In the spirit of the recently passed Easter festivities, I just wanted to ask a few quick questions, as there are a couple of Easter aspects that I don’t quite understand. Any comments explaining things to me would be most welcome!
1. They say that Jesus died for our sins. That’s fine. Good lad. But since god claims to be omnipotent and all-powerful and in charge of every aspect of everything, why did he need to go through the trouble of sending an angel to earth, to impregnate a virgin (by the way, did god have to ejaculate into a cup and give it to the angel to ferry over to mary before inseminating her?), and have a child, wait 30 years and then have said child die an agonising death, in order to absolve us of our sins? Could he not have just said, “Right. You lot. You’re absolved of your sins.” and saved himself the trouble?
2. Again, Jesus died for our sins… But he came back to life three days later. So where does that leave our sins? Are they still absolved, or did he die, taking them with him, wait three days and then say “Fuck this shit. I didn’t sign up for this, you lot can have them back!”. Way to take one for the team, Jesus. Selfish dick.
3. He came back from the dead and then rose up to heaven. So… Where was he before that? If he was dead, surely he would have been in heaven anyway…? So did he die, go to heaven, which since it’s where his dad lives, is technically his home anyway, and then pop back from his home, three days later to inform us all that he was back, but that he was immediately going home again?
4. If his death absolved us of all of our sins, why are people still taught that they are born sinners and need to repent? And if his death does, in fact, give us all a morally blank slate in terms of sin, then surely it’s okay to be an atheist, which is unarguably the default setting for all humans, in that you have to be told that there is a god, but don’t have to be told that there isn’t one.
Can someone re-write the bible and iron out one or two of the plot-holes, maybe?
Or, you know… Just chuck the whole thing in a furnace and move on with the intellectual evolution of humanity.
And besides, if anyone finds what I’ve said offensive in any way, then The Scent of an Angel might really annoy you… It even religiously offended me and I’m an atheist.
Share this with other humans
Join the conversation! 5 Comments
Leave me your thoughts...
--- Grumpy Comments --- 
Your blog post is funny and I wish I could answer your questions on behalf of the Heavenly Father. ;-)
As someone in the church, God seems real to me and far more relevant that some of the twisty theological conundrums that you’ve pointed out. In my opinion faith comes easiest to those who don’t grasp too hard for absolute knowledge.
That will probably prompt atheists to say “Ha! Proves the point that faith is impossible to support logically.” But I think it’s true.
Not trying to convert you by the way. I just started blogging last week so I’m being chatty. Thanks again for your post.
Cerlaire, you seem like a genuinely nice person. I like you.
But “In my opinion faith comes easiest to those who don’t grasp too hard for absolute knowledge.” Really…?
I know you know that I’m going to say this, but the only reason that humans have progressed so far in terms of evolution, intellectually and scientifically etc etc is due to some kind of innate thirst for “absolute knowledge.”
I can see on the surface my statement looks like ‘ask no questions and believe whatever.’
I’ll put it from another perspective. Imagine you genuinely believe in a creator of the universe. That being would be so magnificent that it would be beyond human comprehension. Rather like a magic eye picture (I never could do those, so this may be the wrong metaphor as I don’t know how they work) you see the being by relaxing the focus in your eyes.
With God, the more we focus on human facts, the less our ability to sense transcendence.
I have no idea if what I’ve just said sounds clear to you. I’m typing on a mobile phone with a tiny screen and can’t check the entire comment.
I’m not going to bother leaving my actual thoughts on all this, as I’d be here all day, all I will say is that, while I am an antitheist, I’ve got to admit, that your ‘magic eye picture’ metaphor was genuinely one of the nicest and most simplistically profound ways I’ve ever heard a Christian defining the logistics of faith!
And thank you for your thoughts on my piece, much appreciated!
Gosh thanks. :-)