Sunday, August 16, 2026

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part XI (Those Pesky Heretics)

This particular post will be less about what's in The Bible and more about how third and fourth century (and later) theologians attempted to reconcile the inconsistencies and contradictions about Jesus' nature in The Bible. 

By the Second Century it had already been an  established belief among the vast majority of Christians that Jesus was God. The view of what "The Son of God" meant evolved in Christianity's early days. It went from being a great honor, like the ancient kings received, to a semi-divine status like an angel, to divine status in the same category as God, to being equal with God in authority, to being  God himself — "God the Son". 

But in what sense was he God? That's where the debates and the branding of other theologians as heretics comes in. The Gospels, in some places, also make very clear that Jesus was a man, but in what sense was he human? How did his humanity and divinity coexist in one person? Was he half God and half man? Was he God who just appeared to be a man? Was he a man who was "promoted" to Godhood? I want to make clear that the Gospels and Epistles do not make any of this clear. And the answers that eventually led to the doctrine of The Trinity were by no means self-evident. Assumptions made by theologians were just as often based on what they thought was common sense or to avoid infelicitous outcomes. Here are a few of the possible "solutions" to the nature of Jesus that eventually were later deemed heresies:

  • Adoptionism stated that Jesus did not pre-exist before his birth but was "adopted" as the Son of God at his Baptism (or Resurrection, or Ascension)  due to his perfect, sinless life. His reward was resurrection and adoption into "the Godhead". This was put to rest around 200CE, but it seems to me that it has solid scriptural basis. 
  • Docetism adherents believed that Jesus only appeared to have a physical human form. They believed that matter was inherently evil and therefore God couldn't have had a physical body. 
  • Apollinarianism stated that, although Jesus had a physical, human body, his "nature", or mind, was wholly divine.
  • Arianism has been latched onto by modern day non-Trinitarians to support their belief that the early Christians were not Trinitarians. Arius didn't teach that Jesus was not God, but that Jesus, God the Son, was created first by God the Father and that the rest of the universe was then created by the Son. The main difference between Arianism and the version of Trinitarianism that the majority of theologians were adhering to was that the Trinitarians believed that the Son and the Father were "co-eternal", i.e. there was never a time when the Son did not exist, while the Arians taught that the Father pre-existed the Son. This dispute was what spurred the Council of Nicaea. Arians for hundreds of years constituted the majority of Christians outside of Rome and Byzantium. It effectively died out when Charlemagne accepted Catholic Christianity. 
  • Nestorianism was a branch of early Christianity wherein their founder Nestorius taught that Mary gave birth only to Jesus' human nature. They argued about the term "Mother of God", preferring the title "Mother of Christ".  Nestorius' followers fled persecution relocating to the Persian Empire where they further developed the idea that Jesus, although one person, had both a human and a divine nature.  Nestorians flourished under the Persians and Nestorian churches continued to exist even after the Muslim conquest of Persia. 
  • Monophysites believed that Jesus had only one nature  that his humanity was absorbed by his divine nature. They were the majority in the border regions of the Eastern Roman Empire and had competing bishops and patriarchs when the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and the surrounding area. 
  • Monothelitism was a response to Monophysitism, holding that Jesus had two natures, human and divine, but one "will": divine. 
  • Sabellianism teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same, but are different modes or expressions of a unitary God.
Despite these theories being labelled as heresies, they were put forth by theologians, within the mainstream at the time, as good faith efforts to untangle inconsistencies and contradictions. None of this involved large scale adding or subtracting to the canon of scripture, although there are some minor insertions, like the Trinitarian formula in the epistle of  I John. All these various stabs at consistency were interpretations of what had already been written. 

Eventually the doctrine of The Trinity emerged with the earlier understandings later being branded as heretical. In it Jesus is described as fully God and fully human as regards both his nature and his will, not half God/half human, not a human who was "promoted" to God. As "God the Son" he existed for as long as God the Father existed and was somehow begotten while having always been begotten. The three "persons" of The Trinity are all equally God, yet distinct. It's complicated, and I doubt that many Christians understand the explanations that their theologians came up with. 

Non-Christians and non-Trinitarian Christians sometimes mock the belief, wondering who Jesus was talking to when he prayed to God, among other things. But do any supernatural religious beliefs make any sense? 

Start at the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part XII

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part X (Short Musings On How Jesus Became God)

In the previous installment I touched upon the change in focus forced upon the followers of Jesus when he didn't become the God-anointed conqueror, but rather was killed. As I have pointed out previously, the New Testament is not one seamless narrative, but the work of multiple authors that differ not only in perspective, but were penned at different points in time. Because of this, one can see an evolution in the way Jesus' nature was viewed by his followers. 

One of the titles bestowed upon Jesus was "Son of God". We now interpret that literally — son, a child, a first generation descendent — but the phrase had long held a figurative meaning by Jesus' time. In Genesis and Job the term "Sons of God" apparently refers to angels. The King of Israel is called "The Son of God" as is the nation of Israel itself at times. The earliest traditions that were enshrined in the Gospels indicate that Jesus became the Son of God. Initially it was theorized that upon his supposed resurrection he was made the Son of God as a reward for his faithfulness to God. Later the theology changed with the honor being bestowed on him at his baptism; still later at his birth as seen in Matthew, and ultimately, as claimed in John, he was viewed as the pre-existing Son of God even before his birth.  Running parallel to the evolving timeline of the sonship of Jesus there was a steady change in what being "The Son of God" meant. It went from being a great honor, like the ancient kings received, to a semi-divine status like an angel, to divine status in the same category as God, to being equal with God in authority, to being identical with God. A lot of Christological ink has been spilled trying to make sense of how Jesus could be both God and man. (I recommend How Jesus Became God by Dr. Bart Ehrman for the long version with citations and appropriately placed commas). 

Of course, since these incremental changes in perception are all recorded in different places in the Gospels and Epistles, and since it is unclear to anyone other than a PhD Biblical scholar what the timeline of the various writings is, what we are left with is a lot of apparent inconsistencies. The institutional church does not acknowledge that there was an evolution in how Jesus' nature was viewed and written about, but instead attempted to harmonize or ignore it. I'll leave it to another installment to review some of the attempts by theologians to resolve these inconsistencies, but I'll change lanes for a bit to discuss why there are even any inconsistencies to address.

There is a misconception, not only among Christians, but among society in general, that Christianity was a united entity with recognized leaders and organization from Jesus' death onwards. The Catholics maintain that this entity "The Church" was led by Peter the Apostle and his successors, later known as The Popes. The Eastern Orthodox disagreed about the primacy of the Bishops of Rome but otherwise agreed that there was a continuity from Jesus to his apostles, to their followers and on to the present. Protestants and other offshoots mostly attempted to reform The Church or return it to its First Century roots, but didn't dispute the commonly held belief of a united early church. Even among modern day skeptics there is a belief that a monolithic early Christian Church "edited" The Bible so it would reflect their prejudices and/or political leanings. In fact it was a chaotic collection of competing versions of Christianity with central control only emerging gradually. Even when Constantine The Great imposed political unity, there were factions that lived on, as well as so-called heresies that regularly sprung up.

There was no group tasked with maintaining the integrity of the different Gospels, epistles and tracts being copied and recopied and spread around. Nothing prevented copyists, who were usually not professional scribes, from making errors in transcription or from making intentional alterations. This was in addition to the divergent points of view contained in the original writings. Pseudonymity (signing the name of another, more prominent name to one's own writing) was common since acceptance of a Gospel was often based almost exclusively on who supposedly wrote it, not whether it made any sense. Several of the epistles attributed to Paul were almost certainly not written by him, including Ephesians, Colossians and both epistles to Timothy. There is no textual evidence that any of the four canonical Gospels were written by the men whose names are on them. Different regions had their favorites and several writings that are now considered apocryphal were once considered on par with what is now considered scripture. By the time there was a central authority that could have decided what was scripture and what wasn't, all that they did decide was which books would be included in the official canon of scripture without any attempt to harmonize among the various books. An exception to this was Marcion. The leader of an alternate strain of Christianity, Marcion was the first to put together a "canon" of scripture. His "New Testament" included the Gospel of Luke and the (heavily edited) epistles of Paul. It was mainly as a response to him that the group that became the Catholic Church compiled its own list, which we still have today. 

It was only after this point that theologians began to attempt to harmonize the various fragments and make sense of the competing narratives, focusing mainly on the nature of Jesus, eventually formulating the doctrine of The Trinity.

Start at the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part XI

Monday, August 10, 2026

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part IX (Who Is This Jesus Guy Anyway?)

One of the core tenets mainstream Christianity is that Jesus Christ is God. But one of the things that you can definitely depend on among Christians and non-Christians alike is that no one really understands what that means and anyone who thinks that they understand undoubtedly understands it differently than the theologians who put the doctrine together piece by piece over the course of a couple of centuries. What? Theologians "put it together"! It's right there in The Bible, isn't it? Except that it isn't. There are statements where it seems clear that Jesus is God, some that merely seem to suggest it and some that flat out contradict the idea. Early Christians had to reconcile the contradictions and they way they did it was to create the idea of the Trinity, which nowhere appears in the Bible. 

The reasons that contradictions even exist was that there were disagreements among earlier Christians regarding who Jesus was. Different Gospel writers had different viewpoints, were writing to different audiences, and had different levels of understanding. Add to that the role of generations of copyists inserting their own ideas into the Gospels, "correcting" passages that were unclear, or just contradicted what they believed was the truth. 

The New Testament is not a puzzle, with pieces strewn across the writings of various authors that can be pieced together to come up with the truth, despite being treated that way in Bible studies all across the world. The various authors all had their own points of view which they laid out in their writings with no intention of harmonizing their theology with that of other writers.  And the different writings often were at variance with each other. Which, when you think about it, makes perfect sense. Any group of people, present at the same event, will remember the details differently. With the Gospels we don't even have different eye witnesses disagreeing, we have authors who put together their narratives based on a couple of generations of oral traditions, legendary accretions and myth building. Outside of the "works" based messages attributed to Jesus, as well as his predictions of a coming apocalypse, I believe that anything in The Bible purporting to describe the purpose of his death or his divine nature was added to the record by later followers in order to make sense of events that manifestly didn't make sense. 

Why did Jesus have to die? Was it as the perfect sacrifice to erase the collective sin of mankind inherited from Adam and Eve? Was it to "pay the price" for sin? Was it to prove that he was a true prophet, since Israel usually killed its prophets? Was it so he could be resurrected in order to defeat death? Was is to be an example to mankind to show how he was willing to go as far as to be killed in order to do God's will? You can find hints of all these theories in The Bible, including in Old Testament passages that are reinterpreted to supposedly prophesy his birth, life, death and purported resurrection. My view is that Jesus didn't think he was going to killed, he thought God would usher in the end of the world with Jesus himself playing a key role (yes I know there are verses suggesting he knew  I'm reasonably sure these were words put in his mouth by later tradition). It's obvious even from the Gospels that his followers did not expect that he would be killed and that he would be a  conquering military leader. His followers must have been shocked at how things turned out.

We've seen how, even in modern times, predictions failing to come through seldom dissuade the committed from their path of belief. How many "prophets", even in our lifetime, have predicted the end of the world, or, even in the realm of politics, that Donald Trump would be restored to the presidency sometime in 2021. Explanations need to be made to fit the new reality into the old predictions.

Start at the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part X

Saturday, August 8, 2026

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part VIII (Why I Believe - Or Disbelieve - As I Do)

You may have noticed that these posts are not scholarly works. I don't go into exhaustive detail or cite sources. Other people have done a much better job than I have ever done in putting together a coherent view of The Bible from the point of view of someone who doesn't consider it God's Word. I heartily recommend the works of Dr. Bart Ehrman who has written such works as Misquoting Jesus, Lost Christianities, Heaven and Hell, and How Jesus Became God among many others. 

Before I continue with my opinions of The Bible, especially the Gospels and Epistles, from an agnostic viewpoint, let me give you a brief tour of how my opinion of The Bible has changed in my lifetime. The blog series "So, You Want to Join a Cult" covers most of this ground:  So, You Want To Join A Cult

I grew up in an Irish-Catholic family on the very edge of New York City in a neighborhood that was overwhelmingly Catholic, mostly Irish and Italian. There were a few Protestant churches, and there was a significant Jewish presence, but Catholicism was very much the default in this neighborhood, dominated by two Catholic parishes, St. Pius X and St. Claire. We went to church every Sunday and attended Catholic grade school. As was usual with lay Catholics, at least in that era, we didn't trouble to much about doctrine or theology and left that stuff to the priests. I was familiar with the broad outlines of the Gospels and the major themes of the Old Testament, but really didn't know much about the details of religion at all. It was like the air  it was just there.

In my teens I visited some local Protestant churches. While I noticed some differences in the services, the broad outline was the same, or at least seemed that way. More to satisfy my curiosity than anything else I studied non-Christian religions, but it was simply an intellectual study and never really took. 

When I was fourteen I worked as a clerk in a financial firm in the financial district of lower Manhattan. On my lunch break I encountered a variety of street corner preachers who clustered around the Federal Building across from the New York Stock Exchange and began to hear about some of the beliefs of Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity such as "the rapture" and the concept of becoming "born again", which we Catholics never heard about. Still no changes in my overall belief system, but I was starting to entertain some serious challenges to my worldview. During my freshman year of college I encountered The Way.  Eventually I became convinced that this group was a cult, not so much due to their beliefs, but because of their practices. Their theology was for the most part similar to the strain of Evangelical Protestantism known as dispensationalism. Their claim to fame in theological terms was that, unlike almost all Christians, they did not believe that The Bible supports the belief that Jesus was God. A slightly less controversial position (although not unheard of) was that upon death you did not proceed to heaven or hell (or purgatory for Catholics) but were in a kind of sleep until the "return of Christ". 

What attracted me to this group was that they appeared methodical in their study of The Bible and were able to cite specific verses to support all of their beliefs. While this is pretty common now, back then it was pretty rare, and unheard of among Catholics. I was with this group from 1978-2001, with a hiatus in the 90's and was very much a true believer. I believed that The Bible, in its original texts, was divinely inspired by God. The Way taught that, utilizing certain commonsense methods, one could easily determine God's will. The Bible, they taught, interpreted itself, all you had to do was read it without preconceived notions. 

In 2000 the (married) top leader had been expelled after conducting an affair with a married woman that she alleged was nonconsensual. This caused me to question, not The Bible itself, but some of the things that this particular leader had been teaching that, to put it mildly, were "out there" in the context of what the group's main teachings were. I reasoned that someone who didn't have the sense to keep his pants on couldn't expect anyone to trust his interpretation of scripture. I compiled a long list of things where the leader's teachings were at odds with what the founder of The Way had taught. My questioning got me kicked out of the group. 

I became aware of many offshoots from the original group that had split off during the leadership crisis that accompanied the founder's death in the late 80's. Despite all of them using the same "Keys to Interpretation" in their understanding of The Bible they were coming up with wildly differing conclusions. I started to see that even the founder's theology didn't really stand up to the self-interpreting Bible model and that his own conclusions were his own and not necessarily the only possible conclusions to be made utilizing the "Keys to Interpretation". I briefly considered returning to mainstream Christianity, but it didn't take long to see that no one had a reliable grasp of "The Truth" and even though most denominations believed that they were right and everyone else was wrong, they were all using the same Bible to come to different conclusions. 

It was at that point that I determined that there was no objective reason to elevate The Bible and Christianity over any other system of belief. This didn't mean that I had decided that it was definitely wrong, but that there wasn't any reason to assume that it was necessarily right either. I wasn't mad at God (something I was accused of), I just wasn't convinced that he existed, and if he did, at least not necessarily in the form that Christianity claimed he did. 

This is the path that I have walked that got me to the point where I see The Bible as just another book. At best a collection of books and letters and essays and pamphlets outlining men's opinions about God, the world, Jesus and morality. Not a perfect, handed-down-from-heaven, infallible, document. 

Start at the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part IX

Sunday, August 2, 2026

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part VII (The New Testament - A Collection of Religious Pamphlets)

There's a lot different ways that people look at The Bible. There's the view that it's inerrant and infallible. That view can be applied to the originals (which no longer exist) or can be extended to the modern texts. Typically those who hold the "inerrant and infallible" position believe that there are translation errors that once corrected will reveal what was in the original. It can be viewed as allegorical and metaphorical. It can be  viewed literally. It can be viewed as containing historical accuracy, or that the historical sections are not as important as the theological lessons being taught. Protestants say they believe in sola scriptura, scripture alone, while Catholics believe that the scriptures must be mediated by Church leaders. Various churches claim to understand what The Bible really means and encourage or browbeat others to "just read The Bible" as if its message was self-evident. 

For a book that so many believe is self-explanatory and will reveal its truths if you simply read it, there are certainly a myriad of opinions about what it actually means, not to mention disagreements about what it actually says. "True believers" will accuse those who interpret it differently of simply being wrong, or more pointedly, as "not Christians" or even being inspired by Satan. They look to a mythical idyllic time, written down in The Acts of The Apostles, where there was a clear, bright line between the truth and lies, between orthodoxy and heresy. When the difference between those who "opposed Paul" or those who the early church branded as heretics and those who adhered to The Bible was as clear as day. 

Except back in those days there was no Bible.

Yes, parts of what became the New Testament were circulating around, and the Tanakh, in its original Hebrew as well as the Greek translation known as the Septuagint, was long established, but the concept of a unified collection of writings that would be consider scripture on par with the Jewish scriptures was an idea whose time had not yet arrived. In addition, there was broad disagreement among Christians regarding a whole range of beliefs about the nature of Jesus, about what his death and resurrection accomplished, about how Christians should behave, whether non-Jews could become Christians, the afterlife, the resurrection, the Kingdom of God and anything else that you can imagine. All of those people were Christians and they all believed that they were following the teachings handed down from Jesus through his apostles. But nothing written down and there was no central authority to ensure there was uniformity of belief. Even in the documents that eventually made it into the Bible there are indications, sometimes quite explicit, that not all Christians believed or taught the same thing. 

It was this disagreement that caused, not only contradictions and variances between the different books of the New Testament but contradictions and variances within some of the books.  Keep in mind that there was no central authority as we understand it today for many decades — plenty of time for competing opinions to grow roots and accumulate adherents. The belief that Jesus' teachings were passed down unchanged from him to his apostles to their followers in an unbroken chain is a myth. We know for certain of several distinct "Christianities" that existed in the early centuries after Jesus that were eventually defeated or subsumed by what became the Catholic Church. Even then there were arguments among the leaders and theologians of a supposedly united church. These differences, and the majority response to them, contributed to what became "canon of scripture". If you know what to look for you can see where certain passages were written as a response to these "other Christianities", as well as changes to the text for similar reasons. 

Major early divisions among Christians included Ebionites, who believed that a convert to Christianity must follow Jewish Law and practice; Marcionites, a sect that viewed the God of the Old Testament as a different and inferior God than the God of Jesus in the New Testament; and various types of Gnostics. Marcionite Churches competed successfully with Orthodox/Catholic Churches, lasting at least into the fifth century with its ideas surviving in various forms for centuries longer. Divisions even within what became Catholic Christianity centered around the nature of Jesus. Was he a mortal man? Was he actually raised physically from the dead? Or was it a "spiritual" resurrection? Was he God? If so, in what sense was he God? (I'll be addressing the permutations of Christology in another post). These disagreements manifested themselves in the contradictions in the New Testament. 

An article of faith among many people is that at some point in the history of Christianity certain books, or selections within books, were "taken out" of The Bible. Each of the books that eventually made it into the Bible, as well as the many that did not, all had their separate history. The authors of each book each had their own spin on what Jesus' message was, what stories confirmed that message, as well as Jesus' nature, salvation, sin, you name it. Since they were spread by believers manually writing out each manuscript, errors crept in. Some deviation from the originals occurred simply due to human error, some due to the copyist making changes by "correcting" what they thought were previous errors, and others due to intentional changes made in order to insert the copyist's opinion in the text. 

Eventually the leaders of the faction that became the Catholic Church*  decided that they needed an approved list of books that would make up the "canon of scripture". It went through several permutations before assuming the form we have today in the fourth century.** A number of books that had been in circulation were not included in the newly formed Bible, many of them are lost to history, but some survived in whole or in part. So, while no books were removed, definite decisions were made regarding what would be included. 

One way I look at the books of the New Testament, in addition to being biographies and pastoral letters, is similar to political pamphlets, pushing their own agenda and refuting those of their opponents. The minority, or losing, theologies were branded heresies and their writings (mostly) destroyed. History is written by the victors. In the case of Christianity, the victors were the faction that became the Catholic Church. 

Start at the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part VIII

* The churches known as "orthodox" at this time were not separate from the Catholic Church centered in Rome

** There were a number of books in the Greek translation of the Old Testament that were included as part of Catholic Bibles, these apocryphal, or deuterocanonical, books were not included in Protestant Bibles post-Reformation.

Saturday, August 1, 2026

An Agnostic's Look at The Bible - Part VI (So, Just When IS The End of The World Scheduled?)

A quick look at the New Testament and we see that it starts with the four Gospels, followed by The Acts of The Apostles, then the Epistles of Paul, a few other epistles and the big scary Book of Revelation. But the books were not written in the same order as the events that they allegedly chronicle. The first book written was I Thessalonians, dated 15-20 years after Jesus' ministry. Galatians, I & II Corinthians, Romans, Philemon and Philippians were all written before the very first Gospel was written, 35-40 years after Jesus' time. All this information from Paul was being passed around before anyone thought that anything resembling a biography of Jesus would be a good idea.  

In a previous post I mentioned that I thought that it was likely that Jesus existed, not that everything said about him was true, but that a person on whom the Gospels was based existed. I believe that the existence of Paul is even more of an historical certainty  unlike Jesus we have contemporary documents  actually written (or at least dictated) by Paul. At some point I'll discuss the conclusion by many Biblical scholars that not everything attributed to Paul was actually written by him. 

One of the most striking differences between the Jesus of the Gospels and the Christianity that Paul writes about is that Jesus, according to his biographers, was mostly concerned with how people acted, while Paul was mostly focussed on what people believed about Jesus. 

As discussed previously, it is my view that Jesus was an Apocalyptic Prophet, i.e. he was preaching that the world as we knew it was soon to end, brought about by God's intervention. God would then establish his kingdom in which Jesus believed that he would be a key figure. He preached that to "enter the kingdom" one had to completely reject the things of the world, including riches, personal attachments and even family. People's actions were of paramount importance. Jesus believed that this would happen soon

But that didn't happen. 

One of the subjects covered in I Thessalonians, a letter from Paul to the church in Thessalonica, was the details of Jesus' future return. People among his followers had died and other Christians were worried that maybe Jesus wasn't coming back as promised. Those still among the living were concerned that their loved ones had missed out on the establishment of the kingdom of God. And that if they weren't alive when it came about, they themselves wouldn't make it into the brave new world. It's important to note that beliefs about the afterlife have evolved over the centuries. Resurrection in the Judea of this era was more of a national resurrection, i.e. Israel would be reestablished as a kingdom. Ideas about how this would affect individuals, i.e. an end days judgement and resurrection of people depended on what sect you identified with. Sadducees, for example, did not believe in a resurrection of individuals at all. 

At this point in Church history, none of the writings that would come to be included in the canon of scripture had been written yet, let alone available for people to read. So there wasn't yet a doctrinal standard to which they could refer to for answers. Paul tells them not to worry about it, when the resurrection takes place, the dead will rise first. This is the first attempt in canon to explain away the discrepancy between what Jesus said and what was happening (or not happening). Jesus was pretty clear that The End would take place within the lifetime of his generation; Paul is, like so many "prophets" after him, trying to explain why what had been so confidently predicted wasn't happening. But at this point Paul still believes that the resurrection will take place pretty soon. He's just calming down those who are worried that they'll die before the good stuff happens. Eventually he changes his mind. 

Paul was human, just like everyone else. As he got older and his own death stared him in the face, he wasn't so sure. In the Epistle to the Philippians, he writes: "To live is Christ and to die is gain" and in II Corinthians "..would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord" indicating that a Christian would be in the presence of Jesus Christ upon death. He wouldn't be the first person to change their mind about death as their own approached. But I Thessalonians is still in the Bible, with the description of the dead rising and the living levitating into the sky. An agnostic like myself views that as a contradiction. Some Christians hold to one and ignore the other, others explain away the version of afterlife that they don't like. Still others combine the two, with Christians being temporarily in the presence of God after death and being raised up bodily later to be judged. 

But still, 2,000 years later, Christians are still waiting for Jesus to come back and get them, and he still fails to do so.

Start at the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part VII

Wednesday, July 29, 2026

Nobody Wants To Be the Creepy Old Guy

Single life: not what it’s cracked up to be. Several married guys expressed envy at the supposed carefree life that I was living during the four years between marriages, but it certainly was a bit less exciting and a bit more stressful than they thought it was. (The grass is always greener, isn’t it?)

The first few months that I lived in The Hovel I didn’t have much time for a social life. In addition to my main job at Super Saver I had a second job as a rural paper carrier, getting started around 2:00 every morning and finishing up at about 6:00. It wasn’t a very difficult job, it fact it was refreshingly easy, no one looking over my shoulder; just delivering the papers. I’d drive about 130 miles every morning and after paying for gas and setting aside money for tires and taxes I was netting about $900 each month, which helped me start to get my huge debt paid off, as well as enable me to put aside some money for a vacation to the East Coast. Having to start work three hours after the bars closed didn’t allow for much late night carousing, although I did try it once or twice. One morning, after closing the bar and picking up my papers early, I got extremely sleepy and pulled off to the side of the road to close my eyes for a few minutes. Six hours later, much more than the “few minutes” that I’d envisioned, I woke up and finished my route. Many customers were angry that morning. Even though I didn’t have any opportunity for late nights, I still managed to convince one woman to date me during my paper route days.

The Hovel had a washer and dryer on the ground level, but they both seemed to be on the indistinct border between appliance and habitat, so I did my laundry at “LaunDry Land(that’s right, with the capital “D” right in the middle of the word “laundry”) a few blocks away. Marija, the clerk who ran the place in the evenings, and I hit it off (it seemed to me) after I correctly guessed from her accent that she was from The Ukraine, and not Russia or one of the other Slavic countries. Being 20 years removed from active dating, which pretty much means I reverted to having the social skills of a teenager, I mistook her friendliness for flirting until her husband started hanging around while she was working. I don’t know if she felt sorry for me or thought she was doing me a favor, but Marija set me up with Laura, another LaunDry Land customer. At this point in my dating career, I hadn’t quite developed anything resembling standards, and any primitive proto-standards that I may have had floating about my subconscious apparently didn’t include sanity. Continual ranting about the ex-husband who had thrown her out, the string of jobs that she had been fired from and her complete inability to stay focused on a subject for more than ten seconds should have been a clue that I was hooked up with someone with whom things could go horribly wrong. But I was so thrilled that someone was paying attention to me that I overlooked red flags that would have enraged a herd of bulls. After a couple of dinner-and-a-movie dates I quietly moved on when Laura suggested that she accompany me to New York, where I was going to visit family, in order to scout out ideas for her “business”, the details about which it never became clear. She also asked for me to “invest” in her business. Marija apologized to me profusely.

One of the problems with those paper route jobs is that its seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, no days off unless you find your own substitute. Since I had planned a trip to the East Coast in June of that summer I began looking for a sub for the route in early March, but without any success. Since I was using the paper route to make payments on my credit card debt I figured out, based on how much I was making each month, how much that I would have to save up so I could forgo a second job and figured that I could quit my route at the end of May and take off until August without missing any payments. So I started the month of June with only my main job, with my evenings pretty much free. I had Saturdays off and had been working 2:00–10:00PM on Sundays, so Friday and Saturday nights were now open, but first, a trip to the East Coast.

It had been eleven years since I had been to New York; I had nieces, nephews and in-laws that I had never met.  I hadn’t been too nice to my family while I had been in The Way; a few months before my trip I started putting together an itinerary that would allow me to visit not only my parents, but also my siblings who lived in other cities and reestablish relationships with them. At the time I was involved with an anti-Way website called Grease Spot Café, which got its name from a remark The Way’s leader made about people who left the organization, predicting that they’d be “grease spots by midnight” and I began working visits to some of my online buddies from Grease Spot into my trip. I left on a Monday afternoon and drove until about midnight, staying overnight in a hotel in Illinois. The Cavalier station wagon was gone, sold to my mechanic after getting in an accident some months earlier. With the insurance money I purchased another rust-bucket, a white 1986 Pontiac 6000. Just as rusty as the Cavalier, the Pontiac had a seemingly unsolvable problem: after driving for a while, it would begin to buck and stall when coming to a stop, especially when stopping or slowing suddenly, like when exiting the interstate. Starting up immediately after it stalled was difficult, involving working the brake and gas pedals simultaneously until enough speed could be worked up. This made for constant anxiety regarding the prospects for the car starting each time it was shut off. Parallel parking was out of the question.

Arising early on Tuesday morning I proceeded to Dayton Ohio to spend the evening with some ex-Way folks who used to live in Omaha. Dave and Dana were the first ex-Way people that I had knew who, appeared to be living a normal, even a prosperous life. I had begun feeling like I was destined to live in “a hovel” and have no friends for the rest of my life, so ingrained had the condemnation from The Way and my ex-wife become. So meeting some people who had moved beyond Way-world was an important step in my evolution. I did drink too much coffee and had a hard time falling asleep in the little kid’s bunk bed that they had put me in.

On Wednesday morning, after a hearty breakfast, I drove across Ohio, a slice of West Virginia and most of Pennsylvania to arrive at the home of Gail, one of the WOW’s from my year in Sidney and Kearney over twenty years earlier. About 2/3 of the way through Ohio the scenery begins to change from “flat” to “rolling” in preparation for “mountainous”, which describes most of the drive through Pennsylvania. This was a long drive. Accompanying me on this trek across the Quaker State was my trusty collection of cassette tapes. Yes, you read that correctly. CD players in cars, while standard equipment in the newer vehicles, were not universally found in the vintage vehicles that I drove. My habit, technologically speaking, is to stay a jump or two behind the curve, hence a cassette deck when everybody else is laughing at how old fashioned CD’s are. Fortunately for me, the public library lends out CD’s, which I was able to record on to tape for my listening pleasure. So the long miles across Penn’s Woods were made more pleasurable by Mott the Hoople’s Greatest Hits, Dick Dale’s Tribal Thunder, The Who’s Quadrophenia, Oasis’ What’s the Story Morning Glory?, and Birds of Fire by The Mahavishnu Orchestra.

I had not seen Gail in over twenty years and we had only recently been corresponding through email. Gail greeted me at the door with a snarky remark about my car, informed me that she had to go to class and left me in the care of her husband and three daughters, none of whom had I ever met, and gave me permission to use her computer, which one of her daughters kicked me off five minutes later. After sitting around in uncomfortable silence for a while, Chuck (Gail’s husband) decided that what we needed to break the ice was grilled bratwurst, beer and cigars. So when Gail returned from class, there was Chuck and me, sitting out back with a couple of brews, a pair of cigars and with mustard stains on our teeth, deep into some serious male bonding.

After a diner breakfast and a brisk walk to work it off it was back in the car to meet Cindy and her kids in Trenton New Jersey, dinner at Burger King and then off to Jersey City. I spent the night in a cheap motel so that I could be up before dawn on Friday morning to visit lower Manhattan and the location of the World Trade Center. The 9-11 attacks had taken place about nine months previously and the WTC site was still a mess. The enormity of what had happened hit me the night before as I was heading east across New Jersey. At one time the New York skyline, dominated on the south end by the Twin Towers, was visible for many miles to the west. But now, as the lighted skyscrapers hove into view, a prominent gap stood where the steel and glass once soared into the sky. I had to pull off to side of the road; the tears in my eyes made it difficult to drive.

It was still dark the next morning as I made my way across the bridge into Manhattan to visit Ground Zero. It’s fascinating to see New York City in the early morning hours before all the office workers show up. Delivery guys unloading trucks, restaurants firing up the grills, newspaper stands opening up; it’s a different world. It was without a doubt a really different world with the open wound of Ground Zero so prominent a part of Lower Manhattan. With the attacks less than a year in the past, the improvised memorials were still up, photos and notes and flags stuck to light poles and churchyard fences. The atmosphere was at once a great miasma of sadness and a fierce pugnacity and pride that “The City” was still standing, still reveling in its in-your-faceness.

After a few hours I jumped in the car and headed out to Port Jefferson Station, my parents’ home, arriving on Friday afternoon. I had never been to their post retirement home, several hours west of the neighborhood where I spent by childhood, Rosedale in the borough of Queens. Previous visits, the most recent which had been eleven years before, found me sleeping in the bedroom that I occupied from the age of six to when I moved out at twenty, eating at the little table in the yellow-walled kitchen with the poorly repaired hole where I had once thrown a chair at my brother Mike (After throwing the chair at him and seeing the hole, we dropped our disagreement and worked together to repair and paint over the hole, which our parents never found out about. Years later two of my sons got in a fight and put a much larger hole in the laundry room wall. They could not repair it, but did pay for the dry wall guy to fix it.) and grilling burgers on the concrete patio behind the slate blue house on 255th Street. About a year after my last visit my parents sold the two-family house that I grew up in and moved out to Long Island. Virtually everything else had changed as well. My brother Jim, whose wedding had been the occasion of my last visit, now lived in Rochester and was the father of two rambunctious boys; my baby sister Maryann was married, had a daughter and was pregnant with a second; Mike had gotten a divorce from his first wife and was the proud dad of two girls with his second wife Jean. Patty had also divorced her first husband and remarried as well. Most of my cousins were married and had children also. The family had gotten huge while I was out in Nebraska.

One thing about family that I’ve heard said is that they’re the people who have to take you in, no matter what. I don’t know how literally true that is, but I found my family incredibly open and forgiving, even though I hadn’t treated them very nicely over the past few decades. It inspired me to be more forgiving towards those who I perceived had wronged me.

I stayed until Monday morning on Long Island and headed to New England via the Port Jefferson ferry on that morning. I met another Grease Spot participant for lunch and then continued to Hingham to meet Uncle Tim for dinner and stayed in his guest house, leaving for Rochester on Tuesday morning. Tuesday night I stayed with another Cindy, an old friend from Long Island, and her husband Richard. Wednesday morning I drove up to Niagara Falls an hour away, stopped to see another GS buddy and then to my brother Jim’s. I stayed two nights there and then headed across southern Ontario to Lansing Michigan Friday morning to spend two nights with my friends Leah and John. On Sunday morning I was on the road home, stopping in Illinois or Sunday night before arriving back in Lincoln on Monday, two weeks after I set out.

The crossing back into the United States from Canada was interesting. After waiting in an endless line I was interviewed by a Border patrol officer who asked what my point of origin was, as well as my destination. After telling him that I had started the day in Rochester New York and was headed for Lansing Michigan, he squinted at my Nebraska plates and asked me if I realized that I was exiting Canada. Suppressing my natural tendency to make a smart-assed remark, I explained that yes, I was aware that I was exiting Canada. He once again squinted at me and asked why, if I was leaving one U.S. city for another, I was now leaving Canada. All I could tell him was that AAA had recommended it. I avoided the rectal exam and strip search and went about my business.

It was at this point that I started to develop a social life of sorts. I still had my full-time position at the grocery store, but wouldn’t pick up a second job until late August, and even then it was a one day a week job delivering the free Tuesday afternoon paper; at the store I had Saturdays off and due to my previous gig delivering papers I worked on Sunday starting at 2:00 in the afternoon, so I was free to “socialize” on both Friday and Saturday nights, and made frequent, if not all-night appearances at the local bars during the week. O’Rourke’s, my favorite tavern, attracted a diverse demographic, all ages, multiple income levels, ethnic groups, you name it, and it became like a second home to me. Newly freed from the need to go to bed early in order to deliver newspapers, I often headed down to O’Rourke’s right after work at 4:00PM for a beer or two, going home or to a local eatery for dinner, and then back at 9:00PM for a few more beers and in the sack by midnight. Some of O’Rourke’s regular “old guys” became my buddies and drinking companions. There was Doug, a retired postal worker who sported his long white “cool old guy” hair in a ponytail, and who fancied himself a ladies’ man; Kevin, who became one of my closest friends during this time period; Rob, a fellow New Yorker who spent most of his time whining about how his mother wouldn’t send him money; the two Scotts: “Smart Scott”, one of the most intelligent people I’d ever met, and “Lyin’ Scott”, who always had a tall tale to tell; Clarence, then known as Butch, a local newspaper reporter, as well as many other characters.

Now that I was out and about more, I started meeting more people, including women. Something that I found out relatively quickly was that when you’re in your forties, the dating pool is relatively shallow. So there I was on a weekday afternoon seated at the bar in O’Rourke’s, with a reasonably attractive woman who seemed to know everyone seated beside me complaining about not being able to find anyone to go out with her. Since at this point my dating experience was about on par with your average 16 year old boy with a bad case of acne I innocently snapped at the bait; I struck up a conversation and we made a date for dinner for later that week. I say “innocently” because while looking back I’m sure she was throwing that line about no one going out with her in my direction, I was totally unaware of her intentions and ignorant of the come on. I arrived at her home to pick her up at the appointed time, but she wasn’t there. After an extended period knocking on the door, ringing the bell and peaking in the windows I decided to head on down to O’Rourke’s and found her there. No explanation, no apology. When I asked her if we had crossed wires in our communication, she simply said that she’d had a big lunch and was feeling kind of full! I should have run away right then and there, but hadn’t yet developed the bad relationship radar and continued to pursue her.

With the 20/20 vision that hindsight bestows, I believe that I was (again) simply besotted by being paid attention to, by being viewed as a desirable companion after years of being the source of all evil in the world. After a very brief time, things just blew up. Early on in our relationship, I got a glimpse of this woman's jealous streak when she got very publicly angry over a conversation that I was having with a woman at the bar. The woman with whom I was conversing was much, much younger. The response was to very publicly flirt with a much younger man, which didn't bother me at all and he eventually became a good friend of mine. A second, more dramatic display of jealousy, this time in a series of answering machine messages, put an end to our relationship. She attempted to apologize and get back together, but I knew that I had to have some standards and that I no longer had to “just settle”.

Oddly enough, the younger man with whom my jealous ex-girlfriend flirted, a musician/poet named Drew, became a good friend during this time. It was primarily through Drew that I met Pam. (We met Drew and Pam in an earlier chapter involving buying pot) Drew was dating Pam at the time, despite a twenty year gap in their ages. Drew was about 25 years old, tall and thin and rock-star good looking, Pam was in her early forties and was kind of a latter day hippie, working only as much as she had to and living in a commune south of town. For a while I spent much of my after-work time with them, discussing books, music, poetry and Celtic spirituality. Feeling burned by my previous experience and valuing my freedom more than desiring any kind of relationship, I spent the rest of my social time hanging out with “the boys” or enjoying live music at some of the local venues, avoiding any attachments with women.

“Surprised” is a huge understatement to describe my feelings when Pam grabbed me in a parking garage one night and kissed me. The three of us were supposed to attend a show at the Zoo Bar, but Drew did not show up, so Pam and I attended without him. I suppose that I should have seen it coming; in the weeks leading up to this the two of them fought frequently, each coming to me to complain about the other, especially Pam, who seemed to be looking for excuses to spend more and more time with me. We both pretended that it hadn’t happened, but shortly thereafter Drew and Pam broke up and we confronted the feelings we had (or thought we had) for each other.

There is a short list of people who I consider to have helped me stay sane during the years when I was living alone, and Pam is close to the top of that list. She is one of the key links in my ever-changing spiritual quest and was instrumental in helping me define what I believed and what kind of person that I wanted to be. The first time that I ever saw a set of tarot cards was a hand painted set that Pam had made, and when I started reading cards myself several years later, I still remember that short one-card reading that she did for me in O’Rourke’s one night that came true several hours later. Pam was one of the few people who did and said exactly what she thought and felt. She made of fun of what she called my “molester moustache”, laughed at the image of the baby on the diaper pail turned dirty sock bucket in my bathroom, and was not shy about telling me that Quadrophenia by The Who, one of my favorite albums, just wasn’t that good. We wrote erotic haikus together, made fun of people and eventually moved apart.

Despite all that we had in common and the affection that we had for each other, it just wasn’t “meant to be”. I was still insistent that I didn’t want to be part of a relationship and wanted to put myself first, still in my “selfish” phase. For me, the biggest obstacle to a relationship was her inability to understand how and why I had gotten involved and stayed involved in a religious cult. This lack of understanding would become the biggest contribution to keeping us apart; I could not give my heart to someone who lacked a basic understanding of who I was and why I was the person that I had become. Eventually we drifted apart and I saw her seldom until she developed a cancer that slowly killed her in the spring of 2008. Another friend let me know that she was dying in a hospice; I managed to see her a few hours before she passed on, one of the last things she said to me was that she was glad that I had shaved off “that molester moustache”.

With a short hiatus to date a woman my own age in the early part of 2003, I moved into a phase where I alternated between “safe old guy” and “creepy old guy”. The hiatus involved a woman who had worked at Super Saver when I first moved to the Cornhusker Highway location. She attended the company’s annual holiday party in January 2003 as a guest, having left the company the summer before. During a break in the festivities, as I stood in the hallway smoking a cigar she approached me in order to verify that I was not there with a date, which I wasn’t. We ended up dancing and talking, and left the party to go to O’Rourke’s. I drove her home, both of us aware that there was an attraction and set up a time to meet the next night. While part of me was still in the “selfish” mode and not interested in a relationship, I quickly became caught up with this woman, being told after just a few days that I was “her man” (This was a surprise to me, especially since on the night we met at that party Denise was living with a guy and had me drop her off a block from her home so he wouldn’t see her!) meeting her parents and married daughter, socializing with her friends and without realizing that it was happening, involved in the relationship that I hadn’t wanted, which had become serious on all levels. In a few short months frustrated by my aversion to commitment and concerned that I would get back with my ex-wife, I was dumped in the middle of the night, and never heard from her again.

The “safe/creepy old guy phase” was next. One of my observations as a single guy in his forties was that with few exceptions, young women view men several decades older than them predominantly in three fashions. The first and by far the most widespread is the invisible old guy. Most of my single guy buddies realized that to younger women, men our age were simply invisible. We would even play a game where we would attempt to make eye contact with attractive young ladies, and when we failed, this confirmed our invisibility.

Another type was the safe old guy. This is the guy who women view as a nice guy, easy to talk to, but who is non-threatening, like a father or uncle…or grandfather. This is the guy who young women talk to about their boyfriends, who feel comfortable revealing personal details, even about sex. Women walk up to safe old guy in bars, hug them, kiss them on the cheek and otherwise flirt with them. Sometimes the safe old guy recognizes this situation for what it is and is at peace with it, other times the safe old guy believes that he is really being seriously flirted with. In any case, the attention is flattering. A guy becomes the creepy old guy when he doesn’t understand that he is the safe old guy and starts hitting on the young girls. The creepy old guys are overwhelmed by their non-invisibility and often are confused by it. Often they are in denial about the “old guy” part of the description! Sometimes they just start out as the creepy old guy, flirting with women who hadn’t yet been born when they graduated from college, usually with a distorted view of their own attractiveness. They look in the mirror and see a version of themselves that hasn’t existed for quite a while, if ever. This malady can afflict any guy, but most of us snap out of it, the seriously deluded, however, do walk among us.

I was one of those who started out as seriously invisible and eventually, after becoming visible, morphed into the safe old guy, with brief stints as the creepy old guy. Mainly my transformation to “visible” was due to dating the previously mentioned jealous lady, who a lot of the college aged girls knew, as well as my transition to an O’Rourke’s regular, which meant that all the bartenders knew me, signaling “safe” to the girls.

During this time I was undergoing some internal transformations. I had learned some lessons from the women that I dated, to have standards, to go slow and not rush into “the next level”, to not put myself at the center, yet to be aware of what I needed as well. I learned that running around with women my daughter’s age was not productive. That despite having a brief fling with a much younger woman, to most of them, whatever my own self-image, I was either the invisible old guy, the safe old guy, or the creepy old guy, but what all these descriptions had in common was old.

At this point I had decided that I was ready for something serious, that I was done with hitting on women in bars, that I was done with settling, done with being selfish. It was at that point, when I had gotten all manner of bad relationships out of my system, I met Susie, who I would marry two years later.