Religious delusion

In one of the comments made to an article in Cincinnati's Courier-Journal about the plan to jointly promote the Cincinnati Zoo and the Creation Museum, the writer said this:

"...I believe the Bible is true, but don't necessarily believe that all of the Creation Museum's message is true (for example, I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old). However, I am convinced that Jesus is the Son of God, and that belief does not depend on what someone else has told me."


The comment caught my attention for several reasons. First, in spite of what Ken Ham and other creationist kooks would like us to conclude, most Christians think creationism is nonsense and have no problem with the concept and thus the theory of evolution. They do not think the first chapter of Genesis is to be read literally, but poetically or metaphorically. They recognize that the second creation story (actually the oldest of the two) beginning in Gen. 2:4, contradicts the first story in Genesis 1 in several important ways, and that fact alone blows creationism out of the water.

The commenter recognizes the fallacy of the creationist viewpoint.


Secondly, the writer is "convinced" that Jesus is the Son of God." "Son of God" is a theological term which, while it does appear in the Gospel accounts, scholars cannot agree on its precise meaning. Jesus does not use this term to refer to himself. It is likely an attempt on the part of the Gospel writers to stress what they thought was Jesus' unique relationship to the "Father." Son of man," which is the more common term for Jesus, is generally conceded to refer to a human being and presupposes no divine attributes.

"Son of God," however, being a theological term, was taken to suggest divinity to 2nd century Christians in that the term was used of most gods in that era, and was also used in reference to the Roman emperor. Exactly how that works - how Jesus is the "Son of God," though, cannot be effectively described. The church fought over this concept for hundreds of years, sometimes violently, until the bishops came to an agreement -- more or less -- which resulted in the confusing and inscrutable terminology of the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed didn't clear up the issue, but muddied it. What does the term "Son of God" mean when the Son of God is God also, along with the Holy Ghost? The whole business breaks up in a jumble of gibberish and the term "Son of God" remains a meaningless concept because it cannot be defined with any precision whatsoever.


Finally, the commenter claims to believe Jesus was the Son of God all on his own: "...that belief does not depend on what someone else has told me."

Really? Where did it come from, then? Out of the blue? A voice in the heavens? A dream at night?

All religious belief derives from someone else! A belief in that "Jesus was the Son of God" derives from Christian writings that began in the 2nd century which were preserved by the church to the present time.

He believes only because someone else, who had read that Jesus was the Son of God and believed it, told him this was the right thing to believe!

Hopefully, he has also looked at some other options.