for when trying to determine what probably happened in the past. The most important resources in investigating the historical past are primary sources – first-hand accounts reported by people who witnessed the events. Historians want not only primary sources, but multiple primary sources that were created independently of one another, are consistent in their description of the events, and have no obvious bias in reporting. How do the gospels of the New Testament fare as desirable historical evidence? Let’s find out:

Are the gospels primary sources?

The stories narrated in the gospels are not eye-witness accounts and don’t even claim to be. Even worse, the original autographs of all New Testament books are lost. The earliest texts of the gospels we have are copies from a century later or more. Historians don’t know what the authors of the gospels originally wrote because the original texts don’t exist.

Are the gospels multiple independent sources?

Well, kind of. Multiple? Yes, technically. Independent? Definitely not. The first three gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) are plagued by a troublesome debate known as the synoptic problem, a veritable cluster-fuck of scholarly confusion as to where the hell the writers of these books got their information, because large parts are repeated verbatim across the three books, and the authors never mention their sources.

Are the gospels consistent in their descriptions of events?

When was Jesus executed? Mark (14:12, 15:25) and John (19:14-16) can’t agree on the hour or the day. Did Jesus carry his own cross, as John says (19:17), or did Simon of Cyrene carry it, as Mark (15:21), Matthew (27:32), and Luke (23:26) say? Were the women watching the crucifixion from far away, as Matthew (27:55), Mark (15:40), and Luke (23:49) say, or were Jesus’ mother Mary, her sister, and Mary Magdalene close at hand as John (19:25) says? What were Jesus’ last words before dying? Did he say “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” as Mark (15:34) and Matthew (27:46) report, or “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,” as Luke (23:46) reports, or “It is finished,” as John (19:30) reports? That’s just a small selection of the inconsistencies in the crucifixion story alone. The gospel writers don’t tell the same story about anything.

Are the gospels unbiased in reporting events?

The gospels are stories narrated as if factual with no attempts whatsoever at impartiality. The authors of these books were 1^st century Christians who already believed these stories and disseminated them for the purpose of converting people to their religion.

So, the gospels display precisely none of the characteristics shown by actual writers of history, and the texts have none of the characteristics that modern historians look for when investigating historical events. I could stop here, but wait, there’s more!

The Nail in the Coffin (Stone in front of the Tomb?): Miracles

As if everything mentioned thus far wasn’t problematic enough for the historicity of the claims in the New Testament, Dr. Ehrman reminds us of an even bigger problem: miracles. What is a miracle? A miracle is a suspension of the natural order of the world - an event that transcends the very physical laws that govern our entire existence. A miracle is not just an improbable event, but an impossible one. It’s rolling a 7 on a six-sided die, or being raised from the dead, or correctly folding a fitted bed sheet. Historians, as we established earlier, have to try to demonstrate what probably happened in the past. Miracles are by definition the least probable things that have ever happened. Of course they are – if they weren’t, they wouldn’t be miraculous. The conflict should be obvious: the least probable occurrence can never be the most probable explanation for anything. Thus, for a historian, no miraculous story can ever be a historical one. This is why history text books do not mention gods, demons, angels, fairies, and hobgoblins when explaining the D-Day invasion, or the Cuban Missile Crisis, or the French Revolution. Highly improbable explanations have no historical explanatory power.

What About Other Sources?

There aren’t any. Jesus of Nazareth, whoever he was, wrote nothing. His disciples wrote nothing. His contemporary followers wrote nothing. (This shouldn’t be surprising – lower class people in Judea in the 1^st century were illiterate.) The earliest author we have is the apostle Paul, who never met Jesus. Everyone else, including the gospel writers, the Jewish historian Josephus, and the Roman historian Tacitus, came later. There are no verifiable historical witnesses to the crucifixion, to the empty tomb, to the resurrection. As far as historians are concerned, these claims cannot be evaluated, let alone shown to have probably happened.

Conclusions and Caveats

If you're a Christian and reading this (or if you're Michael Patton,Th.M. - Hi Mike!) and frothing at the mouth right now, please note that at no point have I said that the crucifixion, the empty tomb, and the resurrection did not happen. To say that a claim is not historical is NOT to say the event did not happen. Michael's claim is that the Christian stories about Jesus are historical, and I've explained why that isn't true.

I don't personally believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. I'm not even entirely convinced that anything reported about him in Christian texts is factually true, given how powerfully unhistorical they are. I cannot, however, state with absolute certainty that the claims are false, because they are unfalsifiable. The complete lack of evidence to substantiate any claims about Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection strongly suggests to me that the claims are false, but it does not prove that they are false. It could be that there was a 1^st century Palestinian Jew who performed miracles and survived his own murder, just as it could be that Benjamin Franklin had steak and eggs for dinner on October 23^rd, 1778. Both could be facts; neither is historical.

Ignorance or Dishonesty? A Response to a Pastor at Christmas

Christmas is a time for a lot of things - decorating, gathering, singing, giving, eating, shopping, general merriment. It's also a time for slightly more Christian nonsense than usual to waft across my Facebook feed. As disheartening as it is to be reminded of just how many people close to me believe in magical nonsense, it does at least provide blog-fodder.

The most recent such example is a blog by a Virginia pastor, who happens to be the brother-in-law of a friend of mine. I've actually met him; he seems a nice enough fellow. His Christmas-inspired blog posts, however, are indicative of the problems inherent in being an apologist for the Christian faith (or any faith, for that matter) - one must be either ignorant of reality or dishonest about representing it. Have a look at this post of his (it's a quick read); what follows is my perspective on what he presents as "truth."

He begins, "One of the many ways we know the Bible is true is through it’s [sic] awe-some [sic] supernatural fulfillment of prophecy."

Ok, no. Stop. There's a major flaw in asserting that any Old Testament prophecy is fulfilled in the New Testament. The writers of the NT were all credulous Christians who had the OT readily at their disposal. They already knew about and believed in the prophecies mentioned in the OT. These prophecies must come true if their religion is to retain any credibility, so the writers of the NT simply confirm them. The writers of the NT had every reason to lie, and there are no independent, non-Christian sources to confirm any of these fulfilled prophecies. Add to this the generally vague wording of prophecies, and there's absolutely no reason to recognize "fulfilled prophecies" as evidence of anything but early Christians being aware of OT prophecies. Of course they came true - failure wasn't an option.

"But the reality is that the Bible is comprised of 66 different “books” composed by 40 different authors, all living in different times and places, speaking different languages, contextualized in different historical situations, many separated by thousands of miles and thousands of years from one another.  The probability of conspiracy and collusion for them to make it all up is nil.  Thus, the only explanation for the Bible’s amazing consistency and coherency is it’s [sic] clear supernatural, divine authorship over and above the abilities of it’s [sic] human scribes."

Now we get to the ignorance vs. dishonesty question. Pastor Matt displays his knowledge of the textual history of the Bible: different authors in different places in different times. This is all true. Then, we have an irrelevant conclusion: The probability of conspiracy and collusion for them to make it all up is nil. Yes, that's basically true, but that statement only matters if the Bible has been passed down to us from its very origins in its original form. It hasn't. Not even slightly. While it's true that the writers of the original texts couldn't have conspired, the early Christians who edited and compiled what we have today as the Bible absolutely did conspire and collude. This isn't up for debate - we know as a matter of historical fact that our current text of the Bible is based on manuscripts which are copies of copies of copies, sometimes centuries removed from the lost originals, changed in innumerable places either by error or by design, and compiled by early Christians with their own theological agendas. The probability of the text of the Bible being a product of conspiracy and collusion isn't zero, it's one. It's unlikely that Pastor Matt is unaware of this, yet it's completely ignored. This is either a failure to reason properly, or a failure to be honest about the reality of the textual history of the Bible.

Step back for a moment and just consider the burden of proof for a statement like this: "thus, the only explanation for [insert anything at all] is supernatural, divine [whatever]." Really? We know that the NT was written by credulous Christians who weren't witnesses to the stories they were reporting, and yet Pastor Matt asserts that the only possible explanation is that it's magic? Not only is that not the only possible explanation, it's easily the least probable explanation.

"So when Isaiah and the other prophets say something would happen 800 years before the New Testament Gospel writers record it’s [sic] actual occurrence, we better take it seriously."

The statement "New Testament Gospel writers record it's [sic] actual occurrence" is extremely misleading. [Side-note, get a handle on its vs. it's, dude.] The New Testament Gospel writers didn't know Jesus. They lived and wrote after he died. Decades after. They did not witness the events they're writing about. They're clearly copying from each other in places and just making shit up in others (looking at you, John). They're Christians reporting stories about Jesus that they've heard from other Christians. The Gospels are not credible, historical accounts of factual events. This is not a controversial statement - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not the names of the writers of those respective gospels, and they were not written during the time of Jesus' life and death. They are not a "record" of anything except what Christians believed at the time. Pastor Matt must know this. To say that "the Bible says that X happened" is not to say that X definitely happened, it's only to say that the Bible says that X happened. You may believe whatever you'd like about the historicity of the Bible, but do not assert as fact that which meets no reasonable burden of proof. A newer religious text confirming the predictions of an older religious text isn't fulfilled prophecy, it's an intertextual circle jerk.

The idea of fulfilled biblical prophecies is a perfect storm of failed reasoning. Believing that an NT passage confirming an OT prophecy equals divine, inerrant truth of scripture is the result of rampant confirmation-bias and the hopeless myopia that religious indoctrination breeds. No skeptically-minded non-believer would look at any "evidence" of fulfilled biblical prophecy and be even slightly impressed. This is the sort of thing that pastors like to parade in front of their flocks around the holidays while everyone vapidly nods along.

The worst part about this is that Pastor Matt should know better. It should be obvious to him, of all people, presumably more educated in these matters than the hapless congregation, that none of this is evidence of the truth of scripture. It's evidence of the existence of people who desperately need to believe in the truth of scripture. Ignorance or dishonesty - in the end it doesn't really matter which one is the culprit. It's shameful behavior, either way.

"With God All Things Are Possible"

Across the street from the office where I work is a little restaurant called the Bonfire Cafe. I went there once for lunch with coworkers, unaware of the fact that it's an overtly Christian establishment which wears its beliefs proudly on its sleeve. Anyway, the experience didn't scar or revile me or anything - I think I had a reasonably priced, if unremarkable, sandwich and a coffee - but I do generally walk past this place every day (it's between my office and Starbucks) and see things like the above propped up outside the entrance. 

Now, I have no problem with the fact that a nominally Christian (or Hindu, or Muslim, or Buddhist...) cafe exists, or with this sign proudly and prominently displayed from it. I'm actually rather glad to be reminded of Bible verses like this; for me, what is surely intended to be merely an inspirational exhortation to passers-by becomes the impetus for profound, meandering philosophical rumination about the core doctrines of Christianity, the nature of God, and the value of telling each other comforting lies.

The first thing I think about is the context of this verse, because I often hear it recited by well-meaning believers as a pithy platitude intended to offer comfort or encouragement to someone in a difficult situation. One rarely ever hears of the verses immediately preceding or following it, and one wonders how many Christians are even aware of the context in which this famous verse appears. Here is Matthew chapter 19, verses 16-29:

19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

There's so much good stuff in here. In verse 17, Jesus objects to being called good, because only God is good. This is one of the many verses in which Jesus clearly demonstrates that he and God are separate. (This is probably copied from Mark 10:18 and also appears in Luke 18:19) Not only does he not call himself God, he refers to God as entirely different from himself. Then, when a child asks Jesus which commandments he should follow (verses 18-19), Jesus only mentions a few of them - incidentally the reasonable ones - and leaves out the nonsensical proscriptions like not worshiping other Gods, making graven images, keeping the sabbath holy, and coveting stuff. Excited that he's been doing all those things all along, the child asks what else he needs to do to have eternal life but is totally bummed when Jesus tells him to sell all his stuff and give to the poor (verse 21). Jesus then takes this opportunity to reiterate how screwed rich people are, including the rather famous verse 24. Then Peter's like "ok we've done all that stuff, and we sold all our shit and have been following you around for a while, so we're good yeah?" (verse 27) Jesus affirms that they are indeed good, as is everyone else... who keeps the commandments and sells his house and leaves his family behind to follow Jesus. All Christians do that, right?

Perhaps I should back up a bit and paint a fuller contextual picture. The phrase "with God all things are possible" comes from the New Testament, specifically the book of Matthew, chapter 19, verse 26, in the midst of a conversation between Jesus and some of his disciples who just want some clarification on how to get to heaven. Specifically Jesus is drawing the distinction between earthly and heavenly salvation: nobody on Earth can save you, but God can. Even this is contingent, though; God can't save you directly - you need to go through his intermediary Jesus, and abandon your family and home in the process. The standard caveats apply when dealing with the NT gospels: Matthew was written sometime in the late 1st century CE several decades after Jesus' death by nobody knows who, and whoever wrote it never met Jesus, so there's no good reason to believe that Jesus even said this. Even if we ignore all of that and just accept that he did say "with God all things are possible," he wasn't uttering it in the same all-encompassing way that Christians do when they say it to each other, and he said it in the same breath as "sell all your stuff and forsake your family for me."

But, since many people who know this verse aren't at all aware of its context, let's just pretend that we aren't aware of it either, and treat it as if it were a single profound utterance, devoid of context: "With God, All Things Are Possible." Just for fun, let's take the easy road first and declare this statement nonsense because it's inherently contradictory. Omnipotence is impossible. If you say "all things" and literally mean it, then you've ceased to make any sense. The standard sardonic retort to God's omnipotence is the subversive question "can God make a boulder so heavy that he can't lift it?" or, as I've also heard it, "can God microwave a burrito so hot that he can't eat it?" It's a silly question, but it serves a serious purpose, namely to illustrate that the idea of omnipotence is logically incoherent.

The same problem applies to the statement "with God, all things are possible." With God's help, could I microwave a burrito so hot that I couldn't eat it? Ok so I wouldn't actually need God's help for that part. But what if I both wanted to microwave a burrito so hot that I couldn't eat it and then I also wanted to eat it? If I accomplish the latter, then I've failed at the former; even God can't get me out of this one. This probably all seems like a silly rhetorical exercise, but that's the point - to demonstrate that a phrase like "all things are possible" in any context is a silly thing to say.

But let's ignore that too. Let's pretend that the idea that "with God, all things are possible" is literally true and not inherently contradictory. Let's proceed with the assumptions that God exists and is literally capable of doing all things. There is still a glaring difficulty staring us in the face: it is clear from our experience that a great many things are simply not possible. 

There is a massive disconnect between the idea that God can do anything and the actual world we observe, in which there are serious and numerous limitations. It would not be difficult for anyone to come up with a long list of things which we can safely assume, based on our experience in the world, are simply impossible. They might range from the ridiculous to the mundane: it's impossible for people to fly without the aid of technology, impossible for a severed human limb to regenerate spontaneously.

If one would like to argue seriously that it is possible for a human being to fly without the aid of technology, or that it is possible for human beings to regenerate severed limbs without the aid of science or medicine, then one ought to consider and attempt to explain why these things have never happened. (Anyone who doubts the impossibility of unassisted human flight is welcome to jump out a window.) There are numerous species capable of regeneration of entire limbs, but for some reason homo sapiens isn't among them. Does God love lizards more than he loves us? Is it really more important that a lizard grow an arm back than a human? If a human being loses an arm or a leg, why does nobody ever expect it to grow back on its own? Even if you seriously believe in the power of prayer, would you be at all surprised if a billion people all prayed for one severed limb to grow back, and it didn't? Are there any Christians willing to volunteer to have a limb hacked off just to give God a great chance to prove me wrong? ...No? No takers on that?

It should be clear by now that the phrase "with God, all things are possible" is an incomplete statement at best. Even if it is factually true, the reality is that, even if God can do literally anything, the simple truth is that in reality he seems entirely unwilling to do a great many things, especially those things which we would consider impossible in the physical world. The second part of that statement renders the first part irrelevant. Perhaps there are those who somehow manage to take comfort in the idea of a God who is omnipotent in theory only. I am not among their number.

So, for the sake of intellectual honesty, I propose we edit Matthew 19:26 so that it conforms a little more closely to reality:

On Following Jesus

I recently rediscovered a popular YouTube video that first made the rounds a few years ago but gets kicked up again every now and then when someone shares it anew via the TwitFace. If you’re not one of the 27 million (!) and counting who have watched this video, here it is:

It’s titled “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus” and is an unremarkable spoken word piece about how Jesus and religion are entirely separate entities, and, generally, Jesus is good, while religion is bad. If my only intention were to respond to the video, this would be by far the shortest blog entry I’ll ever write, because the whole thing is, bluntly stated, a thoughtless, incoherent fit of theologically vacuous solipsism. The ideas expressed in this video are so stupid that I think even Christians should find it offensive. I don’t have the patience to point out everything that’s absurd about this, so I’ll limit my reactions to the most egregiously ignorant parts, starting with the very first line:

“What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion?”

Well, I’d tell you to support this outrageous claim with at least one compelling reason why I should believe you, when Jesus himself said “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matthew 5:17) Jesus lived and died as a devout Jew and preached that his followers should uphold the Torah of Moses. Not until Paul’s epistles do we get this idea that Jesus came to abolish the laws of the Old Testament: “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” (Galatians 3:23-6) Paul, incidentally, never met Jesus.

“If religion is so great, why has it started so many wars?”

Not all religions start wars. That phenomenon seems to be limited to monotheisms, and the answer to the question is simple – because God says to do so.

“Tells single moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever been divorced.”

Oh, how embarrassing for you… actually the Old Testament gives guidelines for when divorce is acceptable (Deuteronomy 24:1-2); it’s Jesus who says “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery.” (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18)

“In every other aspect of life you know that logic’s unworthy;
It’s like saying you play for the Lakers just because you bought a jersey.”

This is the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, which every group of Christians commits when talking about any other group of Christians. “Oh, they’re not real Christians. If they were, they’d do X and believe Y, like we at our church do.” There are as many ideas of what constitutes a real Christian as there are Christians.

“…Cuz it’s not a museum for good people, it’s a hospital for the broken.”

The entire idea of the inherently sinful nature of human beings and consequent need for salvation is a dogmatic Christian belief. This is the sort of thing that defines a religion. You can’t tirade against religion and yet somehow magically retain the doctrine of salvation through Christ.

“…Which is so different from religious people, and why Jesus called ‘em fools;
Don’t you see he’s so much better than just following some rules?”

Citation needed for Jesus calling religious people fools. Was he preaching in the temple when he did that? You know, to all those religious people following him around? Secondly, Jesus very explicitly told his followers to FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES. I’ve already mentioned the passage in Matthew. See also ALL OF THE REST OF THE GOSPELS. CHRIST.

  

“Now let me clarify, I love the church, I love the Bible, and I believe in sin.”

…wat? You love the church, love the Bible, believe in sin, but …you hate religion. What in the actual fuck are you on about? Is this a joke? If you’re keeping the church, and the Bible, and the major doctrinal teachings of the faith, what exactly do you hate? What’s the stuff Jesus is apparently better than? What the hell is “religion” if not the church, the Bible, and the major dogmatic beliefs?

“Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums.”

On opposite spectrums of what? Do you mean different spectrums? Which spectrum is Jesus on, and which religion? What does this statement even mean?

“Religion is man searching for God, but Christianity is God searching for man.”

So not only is Jesus different from (and better than) religion, but now Christianity is too? Do you actually think you can get away with this sneaky implication that Christianity is not a religion? Like, for seriously?

“So know I hate religion, I literally resent it;”

At no point have you even come close to establishing exactly what you think “religion” is, so I have no idea what it is that you hate. You literally resent it? As opposed to… figuratively? metaphorically?

“Because when Jesus cried “it is finished,” I believe he meant it.”

I assume the reference here is to John 19:30, Jesus’ final words before his death. This profound utterance only occurs in John’s gospel; in Mark and Matthew he says nothing more than “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34, Matthew 27:46) I’ll also point out that John was written much later than Matthew, which is copied from Mark, half of which is disputed as inauthentic, sooooo… yeah Jesus probably didn’t say that. But by all means, cherry-pick your way to the lazy-ass theology you want other people to take seriously.

The Bigger Picture

My intentions are not simply to tear apart this ignorant rube for his disjointed ramblings and laughable attempt at promoting an untenable worldview. The fact that this video has gained such massive popularity attests to the reality that many, many people identify with this idea. Unfortunately for those who would embrace this pro-Jesus, anti-religion version of the Christian faith, espousing this view tellingly reveals at least one thing: the creator of this video and the people sympathetic to its message are profoundly ignorant about Christianity, the church, and Jesus. This is the more salient issue I’d like to address.

Now, before we go too much farther, let’s establish some basic facts in which to ground our epistemology (basically, how we can know shit) about Jesus. Hopefully everyone will agree with these rather uncontroversial claims:

• The life, deeds, and sayings of Jesus are matters of fact, not of opinion. He either did and said certain shit, or he didn’t, and there’s an objective answer – whatever you believe about Jesus is either true or false. He’s not whoever you want him to be, not different for everyone.

• The only way to know anything at all about Jesus is to read the New Testament. Even though it’s a historically useless hodgepodge of church-approved propaganda, it’s literally the only source in existence which even purports to give any factual information about the life, character, and deeds of Jesus. If you believe something about Jesus for which there is no textual support in the Bible, you’ve simply made some shit up and have no legitimate reason whatsoever to believe it.

I’m not even a Christian, and still it irritates me to discover the completely fabricated faith that so many Christians proudly endorse and loudly proclaim. This popular notion that Jesus was a forward-thinking, benevolent, anti-establishment guru is simply a fallacy, a caricature of the figure of Jesus as depicted in the Bible. Of course everyone gravitates toward the sublimely moral teachings and messages of good-will toward thy neighbor and turning the other cheek and not being judgmental. What about some of those less flowery things that Jesus also said? Where are the bumper stickers for these gems?

• “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on… Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.” (Matthew 6:31, 34; Luke 12:22)
• “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” (Matthew 10:34-5; Luke 12:51)
  

• “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

Jesus was an observant Jew and failed messianic prophet. His followers all genuinely believed (including Paul, our most authentic source) that they were moments away from the end of the world and would be enjoying eternity with God in the immediate future. Since two millennia have passed now with no sign of Jesus’ return, Christians downplay the fact that much of what Jesus said makes no sense unless the physical world is about to end. We all understand that it’s generally a bad idea to live our lives as if the Rapture will happen tomorrow, and yet this central theme of Jesus’ message is entirely, and rightly, ignored.

Yes, some prominent ideas in the teachings of Jesus are admirable. But nearly every single religion and philosophy in the world embraces basic moral precepts like do unto others; Jesus was neither the first nor the only person to suggest that we be nice to each other. To deny the complete character of Jesus as reported in the very same source as the oft-repeated beatitudes and sermon on the mount reveals either ignorance or dishonesty, neither of which is an acceptable basis for a worldview, religious or secular.

Can Jesus and Religion Be Separated?

The short answer is no. The long answer is no, of course not, why would you say something so stupid? I can perhaps understand the desire to take the (idealized, edited) figure of Jesus and remove him from his milieu of organized religion, and all the intolerance, bigotry, and hypocrisy that comes along with it, because he should be above that sort of thing. The problem is that there’s absolutely no theologically coherent way to do that. Why? Why can’t you keep your homeboy Jesus and tell the Pope to go fuck himself?

Well, because there’s no such thing as Jesus outside of the church, outside of religion. The only reason we know anything about him at all, as we agreed earlier, is because members of the early Christian church wrote the New Testament, our only available source of information about him. Jesus himself didn’t write anything, nor did any of his apostles. Nor, in fact, did anyone who even saw the historical Jesus write anything about him. (The book of James, reluctantly crammed into the back of the NT, is a possible exception and a discussion for another time.) Paul, whose version of Christianity won out over that of his rivals Peter and James, is the single most influential writer about Jesus, and Paul didn’t become a follower of the movement until 20 years after Jesus died. The writers of the gospels all came later, in some cases much later, and are just following Paul and/or copying each other. Yet, this is the reality: this is all we have, and the only reason we have it is because the early church collected, edited, reorganized, and passed these writings down through the ages. If it weren’t for the organized religion that eventually grew out the Jesus movement, there would be no Jesus. We would scarcely have any idea that he even existed (and still, actually, it’s possible that he didn’t.) You can’t dump the religion without dumping Jesus out along with it.

A Lazy Theology

It might seem a bit ridiculous that someone like me, an unapologetic non-believer, would actually bother distinguishing between more and less respectable forms of Christianity. Generally my problem is not with the particular beliefs that a person holds as much as the means by which he has acquired them. There is an abyssal difference between a Christian who has thoughtfully and diligently plunged repeatedly into the depths of scripture, historicity, and textual criticism and a Christian who believes in Jesus because his mother used to read him bedtime stories from a children’s bible. Only one of those people holds a belief not worthy of immediate and unrestrained derision.

The massive irony of people who want to follow Jesus but don’t want to follow the rituals and strict rules of the church is that they’re doing precisely the opposite of what they claim. If your idea of Jesus doesn’t come from reading scripture; if your idea of Jesus is somehow different from the Jesus of the Bible; if you have a radically different idea of who Jesus was that just so happens to conform to everything you think is good and important, you’re not following Jesus. You already have a set of values you’ve acquired by some other means, and you’re simply looking for divine justification for what you already think. You make Jesus into whatever you need him to be in order to continue to live your life however you’d like and still sleep soundly at night, knowing that your immortal soul is safe. Think homosexuality is a sin? I'm sure Jesus agrees. Changed your mind about that? I'm sure Jesus is totally cool with that, too. You’re not following Jesus; Jesus is following you.