I think I'm going insane.
Probably not, since insane people are certain that they are sane and it's the rest of us who are crazy.
My wife is a believer. Always has been.
I assume you're an American. In the USA there is a wide spectrum of religious practice among the people who identify themselves as Christians. What matters most is that they attempt to live in ways that Jesus would approve, not that they believe literally in the fairytales in the Bible. Many American Christians simply don't devote much thought to the fantastic legends in the Bible, except on major holidays. They just try to be good people. It's okay to love Jesus even if you're convinced he was not real. I love Winnie the Pooh, Frodo Baggins and Kermit the Frog, and they have all inspired me to be a good person. Religion is about metaphors and millions of people simply don't understand the concept of metaphor. That's perfectly okay.
So when you say your wife is a believer, I'm not sure what exactly you're telling me, and I'm not even 100% sure that you know either. Is she a real fundamentalist member of the Religious Redneck Retard Revival? Does she believe that the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Pillars of Salt, the Tower of Babel, the Parting of the Red Sea, the Loaves and Fishes and the Resurrection were actual historical events? These days even the Pope has admitted that much of the Bible is metaphor (Jesuit universities, which are among the world's finest, teach plate tectonics in their geology classes and evolution in their biology classes) and
that doesn't make the Bible any less valuable. After all, except for the ones about real historical figures, virtually nothing in Shakespeare's works is real either, and yet they have inspired mankind for centuries.
So I wonder if you really know what your wife means when she says she "believes" in this or that biblical fable. And even then, if she insists she believes in the literal truth of it, how do we know what's going on inside her head? Church members are indoctrinated to present a united front to outsiders.
I was for the first couple decades of my life.
Do you remember what that was like? Were you a rotten person whom a decent American could not love and live with? Could you have been happy married to an atheist?
I cannot believe and I won't pretend (tried that too).
I'm sure your journey to enlightenment is a fascinating story but I suppose we don't have time to go into it here. But the fact that you were once a believer and (I hope) were nonetheless a decent, lovable human being should give you some perspective on your wife.
I no longer believe, but my wife attends a church that I don't mind going occasionally to with her. They have a good apologetic spin on scripture, so it isn't overly hardcore Christian. They stick to the basics and don't assume anything else.
Sounds like a typical liberal American congregation. They try to guide their members into living good lives, and leave the fire and brimstone to the Pentecostal churches. The next step beyond this is the Unitarian church. They have completely abstracted the philosophy of Christianity while leaving behind all the supernatural fables.
The only part I don't like is the words to the songs they sing (because I can't relate) . . . .
I'm a musician and I find the lyrics of most songs hard to relate to, secular or religious.
. . . . but I like the music . . . .
I'm a third-generation atheist. I never heard of religion until I was in the second grade. But in the first grade they taught us Christmas carols. I've always loved music and I enthusiastically learned those songs. The lyrics about mangers and wise men and angels and saviors and virgins were completely inscrutable, but I loved singing so I dutifully learned them. It was a while before I began to understand them and by then they were part of me. They're no worse than rap lyrics.
After all, Christmas is nothing but an old pagan festival, dressed up in biblical trappings. I still join Christmas choirs when I can, and nobody asks me if I believe.
So, it is really hard living with her because her focus is on her club.
Aha. There's the problem. She has an interest you don't share. Dude, don't you have any interests that she doesn't share? Chess, fishing, football, Renaissance architecture? Spouses aren't clones of each other. They don't have to have all the same likes and dislikes.
I, like a good husband, want to share her likes.
That's not a realistic expectation. If she belonged to a Jane Austen book club or went to daffodil shows or did needlepoint embroidery, would you feel compelled to share those things too? Frankly, it's not healthy if spouses overlap too many of the same interests. You need a certain amount of space between you.
There are lots of couples who belong to different political parties, and in today's America that's probably a much bigger difference than religion. I hate guns and my wife owns one. She has a house full of birds and they drive me fucking crazy. Now those are
real day-to-day problems.
I don't have the heart to tell her that I probably won't ever believe in God again.
So don't tell her. She wouldn't believe you anyway.
She has hope for me as do all of my family whom I love, who also attend this church. I just don't think it is going to happen. It pains me to think that they are wasting their wishes away on me.
Dude, if you don't understand this, then you really weren't much of a Christian even when you were one. Christianity, like Islam, is an
evangelical religion. Each member has a
duty to God to spread his word to all of mankind. They
know that they are right and you are wrong, and they are certain that if they try hard enough, they will be able to bring the love of God into your heart. Many branches of Christianity stress the evangelism and their members spend a certain amount of their time and energy trying to teach others about God and Jesus. Others are a little milder about it and, these days, are content if their own people are true believers, show up on Sundays, and pay their tithes.
I'd judge that your wife's church does not expect its members to hand out Bible tracts on the sidewalk and knock on strangers' doors. If they were that aggressive you'd know it by now. They're just
good Christians who believe in the power of salvation, and wish everyone else would discover it. If they're not double-teaming you at Sunday dinner, quoting the Scriptures to show you the error of your ways and praying for your salvation before dessert, I think you're overreacting.
Good Christians wish everybody could share their faith and joy. I feel the same way about dogs, but when I meet someone who doesn't like dogs I don't spend half an hour trying to show her the error of her ways.
Your wife wishes you were a Christian. I'm sure you wish she were different in a few ways. Maybe she doesn't put enough salt in her cooking or lets the cat get away with too many shenanigans. But you still love each other. Duh?
You don't have to talk about this stuff.
The most recent decision I came to was Jesus was a real person based on historical record.
Better scholars than you and I are divided on this question, but I'd have to say it looks like the "Jesus was not real" faction is going to win the argument.
No matter what, his divinity cannot be proven today without divine intervention. There is simply no evidence other than a collection of stories, which may or may not be fictitious, but are definitely biased to the belief that Jesus was the son of God.
That's the point. There is some flaky evidence (which may have been fraudulently inserted into the record a couple of centuries later) that Jesus was a real person. but there is zero evidence that he had supernatural powers or that there were any supernatural phenomena associated with his life. No virgin birth, no walking on water, no resurrection. Let's face it, the Romans were consummate record-keepers and there was no official animosity toward Christians until long after his death, so wouldn't you expect all those biblical miracles to be mentioned by all the top scribes in the Empire? Hell, news like that would have been reported in Persia!
This church laid out the plan simply that abiding by Jesus Christ is the only thing I need worry about and that all the laws in the scripture are made for those who live by the law. If I kept my eyes on Jesus then that's all I need to worry about.
Notice carefully that nothing in what you just said actually requires you to believe that Jesus was a real person and/or that the supernatural events depicted in the Bible are anything more than useful metaphors.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to live a life that Jesus would approve of! It would sure reform the U.S. government! Jesus is a wonderful role model and I love him too. "Turn the other cheek," wouldn't that put a halt to 90% of the strife in the world? I long ago figured out that the old playground whine is 100% true: "It all started when he hit me back."
Sounds simple, but what if Jesus' divinity is a myth?
It isn't the
myth of Jesus that's important. It's his
teachings. Just like Winnie the Pooh, Frodo Baggins and Kermit the Frog. Robin Hood, King Arthur, Beowulf, Romulus and Remus, go back as far into anybody's mythology as you want. It's what the myths teach us that's important, not their historical validity.
It really isn't easy to be green. Does Kermit have to be flesh and blood for you to believe that? "Being green" is a
metaphor for
being different. Mythological creatures always speak in metaphors.
I'd be foolish and weak-minded to accept anything as fact without sufficient evidence.
You're being way too hard on believers. Not everyone has a scientific education. People trust their parents, we're programmed for that.
Why does it feel so wrong to accept that fate?
This is all tied up with your wife and family. If you were raised by atheists like I was, and sent to a university where almost none of your fellow students were religious, this wouldn't feel so wrong.
What do I gain by choosing to not accept Jesus' divinity as fact?
You're being true to your principles. Not everyone has the strength to do that. Don't knock it even if it's hard.
If I accept this fact, where do I draw the line for other myths? How can I accept this one and not also other myths and legends?
Myths are metaphors. Read Joseph Campbell. He was Jung's most successful popularizer and had a long-running series on myths on PBS in the 1980s. He helps us understand that there are lies and truth, but in between them lies metaphor. Campbell talked about meeting a very poorly educated fellow out in the backwoods who simply didn't have the concept of metaphor. He asked him, "What would you say if I said that the moon is a silver chariot that brings light to the night sky?" The fellow answered, "That is a lie."
There are other people (actually zillions of them) who don't understand what metaphors are, yet they are still affected by their power. A religion is nothing more or less than a collection of metaphors. You are one of the lucky ones who know that they are not facts; now your job is to understand that even though they are not facts, they still present useful truths to us, simplified for easier access, and therein lies their power.
Do you have any proof that Jesus did not exist.
Arauca, considering that this is a
place of science, you don't seem to understand the basic
scientific method.
It is never required to prove a negative. The burden of proof is
always on the person who says that something exists or that something happened, not the one who doubts.
The Rule of Laplace is also a cornerstone of science:
Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect.
There is nothing extraordinary about the existence of Jesus as a normal person who lived in Palestine, so we do not require special evidence for that. But the miraculous things that happened in his life, such as the virgin birth, the loaves and fishes, walking on water, and... most especially... coming back from the dead??? Those are certainly
extraordinary events. Nothing like that has ever happened before or since, and they contradict everything we know about how the world works. We definitely need some extraordinary evidence before you can expect us to do anything but laugh at them. Yet there is no evidence at all, merely a book that was written a hundred years later when no one who might have seen these events was alive.
Do you really believe past humanity created an imaginary figure to create a religion?
All religions are imaginary. None of them are true. They're all pure bullshit. So what's one more?
what would be the purpose since there were many religions at that time?
Nonetheless, as I explained to Jay, each religion contains some universal truths that it presents as
metaphors.
The religion of Abraham, which we now call Judaism, presented an angry God who punished his people severely when they did not obey his commandments. The people who invented this religion hoped that if their fellow citizens believed in this angry, powerful God, they would try very hard to live good lives so they would not be punished. What they didn't realize is that they had set up this God as a
role model. The citizens felt that they, too, had a right to be angry, and to punish others if they did not behave in the ways that they believed were right. And since they were not Gods they were not perfect, and their judgment was not always correct, so they spent a lot of time punishing each other. Life was violent and war and slavery were common.
But the God of Christianity had taken an anger management class and became much kinder and more forgiving. He realized that he could accomplish more with love and praise than with threats and punishment. So he sent down the First Hippie to teach people to love and forgive each other, and lead the world into a new era of peace and tolerance.
This is why the people who invented Christianity believed that the world needed a new religion: it did!
Unfortunately it was a failure. The Christians have been just as evil and violent and intolerant as everyone else. They march into battle convinced that God will help them murder their enemies, and completely forget that Jesus is standing behind them weeping, wishing that they would forgive their enemies and make peace, but they can't hear him over the sounds of their own damn boots.
Eventually another prophet arrived, Mohammed, and he was also a complete failure. His people have been just as mean and nasty as everyone else.
Now we're told that Baha'ullah and Ras Tafari will lead us to peace and harmony. The "modern" Abrahamic religions of these new prophets are so young that their followers are still kind and tolerant. Let's see how they act 500 years from now.
I would have to say that it is clear that no religion will ever be the solution to the world's problems. Perhaps some day humans will realize that.