Premier Rock Forum

steve wrote:Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 12:43 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

areopagite wrote:

Easy targets are fun to hit. Christianity, southerners, pop music, et al. are delightful to blame because they require no effort. And in truth, blaming these groups is a very simple approach to solving complex problems. If it makes you feel better, then great. Just don't believe it as being any more truthful than a bigot blaming integration for the state of public education.

I believe we are going out of our way not to take cheap shots at christians here. I even go as far as saying that I would like to take cheap shots, but I stop myself, then evaluate my thinking and take a shot-that-might-be-mistaken-for-a-cheap-shot because I think the point is worth making that christianity has a lot to answer for as an institution and community, and I can think of no reason not to hold christians accountable for their christianity, with all the associations and history it implies. I invite you to provide me with a reason.

Surely the evils of christianity are not the fault of those outside it. So step up. Let's hear a defense of the Crusades. Let's hear a defense of the Inquisition. Let's hear a re-iteration of the biblical defense of slavery. Let's hear about those classes of people who you would condemn as an "abomination": Men who wear blouses, women who wear pants, the uncircumcised, men with an injury to their testicles, menstruating women, homosexuals, slaves who are not subservient enough to their masters, those who might question the authority of Caesar, those who would wear two kinds of fabric. Let's hear how God's rules about waiting a month before raping a captured woman prisoner from a neighboring tribe and making her your sex slave really mean something other than what they say. Let's hear how God can order Onan to have sex with his brother's wife, then kill him when he pulls out of her, because spilling his seed is the worst thing he can do (apparently worse than fucking your brother's wife because "God told you to."). Let's hear how Lot's daughters are worthy of our respect -- how they represent some biblical ideal -- because, when they wanted children but had no husbands, they got their dad drunk and fucked him.

This Bible, this sick self-serving book of land deeds and rape and vendettas and misogyny, you want us to run our world based on its lessons? I think that's a very simple approach to solving complex problems. Tell me why, and why I shouldn't hold christians accountable for the influence they have brought to bear through history. Seriously, I'd love to hear it.

steve wrote:Then why do I hear from Christians about how "every word is God's truth?" Every word? I'll take them at their literal meaning when they use that language. And I'd like them to defend it, or at least be able to mount an argument for it, especially since they are prone to leaning on it for their political and moral perspectives.

Come on, somebody step up.

steve,

i think if you searched hard, you'd find examples of me airing some of those same greivances on this very website, the slavery argument, the Inquisition argument, i'll admit i go to Adam/Eve/Cane/Abel or Noah's Ark for the incest reference, rather than the ones you've chosen which are of course more graphic. cheers!

this is such an old move i'm gonna employ, but since you're asking for it... are you personally responsible for slavery in the US in the 1800's? that's about how responsible i am as a Christian for the crusades. shit, i haven't even locked in on a specific church yet. i've been to Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, Mennonite, Lutheran, all kinda other ones, even the JPUSA "compound" or whatever it is... are you gonna hold me responsible for anything that any of the these groups have perpetrated over the years? or if i pick one and go there every week, then do i become responsible for their past actions?

can i hold you responsible, since you are an American, for having dropped a nuke on Japan? was that your fault? what about if you love america, then are you more responsible for that past event? if you're an american in the agriculture business, does that make you responsible for slavery in the US?

steve, i can't explain this one away... the people who say the bible is the Word of God, i don't have a problem with the idea that the bible is *inspired* by God, but penned and edited repeatedly by man. the people who say that every word in the bible is 100% Truth and is flawless and all that... let's just say that as a Christian, *I* don't even know what to do with that.

as long as you're leaving the door open for the possibility that there are Christians out there who *don't* support slavery, or incest, or whatever all the other crap we can all come up with, then i'm happy. but if you're lumping all Christians into a single group, one that you'll then disparage, i think that's a bad move that would make me want to ask you to then explain yourself. i don't think you're doing that, because i think i remember you saying before that you have Christian friends or something along those lines.

fwiw, how come you're seemingly so disgusted with Christians when it's the Jewish part of the bible that you're mostly referencing here? are you even more anti-Jewish than you are anti-Christian?

do you make a distinction between Christian and Catholic? do you fault Protestants more or less than Catholics, or do you assign specific events to one church of the other?

here's my ultimate answer, i think. read the bible and only look at the teachings of the Jesus guy. these are not bad things. these are not a bad angle from which to steer the world. except for the fact that no Christian who was actually implementing 100% of Jesus' teachings, or even just the most important two or three of them, could ever be president of the US. right at "turn the other cheek", you'd have us either being obliterated by the terrorists as we didn't fight them, or maybe then you'd see some kinda divine intervention where God himself stopped "the terrorists". but yeah, probably as soon as any country actually went legitimately Christian and lived by the rules/guidelines set for by Jesus, that country would be destroyed.

i dunno. you're a highly intelligent guy, Steve, and it sounds like you've already put a lot of thought into this. i think if there was a good answer, you would've come to it on your own by now. i don't think there are good answers. but i do think it's possible to be Christian and to have faith in that belief without supporting incest or slavery or murder, without being responsible for it having been committed in the past, and without believing every word in the bible was penned by God and includes no error introduced by man. this discussion can go on ad nauseum.

my girlfriend and I have had these same debates, about the nature of the bible, coming from differing perspectives as Christians even. i hope that makes you smile, steve, to know that there are Christians out there that look at both sides of the coin.

i hope there was some kinda answer in there somewhere. i might hafta edit this later to replace some of the stream of consciousness with some more coherent, focused words that better make the point i thought i was making or something like that.

larsxe wrote:From catholics in Italy to protestants in Sweden to liberation theologians of Central America, I don't think anyone adhers to the notion that "every word in the Bible is God's truth."

Unfortunately, many hard-line Christians take this stance when they want to use the Bible as a tool for getting their way. Be it condemnation of homosexuals or otherwise, I've heard many a preacher (or politician) pass the buck with a , "Hey, it ain't me - God says this is the way it has to be..." comment.

Look at the philosopher's stone. It basically says that there are no truths here on this earth. to me that is especially important because a truth to one person may differ from a truth to another. Who's to say who is right? No one. Maybe God. If he's not the guy on the blue line stop, then I don't think he's on this earth.

So it comes down to a matter of faith. It's actually pretty admirable; that a human can believe and make a truth out of something that isn't even there and can also draw power from this. Even if it's not faith in God or jesus, faith is pretty interesting. So again there are no real truths out there.

Do I have a relationship with God? Sure. Do I have a nice hotel suite right by the lava pit in hell? no one knows until death. The way I see it, even if you aren't a christian what is so god damned hard about being mildly respectful to others? Daily commute alone in this city eats away at my soul. Zero faith in humanity.

From catholics in Italy to protestants in Sweden to liberation theologians of Central America, I don't think anyone adhers to the notion that "every word in the Bible is God's truth."

oh, yes they do

then you start in with some of the old testament shit, and they get uncomfortable and start talking about their 'personal relationship' w/j.c.

i'm fine w/people writing off large chunks of the good book as baseless mythology. i mean, i write off almost all of it as baseless mythology. if people zero in on its valuable lessons, and along the way they buy into the idea that jesus christ was the son of god etc., i'm ok w/that. there's some room for that kind of compromise in the very structure of the book.

but if people are going to cherrypick scripture that backs up their petty prejudices--and this is RAMPANT among what i reckon to be a very vocal, not-tiny minority of xians--then they have to reckon with the bullshit that surrounds it. and xians in general--i'm sorry, but you have to deal with the fuckers who are in your tent.

this is such an old move i'm gonna employ, but since you're asking for it... are you personally responsible for slavery in the US in the 1800's? [...]
can i hold you responsible, since you are an American, for having dropped a nuke on Japan? [...] if you're an american in the agriculture business, does that make you responsible for slavery in the US?

i think you discredited your 'move' at the top, tmh, b/c you knew it was flawed logically

christianity is a choice--i am not american by choice, i am not white by choice, i am not male by choice. you picked up the mantle of xianity on your own, and you have to reckon with it. sounds like you are doing so on an ongoing basis.

So it comes down to a matter of faith. It's actually pretty admirable; that a human can believe and make a truth out of something that isn't even there and can also draw power from this. Even if it's not faith in God or jesus, faith is pretty interesting. So again there are no real truths out there.

i don't think there's anything admirable about it, but i agree that faith is interesting. and i'm not interested in questioning a person's articles of faith as they relate to that person in particular.

but i disagree that there are no real truths, if you are in any way lumping the fruits of scientific discovery in with that. if it's just 'where do we go when we die' kinds of truths, well, sure.

The way I see it, even if you aren't a christian what is so god damned hard about being mildly respectful to others? Daily commute alone in this city eats away at my soul. Zero faith in humanity.

it's interesting to me that many of the least religious people i know put much more faith in humanity than many of the religious people i know

i guess when you keep your head on earth, humanity is all you have, and this life is all you have, and what lies after is, by virtue of being unknowable, of no real concern

tmidgett wrote:christianity is a choice--i am not american by choice, i am not white by choice, i am not male by choice. you picked up the mantle of xianity on your own, and you have to reckon with it. sounds like you are doing so on an ongoing basis.

no no no. you DO choose to be american. you could stop any time you want. you could flee the country, you could denounce your citizenship, you could stop anytime you wanted. also, you are male by choice. in a natural way and all, but there's a choice. you could make yourself into a female anytime, assuming you had the money and time to go through the op. being born into a Christian family isn't really different than being born into an American family, is it, in the sense that you can choose to change teams in either case?

likewise, my great-grandparents were not born american, but they chose to become american. are they then responsible for slavery? i'm not sure, but i don't think i'm the one with the flawed logic on this one.

tmidgett wrote:it's interesting to me that many of the least religious people i know put much more faith in humanity than many of the religious people i know

i don't understand how any rational person could have any faith in humanity. it seems crystal clear that we're shitbags.

toomanyhelicopters wrote:
i think if you searched hard, you'd find examples of me airing some of those same greivances on this very website, the slavery argument, the Inquisition argument, i'll admit i go to Adam/Eve/Cane/Abel or Noah's Ark for the incest reference, rather than the ones you've chosen which are of course more graphic. cheers!

And cheers to you. I finally read an entire post of yours.

this is such an old move i'm gonna employ, but since you're asking for it... are you personally responsible for slavery in the US in the 1800's?

I'm not asking you to be responsible for slavery itself, just to acknowledge the role that the Christian mainstream played in defending it, using biblical reference. I acknowledge that my position of privilege as a white American is the result of and the legacy of Slavery, and it shames me. You hear this sort of talk from Americans like me all the time, but I never hear Christians apologize for (or even cop to) the connection between regressive social positions and the Church. It is the least they could do, given that they rely on a divinely inspired, 100 percent true document. The fault must be theirs then, no? And does this not suggest skepticism about anything they say now?

can i hold you responsible, since you are an American, for having dropped a nuke on Japan?

No, but you can ask that I not be in denial of the price other people paid for my country's status in the world. I am not. I am shamed by it.

the people who say that every word in the bible is 100% Truth and is flawless and all that... let's just say that as a Christian, *I* don't even know what to do with that.

You could say, "That's irrational nonsense. I don't believe it, and I refuse to let policy debates hinge on irrational nonsense."

as long as you're leaving the door open for the possibility that there are Christians out there who *don't* support slavery, or incest, or whatever all the other crap we can all come up with, then i'm happy. but if you're lumping all Christians into a single group, one that you'll then disparage, i think that's a bad move that would make me want to ask you to then explain yourself. i don't think you're doing that, because i think i remember you saying before that you have Christian friends or something along those lines.

I don't think Christians support in all that, although I would be easier to refute if I did. I think the bible is used in defense of unsupportable positions, and I was pointing out the absurdity of it. I think resting your arguments on a book so patently riddled with both nonsense and cruelty is appalling, but nobody blinks when it comes up.

fwiw, how come you're seemingly so disgusted with Christians when it's the Jewish part of the bible that you're mostly referencing here? are you even more anti-Jewish than you are anti-Christian?

I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-bullshit argument. The New Testament has quite a bit to recommend it, and if you can get all the Christians to drop their Old Testament rationalizations, then I'll stop pointing out its absurdities.

i think if there was a good answer, you would've come to it on your own by now. i don't think there are good answers.

How about nobody gets to use the bible as an answer? That's a good answer.

steve wrote: You hear this sort of talk from Americans like me all the time, but I never hear Christians apologize for (or even cop to) the connection between regressive social positions and the Church. It is the least they could do, given that they rely on a divinely inspired, 100 percent true document.

I'm sorry that has been your experience thus far. I have yet to find any Christians that feel the Crusades were justified. Many that I know take an active part in international ministries and have an honest concern for how things are shaping out in the world. Many don't have a backwards or xenophobic view of our world. Granted there are some out there that still do, and I'm not naive to this sort of "manifest destiny" style Christianity that you are reacting against. It annoys me as well.

I also have yet to find any Christian out there who hasn't reconciled the old testament law to the teachings of Jesus - we're not still sacrificing calves to atone for our sins. That's part of what Jesus came here for, and I'm all for that. Much of the old testament is taken for what is was at that time. Christians (like me) believe that the old law has been replaced by accountability to Christ for your actions. He is our intercessor, friend, and savior.

The relationship that I speak of is not a crutch to explain the actions of the church. "The Church" is what the real argument is about here, not Christianity. Christianity is not the target, because as I said before, that's just a word to describe something. In the sense of this thread, people are referring to Christianity when they should be referring to the church. Actually the Crusades were undertaken by order of the catholic church, whereas the evangelical movement is borne out of protestant roots. So now we're talking about two very different (as in, murdered people because they were so different) churches.

I am ashamed of many of the actions that have been taken in the history of the church. But this does not falter my faith, because my faith doesn't rely on human actions. Any faith that does is bound to fail.

I think tmh said it quite succinctly:

i don't understand how any rational person could have any faith in humanity. it seems crystal clear that we're shitbags.

take care.

unarmedman wrote:I also have yet to find any Christian out there who hasn't reconciled the old testament law to the teachings of Jesus - we're not still sacrificing calves to atone for our sins.

Where does it say you shouldn't? As I recall, only in the fallible revisionist interpretations of preachers and scholars. If you want to tell me on one hand that we are all sinners because of Man's Fall, then why can't I "reconcile" that as being as outmoded as burning a calf on an altar? Because you and your pastor say so? That's not what it says in the book.

That's part of what Jesus came here for, and I'm all for that. Much of the old testament is taken for what is was at that time.

Because dealing with it verbatim is a problem. I understand. If you get to write-off parts of the Bible because you can't defend them, then I get to write-off those parts you shouldn't defend. And the whole thing then is not worth using as a now-and-tomorrow standard of propriety, since we get to pick and choose the parts that "matter" today.

Christians (like me) believe that the old law has been replaced by accountability to Christ for your actions. He is our intercessor, friend, and savior.

Okay, what is Jesus's position on gay marriage? If he's your friend, he shouldn't mind if you ask him. And can you ask him (as a friend) if he can pass me that ashtray, it's out of reach.

"The Church" is what the real argument is about here, not Christianity.

I agree. I would define the Christian Church as that flock that professes to be Christian. What other definition can I use?

Actually the Crusades were undertaken by order of the catholic church, whereas the evangelical movement is borne out of protestant roots. So now we're talking about two very different (as in, murdered people because they were so different) churches.

Right, both acting under orders from God in this killing. How can the one God be in disagreement with himself? Can you suggest that one or the other group of Christians isn't really Christian? I thought they got to decide that for themselves.

I am ashamed of many of the actions that have been taken in the history of the church. But this does not falter my faith, because my faith doesn't rely on human actions. Any faith that does is bound to fail.

If only your faith were as bound to avoid meddling in human affairs as it is in ignoring them, then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

I think tmh said it quite succinctly:

i don't understand how any rational person could have any faith in humanity. it seems crystal clear that we're shitbags.

I disagree. I have met many fine humans. Even a few Christians. If only Christians could lose their disdain for their fellow men, they might be able to enjoy our company.

Look, steve, its not a game of picking and choosing what parts of the Bible best fit my worldview. If that were the case, the Bible then becomes just another tool with which to define relativist standards. For many people, it is just that.

There are a number of places in the new testament in which Jesus clearly states particular laws that have been abandoned, such as eating of certain meats, and circumcision.

If you have any interest, I can look some of those up and post some references. Judging by the tone of your last response though it seems that you're more inclined to mock my faith rather than respect it.

If you want me to post the references, let me know. If I'm just going to get a response similar to the last one, let me know that too, so we can just end this early.

take care.

unarmedman wrote:The relationship that I speak of is not a crutch to explain the actions of the church.

But it is a crutch to explain the actions of the state. (see below)

"The Church" is what the real argument is about here, not Christianity. Christianity is not the target, because as I said before, that's just a word to describe something. In the sense of this thread, people are referring to Christianity when they should be referring to the church

.


Yes and no, but in any case irrelevant. (see below)

Actually the Crusades were undertaken by order of the catholic church, whereas the evangelical movement is borne out of protestant roots. So now we're talking about two very different (as in, murdered people because they were so different) churches.

I don’t think the historical things Steve brings up are half as relevant as the state of the world and the state of the American union, today. This matters much more, today. Now.

I am ashamed of many of the actions that have been taken in the history of the church. But this does not falter my faith, because my faith doesn't rely on human actions. Any faith that does is bound to fail.

And this is a great way to place your most fundamental beliefs outside the reach of analysis and critique. It's actually quite sick.




If I thought it would make any difference I’d outline some of the concrete relations between corporate capitalism, the Bush administration’s backwards policies, and Christianity. (To cite but one example, Billy Graham’s evangelical organization was of the first organizations of any kind in America to make extensive use of telephone lists and, later, internet email lists and databases in direct association with Republican election campaigns).

unarmedman himself, is a good example of how much Christianity has to answer for in America and in the world today. He has previously claimed on this board that the fact that he votes Republican, supports W, approves of tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, opposes gay marriage, opposes women’s rights (abortion), etc, has nothing to do with his faith.

I call Bullshit. And this distinction between 'the big fat Church' and 'my humble little faith,' too, is obfuscation.

Christianity, especially American Christianity, is what the French theorist Louis Althusser termed an "Ideological State Apparatus." ISAs are invested in the formation of subjects – Althusser rejects the term 'individual' – which will toe a certain line, the State line, the line of power.

Althusser wrote: "To my knowledge, no class can hold State power over a long period without at the same time exercising its hegemony over and in the State Ideological Apparatuses.

ISAs enact and ensure soft forms of power (basically, people's beliefs or "worldview") which underwrite hard power. This has seldom been as obvious as with the current American Administration’s rise to power and its subsequent "mandate."


This is reductive, yes, of course, but basically, the social function of (conservative) Christianity and the Church in America is (and has always been) to produce millions of well-meaning unarmedmen to sanction the thousands of armed men who patrol the globe to ensure the profits and stability of American capitalism.