I cannot find words to express how deeply offensive this view is. Cloaking it in religious garb is no excuse; I doubt this is a view shared by many other Christians, and even if it were, you have a choice as to whether to endorse or advocate it.
If a man broke into your house and threatened to burn your family alive but spare you if you showed him obedience, would you? Perhaps out of self-preservation, you might, but would you not at least have compassion for those sleeping, oblivious to their impending torment, out of which you have cut a separate deal? You may fear this monster, you may appease him so as not to be tortured by him, but would you call him good? Would you not, if given the opportunity, try to spread the word and get others to oppose him rather than endorse and worship him? What sort of morality or love is based on such a threat which you have made several times in this exchange?
I don't know anything about Mayan calendars; highlighting fallacies in one sacred text does not in imply endorsement of other, equally problematic ones. (The difference between us is that I do not believe those who went to their graves without renouncing the faith of their fathers are in some sort of eternal torment, or that heaven, if it exists, is "pagan-rein" as the Germans might have put it).
I advocate freeing ourselves from the compulsion to tie ourselves in knots over forcing reality and morality to fit into some formula arbitrarily created by long-dead men (and most were men) and instead use what our founders would have called Natural Law and reason and our inherent sense of compassion and justice help us create a better world, something fundamentalists oppose because it would undermine their authority and make their apocalyptic predictions look even more ridiculous than they already are.
You act as if you are powerless to modify what you believe ("I wish they weren't [in hell], but that is how it's stated in the bible?" [where, pray tell, does the Bible mention National Socialism, the Holocaust, or Auschwitz?]) Yet you hold others responsible for not changing what they believe (perhaps they wish they could, but that is what is stated in the Koran (or the vedas, Upanishads, Manusmriti, Srimad Bhagvatam, Bhagwad Geeta - by the way, have you read these texts before rejecting them outright?). Your selective interpretation of an arbitrarily chosen part of an arbitrarily chosen collection of texts has led you to a place that a child (the ones you say Jesus has saved) could tell you is morally wrong. I respect at some level your obedience, but wonder whether the defense that you were just following orders (even if you chose only some orders among many others (such as those against judging others) will save you.
Perhaps there are some on the margin reading your words and contemplating exploring Christianity more deeply. Honestly, after seeing the dark place it can take at least one of its followers, do you believe you are advancing or hurting your cause? (Don't you have an obligation to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" as Jesus is quoted in Matthew ?
There are many good and decent Christians whom I admire greatly, Martin Luther King, Jr., among them. I think it is noteworthy that most of his criticism were leveled at the predominantly Christian society that he felt - because of its renunciation of the Christian imperatives of pacifism, social justice, and respect for all of God's children. The Jews you believe are all going to hell were disproportionately represented in the Civil Rights movement, and a number gave their lives to the cause. None of his speeches focused on the allegedly "false religions" you seem convinced merit eternal punishment; in fact, he studied with Hindu followers of Gandhi in India, where he learned many critical lessons in nonviolent resistance.
I think studying his example might be instructive; if he went around telling everyone they were going to hell for being racist, if he turned back rabbis and imams and agnostics who wanted to help because they were of the "wrong" faith, then no doubt we would still have Jim Crow laws and de jure racial disenfranchisement.
I can love my wife without begrudging my neighbor for making a different choice. I can recognize the intelligence of my children without calling all other children morons. I can even state my love of my country without mocking and disparaging all others. Why can we not be as open and humble in our spiritual convictions as we are in other areas where we have strong, but clearly diverse, convictions?
Why indeed.
I don't know anything about Mayan calendars; highlighting fallacies in one sacred text does not in imply endorsement of other, equally problematic ones. (The difference between us is that I do not believe those who went to their graves without renouncing the faith of their fathers are in some sort of eternal torment, or that heaven, if it exists, is "pagan-rein" as the Germans might have put it).
I advocate freeing ourselves from the compulsion to tie ourselves in knots over forcing reality and morality to fit into some formula arbitrarily created by long-dead men (and most were men) and instead use what our founders would have called Natural Law and reason and our inherent sense of compassion and justice help us create a better world, something fundamentalists oppose because it would undermine their authority and make their apocalyptic predictions look even more ridiculous than they already are.
You act as if you are powerless to modify what you believe ("I wish they weren't [in hell], but that is how it's stated in the bible?" [where, pray tell, does the Bible mention National Socialism, the Holocaust, or Auschwitz?]) Yet you hold others responsible for not changing what they believe (perhaps they wish they could, but that is what is stated in the Koran (or the vedas, Upanishads, Manusmriti, Srimad Bhagvatam, Bhagwad Geeta - by the way, have you read these texts before rejecting them outright?). Your selective interpretation of an arbitrarily chosen part of an arbitrarily chosen collection of texts has led you to a place that a child (the ones you say Jesus has saved) could tell you is morally wrong. I respect at some level your obedience, but wonder whether the defense that you were just following orders (even if you chose only some orders among many others (such as those against judging others) will save you.
Perhaps there are some on the margin reading your words and contemplating exploring Christianity more deeply. Honestly, after seeing the dark place it can take at least one of its followers, do you believe you are advancing or hurting your cause? (Don't you have an obligation to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" as Jesus is quoted in Matthew ?
There are many good and decent Christians whom I admire greatly, Martin Luther King, Jr., among them. I think it is noteworthy that most of his criticism were leveled at the predominantly Christian society that he felt - because of its renunciation of the Christian imperatives of pacifism, social justice, and respect for all of God's children. The Jews you believe are all going to hell were disproportionately represented in the Civil Rights movement, and a number gave their lives to the cause. None of his speeches focused on the allegedly "false religions" you seem convinced merit eternal punishment; in fact, he studied with Hindu followers of Gandhi in India, where he learned many critical lessons in nonviolent resistance.
I think studying his example might be instructive; if he went around telling everyone they were going to hell for being racist, if he turned back rabbis and imams and agnostics who wanted to help because they were of the "wrong" faith, then no doubt we would still have Jim Crow laws and de jure racial disenfranchisement.
I can love my wife without begrudging my neighbor for making a different choice. I can recognize the intelligence of my children without calling all other children morons. I can even state my love of my country without mocking and disparaging all others. Why can we not be as open and humble in our spiritual convictions as we are in other areas where we have strong, but clearly diverse, convictions?
Why indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment