Sam Harris has some excellent observations on fundamental Muslims. I'll post the link here, but for those of you in a hurry, I will paraphrase what he said.
Jainism is an Indian religion that emphasis non-violence towards all living things and equality between all forms of life. If you're a fundamental Jain, there is no need to be scared of you. Jains will walk with their heads down so that they don't step on an insect, and drink through a cloth for they fear accidentally drinking a bug.
No one needs to worry about fundamental Jains, and the same can be said about most Buddhists, Amish, etc.
But what if you're a fundamental Muslim, like Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or the members of the Taliban, etc? Had they claimed that they were fundamental Buddhists, Jains, or Amish, their lie would be painfully obvious, and we would argue that their violent actions stem from NOT following the teachings of Jainism, Buddhism, Amish, etc. But with fundamental Muslims, the opposite is true. They behave in such fashion because they are striving to follow every word of the holy book. The word fundamental is not the problem. Muslim is.
That was what I got out of Sam Harris's incredibly insightful lecture.
Now here is a question for you. What would a fundamental Christian look like? A person who takes the entire bible, or nearly all of it, quite literally and seriously? After all, why wouldn't you take it all of it seriously when it's the inerrant and infallible word of God? Who are you to disregarded some of its teachings?
Well, he most likely wouldn't believe in gender equality.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over man. She must be quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12)
Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22)
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (1 Corinthians 11:3-7)
Some people may feel that I've taken the quotes out of context, but it's rather difficult to take "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord" out of context. I'm not sure how you can interpret this any other way. Perhaps, some may erroneously argue that because husbands are called to love their wives, this somehow balances the equality issue. Well, I love my dog, but we are not equals in power.
God's inherent sexist views shouldn't surprise anyone. He, after all, supports slavery. You would have to go through some impressive logical acrobatics to argue otherwise. Jesus himself uses a number of parables with slaves, and he, along with everyone else in the bible, never criticizes the institution once.
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also the cruel. (1 Peter 2:18)
It seems painfully clear to me that Lincoln was on the wrong side of the bible. And it's not a surprise that proponents of the confederacy often cited the inerrant word of God to support their peculiar institution.
So our model fundamentalist Christian would be sexist and a slave supporter. What else? Well, he probably would believe that homosexuality was a sin.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:27)
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
While it is true that Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors, including gay people, the bible also clearly states that gay people aren't going to heaven (therefore they will presumably go to hell). After all, going to heaven or hell isn't judged by popularity. In other words, your love towards gays and their reservation in hell have nothing to do with each other.
Now imagine an all powerful being - a being who is benign, sagacious, and even powerful enough to create this entire universe. If this being wrote a book, just how good would it be? Wouldn't it be so good, almost to the point where it's basically the only book you needed in life? Wouldn't it be better than all of your favorite books combined? And now imagine a person, who devotes his entire life, striving to follow the exact instructions of this book. How awesome and awe-inspiring would this person be?
But the reality is, the bible is only a mediocre book at best. Sure, it has its moments like 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 where Paul defines love in beautiful prose, but most of the book consists of phantasmagorical imagery, inane lists (numbers and Nehemiah), and archaic laws and stories that (even most Christians agree) no longer pertains in the modern world. Only people who seem to enjoy the book are the ones indoctrinated to the belief. And sadly, fundamental Christians aren't all that awe-inspiring. In fact, I would be scared of a person who has never read anything except the bible, and literally believes in every word of it. He would be a chauvinistic, homophobic, and dogmatic person, who supports slavery and other inequality amongst human beings. He would also believe in stoning a whole lot of people.
There is nothing wrong with the word fundamental in fundamental Christians.
___________________________________________________
on a side note:
Personally, I do not understand gay Christians. Why would you have faith - believing in something with zero evidence - on a religion that calls you "unrighteous," and calls you to be stoned to death? Why would you love someone that calls you an "abomination?" It seems masochistic to me, which, in a strange way, makes sense since God does seem quite sadistic.
But then again, all church goers are told what sinful, dirty and detestable creatures they are. And then, grown men and women are expected to kneel down, grovel and relinquish everything to a being who has absolute control over them. All this is done out of love. Perhaps many Christians, not just gay Christians, enjoy a bit of masochism.
No comments:
Post a Comment