STEPPING THROUGH THE GATES OF ATHEISM: MY PERSONAL JOURNEY PART THE DEUS – HOLDING AND PAINE.

I left off last week’s installment with having read Voltaire (whose works can be found here) – who questioned the validity of specific points of scripture, which I had heretoforward never wondered about. The exclusivity of the author of Matthew’s strange and singular pronouncement of saints arising on the day (morning or afternoon?) of Jesus’ crucifixion. Who questioned the ‘darkness that covered the land’. Who satirized Christianity, and smote it with a tongue of fire – "Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror." Who held that ‘I do not know why they call it common sense, as it is not so common.”

I began to cast my net across the Internet, seeking answers, seeking honesty, and seeking the Truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be.

How I came across Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason escapes me now, but I read it, and yes, I admit it freely, I loved it. Paine was a firebrand: an honest man: one who spoke his piece, and be damned to the consequences! Mind you, I agreed with perhaps eighty percent of it: I, for instance, disagree with Paine’s dictum of studying dead languages. He made some errors, true, but due to the circumstances (the first part was penned in a French prison, where he was under death sentence for objecting to the execution of the King during the infamous French Revolution, the second, when he was terribly ill), I was more than ready to forgive some of the mistakes made.

So I had a new hero.

To my horror, I stumbled across this ‘dissection’ of Paine. It had been originally titled: “Paine: an inept picking his nose.”

I read this horrible treatise, wherein the author of this tripe took huge liberties of attacking Paine’s character, calling him all sorts of names, from ‘bigot’ to ‘anti-semite’ to…well, it was so wrong on so many levels, it beggars the imagination. I embarked on a vigorous cross sectioning of fisking said document (which I’ve never finished, or published), showing the ridiculousness of the criticisms.

Then Holding put forth on the concept of agape (just a snippet here: read it for yourself) –

“In such a scenario, not only is it right and proper, for the sake of agape, to confront and confront boldly; it may be the only responsible thing to do to keep the "disease" or error from spreading and afflicting more souls! (In the ancient world, and even today, insults and polemics were a way to shame and discredit an opponent; see here.)
So agape does include verbally attacking and discrediting one's opponents, or confronting other believers, when they are in the wrong. Jesus speaks to these men not as his enemies, but as enemies of the truth. There is no indication that he speaks to them as personal enemies, for all of his comments reflect their deception of others; the personal relationship between the parties does not even come into the picture. They were enemies for the sake of the Kingdom of God.”

And pardon me for taking this out of context (if indeed I am), but I read this, as giving Christians a free pass to ridicule, denounce, and otherwise slander at will, anyone who disagrees with them. These people aren’t Jesus – they’re representatives, and poor ones at that. It fairly turned my stomach, it did: it reeked of hypocrisy. The reader is invited to look up the definition of agape – I see nothing indicative of what Holding says, save that this is cherry-picking at its worst. And to this day, this ugly meme raises its lopsided head and spews venom.

And I, trying to be fair, looked elsewhere. And all I saw was: dishonesty, slander, and pathetic excuses. I mean, everywhere. I was trying my utmost to keep an open mind, but I can’t abide dishonesty, in myself as well as others. Seeking some sort of symmetry, I started researching the history of Christianity, with this romantic ideal that I’d held in my mind for so long, that somehow Christians (or any religious folks) were the standard bearers of a higher ideal.

Pallbearers would be a better word. I’d already known of the Inquisition (from having read the Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, which is actually a compendium of the Inquisition’s history and the torture of ‘witches’): but I was aghast when I realized that indeed, Christianity was in many cases, the sole provocateur in so many scenarios, that it had cost so many lives, that so much bloodshed bathed the feet of this metaphorical monolith, that it was by no means the group of people I wanted to be associated with.

I recall reading (this actually belongs in installment one: sorry) McDowell’s justification for the genocide of the Canaanites – they were very amorous, they had sex with anyone they encountered. At first, I shrugged: then I realized – that’s a lousy excuse for wholesale slaughter.

In the meantime, my born-again buddy and I started getting into it – I told him bluntly, “You’ve joined up with the wrong crowd.” Our phone conversations trailed off…when I was on the verge of conversion, he called twice a week: now? I hear from him once a month, maybe longer. One of the last conversations we had, I brought up the fact there was no evidence that the Exodus had occurred: he was fairly shocked that I would even say such a thing, and there was much semantic shuffling so as not to hear what I could offer to support my position. (Note: this could be that he’s a lot busier these days – not just the atheism.)

And, hey, he is a good Christian. He’s a kind, loving person. I’ve never heard him say a bad word about anyone. He’s good-natured; we talk about the show the Family Guy (one of his favorites, despite the blasphemy), or the Simpsons. He’s very humble: he actually walks the talk – and I can say this with candor. Sure, he’s a Rapture believer (we haven’t quite gone over that one yet), a historicist (all loose ends will be tied up in the end), and an inerrantist, but he by no means tries to force his belief on me. We’re still friends – and he has an old friend, a lady, who’s a puppeteer and a New Age psychic type. The three of us get together – we have a great time. Why? Mutual respect.

Back on topic: sorry.
So, like any critically thinking adult, I began to measure the arguments for as opposed to the arguments against. I started reading critical commentaries of prominent critics on both sides of the fence.

And, I’m sorry, but the pro-religion advocates, well, to put it succinctly: they sucked. They would take the slightest clue towards slander: they would skirt the fringe of being sued: character attacks seemed to be the main thrust of their apologia. And the logic? It was just plain awful.

You see, I’d chosen the wrong method for conversion: instead of believing first, I decided to do research. The research part is supposed to come afterwards.

This concludes part two. Next week’s third and final installment: STEPPING THROUGH THE GATES OF ATHEISM: MY PERSONAL JOURNEY PART THE TRES – INGERSOLL AND BARTON.