I'm Sorry I'm a Christian – A poem by Chris Tse

Chris Tse presenting his poem at the Poetry Slam Vancouver. He was the 1st place winner on the 21st of December 2009 with a score of 57.3 with his poem.

I am a Christian. I’m sorry.

I’m sorry for the way that I come across

So fair and faith friendly and full of myself

Judging your spiritual health by

the words that you say

And the way that you dress, and the things that you do

Or maybe just judging you.

I’m sorry for the way that I live my life

So confident of my own beliefs that

I would never even think to think about thinking about yours

I’m sorry for the wars.

Ivory clad Crusaders mounting steeds and drawing swords

With such a spirit that if The Spirit spoke they wouldn’t hear

But you see the sword of the spirit was not a sword but the Word

And the Word was with God and the Word was God

And they preached this as they marched on the Holy Land

Singing and Praying and Killing and Slaying

And purging and healing and raping and stealing

It’s ironic that they lined their pockets in the name of God

Just like the priests who line their pockets in the name of God

Just like the people that you can’t stand, because they always raise their hand

And spread their faith and hate and judgment in the name of God

I’m sorry that I take God’s name in vain

Or rather I’m sorry that I stain the name of God

Defending my selfish actions as selfless actions pertaining to the will of God

I’m sorry for being intolerant

For trying to talk down to you

For trying to talk over you

For not letting you talk

I’m sorry for not walking the walk

For being a hypocritical critical Christian

Criticizing your pagan lifestyle while my lifestyle styles itself

Just like the televangelist’s hair

All slick and sly and slippery

As the silver syllables slide their way into your ear

But see that’s my greatest fear

That the steps I take won’t match the words I speak

So that when I speak all you hear of me

is a weak hypocritical critical Christian

Doing one thing, but saying another

Loving my friend, but hating my brother

It’s a show.

I’m sorry I get drunk on Saturdays

and go to church on Sundays to pray

for my friends who get drunk on Saturdays

And on that note,

I’m sorry for making the church about the pews and the cross

And the walls and the steeple

Because see, the building is not the church

The church is the people

I’m sorry that I hate you because you are gay

I’m sorry I condemn you to hell because you are gay

Instead of loving I jump to hatred

Mouth open and tongue preaching

Eyes open but not seeing that you are the same as me

Just a fucking human being

I’m sorry that I only hang out with Christian friends

And we do nice Christian things

Like pot luck dinners and board game nights

While in the night a man beats his girlfriend again

Another homeless man died again

Is this the way that my own crowd has been?

But here I am with the same friends again

But see what I always forget is that Jesus didn’t come

to hang out with the priests and the lords.

No, He hung out with cripples and beggars and whores

Love

I’m sorry for history

For native tribes wiped out in the name of the church

Lodges burning Stomachs churning and yearning for justice

And mothers screaming and pleading

Pleading for the young ones

As they are dragged away to church schools

Where they were abused

I’m sorry for the way that I refused to learn your culture

Instead I just came to spread the Gospel

And the plague

I’m sorry that I stand at the front doors of abortion clinics

Screaming at fifteen year old girls as they enter

Instead of waiting at the back door to hug them as they leave

I’m sorry for taking my wars and my faith to your lands

When historically it was on your lands that my faith was born

And in the face of the storm, I realize that

If God is Love and Love is God

Then why are we shooting instead of sharing?

Why are we launching instead of learning?

Why are we warring instead of walking together?

Why are we taking instead of talking together?

Why are we bombing instead of breaking bread together as brothers?

You see, I think that God looks down and He’s sad

And from His right hand throne above

Jesus asks where is the Love?

And if it takes Wil-I-Am and Justin Timberlake

Asking that same question for us

To start asking that same question

Then where the fuck are we headed?

So I will take this stage to be my chapel

And this mic my confession booth

And in the presence of God, the few, the proud,

and the blessed I confess, that

I am a Christian. I’m sorry.

– A poem by Chris Tse

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “I'm Sorry I'm a Christian – A poem by Chris Tse

  1. You know…It sounds like you’ve been burned by a Christian that didn’t live by what they preached. I’m sorry for that. There’s no excuse for what people have done in the name of Christ, but know that He was not in those deeds. What can I say? People make mistakes. They can fool themselves into thinking that what they’re doing, they’re doing for God. I wonder what you believe in…? Is there a higher power for you, evolution, the big bang theory? Whatever you believe in, I’d ask you why you believe in it. Your post says Atheism, and I wonder…how’s that going for you? It might be easy to believe, to think there’s no God. But how do you explain the beauty of this world? The intricate way cells are put together, could this be an accident? If we were an accident, then where did our morals come from? Where did bravery come from? Where did honesty come from? Where did faith come from? And what a lonely belief! To think, there being nothing after this world…after this existence is over, what then? Are we destined to fade away unto the stars? As if we had never existed? What would our lives mean? What would your life mean? What would anything mean? Love, even! What would love mean if there was no life after death? And I’m not talking about coming back as an animal. You’ve got to admit, there’s something special about the human race. We have a spark that no other creature on this earth does, we have souls. We are the dominant species, and we are the only species to have the abilities we do! The creative way our brains are wired! Sure, apes and gorillas are creative. They may be similar to us, but a 2% difference in genes is A LOT. Think about it. No other beings have been given the same intelligence level (although granted, they are very smart). I’m not trying to puff up the ego of the human race, we are not perfect. All I am saying is there was a purpose, a mind behind creation. Of any kind! If you are an evolutionist, imagine if you put the ingredients of a pie on a table in a kitchen….and left it alone. Would it ever become an intelligent being? Could the sunlight from the windows breathe life into the ingredients? They might mush together and the wind might knock some ingredients onto the ground or cause them to mix with other ingredients.But would it ever turn out like you? Think about it 🙂 If you removed one part of a single atom in your body, the cell wouldn’t work. So how could evolution work? It would keep failing and failing and failing. I’ve heard people say that mutations are the cause of evolution…but 99.9% of all mutations are fatal! And if the poor creature happens to survive, it doesn’t survive very long or produce healthy offspring. Another idea: if you were walking along in the forest and you happened upon a cell phone, would you think “Oh, this was naturally grown from a plant.” No. You would think, “someone designed this. There was a purpose behind it’s creation.” Right? Now, back to the subject of your poem. Yes, there are Christians out there who don’t follow what Christ stands for. Yes, there are people who do terrible things in the name of Christ. But now think about all the mistakes people make every day. We are pitiful beings! I don’t understand how we could have survived so long except for the grace of God lol! People will make mistakes, but God is always there. Just…don’t write us off ,okay?

  2. The Christian’s Dilemma

    Christians often respond to non-believers by attempting to reason and use logical inferences from their preferred doctrines. To use reason and logic within the Christian worldview, the believer must steal the concepts of reason and logic from naturalism because on the Christian worldview the alleged ruling consciousness is hypothetically capable of changing the rules at anytime within what can only be described as a cartoon universe. How can the Christian be certain that when they go to the water jar to get a drink, they won’t be dipping out a cup of wine instead as per John 2:1-9? They can’t, nor can they be certain that YHWH or THEOS did not just create them last Tuesday with a full set of false memories, feelings, sensations and such simply for its amusement. Under the Christian worldview reality is not fixed; it is rather a cartoon universe.

    (Link to essay “The Cartoon Universe of Theism” by Dawson Bethrick http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/cartoon_universe_of_theism/ )

    For these reasons, logic does not work under Christianity. But under naturalism logic does work because existence exists. Reality is fixed. A=A and A (does not equal) not-A. When the Christian asserts their god exists, they are committing the primacy of consciousness fallacy and engaging in metaphysical subjectivism. In reference, submitted for your review is http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2006/07/metaphysical-subjectivism-and.html The Christian’s case can only be made via gross question begging, they must steal logic from naturalism. Dawson Bethrick of the Incinerating Presuppostionalism blog wrote:

    “On the Christian worldview, however, facts can change at the whim of the ruling consciousness, so logic will be of no avail in reliably identifying any state of affairs in the universe. To the degree that the believer relies on logic to identify facts, he is in fact borrowing from a worldview which fundamentally contradicts Christianity. At which point we can safely say: the Christian has conceded debate just by raising the issue of logic.”

    The only hope of the theist to demonstrate their delusion as reality lays in producing direct empirical evidence of their god. However, since the theist’s alleged supernatural fantasy is defined only as the negation of that which is natural, such evidence requires omniscient knowledge that causation of whatever phenomena at question could not possibly be natural. Along these lines, it is impossible to establish the existence of any theistic or deistic god. Inductive arguments fail the Christian because to assert them requires commission of the fallacy of the stolen concept.

    But it is very easy to establish that such beings (gods) are impossible. Consider consciousness. It is the ability of an organism to be aware of existence. To believe that a theistic creator deity exists and is responsible for reality, one must think the deity a primordial, immaterial, non-spatial, consciousness that wished reality to instantiate. Further, a theism/creationism believer must believe their deity was in some timeless fashion akin to “before” existence alone in a timeless, non-spatial, void of non-existence without anything or any knowledge, alone as a consciousness, conscious of nothing or only itself. But this is categorically impossible, for to be conscious is to be aware of something in reality, and meta-consciousness must necessarily rest upon a foundation of awareness of something. That consciousness is awareness of something in reality is indisputable. Without reality there can be nothing of which to be aware. With nothing to be aware of, there can be no awareness; without awareness, there can be no consciousness. Consequently, there could not have been a primordial consciousness responsible for causing reality to obtain from non-existence.

    It may be objected that when sleeping, consciousness is not aware of reality yet still exists. Thought of as disembodied and immaterial, any primordial consciousness would be incapable of biological functions such as sleep. Thus the sleep objection has no merit.

    Similarly, it may be argued that the proposed primordial consciousness could be conscious by virtue of sensory perception, but the context being considered is that of an immaterial, disembodied, non-spatial, a-temporal, transcendent mind without knowledge or any means of acquiring knowledge. Any such consciousness would necessarily be devoid of sensory perceptional capabilities. Sensory perception is attendant to living organisms with bodies and senses. Such beings can only exist in time and space. Thus the consciousness as sensory perception argument may have merit for animals in reality but in not applicable to the fantasy of a primordial ruling consciousness.

    It may further be objected that any primordial, ruling consciousness would be of a special nature. But consciousness is an irreducible primary. It is what it is. The Law of Identity, A=A, and the corollary Law of Casualty would be in effect. If it is argued, Identity and Casualty would not apply because they had not as of then been created, then the idea of a primordial consciousness falls to the fallacy of pure self-reference. Any primordial consciousness would necessarily have to behave in accordance with its irreducible nature and consist of awareness of something in reality. But without reality, there could not be a something. Without something of which to be aware, there could not be awareness and hence no consciousness.

    Without any valid or sound concept of “creator”, all theistic or deistic religions crumble. It is impossible to validly attribute responsibility for existence to a creator-ruling-primordial-consciousness.

    I realize, of course, that you disagree, but you cannot simply shrug off the argument just given because it is irrefutable. Your burden of proof is then to show that consciousness is not awareness of reality. But consciousness is both awareness of reality and an irreducible primary brute fact of material existence. This prompts a question that no Christian is willing to answer but which they must answer if they are to be honest with themselves. By what method may others reliably distinguish any difference between what the Christian believes god to be and what they imagine god to be? If there is no way to differentiate between what Christians believe god to be and what they imagine god to be, then Christian god belief is indistinguishable from subjectively assigning truth status to an set of imaginary propositions.

    The Christian’s problem goes deeper than merely justifying their god belief, for there are two horns to this quandary. The dilemma is that they must decide which horn to impale themselves upon. If they cannot describe a method whereby somebody else may distinguish what they imagine as god from what they believe god to be, then they worship a contradictory delusion, for Christian god belief and imagination would be indistinguishable. If the Christian chooses the other horn and claims others may distinguish a difference between their god belief and what they imagine as god based upon some alleged justification for their beliefs, then they fail to understand the essential difference between a belief and an imaginary thought object.

    Remarkable as it is, no Christian I’ve ever encountered has shown the presence of mind to cite the dictionary definitions of “belief” and “imagination” when confronted with the question of by what method somebody may reliably distinguish any difference between what they believe and what they imagine god to be. Examining the definitions of “belief” and “imagination” is helpful.

    Belief is “an opinion or conviction” or “confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof” (dictionary.com) or “a vague idea in which some confidence is placed” (Worldnet).

    Imagination is “the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses” or “the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation,
    often a baseless or fanciful one” (dictionary.com).

    If something is not actually present to the senses and not susceptible to rigorous proof, as is the case with human cognition of the idea of the Christian god, then it meets the definitional requirement of an imaginary belief. The Christian’s burden of proof here is show there is a way to distinguish any difference between what they think they believe and merely imagine. By so doing, they must validate that existence of their god is susceptible to rigorous proof. However, since their god is defined as being transcendent, this would be impossible.

    If the Christian chooses to evade their responsibility to the burden of proof by attempting to justify their beliefs via an alleged religious revelation from a Holy Spirit, they must then account for the confused and mundane landscape of Christianity, for there are in excess of 14,000 religions on this planet. Christianity is only one. Amongst the Christians there are more than 33,600 sectarian denominations of the faith. Most claim to be guided, inspired, lead, or directed by the Holy Spirit, yet they hold a wide diversity of doctrines, dogmas, and religious expressions. Few can claim to share common Kerugma, Christology Soteriology, or Eschatology. Even allowing 99% of all Christian groups to be self-deluded, still there would remain more than 330 sects that no doubt would relish the chance to purge the world of heresy by force of arms. There is simply no way any purposeful directive intelligence is underlying Christianity. But what we do ascertain is very much what we would expect if Christianity is simply another man made religion. The Christian’s burden of proof in this case would seem to entail demonstrate that there is only one version of Christianity or that all versions of Christianity are equally valid. However, as the Christian has already evaded their responsibility to provide a method to distinguish any difference between what they believe and what they imagine god to be, it is unlikely they would undertake to support their burden of proof regarding the confused and mundane landscape of Christianity. Even if Christians could justify the confused and mundane landscape of Christianity, such justification would not distinguish any difference between their god belief and their god imagination.

    However, the Christian may reply that the Holy Bible is itself evidence that their god belief is warranted. Yet the thousands of contradictions, the hundreds of instances of extreme cruelty, and brutal repression of women, and false assertions of historical or scientific fact show the Bible to be a book of myths and religious agitprop with no relevance beyond that of a bizarre curio. The Bible is no help to Christians in establishing either that their belief is justified or distinguishable from what they imagine god to be.

    Invoking miracles fails as a means to establish validity for Christian god belief. David Hume pointed out that the probability the miracle monger is herself delusional, is lying, is deceived or simply mistaken is far greater than any probability the alleged miracle event is a genuine violation of the uniformity of nature.

    Hume wrote: “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature… There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation…
    The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish….’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.” – David Hume, “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”, p. 114-16

    To establish a claim that a particular event is a miracle requires Omniscient knowledge of all possible natural causation. No human being has such knowledge. Hence, no miracle claim can be established, nor can such claims be used to distinguish god belief from god imagination. In this case, the Christian’s burden would be to demonstrate omniscient knowledge of all natural phenomena to prove their religious miracles. But if they could not carry the burden, then their belief is falsified rather than justified. Even if miracles could be established as part of reality, it would be of no use to the Christian in establishing a difference between god belief and god imagination, because the source of the miracles could be any of an infinite number of alternative causes other than YHWH.

    Making a claim that Christianity provides an objective morality does not assist the Christian. For the Christian religion specifically defines the good as the nature of its alleged god. When the only evidence available, the Bible, indicating what the nature of the Christian god entails is examined, it is found that Christianity’s God is cruel, capricious, arbitrary, and deceitful. Since Christianity presupposes a cartoon Universe where anything goes, it cannot be the basis of objective morality. Any claim to the contrary cannot establish a difference between what Christians are imagining and what they believe god to be. The Christian burden of proof would be to establish that the Christian god is not the God of the Bible. But in so doing they would render Christianity non Biblical and thus only a product of their subjective imaginations.

    The historical continuity of Christianity is of no assistance either. Christianity did not triumph by playing fair. If it were not for Roman Emperors Constantine and Theodocius, Christianity would have faded away. But when Christianity exploited the social dynamic that helped enable destruction of the Greco-Roman civilization, it validated itself as the strongest surviving social institution. Thus followed a thousand years of hell on earth that proves iminical to any claim of authenticity. Christianity’s alleged foundation in historical Judaism is a fantasy, for there never was a time when, the early Hebrews were collectively held as slaves by the Egyptians. There was no sojourn in the land of Goshen, no Exodus, no wandering in the desert for 40 years, no military conquest of Canaan, and no unified kingdom under David and Solomon. There is very little historical evidence for Jewish and almost none for Christian fairytales. History cannot stop the believer’s slide onto one of the horns. Quixotically, the Christian’s burden would be to refute the Biblical minimalists and Jesus mythicists, but history and the evidence is on their side. Christian belief is falsified by history.

    Personal religious experience cannot establish Christians are not imagining their personal religious experience. Such claims would be viciously circular. The burden of proof is on the Christian to demonstrate some valid and sound method whereby others can reliably distinguish any difference between what they believe god to be and what they imagine god to be. The pointy horns of the Christian’s dilemma gleam before them. If the basis of Christian faith is subjective, they are delusional. If Christians claim a method, then they must defend it. But as pointed out above, use of empirical data and logic renders the Christian case invalid as the Christian worldview denies the genetic root of empirical and logical thought while stealing the concepts thereof to give the illusion of coherency to itself. Instead of all this Christians should renounce Christianity and rejoin humanity. Here are 20 good reasons to dump your religion. http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s