SPOILER ALERT: The following post contains key plot details of the Movie. Don't read it if you don't want the movie spoiled. You've been warned. Stop reading now... Spoilers coming up very soon...
So, The Book of Eli. What's it about? It's set in a post-apocalyptic world, where it looks like just about everything has been destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. The events of the movie focus around Eli, a man who is on a journey, delivering a book to safety. Along the way he bumps into various thugs, who happen to be looking for the book. This allows for a whole lot of action scenes, where we see Eli kick a lot of arse. Turns out he's pretty skilled at hand to hand combat, and incredibly lucky, seemingly able to dodge bullets. It's gratifying to see him dish out just desserts to various ill-doers.
Eventually he makes it through to the end, and here's the twist - it turns out that the book is the bible. Wow, who would have picked this? It turns out that the apocalypse had something to do with the bible, some sort of holy war, and that because of this, people destroyed all the bibles they could find. All except this one, which Eli found, and was instructed by a voice in the sky to take to safety.
To be honest, that twist turned this fairly enjoyable B-grade action movie into a frustrating preachy parable. If you're going to claim that the bible is an valuable book, and that what is written in the book is important, then you should take a look in the book and see what's written in the thing! As naive as it sounds, Eli (or at least the writers) should have asked themselves 'what would Jesus do?'. And I'm pretty sure Jesus would avoid killing all the enemies that stand in the way. Whatever happened to turning the other cheek? Whatever happened to 'whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword'?
I guess what I see is a conflict between ideas about the bible. On one hand you have a 'them versus us' attitude, which emphasizes our own righteousness, and our eventual will triumph over the wicked. In this approach, violence against the unrighteous is justified, and ultimately it is acceptable to desire the destruction of our enemies. This is the typical approach a lot of movies take, which assert that violence is necessary for the triumph of good. While it makes for exciting movies, I believe this idea is absolutely and totally wrong.
I believe the message of Jesus is that there is no "righteous", there is no "wicked", no them or us, we're all humans. We are meant to want the best for our enemies, hoping that we can be reconciled. Violence is not necessary for the triumph of good, in fact, violence itself seldom leads to good.
So at the end of the movie I found myself with a sense of disquiet. The makers of the movie wanted to make a movie emphasizing the importance of the bible, but they made a movie that portrays exactly what the bible teaches against...
Monday, October 4, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Saying "I'm Sorry" at a Gay Pride Parade
First read about this here. Basically, a bunch of christians went to a gay pride parade with signs apologizing for how the christian church had treated them. "I'm sorry for how the church treated you", "I used to be a bible bashing homophobe, Sorry!". Sounds like an awesome idea, and it was received well by people at the parade.
But, as friendly atheist writes, "I'm sorry" is not enough - they still consider homosexuality to be a sin. It's great that they're wanting to apologize for mistreatment the LBGT community has received from the church, but at the end of the day they still believe homosexuality is a sin. In fact, from what I gather, a good part of the reason for doing this is so they can witness to the LBGT community, and prevent people from being gay. Doesn't sound so accepting anymore.
In fact, it makes it seem deceptive - from the article I got the feeling that they believe in LBGT rights, and was stoked, but I read a bit more, and came across their website's FAQ, where I see that they are being very political, refusing to give a straight answer on whether or not they believe it is wrong. This makes me a little sad for the all the people who were overjoyed to see them at the parade; I imagine most of those were happy because they thought the christians believed their lifestyle was acceptable, which is entirely untrue, I imagine they would be disappointed at this subtle deception.
So there you have it. It's great that they're not holding 'God hates Fags' signs, and it's great that they're attempting to be compassionate. I'd just like a bit more transparency. And from Christians in general, I'd like to see a bit less of rejecting a people group on the basis of 6 (mostly out of context) verses. Is that too much to ask for?
But, as friendly atheist writes, "I'm sorry" is not enough - they still consider homosexuality to be a sin. It's great that they're wanting to apologize for mistreatment the LBGT community has received from the church, but at the end of the day they still believe homosexuality is a sin. In fact, from what I gather, a good part of the reason for doing this is so they can witness to the LBGT community, and prevent people from being gay. Doesn't sound so accepting anymore.
In fact, it makes it seem deceptive - from the article I got the feeling that they believe in LBGT rights, and was stoked, but I read a bit more, and came across their website's FAQ, where I see that they are being very political, refusing to give a straight answer on whether or not they believe it is wrong. This makes me a little sad for the all the people who were overjoyed to see them at the parade; I imagine most of those were happy because they thought the christians believed their lifestyle was acceptable, which is entirely untrue, I imagine they would be disappointed at this subtle deception.
So there you have it. It's great that they're not holding 'God hates Fags' signs, and it's great that they're attempting to be compassionate. I'd just like a bit more transparency. And from Christians in general, I'd like to see a bit less of rejecting a people group on the basis of 6 (mostly out of context) verses. Is that too much to ask for?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
On Hell
A post from a blog I've recently begun reading:
Christian Universalists (to be distinguished from Unitarian Universalists) do not believe that Jesus can rightfully be called “the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14) unless he actually saved the entire world. We believe that God has both the desire and the power to affect the salvation of all mankind, and that He does this, not through coercive threats, but through patient love that sometimes includes discipline and judgment. We believe that the traditional view of hell makes God into a monster worse than the likes of Adolf Hitler, a mean and vengeful deity who would ignore cries for mercy age after age from those precious souls He made in His image.A lengthy read, promises to be an interesting series to follow.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Ignoring Poverty and Cognitive Dissonance
Time to move away from ranty posts, and get more self-analytical...
A friend recently posted this. We've heard it many times before. In other parts of the world, life sucks. We have all these resources, they don't. But most people, myself included, are quick to forget this message. Why?
I sat down and had a think about the logic behind it all. Basically, if I may over-simplify the argument: We have resources, much more than we need, and others could really do with resources. So if we give some of our resources, we may be a little less happy, but we make others far better off. Fair enough. In strict utilitarian terms, this is cut and dry situation; giving our money overseas is making more people happy. So, we ought to do this. But we don't.
The problem lies in the question of how much do we give. Lets say we're really conservative, and only give 1% of our resources to those who need it. That's doable right? But the problem is that after we give our 1%, the situation is basically the same. We still have much more resources than we need, and there are plenty of others who could really do with resources. So if we are being consistent, we really need to give 1% away again. But again, the situation is unchanged. The difference between the need and our resources is such that the situation will only change when we give away so much that we live in comparative poverty - and the situation is changed only in that we no longer have the resources, but the need will still be there.
People are going to realize this. They are going to realize that if they buy into the argument and give that 1%, it's going to legitimize the argument, which means legitimizing the idea of giving away more, and will make it difficult for them to say 'no' to further giving. Now, if people foresee this, and don't like the idea of living in comparative poverty, they are going to avoid giving the first 1%, because that's the best way to avoid conflict created by not giving more. It's simple cognitive dissonance.
So there you have it. An insight into why some people (or maybe just me?) are unwilling to buy into that argument. I'm not trying to excuse it, because it's not how it should be, instead I want to propose an alternative way to frame the appeal in order to make it easier to give.
You'll notice I referred to utilitarianism as an ethical framework that justified giving away your money. It claims that something is good in that it leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. And if you agree with that, then you'll agree with the formulation above. But there are other ethical frameworks that we can utilize. Ethical pluralism is the idea that there are a number of principles that need to be considered to determine if something is good. The six principles that we get taught in medical school are 'Justice, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Truthfulness, Dignity, Autonomy'. Now, in this case, the principles of Justice and Beneficence are applicable here, and should motivate us to give something, but unlike utilitarianism, they do not require us to give until we're living in poverty.
So, when we are appealing for people to do something about poverty, we should frame the question in terms of justice and beneficence, as opposed to utilitarianism. What does this mean? Emphasizing that addressing the problem doesn't have to mean giving away all your money. Instead, it involves acting in a way that is fair and just towards those in poverty, things like fair trade, where we spend our money in a way that is just. It involves policy change that enables people to build their own economies. Part of it will involve giving to development organizations, but eliminating any financial disparity is not required.
Well, those are my thoughts. Any comments? Any other reasons why people ignore poverty? Any other potential solutions to motivate people to pay attention to poverty?
A friend recently posted this. We've heard it many times before. In other parts of the world, life sucks. We have all these resources, they don't. But most people, myself included, are quick to forget this message. Why?
I sat down and had a think about the logic behind it all. Basically, if I may over-simplify the argument: We have resources, much more than we need, and others could really do with resources. So if we give some of our resources, we may be a little less happy, but we make others far better off. Fair enough. In strict utilitarian terms, this is cut and dry situation; giving our money overseas is making more people happy. So, we ought to do this. But we don't.
The problem lies in the question of how much do we give. Lets say we're really conservative, and only give 1% of our resources to those who need it. That's doable right? But the problem is that after we give our 1%, the situation is basically the same. We still have much more resources than we need, and there are plenty of others who could really do with resources. So if we are being consistent, we really need to give 1% away again. But again, the situation is unchanged. The difference between the need and our resources is such that the situation will only change when we give away so much that we live in comparative poverty - and the situation is changed only in that we no longer have the resources, but the need will still be there.
People are going to realize this. They are going to realize that if they buy into the argument and give that 1%, it's going to legitimize the argument, which means legitimizing the idea of giving away more, and will make it difficult for them to say 'no' to further giving. Now, if people foresee this, and don't like the idea of living in comparative poverty, they are going to avoid giving the first 1%, because that's the best way to avoid conflict created by not giving more. It's simple cognitive dissonance.
So there you have it. An insight into why some people (or maybe just me?) are unwilling to buy into that argument. I'm not trying to excuse it, because it's not how it should be, instead I want to propose an alternative way to frame the appeal in order to make it easier to give.
You'll notice I referred to utilitarianism as an ethical framework that justified giving away your money. It claims that something is good in that it leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. And if you agree with that, then you'll agree with the formulation above. But there are other ethical frameworks that we can utilize. Ethical pluralism is the idea that there are a number of principles that need to be considered to determine if something is good. The six principles that we get taught in medical school are 'Justice, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Truthfulness, Dignity, Autonomy'. Now, in this case, the principles of Justice and Beneficence are applicable here, and should motivate us to give something, but unlike utilitarianism, they do not require us to give until we're living in poverty.
So, when we are appealing for people to do something about poverty, we should frame the question in terms of justice and beneficence, as opposed to utilitarianism. What does this mean? Emphasizing that addressing the problem doesn't have to mean giving away all your money. Instead, it involves acting in a way that is fair and just towards those in poverty, things like fair trade, where we spend our money in a way that is just. It involves policy change that enables people to build their own economies. Part of it will involve giving to development organizations, but eliminating any financial disparity is not required.
Well, those are my thoughts. Any comments? Any other reasons why people ignore poverty? Any other potential solutions to motivate people to pay attention to poverty?
Suppression of Dissent: What if it's what God wants?
This post concludes a series. You may find it helpful to read this Part I and Part II.
For the purposes of this post, I'm going to pretend you agree with me, that Christianity often involves the surrender of (a significant part of) adherent's rationality and self governance, and a commitment to agreeing with the dogma of the Christian religion. I'm going to answer one objection to this - if God orders us to submit to his religion, then shouldn't we submit to show our obedience?
Well, as I have partially addressed in the first post of the series, what is being asked here is not right, in fact, it's interfering with what is right. And if someone is asking us to submit to something that is wrong, it is our ethical duty to refrain from doing so, no matter who tells me otherwise, no matter what the consequences. So it is our ethical duty to not submit to the suppression of dissent.
But these are big words when we are talking about God, and not to be taken light heartedly, who wants to suffer for an eternity in hell because of an ethical ideal? Thankfully there is more to it, because as any Christian will tell you, God would never tell you to do something that is wrong. This is a useful philosophical argument (even though it doesn't always hold up in light of certain biblical passages), and so I argue that if God is good (and omnipotent), he would not require such a thing of us.
Suppression of Dissent just isn't something an all-powerful all-loving God would do. If he (or she) is as amazing as Christianity claims about him, the great creator of the universe, and alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, solitary in all his glory etc, etc..., then why does he care that humans are slightly misguided? why does he need people to follow this code, to the letter, to worship him and adore him?
Lets look at it the other way round. Think of a dictator, any dictator, suppressing dissent, enforcing their will on their people, taking away their freedoms, etc. Why do they do this? It's because they need to control the people, it's because they are aware of the limits of their power, and so need to ensure people won't rebel. But God? who can rebel against him? he's omnipotent right? and he has no need to control people, because there is no limit to his power!
This leaves one further question; is Christianity really about controlling people? How did it end up that way? To this I would respond that Christianity is not primarily about controlling people, that it wasn't part of the initial plan, so to speak, but that its controlling nature developed. Now I don't think its controlling nature developed when a bunch of people sat round a table and decided they needed to control people. I've a feeling it was more subtle than that - over time, various subgroups within a religion are going to drift between various ideas, and the ideas of the subgroup will influence how successful that subgroup is. Ideas that are successful at making new members, and keeping old members will make the group more successful, and so these ideas will become more common. And controlling ideas are going to made subgroups very successful. Hence it's entirely plausible that with time (and with variation and selection) a religion will develop controlling tendencies.
So, the Suppression of Dissent is likely to be the product of the natural development of ideas, and not the product of an omnipotent, beneficent God. At the same time, it is not good, does not produce good, and so it is my belief that it is my ethical duty to take a stand against it.
This concludes the series, thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts, I hope I haven't offended anyone in my discussions, hopefully you can appreciate where I'm coming from, and can recognize when I got a bit 'ranty'. I welcome any thoughts below.
For the purposes of this post, I'm going to pretend you agree with me, that Christianity often involves the surrender of (a significant part of) adherent's rationality and self governance, and a commitment to agreeing with the dogma of the Christian religion. I'm going to answer one objection to this - if God orders us to submit to his religion, then shouldn't we submit to show our obedience?
Well, as I have partially addressed in the first post of the series, what is being asked here is not right, in fact, it's interfering with what is right. And if someone is asking us to submit to something that is wrong, it is our ethical duty to refrain from doing so, no matter who tells me otherwise, no matter what the consequences. So it is our ethical duty to not submit to the suppression of dissent.
But these are big words when we are talking about God, and not to be taken light heartedly, who wants to suffer for an eternity in hell because of an ethical ideal? Thankfully there is more to it, because as any Christian will tell you, God would never tell you to do something that is wrong. This is a useful philosophical argument (even though it doesn't always hold up in light of certain biblical passages), and so I argue that if God is good (and omnipotent), he would not require such a thing of us.
Suppression of Dissent just isn't something an all-powerful all-loving God would do. If he (or she) is as amazing as Christianity claims about him, the great creator of the universe, and alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, solitary in all his glory etc, etc..., then why does he care that humans are slightly misguided? why does he need people to follow this code, to the letter, to worship him and adore him?
Lets look at it the other way round. Think of a dictator, any dictator, suppressing dissent, enforcing their will on their people, taking away their freedoms, etc. Why do they do this? It's because they need to control the people, it's because they are aware of the limits of their power, and so need to ensure people won't rebel. But God? who can rebel against him? he's omnipotent right? and he has no need to control people, because there is no limit to his power!
This leaves one further question; is Christianity really about controlling people? How did it end up that way? To this I would respond that Christianity is not primarily about controlling people, that it wasn't part of the initial plan, so to speak, but that its controlling nature developed. Now I don't think its controlling nature developed when a bunch of people sat round a table and decided they needed to control people. I've a feeling it was more subtle than that - over time, various subgroups within a religion are going to drift between various ideas, and the ideas of the subgroup will influence how successful that subgroup is. Ideas that are successful at making new members, and keeping old members will make the group more successful, and so these ideas will become more common. And controlling ideas are going to made subgroups very successful. Hence it's entirely plausible that with time (and with variation and selection) a religion will develop controlling tendencies.
So, the Suppression of Dissent is likely to be the product of the natural development of ideas, and not the product of an omnipotent, beneficent God. At the same time, it is not good, does not produce good, and so it is my belief that it is my ethical duty to take a stand against it.
This concludes the series, thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts, I hope I haven't offended anyone in my discussions, hopefully you can appreciate where I'm coming from, and can recognize when I got a bit 'ranty'. I welcome any thoughts below.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The assassination of reason
So, after my post ages ago, I thought I better follow up on what I was going to write about. Namely, the assassination of reason. It's part of what I refer to as the christian suppression of dissent, where christian culture and theology are (unconsciously or consciously) geared towards discouraging questioning the movement of christianity. The assassination of reason is where the mind is targeted, to prevent people from even considering alternatives, and to allow discount any non-christian arguments. Note that I'm describing a pattern, so will make a few generalizations. Not all christians will hold all the specific beliefs, but I mention them to build up a big picture of what mainstream christianity is about.
[You be wondering, 'what is with all these big words he's coming up with?' - I guess I want to explain concepts that I've come up with, and I want to avoid using terms I'm already familiar with, so that I can start with a blank slate?]
Reason is assassinated when christians consider non-christian beliefs as an act of rebellion.
Christianity is a religion based on divine revelation. Many believe that God has revealed his way to the world, and that those who believe in him, and trust in Jesus will be saved. Some christians think that God actively causes those who are saved to believe, while others think that those who believe are saved, either way it doesn't matter; those who believe are saved, and those who don't believe are unsaved, and are going to hell.
And why do people not believe? It is not because non-christians weigh up the evidence, consider the balance of probabilities, and conclude that the most likely explanation for the world is Christianity. No. That would mean God is sending rational, well-intentioned people to hell. And God is just! So many christians believe that the real reason non-christians do not believe is because they don't want to. If non-christians really admitted to themselves that christianity is true, they would have to change their lives! They don't want to, so as their only act of rebellion, they deny the message. And so rational, prudent decisions become rebellious acts - if the outcome is disbelieving the main message of christianity.
This creates a policeman in the mind of every christian. When approaching a question, the christian, rather than asking 'what is the right thing in this situation?' or, 'is my thinking correct here?', is asking themselves 'am I submitting to what God has said?'. In theory these questions should be the same, but the thinking becomes biased, because if the christian is differing from what is "God's word", it is rebellion, and something to be repented of. And so, a christian can become ashamed for questioning, and attempt to repress such questions.
And of course, this creates a most effective ad hominem argument against non-christians - their arguments are not valid arguments, they are excuses. If a non-christian is showing some promise, but still questioning, they are merely 'coming to terms with the truth', and these can be gently dealt with. But athiests, muslims and heretics? They are hiding, rebelling from the truth. Their arguments need not be taken seriously, (except if you're talking, you might want to listen to some of their arguments in order to better convince them of christianity).
So there you have it. That's how christian assassinate their capacity to reason. In this post I feel like I have cast many stones, I have made many judgments, and it doesn't sit quite right. So I want to stress that not all christians are like this, and that most christians, even the ones like this, are amazing people. The post may not be entirely accurate on some points, as I may have overstated the point to get the message across. Nonetheless, I believe the point I have made is important, and deserves consideration; christians can assassinate reasons, part of this results in the suppression of dissent with christianity.
[You be wondering, 'what is with all these big words he's coming up with?' - I guess I want to explain concepts that I've come up with, and I want to avoid using terms I'm already familiar with, so that I can start with a blank slate?]
Reason is assassinated when christians consider non-christian beliefs as an act of rebellion.
Christianity is a religion based on divine revelation. Many believe that God has revealed his way to the world, and that those who believe in him, and trust in Jesus will be saved. Some christians think that God actively causes those who are saved to believe, while others think that those who believe are saved, either way it doesn't matter; those who believe are saved, and those who don't believe are unsaved, and are going to hell.
And why do people not believe? It is not because non-christians weigh up the evidence, consider the balance of probabilities, and conclude that the most likely explanation for the world is Christianity. No. That would mean God is sending rational, well-intentioned people to hell. And God is just! So many christians believe that the real reason non-christians do not believe is because they don't want to. If non-christians really admitted to themselves that christianity is true, they would have to change their lives! They don't want to, so as their only act of rebellion, they deny the message. And so rational, prudent decisions become rebellious acts - if the outcome is disbelieving the main message of christianity.
This creates a policeman in the mind of every christian. When approaching a question, the christian, rather than asking 'what is the right thing in this situation?' or, 'is my thinking correct here?', is asking themselves 'am I submitting to what God has said?'. In theory these questions should be the same, but the thinking becomes biased, because if the christian is differing from what is "God's word", it is rebellion, and something to be repented of. And so, a christian can become ashamed for questioning, and attempt to repress such questions.
And of course, this creates a most effective ad hominem argument against non-christians - their arguments are not valid arguments, they are excuses. If a non-christian is showing some promise, but still questioning, they are merely 'coming to terms with the truth', and these can be gently dealt with. But athiests, muslims and heretics? They are hiding, rebelling from the truth. Their arguments need not be taken seriously, (except if you're talking, you might want to listen to some of their arguments in order to better convince them of christianity).
So there you have it. That's how christian assassinate their capacity to reason. In this post I feel like I have cast many stones, I have made many judgments, and it doesn't sit quite right. So I want to stress that not all christians are like this, and that most christians, even the ones like this, are amazing people. The post may not be entirely accurate on some points, as I may have overstated the point to get the message across. Nonetheless, I believe the point I have made is important, and deserves consideration; christians can assassinate reasons, part of this results in the suppression of dissent with christianity.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
On christian suppression of dissent
Christian has had a huge effect on the world we live in. Jesus message was revolutionary, and it's ideas have been influential western culture. Being brought up christian I have an appreciation of many of the ideas within christianity. But I also have an awareness that all is not right within the christian movement. In recent years I have been increasingly concerned with how the modern christian movement has a tendency to suppress disagreement. It includes the way christians treat non-christians, and also the way christians treat their own mind, suppressing any questions they might have.
I'm talking about doctrine and theology, as well as subcultural attitudes. In terms of doctrines, doctrines such as the notion that church dogma is from God, and therefore questioning it, and using your own mind is in essence an act of rebellion. Merely holding a view that differs from 'what God has ordained', is sinful, and requires repentance. And if you aren't repentant, there is the doctrine of hell; that all those who are outside the church are destined to burn in eternal torment. Put these together, and and there is the threat; agree with us, or face the consequences. This means christians can be scared to ask questions, not wanting to be a rebel against God. At the same time, this means christians can treat non-believers with contempt, as by holding a different view, they must be in active rebellion against the Lord.
In terms of sub-culture, it can be a little more subtle (and often overlapping with theology). There is the separation of christians and non-christians, often fueled by christian disapproval of non-christian activities. Combined with a tendency for christians to marry only christians, this means christians are often 'locked into' christian subcultures, making it difficult for them to ever question the status quo, and making life outside of the subculture seem foreign and off-putting should anyone ever consider leaving christianity. And then again, there is the mixture of sadness / betrayal / contempt that christians express towards those who are on the outside, for those who refuse to accept christianity.
What's my problem with it? Well, I have a number of reasons, which I have already hinted at. First, it can cause christians to treat non-christians badly, by treating them as rebellious for simply holding a different view. Especially christians who have 'drifted away', who are viewed with much sadness. Second, it can cause christians themselves a lot of unnecessary difficulty when going through life, it requires them to hold onto views that they may feel aren't quite right, which can create an internal conflict. It also causes fear and worry if they question, and causes sadness and betrayal if anyone they know question and decide to become non-christian. Thirdly, it gets in the way of the truth, as christians are required to put their better judgment aside and accept whatever doctrine a particular church teaches. So christians can get in the habit of accepting things without proper evidence, and can become obsessed with what is right or wrong, and fail to make decisions based on what is best.
I think I need to unpack this idea a little more, but for now I'm going to leave this for your comments. Hopefully you understand, at least in broad terms, what I'm getting at when I talk about the christian suppression of dissent. In further posts, I hope to post more about the assassination of reason, to post an answer to the objection that if God commands it we should follow anyway, and to post about where this comes from, and how this fits with what Jesus says. We'll see how things go.
In the meantime, what are your thoughts? Am I overly critical of christianity (bear in mind this post is a criticism of one aspect of christianity, so it's going to be critical :)? Can you think of other examples of suppression of dissent? Counter-examples?
I'm talking about doctrine and theology, as well as subcultural attitudes. In terms of doctrines, doctrines such as the notion that church dogma is from God, and therefore questioning it, and using your own mind is in essence an act of rebellion. Merely holding a view that differs from 'what God has ordained', is sinful, and requires repentance. And if you aren't repentant, there is the doctrine of hell; that all those who are outside the church are destined to burn in eternal torment. Put these together, and and there is the threat; agree with us, or face the consequences. This means christians can be scared to ask questions, not wanting to be a rebel against God. At the same time, this means christians can treat non-believers with contempt, as by holding a different view, they must be in active rebellion against the Lord.
In terms of sub-culture, it can be a little more subtle (and often overlapping with theology). There is the separation of christians and non-christians, often fueled by christian disapproval of non-christian activities. Combined with a tendency for christians to marry only christians, this means christians are often 'locked into' christian subcultures, making it difficult for them to ever question the status quo, and making life outside of the subculture seem foreign and off-putting should anyone ever consider leaving christianity. And then again, there is the mixture of sadness / betrayal / contempt that christians express towards those who are on the outside, for those who refuse to accept christianity.
What's my problem with it? Well, I have a number of reasons, which I have already hinted at. First, it can cause christians to treat non-christians badly, by treating them as rebellious for simply holding a different view. Especially christians who have 'drifted away', who are viewed with much sadness. Second, it can cause christians themselves a lot of unnecessary difficulty when going through life, it requires them to hold onto views that they may feel aren't quite right, which can create an internal conflict. It also causes fear and worry if they question, and causes sadness and betrayal if anyone they know question and decide to become non-christian. Thirdly, it gets in the way of the truth, as christians are required to put their better judgment aside and accept whatever doctrine a particular church teaches. So christians can get in the habit of accepting things without proper evidence, and can become obsessed with what is right or wrong, and fail to make decisions based on what is best.
I think I need to unpack this idea a little more, but for now I'm going to leave this for your comments. Hopefully you understand, at least in broad terms, what I'm getting at when I talk about the christian suppression of dissent. In further posts, I hope to post more about the assassination of reason, to post an answer to the objection that if God commands it we should follow anyway, and to post about where this comes from, and how this fits with what Jesus says. We'll see how things go.
In the meantime, what are your thoughts? Am I overly critical of christianity (bear in mind this post is a criticism of one aspect of christianity, so it's going to be critical :)? Can you think of other examples of suppression of dissent? Counter-examples?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
