Here’s a comment, from one reader named “A,” on and old thread about Adam and Eve. I’m putting it here for your delectation. I get tons of these comments on old threads, and most of them I trash, but sometimes I think I should let a believer through:
Christianity is not religion, at least to anyone who lives in its true form. It is not a set of rules saying we have to be perfect. It is the idea that though we all try to be perfect, Christ was the only morally perfect human because he was God and man, and he died for the sin of every imperfect human being. So we don’t need to be a Christian to be moral, but we do need Christ to be saved.
Also, where in the bible does it say “God created two anatomically modern humans named Adam and Eve” ?? Who’s to say that if they did exist they were from genus homo? And really, unless you lived at the dawn of time there’s really no way to know for sure.
I love the idea that “true” Christianity isn’t a religion even though Jesus was divine and is the only route to salvation. What’s not religious about that?
And if Adam and Eve weren’t the progenitors of modern humanity, which they clearly were in Genesis (and real humans as well), why do so many Evangelical Christians have their knickers in a twist trying to rationalize Genesis with the palpable fact that humanity did not descend from only two ancestors?
If you define religion as “a set of rules saying we have to be perfect”, then Christianity is not a religion.
And if we define “vegetable” as “pork belly meat smoked or cured and then cut into strips”, then I’m a vegetarian.
Everything is better with vegetables!
/@
Bacon is a vegetable, right?
A prune isn’t really a vegetable. A cabbage is a vegetable.
Vodka is a vegetable!
Bourbon is grain! I have no idea what gin is beyond juniper berries.
Juniper berries + white lightning + time = gin
You just made my day with that comment. 🙂
The answer to stump the religiously brainwashed is to ask them “Unless you lived at the time and place the bible was written, how do you know it isn’t all just fantasies written down to entertain and control others?”
+1
“Because it’s God’s word, stoopid!”
😉
/@
Hmm, citation needed. We can’t just claim “Christ was the only morally perfect human because he was God and man” because the Bible says so.
Next, the Argument from “Who’s to say” is an incredibly weak one once you start reading about biology written by actual biologists. A friend of mine observed recently that the term “mitochondrial Eve” does the public understanding of science no good at all as non-biologists invariably interpret that in the light of what they think it means (i.e. the mythical Eve) rather than the ironic expression it is intended to be.
The answer to (i) is that it is of course a religion, if anything is, and to (ii) mainly because evangelical Christians practice a form of the religion that requires irrational veneration of the Bible as “inerrant” in everything it affirms (and they assume it affirms monogenism.) Since they reject historical-critical science, too, they see no plausible way open to affirming polygenism without disaffirming the core of their faith. (I.e., they’re screwed.)
There are many, many ideas about what Christianity is really about. They go all over the map. Unless you’re literally claiming to be God (which entails its own problems), then this is only YOUR idea of what Christianity is really about.
Now: please form this as a testable hypothesis — and then we’ll all have a look at it. Keep in mind that we are all living in a place and era which does not automatically grant credibility to either the existence of God OR an honor-culture system of morality which ranks according to status and requires revenge for insults. So I think you have your work cut out for you.
Look, if you’re going to go in for militant agnosticism then you’re going to have to be consistent and drop everything you’re saying about knowing anything through the Bible … or knowing anything at all, for that matter.
In fact there are as many ideas as to what Christianity is really about as there are christians.
Yes. But you can always tell who a real Christian is: they’re the ones who will assure you that they’re not just making Jesus into their own image — like those other guys do. No. Not them.
I find that reassurance so reassuring.
Assuredly so!
/@
“Christianity is not religion, at least to anyone who lives in its true form.”
Yes it is.
“It is not a set of rules saying we have to be perfect. It is the idea that though we all try to be perfect, Christ was the only morally perfect human because he was God and man, and he died for the sin of every imperfect human being. So we don’t need to be a Christian to be moral, but we do need Christ to be saved.”
See, that’s what makes it a religion. It’s got a deity (and many quasi-deities), and a set of rules. I know you think your brand of Christianity (the true one, natch) is not like all the others, but to an outsider it is. Some religions are heavier on doctrine than others, and some take their holy books more seriously, but that’s not what makes them religions. It’s the belief in a sky wizard and his interest in us that makes it a religion.
“Also, where in the bible does it say “God created two anatomically modern humans named Adam and Eve” ??”
There are two creation accounts, both in Genesis. Genesis 1:27 says: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”. Now perhaps God’s image is more apelike than Christianity generally portays him but anyway, there’s a separate more detailed account in Genesis 2 where “a man” is formed from dust (2:7) and “a woman” is made from his rib (2:21). They have language (2:23), are largely hairless (2:25, 3:21), capable of gardening (2:15), and having talked to a snake (3:1-5) become like God(s) knowing good and evil (3:22). They have children who are farmers (4:1-3). They sound like no animal that has ever lived other than modern humans.
“Who’s to say that if they did exist they were from genus homo? And really, unless you lived at the dawn of time there’s really no way to know for sure.”
Well, they didn’t exist obviously. But if they did, they were people. That is what’s described in Genesis. The creation of man (and woman). It’s a myth and many Christians happily discount it as such. But it’s a myth about humans, not about pre-human hominids.
Also, 42 generations later Christ was born (Luke 3:23-48).
but.. people lived to 900 in the old days..
But time isn’t necessarily the important factor. It’s the generations. Only 42 generations to go from “pre-human hominids” to Jeebus?
Sorry for taking your joke too seriously.
42? Well it MUST be right then, since the great DNA has foretold it.
And, of course, it’s the answer to everything!
Nitpick: they could have been homo habilis or homo ergaster and still been mostly hairless, had language, had a concept of “good” and “evil”, and used tools.
Not so much on practicing agriculture, though.
Nitpick: Homo habilis or Homo ergaster.
“A” did mention “genus homo” [sic] in his comment…
/@
poor Christians. They shat all over the word “religion” by their actions and now run away from it. They also repeatedly show that their supposed “truth” is nothing more than stories that humans have made up.
It’s not just Christians who shy away from using the word “religion.” Because the word is often used interchangeably with “organized religion” people with all sorts of religious beliefs will want to distance their personal connection to God away from the tainted idea that they are simply obeying the man-made rules of an organization. Conservatives, liberals, fundamentalists and new agers. It’s not a religion: it’s more.
I have a word file over 6 pages long which consists of nothing but definitions of the word “religion” which I have picked up on the internet over the last 10 years are so. Few of them are more than a paragraph, some are only a line or so. Guess what? They run all over the place and range the gamut from complementary to insulting to attempts to be objective, like an anthropologist or philosopher or — watch out — a theologian. Most of the definitions are from religious believers.
So whenever someone says something wonky or puzzling about what is or isn’t a religion you have to ask them how they’re defining it. If this question startles them — why, isn’t it just obvious? — then watch out. If this question excites them — I’m so glad you asked! — then watch out even more.
This is soooooo much more than a bag! …
I also love how they will always say, “that’s not the God I believe in either!”
And the response is the same: Define your God! And the one they define (if they can and do) is surely one that I do not believe in.
I would LOVE to get a copy of that list.
“
Same.
Heheheh. And I have over 12 pages of definitions of “God.”
It’s interesting to look over both lists and see how many definitions of both “God” and “religion” try to secularize the concepts, and make them sound like ordinary, rational things that even an atheist could believe in, like “Religion is what the individual does with his own solitariness” (Whitehead) or God is “the sum of the finest human values, such as love, justice, joy and peace.” (Freeman)
The motivations for doing this seems to be mixed. Sometimes it’s atheists like Dewey trying to reclaim sacred language for the service of naturalism. Sometimes it looks like theists trying to play with deepities and bait n switch once everyone is all relaxed.
“Our beliefs are fairly commonplace and simple to understand. Humankind is simply materialized color operating on the 49th vibration. You would make that conclusion walking down the street or going to the store.”
-John Michael Higgins as Terry Bohner in Cristopher Guest’s A Mighty Wind.
“This is not an occult science. This is not one of those crazy systems of divination and astrology. That stuff’s hooey, and you’ve got to have a screw loose to go in for that sort of thing. … No, ladies and gentlemen, we don’t ride around on broomsticks and wear pointy hats. Well, we don’t ride on broomsticks.”
🙂
My favorite is “God is love.” Really? How did love create the universe or die on a cross?
That’s the problem with atheists: Always trying to use their brains to understand Mysteries(TM). Love isn’t something you can explain with logic. If you properly appreciated Sophisticated Theology(TM) you would have no problem with the concept of Love creating the world and then being crucified as propitiation for the wrongdoings of the people He put into the world He created.
If you keep analyzing what people mean by the “supernatural” you eventually get down to a belief that love or other products of the mind are irreducible essences which either have their own power/force or ARE a power/force. As theobromine says, you’re not supposed to wonder about details or be curious about mechanism.
Yes, this is exactly true and aligns well with my experience. Few will ever go that far (actually defining things). Generally, they just want to wallow in the “mystery”.
I never was comforted by or interested in being ignorant …
For those who have previously been spared this, the trope is:
“Christianity is not a religion, it is a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Many True Christians (TM) do honestly believe that they are not actually following a set of rules, but that they are simply following Jesus and conforming their lives to his example, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
(One response to this trope (which I have put on Tshirts) is to say “Atheism is not a religion, it’s a personal relationship with reality”.)
Do you sell those t-shirts anywhere?
The Tshirts are sold at CFI Ottawa events. If people not in Ottawa are interested in buying them, and Ceiling Cat grants permission, I can provide contact information.
By all means provide contact information! Ceiling Cat has spoken (also, he sez ur not 2 worship fals godz like dogz)
Thanks, Ceiling Cat.
Anyone who is interested in a shirt, please email cfiottawa@gmail.com
[And of course the wisdom of Ceiling cat will now and forever be the source of arguments between those who think he sez
* not 2 worship fals godz the way dogz worship fals godz
vs those who think he sez
* not 2 worship dogz as fals godz
(not to mention those who ask which fals godz Ceiling cat *does* want us to worship)]
I think he sez worshiping dogz as fals godz mite be OK, but not 2 worship (say) wulfs or foxz as fals godz.
I think Prof Ceiling Cat allows worship of foxes. Remember all the fox posts a few months ago? Wolves and dogs, not so much…
It’s a fairly well-known trope. CafePress and Zazzle have variants on this.
/@
I want one!
I had an experience on a lunchtime stroll fifteen years ago, where this prozelytor was holding forth (with his minions) on the sidewalk to a group of teenagers. Uncharacteristically I blurted out loudly as I went by, “Religions are stories and false.” to which the prozelytor (to my surprise!) responded, “Religion is false! I’m talking about Jesus!” One of his grinning minions grabbed my bare arm, and said something like, “The Lord Jesus is powerful!” and I felt a mild shock. I drew away, thinking that they must be enhancing their pitch with physical electrical effects.
“a mild shock”. Wasn’t a slightly bigger one the reason Saul/Paul got all this carp going in the first place. Take care.
Was he wearing polyester? Static, more likely.
Pure polyester and not a blend of fabrics?
Splitter!
There’s two kinds of people in this world. Those who never wear blended fabrics, per Leviticus, and those who do.
My favourite, though, is this.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary notation and those who don’t.
Still splitting after all these years.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary
those who don’t
and those who were not expecting a joke about base 3.
Before we extend this to base 4 and beyond, I need to know if base pi is real or imaginary.
In response to JohnnieCanuck, base pi would be real. For example, 121 would be “pi cubed” + “2 times (pi squared)” + pi, which is certainly real, though irrational (cue obvious joke about creationists here).
Not sure how useful that might be…
I wasn’t sure that base pi would even be possible. I guess, vide Mark Joseph’s post, that it would be possible, but it would be quite extraordinarily impractical (as would any non-integer base). A finite number of objects (say, six) would end up as a number with an infinitely long string of numbers after the ‘decimal’ point…
Doing any arithmetic in it would make Roman numerals seem simple by comparison.
Using a non-integer base, a “finite number of objects (say, six) would end up as a number with an infinitely long string of numbers after the ‘decimal’ point…”
You’d think so. If the base was a rational fraction that would be true. When I was a boy I was fascinated by numbers, and I played around with non-integer bases. The number phi = (1+sqrt5)/2 = 1.6180339887… is surprising. Any integer is exactly expressible fairly simply (but, as with all such bases, there are multiple ways of exressing any number). 6 in base 10 is equal (precisely) to 1010.0001 in base phi (and also 1001.1001).
I was rather proud of that back in the 1950s. But, as you say, it is completely useless.
@MarkJoseph
Minor point: 1210. (The units column is always the base^0, pi^0 or any x^0 being 1.)
Maybe arithmetic would be hard, but think of how much easier trigonometry would be….
@logicophilosophicus
I can’t believe I messed that up :-(. Well, OK, I guess I can believe it. But thanks for the fix! I’ll go crawl back under my carpet now.
@ Mark Joseph
Sorry! I forgot which thread this was in. I meant to come clean – I only noticed your mistake because I made the same mistake myself but corrected it before I hit the button.
@ infiniteimprobabilit
I should have added that there are infinitely many such non-integer bases (that express all integers exactly). Using sqrt2 gives a system in which all even places are redundant and can be left as zero, counting 1, 100, 101, 10000, 10001, 10100, 10101, 100000 etc. Obviously cube root, fourth root, etc (ad infinitum) give analogous systems. Phi was just my favourite. Here endeth the nerdiness.
Most of the time, I find that those who express this sentiment are absolutely obsessed with rules.
Don’t marry this person. Don’t drink that substance. Certainly don’t smoke that other substance. Don’t move your body in time with a musical beat. Don’t have sex unless you’re married and want to have a baby.
And on and on.
It’s a pure lie that they don’t follow any “rules”. They all rules.
Except for the rules that the mythical figure Jesus was alleged to have said. Things like “love one another”, “pray in a closet”, and “render unto Caesar”.
“Christ was the only morally perfect human because he was God and man”
So the man part does not make him morally perfect, that goes without saying. The God part doesn’t either: There’s plenty of immorality commanded about in the OT by the character described as God (/Yahweh).
So then we must judge his level moral perfection by his acts. I think whipping the money changers in the temple takes him off the perfect track, at the very least. (Remember we’re talking PERFECT, not just really-really, really, REALLY, supremely, hudgely ( … better than any human before or since … ) nice; but PERFECT.)
The character depicted as Jesus in the NT is a pretty nice guy, as has been noted by many prominent atheists. But perfect?
Only if your game is defining perfect and moral by the divine command theory, like Craig does. Which rather begs the question, doesn’t it?
Indeed, man parts often make it difficult to be morally perfect…
And of course, there was the story where he refused to help a non-Jew. And the story where he killed a fig tree because it wasn’t the season for figs and he was hungry.
You wonder whether these people have actually read the book of myths they profess to believe in.
I had someone express deep anger and shock to me the other day when I suggested I would not have a problem with Christianity if they all prayed in a closet. He went off, accusing me of … well, I’m not sure, but it had something to do with being gay.
He had zero idea that the injunction didn’t come from me, but from his book of myths and straight out of the mouth of its superhero Jesus.
“You wonder whether these people have actually read the book of myths they profess to believe in.”
Almost exhaustively (there are a few), they have not read it. They’ve just been fed the “highlights” by their chosen authority. (It’s all about interpretation after all … gaakk!) As we know, actually reading the thing has led many to atheism. When you begin to take it seriously, read it carefully, see what bollocks it is, that helps move you toward reason.
But as many have noted on this thread: Generally, the believer is not leading an examined life.
He is hood-winked by the rhetorical device that post-modern “emergent” Christianity uses to hook and keep followers. The tag-line is that “True Christianity is about relationship, not religion”. It allows people who hate the cultural characteristics of religion to enable a rationalization that allows them to feel good about being in a loving community without having to be “religious”. They think of their Christianity as if it is a philosophical outlook, often referring to it as a “Worldview”, or an existential practice (like Buddhism). The problem is exactly what you point Jerry. The relationship over religion distinction is one without a difference when entertaining salvation theology.
I was hooked for a few years by the same rhetoric but thankfully I sought out more serious Christians who had no qualms about asserting their religion. The Reformed Evangelicals I hung with had the intellectual integrity to call Christianity what it is and not succumb to word-games to smooth their cognitive dissonance. The tension between Christian theology and my personal ethics created some tension for me but because I understood Christianity as a systematic theology empowered by religion I no longer could cover up the cognitive distortions wrought by Christianity with rhetoric.
The most frustrating arguments for Christianity I hear are from my post-modern “Emergent” Christian friends who admit being soft on theology but in love with Jesus. They say these things without irony not recognizing that the latter is theological.
“…Christianity is not religion…”
This is great news, A. Would you please spread the word to all Christian churches that the IRS will be coming by soon to talk about back taxes since, you know, they aren’t religious institutions.
You may have solved the deficit problem singlehandedly. Well done!
From urbandictionary.com: “God: an entity whose opinions on the consumption of pork have been a matter of serious debate amongst the world’s religions.”
Indeed, there’s a “folk religion” in the south pacific (IIRC) where to eat pork is not only allowed, but a commandment under some circumstances.
I’ve often said I’ll convert to a religion, just as soon as they all agree on the status of the bacon cheeseburger.
It seems ironic in some ways, but probably the most adamant defender (proponent) of the separation of religion and government was perhaps the most religious of all the founding fathers, John Adams. I believe that by the time he was president he was probably an atheist. I am a docent at a museum of natural history, so have the opportunity to discuss this subject a lot with Creationist whacks.I think his experiences in Holland and France (and with Franklin and Jefferson (neither of which he got along with particularly well), plus the seriousness with which he thought, certainly led him in this direction. At first his main argument was that he didn’t want any “official” religion telling him what to think.
My favorite book on this subject, and one that I recommend to most people I believe are worth taking to seriously is by a very fine “popular culture” writer named Brooke Allen. The book, in case you haven’t discovered it yet, is “Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers”, Fall River Press, 2009. It is written so a college student ought to be able to read it, without being condescending. Ideal for the purpose, I think.
Historical nitpick here – TJ and John Adams got along very, very well, until John became President. John was and Anglophile, while TJ was an Anglophobe. The Alien and Sedition Act really drove the two men apart. Later in life, TJ reached out to John – in a letter to Abigail – and the two men once again became close friends.
Historical nitwit: Thanks for the clarification. You are quite correct. However, I believe that John expressed some dismay over both Jefferson’s and Franklin’s sexual activities when they were in France. And also the two of them were “Rock Stars” a and Adams was much more restrained and private. I don’t believe they had much political conflict until later. (There is always a good possibility that I may be wrong.
I am very sorry about the typo that changed nitpick to nitwit. Can one have a Freudian slip in one’s typing?
I just read Walter Isaacson’s biography of Franklin (exellent), and it’s pretty darned clear from Adams’ correspondence that he heartily disliked both Jefferson and Franklin (both of whom, seems to me, he felt were too fond of the French ladies) when they served together as diplomats in France and elsewhere in Europe.
Whose ladies, then, should one be fond of?
Seems to me J and F were merely guilty of good taste. 😉
I believe that by the time he became president his religious thinking was much more nuanced than simply not wanting other people telling him what to believe.
I think your reader A deserves some sort of award for discovering a new “particle of language” … the Anti-Deepity. You may recall that Daniel Dennett actually first discovered the Deepity itself – which he defined as something that sounds profound and is TRUE, but is actually totally trivial- e.g. “love is nothing but a four letter word”. Reader A’s statement “Christianity is not religion” sounds profound but is FALSE, and is also totally trivial. Reader A has discovered a new negative particle in the world of quantum bullshit.
As I recall, Dennet’s “deepity” is supposed to be a statement which seems very deep because it has two meanings: one true but trivial — and one extraordinary but false. The deepity then trades on the superficial resemblance to make it seem as if BOTH interpretations must be true. The extraordinary rides to credibility on the back of the ordinary. If L..O..V…E IS nothing but a 4-letter word then reducing the entire concept of love to semantics must be reasonable. Wow!
So let’s look at “Christianity is not a religion.” No, I think it’s just a regular deepity because look at how she defines ‘religion’ in the second sentence: “a set of rules saying we have to be perfect.” Ok, Christianity is not that. True but trivial.
Then she goes to town with a lot of extraordinary religious assertions and we’re supposed to let her get away with this because hey, if you define religion the wrong way then Christianity is not a religion and we established that. If you doubt it, look again.
And if you define “bacon” as a “vegetable” then, as truthspeaker noted in #1, even vegans can eat it.
You’re definition is the correct one but it ruins my joke.
My stance is actually that “all religion is a Deepity.” This of course creates a contradictory deepity of infinite regress, which is disallowed by Bertrand Russell in his critique of Frege
I like “all religion is a deepity.” It rings true. Deep.
My own take is that “religion is category error turned into an art form.” Which is more or less what you just said.
I love that term deepity. A verbal bullseye. The fact that it is alliterative with Chopra’s first name is all bonus.
We should be encouraged that religion has such a bad name that religious people feel the need to distance themselves from it.
I think it’s Jehovah’s Witnessess who denounce “religion”, meaning every other religion than theirs.
Yes, christianity is absolutely not a religion. After all, if one goes to a library or bookshop looking for a book on christianity, it will be found in the “christ was morally perfect” section, not the “religion” section.
However, not sure jebus was morally perfect. After all he said “love your enemies” (Matt 5:44) but “hate your family” (Luke 12:51, Luke 14:26). Sounds like a bit of a loony, not to mention a douchebag, to me.
Jerry, I think there are a lot of persons out there who consider themselves “Christian” even though they belong to no denomination and don’t go to any church. I’ve encountered a number of them on facebook atheist-theist debate pages. They seem to share one thing in common: THEY have the correct [idiosyncratic] interpretation of scripture, and everybody else is wrong. In that they are kind of like those cranks who claimed to have proved that relativity is wrong, etc. There is no talking to these persons! They are delusional. . . .
sub
Oh how fun :0
Just so happens that I’m reading Dan Barkers book: godless.
Coincidentally, I just read the section “What about Jesus” (p.178). Here he talks about the pervasive moral corruption of Jesus, the moral guide for all humanity. Humanity would be far worse for embracing his guidance.
Barker knows far more about Jesus, the bible, and Christianity than most would, so if I may offer some of his quotes in regard to the so-called moral perfection of jesus-
Barkers book is a good read. Its certainly provided insight to someone that has no inclination to read the bible. Me.
I loved Godless!
The Bible is actually well worth reading. I recommend the King James Veriosn, if you are reading in English.
You will have to skip some bits (e.g. Numbers) but it’s good to see excatly where much of European culture and English language came from.
It really stops a proselytizing theists cold — because you’ve actually read the thing and they haven’t.
I’ve had them (after I tell them I’ve read the entire thing, plus most of the Hindu books, Buddhist books, parts of the Koran, the Book of Mormon, W. L. Craig, Alister McGrath, etc., etc. — seriously though, I’m done reading apologists.) simple wander away mumbling, “well, you’re pretty well read …”
Yeah, a whole lot better read than you are.
I am so tired of the “christianity is not a religion” meme (or trope, as others have mentioned) that I could just scream. So, I’ve come up with a three-part riposte:
1) James 1:27 talks about “pure and undefiled religion”. Do you know more about this than James did?
2) John Calvin’s magnum opus is titled “The Institutes of the Christian Religion”. Do you know more about this than John Calvin?
3) OK, since christianity is not a religion, you won’t mind if the tax-exempt status of the churches is abolished.
Haven’t had the chance to use this yet, but I’m looking forward to it.
Other possible responses: “Islam is not a religion, it’s submission to Allah.” “Buddhism isn’t a religion, it’s a search for nirvana.” Etc.
And, of course, as many atheist blogs have shown me, it is positively gleeful to point out that “I see you agree with me that religion is a bad thing.”
Sounds fair enough that its not a religion. I think it also makes sense to assume that everyone thinks they are doing it right.
I just hope they contact the IRS/Inland Revenue/etc and start coughing up the taxes now they dont have the religion exemption.
“Adam and Eve?? Who’s to say that if they did exist they were from genus homo?”
Ummm, okay. Adam and Eve as small rodents? Or mudskippers?
The idea has a certain perverse appeal…
cr
More like snails, Adam would have to been asexual, at least initially.
I don’t understand the logic of “the palpable fact that humanity did not descend from only two ancestors”. Presumably all of us are descended from the two parents of Mitochondrial “Eve”, or, similarly, from the two parents of Y-Chromosome “Adam”. (Of course, if you are stressing the “only” rather than the “two”, you’re in good company – the Biblical account does not state that the wives of the sons of Adam and Eve are their siblings.)
…. while we’re on the subject of religion (again) I just thought it might be worthwhile to post my favorite poem on the subject…
A nasty surprise in a sandwich,
A drawing-pin caught in your sock,
The limpest of shakes from a hand which
You’d thought would be firm as a rock,
A serious mistake in a nightie,
A grave disappointment all round
Is all that you’ll get from th’Almighty,
Is all that you’ll get underground.
Oh he said: ‘If you lay off the crumpet
I’ll see you alright in the end.
Just hang on until the last trumpet.
Have faith in me, chum-I’m your friend.’
But if you remind him, he’ll tell you:
‘I’m sorry, I must have been pissed-
Though your name rings a sort of a bell. You
Should have guessed that I do not exist.
‘I didn’t exist at Creation,
I didn’t exist at the Flood,
And I won’t be around for Salvation
To sort out the sheep from the cud-
‘Or whatever the phrase is. The fact is
In soteriological terms
I’m a crude existential malpractice
And you are a diet of worms.
‘You’re a nasty surprise in a sandwich.
You’re a drawing-pin caught in my sock.
You’re the limpest of shakes from a hand which
I’d have thought would be firm as a rock,
‘You’re a serious mistake in a nightie,
You’re a grave disappointment all round-
That’s all you are, ‘ says th’Almighty,
‘And that’s all that you’ll be underground.’
1983
James Fenton
Any narrative or propositional set of beliefs that involve the supernatural and some sort of salvation story is a religion.
It doesn’t even need a salvation story.
Yes.