You're right, I should have specified "Christian fundamentalism" on that last line, since that's what I'd been talking about up to that point. I dropped the ball with that last line, and will amend it.
This having been said, I do have to ask: If those stories about divinely-mandated (or indeed executed) genocide are meant to be metaphor, then what in the world worthwhile thing are they meant to be metaphors FOR?
It's weird, though, isn't it, that even though Lot WAS judged as righteous, the city was destroyed anyways. Granted, he was ordered to leave and the city wasn't destroyed until he was gone, but that seems like a weasely kind of way to get around keeping your word.
But yeah, between the mindless, horrific violence of the old testament and the threat of eternal-torture-in-hell-for-anyone-who-disagrees-with-us of the new testament, I always say, even if I could be convinced that the christian god were real, I could never worship such a malign and evil being. My morals would prevent me from doing so.
Well, obviously I'm not afraid of it either, any more than I'm afraid of the Earth being consumed by Galactus, Devourer of Worlds. But! It remains a moral issue
( ... )
Okay, then. That is fair. But I have a question which I want you to know I mean sincerely; I am not being snarky, but I am genuinely curious because I have never been able to understand this kind of approach to religion.
Given that you evidently believe that the bible is not a reliable source of information, and that the leaders of your religion cannot be trusted when it comes to things like the concept of hell... well, why do you continue to believe in any of the outlandish claims of the religion?
This could just be my own approach to information, but my tendency is, once I have decided that a given source of information is unreliable about important things, I tend to be very, very skeptical about their further claims in the same arena, you know?
In fairness, I think she was speaking from a place of genuine sympathy (even if you perceive this to have been mis-placed); hostility like this feels a little out of place.
And besides, she was judging you by the words that you wrote, which DID come across as sincere to me, and therefore I assume to her. It's not a new observation, of course, but sarcasm can be very hard to detect when dealing with someone on the internet that you don't know well. She made an honest mistake of thinking you were being entirely honest, and offered advice that she thought might be useful to someone who honestly expressed such sentiments. Is that really so heinous a mis-deed?
I'm sorry. I'm very, very sorry. I read this very interesting discussion you were having, and I thought I might have something to contribute. I never meant to offend you or tell you what to do.
I hope you accept my apologies and please, know I never meant anything by it.
An additional thought (now that I've had some more time to think about this). There's a fairly famous quote which this puts me in mind of; Xenophanes wrote, "If horses could paint, they'd paint gods as horses.". Every culture, and to a certain extent, every person creates a god or gods in their own image. You strike me as a kind and caring person, and so you create a kind and caring god. Someone like Fred Phelps is a hateful bigot, and so he creates a god who adores hatred and bigotry in his followers. Other people do likewise; crafting their own personal supreme being out of a combination of fondly-held fables and personal preferences
( ... )
(The comment has been removed)
This having been said, I do have to ask: If those stories about divinely-mandated (or indeed executed) genocide are meant to be metaphor, then what in the world worthwhile thing are they meant to be metaphors FOR?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
But yeah, between the mindless, horrific violence of the old testament and the threat of eternal-torture-in-hell-for-anyone-who-disagrees-with-us of the new testament, I always say, even if I could be convinced that the christian god were real, I could never worship such a malign and evil being. My morals would prevent me from doing so.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Given that you evidently believe that the bible is not a reliable source of information, and that the leaders of your religion cannot be trusted when it comes to things like the concept of hell... well, why do you continue to believe in any of the outlandish claims of the religion?
This could just be my own approach to information, but my tendency is, once I have decided that a given source of information is unreliable about important things, I tend to be very, very skeptical about their further claims in the same arena, you know?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And besides, she was judging you by the words that you wrote, which DID come across as sincere to me, and therefore I assume to her. It's not a new observation, of course, but sarcasm can be very hard to detect when dealing with someone on the internet that you don't know well. She made an honest mistake of thinking you were being entirely honest, and offered advice that she thought might be useful to someone who honestly expressed such sentiments. Is that really so heinous a mis-deed?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I hope you accept my apologies and please, know I never meant anything by it.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment