Christianity and Faith Are a Poor Basis for Morality
68
How would a Christian nation have reacted to September 11th?
My inclination is along these lines: And
unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and
him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. (Matthew 5:39; Luke 6:29).
Imagine
what might have happened if, instead of invading Iraq, we'd done
everything in our power to help resolve the Israeli/Palestinian
conflict. How much more effective would 648 billion dollars have been
if they were spent on a peace process instead of war in Iraq?
Love your enemies, they say.
But another Christian might look at Jesus's words in another book: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34; Luke 12:51)
Or maybe you could go back to the book of Deuteronomy, where God tells the Jews to enslave their enemies, or in some cases: of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them... as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods. (Deut. 20:16 - 20:18)
This is a problem. Do we love our enemies, or slaughter them? Or merely enslave them?
What do you choose?
What do you believe?
It is commonly held that Christianity gives you certainty, a moral compass. It gives us faith, something to ground our lives in.
But does it?
The Bible is the book in which a man kills his concubine, cuts her body into 12 pieces, and ships these pieces to the different tribes of Israel (Judges 19:29), apparently with God's approval.
The Bible has been used to justify the practice of slavery, and to justify the abolition of slavery. It has been a source of comfort to African Americans, and a source of their mental enslavement. Christianity provided strength and ideas for the Civil Rights Movement - and it's still being used by the Ku Klux Klan to justify racism and violence.
The Bible is not consistent. It is inconsistent in its message and it is inconsistent throughout. There are contradictions between the Gospels, and contradictions in the Old Testament. (See Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman for a detailed and scholarly examination of this subject). There are two different versions of creation in the book of Genesis - and two different stories about Noah's ark - just to begin.
 | Amazon Price: $5.99 List Price: $15.99 |
So if you can take a passage of the Bible to support basically whatever you think at the moment, how do you know what God wants you to do? If the Bible is not consistent, how can a believer be consistent?
Religious faith is not a path to morality. It is a barrier to morality.
The theory of intelligent design.
The problem with intelligent design is that it inserts 'purpose' into things that may or may not have a purpose. If something is 'designed', it has to have been designed for a purpose. And purposes are where things get a little scary. Were humans 'designed' to dominate and destroy nature? Well, who really knows? We are certainly very effective at it, and that implies design. How can you find out our true purpose? I can make any assertion I want about our purpose - and you will not be able to refute me with certainty.
Once we believe in a 'purpose' we've crossed a line in our morality.
Who's to say that white people weren't 'designed' to be superior to black people? After all, why 'design' different skin colors into people except as markers of god's favor (or disfavor)?
Once you accept that a thing is designed, you have to accept that the thing has a purpose. You don't design things without a purpose. If you feel there is a 'purpose' to something, you should think very hard and very clearly about what that purpose is.
ID has no place in science because the 'design' and the 'purpose' can't be proven - they can't even be tested through experiment. ID as a philosophy is dangerous to morality because the 'purpose' is ambiguous.
In the same way, religion is dangerous to morality because it puts debate out of the question, without actually providing definite positions. Depending on your basic political affiliations, you might feel that you have an obligation to pay taxes, or that taxes are unjust. And, surprise!, you can find justification for both perspectives in the bible. Pay taxes, or resist taxes? Decide for yourself, then use a sacred book to prove your point!
The language of religion is used by men to create a sense of certainty, to manipulate the listener, to justify whatever needs to be justified. In the wake of September 11th, George Bush spoke of a new Crusade and an Axis of Evil. "We're fighting evil," he declared repeatedly.
If you believe in Evil with a capital E, the kind of Evil you only get with a Prince of Darkness corrupting our souls and whispering in our ears, then certain things must follow. If 'They' are 'Evil', then 'We' must be 'Good'. If women worship the devil - the Prince of Darkness, pure, absolute Evil - if women worship pure Evil in order to receive certain magical powers, then it only makes sense to torture them and burn them at the stake.
The alternative would be to condone evil, to be soft on evil. Letting a witch live would be like letting a mass murderer live.
Religion allows us to believe in absolutes - yet it does not provide true certainty. It provides sham certainty, and allows lazy thinking.
As a result of September 11th, America invaded Iraq. Because of this invasion, somewhere between 100,000 and 1 million Iraqi civilians have died.
In George W. Bush land, we are fighting Evil, with a capital E, and that requires strong, decisive action. Even torture can be justified if you are fighting Evil.
George Bush decided to run for President because he felt that he had been 'called.' He believes that things happen for a purpose: 'This world [God] created is of moral design.'
This belief was, doubtless, a source of strength to Bush. But this belief allowed him to justify torture, to spend billions on a war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, and to undermine democracy at home.
Bush believes in design and purpose to human events, and when you believe such things it is easier to justify your actions. America can't be evil - we are a Christian nation. What we do is God's will. Our enemies are God's enemies - and God's enemies are by definition Evil.
'Design' and 'purpose' - these are the problem. Did your dad ever use this one on you: 'When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME'? We must constantly question our assumptions.
Moral certainty is the enemy of moral action. Faith is the friend of oppression. Questions are the enemy of authority, hierarchy, and oppression. Religion allows us to elevate our assumptions about our 'purpose', about the 'design' of the world and current events, to a realm where they can't be questioned. The word of God is the word of God, after all.
But if God is truly omnipotent and benevolent, he/she/it is not threatened in the least by our questions, our doubt, our rebellion.
Questions do, however, threaten those with earthly power. Faith, ideology, and religion have gone hand in hand with tyranny since the dawn of civilization.
Questioning is a moral behavior. It allows us to get to the root of an issue, to understand the truths about our world. Questions cannot threaten God - but they can threaten the authority of the Church.
Questions are essential to the growth and development of an idea - but they are dangerous to those who rule in the name of that idea.
Of course I am not saying there is no god. I'm not even saying that Christianity is wrong. I'm saying that true morality requires questioning, not faith. And while it may seem that I'm beating up on Christianity here, I'm really talking about all religions, or any ideology that requires some amount of "faith". Take a look at Muslims, who can't seem to decide if suicide bombing is justified or not. And while I am criticizing religious thought, I'm not attacking 'religion' as a whole. The problem is a certain way of thinking - intellectual laziness, moral certitude, slovenly ethics.
CommentsLoading...
Not bad points, V., but do you think that there might have been other ways to respond to the attacks that might have turned out to be more productive? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, in any case.
It is obvious, that anything organized by a majority is often corrupt, much like our society, churches or government; anything man-made is often an egostistical replication of godly-wannabe contraptions that strives to conquer the public, whether it be a simple cell phone, computer, bar code or a high-tech tracking device. Is everything that emerges these days in the media or wherever...for power, control or sanctity, you decide... There is no better religion than the one you was born with. Don't think, just feel...flow like water, be natural and individualize. Greed, power and control have been conflicting factors of the Homo sapiens for quite a while now, so lets pull the hands from the greedy offering plate and start offering to mankind and unto oneself. Pomposity never looked so good, ha-ha!
Great post, William!
Thank you Mr. Diverse! Agreed!
I'm afraid, William, that y9ou have become infected with political correctness. We don't elect Mahatma Ghandis to protect our nation.
We in the US gave a government that is separate from religion. However, it was based on Judeo-Christian values. Islam, on the other hand is a religious and political ideology in one package, that is sworn to keep women in shackles, infidels in bare feet, if alive at all. Don't be so quick to accept "diversity.", when you don't understand what the central premise of the Koran is. And it ain't nice...
LOL Vraj.
So let me get this straight.
You seem to be saying that:
It is ok to invade a country based on lies.
That it is ok to give your rich corporate friends no bid contracts on rebuilding the country that you destroyed.
That it is ok to fund the projects that you have given your corporate friends with money that is taken from taxpayers and that is borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia.
I think you might be the one whose mind is infected, my friend.
willian, you have taken the post to another level. Your premise was that it is un christian to protect and defend. and, yes, Iraq was a haven for terrorists.
As far as corporate friends. Look no further with Obama's Goldman Sachs, Citigroup friends. Wall Street no longer owns D.C., It is D. C. Bailouts after bailoutys to his wall St friends and supporters, including George Soros
Hmm. Sorry I have not been more clear, but my premise was not that it is unChristian to protect yourself and others. I fully believe in self defense.
Rather, my premise is that religion (as well as various political ideologies) can be, and quite often is, used to justify immoral action.
Dear vrajavala,
You seem to be so endearing towards many things that you are unaware of or under control of - just merely speaking out of self-proclaimed righteousness, whether it be controlling governments, feign religions, fictitious reasons of war, et cetera. You may be an aficionado to tyrannical, domineering, dictatorial ways, but please try to at least consider the contrast to all of this...or at the very least, try considering the true bounty of life versus monetary confinement.
The Bible is consistent, it is the interpreters that are inconsistent. The Bible is an historical account of many events, some that God favored and some that He didn't. Many times in order to get the correct interpretation of a Bible text you need to do an in depth study of the time and situation surrounding the statement. Let us not forget the Commander in Chief of Evil, Satan. Religion and ideological beliefs are not the problem. It's the distorted interpretations that people create to support there own point of view which they express with a passionate opinion that incites people to violence.
William, I think you could study your title a little more carefully, and see why, it's just a tad misleading.
"Christianity-and-Faith-Are-a-Poor-Basis-for-Morality"
(Maybe Religion and Faith are not good motives for War)
But does morality have anything to do with the right of a nation to defend itself?
GWB is a person who had his own values, but I don't think those values really conflicted with his carrying out the responsibilities of CIC. On the other hand, we now have a CIC who is not capable of protecting our National Security, because of personal biases.
Now, on the other hand, if you use Sun Tzu as a basis for dealing with enemies, I think you will be better off. For example, Sun Tzu is taught at West Point, and the Code of Ethics for Officers, and the Geneva Conventions, etc., but, I don't think a class in religion is taught at West Point. However, when an officer or CIC takes the Oath, he/she does say "so help me God."
Again, I think you have to recognize the presence of Evil, as well as Good, and, according to some scriptures, Planet Earth is a middle planetary system, where there is a battle ongoing between Good and Evil, even within the individual soul.
Excellent hub, William.
I think it's important to make the case that a selective reading of any religious book will provide a completely flexible moral position. You can look at the Talmud, the Bhagavad Gita, the Qur'an, the Bible, or any other religious book and find that the full spectrum of moral positions are represented ranging from loving devotion to genocide.
The reason religions appear so morally flexible is because they have to integrate with the secular values of the society in which they exist. There is a religious illusion that society is judged by religious morality, when the inverse is the case. Religions are socially validated to the extent that they can integrate and coexist with the dominant secular values of any society.
Regardless of whether or not the society is officially religious, the religions themselves have to adopt moral values which are consistent with the society, otherwise they will be left behind. Theologians concern themselves with how to justify dogma in the context of developing social morality. That's a deeply conservative political purpose.
In order to have a consistent morality, I think you have to be at least agnostic and probably atheist. Certainly you need to ground the morality in socially secular values.
I discussed this in my book (shameless plug!) Leaving the Land of Woo available via http://www.leavingthelandofwoo.com.
the Bhagavad-Gita is not, Bob, a religious book, as you most probably know, but one that talks about the nature of the soul.
I fail to see where the Bhagavad-gita, or any religion, justifies genocide. I have heard of Eugenicists who do.
Interesting perspective on intelligent design. Just because something is designed for a purpose does not neccesarily mean that that thing is fulfilling its purpose, particularly if they have been given free will as human beings.
How my heart goes out to you William! rocketjsqu makes the needed point for this article well, and Lexy has one, too. Yet, while God is at work in and through nations, and there is much to learn if we do not box history in but give an honest study to each side of every situation, He seeks us individually. Once we have the relationship with Him that He offers us through His Son, Jesus, we can begin to understand things that burden us in this world. Remember, this life is like a vapor. There is more to life and what is going on in this world. Eternity is coming for each of us. Job asked the honest questions of a believer. We can freely do the same of God, if we come to Him His way.
Because you are thinking through some important matters I wonder if you would be interested in reading "The Problem of Pain," by C.S. Lewis. Also, J. Piper has, "Suffering and the Sovereignty of God," L. Talbert has, "Not By Chance," and "Beyond Suffering." M. Barrett's, "Complete In Him" offers us truth in a very readable fashion but we must be careful to be open and honest and sincere before God as we pursue these truths.
Wow! I have to give William 2 thumbs up for being audacious enough to have an article titled with such debatable content. Good job!
Although, I do have a simple query for RTalloni's comment:
Hey, that was a nice reply. But when referred to God by saying "He seeks us individually," I have 2 main queries.
1) Why do most people specify gender when speaking about god...why?
2) If "he" seeks us individually, then why can't we be individuals without formalities, fundamentals, laws, and organized religions...why?
It just doesn't make any sense to me, while reading the New Testament along with old Jewish laws, to threaten people with a blowtorch (basically), hell, or eternal damnation - just for the sake of obedience? Is that true, free-willed individuality? I'm not very educated on this type of spellbinders, maybe you can enlighten me or at least answer my 2 questions. Thanks.
The 9/11 attack (real or orchestrated?) was a pretext for a war Bush was determined to have; against massive evidence of NON EXISTING weapons he started a war justified ONLY by his greed for more oil.
Bush tried to "sell" the war as a moral choice and a liberating act of millions of people oppressed by Saddam; that is a very bad joke and we all know it.
Using the name of God to justify his criminal acts is even a more evil aspect of his distorted and misguided personality
Thanks for all the comments everyone! There's a lot here so it might take me a while to respond to everyone.
Rocket:
you said:
"The Bible is consistent, it is the interpreters that are inconsistent. The Bible is an historical account of many events, some that God favored and some that He didn't. Many times in order to get the correct interpretation of a Bible text you need to do an in depth study of the time and situation surrounding the statement. Let us not forget the Commander in Chief of Evil, Satan. Religion and ideological beliefs are not the problem. It's the distorted interpretations that people create to support there own point of view which they express with a passionate opinion that incites people to violence."
I agree with your last sentence there. But from what I've read of the bible I don't see consistency. I see an imperfect historical document.
The problem I have is with the certainty that religion can provide. If you are certain, you cannot acknowledge that you may be wrong - even if you are in fact wrong. This is faulty thinking - we should always be open to the possibility that we have missed something.
Religion puts too many things outside of the realm of debate.
Vraj:
"does morality have anything to do with the right of a nation to defend itself?"
Yes it does. And just because something is called self defense doesn't make it so. The Iraq war was unjust. Perhaps you don't agree with me on that one. That's fine - but the basic theme remains. Religion allows false certainty. It allows us to justify things because we are on God's side.
That's what I'm really talking about here. Muslim terrorists do it too. Hitler and Stalin did it too, without using God. And ancient emperors justified conquest as well by claiming that they had the backing of the gods, or that they were themselves divine.
"we now have a CIC who is not capable of protecting our National Security, because of personal biases."
That's your opinion. We'll see how things turn out.
"if you use Sun Tzu as a basis for dealing with enemies, I think you will be better off."
To win without fighting is the greatest victory. Sun Tzu.
I've studied Sun Tzu, thank you. He also says that wars and adventurism deplete the treasury.
"Again, I think you have to recognize the presence of Evil, as well as Good, and, according to some scriptures, Planet Earth is a middle planetary system, where there is a battle ongoing between Good and Evil, even within the individual soul."
We are much better served by recognizing the facts. Moral judgements are not facts.
Thank you Bob - those are some great points!
Lexy - thanks for reading and commenting. You wrote:
"Interesting perspective on intelligent design. Just because something is designed for a purpose does not neccesarily mean that that thing is fulfilling its purpose, particularly if they have been given free will as human beings."
This is true. But my argument is that Intelligent Design, because it cannot be proven, allows us to imagine any purpose we want - and this is morally dangerous.
Rtalloni: I'll repost my final paragraph:
"Of course I am not saying there is no god. I'm not even saying that Christianity is wrong. I'm saying that true morality requires questioning, not faith. And while it may seem that I'm beating up on Christianity here, I'm really talking about all religions, or any ideology that requires some amount of "faith". Take a look at Muslims, who can't seem to decide if suicide bombing is justified or not. And while I am criticizing religious thought, I'm not attacking 'religion' as a whole. The problem is a certain way of thinking - intellectual laziness, moral certitude, slovenly ethics."
Thanks to Petrah and Glimpse.
Thank you, William. Your points are both interesting and refreshing. Your ability to stay on topic makes it easy for me to understand your perspective. I admire how your approach stimulates thinking but doesn't try to convince others that their thinking is faulty. That takes talent but you make that look easy.
Q.
It seems that you like creating debate William, which is good as a good debate is always enriching. Having served even in mass I know a thing or two about religion:
1 a Christian is someone who tries to follow the Golden Rule and knows that there is only one God even if there are many ways to see Him, or that every religion is just a point of view
2 Those who do not follow point 1 are not Christians, whatever they call themselves
Having said that we should learn something from history, the greatest enemy of almost every religion. As regards Catholicism the Bible has been put together around 325 A.D. during the First Council of Nicaea, when the Emperor Constantine kept a close eye on what was to be included in the Bible as the word of God. That is from the very beginning the political power mixed with the religious power; one of the reasons why religion is called the opium of people. A religion that don't support the political power is simply made outlaw. Anyone remember the Catholic Church in Russia during Communism? The Bible is a book written by men, it has not arrived by priority mail from Heaven. The same goes for every other religious book. They are all written by men, if they were written by women probably they would be better than they are.
I think that nowadays the only more or less real books about Jesus are the one found at Nag Hammady, the Gospel of Thomas above all the others, for the simple reason that they haven't been made politically correct.
Than it's quite common for people to justify the worst things with religion, if God told you something He can't be wrong right? The problem is that if God created everything than He love everything, it's just a matter of logic.
Last I'd like to say that unless someone is defending his home all wars are made for money, be it in the form of oil, natural gases and so on. If the real problem was the ex USA ally Hussein then a SEAL squad with an expense of 1$ bullet would have been enough.
Great hub William, always a pleasure to read.
Nice post William. Problem lies in men. While Bush or anyone else may claim to be acting in faith, or by God, or by some other religious decree, that doesn't mean they really are. It also doesn't mean that God or the religion are in error. Jesus said himself in Matthew that he doesn't and won't recognize a person just because they call him Lord or do things in his name. The Bible is full of situations of people thinking they were doing right by God, but were actually way off base. Besides, 1 John 5:19 says that the ruler of this world is the devil, and not God contrary to what most people think. Last time I checked the world would include the U.S. So your assessment is right on. But I do agree with the post that said your title is wrong. God is the perfect and best basis for morality. Just like kids learn right and wrong from their parents, everyone should from and look to our heavenly Father.
Well written Mr. Wilson, you walk a thin line here between anxious zealots and free thinking believers. It doesn't take much to see the results of too much faith, as all the centers for religion abound with violence and hatred. Ironically, the less "religious" centers of the world have what the religious call "moral ineptitude" going against their subjective code, but these same less-than-religious areas still have more peace then the overly religious parts of the world.
I enjoyed your disarming take on the matter!
"free thinking believers"
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Re the Bhagavad Gita, it's a revered Hindu book in which Krishna advises Prince Arjuna on the eve of a battle against his cousins. Arjuna wants to call it off rather than fight his own family but Krishna tells him that if he doesn't fight, it will throw the world out of balance. He argues that the war is "just" and that Arjuna should get on with it. Slaughter in the interests of cosmic harmony - cute notion!
Other religions have similar references to clearing away populations, destroying unbelievers, and killing entire populations. As an almost random check, have a look at the Torah (the Jewish version of the first five books of the Old Testament) in Deuteronomy 2:12 where you'll find the LORD explaining that populations were wiped out to make room for his chosen race.
You really don't have to look far in any religious books to see a justification of violence against entire populations.
Good Hub,
W Bush was an idiot.
Take religion out of it.
At the time We had Iraq surrounded remember?
All of Iraq's neighbors distrusted Saddam Hussein, remember?
US invades Iraq.
Everyone now hates the US.
It is Iraq's citizens responiblity to overthrow Hassein.
They would have been a better country if we allowed them time.
Mr. Wilson if there isn't a God I was wondering if you might be interested in running for the office? I'll be your campaign manager. We can use this hub as your campaign platform. Throw in a few Ghandiisms with a smattering of Buddha. I figure Christopher Hitchens will be on board; he's pretty much for anything well thought out. Your hub is definitely that and then some. If civil service isn't your gig how about...I don't know maybe a Tony Robbins type thing...where you give enlightened speeches regarding our current era, past present and future leanings of religion in politics...um I don't know might sound a bit gross capitalist but I figure hey they pay for the DVD but the advice is free...Whatdya think? Oh me...ehhhhh i'd take say a modest 20% plus expenses. :D. In short your hub is dead friggin on point. I absolutely agree with everything you wrote. Every "jot and tittle"...Were it not for indoctrination surely the indoctrinated would see the truth in your words and you would change the world. Whatdya say babe let's change the world again?
Many good points William. I know a couple of people who are very vocal about their professed Christianity, whose actions are not Christ-like at all. Seems to me their prayers have nothing to do with God, but are a form of meditation to rationalize their bad behavior. I think much of the Bible is this way. Too much man, too little deity. The Bible is not dictation from God. Except for a small percentage of supposed quotes, it is the biased words of men.
Everyone, thanks for the comments. I'm working my way through them and will answer each individually in time. Meanwhile, thank you for reading and commenting!
If you don't know what the bible teaches, and you clearly don't because your confusion is glaring. Get in touch with a good Christian church and ask the Pastor there to explain. The bible is not inconsistent and it does teach morality as set down by God.
LOL
Quilligrapher - thanks for the kind words!
I have to commend William's post. This kind of debate can go on ad infinitum with neither side giving any quarter. Unfortunately, where the "theists" almost always fail is that they refuse to accept the idea of absolute intellectual honesty or the concept of the non-dogmatic or free thinker.
It’s more meaningful to have formed your own belief and/or value system instead of unthinkingly accepting handed-down ideas, most of them centuries old and full of dogma, that are not verified by your own experience. All that does is make you intellectually lazy and a mental slave.
As for the "glory and grand compassion" of religious thought, you only have to read the snide, declaiming, damning and almost threatening words of the theists on these kind of hubs and threads to see the great chasm between what is preached and practised. A "good" and "just" God has no need for threats and damnation and spiritual blackmail. The hypocrite almost always rides on the same train as the moralist does. Goodness is not always most practised where it is most preached.
A good understanding of socio-biology, social anthropology, philosophy, evolution, human cognition, neuro-psychology, psycholinguistics etc is enough to make us understand that concepts of morality, divinity, good and evil, values, mores etc are anything but "divine" in origin.
Now coming to Mr. Vrajavala's posts here, his inconsistency becomes immediately evident. He says "I fail to see where the Bhagavad-gita, or any religion, justifies genocide. I have heard of Eugenicists who do". One assumes from these words that he invests religion (or any religion, in his words) with qualities of restraint and goodness. But right before that he's already snidely said "when you don't understand what the central premise of the Koran is. And it ain't nice...", thus clearly indicating his negativity against a particular religion and in the process clearly revealing his own theological origin, which I correctly assume (also via his nick) to be Hinduism. Now it's very well known that Hindus and Muslims don't exactly love each other (ps: Vraja, I'm neither of these sects, so I'll thank you to not berate me on this point).
The above para proves two things about Vraja, and in the process, something about those who "believe" deeply. One is that they usually hate or detest deeply those who do not believe as they do, thus clearly revealing the divisive and hysteria-inducing nature of religion. And secondly, by wilfully or ignorantly denying the fact that the Mahabharata is in fact a brilliant (and quite poetic) justification of war, and even a justification for killing your own kith and kin, he contradicts his statement blithely and perhaps even knowingly. In doing so, he unwittingly proves William's point of faith being a poor basis for morality. (note to Vraja: not just the Mahabharata, but even the Ramayana is all about a "just" war).
I would in fact say to Vraja and similar rabble rousers - I know of many wars and pogroms that were justified and launched in the name of religion and "God". In fact, history is replete with stories of religious and sectoral genocide (the Canaanites, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the French Wars of Religion, the Reconquista, the Aztecs, Northern Ireland, jihads, fatwas, witch hunts, the Mughals, the Huns, the Partition of India, the Holocaust, Israel... I could go on and on, but you get the picture). I know of NO wars or genocides that have been launched by atheists or agnostics, or even those Eugenicists.
(Now you will try to tell me that the atheism of Stalin, Mao et al resulted in their pogroms. But that's completely wrong and based on crude premises. Stalin trained for priesthood, and Mao was immersed in Confucian ideas of power, authority, and the subservience of the individual to the state. Their acts and zeal arose out of ideas of totalitarianism, centralization of power through replacing established power structures, anticlericalism, and the "dream" of communism. Their supposed atheism has nothing to do with it. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods. It has no tenets of any kind, especially that "religious" tenet of killing or otherwise suppressing all those who believe in something that opposes or contradicts what you believe. Simply believing that there are no gods in itself does not motivate you to commit genocide).
Please don't give me that time-honoured "It wasn't religion that was making the killings possible! It was the "wrong interpretation" of religion by "misguided believers" that was the cause of it all!" excuse. Duh and bollocks! I see it very simply. If a person goes into a "house of God" to be vested with goodness in thought and action, then I expect an omnipotent, all-pervasive and all-knowing "God" to imbue that person with so much goodness and righteous behaviour that the possibility of being "midguided" or the "wrong interpretation" is reduced to zero! If not, it simply means that the particular theology is severely lacking in bringing about spiritual comportment and discipline in its adherents, or that "God" is extremely ineffectual or has failed, or (shock! horror!) there is no such thing as this "God" of religion.
Thank you for reading my little rant :-)
Hypnodude - thanks so much. I agree with you almost completely. Religion is used to serve the powerful, and has been throughout history.
Special K - thanks for reading and commenting. I agree that God (whatever it is) and religion are two different things.
And maybe you are right - maybe God is not a poor basis for morality, per se, maybe what I am talking about is more the problem of groupthink that arises so easily from religion. So a personal relationship with divinity and morality would be a much better base for moral action. The Quakers would one religious group that holds this view.
But the thing is, how do you know, really, what God wants? And if you, personally, know what God wants you to do, but what he wants you to do will hurt me, then how can you convince me that God is telling you that its' right for you to do it?
I think this hub comes from my problems with herd mentality and the way religion so often serves evil ends. But I'm not really addressing the bigger issue of whether morality is subjective, or objective - whether there actually is a right or wrong that all of humanity could agree on all the time.
Thank you Ben.
Janus - good question! I think there are believers who are very thoughtful. But can you really be a free thinker if you have an article of faith that you cannot give up?
Bob Lloyd - exactly!
Hi Jinks - I think you are mostly right. But I think 'faith' contributed to Bush's ability to rationalize his poor decisions. It helped him to be an idiot.
Terced Ojos - that's high praise! Thank you. And LOL. I dont' think I could get elected to that position, and I don't think I'd want it!
rmcrayne - thanks, and I agree!
Randall A. Stone: If the bible is so consistent, then is it ok for US pilot to drop a bomb and kill pregnant women? Is it ok for a woman to decide to end her own pregnancy because she realizes she won't be able to provide for the child?
If the bible is consistent, why does one Christian church allow gay marriage while another doesn't? Why does the Catholic Church not allow birth control use, even though condoms can help prevent the spread of AIDS and other diseases?
The bible, and Christianity, are quite inconsistent. You advise me to go to a pastor and ask his opinion - I bet you I can find 10 different Christian ministers with 10 different opinions on the sorts of questions I raised above.
Thisismynameman: Wow - that's quite a comment! Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. I think you bring a good bit of logic to the table.
Thought provoking as always William! I also have to applaud you for your ability to stay on topic, a talent that is limited in most who like to tackle touchy topics.
Thank you Bucky! Sometimes it really is hard to stay on topic.
excellent william! it's what everyone thinks but dares to say out loud.there are so. .many inconsistencies. there was adam and eve and two sons only on the planet. then one son leaves to go and find a wife. . . huh? the messiah will be a decendant of david on his fathers side. jesus had no father and was adopted by joseph and i could list 20 more but i wont. great article!
William, I studied theology and psychology in undergrad, and taught 2 classes while in grad school to undergrads. Religion was created by humans, not by God. So of course there will be flaws. Christianity was created by humans, and not Jesus. A person who is atheist, agnostic, and a scientist, can be just as flawed and closed minded as the one who follows religion. I am a Christian, am very spiritual and religious. I also do a lot of work with interfaith (different religions and faiths). I don't take a literal interpretation of the Bible, but every verse u throw out there, can be returned with another...I find it very curious how Christianity was used as ur examples, but not Islam, or any other faith really. Why not talk about also how people of that faith need to address their faith as being a faith of 'peace', and loudly and boldy condemn suicide bombings, and the killing of innocents, including babies? Yes, I abhor our foreign policy history as u know, and see it as criminal in so many ways. But to me, I'm wondering why such the focus on Christianity and America, but not really other Muslim nations?
I agree with you about the war is just a bussisness. did you see the pictures of the army in China trainig with the snow without shirts? that a real army, here the run 2 tracks and they already send them to Irak. The go overthere and play ping pong and chat in the internet a lot, and more is not more that just a bussisnes. Now I have to dissagre when you say the bible is inconsistent, if you really want to understand the bible you will have to read some of the jewish culture, because that where the fundations are. Is sad that we have a bunch of "christians" in America that dont even know that Jesus was a jew. from this point view everything that is written will start making sense but I respect your opinion and I leave my comment on a positive vibe, you are a brilliant guy.....
Thank you Joe! Maybe we should say it out loud more often?
Shazz - that's a good question. The answer is simply that I am surrounded by Christianity, especially the kind that I am speaking against in this hub. It's all over the radio, on the internet, I see signs of it as I drive to work, people witness to me as I'm shopping or trying to relax somewhere... Nobody has ever tried to convert me to Islam or Buddhism, or convince me that it their religion is better than Christianity, but Christians do it regularly.
I might feel differently if I lived in a Muslim country.
Joseph - Wow - thanks for the kind words!
True morality is based on empathy. That is, the capacity to understand the experience of others and the desire to respect it. The bible offers wise words on this subject- do unto others etc
Lousy education of preachers in the smaller churches of the US and elsewhere means an inability to deal with the serious issues of the modern world and poor moral leadership.
The problem isn't Christianity, it is unintelligent Christianity.
I think that someone who doesn't think that a "believer" can not also somehow be a free thinker is entrenched in their own bias. These "so called" free thinkers are in fact ironically sanctimonious about their own atheism. It's hilarious to me that many atheists and many zealots are equally close minded!
To start the word Christian comes from the greek language, was Jesus greek? Jesus was a jewish revolutionary, with long hair, he would hang out with whoever, he would crash and whosever house, his first miracle was turning the water into wine, but no, christianity mostly brings the dark side of the moon...wake up Im tired of all this wannabes preching "christianity" instead the message of love and salvation that are written in the scriptures.. I like some christians but some of you have badddd testimony, you preach against weed but you got the more expensives suits, the car of the year, expensive restaurants credit cards, and anything that goes against the political system that we live is bad.. christianity was ilegal before and is actually ilegal is some countries, and because that people should stop preaching.... i am a follower of Jesus myself, but I agree that some christians got no moral. get it real..God is all about Love
Thank you Ben, Will, and Joseph!
Of course, morality and the Christian faith are compatible but what is incompatible is any belief that you need to be Christian to have a 'decent' morality. As to the Bible, it was assembled from many 'works' at a Convocation in in around the 3rd Century AD (if I remember my dates correctly). It did not exist before and has been 'created' by man (fairly recently in historic terms) and is certainly a rather inconsistent work. This does not mean that it should not be subject to interpretation - however, 'interpretation' is all it is and one man's concept of 'God's word' has proven to be often radically different from another. This has certainly been true of the idea of 'toleration' - which I thought was at the core of Christ's teaching. Or am I wrong?
@ Nicks:
Hey "Nicks," I agree with your comment towards the Christian's narrow viewpoint, in which they claim to be the "only ones" that have the "only" path to enlightenment, or whatever. Yes, 313 A.D. was the supposed time of legalization. I disagree with you trying to bind 'tolerance' in with morality. As with most folks that have their morality violated, they sure-as-hell aren't going to be tolerant. I believe the colloquial term I'm looking for is 'rebellion'... I'm not a Christian nor am I religious in an "organized fashion" - as I believe it is a spiritual "personal thing" not to be broadcasted over the universe within our current plane of existence...BUT, I disagree with you saying that Christ's teaching is about toleration. If you're tolerant to things, then why try to change anything. Christianity, like most religions, are trying to change you. Oh, by the way, Nicks: I see that you pop up a lot on HubPages as unregistered. Just wondering, what's you're actual profile status or do you not have an account?
Man, you did a good job William, as this is one "hell" of a debate. ;)
Nick - good comment and good points. I think maybe Christ's teachings were more centered around love, so tolerance would be included within the teachings - although I also see Obscurely Diverse's point that tolerance does not always equal morality or even love!
And it is correct to differentiate - Christians can be moral or immoral - just as atheists can be moral or immoral.
OD - I like the idea of Christianity being about rebellion! Makes me think of the Muslim idea of Jihad.
I believe you have brought up a most difficult topic to challenge, since its one that has been boiling since the beginning of bibical times. But it might seem a bit easier to grasph, if one reads all your inner thoughts, would these thoughts have evolved if not for the bible and all the events that have caused you to ponder so, and is it not from this process that we evolve to a higher level of consciousness throug out time.
hey there william! i was raised in the church and always believed, because thats what i was told to do as a child.in dealing with things that clearly didn't add up i was told to believe anyway. as an adult i see much clearer and researched it. it appears that kings used religion to control masses. thats why everyone must fear god first and then everything else will fall in line. the morals and values were obviously for that day.no one should have sex but if you must then you should marry. how would the earth populate? the earth was built in six days but the bible took 1600 years and then a second version had to be written to change according to the times. god didn't see that in advance.it's funny because in this country our fore fathers and founders of this country saw all of this. they said separation of church and state and freedom of religion was allowed.there thinking was whomever, can believe whatever because it will not effect or change one thing. the most heinous crimes in the world have been committed in the name of the lord.what morals? catholic monasterys were found with entire walls cemented up with illigitamate, hidden, murdered, baby corpses. what morals or which morals ? or what are morals? all kings back then said they were sons of god . in fact you had to be the son of god to be a king. what they thought funny at the time was jesus was a peasant king. how could that be? religion begs the question since no one has seen nor talked to god. how does everyone tell you what he said as if they had talked to him themself? every religion says that one person was the connection to god.christianity it was jesus, the founder of the mormons said that when jesus resurrected he came to this land(america) before he went back to heaven and buried three gold plates with all the mormon laws inscribed on them for the europeans to find when they arrived 1700 years later. and they believe it to this day!!!!!!some humans i think feel a need to believe in something mystical . . . regardless! even when the story doesn't match. it's like love everyone, turn the other cheek, forgive and killem all and if you don't do as i say i will kill you all. it must go up it must go down it must go sideways. in essence it leaves you to think on your own. so i guess you can use the bible to determine if something is good if you want or you should do the opposite of it if you want. either way you will have to rely on your own thinking. as long as people think and use their (god given minds) they can reach decisions that hold true. when they turn over there thought process to a book written thousands of years ago they looking for confusion and a lack of logic to dictate their lives. so,in answer to your question. yes i think christianity and faith are a poor basis for morality and if you look at it you will see that it was peoples clear minded thinking that is the basis and it comes one step at a time.
I respect your opinion. Everyone has their own viewpoint on how they see certain things based on their own experiences and their own knowledge. Religion as in most beliefs or ideas are peaceful in nature, its foundations are. The beliefs create a sense of peace for some, a weapon to be used by others toward the weak or it can be hated by most. Religion helps you choose to follow a certain path, whether it be good or bad, it's your choice. Those who expolit it and the weak who listen to them don't say much about them but don't attach religion to it. Any words issued by an authoritive, responsible person is heard and obeyed that's human life. Look at what supposed leaders of groups or countries do, that's how we grow, and how we fall, it's the cycle of life. How do we advance, how do we create wars, how do we do anything? Not everything in this world can be good, or bad, not everyone can be rich, or poor, etc. That's how life is. Some accept it and move on, meaning you live through it as best as you can. Personally, I am a Christian, I love being one. I got the good education per say. I always knew who I wanted to believe in, I learned by myself because I believed and if you take the bible with an intellectual outlook believe me when I say, you'll miscontrue everything in it. It's not that your not capable of understanding the outer layer of it, it's that your reading at face value and not understanding the deeper meaning of it. If you are not of faith of a certain religion, and you are skeptic about it you won't understand their holy book whether it be any religion.
Personally, I don't judge others because we are not worthy to judge, because you don't know what others are going through. But you need laws, to keep man civilized as possible, even that is not enough sometimes. But you make the best of it. I have a lot to say on this matter but it's too broad of a subject to write about. Religion itself is not bad, it's the people who make it bad. If they are justifying the bad through religion, it's not religious anymore, maybe their own personal religion. In order to know everything, you have to see the world not through a TV(they give you the watered down version of everything), but visit the places, the people, etc, you'll see how it is.
While everyone debates on the existence of God, the flaws of others, the definitives and appropriete sterotypes, I'll just go live my life, and be happy. It's fine, that these discussions can be debattable online. I only hope, many do not carry this outside, into the real world.
The title of this article, points out the mind set of the authors stereotyped belief. I find many flaws. For example:
"The Bible is the book in which a man kills his concubine, cuts her body into 12 pieces, and ships these pieces to the different tribes of Israel (Judges 19:29), apparently with God's approval.". Yes, that story is documented. But NO. That was not done with Gods approval. William added that in there. Why? Why did you add that William? List the passage for which God approved this horriable act. You are just as guilty, for not reading the entire story, and pulling quotes to serve your inner thoughts. Just as GB did.
There you have. You now know why people do what they do. Misinformation, and belief systems, without complete study.
Look how magical I am: >>> William, you have not read the entire Bible. Much less all of Judges, from chapter 1. My crystal ball knows this is a fact. I hope you do not call for a witch hunt. I do not want to burn at the stake.
There's a whole paradox in what I just said. But every part of it was done for education, to suit it's purpose.
/Discuss
GoodorBad - how can you say this was not done with God's approval? Here's the whole story. A man seeks shelter in the home of an old man:
Judges 19:
21So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
22Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
25But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
26Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.
27And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
28And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.
29And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.
30And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.
The tribes gather together, hold a council of war, and decide to make war on Gibeah and the men of Benjamin.
God offers tactical advice during the battle, and with his help, the Israelites win, and slaughter everyone in the town:
Judges 20:48
And the men of Israel turned again upon the children of Benjamin, and smote them with the edge of the sword, as well the men of every city, as the beast, and all that came to hand: also they set on fire all the cities that they came to.
Obsurely Diverse - thank you for your comments. Actually, I was not sure about registering (to be honest). I fell across the site sometime ago and was seeing what the level of argument was like and whether it was something worth joining. Maybe you could fill me in with the benefits?
Ref. morality (with apologies to William for being distracted by OD!) - most religious works amount to a guideline as to acceptable social behaviour at the time of writing. They are (to the wise) guidelines - not absolute dictates to be followed slavishly as a dog does the commands of its owner (mad otherwise). Equally, like any guidelines, they must be looked at in the light of humanities ever-changing times and conditions. By this, I mean that what was written 2,000 years ago or 100 years ago is not always applicable now. A good example would be the absolute subordination of women - which lasted for generations. Was this morally right? Perhaps 2,000 years ago it was (I do not think so!!!) - but anyone arguing the case now could only be considered a 'nut'. And yet the extreme elements of many religions (some Christian) still maintain this lunatic state of affairs and justify it by quoting some (possibly lunatic) writer or maybe minor 'prophet' writing when circumstances were very different...
Hannah, I really like your point of view.
One thing I can say is that there is a big difference in a religion and a relationship with GOD and Christianity. I fully believe in it because religion is traditional and conforming and thats what Satan, ruler of the world's sytem wants you to do. To say, that Christianity and the Bible is a barrier to morality is quite funny because if anything it is a wide-eyed view of just how immoral human beings are. The Bible was written by men under the inspiration of GOD. Things that are written as examples, ideas, beliefs that people in those times had. GOD, the father, vehemently told Adam not to eat of the tree of life, his wife, beguiled by the wise serpent, did and gave him some to eat to. Eyes were open to right and wrong, good and evil there goes the fall of mankind. These things you spoke of in the Old Testament were the law, ten commandments, things that Israel didn't not want to follow. GOd was so fed up with the people and their ways He decided to make the ultimate sacrifice-Himself. To be an earthly example love,peace, longsuffering the qualities that we as humans do posses but often refrain from practicing. Once Jesus Christ was born crucified, buried and arisen on the 3rd day, humans were saved by grace, not under the law and not by there own merit. If we were so perfect He wouldn't have had to come to earth so that the apostles and disciples could wonder what manner of man HE really was. He was perfect but this is foolishness to the carnal and natural mind because they don't see that GOD is a spirit. Scientists reject His birth, the Immaculate Conception because they can't get in a lab and prove it with theories and million-dollar degrees and education.I interpret that everything in the Bible is not written to us directly in these times but when we get a RELATIONSHIP with it and GOD and the Faith we will understand the concepts, precepts and things of those times are similar to our times. Thats why its oftentimes called a roadmap-to help you get to where you are going.
I'm looking over the last few comments here and I see a common thread. Everyone is saying that we need to interpret the bible for ourselves or else have a personal relationship with god.
So does that mean we all agree?
I think there is some truth to what the people who don't agree with me are saying. In fact I think you all are actually agreeing with me to some extent.
Everyone seems to agree on this: you can't base your morality on what's in the bible.
Am I right?
Writing 4 my soul, great preaching, I love it,I like it, but the enfasis on this writings is about people that use the bible like a shield, like " because im a good christian im good, and saved and your not" that is the enfasis here. If you read every coment there is christians, non believers, scientist, and many more and I believe that in certain way we all agree with William in somenthing. You can not base your morals in the bible, you base your moral in what you believe because even if some people is saved and other are living but dead, God creates Us all and each of Us got the right to decide what is the best for our souls and our hearts.
Now if you believe that you should be evangelizing and want to try reach people, GO ahead please, evangelize and make sure that you love Mathew 28 and belong to the great comission, just like I do.
one Love people, for a better world
I remember reading a Stephen King Novel once. I think it was called "IT"...in one scene these kids were coming out of this sewer after having been in contact with this alien with telepathic abilities...each child had been mentally manipulated in some way...anyway as they came up out of this sewer at night they all saw a full moon and each one saw in the moon a reflection of their own minds and where they were mentally...I have read the bible cover to cover several times and am currently reading Luke...I can point to great moral clarity in the bible and horrific evil that was called good...I can quote a thousand inconsistencies...It is a book with several messages...several different messages which is why historically you have such a wide spectrum of "good"/"evil" actions on the part of its interpreters. I would venture to say that Mr. Wilsons overriding point is that given so many contradictions and more importantly how Christianity has been practiced the world over; Mr. Wilsons point is that the preponderance of the conflicting words of the bible coupled with the many unconscionable actions of its readers throughout history make Christianity and Faith a poor basis for morality.
I say this as a Christian man who is a man of faith. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I don't think critically. If the message of the bible is love, peace, tolerance then surely its followers should've practiced those things without reservation; which would make a hub like Mr. Wilsons ridiculous.
If Christians have acted in a way inconsistent with what they say are their core beliefs then why shouldn't they be held accountable for those things?
I don't have to defend Jesus Christ or my religious beliefs because I see what non-believers see. Namely a historical plethora of evil perpetrated by Christians in the name of Jesus Christ.
I don't fear the truth of these things nor do I seek to seperate myself from these Christians. Truth is truth. When Christendome truly repents within itself first and actually begins to practice the core tenents of its beliefs. Namely love, peace, patience, tolerance. When those who say they are of Jesus Christ can look into the hearts of people in the Holy Spirit and discern why an individual is they way they are. Then they can prescribe a cure for what ails humankind. To this all of you who say you are Christians have been called; did you forget..."those who are sick are in need of a doctor not those who are well..."
In short Christianity has not lived up to the morality it claims; if faith is our claim to morality and we have committed so much evil what good is our religion? Why would I desire a relationship with your God?
Having read all the comments here, perhaps it's time for me to add my two cents. What I won't do is to fall into the trap of trying to justify my faith by my works.
My relationship with Jesus started when I was a homeless veteran living in the woods. No church. No choir. No fellowship or whatever. At the time, it was far better that I was away from people. I came home from Nam after 2.5 tours. It woulda been three, but the war ended.
When I did come to meet Jesus, many tremendous things happened for me and even after 3 TIAs (mini-strokes) I was eventually able to walk right again and do things better than I'd done before. He took away the bitterness and those things the VA shrinks said would be longterm/permanent. I don't even address religion as it is to me a manmade label. I already had labels put on me.
Murderer
Sociopath
Delusional
Paranoid, etc.
These all came from the civilian shrinks who debriefed our unit. Thankfully, God took those away. I know for a fact I'd be dead in a swamp somewhere or in jail if things went different. So, I got on HubPages to write about Jesus and what I know He's done for me. I never claimed to be a Biblical historian. Never tried to be. What I do know is today our ministry works hard each day helping homeless veterans. I do what I can do.
Joseph - thanks for the comment - I think you understand what I am saying.
Terced Ojos - excellent comment. Thank you!
Unchained Grace - I think your story is a prime example of the good that religion can do for people. I know many Christians who strive every day to follow the example of Jesus and do good works. I'm certainly not attacking those people.
I am rather attacking the people who, as Joseph said above, use the bible as a sword and shield to push their beliefs and agenda on others.
Thanks for dropping by and bless you for the good work you do!
ou yea William, Im with you on that one,
William,
Its interesting how you feel christian's push their faith on you maybe its because they dont want to see you go to hell for eternity. If you have read the whole bible you would know as faithful christians we are chosen to spread the word of God. God is not all vengeful as you may think he has healed me and saved me from my own destruction. I have my own personal experiences that God proved to me he was there for me. Maybe you should pray and ask God to reveal himself to you he will you just have to believe thats the key to faith is belief without it you have nothing. God has revealed things to me from strangers who revealed heavenly secrets only God knew that I prayed. I hope and pray that God reveals himself to you in a mighty way in Jesus Name! amen!
William, it is not what religion can do. It is what God can do. Religion is a manmade term developed to accomodate a labelling system we humans are so fond of. My personal goal is to follow Jesus and to bypass the religious end.
The Pharisees saw themselves as "The Final Word" and hung to their titles and legalese believing that is what made them "good."
I've run into those who try to use the Bible as something to beat people over the head with and others who think it's a "discount coupon book" wherein they believe they can charge whatever for services they offer and then duck and dodge when it comes time to come out of their pocket for services rendered by others. It is why I follow Jesus.
I don't adhere to humanity and our cozy little misguided "categorization" program. It is that same type of labelling and categorization which has become the basis for racial profiling and the consistent childish inter-faith bickering that happens all the time.
William,
Quite a thought provoking hub. After reading so many replies I had to return to the hub and read it again. I've seen way to much twisting of the Bible by taking a dissected pile of verses and then gluing them together to make what ever topic one is trying to make biblical that I have been driven from any church. A phrase to the religious, is churchianity, introduced to me by aquasilver here on hub pages. I think any dispute to the bible is from man twisting it out of context. Like UnchainedGrace I am a 2 and 2/3 tour veteran of 'Nam and my third tour was cut short by being a bullet catcher while in the right front seat of a uh1 slick during a dust off. Later swinging out over the China Sea we went down in shallow water where my neck and back was broke. Our being there in the first place is questionable, just as why we were in Iraq. I now choose a life separate from the world and I study the bible for what it is and I find little conflict in it. I suppose if you try you can make conflict in it as well as any book designed to teach in such a great volume.
All that said, I find your point in the last sentence of your writings to be quite true, as there remains a large difference between Biblical and religion. Go well.
50 Cal - thanks for reading. Churchianity is a great word, and very appropriate for what is being discussed here.
The blind leading the blind photo look good here. I am wondering why your name appears as a 'by line' one google..images search. Might need to address this. Thanks for wanting to use my image in the mean time. Cheers and best of luck
Lee McLaughlin xart
vrajavala 2 years ago
the War in Iraq also liberated millions from the criminal saddam Hussein.
To a certain extent, all religions are a bit misleading. first of all, they are written in an original language and have to be translated. so, whose translation do you believe?
However, I think that the founding Fathers were quite brilliant and were able to define certain "unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." so, obviously, a nation, and its commanders have the duty to protect the citizens of that country from attack, and from its enemies. Turning the other cheek may be an option for an individual, but it is not an option for the President and the government to allow citizens to be slaughtered. that would be like a policeman saying "Oh, I see you are being killed, but I will just walk away." The policeman, the President already know the Oath of Office, so if they do not wish to take that Oath, then go and become monks. That is their choice. But when I vote for a Commander-in-
Chief, he/she better be ready to protect this country, me and my family. Otherwise, don't run for that office. He/she will be committing treason.