Posted by Adam on January 31, 2000, at 14:21:43
In reply to Re: effects of religious intolerance, posted by b.b. on January 31, 2000, at 9:01:18
>
> I think we should abandon this post...this board can be put to better use
> b.b.Oh, I don't know. Sometimes there's no better way to cut throught the b.s. than to have a good argument; arguments can be constructive and reasonably civil, intellectually stimulating, and often, once emotions have simmered down and all parties have had a chance to reflect, lead to a greater amount of consensus than existed before.
I think, exactly as b.b. pointed out, Elizabeth errs when she says atheists don't commit certain crimes against humanity. They do. Human beings from all walks of life can be sociopaths.
I'm not sure if killing people in the name of God (or whoever) is necessarily a perversion of religious beliefs, though. It seems rather cliche to point this out, but there's a fair amount of God-sanctioned killing going on in the Bible. The most obvious example is the book of Joshua (ironically, the hebraic form of Jesus)...
"And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites."
(Joshua, 3:10)
The Canaanites especially, having the misfortune of living in the middle of the Promised Land, are nearly eradicated. But of course they are anti-Yahwist, oversexed barbarians who owe their allegiance to the depraved Baals and Astartes, and really ought to be exterminated, since they're in the way. Genocide, five books away from Genesis. Like it or not, that's the message. So when a Baruch Goldstien type commits an attrocious crime and then says it's the proper thing to do, why is it such a shock?
But Christians and Jews alike tend to ignore a lot that textual stuff these days. I'm certainly not complaining. What disturbs me a bit is that so many devout followers of Western religions actually know very little about the history and the literature of their own faith, or regard such matters as relatively unimportant. This seems rather strange, and never fails to amaze me. I've had so many discussions where I've pointed out various disturbing elements of Judeo/Christian doctrine only to be told things like "Jesus never said that!" Then, when I produce the contrary evidence, I get told that, say, clearly Jesus was misquoted on this occasion, or that what I have found is a human perversion of Christ's true message.
Maybe, maybe not. I would feel a lot better about the average joe explaining to me what religion X really prescribes if I had some evidence that they knew what they were talking about. This goes for both the positives and the negatives. This kind of behavior becomes particularly disturbing when it comes from active evangelists.
So, you know, pray for people all you like. Spread the word with sincerity: It's your right in a country where freedom of religion and speech are considered sacred. Just maybe give your Bible a good reading. Pick up a good, non-biased book on the history of your faith. Of course religions are allowed to evolve and modernise, just try and be aware of the antecedents, if, for no other reason, you then might better understand the unhappyness and even the revulsion your faith can produce in moral, critically-thinking members of society who reject it out of principle, not, say, out of ignorance and bigotry.
poster:Adam
thread:19818
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000128/msgs/20210.html