Faith…tries to retain a primitive mental condition on merely sentimental grounds. It is unwilling to give up the primitive, childlike relationship to mind-created and hypostatized figures; it wants to go on enjoying the security and confidence of a world still presided over by powerful, responsible, and kindly parents. – Carl Jung
The universe is a very complex place. When human civilization was young we weren’t really able to grasp how complex, so we imagined that most things were largely as they appeared to be and that the mysteries of the world were all caused by intelligent, free-willed beings like ourselves, only more powerful. Thus was religion born; in its earliest form it served to explain the world, to give emotional comfort and to provide a unifying structure over related (but separate) groups of people, thus allowing organization of tribes into cities and nations. But as time went on, humans developed science (which explained things better than religion ever did), civil government (which organized things at least as well as religion ever did), and social and political philosophies which…well, two out of three ain’t bad. And thus religion became a solution in search of a problem, and so it remained until the increasing complexity and uncertainty of the modern world caused many people, overwhelmed by a world they could not understand, to retreat into religions and religion-like belief systems which promised them simplicity and certainty. Since these systems are rigid and simplistic, they cannot possibly describe the world as it is; they therefore exclude facts which do not fit the picture by denying or simply ignoring them. A simple, static view of the world is impossible unless one considers only part of the picture.
Sex is one of the most complex of human realities; it is dark, violent, chthonic, animalistic and occurs in a bewildering multiplicity of forms, yet forms the basis of our most powerful emotions and most enduring social relationships and is an intrinsic part of the human life-cycle (every one of us is the product of heterosexual copulation). Small wonder that it makes nearly everyone uncomfortable to one degree or another, and that humans have been trying to control it, individually and collectively, since practically the dawn of civilization. Primitive societies and religions had few sexual laws, but as humanity aged cultures felt an increasing need to make laws against sexual behavior they considered somehow disturbing. Due to the fact that though the mother of a child is always known, the father never actually was until DNA testing was invented, most of these laws at first concentrated on controlling female sexuality so paternity could be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty (in theory, anyhow); the laws which applied to males mostly dealt with incest, bestiality and that sort of thing. For reasons we’ve discussed before Judaism had an unusually high number of sex laws, and when the followers of a certain 1st-century rabbi managed to build their sect into an international phenomenon those sex laws went with them; when combined with the Platonic distrust of the material world absorbed from the Gnostics, they engendered a rejection of sexuality more aggressive and complete than that of any previous religion.
But though Europe was entirely Christian in name by the end of the first millennium CE, a pagan view of sexuality was still the norm among most of the population (especially the lower classes) until the Protestant Reformation, when the Church’s light-handed supervision of politics and broad tolerance of what it considered minor vices were replaced in many areas by near-theocratic governments and total suppression of vice. Laws derived from religious teachings became more and more common, ebbing and flowing in waves until the “social purity” crusade of the late 19th century succeeded in establishing anti-sex laws based in a rigid, Protestant interpretation of Christian morality over virtually the entire Western world. And though these laws are still the norm in the United States, they are beginning to erode here and have already largely decayed in most other Western countries. Those of us who believe in self-determination, individual liberty and other such rational principles feel this is a good thing, but those who are disturbed by moral complexities and afraid of self-reliance yearn for a time when puritanical notions of Christian morality were enforced at gunpoint. So they join religious groups whose avowed doctrine is the eradication of “sin” and the promotion of laws against prostitution, porn, homosexuality and other behaviors they perceive as “immoral”.
But lest one believe that these people are thoroughgoing hypocrites, consider this August 21st article from CNN about various Christian anti-porn “therapy” programs (the link seems very temperamental, so I’ve saved it in PDF form just in case you can’t get it to work). Most of those interviewed are men who have bought into the twisted delusion that masturbation or even looking at pictures of women to whom they aren’t married is a form of infidelity, largely based on a literal reading of Matthew 5:28 (“whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart”) and an 18th-century interpretation of the story of Onan. This is really nothing new; the idea that some kind of “therapy” can prevent masturbation and “lascivious thoughts” dates to the end of the 19th century. What is new, though by no means surprising, is the fusion of Christian dogma with feminist rhetoric and “sex addiction” pop psychology; “addiction” is portrayed as an outside force which tempts the “pure” mind to fall into “sin” and thus causes it to depart from “God’s plan”, just as devils were once imagined to do. Some of the programs are simply ordinary therapy with a Christian component; others are a more equal fusion, and still others rely largely or entirely on the imagined power of prayer to exorcise unholy lust. Web-based services hawk porn-detection spyware that sends copies to the user’s spouse or a friend in order to shame him into refraining. And as you can probably guess, practitioners of each method strongly criticize all the other ones.
Nor is it only men who join these programs; because women are generally less at ease with normal sexuality than men are, the majority of anti-sex crusaders are and always have been women. In the past female sexuality was not a subject “proper” women would discuss in reference to themselves, so the fingers of accusation were (and still are, in the case of neofeminists) pointed outward at other women. But now that female sexuality has been removed from the dark cupboard in which it was kept for centuries, women who are uncomfortable with their own sexuality are now free to hop on the self-loathing bandwagon and pronounce themselves “sex addicts” and “porn addicts” just like men. The CNN story rightfully treats Crystal Renaud’s “Dirty Girls Ministries” as part of the larger Christian anti-porn, anti-masturbation movement, but an article in the September Utne Reader rather oddly chooses to portray it as an isolated phenomenon. Considering the magazine’s target audience this was probably done in order to sell the “feminist” angle, but I wonder if the fact that some feminists really do believe male masturbation to be adultery might not have something to do with it. Whatever the reason, the writer, like a Christian anti-sex “therapist”, is only presenting part of the picture.
One Year Ago Today
“Whore Madonnas” offers an anecdotal refutation of the Madonna-whore duality by relating the stories of three women who only became whores because they were Madonnas first.
Gotta take issue with you gal, on religion vs. science …
First, who said that it was supersition within humans that brought about religion? What if religion was communicated to us via a “higher power” at the dawn of civilization? If you read some of the Hindu Vedas – which I believe are the oldest written texts we have on any religion – you’ll find a lot “science” in them.
For instance, those Vedas talk about other planets, other planets with life on them. Alternate universes … etc.
Not proof those texts are real but proof enough for me to conclude that we can’t conclude that religion came about as a form of superstition.
Second – Science has NOT always explained things better. Science was wrong about mass vs gravitational theories for many centuries. Science was wrong about the “flat earth”. Science was wrong in the 70’s about the coming “ice age” and it’s wrong NOW about man-made “Global Warming”.
Just because science doesn’t always get things right the first time doesn’t mean it isn’t better at explaining things that religion; quite the opposite, in fact. The fact that science CORRECTS ITS OWN MISTAKES makes it a far better tool than a form of thought which not only reiterates its errors and hides facts which tend to illustrate those errors, but also persecutes people for searching for the truth and often enforces its own “truth” at the end of a gun.
As for the idea of revealed religion, no offense but I think it’s absurd; if religion were truly revealed most religions would mostly agree. I have my faith just as you have yours, but I don’t pretend mine is anything but the attempt of my individual soul to explain the spiritual mysteries. Every person has an individual relationship with the Divine, and prepackaged religion cheapens that just as frozen dinners cheapen the experience of eating.
Well, sometimes religion corrects itself – albeit, slowly.
Personally, I currently feel LESS persecuted by religious types than I am scientists – who are overly influenced by politics and forcing their views on me. In fact, I’d hardly in any alternate universe even call it science but it’s what passes for it today.
If a church tells me to do something – I say “No!” And – that’s the end of it.
If a scientist tells me to do something – like put a certain lightbulb in my house, or a certain kind of gas in my car … I can say “No!” but he comes back with the Cops to FORCE ME.
And … I’ll remind you that it’s the scientists who are constantly propping up anti-prostitution laws with their “surveys”.
As far as “revealed” religion … I really don’t see how most of the religions of the world are really that far off from each other. Oh sure – they play minor differences into HUGE disagreements which turn into persecution and war – but the differences aren’t that striking to me. Jesus is considered by many Hindus to have been an avatar of GOD. The Muslims consider him a prophet …
Just because some bit of knowledge was revealed early in our history doesn’t guarantee that it would be passed down intact.
Au contraire, mon ami! Prostitution laws are propped up by politicians hiring “true believer” prohibitionists who pretend to use science to create bogus statistics. Calling that “science” is like pretending that a rubber Godzilla suit is an actual giant monster.
Calling that “twisted lying rhetoric” is probably more accurate, Maggie.
Calling it “Junk Science” would insult both science *and* junk.
If a scientist tells me to do something – like put a certain lightbulb in my house, or a certain kind of gas in my car … I can say “No!” but he comes back with the Cops to FORCE ME.
Acctually that is politicains( who bought unscrupulous guys calling themselvs scientists) forcing you, usually to provide business to a campaing contributer or ‘create’ jobs in his disrtic thereby increasing his chances of keeping his job
Maggie wrote: “As for the idea of revealed religion, no offense but I think it’s absurd; if religion were truly revealed most religions would mostly agree.”
You’re assuming that if religion were truly revealed, then *all or most* religions would be truly revealed. There is revealed true religion, and there are also false religions created by humans. It’s not one or the other.
Not to be pedantic here, but science was *not* wrong about the Earth’s shape. The ancient Greeks accepted that the Earth was round because of its shape in eclipses. Heliocentric theories date to the 4th century BC and Eratosthenes measured the Earth’s fairly accurately in the 3rd. Even in Columbus’ day, most educated people accepted that the Earth was round. It was various religions that insisted on a flat Earth.
And yes, I’ve taught astronomy. Whyever do you ask? 🙂
You’ll find this over and over again — on germ theory, evolution, astronomy, physics, genetics — science has generally been way ahead with confirmed theories while everyone else was insisting on a religious view, even if that view was as simple as “a gentleman’s hands are always clean”.
Returning to sex work — science has shown that exchanging “money” for sex is common in the animal kingdom, has shown that the spread of disease can be contained with responsible condom use, has shown that prostitutes are not disease-ridden junkies who were abused by their dads. When it comes to basic human freedom, science is our friend.
RELIGION
The oldest texts are the most authoritative, and authority is the way you know things are true. There’s no trumping “for the Bible tells me so” in religion (or “for the Vedas tell me so” or “for the Book of the Dead tells me so”). Try announcing in a Christian church that you’ve found new evidence that indicates that Paul was in error when he said… anything. If you disagree with the Word of God, you are not only wrong, you are wicked.
SCIENCE
Any law, theory, or vague notion can be adjusted in light of new facts. Any idea, no matter what name is attached to it (Newton, Einstein, Hawking) can be challenged if new evidence comes up. If you disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus, well you’re rather silly, but simple disagreement doesn’t make you wicked.
Distrust of science comes from three sources:
1) the desire for a simpler, more certain world, as Maggie has described above,
2) misunderstandings of what science is and how it works: “science says that there’s no God!” Well no, science doesn’t say any such thing. Doesn’t say there is one, either.
3) exposure to some unpleasant fact or conjecture: “but I don’t want to be related to apes!” and “but I don’t want the Earth to be growing warmer due to human activities, because I don’t want to have to change the way things are done, so it’s not true it’s not it’s not it’s not!!”
Finally, the idea that scientists in the 1970s were convinced a new Ice Age was right around the corner is bunk. A bunch of climate scientists were surveyed in the Seventies about climate, and the consensus answer was “we don’t have enough information to say,” with a few suggesting the climate MIGHT warm and a similar number suggesting it MIGHT cool. Some newspapers took this and ran with it, deciding that a new Ice Age would sell more papers than heat waves and a hell of a lot more than “we don’t know.”
Also can I just say as an athiest I love the anti masterbation Onan argument. Especially from catholics and other anti contrceptive chritians. Onan wasnt killed for jerking it.
His brother dies and he as the next oldest brother was forced to marry his brothers widow and give her a child to be an heir to his dead brother inheretence. He was killed for pulling out and refusing to get her pregnant.
I just love the look on the faces of devout belivers when the upity non beliver knows more about their faith then they do
Atheists often know more about religion than the believers.
If you think the Christians are bad concerning prostittution, you should try the Muslims who are worse.In addition. even where prostitution is more rampant such as East Asia, they have traditionally tried to control their females’ sexuality much more than the Christian West ever did. If you think we Christian Westerners have a Madonna/Whore complex, then I tell you it is much worse in East Asia. You would have a much harder time finding born and raised Oriental man who would willingly and knowingly marry a prostitute or former prostitute. The same could be said for just about every other religious and cultural group about having a much more severe Madonna/Whore complex than the Christian West. The Pagan West before the introduction of Christianitymay have been better on the Modonna/Whore complex and even prostitution, but they also allowed their men to kill their wives and children for almost any reason and it not be considered murder unlike the subsequent Christian West. The pagan West allowed men to kill their wives for any percieved adultry or even more trivial reasons much more easily than the Christian West did. Other religions and cultures have let the father kill his wife and children too other than the Christian West. The Christian West persuaded or forced the other cultures to not allow the fathers to kill their wives and children so easily with little or no punishment.
This post reeks of American and/or “Western” -centric assumptions and prejudices. The cultures of Asia are diverse and varied, with many different social structures in different eras. The social structures around wives, whores and concubines is complex and cannot really be judged by Western standards.
In general, I can say with confidence that Asians don’t seem to have the sexual hangups that Americans specifically, and Westerners in general are plagued. They may have strict social hierarchies, but they seem much less weirded out by bodies, bodily functions and sex.
I agree that the Asians don’t overall have the hangups about many sexual things, but not all which Westerners especially Americans do. Prostitution is more accepted in Asia for example. However, adulterous wives and fornicating women are less acceptable there. Remember I lived there. I lived in South Korea off and on for 8 years up until 5 years ago( 1996-2006) and traveled to China(Hong Kong and Maccau) and Japan. I’ve had friends who have traveled and lived in other East Asian countries too some of whom either returned for good in the past year. I can only relate my experiences and theirs as well. Prostitution is less likely to produce arrests and criminal convictions, but female adultry and female fornication is definitely more frowned upon than the West. Never think East Asia is a sexual paradise for women—It’s not!
.I wish Gorbachev, a sometime commentater here and someone I only know from online not in person, would return and explain this to you because he could do it better than I can. An East Asian woman (e.g. Korean woman) is very good at baffling men, on average better than any other culture I’ve seen. Yes, they commit adultry and fornicate at more or less the same rates as the West, but, they are also better at hiding it and they do hide better than women in the West. Much more often,than in the West, an Eastern Asian woman’s best friend or sister won’t even know what she, (the adulterer, the fornicator, the promiscuous lady, the prostitute) is doing whether or not she is doing the same thing herself. There’s a good reason for this—American men may be more deadly to both the wife( or girlfriend) and the male interloper when they do commit violence, but an East Asian man is much more likely in my experience to beat the wife(or girlfriend) and male interloper to a bloody mess. When the bystanders witness this, I’ve never seen them trying to help the cheating wife or girlfriend and male interloper in East Asia unlike the USA. I’ve heard the same from my friends who have been throughout East Asia.
LOL, Doclove, don’t worry – I’m conversant with several Asian cultures and do not require Gorbachev to “explain” it to me.
Hong Kong and Macau are hardly representative of China, or the rest of Asia for that matter. Macau especially is about as representative of China as Las Vegas is of the United States.
You are correct in general in terms of wives committing adultery. In fact, many Asian cultures at one time or another resembled ancient Athens in terms of social-sexual roles and hierarchies.
I ‘ve heard mainland China has a burgeoning clandestine prostitution market despite it being outlawd, and the punishment of it often being harsh. What can I say? Eastern Asian men like having prostitutes around more than Western men in my opinion. I don’t know how mainland Chinese men deal with adulterous wives though. Actually, Macau is much more of Vice and gangsters paradise than Las Vegas in some respects. Look, I really know about South Korea the most having spent the most time there, and the rest of what I know of Asia outside of Japan, Hong Kong and Macau is what my friends who’ve been there told me. I always believed the one who lived there more than the one who visited.
A more clear summarry of what I wrote above. All religions and cultures are easier in regards to the acceptance of prostitution to the Christian West and Jews except for Muslims who are worse. All religions and cultures are harder on their wives than the Christian West and Conservative and Reform Jews. Even the Orthodox Jews and certainly the Pagan West of the past is asn was hrder than the Christian West. It was lawful for a Western Pagan father to kill his wife and children for almost any reason..
Umm…what? Which “Western Pagans” are you referring to? There were many, many Pagan cultures throughout Europe before the rise of Christianity.
Ancient pagan Republican Rome came to mind. The Ancient Pagan Greeks also come to mind. Did you ever hear of Homer’s” The Illiad”? Come to think of it I believe the Ancient Pagan Irish had similar stories in the respect to the Illiad over adultry too. In fact, the Ancient Pagan Irish men would kill many people to win the romance and sex from their women according to their mythology. The Ancient Germanics and Ancient Celtic women would show their breasts to their men to let them know that if they lost the battle, the victors would get to have sex with these same said women so they better fight harder and win.
The Ancient and Middle Ages Writer were astounded by the fidelity and loyalty of the men and women to eachother the Scythians, Sarmatians and Slavic people had even when they were pagans. Swietoslawa, daughter to the Polish Piast dynasty King Mieszko and the Czech princess,Dobrowka, even though she was Christian and Catholic lived up to this example. Her father was a convert to Christianity from Slavic Paganism. she was the mother of the Norse kind, Canute the Great, who conquered England. She was known as Sigurd the Haughty in Norway. When a Norwegian nobleman tried to seduce her,and commit adultry, she tricked him into a cottage and had her soldiers kill him by burning it down. She was furious that he would commit adultry on his wife and expected her to do the same to her husband. This was very consistent with her Slavic pagan ancestors thinking about adultry. Granted, the ancient Pagan Slavic people were notorious for their orgies on May Day(May 1), but they were also known for their marital fidelity. My reckoning is that they were ok with fornication,and prostitution but not adultry.
I respect, revere and admire the Ancient European pagans, but I have no illusions about them either. I am of European descent and have stated that I’m Christian and Catholic, but at some point my ancestors were European pagans. I do respect my ancestors faith even if I disagree with it because i respect and take pride in my ancestors even my pagan ancestors. Yes, they were better than the Christan Europeans on prostitution and fornication, but not adultry. The Ancient European Pagans were notorious for killing either the adulterous spouse or the interloper or both. I know Christians especially male Christians have killed their spouses for adultry, but an adulterous spouse’s (especially the wife) and the interloper’s (especially the man) chances at survival were much better under Christianity than Ancient European Paganism.
@ Maggie
You wrote an excellent article. I ‘ll ammend what I said above Under Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, Europe allowed but greatly frowned upon prostitution. Protestant Christianity was harsher on Prostitution. However Westerners especially Christian Westerners have been more forgiving of adultry than other religions and cultures ever since Jesus, the founder of Christianity, said to those who wanted to kill the adulterous wife to his fellow Jews, “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone(at her to kill her).” Fortuneately for, her they dropped the stones and Jesus told her to sin(commit adultry) no more. I’ve found that other religions other than Christianity and other cultures than the West, men are less forgiving of adulterous wives to the point of beating or killing them. Christianity increasingly over time at least tried to stop husbands and fathers from killing the women in their family for percieved imaginary or real offenses. Yet the Pagan West of the past had husbands who were less forgiving of adultry from their wives and fornication from their daughters even when prostitution was rampant there: and the father or husband could kill the women of his family for these offenses or even less than that. When I lived in East Asia especially South Korea I found the adulterous wife was almost certain to get a beating if she was discovered from her husband than in the West despite prostitution being extremely rampant there. Please respond to any of the comments I’ve made here or above. .
Religion has no “checksum”. At least in science, when you advance a theory, you also often suggest a way to falsify your theory. You make predictions that can be tested with experiments. If those experiments don’t pan out, your theory is weakened.
Religion is about who can convince the most followers to believe whatever porkie they’re telling. Anyone can have a revelation, and begin preaching. There’s nothing in religion to tell what’s true. Thus we have religionists, and a crop of current politicians, saying outrageously untrue and silly things, and not getting called on it.
And if you don’t feel threatened by religion, try being a sex worker. Those religious types hate whores when they aren’t using one. Of course, they are human, so they are always getting caught in some sort of sex scandal or another. Most are very anti-women to boot.
Religion is one of the most miserable, hate filled ideas mankind ever invented.
Religion is about belief which is true, Politicians getting caught with their PANTS DOWN LOL!
Actually, superstition is about belief, regardless of if what one believes in is true or not. That’s the problem.
Another insightful piece, Maggie.
Your critique of religion is a typical humanist one. However, you still seem to think of religion largely in terms of the Abrahamic tradition, which I despise. What you miss is the sense of the sacred that belongs to primitive religion. These people are by no means simpletons. Yes, there are gods or goddesses or totems that protect them; there are also gods, goddesses and monsters that want to kill them. The otherwise very wise Jung missed this point. When everything around you is sacred, it enfolds you too, and you are part of It.
This is a mystical goal long sought after by the major religions – sought after, but almost always missed, because they can’t accept the idea that everything is a part of the mysterium tremendum, including themselves.
The adoption of a primitive world view (while not ignoring science) creates an entirely different morality, one in which the destruction of ecosystems is an unbelievable sacrilege and a punishable crime. I’d say primitive religion has a lot to offer.
Not a pagan myself, but I have always found ancient mythology and paganism in general and interesting read along with all other religions.
You forget I’m a pagan, dear. The difference is that my spiritual beliefs are just that, >em>spiritual, and I don’t seek spiritual/supernatural explanations for mundane physical events. No, I certainly don’t limit my thinking of religions in the “Abrahamic tradition”; religions from Eastern tradition can be just as bad, and modern secular religions like feminism, Marxism and rigid political parties are worse.
But though Europe was entirely Christian in name by the end of the first millennium CE, a pagan view of sexuality was still the norm among most of the population (especially the lower classes) until the Protestant Reformation …
______________________________________________________
and, also, I imagine the realisation of the horrors of syphilis. From the first written reference to it in 1491/95 until the discovery of penicillan in the 1940s it’s effect on the psyche of Europeans was similar to that when the AIDS plague first made it’s appearance. It’s hardly surprising that as soon as the connexion between sex and the pox was understood sex started to be seen as sinful as well as dangerous.
Absolutely; I discussed that in my column of June 24th.
Maggie wrote: “The fact that science CORRECTS ITS OWN MISTAKES makes it a far better tool than a form of thought which not only reiterates its errors and hides facts which tend to illustrate those errors, but also persecutes people for searching for the truth and often enforces its own “truth” at the end of a gun.”
Christianity does NOT persecute people for searching for any truths not revealed in the Bible, and does NOT enforce its own truth at the end of a gun. There is nothing at all in the New Testament which promotes or justifies such actions. People calling themselves Christians have done those things, but Christ Himself never did and never said anyone should or had the right.
Blaming Christianity for the evil done in its name is like blaming an innocent man for the fact that he was framed.
I, and the vast majority of Christians, excluding only the fundamentalist Protestant minority, read the Bible as a combination of literal accounts and figurative/metaphorical accounts. The Book of Genesis says the world was created in seven “days” in the English translation, but in the original texts, the word for “day” also meant “era”, not just 24 hour time period. The Earth is millions of years old, evolution happened, and Adam and Eve were the first *fully* human beings.
“Religion vs Science” is a false dichotomy. Many of world history’s greatest scientists were devout Christians. Leonardo DaVinci was a devout Catholic. Isaac Newton was a devout Anglican. Today, there are examples like Dr. Benjamin Carson, one of the world’s greatest brain surgeons (the first to perform a separation of conjoined twins with shared brain matter in which both twins survived) and a devout Seventh Day Adventist. I’m not a scientist but I know professional scientists who are Christians. My sister the cancer doctor, and my cousin the cancer nurse, are both devout Christians.
I agree that it’s a false dichotomy; I see no conflict between my own religious beliefs and my acceptance of science. The statement you quoted was in response to a commenter who claimed that religion was superior to science as a tool of learning about the physical world, which it isn’t, and my comments were made in that context. Please also note that I include systems like Marxism and radical feminism, which very much enforce their beliefs at gunpoint, as religions because they rely on revealed “truth” and reject information which contradicts their sacred scriptures.
Marla,
I’m curious, then, if you exclude the prosecution of Galileo and the execution of Bruno not to mention the genocide of the Albigensian crusade from Christianity [that] does NOT persecute people for searching for any truths not revealed in the Bible, and does NOT enforce its own truth at the end of a gun.
Modern christians in the west are certainly unlikely to do this in their Christian persona* but that is more a legacy of the Enlightenment than some kind of evolution within christianity from the brutalities perpetrated by established churches in the first 1500 years after christianity’s accession to political power. I say “in the West” because apparently witch hunting by christians in Africa still occurs and anti-Jewish pogroms were state policy in Imperial Russia as informed by Orthodox tradition up until the Kerensky revolution.
Religion and Science can exist in the same man; Thomas Aquinas was both a theologian and a philosopher, but when he argued that a man, persistent in heresy, does not recant after three times, should be burned, he is not acting as a Philosopher, but as a Cleric. This is called compartmentalization and says nothing about the compatibility of the two compartments.
Science and Religion are incompatible; the first employs reason and logic with observation; the second uses faith and an appeal to authority; whether that of tradition, hierarchy or Book. Religion may employ logic, but is an exercise in casuistry; the religious have always insisted that reason be the handmaiden of faith. In fact, the clerics who first brought charges against Galileo were also “Aristotelians.” I put that in scare quotes because, while they hewed to a dogma handed down from “The Philosopher” they did not employ his methods; their epistemology was catholic and authoritarian.
When so-called proponents of science ditch reason in favor of arguments from intimidation or authority, they’ve merely secularized the religious approach. That is why I agree with Maggie in characterizing feminism and marxism as types of religion. For an example of this kind of irrationality, look up Lysenkoism. And yes, the Soviets killed people for holding heretical opinions on the topic.
*There are, however, plenty who will do the same thing in their political or law-enforcement persona; witness the innocent fatallites in the War on Drugs and the countless lives ruined in the War on Whores.
I should say Western religion uses faith and the appeal to authority; my exposure to Hinduism is very second hand and when I lived in Japan, the Buddhists ran the gamut from the very authoritarian Soka Gakkai to a number of sects who seemed to merely be asking questions.
I think that what the question turns on is the establishment of religion. Shinto, in its established form, killed millions of people from the Meiji Restoration until
Showa (Hirohito) was undeclared as god after WWII. And yet I had a lengthy conversation with a Shinto priest on the streets of Nagoya as to whether Shinto was pantheistic or animistic. I supported the animistic; he the pantheistic, but in a “Thou art God” reminiscent of Heinlein’s “Stranger in a Strange Land.” And I didn’t feel threatened at all.
This is why I think that Liberal Western society is the best approach for human beings. (I use liberal in its original sense, not the one grafted on by modern progressives and their ilk.) Absent coercion, you can believe as you will, act on that belief and benefit (or not) accordingly. If a religion eschews coercion in the public sphere, I think they are a viable civil partner. If they seek to co-opt the political apparatus to coerce others (as is presently happening) then they are not fit for civil society.
The case of Galileo is 1 example of Christian people (the Catholic Church in this case) apologizing, etc., for a past wrong. There was also an apology and acknowledgement of how the Catholic Church treated Jews during World War 2. There’s more examples I could list, but this is a start. Here’s an example of a Protestant Church apology:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/11/27/protestant-church-apologizes-massacring-native-americans/
Also, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans (ELCA), United Church of Christ, and other Protestant denominations have statements of faith that show absolutely no problem with evolution. If anyone wants links I’ll be glad to post them. I personally find the whole evolution debate very sad. The fact that evolution was ever brought up to begin with doesn’t take away your salvation or take away what Jesus did. The debate reminds me of those Muslims who think that people are going to literally “take away” Islam from their hearts and minds. It also reminds me of those Christians who think that Satanists are literally a threat to their beliefs in their hearts and minds also. Also want to say I’ll never personally deny what evils have been done in the name of Christianity. I won’t ever say they never happened and people only bring them up because they’re “out to get us”. NEVER! But, I’ll also never quit speaking out about things like the above and defending those who really do follow what the Bible teaches. From what I’ve read, many other religions have people in them that are guilty of persecution, etc., also, including atheist people (a group in which at least a few would tell you they have no religious beliefs, hate the word religion, etc.). I say look at the INDIVIDUALS within all belief systems. Thanks for listening.
I’ve posted a few “but Laura” replies over the past few weeks, but here I have to say that I agree completely.
c andrew wrote: “I’m curious, then, if you exclude the prosecution of Galileo and the execution of Bruno not to mention the genocide of the Albigensian crusade from Christianity [that] does NOT persecute people for searching for any truths not revealed in the Bible, and does NOT enforce its own truth at the end of a gun.”
c andrew, true Christianity is revealed in the New Testament scriptures, which explicitly forbid violence, forced conversion, or persecution of nonbelievers or those considered heretical. The prosecution of Galileo, the burning of Bruno, the genocide of the Crusades, were all non-Christian acts, because Jesus Christ wouldn’t do those things or approve of those things. There is a difference between Christian acts, and acts committed in the name of Christianity. (I’m not singling out the Catholic Church here; a lot of evil non-Christian acts have been committed by Protestants in the name of Christianity, such as the Salem Witch Trials.)
c andrew wrote: “Science and Religion are incompatible; the first employs reason and logic with observation; the second uses faith and an appeal to authority; whether that of tradition, hierarchy or Book. Religion may employ logic, but is an exercise in casuistry; the religious have always insisted that reason be the handmaiden of faith.
Science and Religion are different, yes; that doesn’t mean they are incompatible. They are two different forms of knowledge that reveal different things. All human abilities are gifts from God, including the capacity to reason. Scientists who employ logic/rationalism/empiricism are simply using the mental capacities God gave them, and so whatever scientists discover/invent was revealed to them by God, whether they know it or not. But some things cannot be discerned by logic/rationalism/empiricism; some things God chooses to reveal to us only through spiritual sense.
Dear Marla, THANK YOU! This is WONDERFUL! Someone pointing out the positives including Christians that don’t fit the evil stereotypes that are so common in the US. The most common form of persecution in the US is the verbal/written kind and thank you for fighting it. Yes, the Bible in the New Testament says the OPPOSITE of “use violence to convert people”. 1 of the Scriptures that’s ignored constantly is the 1 where Jesus told His disciples that when they preached in a town that if they were rejected they were to leave and go to the next town. NOT A WORD about violence. All through the New Testament Christians are ordered to be gentle, not use violence, be patient, etc. Jesus predicted that there would be MANY fake “Christians”. St. Paul did also. I’ve run into my share, unfortunely. There was a need for reformers from day 1. Very tragic and disgusting. Because of the fakes, there’s a tendency for those who take the “easy way out” to RUN with them, i.e., they have 1 bad experience with 1 of these fakes or a Christian who’s very backslidden and doesn’t care and then they automatically say they’re ALL that way. Very sad, but understandable. Again, the “easy way out”. They also hear 1 fake preacher and do the same. If there’s a hate for the belief system to begin with, any of these people will be used (the phony Christians and the fake preachers). It’s done with Islam all the time also. An example: if you live around those Muslims you’ll SOON SEE WHAT THEY’RE REALLY LIKE (eyeroll). The truth is many Muslims don’t order anyone around and have no part of terrorism. The ###*** against them I’ve seen since 9/11 is pure evil. It’s all over the Internet, unfortunately. Each Christian should be judged on an INDIVIDUAL basis. Watch their lives/words, etc. It’s the same with preachers. This taking the “easy way out” is also done with other groups such as people who are abused. I’ve had my own struggles with this to be honest. When we’re abused 1 of our reactions is to say “they’re all bad” and see everyone as a potential abuser. It takes WORK to fight this and not act on it. The work is worth it, though, every minute of it. Thank you for talking about the scientists through the years who are Christians. There’s many more than you named and I love how they disprove the ###*** that not even a few Christians through history care about science and/or willfully hide from it. Thanks again for posting all this.
Laura, you’re welcome, and thank you for the compliment.
Jesus also said hat none of the Law of Moses was up for debate interpritaion or to be ignored.
And Paul also said that women were to keep thier mouths shut
Dear lujlp, there’s 3 interpretations of the women speaking/teaching in church issue: http://www.cloudsofheaven.org/2006/03/women-in-church-leadership.html
I believe in the 3rd 1 listed: that women should be able to teach. 1 example of Jesus breaking the Old Testament Law was how He handled the woman caught in adultery event. If He’d followed Old Testament Law, He would have given the woman the death penalty (like the 1’s who caught her in adultery wanted). He did the OPPOSITE which is 1 proof that God set up what some call a “New Covenant”. Another example is in the Book of Acts the Old Testament dietary laws are broken and believers are told they no longer apply. Unfortunately, the Scriptures about women teaching/speaking in church have been greatly abused. Many use those to say “See how horrible those Christians are! They hate women and want them to shut up for good!”.
Or it more likely prof that the bibleis a self contradictory mess of bronze age ethics and while a inagruably a, I hesitate to say important(but its the only word I can think of) part of our heritage, it should now be considered for what it is – mythology just like the story of Hercules, and Osiris.
A sorce for some , I reapeat, SOME moral guidelines – but not necisarily a basis for a world view, or for secular laws in a secular scociety
Yes, it’s ALL a myth. For some reason, that’s why some SECULAR historians talk about how Jesus existed. The field of archeology hasn’t benefitted at ALL from the Bible either. All those people who have had their lives turned completely around for the better and had those changes last (like St. Paul) by the God of the Bible were/are just liars out to get all of us to join in their lies, etc.
Never said it was all a myth, Troy was at one time thought to be a myth as well. Calvert & Schliemann were ridiculed for trying to look for it.
The fact that is was found, however, is not proof that a man named Achilles was virtually invunerable because his mother (a nymph) dipped him as a newborn in the river Styx
For some reason the comments are showing up in italics…? I know I didn’t change anything when I posted on this thread…?
All italics all the time.
Actually there was a passage in Mark in which Jesus urged his disciples to bring in people by force. At some point in the past two hundred years or scholars agreed that this passage was fake. The passage is no longer in modern Bibles.. It might still be in the KJV, which is almost archaic at this point.
Considering that the earliest parts of the New Testament (the gospels) were written approximately 150 years after the death of Jesus, I have a very difficult time believing any of it as entirely factual with direct quotes.
Many of the Buddhist scriptures and sayings attributed to Gautama were written about four hundred years after his death. The Koran was compiled over a 23 year period and the writings weren’t put into 1 book until after Mohammed’s death. There’s a huge difference between the number of the copies of the Bible and other ancient books:
http://www.juststopandthink.com/news_details.php?newsID=21
I can’t recall a single incident of Buddhists claiming their sacred writing to be the literal word of god. What I have read of Buddhist writing, (the Dhammapada for instance) it seems less like a religion and instead, a philosophy, or a manual for living, not unlike Epictetus.
Does any religion other than certain varieties of Christianity practice this sort of Biblidolatry? This ascribing of divinity to a book?
My own feeling (for what it is or is not worth) is that God may well be infallible, inerrant, always right and never wrong. But human beings, churches, popes, traditions, priests, books, and idols are not infallible, inerrant, always right and never wrong.
Because those things aren’t God, or any god.
Dear Sailor B, some examples of other religions that believe their scriptures to be inspired: Hinduism, Scientology (ALL writings and recordings of L. Ron Hubbard are considered by the Scientologists to be scripture and they also that Hubbard had NO successor so all he wrote/said is the “final word”) and Unification Church (also known as “Moonies”). The book written by Rev. Moon called “The Divine Principle” is considered by the Church members to be the “3rd Testament” of the Bible and superior to the Bible.
BEEP. Hindu scripture is enormously vast. Only the 4 (earlier, only 3) Vedas are considered “inspired,” but even those are put into the mouths of certain mythic sages, and the 4 books borrow heavily from each other; only the Rig
Veda (containing the most poignant of devotional poetry, side by side with coarse humour and atheistic speculations) and the Atharvana (which was considered black magic in the earliest of times) have a large bulk of original material. Everything else, from the highest of the Brahmanas and Upanishadas, all the way down to the lowest of Puranas, is declared cent percent man-made even canonically.
As to the main question of this entire thread, based on the column, Hinduism, as society became more complex, first became more and more introspective and philosophical (until the Upanishadas) before descending into an age where everything began to be taken literally and was reduced to a tool of social control; various movements sprang up in response to start either different sects or entire religions, Buddhism being one of them. The essence of the Buddhist doctrine is heavily inspired by the Upanishadas. These movements almost always brought about a slew of change in existing Hindu practice as the clergy sought to do damage-control. Even the Buddha is considered the 9th incarnation of Vishnu by many Hindus. Religion does change.
Dear Sailor B, yes, the “God is such an incompetent” argument. God was such an incompetent that He couldn’t even manage getting His Word out to the world in the right form, etc. Protestants don’t literally worship the Bible as many think, i.e., we don’t bow down to it, use it as some kind of shrine, etc. It’s a spiritual life guide and 1 of the main vehicles God chose to get His Word out.
Which books are in the Bible and which books are not in the Bible was decided by councils of men. They voted. If it was God making the decision, why were the votes not all unanimous?
Council of Laodicea, 365 AD
“God told me that both 1st and 2nd Chronicles should be in, but that 1st through 5th Maccabees should not.”
“You know, He told me the same thing!”
“Me too!”
And everybody voted the same way on every book in and every book out. But that isn’t what happened. The Bible was built by committee. Committees of men, not God or angels. Some books didn’t make it by one vote.
And then King James put together another committee in 1604, and they spent until 1611 deciding. Again, it shouldn’t have taken long at all if it was just a matter of taking dictation and asking, “Heavenly Father, what about Wisdom of Ester? Gotcha. How about The Revelation of St. John? Whatever you say, LORD.”
But again, these decisions were made by mortal men. Learned mortal men, dedicated mortal men, perhaps even wise mortal men, but also biased, fallible, not-God mortal men. It’s not the incompetence of God that I’m arguing, but the imperfection of Man.
If we want to continue this, we should probably take it to e-mail, telephone, or in person. I have a sneaking suspicion neither of us is going to change the other’s mind, at least not on this blog.
Dear Sailor B, this explains my stand way better than I can:
http://www.be-ready.org/godworks.html
1 thing I really love about the above is it points out that Christians aren’t immune to suffering. We don’t get a “free pass” which to me is how it should be. Other than this, I’m not keeping up our debate (I agree with you on we shouldn’t do that on here) as you know how LONG we can go on with these things…lol.
I saw nothing there about the council of anywhere; I saw nothing there about choosing which books would or would not be in the Bible.
But I did see date-setting. The Tribulation within twenty-five years. Also, the guy who wrote this is of the “God is an Asshole and I Like It That Way” school of Christianity. Basically, his message is that God is going to let loose the Tribulation on us because He doesn’t want us to have global communications, cure diseases, and most of all, God doesn’t want us to travel in Space.
Unfuck this asswipe, his evil God, and his dumbutt followers. Don’t you READ these things before you send them to me? I’m tempted to tell you to buy your own damn Big Mac, but I won’t. I’m going to assume that you were in a hurry, and that it just got by you.
Could happen to anybody. I guess.
I forgot to say when I posted it that were some things in there I think (and KNOW) are plain wrong, OK? I apologize. There was SOME of it I agree with and explains my stand on how God was competent enough to inspire mortal men on which books were put into the Bible. There’s also the issue that God allowed some Bible versions (like the Living Bible) that I never want ANYTHING to do with and I’m not alone in this. I don’t have the answers to why He ultimately allowed those versions to begin with. I wish I did have the answers! Again, sorry…you know how my schedule is during the week and how I do many things every morning to get ready for the day.
An honest mistake. No malicious intent.
When I make mistakes (and boy howdy do I!), I hope that you will forgive me, and you do. You made a mistake, and I forgive you.
It’s done.
The reason I brought up the Buddhist scriptures is because they have an even bigger time gap between when Buddha said them, etc., and when they were written down than the Christian scriptures. I wasn’t specifically talking about inspiration, only the time gap thing.
I’m with you, Tonya.
Also, he was a guy, who hung out with other guys, and the occasional trashy woman he never slept with, encouraged men to leave their wives and join his traveling commune of men and troll, er fish, for even more men.
So, 30yr old who by all acounts never had sex with a woman and spent all his time picking up longshoremen and sailors
As usual, ALL positives about Jesus! It’s wonderful to see so often in this world how many give credit where it’s due!
I dont care personaly either way; religion today is amoral, for the most part, its results in good or bad depending on how individuals choose to use it, most use it very, very poorly.
I just like highlighting the irony of an unmarried guy who never had sex with women, spent all his time trolling the docks for men asking them to leave their wives and familles being the center of a ‘familly’ values religion
Actually, there is absolutely zero evidence that Jesus was an unmarried virgin. Men of his day were expected to marry as soon as they came of age, so for the Gospels not to say specifically that he was unmarried almost certainly means that he was married. Furthermore, he is repeatedly addressed as “rabbi” by his disciples and in his day an unmarried man was prohibited from holding that title. Presuming Jesus is unmarried is like presuming he was bald, seven feet tall and morbidly obese; not impossible, but it would’ve been mentioned if he had been because it would’ve been noteworthy.
I’m aware of all of those facts, but you’d be amazed at how many practicing christians arent. I just like poking fun at the incongruities
Thanks for this information on the Mark passage! I’ve read about this before (a long time ago so don’t remember from which books). There’s a Bible version called the “New King James” that takes out the words that are no longer used in the original King James.
I alays find it funny, lifes little inconguities.
After all editing the bible, removing or ading thins is suposedly a crime punishable by death and eternal damnation.
The fact that people feel free to edit it as they see fit it proof that they dont really believe in the depths of their souls
lujlp, I am a former atheist and I understand atheism/agnosticism/skepticism. How i found God is not rationally explainable; it’s understandable only to those who have had a revelation. I pray for all non-believers, including you.
Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and render to God that which is God’s. I believe in a religion that says prostitution is a sin, and it also says some acts that I have committed are sins. Adherence is a matter of individual faith and conscience, not law. I am a Christian and I adamantly support prostitution decriminalization.
Dear Marla, I feel much less alone since you’ve been posting here! Thank you! 1 of the biggest reasons I came here was to show there ARE at least a few Christians who are against prostitution for themselves (I also want no part of the institution even if I’m not literally working in it) but do want decriminalization.
The two of you are in good company, along with St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Laura, again you’re welcome, and I enjoy your posts as well. Christians like us don’t make as much noise as those who want laws against sins and theocratic government, and I believe that makes us seem much less numerous than we really are. There are a lot of us.
Maggie, I’ll add St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas to the list of the many books I mean to read eventually.
How I lost god was perfectly rational. The biblke is self contradictory, most of the chritians I saw around me were the worlds biggest hypocryites.
I was raised mormon in Utah, my high school apparently had the highest teen pregnacy rate per capita in the country. And no one could answer the simplest of questions that I had been asking since the age of eight. Ironically while seaching deeper for my faiih I wound up talking the only cathloic priest in the town out of his.
In the end I concluded that if any such god did exist it couldnt be anything like the one depicted in the bible – and if he is I’ll bawl him out when it comes my turn for judgment. The guy’s done a piss poor job in my opinion.
I see no evidence of the god depicted by christianity, and live my life accordingly. And will continue to until someone come up with a rational argument as to why their god is more real then Thor, or Quetzalcoatl.
lujlp, I don’t wish to offend, but Mormonism isn’t real Christianity. Mormonism includes beliefs that explicitly contradict the Bible, such as the belief in multiple gods.
Those who are closed to any form of knowledge other than rationalism may not open until and unless life brings them low enough to force them to ask for divine help. I mean no ill will when I say I hope you are brought low while there is still time for you, even if it doesn’t happen until you are on your deathbed.
Marla re read the bible, specifically the commandments – the part about haveing no other gods doesnt mention other gods being false. Also mormonism wasnt the first christian religion to come up with the idea of men evolving along a path to their own godhood.
Catholocism did, I could give you a list of venerated saints, none of which went on to become disavowed when faiths began to splinter off of eachother
Also read John 10:34,
And trust me I take no offence in you insulting a religion
lujlp, here is A list of Bible passages that make it clear that there is only one God. They include explicit statements such as: “I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God.” Isaiah 45:5
AFAIK Catholicism does not claim that saints are “evolving along a path to their own godhood”. Catholics believe in the doctrine of intercession, the belief that saints have the ability to intercede with God on behalf of people who appeal for the saint’s help. That does not constitute godhood.
About John 10:34, this website explores that verse’s meaning, and I suggest reading especially the paragraph that starts with “There has been much debate about whom “you” refers.”
Marla,
I think that all that the big house of christianity requires is a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Mormons pass that test.
You might not like their doctrines but in excluding them from Christianity, you may be treading very closely to the No True Scotsman fallacy.
c andrew, lujlp, here is A list of Bible passages that make it clear that there is only one God. They include explicit statements such as: “I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God.” Isaiah 45:5
Guys (or Girls), this is going to be my last comment on this blog post. It’s been enjoyable discussing this issue with you. I’m more interested in keeping up with Maggie’s new blog posts.
Fair enough, one last thought though, Genisis 3:22 And god said man has become as one of “US”.
Apparently god himself thought he had equals
Dear Marla,
In Exodus the revelation through Moses said that God shall have no other gods before him. This is not the same thing as saying I am the only god; in fact it admits the existence of other gods. If you read the OT carefully you will see a very long conflict between those Jews who held onto goddesses like Asherah and those violent fanatics who destroyed all the sanctuaries to the Goddess.
Exactly, this is why there was a SEPERATE commandment for idols
The scary part about Christianity today is that some 44% of Christians believe the Bible is inerrant. Such people can only be described as fanatics. They can also be called purblind because they refuse to see glaring impossibilities in the text.