Recently, I read a post about accepting Jesus as your saviour.
Just so you know, although I’m not religious in any way, shape or form, from the little I’ve read, and generally heard about Jesus, he seemed like a pretty cool guy. And by cool, I mean that everything he supposedly taught, as far as I know, I quite agree with. Love thy enemy, know thy self, let he without sin cast the first stone, seek and ye shall find, etcetera, etcetera – all top notch stuffs. Though I’m not convinced that he did, in fact, exist, generally; leaving alone the, in my mind, undoubtedly nonsensical proposition that he was the son, and personification of God – an omnipotent interlocutor intervening in human affairs from planet Albatron – he seemed wise, kind, and to be a pretty switched on dude for the epoch in which he lived.
The problem (one of many) I have with accepting Jesus as my saviour, however, has to do with the undertone subtly weaving into its postulation, which is this: That I somehow, in some capacity, for whatever the reason, need to be saved; a notion that unsettles me greatly (not really, I’m personally quite indifferent on the matter, but this reads more dramatically, right?)
I mean, I get it; the lives that so many of us lead, I do very much believe, are empty, and devoid of genuine love or light or joy. Especially in a society where excess, greed and selfishness are encouraged so blindly, yes, sure, I’ll concede that many of us have, at least in some regard, room to be “saved” from our rather apathetic, lacklustre, and disdainfully humdrum quotidian.
And with the emergence of such an onslaught of atrociously written self-help books, having only to do with, in most cases, improving one’s own external circumstances, it’s growing only more and more apparent that we’re collectively looking for some sort of change, for some sort of saviour, for meaning in something much bigger than ourselves.
Personally, I have, and, much like a rather brilliant lunatic explains – here, in her extraordinarily raw post: The Things I would Tell You – found my own saviour, my own “higher meaning” to come from the gift of retrospect.
Retrospect is to me, I suppose, what Jesus is to a Christian: My one, and my only, saviour.
A lot of the time, on a moment-to-moment basis, our lives can present a lot more glumly and or drearily than they really are. Things are rarely that bad. Sure, sometimes the weather changes from sunny to overcast, and sometimes the storm’s ferocity increases ten-fold, leaving us helpless to weather its storm; however, and yes, very generally speaking, when time and space together float by, passing us in their whimsical merriment, totally indifferent to our existence, things that once were so dire, so unbearable, so agonising, are shone in a different light. And what we once were comes to surface as nothing more than a slice of our own personal fiction, a story, which we can now see with a clearer lens.
Retrospect is a vehicle through which we can, indeed, find a saviour.
You see, I’m not sure that any of us inherently need saving. I’m not so sure that we can endeavour to improve our lives, unless we by necessary equation, define that we are first lacking in some way, and so aim to stitch up a wound that we ourselves have created.
Only with the lapse of time are we able to configure our interest, mould our desires, and paint in our empty silhouettes with colours we personally find palatable. Only in retrospect are we capable of saving certain parts of ourselves that have developed in such a way that may be self-perceptibly harming us.
So, as time has taught me: this too, shall pass, whether it is good, or bad, or somewhere in between. And so, when it does, I’ll be waiting at the other end, hoping to scoop up and salvage whatever crumbs of wisdom are left behind, which I perceive will aid me to better truck on with this journey that is life. And, if I’m lucky, provide me with a something capable of feeding, for the better, someone else’s.
Because I’m pretty sure that you, dear reader, are quite perfect as you are. As ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, our existence is no more but a mere pale, blue dot, lost in an ocean of utter nothingness. Whatever our hopes, our dreams, our aches, our triumphs, we will all fall into this void of no-thing, whether we like it or not. And knowing this fact before fate sets itself upon us – knowing that this life we think we know will one day morph into a story for us to view in the same vain we view the television – a work of retrospect, and little more – is, I truly believe, the most liberating saviour we shall ever identify.
Revealing to us the gift of knowing and feeling and seeing that life is, sure as diddly-a-rino, worth living.
Humans-are-not-inherently-broken. We’re just a little delusional.

As a writer, I devoured your words. Very nice job. As a Christian, they made me profoundly sad. That said, though our beliefs differ, I’m glad they can co-exist.
Thanks! And it’s funny you say that. I don’t have many religious friends (I live in Melbourne, Aus … I mean, our PM is an atheist) so I rarely get a religious perspective; aside from my parents, who grew up in southern European villages. Though, whenever I speak to a Christian, or any other religious person, I”m always surprised at how much of an overlap there is between what we actually do believe; with the usual exception that homosexuality is a sin, or wrong in some, however minute, way, and also, of course, that there exists a metaphysical entity known as God.
I know that a lot of “atheists” have an aversion to any religious doctrines, generally, but I myself see them as things we can learn from. I rarely read books where I agree, down to the core, with every last word the author writes (though this has happened before). So I see the bible, or the quran, or whatever else, in the same light; as something we can potentially learn from, in small doses, just like any other text. Atheism (I don’t much like that word) doesn’t have to exist in strident opposition to religious doctrines; good stuffs good stuff wherever it comes from, I reckon.
If you feel like responding, I’d love to know your take on it; in as brief of lengthy summary you’d wanna share.
First of all, I think you’re awesome. Thank you for such a thoughtful, welcoming response.
I love that you are open to the teachings of many faiths. From a non-spiritual standpoint, I totally agree. Wisdom and good advice abound throughout history; it would be foolish to discount it. Also, to retrospectively review the contents of a personal crisis, or to meditate on the contents of one’s life, and glean wisdom from it – that’s a great thing. Looking within yourself, with the goal of continuous improvement, can be enlightening.
As a Christian, I believe it’s also limiting (I’m ducking and running), which brings us to the little question of whether there is a God. If there isn’t, then your post is spot-on. If there is, then relying on self when there’s divine help available is, to me, sad.
Where do we take the conversation from here? Beats me. From where I’m sitting, it’s a big fat circle. You (I’m making an assumption here so please correct me if I’m wrong) have no concrete proof God exists, so you do not believe. I believe He does, but I have no concrete proof. I’m at quite a disadvantage here, lol!
I could quote Scripture (which is what my fellow Christians tell me to do, but I can’t see how that matters to someone who doesn’t believe the Bible was divinely inspired). I could talk about answered prayers. A brush with death that changed things for me. But the truth is that I could never provide a pure perspective because it’s based on things that can’t be seen; only felt. Only known.
Please know that I very much respect what you’ve written here. You are strong and comfortable in your beliefs, and I respect that, too. My experience has been different from yours. I am not perfect. I need (and want) the love and help and divine guidance from Someone who knows my flaws and loves me anyway.
God bless (HA!)
In all seriousness, I’m aware that this is sort of the mother of all conversations. If you’d care to continue it, I’d be happy to.
Oh, this is fun!
First of all, I’ve got to say that, despite what it may have sounded like from the post, I don’t rely on my “self” for anything. I don’t think that I, the person that this “I” speaks through, actually have any choice in what happens to me – my thoughts, feelings, perceptions included – and that it is all resultant from powers beyond my control. You, I assume, call those powers God. I simply refer to them as nature’s guiding hand. Can we call them metaphysical? Sure. Our humanness is only able to perceive of a small slice of this multi-layered cake that is this multi-verse, and so, what lies beyond our conscious comprehension, either because we’ve not yet discovered/realised its existence, or, because we’re simply incapable of excavating it due to our limited human cognition, can indeed, I think, be labeled appropriately as metaphysical. And, from what I’ve read in neuro-scientific articles/books, and from what my brain has pieced together on its own, I’m not sure that conscious will is anything more than a comforting illusion that allows us to write posts about how “the gift of retrospect can work as our saviour.”
As for divine inspiration – and based on what I just said – sure, again, willing to concede that everything is divinely inspired. I mean, fuck, Blake’s paintings/poems are beyond inspiring, beyond human even, they came from some form of cosmic energy invisibly radiating, permeating, and flowing through each and every living/non-living thing. Though, I’m just not sure why you’d need to attribute such a phenom to a God, as it was conceived through the eyes of humans who lived long, long ago.
There’s some pretty awful shit in the bible (I’ve read snippets of it here and there, I’d rather know exactly why I don’t believe in something than rely on faith, haha) and I think that if your’e going to look at Christ, or any other religious figure, as your ultimate, total, and absolute saviour, then you’re also looking at, and by equation accepting, all the other shit that it represents. I mean, man shouldn’t lie with man? Women are subordinate to men? How does one reconcile these “clauses” with an undying credulity to the overall doctrine?
I can understand how personal events would change someone’s opinion, or shape their mind. Surviving a near death experience, perhaps seeing a light akin to what one experiences in a deep state of meditation or on hallucinogenic drugs would, I really can see, lead one to assume that someone, something, was looking out for them. But – and not at all meaning to sound condescending, which I think this might sound – I see that point of view as rather solipsistic, and equally narcissistic. It assumes, in some remote way, that other people who don’t survive, who have worse experiences, who don’t see the light, whose prayers aren’t answered, are somehow, for whatever reason, not so fortunate as to be imbued with divine intervention. I don’t know. To me that sounds like narrowed reasoning. Reasoning that serves only to comfort us, leading us to think that we are for whatever reason more special than the next person, because we “believe” properly, or, with total sincerity, or whatever else?
I understand the need for something higher than ourselves. For me, it comes from looking into space. Contemplating the nature of infinity makes my insides tingle. It’s an unfathomable concept. Why then, does one need to rely on a “divinely inspired” text written centuries ago? With the likes of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Sartre, Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Kant, etc, why would we rely on a text written by nomadic tribal wanderers, when such more sophisticated mines have written their own divinely, if you like, inspired works?
I’m a stop. Sorry. It’s just so rare that I encounter a religious person, who’s not only quite obviously well spoken, eloquent and well thought out, but actually willing to have such a discussion that I get a little carried away.
I shall return your volley – but first I have to go look up “solipsistic.” And get a good night’s sleep. Yes, this is fun
OK. You said a great deal. Let’s see…
First paragraph. You don’t, in fact, rely on “self” for anything. You don’t believe you have a choice in what happens to you. This seems to negate free will, which seems infinitely crueler than anything you’ve asserted about Christianity thus far. God gave us the gift of free will, and I take it very seriously. If I understand you correctly, then we are nothing more than a planet full of automatons. What’s the point in that?
You said a lot about metaphysics and cosmic energy and neuro-scientific articles, which I won’t pretend to fully comprehend. But it seems to me that you’re saying that you believe in some higher power that you’ve yet to name it. Considering that you also study the teachings of many world religions, it appears that you are keeping your options open, so to speak. While I don’t know how that would pan out spiritually, it never seems to work out well for bachelors.
Divine inspiration. If everything is divinely inspired, then nothing is. We have our own minds, which have been created by God (yes, I know we’ll disagree on this), but that does not mean the thoughts/ideas/creations spewing forth from them are, by default, divine. Many of those thoughts are ours alone.
The Bible. If you are serious that you’ve only read snippets of it, then I’m not sure we should debate this until you’ve read it in full. It seems as though you have the folks who wrote it pegged as strict, narrow-minded and judgmental. If you haven’t read it in full, is that exactly fair? You also seem to take issue with the Bible’s issue with homosexuality. I will outright say that I’m not touching this one. It’s too emotionally-charged (you don’t seem to be one to shy away from that lol! But I am.) As for women/men, the term is submissive, not subordinate, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I touch on it here, if you’re interested.
You seem irritated that the Bible is old. That it should somehow be revised if not replaced by newer works. But here’s the thing. Truth never changes. Stripped bare, Bible basics are the Ten Commandments, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Can you honestly tell me that things should be different now? Yes, bad things happened back then. Bad things happen then, now, and in every time and land and culture in between. That’s free will for you. In summation, I don’t see your point.
The paragraph about my brush with death, and my narrowed reasoning. While I respect your opinion about by brush with death, I’m a little amused that you seem to believe yourself an authority on the topic. Near-death, death, it’s deeply personal. That I was comforted does not make me more or less special than anyone else. It’s not reasoning. It’s spiritual; it involves the soul. Every path is different. Every expression of free will as varied as snowflakes. Why do you believe that everyone should have the same spiritual experience?
But I suppose if you believe we have no control over what happens to us, then I guess I have my answer.
Thank you for a lively discussion. At this point, I can’t help but wonder if our views are so different that we’ve reached the best place to end.
What do you think?
Holy shit. I wrote my response in a word.doc, and it’s the length of a typical essay. I’m going to just make it into a post instead. And, if for whatever reason you don’t read it, it’s been real fun talking to you. You’re right in that I don’t shy away from touchy subjects, so don’t feel compelled to not respond if too many soft spots are hit. And to reiterate, anything that may potentially sound a little haughty, isn’t directed at you, but the ideas you’ve raised, and the ideas alone. I’ve found this exchange most enjoyable, and you seem to me very lovely.
So very well said – retrospection is my savior, and it can actually be a beautiful thing (instead of “sad).
It’s nice when it’s a beautiful thing, aint it loony? I reckon that, once you’ve hit rock bottom, retrospect can only be a good thing, cause you’ve already seen hell, and nothing can be worse (fucking hopefully not).
the_lunatic, I hope I didn’t offend you. If I did, I am sorry.
Oh no, of course not! I actually loved what you said!