Contributors

Sunday, January 05, 2014

The Atheist and The Conservative Christian

In the space of about a week, I had an atheist and a conservative Christian tell me that in order to be a "true" Christian, I had to either believe all of the Bible or none of it. At first, this struck me as hilarious considering what polar opposites both of these individuals are. But then it made perfect sense because both of them are conservative which means the world is BLACK or WHITE and NEVER ANYTHING IN BETWEEN! Essentially, this means that they buy in to the myth that you have to believe in Republican Jesus to be a Christian.

The atheist is a buddy of mine with whom I have had many fantastic and sometimes contentious discussions about politics and religion. He is a dyed in the wool libertarian who wants the federal government out of every aspect of people's lives, save for the small, necessary things. He is very anti tax but pro choice, pro legalization of all drugs, doesn't give a shit about gay marriage or people's sex lives and wants the US military (of which he was a member for a few years) out of foreign countries.

The conservative Christian is Reverend Jim's wife, the first great love of my life. I've known her for nearly 30 years and, as she has gotten older, she has become more angry, afraid, and hateful of far too many things that go on in the world. In the course of commenting on my FB wall about the Phil Robertson flap, she said that believes every single thing in the Bible and told me that I have to believe all of it or none of it. When I posited that she does not believe every single thing in the Bible by asking her if she was subservient to her husband, she told me that the Bible told her to be submissive, not subservient, and then she went on to explain (to the horror of many of female friends) how she was just that. I politely informed her that being submissive and being subservient was the same thing and then went on to ask her she thought it was OK to sell her children into slavery. Or stone sinners. She stomped off the thread of the thread after that saying I was being silly so I guess she doesn't believe everything in the Bible.

A few days later, my atheist buddy said the same thing to me as did Reverend Jim's wife. "You aren't a Christian unless you believe all of the Bible," he declared.

"But there are parts that completely contradict each other so that's impossible," I replied.

"Exactly!" he declared. "So why bother believing in any of it?"

My buddy is clearly a baby and bathwater sort of fellow! So, I spend a few days lamenting both of their attitudes. All or nothing...what a crappy way to live your life.

But then I thought about the thirty verses of the Bible which state that women should be submissive to their husbands. These are great examples of how our society has moved past this male dominated view of sexual roles. It simply does not apply to today. Reverend Jim's wife represents a very small part of the Christian community in terms of this belief. Even the most hard core conservative Christians don't treat women the way the Bible allows. Are these millions of women "fake" Christians? Obviously not. Even by her own standards, she is as well.

Homosexuality, mentioned far less than wives being submissive to their husbands, is another example of how our culture has changed. The people of that time viewed it as taboo and learned behavior. Today, we can see that people are born that way and the question we need to ask ourselves is this: if God is so against homosexuals, why does S/He keep making them?

Getting back to my atheist buddy, it's ironic that he is an atheist because he generally lives by Christian principles. He does unto others, is generally peaceful, follows many of Christ's teachings, and actually looks like the westernized image of Jesus, complete with long flowing locks of hair! On a whim, he got ordained as a minister after answering an ad in the back of Rolling Stone. So, there is some spiritual hope for him. Whether he wants to admit it or not, Christianity has had a profound effect on his life. The basis for it is still the bedrock of our society with the New Commandment being something we all try still try to achieve. Why would you want to throw out the notion of loving one another just because of the logical contradictions that occur when cultures evolve?

Now I see the true irony of each of their statements. Neither one of them live up to their self imposed rigidity. She is less of a Christian then she believes and he is more of one. Perhaps they are pissed at themselves for compromising their ideals. After all, the Bible says we shouldn't believe everything.

Proverbs 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

Proverbs 26:25 When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart. 

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

19 comments:

Nikto said...

"Now I see the true irony of each of their statements. Neither one of them live up to their self imposed rigidity. She is less of a Christian then she believes and he is more of one."

This is a false equivalence. The atheist living up to certain moral and ethical standards does not make him Christian in any way. Christianity did not invent morality and ethics. Eastern religions embraced these concepts long before Jesus walked the earth.

Indeed, Christianity has been used to justify some of the worst wars and violations of human rights (numerous conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, the Crusades, the Inquisition).

The all-or-nothing idea is bogus. It's clear that no one person or book has the answer to it all. The way the bible was written, assembled and packaged makes it obvious that many hands shaped its message, none of them divine.

It's no different than anything else: I don't believe everything I read in the newspaper, I don't believe everything Neil deGrasse Tyson says. Catholics don't believe everything the pope says. Republicans don't believe everything Ronald Reagan said.

How could the bible possibly be any different? God does nothing to prevent the faithful from being killed by hurricanes and earthquakes, how could we expect that he would save us from being misled by someone putting their own spin on biblical events in the second century? He let Mohammed write the Koran and Joe Smith write the Book of Mormon. Those books are no different than the books collected by the Council of Nicaea at the behest of a pagan Roman emperor into what we now call the bible.

In the end your atheist friend is being more obtuse than your Christian friend, mostly because he should know better.

My bet is that most of the bible is made-up, but I think it's likely that Jesus existed, was a very moral person, and made a huge impression on a lot of people. He was probably crucified, taken off the cross, stabbed, put in a tomb over the weekend, came out of a coma, got up, walked away and died in obscurity shortly thereafter.

But it was a great story, one that over the centuries grew and grew without any bad intentions on anyone's part until he finally became the son of god sent here to save us all.

And as long as that message of hope uplifts people's spirits and inspires them to live moral and generous lives, more power to them. But as soon as they start advocating taking away people's rights and killing them because they're somehow different, that's where it's gotta stop.

Juris Imprudent said...

If an athiest tells you you aren't a true Christian I think the only appropriate response is roaring laughter.

Unlike the voice in your head, er, I mean, your buddy, what I have asked you is which Christian denomination teaches the things you claim to believe. If you adhere to a recognized branch of Christian thought (and there are many) that is one thing. It is another to just make up your own beliefs - often quite contrary to some or all of the established denominations - and still proclaim yourself one of them. For someone so devoted to following the rules as dictated by govt, you sure are a non-conformist when it comes to religion.

These are great examples of how our society has moved past this male dominated view of sexual roles. It simply does not apply to today.

So you are saying it was right back then - not just as a matter of what God's supposed word is, but as a practical social matter as well. But it isn't right or applicable today. How exactly did that change and how is God's alleged word no longer applicable? What is the process by which parts of the Bible lose their validity?

I'll give you a different example - slavery. The Bible is rather ambiguous about that and certainly a century and a half ago you had both sides to the great dispute claiming Biblical authority for their respective positions.

Slavery has always been wrong. It doesn't matter if that wasn't recognized at the time - it doesn't change that slavery was, is and always will be wrong.

Likewise there is no legitimate social instrumentality that grants me the power to tell you how to live your life. I may exclude you from my friendship, possibly even a community - but I cannot forcibly change who you are. Democracy is no more legitimate than a king or chieftan having the power to do so.

Mark Ward said...

It is another to just make up your own beliefs - often quite contrary to some or all of the established denominations - and still proclaim yourself one of them.

That's the fictional version of me you have created. I showed you all the different denominations with links that sum up their beliefs. You acted like a dick and didn't even bother with them.

And aren't you an atheist? Cue the roaring laughter...

Juris Imprudent said...

I showed you all the different denominations with links that sum up their beliefs.

But not yours. You aren't even a smorgasboard of Christian theology - because you make claims that aren't supported by ANY of them: such as how the Bible was once valid about something but now isn't. If you have a link to some denomination that teaches that - by all means show me the error of my ways.

And aren't you an atheist? Cue the roaring laughter...

You see, you didn't even pay attention when NMN and I were debating. I'm really more agnostic as I cannot positively prove that God does not exist. Of course because I can't prove a negative (and no one else can either) does not establish that the Judeo-Christian-Muslim "God" exists. In my opinion there is a lot of wisdom in the Bible, even if it isn't a divine product.

Secondly, I never said you weren't a true Christian; I said you don't conform to any known school of Christian thought. Your beliefs are utterly idiosyncratic - actually I used the neologism idiosyncretic (you'll need to read up on syncreticism). Hopefully I don't have to explain the prefix to that as well.

Mark Ward said...

because you make claims that aren't supported by ANY of them: such as how the Bible was once valid about something but now isn't. If you have a link to some denomination that teaches that - by all means show me the error of my ways.


Again, a fictional version of me (see: Straw Man). I said parts of the Bible no longer apply because of the New Covenant. Christians are only bound by OT laws, specifically Mosaic Law.

Juris Imprudent said...

You might recall that the question that supposedly inspired this whole post was about whether or not the OT is still binding.

I asked who do you think it binds? You asked me who I think - without of course answering. You couldn't possibly form your own thought on that. Which actually makes me wonder - why is it you can invent your religion but you have to get your politics from someone else? Anyway, OT law applies to God's chosen people - as the OT itself teaches.

You see, the OT isn't a problem to me - because I don't claim to believe in a religion rooted in it; that claims both OT and NT as God's revealed (or inspired) Word. Or do you belong to a Christian church that does NOT treat the Bible as such?

Juris Imprudent said...

I said parts of the Bible no longer apply because of the New Covenant.

Excellent - you have clearly stated your belief. Now what denomination teaches that?

Juris Imprudent said...

To be clear - what church teaches that you get to pick and choose what parts of the OT no longer matter?

You see, this is precisely the criticism you make about NMN that he selects the law against homosexuality out of Deuteronomy and ignores the laws of kosher.

Mark Ward said...

See my latest post.

GuardDuck said...

These are great examples of how our society has moved past this male dominated view of sexual roles. It simply does not apply to today.

Ahh, so the Bible is wrong because society is different? Society (man) has decided what is right and therefore the Bible (God) is wrong?

If man is indeed capable of deciding what is right and wrong better than God, what need do we have of God?

Hypothetically, imagine a society that has decided that raping and murder is acceptable. Using your own logic, is that society right while the Bible is wrong - because society has 'moved on'?

Mark Ward said...

You are welcome to refute what I presented in the latest post, GD. Pleanty of verse context, and sources to examine. Take your time. Or you could just ad hom and genetic fallacy again.

GuardDuck said...

Did you or did you not just say that in THIS post that "These are great examples of how our society has moved past this male dominated view of sexual roles. It simply does not apply to today"?

That means you have used the position of our society to justify countering the Bible.

My post has used the source you used for such logic. You are welcome to refute or recant.

Mark Ward said...

Do you honestly think that God decided that women should be subservient to men? Wow. You're on your own on this one.

Actually, GD, the fact that you think homosexuality is criminal behavior similar to murder and stealing (which is what you really trying to say here) shows just how much of a bigoted moron you are.

GuardDuck said...

You're jumping Mark. Your leaps of logic are monumental.

Hypothetical means something. The only moron here is you.


GuardDuck said...

Are you truly so clueless and stupid that you can't fucking figure out basic logical arguments? That what I am asking is related TO THINGS YOU SAY? That I am questioning YOUR LOGIC? Not that I am in favour of or advocating any particular item?

No, you really are that stupid.

You said these things. I questioned how YOU made your conclusions. I can't help it if your logic is so fucking flawed that THE EXACT same logic you used can also be used to justify things that you find abhorrent. It's YOUR logic, not mine.

Juris Imprudent said...

Do you honestly think that God decided that women should be subservient to men?

Isn't that what the Bible says? You know, the part you say isn't applicable any more. We've moved on and it is up to God to keep up, right?

Mark Ward said...

I responded in the other thread.

Juris Imprudent said...

Liar. That was no response.

Larry said...

Genocide used to be God-approved before it wasn't anymore according to this doofus.

The problem with Markadorkia's principles is that they're so fluid and flexibly defined that you may as well ask the wind which direction it will blow next month. It'll boil down to whatever's pragmatic and most correct according to his feelings for that particular time. It's not unknown for Markadippiya's own positions morph through several mutually contradictory positions in the space of a single thread.