Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
Drew Ryun, Jim Ryun's baby boy and former Evangelical Outreach director for the RNC, thinks Mormonism is weird. He defends that claim by encouraging people bothered by that statement to read up on Mormon theology. He then defends his own views, writing:
if you're weirded out by orthodox Christianity. . . that's your problem.It's my opinion that any religion looks weird to outsiders. I think it's problematic to suggest that weirdness only belongs to others, or that it is an automatic strike against an idea.
Praying towards Mecca 5 times a day is a little weird, so is washing your hands and feet each time. I don't know that Joseph Smith's story about Moroni, the Golden Plates, Urim and Thumim is that much weirder than Mohammed's revelation from Gabriel, or Moses and the Burning Bush. Buddha's chance at nirvana is pretty weird, too, as is much of the Mahabharata.
Orthodox Christian theology can seem very strange to an outsider. It argues that sin entered the world because Adam and Eve - two perfect beings created by a perfect, omniscient and omnipotent God - ate a fruit. Orthodox Christianity further holds that that sin passes down to all human beings without exception. Actually, there was one exception, Mary, on whom God sired a child, a child both separate from and part of the father. Orthodox Christianity then goes on to argue that the only way an omniscient and omnipotent deity could purge the sin derived from eating a fruit was by allowing, perhaps even orchestrating and causing, the son to be charged, convicted and killed in an agonizing manner, after which the body was physically transported to heaven, after which a vision of it appears to various people, mostly in rural settings or on grilled foodstuffs.
Speaking of grilled foodstuffs, orthodox Christianity places a great emphasis on the act of communion, which to an outsider looks a great deal like ritualized cannibalism. The worshipper approaches the priest, who holds out a wafer and a cup of wine, which he declares to be the "body of Christ," and the "blood of Christ." After eating and drinking, the worshipper is told "May the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you unto eternal life."
To an outsider, the yarmulke, phylacteries and tallit worn by some Jews during worship look pretty weird. The idea of a bush that burns without being consumed is pretty weird. The concept of any miracle is weird, and is supposed to be weird. If it weren't it wouldn't be very miraculous, would it?
My point here is not to be dismissive (though I don't doubt someone will strip this of context and take it that way). I like weird in general, and I don't think weirdness alone is a strike against a religion. Religion is built around mystery, and always has been. Mysteries that aren't weird wouldn't be mysterious. Faith is about things unseen, and resides in the most private and personal parts of our minds. Each of our minds are totally commonplace to ourselves, but totally opaque, and hence weird, to anyone else. The language we use to describe our minds strips much of that mysterious weirdness away; it has to if it is to be at all comprehensible.
Religion, through its symbology and specialized language, attempts to provide a way to talk about such things. Different communities of faith develop their own common languages to describe and share a particular sort of experience, one that is in principle inexpressible (or at least incomprehensible to anyone but the speaker). To that group with that common language, it all makes sense. To an outsider, it's gibberish at best, weird and dangerous at worst.
Slacktivist's weekly commentary on Left Behind is a great example of a way that even coreligionists can be "weirded out" by one another's beliefs, and his commentary on religion in general is a great example of how one can reach beyond that specialized "weird" language to communicate at least some of that content to an audience that doesn't share the language, but does share common understandings of the empirical world.
Comments
What some of these fundamental atheists fail to realise is that thinking on a purely materialistic plane can cause you to miss out on some important truths. Like how the number of midgits and pirates have declined over the past century.
I will pray that you too will soon be touched by his noodly appendage.
Ramen.
Posted by: MartinC | May 6, 2007 12:53 PM
All hail the FSM!
Posted by: Shalini | May 6, 2007 8:17 PM
That's their self-righteous mantra: I'm right, and if you disagree you're wrong. Or in this case, "weird."
You know what else is weird? Running for Congress after being embarrassed in the previous election. At least I think so. I'm sure Drew doesn't share the sentiment.
Posted by: James | May 6, 2007 9:30 PM
Believing the Holocaust didn't happen is weird.
But maybe I'm not being open enough? Errrr...
Some ideas are weird because they're so divorced from reality that they are incomprehensible to people who don't share the same delusion. Yes, believing Jesus is separate from God while being God at the same time is weird. It's also irrational, nonsensical, and quite frankly false.
I hope I never become so uncritical that I cease to be dismissive of ideas that obviously have no foundation in reality, logic, and/or reason. I hope I never become so gullible that "faith" suffices as a good explanation for me.
I'm willing to accept "weird" ideas which can be demonstrated with evidence and reasonable arguments. But "faith" is pure nonsense. I could take it on faith that the Moon is made of cheese. Believing this would be weird, and it would also be stupid, it would be contrary to the facts, and it would be just plain wrong.
Posted by: Wes | May 6, 2007 11:43 PM
"Orthodox Christianity" is something quite different from the “orthodox (small “o”) theology” that you’re attempting to describe. What you're referring to as “Orthodox” is really Protestantism, with a touch of Catholicism. Unfortunately, many people mistakenly use the word "Orthodox" (with a capital “O”) as an adjective to modify or describe a noun; in this case “theology.” You should have used a small “o,” in this case, i.e. “orthodox Christianity,” not “Orthodox Christianity.”
When Orthodox is capitalized, it’s a noun referring to a 2000 year old institution known as the Orthodox Church. Orthodox mean “right teaching.”
Orthodox (capital “O”) theology does not teach that sin was passed down through Adam and Eve. It teaches that we inherit the *consequences* of their sin, which is quite different from inheriting the sin itself. Unfortunately, none of us who live in this fallen world are immune.
Adam and Eve were created in God’s image but were given the ability to choose, as we all are. What they chose was not what God had wanted for them or for us. None of us are “perfect.”
God did not kill his Son to exact some kind of payment for our sin as many Protestants purport. Christ took on our fallen natures, so He could release us from the consequences of death and give us eternal life; a subtle distinction, but a powerful one. In essence, he became man so he could undo what we could not. It takes some studying, but I promise you that as theology goes, it’s much more palatable than the idea that God would exact some kind of hellish punishment on His son, because of our inadequacies.
When you have the opportunity, GOOGLE the teachings of the Orthodox Church. With your obvious intelligence, you may find Orthodox theology quite enlightening and perhaps not all that improbable, as you rightly observed about some of the errors perpetuated by other belief systems. At the very minimum, you’ll discover that what you’ve been calling “orthodox” isn’t really Orthodox at all. ;-)
Posted by: G. S. | May 7, 2007 2:53 AM
"a wafer and a cup of whine"?
Posted by: Noturus | May 7, 2007 3:18 AM
But weren't these "consequences" thought up and signed off on by God/Jesus themselves?
So why not just release us without having to go through all of the false sacrifice pageantry, especially since the vast majority of mankind would have no knowledge of it anyway?
.
Posted by: Ick of the East | May 7, 2007 5:18 AM
G.S., The author is merely trying to point out that most religions are pretty "weird". If 200 million people believe that Jesus died for their sins, or whatever. Then that is no stranger than 5000 people believing in Xenu or alien souls modifying theaten levels, or whatever. So even if he did incorrectly describe your particular brand of Christian faith it doesn't make his point any less valid.
Posted by: Whatever | May 7, 2007 10:52 AM
G.S., I am aware of the distinction between "orthodox Christianity" and "Orthodox Christianity," and I tried to be consistent in my capitalization (and with Drew Ryun's original usage, which muddied the waters).
The fine lines of theological disputes between the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Churches are a good example of how people think their own religions are logical and other people's are "weird." The nature of theology s to be "weird." There's nothing pejorative about that. Exceptional is weird, and if theology doesn't deal in the exceptional, why bother.
Some people (Wes for instance) say "don't bother." I'm inclined not to care if people bother, so long as they don't bother me.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | May 7, 2007 12:15 PM
This is you at your best and most insightful writing Josh. Star this one for your collection. The touch of Catholicism I believe is my doing and I'm flattered to have left a mark.
Posted by: aisnu | May 8, 2007 10:18 AM
My faith is pretty straight forward to outsiders. God created the Universe last Thursday.
See, it's much easier to create a Universe that's just a light-week in radius than to create one that's 45 billion light years across. And, it's instant gratification. You don't have to wait 13.7 billion years to get the the entertaining bits. Plus, you can do reruns! It could easily be the same week over and over. Just like Groundhog Day, but for everyone.
Posted by: Stephen | May 9, 2007 12:15 PM