This is the second of a series of dialogues between my friend Al, who is a devout Christian, and me. The first one is called A Question of Faith.
We were on our second beer, which is usually when the serious discussions begin. The first beer covers family news, how the Dodgers, Lakers, UCLA, USC and other local teams are doing. And maybe what LA’s new Hispanic mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and our Austrian governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, are up to.
Al took a slug from his cold glass and fired the first shot.
“If we didn’t have religion, how would we know right from wrong?” It was a rhetorical question. Al knows that I am not a believer in any religion.
“Don’t you think I am a moral person who knows right from wrong?” I asked.
“Sure,” he answered, “but you grew up in a country that was dominated by Christian beliefs, so you really had no choice. You had to conform to traditional Christian morals, even though you weren’t a believer.”
I had to admit this was true. But where did these “Christian morals” come from? I asked Al that question.
“Scripture,” he replied. It’s all spelled out in the Bible. The Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule.”
“The Bible is full of all sorts of moral advice,” I said. Like how to treat homosexuals…put them to death. Or how to treat family members who blaspheme the Lord…kill them. Do you want me to go on? I’ve got a whole list of these.”
“That’s Old Testament. Nobody with a brain takes that stuff literally any more.”
This was getting interesting. “So you do not believe, as some Christians do, that everything in the Bible is the inerrant word of God and is literally true?” I asked.
“I think the original intent is there, but some of it, especially the Old Testament, has to be interpreted in a modern context.”
“But if believers are free to interpret the Bible, accept this, reject that, how can you say that it provides absolute moral definitions of right and wrong?” I asked. “I read somewhere that this is called ‘selective literalism.’ That seems like an oxymoron to me.”
“Let me explain it this way,” Al replied. “If you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe there are any absolute standards of morality. Only religion can provide the ultimate standards of good and evil. Without religion, you have to make it up as you go along. That’s called moral relativism or pragmatism. I don’t believe that the definitions of good and evil change over time, or in different places.”
“Okay,” I said. Tell me where your absolute moral standards come from. Surely, not from the Bible.”
“It’s called the Judeo-Christian ethic. It’s based on the Bible, but there is no doubt that it has been interpreted over the centuries. Still, it represents the best set of standards for right and wrong that the world has ever known.”
“Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and a lot of others might disagree with that,” I said.
“Their standards may work just as well in most cases,” Al responded, “but Christianity has had a greater impact on mankind than any other religion over the last two thousand years.”
“It’s had an impact, that’s for sure,” I replied. “I would argue that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has been the cause of more misery, more oppression of human rights and more brutal atrocities and loss of innocent life than any other cause you can name.”
“I won’t deny that there have been horrible things done in the name of religion,” Al responded. “The Crusades, the Inquisition…even the Holocaust was based on anti-Semitism that had its roots in Christian beliefs. People get carried away with religious zeal and do bad things. That doesn’t make religion bad. It makes the people who malpractice it bad.”
This was where I was hoping this discussion would go.
“Let’s talk about the guys who flew the airliners into the WTC,” I said. “Everyone who knows anything about them says that they truly believed that by martyring themselves, they would get an immediate ticket into Paradise and each of them would have seventy two virgins to screw. They had been brought up since childhood to believe this. Can you blame them for doing it? No! You have to blame the religion and its practitioners who brainwashed them when they were little kids into believing such garbage. There are probably hundreds of thousands of kids being similarly brainwashed as we speak. A lot of them will be willing and ready to do the same thing in the name of Allah.”
Al was nodding. “That is why we have to go after Al Qaeda and all the other terrorist organizations. We have to destroy them before they destroy us.”
And then I dropped the bomb on him. “Christian fundamentalists are just as bad as Muslim jihadists.”
He looked at me and blinked. “Are we running terrorist operations that I don’t know about? Do we have suicide bombers operating in Teheran or the West Bank?”
“No, of course not. But they do exactly the same thing. They brainwash their children to believe these religious myths, and they tell them, over and over, that these are things they must accept without thinking. Just believe. Faith. No logic. No reason. Jesus was born from a virgin. He did miracles, died on a cross and was miraculously resurrected. He’s gonna come back one of these days and take all the people who believe in him off to sit on a cloud and strum harps. The rest of us can just rot…or fry…in Hell.
Some of those people really believe all that stuff, and they think anybody who doesn’t believe it is a heathen who needs to be saved. People who believe in other religions don’t want to be saved. In fact, they feel insulted and threatened by these ideas. Especially when we make war on them to ‘save’ them. Is it any wonder that they want to destroy us?”
Al was shaking his head. “That’s not what Christianity is all about at all. It’s true that we are aggressive evangelists. We want everybody on earth to be saved! But it is their decision to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord. We can only present our evidence and witness for the Lord. If they choose to ignore us, at least we have done our best to show them the way.
“That may well be the intent of most Christians,” I replied, “but let me ask you this: If you did away with Christianity and Islam, would we have terrorism today?”
Al thought about it. “Maybe not, but we might have utter chaos, people stealing, raping, murdering…it might be worse than what we have.”
The beers were gone, and two was the limit. Al is serious about the dangers of drinking and driving…and so am I. It is damned expensive to get caught! I guess it’s kinda like sinning if you’re a Christian…only God doesn’t drive a patrol car.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 33
Excellent post, as usual, Bert.
It is hard to discuss religious issues with anyone...and generally pointless. Most, if not all of you agree with me, but if we get some opposing views (I hope we do) I have no illusions that this will change anybody's mind. What I tried to show here is that it IS possible to have a rational, civil interchange on the subject...and maybe to get some people thinking about it. But I have no illusions about "converting" anyone to my point of view. I don't think there is any such thing as an atheistic evangelist, anyway.
What prompted this piece was a book I am reading at the moment by Richard Dawkins titled "The God Delusion." He has a LOT more to say about the origins of human moral codes, and...not surprisingly...he doesn't think religion has the slightest thing to do with them.
Dennis...yes, I have heard about the "raisin" translation too. I always wondered where Allah would find all those virgins...did he just create them or were they born on earth and shipped directly to Paradise?
Nancy...many of our founding fathers did not even bother with appearances. Washington and Jefferson played the game publicly, but Jefferson's private writings make it clear he had no use for religion in general and Christianity in particular. John Adams, Ben Franklin and James Madison had scathing things to say about Christianity, as did Tom Paine. The Colonies were not particularly religious. I have read that only 5% of the people were regular churchgoers. If you would like to read what they had to say about religion, one of my earliest pieces here on Gather has a number of their quotations. It's called "The Founding Fathers on Religion."
Here is the link.
I like this quote by Dave Barry:
"People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them."
Here is another little piece that I wrote on the subject of religious intolerance:
LINK
That Dave Barry has an intimidating batter average when it comes to his observations of American society, don't he? Bullseye.
Funny how Christian crimes of a thousand years ago, seem to be justification for Muslim crimes of today for so many people.
Religion is not going away any time soon.
Religion has certainly been a unifying social force in many societies. I know many people who attend church more for the social activities than for their faith.
Culture is a slippery word. Please explain what you mean by it in this context, and why you think culture would not have developed without religion. If you think that morals would not have developed without religion, I recommend that you read a book called "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer. He builds a convincing case that moral behavior, and especially the Golden Rule, are a direct result of evolutionary processes...cooperative behavior increased the probability of survival in early hunter-gatherer groups, etc.
I don't know how you inferred from anything written in the article or in the comments above that the crimes of Muslim...or Christian...or any other terrorists are justified.
You are certainly correct that religion is not going away any time soon.
""But if believers are free to interpret the Bible, accept this, reject that, how can you say that it provides absolute moral definitions of right and wrong?" "
I think this is where a lot of folks, Christians included, fail to grasp the real situation people face in regard to that Book, and what it says.
We all are free to interpret the Bible any way we choose, and of course free to ignore it completely. We are free. That is the reality.
Within that reality, the Book exists. As your discussion with your friend revealed in part, that Book has a great impact on us in this society, and indeed the whole world. What it "literally" says, is tricky, but not really difficult to get pretty close, it is by far the most well corroborated and evidence rich "artifact", by many times over, of all the ancient documents we have available.
I realize that is not commonly believed or even suspected, but it is nonetheless a fact, voluminous rumors to the contrary. It CAN be reasonably ascertained what the actual words from the very oldest documents in existence literally say. The newer portions, are even more well substantiatable, and that is not the problem we who are aware of what it actually says, face.
It is attempting to comprehend what this gigantic "letter" to us is saying, beneath the literal, which presents a tremendous challenge. That's why we can see so very much variety in how it is understood. In a way, I believe, that is it's purpose. It is the introduction of truth, from God's point of view, into the human world of "history", the real deal, the sum total of the impact it would have on the actual world and each of it's inhabitants. It is not at all clear that it really matters much what form that influence might take (for each individual), but rather, it seems to me, that it introduce this certain aspect, deeply into our world.
The single thing which is absolutely clear, literally, is that Jesus instructs we love Him (the Big guy), and each other. If one actually accomplished such a thing, even remotely, since we all know we could never really do that perfectly, God is just tickled pink. Even if they never knew it, even if they didn't realize they were loving God, but were, because they loved what of their life was of God, which is all we can ever have of God. Of course.
We all face that same challenge, whether we know it or not. It seems to me, that getting a solid bite of that Book has helped me to do that. For many that is probably true, from what I can tell. Many speak of things in ignorance, and are not educated in what the Book "literally" says. It says a whole lot.
It is not a great "fixing" document. It, is precisely what It has done.
From a parable (not literal) teaching of Jesus;
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.
For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required . . .
I Am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Just thought you might wish to hear another perspective, take care.
You probably won't take me up on it, but if you read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, you'll find that your claim that
"It CAN be reasonably ascertained what the actual words from the very oldest documents in existence literally say. The newer portions, are even more well substantiatable, and that is not the problem we who are aware of what it actually says, face."
is not justified.
You may believe anything you find plausible. As will I, I have read heaps of "criticism" of the Book, it is simply rather easy to see it's fallacious reasoning (to me). I cannot insert your consciousness into mine, to compare the rationality of your choice to mine, about which you can know virtually nothing either.
I don't understand why you don't simply read what I said, which implies nothing more than that I accept what I have witnessed which others, of course, have not. I don't go around trying to tell those that don't see things my way on such a personal matter they are wrong, how could I know?, certainly not until a discussion is had, wherein I might feel qualified to speak to their words in some way. Each person experiences a unique reality, and others cannot see within it. Just us.
Following up on what Gary said, it is my understanding that what is in the Bible consists of a fairly small portion of the entirety of the ancient Greek and Aramaic texts that were known, and that many parts of them contradicted what is in the Bible...so they were not included. How were those choices made? What to include, what to exclude? Do you think God's hand made those choices?
Regarding the "real" meaning of the ancient texts...I also understand that the KJV is not in close agreement with the original texts on such subjects as homosexuality, but fundamentalists exercise their "freedom to interpret" as you put it, and deplore gays.
So, I would like to ask you: Is the KJV the "final word" or should real seekers of the meaning of Biblical texts go back to the original?
" How were those choices made?"
With an incredible amount of careful consideration. Rumors to the contrary, very little of what was accepted as "The Book", has ever been altered, added to, or subtracted from, in any meaningful way. There was never any reason to do so, it is a "working document" , and has been passed along relatively intact all along. There have been things suspected of deserving inclusion, which were carefully looked in to at various points, and in a few instances, some group has accepted them.
I understand that from your perspective such a question seems rather important. But, from my perspective, which is formed by what I observed, it is not. It was made perfectly clear to me, personally, that the Book is the genuine article. How it came to me through time, is not really all that big a deal. Those all-powerful types have a way of getting what they want.
I am not the best person to answer what allows others to believe on other grounds, or personal exposure. I pretty much went from strong agnostic, to convinced skeptic in a short time. I don't know much about that in between stuff, other than that.
I can sorta get a feel by what people say, just as you can (and that works both ways, you non-believers! ; ) And, like you, I see some pretty weak . . . adhesion , in various and sundry ways. I also run in to others quite often, that seem to read the Book seriously, and meditate on it and so forth, and find easy agreement with them on most everything. Not everything in the Book, for we cannot see the same things. It is just immensely complex and multifaceted. It's truly unbelievably deep and wide, once inside. But we see essentially the same world. There is a "the" Book, in that sense too. It seems as genuine as can be to me . . . now.
I have never made a careful study of the details of God's indications of His preference for heterosexuality. It never concerned me.
It's not the KJV which is THE Book, it's the voluminous document resource from which any good translation can be made any time . . . if one happens to have a tremendous chunk of time. There is a "non-translated" Book, which exists, and is available, on an extremely limited basis of course, of original ancient texts. Many have been carefully reproduced, naturally. A scholar can actually look at precisely what the KJV is based upon, and it is an adequate version. What makes it special, is it's wide acknowledgment as just that, and the fact that one can generally use it to access excellent translational aids. It is basically the working "standard", which make a degree of . . . stability possible.
Thanks for your answers. They do not complete satisfy me, but I will leave it at that.