Mailbag: Apology From a Christian, Part 4
Subject: Thoughts From a Non-Stereotypical Christian
It amazes me how un-Christian those "Christians" in your hate mail really act. And what is most frustrating is that they don't realize it. The two most important tenets of Christianity are: 1) love your God, and 2) love your neighbor as yourself. Many of them do an excellent job in loving their God. In fact, they do too good a job of that. But they neglect to love their neighbors. And that's because they don't realize that their neighbors include people who have different beliefs, or no beliefs as the case may be.
Well, I’m not sure that their actions are entirely “un-Christian” — as far as I am concerned, “Christian” is whatever Christians do and what you read here is definitely what Christians do. Of course, this particular letter is also what Christians do. That’s part of the point in posting it: to demonstrate that there is no One True Christian way.
Granted, acting with a certain amount of decency is preferable, but it would be arrogant to think that there should be anything uniquely Christian about that. Christians aren’t called upon to treat others decently because they are Christian, they are called upon to treat others decently because they are human and because we are all called upon to do that.
Matt’s idea that perhaps these Christians do “too good” of a job at loving God is interesting and it might be worth exploring more. One of the humanist arguments against Christianity (as well as many other religions) is the otherworldly focus which distracts one from the needs and problems of real human beings.
If I were you, I'd advise them to re-read Luke 10:25-37, the parable where the Samaritan (an enemy of the Jews during the alleged time of Jesus) helps a Jewish man left for dead, even when that Samaritan could have been arrested and executed for laying his hands on the Jew. If I am not mistaken, it would seem that many of those quasi-Christians in your hate mail perceive you, an atheist, as the enemy of Christianity. They are not being as hospitable toward you as the Samaritan toward the Jew. And in my Bible and religion, it would seem that whenever someone chooses to treat another person with anything other than love he/she is committing one of the cardinal sins (pride, in this case).
Well, it is said that the devil quotes scripture as well as anyone to suit his purposes, so I rather doubt that any Christians will be impressed by my quoting Luke. On the other hand, I have gotten a certain amount of satisfaction from quoting scripture to a Christian who is ignoring it. It’s an amusing irony.
All-in-all, though, I suspect that if a person can’t be draw to being decent and rational simply because those are the right things to do, they won’t be any more likely to change their ways because someone is quoting scripture at them.
I don't know what Bible they're reading, but as long as you don't use a shallow, literal approach, the morals should be the same in each version. But I would guess many of them choose the contradictory literal approach, in which case if I were you, I'd also advise those quasi-Christians to read up on the Documentary Hypothesis. Then they may learn about the mistake they make in putting all of their faith in the Bible (...rather than in God).
Most of these Christians don’t accept any of the fruits of modern biblical scholarship and critique; hence, they wouldn’t care about the “Documentary Hypothesis.” That will be rejected with just about every other advance from the past hundred years or so.
Matt is making a good point here, though, in noting that Christians like this are essentially making an idol out of their Bible — that’s why their attitude is sometimes labeled Bibliolatry. It’s not normally a very serious or developed theological position, preferring simplistic explanations in favor of the more complex realities of life.
I apologize for the tirade. It would seem these individuals frustrate me as much as they frustrate you. I welcome you to use my email. I hope it inspires people to think a little differently, whether it be to see that not all Christians are self-righteous or to show self-righteous Christians the error in their thought (though there's probably a better chance that the Apocalypse is tomorrow). I'm glad I could share with you my own perspective. I only wish more people like me were as vocal as some of those misguided Christians. Thanks.
I appreciate messages like this, but at the same time I don’t think I should want to receive too many of them. If I did, my Mailbag wouldn’t be nearly as interesting to read! Yes, these people are amazingly smug, arrogant, nasty, and just downright annoying — but there is also something strangely attractive about reading them. Maybe it’s like not being able to turn away from a car accident? Morbid curiosity about the intellectual train wrecks I dissect?
I don’t know what the reason is, but it is interesting just how popular the Mailbag has been. You can be sure that as long as these people keep writing, I’ll keep posting my responses.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
I assume that Matt is a US citizen. I hope that most US Christians think like Matt, in which case, our constitution is probably safe from the Christian right.
Austin, I believe you once referred to Christians who threaten and intimidate atheists as “tribal barbarians” and I think that was an apt way of looking at it. Somewhere along the line, many Christians see Christianity not only as a religion or ideology, but as a tribal identity and come to interpret intellectual attacks on the “tribe” as a besmirching of tribal honor. Such people are thinking in terms of defending their “tribe” rather than their religion, which is why they don’t interpret their actions as unchristian.
I can’t help but point this out:
“I don’t know what Bible they’re reading, but as long as you don’t use a shallow, literal approach, the morals should be the same in each version. But I would guess many of them choose the contradictory literal approach…”
“Then they may learn about the mistake they make in putting all of their faith in the Bible (…rather than in God).”
So, if I read a book and take it literally, I’ll be inclinded to have contradictions with those who also read it literally? Whereas, if I read it figuratively–meaning the content is purposeful only in as much as I give it my own personal meaning–I’ll be less inclined to run into conflicts with other people’s views?
I might not be understanding what he means here–but that’s my interpretation of what Matt is saying. And if that is correct, he’s not making sense. If something is figurative, it’s totally open to interpretive meaning, and will be X to you and Y to me and ABC to someone else.
Even literalists can’t agree. I can’t imagine that giving each person figurative free reign will help reign that in–and not make it worse.
Meanwhile, literalists rely on their Bibles (I agree as idols) SOLELY because they believe that the Bible is god’s manifestation on Earth. The Bible is all they have as information from their god–the communique he left behind for them. He hasn’t written another word since–unless you’re a Mormon. So, to say they need to be heeding “god” rather than the bible begs the question: _WHAT_ exactly are they heeding if they choose to heed “god”? Where else is god manifesting and talking to people (besides the Andrea Yates crowd who claims his voice comes to them directly through their ears/brains…I assume that’s NOT the “real Xians” were talking about here?).
If god can be asked questions directly, then verifying god’s existence should be a breeze. We just ask him things and wait for his response, then measure that response, and we’ve got god on record. We just need Matt to let us know what exactly we’re going to be measuring for, I guess.
If we can’t get a reading using current technology, maybe we can have Matt ask god questions like “What did Tracie write on the paper inside this envelope?” And we can get some idea if god’s answers fair better than chance. If so, we know there is potentially something there that needs investigating.
It’s worth a try. I mean, if he can pull it off, we can split a cool $1M from the JRF…?
Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man’s creed.
It is on this article, universally consented to by all mankind, that the Deist builds his church, and here he rests. Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation.
By Thomas Paine, American Revolutionary Leader
When I read Matts letter here, it feels more like Deism to me.
Ron:
In some ways it actually does. I guess for me it would boil down to whether or not he accepts Jesus his personal god/savior–which would, to some degree, define him as a Xian.
However, if he indicates that his personal feelings about what god wants override any doctrines or scripture…then he is much less a Xian than a deist, I would agree. Because he’s then coming right out and openly admitting that he peronsally defines his own god. Nobody/nothing defines it for him. Of course, I get that he would say that god defines his god–but I’m talking in terms of where his god is coming from. He seems to be stating that it comes from his personal experiences/definitions and not external doctrinal definitions.
In this case, the Bible, or any written record, becomes superfluous–as superfluous as Matt, or anyone, would like to make it.
Saying: God is whatever I say it is, actually, isn’t that far off from atheism. It’s just a small step to Pantheism, anyway: God is the universe (if I say it is)–and from there, we’ve just secularized god (or simply called the whole shebang “divine”–thus eliminating the category of “secular” and giving “divine” a new definition). And at that point, there is no difference between the “deist” and the “atheist” except that one calls the universe “universe” and one calls it “god”–but they’re actually referencing the same item.
And at that point, there is no difference between the “deist” and the “atheist” except that one calls the universe “universe” and one calls it “god”–but they’re actually referencing the same item…….
YOU GO, GAL!!! Call it what you will. Did you ever read the remainder of Thomas Paines article on Deism? Have you ever read his book “Age of reason”? At least once a week I like to go out of doors, on a clear night and gaze out into the Universe and wonder!
Hi Ron:
I have to shamefully admit that the only Paine info I ever got was like in middle school or thereabouts. I have a load of trouble reading writing from certain periods. Colonial American writing is one, and turn-of-the-century psychology is the other. Those are just killers for me. Jung is a good example. Whenever I read someone writing about Jung, I think, “Man–the guy must be a genius!” But when I try to read him on my own, I think “Argh! Who could ever wade through this?!”
I guess I’m lazy. I try though. I did check out James Joyce’s “Ulysses” not long ago and give it a shot…at least I do give things a shot…? If that’s worth anything.
I agree that colonial history as you got it when you were in school would turn your brain into a lump of clay. I predict that if you got started to reading his thoughts as he, himself put them down in “age of reason”, you wouldn’t be able to stop. There are two parts to the book. part one and part two. When he was writing part one, he was in a French jail during the French revolution. He tells about the events and tells how he was racing to finish the book, because he really wasn’t too sure about whether or not he would be one of those who went to the guillotine. One of his statements: “The tyranny of the Clergy is the worst of all tyrannys, for, while the others are of this world, The tyranny of the Clergy seeks to pursue us beyond the grave into eternity” He stated that one of the gifts we have that was not given to any of the other creatures is the power to reason. He asks if this was given to us by a creator, then, why should anyone believe that the creator wouldn’t expect us to USE IT? He made so much sense!
The book “Age of Reason” can be read online here.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason
This exposes the lies we hear today from the christian right about what the founding fathers of our great nation thought. followin is chapter one of part one age of reason Thomas Paine
CHAPTER I - THE AUTHOR’S PROFESSION OF FAITH.
IT has been my intention, for several years past, to publish my thoughts upon religion; I am well aware of the difficulties that attend the subject, and from that consideration, had reserved it to a more advanced period of life. I intended it to be the last offering I should make to my fellow-citizens of all nations, and that at a time when the purity of the motive that induced me to it could not admit of a question, even by those who might disapprove the work.
The circumstance that has now taken place in France, of the total abolition of the whole national order of priesthood, and of everything appertaining to compulsive systems of religion, and compulsive articles of faith, has not only precipitated my intention, but rendered a work of this kind exceedingly necessary, lest, in the general wreck of superstition, of false systems of government, and false theology, we lose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true.
As several of my colleagues, and others of my fellow-citizens of France, have given me the example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself.
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and, in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?
Soon after I had published the pamphlet COMMON SENSE, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited, by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priest-craft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more.
Just to clarify–the summaries we got in school were interesting–it’s when I try to read Paine directly that I fall down.
Just in the small post you offered, my eyes began to glaze after the first few sentences. The haugthy structure is just to cumbersome and I have to work very hard just to stick with him from sentence to sentence. I understand this is how people wrote back then–but it’s a hard read for me.
Turn-of-the-century psychology does me the same way. Again, I take full responsibility for the shortcoming being on my side of the fence. But “Gaaahhh!” I can’t read more than a couple paragraphs of this stuff.
Sorry.
tracieh,
“And at that point, there is no difference between the “deist” and the “atheist” except that one calls the universe “universe” and one calls it “god”–but they’re actually referencing the same item”
No. There is a critical difference. Any statement of a “God” requires a suspension of disbelief, and hence of reason (violation of Occam’s razor). The danger in religion is just this suspension.
But I would find this a less objectionable belief system than some of the nonsense we have to put up with.
Love your God/Neighbor has always been a cover for hate, since to love one is to hate the other. I like the Jesus who hated phonies and blockheads. No more mister nice guy for me.
Ron, Tracie
I loved that quote from Paine. It is most moving, especially to think that he had no idea whether he would be surviving or not. And not just the ideas, I love the language. How clear it is. I find it so easy to understand. It is post-modernists I can’t understand.