Speaking of contempt for non-believers on the part of Christians, there's a revealing letter to the editor in the new Isthmus.
The past few weeks have seen a mole hill being made into a mountain in the Letters section over Kenneth Burns' review of Higher Ground with some people disputing Psalm 137:9. Burns was critical of the film for how it utilized that particular passage which it quotes. In today's issue one Warren Brown of Menasha steps up to the soap box.
His exegetical powers are limitless and his contempt for non-believers is seemingly without end as well as he states that atheists can't understand the Bible.
This is the trouble that arises when someone who can read but does not believe tries to read the Bible. You may understand the words, but you don't understand the message.
What a maroon. Why is it that, if only believers are smart enough to bypass the Biblical encryption to understand the message, Christians take away different messages from the Bible?
I am reminded of a spat Jerry Coyne had with Andrew Sullivan. It related to the above and an earlier bit of Brown's letter where he writes:
Yes, we Christians do consider the Bible the word of God, but we are not so absurd as to think that every saying in the Bible is God's truth.
Really? What about Ken Ham and other Biblical literalists who go around insisting that, not only was there a guy named Noah who built an arc, but that there were dinosaurs on the arc?
So how do people like Andrew Sullivan and Warren Brown actually go about deciding what is Yahweh's "truth" and what isn't?
Take passages from, say, Deuteronomy, where Yahweh is in a genocidal mood. You have apologists like Paul Copan who seem to share Brown's attitude of "atheists just don't understand" but you also have theologians like William Lane Craig who take the pro-genocide stance. Who is "right" here? Who has comprehended Yahweh's "truth"?
Brown's letter is the height of conceit. Only believers can understand the Bible and, furthermore, they have this additional super-power that allows them to cherry pick what is true and what isn't from the Bible.
Burns replies to Brown and says that his priest taught that "Christians should take troubling Bible passages seriously." What does this mean? Leviticus has its famous invectives against homosexuality. What does taking "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" seriously involve? Should Christians take the admonition to not covet thy neighbor's ox seriously?
I feel like the woodcutter in Rashomon.
15 comments:
Of course Christians have to take the Leviticus passages seriously, think about what they could possibly mean in 2012. Are you conflating taking seriously and heeding?
Whoops, 2011! Getting ahead of myself.
I think people who aren't challenged in their faith, including by the repellent parts of the Bible, don't grow in their faith.
Thanks for commenting, Mr. B.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying, "think about what they could possibly mean in 2011."
I don't think I've conflated taking seriously and heeding. If one heeds the passage I quoted, then one would be killing homosexuals.
Let me try rephrasing the question in light of your comments. I'm trying to avoid a straw man here...
People like William Lane Craig aside, what specifically about one's faith is challenged by taking the Canaanite genocide or the charge to kill homosexuals seriously?
An analogy: It's 1968 and I see Dick Nixon as a good, honest American who will make things right. I then learn that he has lied, he has undertaken "secret" bombings in Camobodia, and so on. To me, taking these things seriously is to come to a realization that I was wrong.
There are Christians who, "take seriously" that their supposedly loving god doesn't shy away from genocide or from an extreme dislike of homosexuals which run contrary to their own personal morals. I don't see what's positive about having faith in a deity that is, at turns, very petty, mean, genocidal, and so on. What does one grow into by accepting such a deity?
Faith is a mystery. I don't know what else to say. If you're asking me to defend indefensible scriptures, I can't.
I'm not trying to get you to defend the indefensible. I am simply curious about a mindset.
I'm no theologian, but perhaps one way to think about this is the slogan that's promoted by the United Church of Christ, the liberal Protestant denomination: God Is Still Speaking. The revelation continues to unfold. We don't think gays should be killed anymore. Before 2005, the UCC didn't support gay marriage. Now it does. A wrong was righted.
OK, but why doesn't the UCC think gays should be killed anymore and support gay marriage?
To my mind, it's because of secular forces and attitudes prevailing.
Perhaps I fail to understand the difference between saying "faith is a mystery" and cognitive dissonance reduction.
Okay, I'll bite. What is the cognitive dissonance?
That is, what instance of cognitive dissonance are you referring to?
I'm referring to confronting the indefensible, cherry-picking the bits of the Bible one likes, and then saying, "It's a mystery. God Is Still Speaking. The revelation continues to unfold."
You asked questions and I answered them respectfully and sincerely. You respond by mocking me. I'm not sure where this is going.
I appreciate that you answered the questions respectfully and sincerely and wasn't trying to mock you but to point out what I consider an instance of cognitive dissonance reduction.
This goes back to my original question in the post itself: "What does it mean to take (insert indefensible bit from Bible) seriously?" And, from what I can glean from your answers, it involves ignoring them in one way or another. Not completely as they seem to be illustrative of what to avoid.
Like I said, I wasn't trying to adopt a mocking tone but perhaps my attempt at concision failed. What about my comment do you feel was mockery? The content? The tone?
Putting separate things I said in a single quote ("It's a mystery. God Is Still Speaking. The revelation continues to unfold."), has the effect of making me look robotic and foolish.
Sorry about that. It was just a list.
Post a Comment