Thursday, April 9, 2009

Jesus: Still Relevant in Mississippi?

Baptism of Jesus (Bogojavlenie, ortodox icon)Image via Wikipedia

Since starting this blog, I have viewed our primary mission as being one of providing information and resources to atheists living in Mississippi. I knew what it was like to feel that I must be the only atheist in the state. As I discovered that this was far from true, I realized how powerful it could be to simply show others that they were not alone. Without any formal atheist organization in our state, I thought I would do what little I could provide Mississippi atheists with a hub from which to learn about the various atheist groups and atheist-relevant news in our state. An important part of this mission includes exploring the nature of the thoroughly Christian environment in which we find ourselves. In this post, I'd like to use a recent article in the Hattiesburg American to explore the question of Jesus' relevance in Mississippi today.

Admittedly, this seems like a ridiculously easy question to answer at first glance. Of course Jesus is relevant in Mississippi. We are not only the most religious state in the U.S., but Mississippi atheists often feel surrounded on all sides by not just Christians but fundamentalist Christians! But the question was not whether Christianity is relevant but whether Jesus was relevant.

According to this odd article in the Hattiesburg American by freelance writer Rodney Sessions,
The messages found in His stories have traveled across the centuries, and the morals therein are as clear and relevant today as they were 2,000 years ago.
Sessions clearly assumes that the existence of Jesus is historical fact. He is evidently unaware of the scholarship questioning this assumption. But far more important, Sessions also appears to assume that the accounts of Jesus contained in the Christian bible, accounts which are quite variable themselves, are somehow accurate.

Setting aside the fact that inconsistent accounts cannot all be simultaneously accurate, the consensus among biblical scholars is that the Christian bible was written well after the time period in which Jesus supposedly lived by authors who had never met any such man. Thus, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that the stories attributed to Jesus were anything other than myth. An influential myth to be sure, but myth nonetheless. In fact, little about the Jesus myth was particularly original.

What about the character of Jesus which Sessions repeatedly praises? Set aside the questions about whether any such individual ever lived and the inconsistencies present in how he is described in the Christian bible. Even focusing on what the Christian bible does say about him, there are important questions about the nature of the teachings attributed to him.

To his credit, I think Sessions realizes that the relevance of Jesus depends upon faith. Given that we now know some of the biblical claims about Jesus were blatantly false, I suppose he has little choice.
I think faith is a very personal thing. I think each one of us must decide what we believe. I think each one of us must develop our own relationship with our faith, our beliefs, and our God.
Setting aside the fact that many Mississippians are perfectly content to live happy and productive lives in which they need no supernatural agents, Sessions is right. Each of us does decide what we believe. For some of us, it is preferable to live in the real world than to participate in the maintenance of one we suspect to be false. For us, the relevance of the Jesus myth lies primarily in the disdain and hatred we receive from many Mississippians calling themselves Christians.