I make no secret of my politics on this blog, unapologetically, for a few reasons.
1) It's my personal blog. If you want fair and balanced, spend all day poring over news blogs/listening to the radio/watching tv/reading the newspaper. That's what I do to form these opinions.
2) A lot of you agree with me. Those of you who don't, I know you can take a well-reasoned argument and either let it go or have at me in a way that we will still be speaking to each other at the end of the discussion.
3) Politics are hugely important to me and occupy a large part of my thinking.
That being said, I hope no one is offended by the following.
While I never have a problem with anyone having faith, I do have a major problem with the attitude of many members of particular religions. This includes any religious person that has stopped me on the street, knocked on my door, or otherwise tried to convince me that their way is the one. Proselytizing, in other words.
As far as I am concerned, my faith and spirituality is solely my business. You are entirely uninvolved. I don't really care what you think (but in a friendly, non-offensive way). I don't go about screaming what I believe, so I expect you to do the same. I have never publicly proclaimed my particular brand of spirituality. I'm going to do so for the first time here.
I'm not an atheist.
I know, right? The Godless, educated liberal believes in God? No WAY!
Well, it's a little more complicated than that. I consider myself agnostic, meaning that I have no freakin' idea if there is a God or not, but I am unwilling to categorically say so either way. I usually add "hopeful" to the beginning of it. Hopeful meaning that I sure wish there is, especially the benevolent I-just-want-you-all-to-be-happy-God. Wouldn't that be nice?
For all of you that just answered "yes" to the above question, do you believe in gay marriage?
For all of you that just answered "no" to the second question, can you explain that to me?
That's right. You managed to find someone to love amidst all of this sadness, this insecurity, this world filled with war and starving children and various other hopelessly unfair things? Congratulations, dude! That's amazing. And I couldn't be happier for you.
But, sorry. Genetic limitations prevent you from receiving any of the governmental benefits that I just gave to that hilarious girl wearing hot pink vinyl that just drove through the chapel drive-thru here in Vegas. Man, was she drunk! (Yet still preserving the sanctity of marriage, mind you!)
I know what you'll say. It's just "unnatural" or "the Bible says it isn't right". Well, for all of you who fall into the first category, I'm guessing no logical argument will convince you, so we'll just leave you with your elitism and move along.
As for the second group, I can see your point. The Bible does make reference to homosexuality being against God's wishes and plans. Leviticus 18:22 specifically states that: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." But hey, as long as we're following the Bible, where is the mob that is supposed to stone Bristol Palin to death? Deuteronomy 22:20-21 says, "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." And while we're on the subject of killing people, Deuteronomy 13:13-15 states "Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." There goes Squirrel Hill, huh?
If your issue is that "marriage" is a religious construct and that should be reserved for the religious, ok. I could see that. So, I'm definitely not married. Neither are Shannon and Will, nor Brett and Andrea. And I'm a bastard child, along with my little brother. I could live with all of those things as long as you let me keep JP on my health care plan. You want to define marriage? Let's do it. Tell me I'm not married. Tell every other heterosexual couple that got married by a civil servant that they aren't married. Let's see how well that works out.
If you want to live your life as the Bible instructs, go for it. I find the hypocrisy of choosing which parts to follow to be angering beyond anything, though. If any of you live in California, Arizona, or Florida, please consider propositions 8, 102, and 2 long and hard. Who are we to judge? Ecclesiastes 3:17: "God shall judge the righteous and the wicked". Not you.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Agnostics, Secular Humanists, and Tolerance FTW!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)
17 comments:
The Christians who tout those verses are completely misrepresenting our faith. Jesus' teachings in the new testament trump all that archaic "smite the heathen" garbage.
Love your neighbor. Love your ENEMY. Do no harm.
THESE are the values of the Christian Bible. Note that I said LOVE not just "tolerate." You're not supposed to detest the existence of a group of people, look down on them, mistrust them, but "tolerate" them since you can't euthenize or deport the whole lot. You're supposed to LOVE them. Everyone, not just the people that agree with you or look the same as you. Jesus loved whores and criminals alike, and constantly clashed with the rabis over their harsh, biggoted, exclusionist practices.
@Frey, Oh _NO_ you Di'uh! *Snaps fingers thrice*
Secular Humanist?! Hopeful Agnostic?! What will our priestmunty say?
Remember Tarvu's words!
Tarvu tarvooti,
Oboonoo cTooti,
Mimmin O'tibbi noonah,
Mdfitty fitty noonah,
Arvu immentiBarvu,
Tarvu.
@Noah, Unfortunately It's not even clear what Jesus believed based on the New Testament. The Jesus of the Book of John is a completely different one from the Jesus of the Book of Luke. In the book of John he is sarcastically divine, dare I say Tony Bourdain like character, disdainful of all the lesser beings he has to surround himself with.
It is also not clear whether the covenant God/Jesus came down to Earth with "Love Your Neighbor etc" was in conjunction to, or in replacement of the covenant Abraham made with Yaweh. Bible scholar's are at odds on this issue.
Great post! I'm going to throw out my random comments, and forgive my tendency to play devil's advocate.
As far as I am concerned, my faith and spirituality is solely my business. You are entirely uninvolved. I don't really care what you think (but in a friendly, non-offensive way). I don't go about screaming what I believe, so I expect you to do the same.
On the other hand, I do have to say that if I REALLY believed those around me were going to hell if they didn't accept the teachings that I hold dear, it's certainly the moral thing to do to preach to them, given that it might be the only chance you have to reach out to them. If you're passing by a creek and someone is drowning, you're hopefully going to reach out, rather than walk by hoping that a professional comes along to rescue them.
I consider myself agnostic, meaning that I have no freakin' idea if there is a God or not, but I am unwilling to categorically say so either way. I usually add "hopeful" to the beginning of it. Hopeful meaning that I sure wish there is, especially the benevolent I-just-want-you-all-to-be-happy-God. Wouldn't that be nice?
I don't think "atheist" specific means absolute certainty that there's no god. To me, it means that there's no reason to believe there is one.
I really hope there's no god, and not in a Pascal's Wager sort of way. If there is, it means:
- God hates animals - why else would there have been such immense, bloody agony for so many species, 99% of which are extinct?
- God likes emotional pain too - why else deformed and miscarried fetuses, birth defects of all stripes, etc?
- God prefers his/her word to be impossible to detect; why else would every religion show the same patterns of global distribution (via military and political conquest), dissemination through local and family culture, etc?
- God seems to prefer absolute anonymity - why else a world that appears, in every way, to be utterly indistinguishable from one without a god?
For there to be a god, in the presence of such things, means God is wicked, or ignorant, or uncaring, or impotent. Or, perhaps, a scientist following through on an experiment - but then we can't find much hope in his/her existence.
Discarding my belief in a god has been an immense relief for me. I no longer have to shuffle and scrape for some vestige of a rationale for cruel misfortune; and it also means that many of humanity's problems are in our hands, and our hands alone!
We're all atheists, really. How many of us belief in Zeus, Loki, Shiva, etc? Islam says we'll all go to hell, even Christians, for our specific disbelief about the crazed pedophile Mohammed. Some of us just go one god further. Or 3 further, depending on your point of view on the Trinity.
The Bible does make reference to homosexuality being against God's wishes and plans.
Well... male homosexuality, yes. Yahweh is apparently willing to tolerate girl-on-girl action. :-) At least as much as He tolerates a father having intercourse with both his daughters, not long after offering them both to a mob out for a good rape, and after his wife got turned to a pillar of salt. (Genesis 19 has the complete story).
@Noah: the vast majority of Christians cherry-pick what to believe - the Bible is so inconsistent, there's no choice.
In Matthew 5:18-19, Jesus makes it clear that the law is to be obeyed.
In 5:39, he says not to resist evil - no qualifications, not even self-defense.
In 19:21-24, he makes it clear that believers are to sell all possessions and follow him.
There's much, much more. Suffice it to say that you have to do a great deal of semantic tap-dancing to ignore some of the extremely radical things Jesus is said to have said.
So while you can pick up the parts you like, and focus on them (and loving neighbor and enemy alike has value, of course), you must then ignore much else. And there's no clear indication in the Bible which are important and which not - no weighting system for Scripture, as far as I know.
The Old Testament is even more problematic, mixing ritual rules with moral ones with social ones.
Eric - you know I love when you do this. =)
"On the other hand, I do have to say that if I REALLY believed those around me were going to hell if they didn't accept the teachings that I hold dear, it's certainly the moral thing to do to preach to them, given that it might be the only chance you have to reach out to them. If you're passing by a creek and someone is drowning, you're hopefully going to reach out, rather than walk by hoping that a professional comes along to rescue them."
But my god doesn't think that just these random believers are his followers. It's more of a "good deeds" sort of thing. I mean, how could you possibly believe that someone goes to hell just because no one manages to get the Bible to them? Add another argument to the "your god doesn't actually love everyone" column.
"To me, it means that there's no reason to believe there is one."
True, and I did simplify things a bit with my definition of agnosticism vs. atheism. I have the flip side as well, where I don't see a reason to believe there's not one, even though I have no proof and don't necessarily believe the anecdotal evidence, either. It's just something that I'm ok with saying might be out there.
"I really hope there's no god, and not in a Pascal's Wager sort of way. If there is, it means..."
I think it just means that either:
1) We are given complete free will with this gigantic experiment of god(s)
2) He's not the happy god that I am hoping for
"some vestige of a rationale for cruel misfortune; and it also means that many of humanity's problems are in our hands, and our hands alone!"
Oh, I totally agree on this one. 99% of my unwillingness to be an atheist is to say that there is no afterlife.
"Yahweh is apparently willing to tolerate girl-on-girl action. :-)"
Lol, I know! I almost brought that up, but hey, this was long enough. I wanted to restrict the quotes to purely simplistic statements rather than a whole list of things the Bible is crazy about.
you know Freya, dooce had a really interesting post the other day about how, if you take religion out of the picture, there is NO REASON to prevent civil union between homosexual couples. since our nation indeed already has separation of church and state, there is NO REASON persons shouldn't be allowed to enter legal partnership with one another. great post.
Okay, here we go. I generally do not reply to these things because I have a problem being concise. My replies tend to go very long and take up days in my brain then never get into print. But I’m going to go for this one. However, I don’t intend on even scratching the surface of question at hand as of yet. In my opinion A LOT needs to be unpacked first before I can even breach it. Let us start with the Bible itself, shall we?
First things first; Bible belief and understanding needs to be both CONTEXTUAL and HISTORICLLY INFORMED. The purest function of the Christian Church is to teach it IN CONTEXT. Period. And there is also the responsibility of the individual, both believer and critic alike to have read it. All of it. If one is going to use the Bible to argue a point, any point, I don’t think it’s asking a lot to insist that the individual not be ignorant of its contents. Yet many (I’d dare say MOST) are.
Freya I love you, but before I can even accept your argument I have to ask you: Have you read the whole Bible? Forgive me but I doubt you found those passages during a cover-to cover journey through it. Am I right? Do you understand what and why and to whom the words in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were being written? Or how those words apply to 21st century Christ-followers? And why it applies differently?
This brings me to CONTEXT.
Both believers and critics are equally guilty of “scripture twisting” which can be accomplished in a myriad of ways. That alone is enough to write a book on. So I will deal with the simplest and most abused way, which is taking passages out of context. Here’s a very base example for you rabid Harry Potter fans. Were I to read just one lonely page (or even less) of The Sorcerer’s Stone and then claim from the rooftops (i.e. the internet) that the entire series was a boring, hard to understand, unentertaining load of shit, then you would probably..…. Well, you get my point. Yet people do it every day with the Bible without even blinking an eye.
Election years are prime seasons of grouping people into categories. Or of people talking about tolerance, and yet having very little. Especially in the realm of Christians to non-Christians, and visa-versa. A time when proselytizing to one’s party is encouraged, but proselytizing to one’s faith is most shunned. Example: For anyone to say or imply that my political leanings, for instance, are just mob mentality, and group me together with a bunch of crazy right-wingers, is to call me too stupid to make educated decisions based on the here-and-now where I live, and the ancient truths I live by. I try to live my life according to what the Bible says which makes it so that I have chosen a life where I am constantly evaluating and re-evaluating and reading and re-reading and trying to grasp the depth of it … and then starting all over. If a person’s faith is true (as in “true blue”), then faith and politics are connected. We cannot detach ourselves from our faith. Here’s where the Bible points I make will tie in with any political points I make. Again though, I don’t want to go down that road just yet.
If the tone of this post sounds patronizing or condescending, let it be known that that is not my intention. However, it’s not the place for smiley icons either. And honestly, I get a little ticked off when the Bible is made to say what a person wants it to say just to further an agenda.
On a personal level, and knowing that none of this “well-reasoned argument” will ever change my love for my cousin, I must ask: To be a “hopeful” agnostic implies you are open to wishing there were a God, but how active are you in finding that answer? I mean, in one of your paragraphs the first sentence states that “my faith and spirituality is solely my business”, and the last two sentences of that same paragraph states that you are going to proclaim it here for the first time. (And for the entire world to read no less.) You say in your last paragraph that you are “angered beyond anything” of people choosing which parts of the Bible to follow, then, by quoting a verse in Ecclesiastes, you do that very thing.
To you Freya, and to any now reading this, I appeal to your open-mindedness and suggest the following book: “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis is an argument for belief in the God of Christianity by a man whose spiritual journey from atheism to Christianity came essentially by way of logic. No crazy Christianisims.
And of course, I also suggest a book called ….uh …. “The Bible”.
@Freya, I strongly disagree with you on the interpretation of Deuteronomy 13:13-15. It doesn't mean we should stone Squirrel hill, it means they should stone us. The Jews had the Torah first, so they get first dibs on punishment.
I can't understand why so many people say they "vote on values" and then immediately bring up abortion and gay marriage, specifically stating that they're against both.
Why do some people feel the overwhelming need to determine what everyone else's values should be? So busy worried about what they can keep other people from doing that they don't see that they're own rights are being taken away to do so.
I heard a man saying today that he would be voting for McCain because of his stance on abortion and gay marriage, and his reasoning behind this was that "as long as you've got God on your side, he'll take care of your country."
That is the kind of thinking that slowly and completely delivered me from any sense that God might be real, at least any God that's in the Bible, or the Bible for that matter....or matter, for that Bible...or something.
But when people are making real life choices based on whether or not God is going to step in and save or kill them...I mean, did we really send soldiers off to Iraq because if we didn't, God would have broken his 2000 year silence to come down and smite the people of America.
And why don't the red states understand that even if God did want to come down here and give us all boils and stufflikethat, he'd clearly know that his business was only with the Northeast and West coast...surely a true and fair God would not bother smiting all 10 people who live in Nebraska...would he?
WOULD HE?!
First of all, Dennis, I have read the Bible. While I’m not sure that I can claim that I did every single reading assigned for the class in which I read it, please rest assured the majority of the text was read and discussed. And this was a few years ago, so forgive me if I’m a bit rusty.
Now, I did not off the top of my head remember the exact wording or chapters and verses, but I do like my blogs to be cited, so I looked them up.
I don’t remember Leviticus in particular as more than a set of rules of being in a relationship with God, but I do know the context of Deuteronomy, as a sermon of Moses’ on how to behave in Canaan. I’m sure there is more depth to it than that, but I was under the impression that that was the gist of things. Rules to be followed. This is how it was presented to me as a work of literature, rather than a scripture of faith.
As far as Leviticus is concerned, regardless of the rest of the context, I know that it also includes the oh-so-famous dietary restrictions. And if you eat kosher, you do follow these things. But my point is that if you use Leviticus 18 to decry homosexuality, but then cheerily gloss over Chapter 11 while you’re chowing down on your lobster dinner, well, that seems hypocritical. If you want to say that none those rules really apply anymore, I would happily agree with you there. No God that I would believe in would deny me seafood. But in choosing which ones “matter”, that gets a little sticky.
Also, I would like to point out two things in your Harry Potter comparison.
1) Virtually none of my friends are rabid HP fans
2) When I choose to live my life around HP activities, I am not harming anyone. I am not telling anyone else to do that or to like Harry Potter. There are not groups of people harassing anyone to vote for a candidate that likes Harry Potter more.
“Election years are prime seasons of grouping people into categories. Or of people talking about tolerance, and yet having very little.”
Yes, and everyone is the victim, it seems, with some more outspoken than the rest. I would read news with a right slant if I could find something meaningful and well-researched. If you do make educated decisions about voting that are unrelated to your faith, I would like to know what you are reading. What I come across are things that are insulting to me without providing any new information. I worked hard to earn a college degree, and I’m being sick of being told that because I’m educated, this somehow makes me despicable. I didn’t think I was better than you before, so why do you get to think you’re better than me now? (Not you, you, but those who have turned “educated” into “elitist”)
Governing morality is a tricky thing, definitely. Not everyone will agree, but I am also tired of being told that I am amoral because I don’t share the same morals. And especially when I feel so strongly that my belief will help people (in the particular case of gay marriage). I don’t understand how the flipside will help people. When it comes to things like tax policies and health care, it’s a matter of how you crunch the numbers and how you think it should be paid for. When you are talking about peoples’ lives, it becomes a different story altogether.
I thought it was important to state that I am not an atheist because I think that people would be surprised to learn that. When it comes to medicine, I want science. When it comes to conspiracy theories, I want facts. Still having faith that there may be a God, well, that’s a little out of whack with these things at times.
“by quoting a verse in Ecclesiastes, you do that very thing”
Yes, it’s called ‘irony’.
@Dennis,
with regards to harry potter. Yes, your analogy is true, citing quotes of of a larger body of worker and criticizing the whole body of work based on a single quote is unfair.
However.
No one is asking our federal and state governments to pass legislation based on a rationale derived from Harry Potter. Harry Potter fans do not go door to door proselytizing, do not stand on street corners ministering, nor do they attempt to pass moral and ethical judgments that would affect the lives of other human beings.
You ask us to take Context and Historic Information into account.
Please then, in all seriousness, explain to me what 21st century contextual conditions preclude the capital punishment of sexual active unmarried women, but still allow rampant discrimination of homosexuals?
@Frey,
Check out The Year of Living Biblically. http://www.ajjacobs.com/books/yolb.asp
Guy's hardcore.
@Nathan,
it's The City On The Hill/Manifest Destiny/Monroe/Truman/Nixon/Bush/Protocol 4-B mentality. It's their duty as Christian American's to make sure the unwashed heathens are safe and protected from God's wrath. It's the whole drowning river victim thing like erk said. I suppose God will be angrier at them if they just sat by and let him smite the smoten.
First things first; Bible belief and understanding needs to be both CONTEXTUAL and HISTORICLLY INFORMED.
So in other words, we treat it like any other artifact created by humans? I agree. But far more is claimed of it.
The purest function of the Christian Church is to teach it IN CONTEXT. Period. And there is also the responsibility of the individual, both believer and critic alike to have read it. All of it.
I agree again. It was reading the Bible that was the final straw on the back of my faith. I think we'd have new atheists in droves if only more Christians actually read the Bible, cover to cover.
Freya I love you, but before I can even accept your argument I have to ask you: Have you read the whole Bible?
So in order to properly interpret any given segment of the Bible, no matter how clear-cut, it's necessary for someone to have read the whole thing and, I'd wager, have understood millenia of "scholarship", interpretation, and re-interpretation of the mumbo-jumbo? Have you done due diligence to Islam, Scientology, Mormonism, and so on? Have you read, and properly researched, the entire Bhagavad-Gita?
And how dare you try to interpret a single statement of Freya's without having read the entirety of her personal and professional correspondence necessary to establish what you call "context"?
Do you understand what and why and to whom the words in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were being written? Or how those words apply to 21st century Christ-followers? And why it applies differently?
Do I hear the opening refrains of the Special Dispensation Shuffle, in which Christians dance gleefully around those statements and actions of Jahweh they find moderately difficult, nonsensical, or downright amoral?
In order to "interpret" the Bible in a way which doesn't leave believers running screaming from the theater or rolling in guffaws in the aisles, it's necessary to apply a vast web of mind-numbing contrivances.
This points squarely at a god who clearly wants to deceive, or who can't keep his text from being molested, or is the construction of primitive bronze-age prejudice subjugated by powerful church hierarchies which are increasingly finding themselves ejected from said theater by those who actually apply the "minds god gave us" to the "universe god gave us" to deduce that god either doesn't exist, or is irrelevant, or a raving loon.
Here's a simple starting point - does this have context which lessens its import?
Matthew 5:17-19:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
What exactly allows a Christian to weasel out of the laws of the Old Testament?
Revelation 22:18-19:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
So clearly John, on behalf of God, was concerned about tampering with the contents of the book. An odd warning not to mess with the omnipotent.
And honestly, I get a little ticked off when the Bible is made to say what a person wants it to say just to further an agenda.
Patched together as it is, based on unknown "authors" with only a passing relationship to the events and people about which they write, you can read anything in the Bible.
Here are some good ones, as a starting point. I'd love a bit of "context" which explains these in some way that even makes me think they're sensible: http://www.daylightatheism.org/series/little-known-bible-verses.
... “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis is an argument for belief in the God of Christianity by a man whose spiritual journey from atheism to Christianity came essentially by way of logic. No crazy Christianisims.
A good book, well-written but hardly convincing. And as for the Bible... well, that's what made me REALLY realize I was an atheist. When I can wander down a row in the self-help section of a book store and find more wisdom in a randomly-chosen tome, it's definitely time to open my eyes and move on. However, the King James Bible is a splendid bit of poetry and mythology. Translating it into modern English makes it much, much harder to suspend disbelief.
By the way, to all concerned: I mean no offense to you. I don't believe ideas have feelings, or are sacred, or demand the same respect as people do.
My respect for you as a rational person extends not one whit to a single idea you or I have. Ideas can, and should, be subjected to the most atrocious intellectual brutality; that way the best of them can survive and evolve, as we see throughout human history, with Christianity "blessedly" secularizing itself rather than remaining as it was throughout the first half of the 2nd millenium A.D.
Once more: I respect you and your defense of your ideas. I respect your ideas not one bit, nor do I believe you should respect mine. You should respect my right to have them, and the most "god-given" of our abilities: the right to vigorously reason about them all.
@Freya:
Deuteronomy has much more to recommend it than the ritual and dietary laws! Here Yahweh lays bare the region to Moses and Joshua. In some areas they're to kill every living thing: man, woman, child, aged, animal.
But in other regions they were to kill everyone EXCEPT virgin girls, whom the Israelites could keep as their own! Apparently Yahweh knows where the really hot underage girls are.
And in other places they were to kill just the men, and do various other things to others.
If one does choose to ignore the admonitions against homosexuality in the O.T., the New Testament still has Paul's warnings about it. But then again, Paul was an extremist freak who disagree with Jesus. Jesus blessed marriage, and smiled upon it; Paul viewed marriage as a way for people to get their rocks off, if they absolutely had to (celibacy was viewed as morally superior).
Check out Bertrand Russell's summation here: http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/2528/br_sex-m.htm. Especially the paragraph containing the first occurrence of the word "fornication." Ah what the heck, here it is:
Christianity, and more particularly St. Paul, introduced an entirely novel view of marriage, that it existed not primarily for the procreation of children, but to prevent the sin of fornication.... (I Cor. vii. 1-9.) St. Paul makes no mention whatever of children; the biological purpose of marriage appears to him wholly unimportant. This is quite natural, since he imagined that the Second Coming was imminent and that the world would soon come to an end. At the Second Coming men were to be divided into sheep and goats, and the only thing of real importance was to find oneself among the sheep on that occasion. St. Paul holds that sexual intercourse, even in marriage, is something of a handicap in the attempt to win salvation (I Cor. vii. 32-4). Nevertheless it is possible for married people to be saved, but fornication is deadly sin, and the unrepentant fornicator is sure to find himself among the goats. ... [Paul] does not suggest that [marriage] is quite as pleasant as fornication, but he thinks it may enable the weaker brethren to withstand temptation; he does not suggest for a moment that there may be any positive good in marriage, or that affection between husband and wife may be a beautiful and desirable thing, nor does he take the slightest interest in the family; fornication holds the center of the stage in his thoughts, and the whole of his sexual ethics is arranged with reference to it. It is just as if one where to maintain that the sole reason for baking bread is to prevent people from stealing cake. (M.M.p44-47)
I enjoyed reading this post and the comments. I'm agnostic as well. I come from a devout Catholic family & I've seen too many friends and family members get hurt and used by the church. Their motives are so far away from what they preach, it's laughable.
What's going to be interesting is telling my very Catholic parents that we're not baptizing our kid once it's born next spring. Don't think they're going to be showing me much of Christ's love when they hear the news.
The reason I find this tome so amusing is that it is centered on the Judea-Christian brand of religion. The point does not escape me that religion is an all-encompassing term but it does apply since there is a clear, well defined line between religion and spirituality and an even bolder line between those two and faith. In the context of the discussion, what Freya is expressing comes from the basis of one religious doctrine.
Atheism is a faith. One could successfully argue that it is a religion.
Factually, the human race in majority is not Judea-Christian (J-C and forgive the obvious reference) and hasn't been for many thousands of years prior to the birth of the J-C spiritualistic doctrine. Buddhists are poly-theist as are Hindu, Shinto, etc. Were this discussion to be limited to only the J-C point of view, it might as well be internal for all the broad aspects that are ignored.
Most interesting might be the views of other religious doctrines' on the subject of, let's say, homosexuality and marriage. Buddhists do not hold the same kind of hatred for homosexuals as does the J-C camp (and it is hatred, let us call a duck a duck). The general feeling is that while the bodies of humans are meant to be used in the way in which they were intended, procreation, homosexuality is considered a spiritual journey akin to that of a monk's. Homosexuality is still considered a choice in this particular comparison, and not a predetermination.
The idea of the 'Third Nature' in most Hindu cultures is traditionally celebrated and is considered to be something that people are born with.
Both of these examples stop short of condoning marriage between same-sex lovers.
Religion of any flavor should not be anywhere near the argument of whether or not a state should or should not certify marriages of any kind. The very nature of religion is exclusion in every case.
Take the issue of gender equality. If some dude on a camel going to Constantinople when the 'bible' was being written, had not gotten lost in a dust storm, there would have been proof of Christ's relationship to M. Magdalene, we would have a section of the 'bible' called the gnostic gospels and women would probably be the dominant gender. Women, after all, do most of the work when it comes to the procreation of our species. All we men do is provide the seeds- women have to grow it, bear it, feed it, ween it, and then eventually make them feel bad right before the wedding.
I digress.
My anger over this issue comes from the non-secular basis of our government. I can't stand it. Faith is a deeply personal journey; one's spiritual identity has no place in the halls of justice in any government that is supposed to be 'of the people, by the people and for the people', given the extreme diversity of which our population is made up. For the sake of all that is reasonable, Buddhist American citizens don't know who the hell 'God' is when they say the pledge.
Get over defining everything by the 'good book'. If there is a God, I hope he/she smites everyone who has ever denied anyone self-determination in His/Her name.
Gay people should have the right to get married and have every opportunity to suffer just like the rest of us.
These laws were instituted for the government of the Israeli nation. God was creating for Himself a people who needed a culture. Law was part of that. At that time, all forms of sexual immorality would have been purged by stoning.
We don't stone homosexuals in America, and we don't stone those who partake in premarital sex. Even the Jewish people for whom they were written do not do these things.
@Tim--the book of Matthew (the Gospel which was meant by the author to be read by Jewish people)records Jesus' long discourse about Israeli law. In this "Sermon on the Mount," He tightens the laws to apply not only to outward action, but also to the heart.
@Eric--unfortunately the Bible does have some things to say about girl-on-girl action---Romans 1 talks about this as a sign of total depravity that "even the women left their natural function" and lusted after each other. Sorry guys :)
Also, only one man was told to sell all his possessions. Jesus was making a point to a rich man who thought he was perfect.
Incidentally, you may remember a story of Christ in which He told the temple leaders (regarding a woman caught in adultery) that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. This was an example of the beautiful justice God intended. From the time the laws were instituted, it was custom for the Israeli people that the person bringing the charge against a sinner must cast the first stone of stoning once a verdict was reached on the testimony of 2-3 witnesses. This meant that if your child was the one committing a crime, you personally would run to the government to bring the charge. If the person who brought the charge was unwilling to cast the first stone, no stones would be thrown. As for virginal tokens, there is record of men who loved their brides cutting themselves in order to cover premarital promiscuity. Provisions were made for mercy.
This is one way in which I integrate both Torah and Christian Scriptures to my life: Since I am not without sin, I cast no stones at anyone.
I have no problems with gay couples getting any benefits they want. However, I wouldn't complain if they would call it something besides marriage. Just personal preference.
(Also, do be careful about using the name of God Y-H-W-H. It's very offensive to Jewish people.)
Post a Comment