|
Post by Amadan on Jun 5, 2017 19:02:18 GMT -5
I call acts of bigotry and violence what they are - bigotry and violence. For people like the WBC, I feel like I have some authority to disagree with their interpretations, cherry-picking, and lack of context when they claim the Bible justifies their behavior. Clearly, we are supposed to love our neighbors and return good for "evil" - how do they reconcile their cruelty with that? Because the Bible actually does condemn homosexuality, and says the Lord hates sinners, and a lot of other things that aren't exactly compatible with modern liberal Christianity and its Gentle Jesus? I mean, I am not saying the WBC is correct in its interpretation of the Bible. But I would argue (as a former Christian, though I was never a fundamentalist) that their interpretation isn't actually less correct than that of Christians who read a more progressive message into the Bible. As you say, people can read whatever they want from their holy books. The Quran (and the hadiths, which are... a whole 'nother area of dissent among Muslims) does say to convert infidels and kill those who won't convert, and that homosexuals should be put to death. (It also has lots of rules for treating infidels decently and humanely. So... context and whatever verses one prefers to take to heart.) But you say "Clearly, we are supposed to love our neighbors and return good for 'evil'" but that itself is an interpretation open to interpretation. (In the Middle Ages, the Church absolutely believed that torturing heretics was showing them love and returning good for evil, because some pain and suffering in this life might spare them eternal hellfire in the next.) The WBC is no less authentic a representation of Christianity than ISIS is an authentic representation of Islam. We may loathe them both and prefer those Christians and Muslims who find a way to reconcile their religious beliefs with a modern, tolerant, pluralistic society. But you can't just say that the ideology we like better is "clearly" the correct one. I tend to be of that opinion myself, though I'm not sure a lack of god beliefs would really change things. I consider a lot of political and social beliefs to be just as irrational and harmful as believing in supernatural deities, and people will always find ways to justify what they want to believe. Still, as a rationalist, I just cannot see any value in believing something that isn't true. Even if your god beliefs are benign and lead you to feeding the hungry and loving your neighbor, you should come to that position because it's good for you and good for all of us, not because that's what you think God wants you to do.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 5, 2017 20:06:48 GMT -5
I call acts of bigotry and violence what they are - bigotry and violence. For people like the WBC, I feel like I have some authority to disagree with their interpretations, cherry-picking, and lack of context when they claim the Bible justifies their behavior. Clearly, we are supposed to love our neighbors and return good for "evil" - how do they reconcile their cruelty with that? Because the Bible actually does condemn homosexuality, and says the Lord hates sinners, and a lot of other things that aren't exactly compatible with modern liberal Christianity and its Gentle Jesus? I mean, I am not saying the WBC is correct in its interpretation of the Bible. But I would argue (as a former Christian, though I was never a fundamentalist) that their interpretation isn't actually less correct than that of Christians who read a more progressive message into the Bible. As you say, people can read whatever they want from their holy books. The Quran (and the hadiths, which are... a whole 'nother area of dissent among Muslims) does say to convert infidels and kill those who won't convert, and that homosexuals should be put to death. (It also has lots of rules for treating infidels decently and humanely. So... context and whatever verses one prefers to take to heart.) But you say "Clearly, we are supposed to love our neighbors and return good for 'evil'" but that itself is an interpretation open to interpretation. (In the Middle Ages, the Church absolutely believed that torturing heretics was showing them love and returning good for evil, because some pain and suffering in this life might spare them eternal hellfire in the next.) The WBC is no less authentic a representation of Christianity than ISIS is an authentic representation of Islam. We may loathe them both and prefer those Christians and Muslims who find a way to reconcile their religious beliefs with a modern, tolerant, pluralistic society. But you can't just say that the ideology we like better is "clearly" the correct one. I tend to be of that opinion myself, though I'm not sure a lack of god beliefs would really change things. I consider a lot of political and social beliefs to be just as irrational and harmful as believing in supernatural deities, and people will always find ways to justify what they want to believe. Still, as a rationalist, I just cannot see any value in believing something that isn't true. Even if your god beliefs are benign and lead you to feeding the hungry and loving your neighbor, you should come to that position because it's good for you and good for all of us, not because that's what you think God wants you to do. Just to be clear, I was not saying that "clearly" the progressive message of the Bible is correct. I was saying that the Bible clearly talks about things like love, tolerance (also not judging), and asking how people can ignore those parts in favor of the ones that serve their agenda. But you're right in that they can "interpret" love and kindness differently. Also true that progressives are ignoring/re-interpreting the other parts that speak of condemnation and hate to serve their agenda. I also agree with you that, absent god beliefs, we'd still have a whole lot of fucked up, irrational, harmful ideology. (Maybe a little less? I have no idea.) Both of the above points lead me back to my original point... which I will not repeat for the sake of everyone's sanity.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Jun 6, 2017 13:43:40 GMT -5
The Bible clearly talks about love and tolerance...right alongside killing adulterers and shunning non-believers. That's the problem with the Bible - it's so freaking contradictory throughout that you can make a strong case for any position you'd like, and have the Bible back you up in black and white. That's why it was used to justify slavery for so long. That's why it's the reason for so much homophobia now.
Don't get me wrong: I don't have a Pollyanna view of humanity. But I do, absolutely and without shame, believe that we'd be better off, as a whole, without religious dogma clouding the judgment of huge swathes of us.
ETA: To illustrate the contradictory nature of just Jesus (leaving aside the rest of the Bible) - in some places he is, indeed portrayed as kind and loving. And then there are passages like these:
Matthew 10:34 — “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
John 15:6 — “If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.”
Luke 12:47 — “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.”
Mark 14:3-7 — “While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, ‘Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.’ And they rebuked her harshly. ‘Leave her alone,’ said Jesus. ‘Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.'”
And then there's the frankly silly passage in which he curses a fig tree to never fruit again because it doesn't happen to have fruit on it when he wants some. This is why the "clearly" in your statement, Christine, hit some the wrong way, I think. It's not as clear as a lot of people think.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 6, 2017 16:29:36 GMT -5
And note that progressive Christians have apologetics handy for all those passages - "He meant he was going to change the social order, not that he literally wanted to bring war." "He was telling his followers not to be judgmental and pretentious and that it's okay to take care of your own needs sometimes." "The fig tree is an allegory..." Etc.
Just like progressive Muslims claim that "Jihad" never meant literally killing infidels, it meant an inner "jihad" against our sinfulness and disobedience to God...
Uh, no, it didn't. It meant literally killing infidels. And Jesus meant he was there to start a revolution, and he threw a tantrum at a fig tree.
It has long been my observation that religion does not actually change anyone's behavior or beliefs. People who are compassionate and charitable will be so with or without religion - if they are religious, they will read a compassionate and charitable mandate into their religion. People who are cruel and selfish may or may not be religious, but if they are religious, they always find a way that their cruel and selfish behavior is sanctified by their religion. I have never in my life met someone who was by nature peaceful and kind but, regretfully and with great inner turmoil, concluded that their religion required them to be bastards to non-believers; likewise, I've never met someone who forced themselves to be considerate and charitable because they thought that was what God required of them, even though they actually hated being nice.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 8, 2017 18:26:44 GMT -5
It has long been my observation that religion does not actually change anyone's behavior or beliefs. People who are compassionate and charitable will be so with or without religion - if they are religious, they will read a compassionate and charitable mandate into their religion. People who are cruel and selfish may or may not be religious, but if they are religious, they always find a way that their cruel and selfish behavior is sanctified by their religion. I have never in my life met someone who was by nature peaceful and kind but, regretfully and with great inner turmoil, concluded that their religion required them to be bastards to non-believers; likewise, I've never met someone who forced themselves to be considerate and charitable because they thought that was what God required of them, even though they actually hated being nice. I agree. This is what I was getting at when I said (terribly badly and unclearly) "it's not about god beliefs." I don't think religion is "the reason" for ISIS or WBC. I do think religion is a problem where it gives people an "authority" for their bad ideology.
|
|