Religion
Went to a friend's birthday party. We got drunk quickly in order to cut the awkwardness and get down to conversation. Imbued with liquid courage, I apologized to Joe for being an ass to him when I met him some time ago. This got us talking about religion and morality.
See, when we met, just about the first thing he started talking about was how Islam is a religion of hate. This sort of thing makes me angry; like saying Democrats are socialist, what makes me angry is not that they aren't part of a bigger problem but that the problem isn't that they are socialists. To say Islam is a religion of hate and implying that Christianity is not is like saying the Republican party is the party of big money and implying that Democrats have taken a vow of poverty.
He, never having read more of the Koran than carefully chosen inflammatory excerpts, had an easy time believing that Islam is a religion of hate. Having read more of the Bible and deciding to put faith in it as the "true word," was willing to put examples of violence in the Christian tome in a greater context of peace. This is in part because his own sense of morality imbues him with a belief that peace, forgiveness, and justice are good and their opposites--war, spite, and injustice--are bad, so naturally the book he decided to describe as the pillar of his morality must reflect this.
So, as to be expected, God telling Abraham to kill his own son, killing everyone in a "great flood," condemning to hell everyone for all time because of an innocent and arbitrary "sin" and then "saving" them by torturing to death an innocent victim, all of it is full of meaning to the believer who has the opportunity to interpret these things in the best possible way. But anything of equal insanity to a non-believer, is simply insane. Job surviving being swallowed by a giant fish? Totally not crazy. God sending bears to maul children for making fun of a prophet's baldness? Totally not crazy. Is the command to Jihad so far from condemning to eternal damnation those who don't follow Christ? Especially when you decide to interpret scripture in a way that makes it ok to kill a non-believer, as was done to justify the crusades.
--
Matthew 10:21-22, 34-39
Brother will betray brother to death, and the father his child; children will turn against their parents and send them to their death. All will hate you for your allegiance to me; but the man who holds out to the end will be saved….You must not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a son’s wife against her mother-in-law; and a man will find his enemies under his own roof. No man is worthy of me who cares more for father or mother than for me; no man is worthy of me who cares for son or daughter; no man is worthy of me who does not take up his cross and walks in my footsteps. By gaining his life a man will lose it; by losing his life for my sake, he will gain it.
(Luke 22:35-38, NRSV)
He said to them, ‘When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?’ They said, ‘No, not a thing.’ He said to them, ‘But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, “And he was counted among the lawless”: and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough.’
--
That this mention of "two swords" was used to justify the violence of the Holy Roman Empire or that other parts of the bible were used to justify the United State's particularly violent brand of slavery, doesn't matter to the believer. They will still say that morality is impossible without religion. I say that morality is possible only in spite of religion. There may be a higher density of craziness in the Koran and it might be a longer stretch to explain away the violence, but implying that Islam is a religion of hate while Christianity is the religion of love simply speaks to the ridiculousness of elitist religions that sport gods with petty emotions like jealousy.
See, when we met, just about the first thing he started talking about was how Islam is a religion of hate. This sort of thing makes me angry; like saying Democrats are socialist, what makes me angry is not that they aren't part of a bigger problem but that the problem isn't that they are socialists. To say Islam is a religion of hate and implying that Christianity is not is like saying the Republican party is the party of big money and implying that Democrats have taken a vow of poverty.
He, never having read more of the Koran than carefully chosen inflammatory excerpts, had an easy time believing that Islam is a religion of hate. Having read more of the Bible and deciding to put faith in it as the "true word," was willing to put examples of violence in the Christian tome in a greater context of peace. This is in part because his own sense of morality imbues him with a belief that peace, forgiveness, and justice are good and their opposites--war, spite, and injustice--are bad, so naturally the book he decided to describe as the pillar of his morality must reflect this.
So, as to be expected, God telling Abraham to kill his own son, killing everyone in a "great flood," condemning to hell everyone for all time because of an innocent and arbitrary "sin" and then "saving" them by torturing to death an innocent victim, all of it is full of meaning to the believer who has the opportunity to interpret these things in the best possible way. But anything of equal insanity to a non-believer, is simply insane. Job surviving being swallowed by a giant fish? Totally not crazy. God sending bears to maul children for making fun of a prophet's baldness? Totally not crazy. Is the command to Jihad so far from condemning to eternal damnation those who don't follow Christ? Especially when you decide to interpret scripture in a way that makes it ok to kill a non-believer, as was done to justify the crusades.
--
Matthew 10:21-22, 34-39
Brother will betray brother to death, and the father his child; children will turn against their parents and send them to their death. All will hate you for your allegiance to me; but the man who holds out to the end will be saved….You must not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a son’s wife against her mother-in-law; and a man will find his enemies under his own roof. No man is worthy of me who cares more for father or mother than for me; no man is worthy of me who cares for son or daughter; no man is worthy of me who does not take up his cross and walks in my footsteps. By gaining his life a man will lose it; by losing his life for my sake, he will gain it.
(Luke 22:35-38, NRSV)
He said to them, ‘When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?’ They said, ‘No, not a thing.’ He said to them, ‘But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, “And he was counted among the lawless”: and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.” They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough.’
--
That this mention of "two swords" was used to justify the violence of the Holy Roman Empire or that other parts of the bible were used to justify the United State's particularly violent brand of slavery, doesn't matter to the believer. They will still say that morality is impossible without religion. I say that morality is possible only in spite of religion. There may be a higher density of craziness in the Koran and it might be a longer stretch to explain away the violence, but implying that Islam is a religion of hate while Christianity is the religion of love simply speaks to the ridiculousness of elitist religions that sport gods with petty emotions like jealousy.