Thu 18 May 2006
Spirit in the Sky
Posted by anaglyph under Atheism, Grumpy Old Man, Religion, Stupidity
[34] Comments
I’m pretty tolerant of religious beliefs, even if I don’t agree with most of most of them. As far as I’m concerned, people are entitled to believe whatever they like as long as they don’t indiscriminately inflict those beliefs on other people. Or expect other people to even take them seriously for that matter. Unfortunately the adherents of some religious groups are just way too pigheaded to realise when they are being offensive. Either that or they simply don’t care.
So it’s a beautiful Autumn Sydney morning, blue skies, crisp cool air, red and yellow leaves all over the road. I’m walking to work listening to my iPod thinking what a glorious day it is. And then I notice that some skywriting company is making the best of the still air and scribbling something across my field of view. During the next five minutes it becomes clear that the word they are writing is ‘Jesus’.
Now I really take exception to this. On two counts in fact: one because I don’t particularly want anything being written in this beautiful pristine sky, and two because I especially don’t want someone foisting their religious beliefs on me in this irksome manner.
I’m sure these zealots have some misguided self-righteous idea that we will all have a better day knowing Jesus has made his presence felt in our skies.
I bet they would get really ticked off if someone like me was to use skywriting for some judicious personal proselytizing.
Be afraid. Maybe I just might…
So – someone decided it would be a fine idea to put evangelism in the context of ‘blowing smoke?’
“That’s not what we meant.”
“Ah. Well, okay then.”
Coud be that ‘Jesus’ is th name o some red hot Dminican shortstop you Aussies been tryin t steal from th New York Yankees farm systm.
Oh yeah … You Aussies dont play baseball, do ya?
Jus what th heck DO yous peaple do on them crisp, cool Autum days?
Joey, they obviously go skywriting or walking with iPods to admire the blessed messages from the sky.
I often wonder why some religious folk don’t spend their time, money and energy actually putting the tenets of their religion into practice and trying to make the world a better place, instead of wasting all of the above trying to convince others to join their club.
Unfortunately the tenets of most of those religions include “Try and get as many other people to join the club as possible”. And then kill anyone who won’t.
UH: Because they are concerned about you and your future, as is Jesus. But if you insist on practicing tenets, evangelism is one of the principal tenets of Christianity: “Go ye into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” The good news is that Christianity is not about religious practices or ceremonies, it’s about a vital relationship with the living God through his son, Jesus, who gave life on a cross so that you and I would not have to suffer the penalty for our sin but instead may have eternal life. “He who was without sin became sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God.” That’s an incredible exchange rate. But please forgive me, I have evangelized. It’s a dreadful habit.
What would Jesus podcast?
Oh man. Sometimes I really feel like I’m banging my head against a metal bulkhead.
You are exactly correct anonymous. It IS a dreadful habit.
Which is kinda the point of my post.
Hey! Jam! You got through the Akismet roadblock!
I’d really prefer if they mind their own damn business, anonymous. Everything you say in your post is – wait for it – YOUR belief. Congratulations, I’m happy for you. It is however, not MY belief, nor the belief of millions. Just because your belief tells you to bother other people with it does not then automatically make it correct to do so. You are, as usual, thinking within the boundaries of your own belief system and ignoring those of other people.
Let’s spell it out for the dummies shall we?
Oh, and by tenets, I mean helping others in real actual physical need instead of spending a packet of money skywriting ‘Jesus’.
“I’m pretty tolerant of religious beliefs, even if I don’t agree with most of most of them.”
Well, you’ll spend a couple of extra days in Purgatory for THAT whopper.
According to these gospels people are supposed to bug the whole world with, Jesus was a pretty understated guy really, you know for being God. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t want to associate with anyone who ruins such a nice sky.
On the other hand, I’m not sure I’d want people wearing around a couple of sticks someone nailed me too, either.
Pil: I can be tolerant of someone’s ideas without necessarily agreeing with them. Lordy, if I couldn’t do that I’d have lost every client (not to mention every friend) I ever had…
I have a number of good friends who are, or who have been, devout Christians. Two of them have even trained in the clergy. I respect their beliefs, I enjoy discussions with them, and I have learned many things from them. Nevertheless, these people all have one thing in common – they understand that it is my right to choose how I live my life. They don’t proselytize, they don’t pity me for not having their beliefs and they are not in the habit of putting in my path little reminders of Jesus.
Casey: >> I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t want to associate with anyone who ruins such a nice sky<<
You gotta think.
Casey: >> Understated? Like when he cleared out the Temple courtyard with a whip, overturned tables, drove out the moneychangers — that sort of thing? Or like when he called Lazarus out of tomb where he lay four-days-dead? Or like when he said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and Life, and no man comes to the Father but by me”. Or do you mean when he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (symbol of a king coming in peace) while crowds shouted as passed: “Blessed in the King of Israel!” Or perhaps when he said “Whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Or when he made them so mad in his home town of Nazareth that they tried to throw him off a cliff? Or maybe when he walked on water in a storm? To which Jesus do you refer?
Rabbi: >> UH asked a question. I just answered it. But you are right. Before I became a Christian I didn’t want to associate with them either, or even hear from them. Always talking “Jesus this” and “Jesus that”. What’s so good about Jesus. Ancient beliefs. Was he a myth? And those Christians were hypocrites too. I knew non-Christians who were nicer people than Christians. But, in the end, its not about how good we are. Its about how good Jesus is, and the joy of knowing him. (Of course, I’m not upset about avoiding hell.)
UH: >> You mean like feeding the poor, caring for the sick, building houses for the homeless, visiting those in prison, praying for people? Do you do that? Or do you mean defending the helpless, like fighting for the rights of unborn babies? I know lots of Christians who do that. And they have that nasty habit of evangelizing. Because they care. Do you think they enjoy being rejected or treated like idiots and simpletons, or in some countries beaten and killed? They do it anyway. Just because they care. Who’s responsible for originating the legislation that outlawed slavery in England? A Christian. Who is credited with ending segregation laws in the U.S. A Christian. Who was responsible for originating medical missionary outreaches to Africa? A Christian. Who gave started a drug rehab center in the most dangerous part of Hong Kong which has helped thousands of gang members get off drugs and become productive? A Christian. Who do you know that spend their vacations building homes for the homeless in Mexico? Christians. What boorish simpletons they are!
Oh, and yes, I am aware that the church has been responsible for a number of atrocities over the centuries. Evil reaches into the church. No doubt.
anonymous: >>Who do you know that spend their vacations building homes for the homeless in Mexico? Christians. What boorish simpletons they are!<<
Yeah, but you see, they don’t do it without an agenda. How much better humans would we be if we were motivated to do this stuff purely and simply because we respect and love one another on the merits of that and that alone? Not because someone (anyone) told us to.
>>To which Jesus do you refer?<<
Good question. There are so many diverse and differing accounts of a person going by that name, in that loose affiliation of writings over several centuries which goes by the name of the Bible, that it’s almost as if it’s not referring to just one person… Or some of it maybe even hearsay. Or (gasp) even just made up. But that couldn’t be. People (with agendas) don’t make mistakes when writing things down!
>>Who do you know that spend their vacations building homes for the homeless in Mexico? <<
Oh, and I know many people who do the equivalent of that, with no religious affiliation, or agenda. A friend of mine is just about to go spend her vacation working in an orphanage in Vietnam. She pays to do that. She’s not lumbering anyone with her personal beliefs. Christians have no monopoly on good deeds.
Indeed organizations such as Médecins Sans Frontières operate entirely on non-religious humanitarian grounds.
Rabbi,
Yes, you are again correct. There are lots of people and groups other than Christians doing good works for various reasons and with a variety of motivations, and some give their lives in the process. I am glad they are doing so. You are correct also, Christians have no monopoly on good works. I am not saying the Christians have a monopoly or that they are better than anyone else. I was only answering the charge that Christians are not practicing the tenets they espouse. And, its also true that far too many do not. By and large, we are a weak lot to be sure. But I can’t get too upset with folks who aspire to ideals much higher than they (or anyone) can fulfill. When I wasn’t a Christian, I wasn’t the person I wanted to be. Now that I am a Christian, I am still not the person I want to be.
Agendum? I understand that point of view. I shared it myself at one time. Another view is that, in the cosmic view, your soul is too important for us not to try at all points and in all events, in season and out of season, to persuade you unto salvation. Someone I love thought you and your soul worth dying for. Therefore, I should place a high value on you and your soul, and in doing so be obedient to the one I love and to whom I owe my life, by preaching the gospel. Why? That’s what he did. That’s what he taught. That’s what he said to do. Do I care if you join the club? Yes. Do I get brownie points if you do? No. I don’t anything. No money, no honor, no rank, no fame, no power.
Sigh.
You two at it again.
anonymous: “Another view is that, in the cosmic view, your soul is too important for us not to try at all points and in all events, in season and out of season, to persuade you unto salvation.”
Which brings us back to the point behind my post. Now, I ask you to try and imagine that you were walking along listening to your iPod on that lovely Autumn morning and instead of the word ‘Jesus’ you saw someone skywriting the word ‘Satan’, as I have depicted. Are you going to tell me that you would not be a little offended by that? Now, try ‘Allah’. How are your preconceptions going?
It may be your faith’s tenet to spread the word, but – listen to me carefully here – it is not your right, in any manner, to have an exclusive permission from anyone other than yourselves, to intrude in the lives of those who do not wish such intrusion.
I happen to think your beliefs are misguided. I am willing to talk to you about such beliefs and put my own point of view forward. But I do not actively push my atheism onto others because I respect their right to make those decisions for themselves.
Anne Arkham: The day I stop the discussion is the day I die. Then either Mr Fuel is correct and he can say ‘I told you so’ as I sink into a brimstone pit, or neither of us are any the wiser. Being an athiest also means you lose the opportunity to gloat. Christians get all the perks.
Rabbi,
I admire your stamina, and your willingness to debate. I recognize that “Satan” in the sky would offend me. Is it any less offensive if his name appears on a T-shirt or a tattoo or the Ethernet?
As you have noticed, I have not defended the “Jesus” in the sky skywriter or his skywriting. I sought only to answer UH’s question. Had he not asked the question, I may have remained quiet. (Maybe not. Who knows?)
A few questions, if I may?
Who is the arbiter of our rights? The one who takes offense where none is intended? The one who offends? The law? Etiquette? The majority? May I take offense and criticise you — and your club — for publicly blogging your views? If I do, should you cease and desist because I am offended?
Do you know anyone — aetheist, humanist, Muslim, Christian, agnostic — who does good works without an agenda?
Do you truly believe that your atheism does not intrude upon the world around you, the people with whom you interact?
How is it that you have concluded that you do not actively espouse your atheism? You are no closet atheist, my friend. Nor do you suffer from shyness. Is your method of expressing your views more righteous because you write upon the Ethernet instead of the sky?
By the way. I have no desire to say “I told you so” at the end. Nor do I desire that you sink into a brimstone pit if you cling to atheism to the end. If you do sink into the pit, I think I will be quite sad.
The arbiter of anybody’s rights must surely be judged on humanist grounds. It’s the only defensible position. You can say your religion tells you to be the arbiter of another’s rights, but then, so can anybody say that of their religion. In my opinion, that is not defensible. I just don’t see why your religion is any more entitled to do that than any other religion. But I will defend your right to believe whatever you want. Because it’s your right.
You may criticize me for blogging my views. Absolutely. That’s your right. But significantly, you are not in any way coerced into reading my views. You don’t need to visit my blog. That’s your choice. This is fundamentally different from the practices of evangelism, which actively intrude on the lives of others. Christian missionaries seldom ask ‘permission’ to spread their word. The person who did the ‘Jesus’ skywriting did not ask my permission. I did not have a choice but to view the message. Yesterday I was in Chinatown and there were Christian evangelists with a public address system loudly broadcasting their message to people in the street, including diners in outdoor restaurants. I find this behaviour extremely offensive. I would be just as offended if athiests were doing it. It’s neither civil nor justifiable.
And yes, I do know people who do good works without agenda. Médecins Sans Frontières I have already mentioned. These are brave doctors who are helping people less fortunate than themselves. There are many Humanist charities – Humanism by charter does not have any agenda (of course you may argue that everyone has an agenda of some kind or other, but significantly, Humanists don’t try and get everyone they help to become Humanists).
I did not say my atheism doesn’t intrude on the world around me. It may or may not. What I said was that I don’t actively push my beliefs on anyone. Of course I will try and converse with people and persuade them that my views are based on the best and fairest knowledge I can bring to bear. But I don’t go round shopping malls handing out ‘Athiesm Saves!’ stickers, or setting up P.A. systems to harrass passers-by, or, focally, take large groups of people to poor third world countries offering charity, but really hoping I can convince lots of uneducated and grateful simple folk that athiesm is good for them. That’s just cheap exploitation by any other name.
I also did not say I do not actively espouse my atheism. That would be foolish, considering the weave and weft of my blog. But I reiterate: you are not compelled to read my blog. If you happen to be a person trawling the web for reading matter, you must surely take into consideration that you might find things you do not want to read. This is significantly different to having someone write their propaganda in a blue sky that we all have a right to appreciate without such intrusion.
And as for the pit, well the fact that you must adopt a religion that has such extremely etched black and white views of morality already makes me quite sad.
Rabbi,
I am checking in here to let you know I am reading with interest your responses. Although I still do not know who the arbiter of our rights is, in your view. Of course, I would not expect it to be me or God or the Bible or my pastor or the Pope. I’m just wondering who or what? For you have made it plain that, in evangelism, Christians have exceeded the limit of their rights. But where do we turn to review that catalogue or charter of rights and violations upon which the indictment depends?
Here’s a curiosity: In 1976, I was hounded by a Christian and I did not appreciate it. In 1981, another Christian hounded me. I was not offended. From 1976 to 1981, a third hounded me over and over. My response to the third changed over the course of time. Same behavior. Varying responses. Did one exceed his rights? Did two? Did all three?
There comes a time in the growing up of a balanced person where he or she has to leave home and venture out into the world. This means leaving behind the guiding forces of parents and schoolteachers that have managed to keep you on the right path until now. From now on, when you have a question of financial importance, a difficulty in affairs of the heart or a moral dilemma, you must deal with those issues without the guidance you might once have sought. You base your decision on the things you have learned, and the things you are still able to learn from studying and observing, with an open mind, the rich and complex world you inhabit.
You also erase from your mind the simplistic concept of Ultimate Good and Ultimate Evil. Those things do not exist. Everything is shades. As a consequence, you realise that there is no correct point of view, only a system of best possible practice. You are the arbiter of your life. You understand that this is an imperfect state, so the onus is on you to learn as much about the world as possible in order to make your informed decisions as fair as they can be, and as healthy as they can be.
We leave our family guidance in order that we might fulfill ourselves as human beings. In my opinion, we leave the basically good guidance of millenia-old religious thought systems and fulfill ourselves by getting to understand more about our world, ourselves and others.
The thought of a ‘father’ who is always right, and who always has the best advice is a comforting myth. There is little evidence that your Christian God gives better advice than I got from my own father. I live a moral life. I respect my friends and my family. I don’t steal, commit adultery, drink to excess, murder people or spit in public. Not because the Bible, or even my father, told me not to, but because I can see that these things would either be socially counter-productive, or hurt someone.
I grew out of the need to believe in fantastic myths like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy because, while I would have really liked to have had them as real, I knew in my heart that that’s all it was; my own wistful thinking. Gee, don’t you think I’d like to believe there is a ‘Heaven’ where I’d be reunited with my gorgeous Kate again? I could pretend it was so, but I know how easily we fool ourselves when our comprehension of this difficult world is challenged.
Leaving home and the comfort of familiarity, warmth, assured love, predictability and safety, is always a hard decision. But I have, because I want to see the world with clear, fresh eyes; even the things I’d rather not see because they are hard to endure.
To answer your last question, in my opinion, any amount of ‘hounding’ is offensive. Thoughtful discussion, debate, even heated argument are acceptable. Hounding is not.
Yeah brother!
Rabbi,
Please check this out: http://www.chumfm.com/MorningShow/bits/march24.swf
It’ll give you a fresh perspective on Bible thumping. Trust me. It’s worth it.
… and it raises the interesting question: if the little old lady had killed the guy she bashed with the Bible, would she go to Heaven? Would he?
And, as far as I recall, I’ve never encountered a murder-mystery where the Bible is used as the murder weapon. Hmmm. I’m looking for a good plot for a new story…
It’s Texas. If you don’t carry a shotgun, you have to carry a Bible.
Now, back to business. Please help me understand.
If you are the arbiter of your life and make your own independent judgment of right and wrong, then I see only two logical consequences of that code of conduct (but perhaps I have not thought it through correctly or fairly):
(1) In addition to be the arbiter of your own conduct, you have decided that you are also the arbiter of my conduct and my rights and have the right to judge my conduct. If that is the case, then presumably you may with impugnity dictate the limits of my right to evangelize. But where did you get that authority? Must I abide by your judgments? If so, have you appointed yourself as my God? (Interestingly, you seem to quickly judge the evangelist’s rights by what appear to be strictly black-and-white rules of behavior, but with your own conduct you seem more willing to rely on shades of gray.)
(2) If you are the arbiter of your own conduct but not mine, then perhaps you would be willing to concede that I would have equal authority to be the arbiter of my own life. If that is so, then it seems to me that you may have no expectation of me oher than that I will faithfully apply my own personal moral/ethical code and act accordingly at all times. What right then would you have to judge my behavior? If my personal code is more flexible than yours, or less, what right would you have to judge? If you and I each have equal and unique authority to judge our own behavior, then you could never judge me to have exceeded the limits of my rights, because my rights are determined by my personal code — not yours. Similarly, I could never judge you (not that I want to). If that is the rule, then any and all of my behavior may be justified. The only test can be: Was it right in my own eyes at the time? Your view and judgment of my behavior becomes wholly irrelevant.
If the former is true, then who appointed you God? And if you are God, can you enforce your judgments? (Can an atheist, be a self-declared God?) If so, then humankind is subject to the control every self-appointed “god” who is powerful enough, cunning enough, or charismatic enough to dominate us. We have centuries of experience — generally bad — with that concept. Absolute power corrupts …
If the latter is true, can humanity, culture, civilization really advance under that moral/ethical construct? I daresay Hitler, Milosevic, Sadam Hussein — and every other ethnic cleanser — has reasoned that he was entirely justified in killing as many unacceptable “ethnics” as he could — based solely on the sin of ethnicity. And my guess would be that every Mafia don that ever ordered a “hit” felt justified under his personal moral/ethical code. And most thieves and murderers likewise. Once again, we end up in the same place. The strongest, most meglomaniacal among us will control us, and humanity is forever subject to the whim and whimsy of the strongest, the most cunning, or the most charismatic.
Do we really want to live that way? Of course, the response may be that the latter works if everyone behaves at all times with the utmost love and respect for everyone else. But haven’t we proved to ourselves through centuries of experience that humans, left to their own personal judgments, do not act that way? Without a higher authority, there is no incentive to act differently, or to reform our lives or our personal codes. And, ultimately, if you and I truly love and respect others, those “others” will have the opportunity to take advantage of us, and many will seize it. Self-protective behaviors then become the rule. Loving and respecting others takes a back seat to self-protection. Our judgments of our own behavior become muddled. Aren’t humans incapable, left to their own devices, of behaving selflessly over the long haul? (Perhaps that is the reason Jesus admonishes us to obey his command to love God first and foremost, to love our neighbor at all costs, to die to self, to seek first the kingdom of God, to forgive every offense, and to take up the cross and follow him.)
— As for hounding: In retrospect, I am now grateful that each one of the hounders was willing to violate my right to be free of evangelistic instrusion. Has the unacceptable now become acceptable?
I am the person who decides in which way I apply my moral code. I don’t in any way insist that you, or anyone else, should follow my moral code.
You are perfectly entitled to your stance. I started this post by saying “I’m pretty tolerant of religious beliefs, even if I don’t agree with most of most of them”. And so I am.
What you believe is your business.
However.
I am not tolerant of any religious imprimatur to carry out actions that have an impact on people who don’t agree with those actions or hold those beliefs.
Once again I ask the simple question, a question that you avoid every time I ask it (because I don’t believe you can answer it): Why is your religion right, and every other religion wrong? Because it says so? Pah! I will not buy that. How does your religion differ in that respect from any other illogical belief that anyone may hold?
In the US, many thousands of people believe they have been abducted by aliens. Are they wrong? Do you believe they have been abducted by aliens? Why not? If the aliens told them to come knock on your door every Sunday and deliver messages from Klaatu, would you be pissed off? What if they set up loudspeakers in your street to preach the alien message?
You see – you have to make boundaries of common acceptance of such kinds of beliefs. I am perfectly willing to tolerate someone saying they believe that beings from space talk to them, but I do not accept that they may push this message, or the trappings of their beliefs, on me.
Really, what do you think of that? Would you be willing to allow it? Truthfully.
You think your religion is right because it is your religion. You think your moral code is better than anyone else’s because your religion tells you so.
These are not persuasive reasons for me.
My moral stance, faulty as it may be since I am a human, is at least based on a rational and humanist platform. I can defend my choices in a coherent manner that anyone may understand regardless of their religious persuasion. It may not get me into your heaven, but I think you could understand my reasons for not killing someone, or not keeping slaves, or not driving faster than the speed limit.
We don’t need some kind of god to tell us how to make moral choices. Or do you disagree on that point?
And I point you to your phrase:
And, ultimately, if you and I truly love and respect others, those “others†will have the opportunity to take advantage of us, and many will seize it. Self-protective behaviors then become the rule. Loving and respecting others takes a back seat to self-protection. Our judgments of our own behavior become muddled. Aren’t humans incapable, left to their own devices, of behaving selflessly over the long haul?
… and ask simply, how many adherents to religious codes through the ages(any religious code, take your pick) have comprehensively failed to stop that from happening to their practitioners? Do I need to provide examples? Are you suggesting that if we all adopted Christianity this would get better? Religions don’t stop humans from acting badly. They never have, they never will.
The strongest, most meglomaniacal among us will control us, and humanity is forever subject to the whim and whimsy of the strongest, the most cunning, or the most charismatic.
And religion has ever fixed that problem either?
Your whole argument in this comment seems to be ‘Because things are difficult, and there is no easy solution to complex moral problems, then we need God to see us through’
I reject that on the counts that:
A: It has not worked very well so far, and
B: Even if you adopt Christianity wholeheartedly, there are still complex moral problems, and
C: Why should your religion be the chosen one?
(Interestingly, you seem to quickly judge the evangelist’s rights by what appear to be strictly black-and-white rules of behavior, but with your own conduct you seem more willing to rely on shades of gray.)
And just picking up on this because it constitutes are different thread of the argument:
You are muddying my shades of grey into a swirling mess of dishwater Mr Fuel. I said ‘shades’ not ‘one uniform greyness’.
I think I’ve made it obvious in my alien example above that as grown ups we can agree that not all behaviour is acceptable. On the other hand, if the alien abductees want to hold a fair and give out alien-pops, well, I don’t object to that. I may or may not attend the fair. Our freedom of thought is agreed by most intelligent people to be an inalienable human right.
On the other hand, I think most grown ups would also agree that the inflicting of idealogies on unwilling participants swings toward the darker end of the greyscale. In this respect, I don’t find evangelizing of any kind acceptable. I would not find evangelizing from alien abductees acceptable, I don’t find ‘Jesus’ skywriting acceptable, and I do not find Hare Krishnas stopping me in the street to proselytize acceptable. There are forums where people who are interested in these things can find out more about them. Our society allows us this freedom of religious thought. I’m not just pulling these ideas out of my own brain – these are the kinds of ideals that have held our societies together for a very long time. And they weren’t made up by Christians.
You yourself said you would take offense at someone skywriting Satan. Now that of course is a humourous exaggeration on my part, but as intelligent, thinking, learned people I believe we can all come to agreement on certain kinds of behaviours that we find unacceptable. This is not a position of ‘black and white’ and I reject your notion that I adopt one kind of view for my own code and another for others. I do not. I believe that it is unacceptable for you to push your ideas on me without my consent, and in turn, I hold that code to myself. If, on the other hand, you think it is acceptable to evangelize, then you can in no way find offense in my choosing to get a skywriter to write Satan on your morning sky. Just because it ‘conflicts with your beliefs’ is simply not a good enough reason.
Part of my problem is that I agree with you. I do recognize the conundrum posed by allowing one group to evangelize, and have long recognized the problem. I do not think that a Christian can object to Satanist or Muslim proselytizing if the Christian wishes to proclaim the Christian gospel.
But what I’ve really been trying to discern in our discussion is what, in atheistic thought, is the foundation for moral and ethical judgments. Now I have more understanding on the subject. Here is another flaw in that foundation, at least from my perspective: We have shifted the foundation from individual judgment to group judgment. Would we be so agreeable to accept the “group think” on the subject if the majority of the group consisted of vocal, strict Muslims or militant Hindus who to apply their moral/ethical code in the way that Iran does — in which non-adherrents are heretics and heretics may be jailed, subjected to corporal punishment, and/or put to death? God forbid! (A figure of speech, of course.)
So how do we get off of the shifting sand? Do I think the Christian moral/ethical foundation more sound? Yes, I do. Do I think it sounder than other religions? In fact, it is, with the exception of Judaism (from which Christianity derives) and Mormonism, the Jehovah Witnesses, and the like (which derive from Christianity). As a footnote: The Muslim foundation has the advantage of being black and white, but the disadvantage of being uniquely applicable in its fairer aspects other among Muslims. As far the non-Muslims — the infidels — the Koran says to kill them until they convert — which seems to dramatically to conflict with its reputed doctrine to peace and which offends my moral/ethical code. (Perhaps I will definitely say that evangelism may not got that far, nor to torture nor to conversion by lesser forms of coercion or duress [i.e., the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, etc.]) However, back to the proposition at hand: The Judeo-Christian foundation is not based upon the shifiting sand of individual/personal judgment or majority opinion, but on the articulated moral and ethical principles that do not change with time or circumstance. I know it is the unchanging and seemingly inflexible nature of those principles that cause many to reject them, preferring a more flexible approach.
The flexible approach is problematic because it so quickly falls it depends entirely on the individual or the group. How can it be wrong to cheat on your wife if you are cheating with someone you love? After all, if it is love, it can’t be wrong? How can it be wrong to cheat on your wife if you are cheating with someone you don’t love? After all, if its not love, its just casual sex that doesn’t really mean anything so it can mean unfaithfulness?
If we rely on adult consensus, what happens when the adult consensus is just plain wrong? In the Muslim and Hindu tradition, if your wife doesn’t please you, you may send her back, you may disfigure her, you may have her gang-raped. Sometimes the human consensus is just plain wrong. Oh, but that’s a religious consensus. Not really, its a social tradition. But look at the atheist consensus in the USSR, for instance. People of religious presuasion, particularly Jews and Christians, were tortured, killed, oppressed. Surely that was wrong. How do we escape from quagmire?
Is Christianity otherwise superior? Of course I think so. Why? I will have to address that at another time or I will err greatly for I promised to be on time to dinner and I am not at home.
Once again I must object to the reductionism in your argument. It’s not as simple as me shifting the onus for moral certitude from the individual to the group. The grey areas are manifest. First, I don’t think there is any moral certitude; morality is fluid like everthing else. Second, it’s not about ‘groupthink’ either, although by necessity there must be at least a degree of consensus.
The basic necessities are that we keep ourselves educated, that we keep open minds, and that we agree that making ‘rules’ is always going to be a system of compromise. We also attempt to examine, from time to time, any guidance we make, and ask ourselves if it is meaningful any longer.
I find it remarkable that you seem to think Christianity immune from all the foibles that you single out in Islam, Hindi, and even Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Christian Bible is replete with examples of exhortations of revenge and ‘justified’ violence.
Need I quote you Exodus?:
21:23 And if mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Or Kings:
19:35 That night the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies!
How about Deuteronomy:
28:27 The Lord will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured.
(…not to mention all the other things God did in vengeance to the Egyptians…)
A few random extracts. There are of course hundreds of these.
Maybe you don’t hold with the Old books of the Bible? Maybe they are not appropriate any longer? Maybe rules that say women should be shunned when they are menstruating, or men are ‘unclean’ until twilight after they have had sex, are inappropriate in our modern world?
Maybe you think that the New Testament is more appropriate. Then you have accepted that the Word of God is imperfect, and subject to ‘fluidity’.
I know you can quote me lots of statements that contradict those I chose above, but therein lies a problem, do you not agree? Who makes the decisions on which of these guidances is correct. Who makes the decisions on which parts of the Bible should be taken as law?
Could it be… humans? More to the point, could it be humans with power?
Tellingly, you appear to admire what you see as the black-and-white aspects of Muslim moral creed. As if simple rules are a good thing. I assert they are not. Simple rules are merely convenient. They don’t address the complexity of the real living world. Additionally, the implication of what you say is that Christianity has a more flexible code than Islam. I assert that it does not. It is only that you choose the bits you want to live your life by, as do most modern Muslims. The flexibility, as always, is not in the religion but in the humans who adopt its teachings.
(Your view of Islam is distinctly Medieval, and, if I may say, particularly Medieval Christian. Modern Muslims do not endorse the killing of non-believers any more than Modern Christians do. You are confusing Fundamentalism with practical Islam. I’m afraid you believe far too much of your president’s rhetoric.)
And then I am confounded to read that you agree that the extreme measures of the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials and the Crusades are intolerable in the name of your religion. And yet the abominable deeds of these episodes were committed by men who were convinced that they were doing the work of God. How do you reconcile this? You are, perforce, making an individual moral judgement based on ideals that have been instilled in you from the times and moral climate in which you live (unless, of course, you thought these things were OK before you became a Christian, and you needed Jesus to tell you this was the work of evil men…)
You tell me that ‘the flexible approach is problematic’ and so it is. But you would have me believe that Christianity offers rigid approaches that are appropriate in every circumstance. I reject this assertion completely. The ‘rules’ of the Bible fail comprehensively whenever the moral issue becomes tricky.
Your ill-conceived moral conundrum of fidelity proffers the ‘solution’ that in both cases you should stay with your wife, because that’s what God says. It fails to even look at the outcome of that situation: two people living together unhappily, creating misery for each other, their children and their friends because God says that’s best. It fails to address the complexity of such a circumstance.
Yes, it would be really nice to think that such things are easily solved, but the fact is, the real world fact is, that there is no simple solution to such complex problems.
Need I add, that even with the supposed guidance of God in such matters, Christians still fall in love with other people while married, and still have sex with other people while married. And have done so for centuries, with no sign that there is any abatemant of this behaviour! Your rules are as meaningless as any other rules in these circumstances.
You say ‘sometimes the human consensus is just plain wrong’. And so it is. Humans and human affairs are complex. We make mistakes. That’s because we’re not talking black-and-white Mr Fuel. Religions do not help this state of affairs. Religions are made up of humans. Religions, as history demonstrates, tend to solidify bad human consensus into doctrine and rigid dogma which cannot be shaken for centuries.
How do we escape from the quagmire? Not with religion. Religion has had millenia to prove its worth, and it shows itself to be less and less adequate as time goes by.
We escape by leaving such crutches behind. We learn to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions without relying on, or blaming, some deity who is beyond reproach. We learn to respect and tolerate those whose cultures are not ours. We maintain active dialogue with one another. We put education at the top of the list of things that we must give our children. In short, we grow up. We leave behind pretty beliefs, convenient solutions and the warm hearth of home.
I hasten to point out that I don’t suggest we throw out the teachings of our religious figures. I think that Christ and Buddha, Mohammed and Krishna all had sound and wise things to say. Throw away the myths and the fairy tales and they all still stand up as remarkable men. But just men.
Like the best of us, they wanted to see the human race become better, to aspire to something other than a purely animal existence. But sometime we have to grow out of the punishment and reward system that is used to train animals, and take responsibility for ourselves and our actions. We need to try and do the right thing because we feel it’s right and not because we want a reward, or because some deity told us we should do it or they’d bring down a famine.
The road I suggest is not the easy road. The easy road of simplistic rules and black-and-white solutions is seductive and comfortable. The reward of eternity in the protection of God is desirable and attractive.
But if there’s one thing I’ve learned in life it is that if something looks like it’s too good to be true, then it probably is.
If your God is trying to teach me a lesson other than that, then he’s doing a very poor job.
I didn’t realize he responded to me. Damn, I could have dusted off the old Theology major and tore some shit up. Then I could have saved his soul. I’ll just have to wait for the Great Pumpkin to come and convince him for me. Before he throws him in a pit of soggy pumpkin seeds for all eternity.
See, it isn’t only the Christians who get the perks.