Sunday, August 28, 2005

My Cross to Bear...

I have a necklace with a fairly large gold crucifix. Full-blown Christ nailed to some wood crucifix.

This confuses some people.

I wear it constantly. While I sleep. In the shower. I actually got it caught in a net while dunking in a game of basketball, and tore my neck up pretty damn badly.

This gives some people ammunition.

See, I'm an agnostic, with heavy leanings toward atheism. I'm not going to say there's NO god (not that arrogant), but I'm pretty damn sure of it. One thing's for certain, I'm definitely not a Christian. I'm in the school of thought that good ol' Yashua ben Yosef never even existed, much less was a rabbi, prophet, or devine.

So why the hell do I have his tortured body dangling from my neck?

I'm not that damn sacrilegious, if that's what you're thinking.

See, I bought it about 8 years ago, before I was absolutely sure about [read: bothered acknowledging] my (lack of) beliefs. It wasn't bought as any sort of representation of faith anyway.

When first faced with the dilemma, I tried to explain it as a "representation of sacrifice," but that was utter bullshit, because I didn't believe the story behind it.

It is rather noticeable, and does get plenty of compliments - which frequently lead to inquiries into my faith, which in turn lead to religious "discussion" (which I'm not exactly looking to avoid). I've used that as justification too. After all, I love a debate.

But there's the whole integrity issue. I'm all about the truth. Honesty. How can I run around criticizing a belief system while wearing its symbol?

Because I'm a conceited bastard, that's why. I've accepted that it's pure superficial vanity. I wear it because it looks good.

Which makes me no different than 90% of the other people who wear one.

EDIT: Since this was originally posted, I have realized and acknowledged that I am indeed an atheist. A strong atheist. I also realize that an Agnostic is not a "third choice" as most people tend to think: there can be agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, because it addresses an entirely different concept. When it comes to theism, you can only be athiestic or theistic--there is no middle ground.

4 comments:

Marcus said...

DUB, I call myself an atheist, not because I know there's no God, but because I believe there's no God. I'll cheerfully admit that I might be wrong about this, just like I could be wrong in my belief that Zeus doesn't exist. But the probability is pretty damn low, in my estimation. (By the way, it's funny how everyone is an atheist with respect to all gods except their own, isn't it?)

If your doubt about God's existence is on a par with your doubt about Zeus' existence, I'd say you're an atheist. From reading through your very interesting blog, I'd bet you qualify.

Thanks for some good food for thought. I'll be back for more...

DUB said...

Thank you, Marcus. I will also be visiting your blog.

The line between Agnosticism and Atheism seems quite thin. And quite gray. As with all titles, the definition can vary greatly depending on the source delivering it.

For all intensive purposes, I am DNA-test-results certain that no god/s exist. I see no need or purpose for it. The Judeo-Christian(-Muslim) god is absolutely on the shelves next to Zeus et al..

That said, I don't believe I can say anything with absolute certainty (not trying to be semantic or metaphysical here), thus my use of "agnostic."

If the difference does indeed lie in the distinction between believing and knowing, then I am, indeed, an atheist.

DUB said...

I said "intensive purposes."

Shame, shame, shame.

gypsy said...

Amazing that your post came just a week after mine.

Great minds...and all that.

I'm enjoying wading through your blog. There's a lot of good stuff here.

Thanks for the comment!