As an atheist, do you still “acknowledge” Jesus Christ?

For the most part,I agree with you, although I suspect He was a real person. I'm convinced by agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman (and majority of other scholars) that the historical Jesus did exist. But to me it's an academic question. As theologian Albert Schweitzer said, the historical Jesus may be "too historical"--i.e.,a product of His times, over two millennia ago. Like Schweitzer, I'm attracted to the Jesus of Faith in the gospels (whether or not He existed) who reportedly preached and practiced unconditional love for all, including society's rejects.

It's all speculative, but if we're just looking at it from a purely objective standpoint, trying to guess what happened on the basis of limited evidence, I think it's plausible to think of Jesus as one of a number of messianic leaders who appeared around the same time, when apocalyptic fever was in the air and people were chafing under Roman rule. New Testament scholar Marcus Borg wrote a book Conflict,Holiness in the Politics of Jesus in which he comes to pretty much the same conclusion you have: "he was probably some cult figure/leader, and a liberal dissident of his era, who rubbed the period conservatives the wrong way and got removed for his troubles trough a plot to get the Romans involved." More specifically, he was operating at a time when the major Jewish sects were into purity and maintaining their separate identity under attack from Greco-Roman influences. And Jesus preached instead a gospel of inclusion, launching an "in your face" attack on the purity rules by :consorting with "unclean" people like tax collectors, prostitutes and lowlifes, healing lepers, coming in contact with corpses, and challenging the authority of the Temple by healing the sick without priestly intervention. His ministry lasted only three years, and its surprising it took that long for him to get executed. The big showdown seemed to come when He made his entry into Jerusalem, being hailed as King of the Jews. Needless to say, it wasn't hard for the Temple authorities to persuade the Romans to nail him up.

I don't think superstitious sheep herders were involved (most of his closest followers seemed to be fishermen). And I'm not sure "fabrication" exactly fits. I'll try to take off my religious glasses and advance a plausible secular account of the available facts, which might be entirely off base. Having the man they were following as the messiah who would restore Israel to greatness crucified was obviously a crisis for Jesus' followers. They would either have to give up their dearest hopes, or find some way of making sense of it all. Some of them reportedly began receiving experiences of Jesus. As we know from Elvis sightings, this isn't unheard of. Millions mourners of deceased loved ones have had them in our own time. Is It Real, or Is It Hallucination? Luke's account in Acts tells us that at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles and filled the demoralized group with new energy and determination to continue the cause. As you say, nobody knew anything about science, so they would tend to interpret the experience in supernatural terms.. As somebody who knows at least something about science, my faith rests on a conversion experience which was emotionally quite profound and which I can't fully explain, although I'm willing to attribute it to psychological processes.

Christianity then spread by word of mouth until Paul started writing in the 50s. As we know from childhood experience with the game of Telephone, the story can change is it spreads from one mouth to another. Like all other religions, it developed a body of miracle stories.Then came Paul, who was fired up by his own personal experience of a Jesus encounter--in a vision. Remarkably, he was able to convince people that this put him on a par with the apostles who had known Jesus in person!. Was he a charlatan or a nutjob, or a sincere visionary? As I said in an earlier post, he seems to have been influenced by the school of Jewish merkabah mysticism, like the author of the John gospel and emphasizing mystical visions. This was a major turning point, since the "Judaism light' version of Christianity preached by Paul caught on in the Roman world.

As i said, this is highly impressionistic on my part, based at least as much on instincts and impressions as hard evidence. Its just my own take, for what it's worth.

 

Wasn't sure you intended to be serious here, but I think I should give your post more thoughtful attention.

All true. but I think beside the point. I suspect that all of the Jesuses you knew in high school were named after the one I've been talking about, Jesus the Nazarene. There were lots of Yeshuas back then, too, but Nazareth was a pretty small town, so He might have been the only one. Anyhow, we're talking about the Jesus who was reputed to have led a cult and was crucified by the Romans. Sure, lots of people were crucified by the Romans, but one apparently made enough of an impression that his disciples continued to follow him after his death, despite the prospect of persecution by the Roman authorities.

The serious question here is:was He real or made up? We don't know for sure, but can only draw conclusions on the basis of the admittedly meager evidence available and our judgment . If He was made up, who made Him up and why? I could see the cyberpunks at 4-chan doing this with the benefit of the internet, but if the disciples went out on the street and said "Guess what, there was this guy Jesus who led a large following, did healings and miracles and rose from the dead", is it likely large numbers of people would have believed them--especially when this was not long after He was supposed to have lived, when people were around when this was supposedly going on.? Maybe, but my guess is probably not. It's interesting that in all the attacks by Jews on Jesus' character at the time, one thing they didn't challenge was His existence. As I said, I find it odd that anyone making up such a figure would make up a crucified criminal who would be unpalatable to Jews and Gentiles alike. And then there's the issue of his brother James, who, as I've previously argued, is not likely to be somebody Paul mad up, and is corroborated by Josephus,The additional evidence that persuades most scholars, both secular and religious, is thoroughly explored in:
Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?
Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus
Mark Powell, Jesus s a Figure in History
Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament
A small minority of atheists operating mainly on the internet argue the opposite. I've looked at their arguments and find them unpersuasive, but if people want to look into all these, I'd be glad to discuss them. I think it's largely an academic question, because the more important questions are whether or not He was a supernatural figure, and whether or not

Actually, Christianity made considerable headway before any of this killing started. In fact Christians were more likely to be victims before the fourth century. The most thorough analysis of this is Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity,which applies sociological analysis to explain the exponential growth of the movement. Among the factors he identifies are (1) the early popularity of the movement among women, who were originally valued and sometimes held positions as deacons; (2) the fact that during the plagues of the third century, Christians attracted favorable attention by staying behind to care for the sick, while pagans headed for the hills,(3) the fact that greater social cohesion and mutual aid gave Christians and advantage in coping with the multiple disasters of he third century; (4) the attractiveness of the promise of an afterlife; (5) the attention attracted by brave acceptance of martyrdom; and (6) the more rapid increase in Christian population because of Christian prohibitions against birth control, abortion and infanticide. It is true that the success of Christianity, especially its adoption by Constantine and conversion of the Prince of Peace into General Jesus, transformed the religion into a coercive force. Power corrupts, and that's amply illustrated by the subsequent history of the Church. Even after that , particularly after the collapse of the western Roman Empire followed by the Dark Ages, the Church played a positive role in providing the only strong universal institution uniting the people, and in the preservation of culture by monks copying manuscripts . Also, mustn't forget the "heretical" branches who broke with mainline Christians at the Council of Chalcedon, The Nestorians settled in Asia where they served as important advisers to Muslim governments and missionaries to Persia, Central Asia, China and India.These Christians weren't into persecuting anybody, although they were often persecuted themselves.

 

In discussing this, one thing weighs on my mind. We live in an information age, with mass media, professional journalists, and the internet. Yet I think we've all become aware of the problem of "alternative facts" and fake news. This makes it practically impossible to be sure of anything--apparently including who won the last presidential election. Consider then the problem of assessing the existence of a first century peasant preacher in a backwater province of the Roman empire when the original witnesses were illiterate. We can either leave it alone or go on our judgment about what seems to be the best available evidence.

 

....

Atheist I am.

I don’t mean to insult or upset the believers here.
But...

NO I do not acknowledge Jesus Christ at all.!
It was/is all just Fairy Tales so as to control the masses.
As is the bible.
Raising from the dead?
My arse!

 

We're entitled to our opinions, but some opinions are more reasonable than others. Take Paul, for example. I have the opinion that he is unreliable on some important matters. His contacts with Jesus were entirely with his visions. When people tell me they know something on the basis of a mystical vision, I'm skeptical. On the other hand, we have thirteen letters that he supposedly wrote to audiences across the Mediterranean world, seven of which scholars think he actually wrote. He could have made up his audiences. That would require a level of skepticism that goes beyond that of most mythicists. In the letters. he makes clear there were Christians before him, and that he did not invent the religion. In fact, he claims to have persecuted it, as being contrary to Judaism. And in the letter to Galatians, one of the ones scholar are convinced is authentic, he tells about his disputes with them, the men sent by James to check out rumors he was preaching false doctrine, what he calls the "circumcision faction"--Jewish Christians who believed Christians must follow the law of Moses. And his dispute with Peter over giving in to them. And he makes references, maybe with a tinge of sarcasm, to the "pillars" of the Church--James, Peter, and John--who were the acknowledged leaders because they were supposedly closest to Jesus. If he made all that up, he was really off his rocker--imaginary rivals!

Too much to imagine? Some people have lively imaginations. But I find it implausible that Galatians, for example. was made up. He was scolding the people for having abandoned his version of the faith after the men sent from James got to them--James, the guy he called the brother of the Lord and whose existence is corroborated by Josepus.

As for the existence of Paul, we have his letters, which historians of antiquity think is not chopped liver. Why do you think somebody would write them and attribute them to an imaginary author. A nomme de plume? And to claim that He had never mat Jesus except in a vision. Why wouldn't he just claim they were drinking buddies. Practically all scholars who have studied the matter think he was real, but what do they know? Dozens of writers who quoted him within a generation of his death. Every Clement (CE 95) Peter {CE 60) mentioned Paul,Ignatius, Polycarp, and many other late first century and early second century writers mentioned Paul. It seems unlikely they could all be deceived about the existence of the most important leader of Christianity at a time when people were alive when Paul is alive. (We could go further down the rabbit hole and ask whether or not all of them existed. For the most part, the only folks in the ancient world we can be sure of are the kings and notables who put their faces on coins and monuments, and I'm sure a determined skeptic could question that. One who does is Christ mythicist R.G. Price, who thinks Paul was really Simon Magus and that his letters were written by Marcion. Reading his book The Amazing Colossal Apostle, so full of wild, improbable leaps with little or no empirical foundation, it's hard for me to take anything Price says seriously.

Getting back to Jesus, Michael Grant (classicist; University of Edinburgh and University of Belfast, remarks: if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." There is actually a larger number of documents closer in time to Jesus’ life than for most ancient figures who weren't kings or prominent notables. Take Socrates, for example. Most of what we know about him comes from three sources: Plato, who lionizes him and uses his dialogues as the primary vehicle for developing his own philosophy; Xenophon, his military buddy, and Aristophanes, who satirizes him as a pompous buffoon. The very fact that thinkers with such different perspectives maintained that he existed is good enough for me, although I'd still be hard put to know what he was really like. Or the Siddhartha Gautama Buddha. Did he exist? The gap between when he supposedly existed and when people wrote about him is even greater than for Jesus. A shrine was uncovered at Lumbini, Nepal, one of his possible birth places dating to around the supposed time he was around in the 6th century BCE..But does that mean he was really there? And there is mention in the early texts of people who were independently confirmed to have existed, e.g.,King Bimbisara. But obviously, not much to go on.. Buddhists might say it doesn't matter, it's the teachings that count, which is what I say about Jesus. But if I had to venture a judgment, I'd say it's more likely than not that the Buddhist tradition was developed around the teachings of a real person.

Then there's the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh. Much more recent, and more evidence about him, but not enough to convince skeptics like Robert Spencer, who wrote a book entitled Did Muhammad Exist? in which he suggests (not exactly shows) the answer is No. Spencer is an active Islamaphobe who seems to have dedicated his life to attacking Islam. His scholarly credentials are thin, to put it charitably. He is a college graduate, but no Ph,D.,and no publications in referee journals. The latte Patricia Crone, the Danish scholar who was skeptical about most things involving Islamic history, concluded "There is no doubt that Muhammad existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbors in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that “a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens.' There is also "a document drawn up between
Muhammad and the inhabitants of Yathrib, which there are good reasons to accept as broadly authentic."https://cmes.uchicago.edu/sites/cmes.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Outreach/Resources/History/Patricia Crone_What do we actually know about Muhammad (from openDemocracy.net)_June 2008.pdf .

Lastly, we can consider the nature of reality itself. Nick Bostrom, a professor at Oxford University, thinks that we're all living in a Matrix-style virtual reality generated by--whom? Extraterrestrials? If that's so, everything we think we experience is an illusion. (Where are Morpheus and Neo when you really need them?) Much of our science rest on ultimately unprovable assumptions, like Occam's razor, preferring the simplest ones--and its all tentative.

I'll close with an observation by an ex-Jesus mythicist, G.A. Wells, who now concludes:"Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive, figure." Well, He still impresses me, but that's mainly because of the stories that grew up around Him concerning His life teachings, whether He said or did them or not.

 

Well said Kenny matey, we'll make a Marxist of you yet, as you're quoting from Gran daddy Karl himself !!!


BTW how does one raise an arse from the dead and what do you attach it to ???

 

True. They could have been written by Isadore Garfinkle. Whatever. But the people I mentioned living at the time, Clement, Polycarp, etc. thought it was Paul, and the content, as I tried to explain, is rather elaborate for somebody to have made up--the complaints about Peter, James, etc. I guess a really ingenious hoaxter might have thought sparring with imaginary rivals might be a good way to convince his audience they were real. But Occam's razor cuts the other way.
I should also have mentioned the Ebionites, Jewish Christians of the first century (the term means "the poor", who practiced voluntary poverty, vegetarianism, ritual bathing, and communal living, thought Jesus was merely a human who became the adopted Son of God, rejected the virgin birth, and accused Paul of being a renegade. They bear a certain resemblance to the "circumcision faction" that Paul complained was dogging him, and also, in every particular, to the Essenes at Qumran who are thought to have written the dead sea scrolls. I'm willing to put two and two together and say they were Essenes who converted to Christianity. And who was their leader? Historian Robert Eisenman, a Jew, wrote a 1074 page book arguing it was --wait for it: James. James the Brother of Jesus.

As a matter of fact, there is. Josephus,Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1. He describes him as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Ah, "proof". You said the magic word. There's no proof for any of it, if you mean by that enough evidence to convince people beyond a reasonable doubt, or even a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). The best we cam strive for in ancient history is substantial evidence--enough to convince reasonable persons even though other reasonable persons are not so convinced. That's the standard used by administrators to decide the safety of roads and bridges and exposure to hazardous chemicals. Life is risky.

.So you're actually taking the position that we can dismiss a good deal of what we think of as ancient history because such records don't exist. Most historians in the field aren't that cautious, and are willing to proceed on the basis of reasonable inferences from the available data. But what do they know?

Well it does matter to historians who are trying to understand the past, and to followers to whom the existence of their heroes is important .

I brought it up simply to illustrate that to a certain extent all of what we believe is uncertain. There are some folks who think that science (i.e."hard" natural science) is the Holy Grail, and if it ain't hard it ain't shit. I think that offers a pretty limited outlook on reality. I draw heavily on the social sciences and history, recognizing their limitations. There is no real "proof", in the beyond a reasonable doubt sense. But at least they strive for substantial evidence. Enough to convince a reasonable panel of scholarly referees, even though others might not be convinced. I had a co-worker once, an atheist and hard core empiricist, whose job was under attack--I thought unfairly--for reasons related to workplace politics. We weren't friendly, but I offered to help him, at considerable risk to my own job--something that didn't sit well with my wife at the time. (this was shortly after ny own conversion when I was still on a pink cloud. I remember his frightened look and shaking hand, scattering ashes all over the floor. "I have no reason to trust you", he said. But I persuaded him he had no choice. It turned out well for him, and I can say with considerable confidence that if it hadn't been for Jesus dying on the cross, real or invented, that guy's job would have been toast.

For the most part, yes. I'm fortunate to have found a couple of Sunday school classes in which everything is subject to question, including even that. They're definitely practicing Christians, high on our own view of what it's all about. Progressive Christians are certainly a minority, but we're hanging in there!

Be my guest. I admit I tend to be impressed by scholars with Ph.D's after their names, who have attained positions on faculties of major universities and have submitted their research to peer review in leading refereed journals. I know that these folks have been trained in norms of objective research, even though I recognize the inevitable biases that go along with being human (especially that they have a vested interest in the line of research they've undertaken. I also tend to be impressed by professional news organizations like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN, although Lord knows their biases are clear. And I tend to go by what the experts at the CDC tell us (Need I list the number of accepted facts that most of those physicians agreed upon that were later shown to be in error?) My friends have different takes, dismissing those outlets as organs of the Deep State and opting for Fox, Breitbart and Alex Jones. Or, as others do,simply opting out of news altogether cuz you can't trust any of it. I find the situation with Jesus research to be similar. The mythicists tend to avoid the scholarly journals, which they say are hopelssly biased, and turn instead mainly to internet blogging. There are exceptions. Richard Carrier has a Columbia Ph.D., and has written a refereed book which in many respects is impressive. (In others, not so much. We coud talk about that at lenght, if you want.) Needless to say, I think those guys have their biases, too.

Before I close, I might revisit the subject of Paul of Tarsus. I've explained why I tend to believe, along with most scholars, that he was a real guy, for better or for worse. Do I think he made the world better or worse? From the perspective of cultural evolution, he helped to put Christianity on the map and lay the basic doctrinal foundation for what has become the world's largest religion today. Without him, Christianity, if it survived at all, might have remained a small sect of Jewish Christians stressing circumcision and kosher and keeping Torah. And I really respond to what seems to me to be a sincere effort to bring Jews and Gentiles together. However, Paul (or whoever wrote those letters) is responsible for what I consider to be some of the more pathological aspects of Christianity. He introduced the idea of vicarious atonement: the notion that Jesus' mission was to be a willing sacrifice to His Father for our sins. This was based on the Paschal lamb that was sacrificed in the Temple on Passover. And he taught people that to attain eternal life, all we needed to do was believe in and accept this sacrifice. These weren't the only ideas about Jesus mission and salvation. I then to go by Luke's idea that the crucifixion served as a shock to conscience by showing man's inhumanity to man. Luke's Interpretation of Jesus' Death and I also believe in James' epistles (authentic or not) stressing that "faith without works is dead". But it was Paul who caught on, especially among Saint Augustine and Luther. Paul was more interested in Jsus' death and resurrection than in His life and teachings. I think that's unforturnae, whether or not we can ever know what the life and teachings were really like.

I do,too, maybe too much.

 

I have witnessed such psychic abilities in yogis and enlightened masters, honestly speaking. This was useful in helping get rid of much of my skepticism and cynicism based on my being a rationalist which I still am . As the japanese saying goes, 'One look is worth a thousand reports.'

I consider much of these psychic abilities as something which anyone can possess provided they put in the right efforts. You can see the likes of established historical figures like the Buddha and Mahavira, founders of Buddhism and Jainism exhibiting such abilities. Same with Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism.

In modern times, the likes of Sri Ramakrishna, Shirdi Sai Baba, Anandamayi Ma, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has also showed similar abilities. The yoga sutras of Patanjali describe the various abilities that are derived by practice of certain yogic sadhanas.

Such abilities have also been seen in sufi enlightened sages.

I consider Jesus to be a similar enlightened sage who unfortunately was not able to make much ground in the Middle East due to the persecution of the orthodox Jews and the romans later on, and his teachings in the bible seem consequently to be more of a jigsaw puzzle lacking coherence due to heavy tampering.

I have expressed my views in this regard in this post of mine...

Progressive Christian theology

Because of the seeming incoherence and the control mechanisms that came with it, there is a lot of opposition to christianity/churchianity at present to the point of even denying the existence of Christ. Imho, that would be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

In other words, you think they probably made up a Paul who made up Jesus? Never trust a Chrisitian? Refusing to believe anything religious people say because they're biased reminds me so much of my Retrumplican friends, who refuse to believe anything the Librul media, cuz they're agents of the Deep State. Most historians of antiquity aren't that skeptical, but if you want to be, fine. It's a free country. However, I and many historians would ask further questions before relegating Paul to the trash can.

What we seem to have, as best as scholars can determine, are letters going back to the first decades of Christianity--some dating to the fifties--written by a single author and putting forth views on Christanity that eventually became orthodox doctrine. Obviously somebody wrote them, whether his name was Paul (Saul) or something else. If Paul didn't write them, who did? Price thinks Marcion, but that seems unlikely, because the letters present positions which are at odds with Marcion's virulent anti-Semitism and his belief that Yahweh was an evil demiurge. And if he was made up, why would someone make up a character who claimed to know Jesus from a vision, unlike the other apostles? Wouldn't they make up somebody who was the earthly Jesus' fishin' buddy or closest disciple? And why would this made up character proceed to air his grievance over Peter and James, (who he supposedly made up ) when the people who made him up could have had all these imaginary characters get along? (Actually, Luke tried to do something like the as best he could in Acts decades later, but the genie was out of the bottle). Such an explanation could be, but I suspect Occam might be slashing his wrists with his razor.

Substantial evidence means enough to convince a reasonable person, even though other reasonable persons might not be convinced.If reasonable people present and analyze evidence and are convinced of something on the basis of the available evidence, that's a pretty good indication that they consider it to be substantial. A great majority of scholars in the field do believe that Jesus was a real person. These are folks, secular, Christian and Jewish who hold positions in major universities, have Ph.Ds, know a classical language,and have published their research in leading refereed scholarly journals and books by major publishers, and have staked their careers on careful examination of the available evidence. So you believe they aren't reasonable? Have you read any of their books and articles? Which points do you take issue with? To give you some examples of scholars generally regarded as reasonable who seem to be convinced:

• .Maurice Casey (agnostic; University of Nottingham): "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship." Jesus; Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths.
• Bart Ehrman (agnostic; James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." Forged: Writing in the Name of God, pp.256-57.
• Graham Stanton, University of Cambridge."Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically." The Gospels and Jesus
• Richard Burridge, University of Manchester, and Graham Gould, King's College, London: There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore."
• Marcus Bockmuehl, Oxford University. "theories that Jesus' existence ws a Christian invention are highly implausible."

• Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary.: "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds."
• And I previously mentioned G.A. Wells (Oxford) who once was one of the few Christ mythicists with a scholarly reputation, but later conceded His existence--not because he found religion but because he was convinced the evidence warranted it.

These scholars might all be wrong in their assessments, but it would be going some to dismiss them all as unreasaonable.

Actually, the scholars I've mentioned and lots of others in the field who come to the same conclusion do that too, as best anyone can on the basis of available evidence. If you've read any of these, we can have a discussion about the evidence and arguments they consider. We might do so on another thread though, cuz, after all, this is the atheist forum.

 

"Supernatural" is a term we use for anything which we're unable to explain on the basis of existing scientific theories. Without knowing further what kinds of experiences AjayO is talking about, it's hard to assess the claims. I tend to go by the rule of thumb that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." For example I've never seen documentation of a human virgin birth, although there have been some by Komodo dragons, one around Christmas. Virgin birth by Komodo dragons
Virgin Birth Expected at Christmas—By Komodo Dragon.
(A virgin dragon giving birth on Christmas? That kid must be the Anti-Christ.!) I have no trouble accepting healing "miracles",given what we know about hysteric and psychosomatic illnesses and the placebo effect. And grief hallucinations seem to be not uncommon, possibly explaining encounters with the resurrected Jesus. Lots of research has been done on ESP and Near Death Experiences, although think the jury is still out on those. Add of course, there's schizophrenia, temporal lobe epilepsy, etc..I tend to look for naturalistic explanations first. As I've said before, I became a Christian as a result of a conversion experience I can't explain, but I'm open to psychological explanations.

 

...

 

More and more, so it seems to me, the religion of my Indian neighbors explains spiritual events we can actually experience. Christianity might have been similar but has been beaten into unrecognizable shards by evangelical thugs and thugettes. Accepting the bond with our animal brethren explains much and reduces a homocentric egoism that is entirely unjustified.