I am Roman Catholic in origin, but I take on religion in a very scholarly sense, as it was done similarly in the Middle Ages. I find the current state of Christianity in general to be riddled with romanticist ideas of what is "past," and, historically, it is generally inaccurate. I started my scholarly approach to Christianity after I found that much of the Catholic Church's stances on sexuality and gender roles to be factually inaccurate, while, at the same time, proclaiming their beliefs to be the "truth." Since something didn't add up, I started on my own path, and, at best, I am perhaps best described as a Christian with a Catholic bias.
As a student of media culture and criticism, I apply much of my studies to religion, and, actually, I find *that* to be fairly accurate. My view on the Bible is that it is what it was God intended it to be, but that it is generally factually incorrect. The Old Testament is the result of Jewish leaders attempting to reorganize their Jewish state after hundreds of years in exile. With this being the days before mass communication, it might as well have been an eternity, so the Old Testament, while likely having been based on existing sources and oral tradition, is written as a text to reassert authority over the Jewish people. In that regard, it works, but I consider it to be more of a legal text than a moral text, albeit the idea of separation of church and state is not even applicable. However, it is precisely *that*--the legal purpose, in addition to the moral purpose--that makes me skeptical.
Overall, to me, the Old Testament is an attempt to create a history for a demoralized people, to show that there is a God that is willing to fight for his "chosen people," to show that the Jewish people were able to survive and overcome exile before (the myth of the Jewish enslavement in Egypt), and, most importantly, that they were a valuable people with a long history, and, implicitly, a long future, as a result. However, at the same time, the Old Testament regurgitates the values of the ruling class, threatening an angry God to smote anyone who does not follow certain laws--laws likely created by the ruling class, but to attribute these laws to God, rather than the ruling class, is to instill unquestioning compliance.
To me, Jesus recognized this and attempted to draw the first line between moral and legal laws. The main difference being that moral laws are worth upholding and that legal laws are mutable--e.g., they can be changed. However, the New Testament, having been written thirty to seventy years after Jesus' death, becomes entrapped under the mysticism of the Old Testament, and, as such, the writers of the New Testament spend most of their time trying to fulfill Old Testament prophesy regarding the Messiah, even if they are fabricating details in the process. The end--mass faith in Jesus Christ and his teachings--justified the means--literary hyperbole. Separate from this is the sermons of St. Paul, the theological father of Roman Catholicism, who is less concerned with strict adherence to Biblical text than his own faith experiences. As such, with his precedent, Christianity sees no problem in creating their own moral and legal tradition, similar to the moral and legal tradition that Judaism crafted over centuries. Unfortunately, I think they missed the point about Jesus Christ--perhaps His message was too revolutionary for this time--and fell back into the same trap as Judaism--scaring people into unquestioning faith and unwavering compliance with the religious and imperial leaders.
But, back to the idea that the Bible is what God intended it to be, even if it is factually incorrect, this falls under the realm of postmodernist thought: the image and the myth of the Bible is more important than the reality. It has always intrigued me that, in apparitions of Mary and, occasionally, Jesus, they represent exactly as they are culturally perceived in art--knowing full well that, likely, Jesus and Mary looked nothing like their artistic depictions. This, as a result, could be one of two things: that these apparitions are fictitious or that God instills his message and presence through our cultural perceptions; that, in actuality, "presentation" is more important than "fact."
In spite of all this, I am deeply spiritual through my own personal experiences with God, and I believe fully in Jesus Christ. I believe that the deity out there that actually created this world and universe is working within these parameters, as we have defined out historically. The Jewish people wanted a Messiah, so God fulfilled our sincerest of desires--even if people were unwilling to accept it fully. I also look forward to the Second Coming of Christ for the same exact reason; that God will fulfill our sincere desire for reunion with Christ. Similarly with the First Coming, however, which expected a warrior Messiah to vanquish the "evil" in the world and to "exult" his "chosen people," I feel we will be equally disappointed and another religious schism is inevitable in that future scenario, as I believe Jesus is likely to return much as He originally came--peacefully. Essentially, if Christianity doesn't get its doomsday scenario--just as Judaism didn't get its warrior Messiah--we are going to repeat history.
However, as many here and elsewhere will likely point out, such a proposition is complicated and incredulous to them, so, unlike most religious "sermons," I do not expect everyone to believe like me. But this is what I believe for now; it will likely evolve, but, despite all of this, I feel that my faith is stronger than ever.
BTW, I'm 22.
Melon
