Post modernism is often thought of as a movement that has relativised truth. That truth is not as important as experience or, "what's true for you may not be true for me". Personally, I think this unfairly caricatures Post modernism. The reason this may seem to be the case for me and some of my PM friends is that above truth and indeed even what we experience is harmony. That includes the hamony between what one believes and what one experiences or how one lives. I think this is also called orthohomony (right harmony) as opposed to orthodoxy (right belief) or orthopraxis (right practice or action).
This has meant the rejection of "truths" handed down by religious leaders and other authority figures, where the authurity for that truth comes purely from the status of truth giver. It has also meant the rejection of "rituals or practices" handed down by religious leaders and other authority figures for the same reasons.
I don't think this post modern era is the rejection of truth rather it is the rejection of confidence. This rejection of confidence has lead to (for me & I suspect many others) an increase in doubt. Doubt being the gap between belief and experience. This is a problem for many churches who rely on all members agreeing on a set of beliefs or practices. For more evangelical churches who major on orthodoxy and tend to interpret experience through their belief system, and more mainline churches who major on orthopraxis. The doubtful person will interpret belief through their experience and experience through belief, importantly they must be in harmony with each other.
Post moderns are post confident because they have seen the damage done by the confidence where someone is sure that they are right and all others wrong. Examples include slavery, crusades, etc. These are almost always due to a blind confidence in what poeople believed or were doing. There was no doubt or questioning.
I'm wondering in fact doubt feeds compassion. The more confident and right someone is the less compassionate they seem to be. Could this be because they believe they understand a truth that explains why someone is suffering be that because of the individuals own actions or because some supernatural force has inflicted that on them. If you know that then others doesn't If you know why someone is suffering don't need to act. If you are doubtful confused and are not sure of the big story you are faced with just one suffering person and compelled to act. If you have a meta-narrative why then you are not compelled to act.
Apologies if these thoughts are a little rambled and unstructured. I kind of vomited the sentences out.
This has meant the rejection of "truths" handed down by religious leaders and other authority figures, where the authurity for that truth comes purely from the status of truth giver. It has also meant the rejection of "rituals or practices" handed down by religious leaders and other authority figures for the same reasons.
I don't think this post modern era is the rejection of truth rather it is the rejection of confidence. This rejection of confidence has lead to (for me & I suspect many others) an increase in doubt. Doubt being the gap between belief and experience. This is a problem for many churches who rely on all members agreeing on a set of beliefs or practices. For more evangelical churches who major on orthodoxy and tend to interpret experience through their belief system, and more mainline churches who major on orthopraxis. The doubtful person will interpret belief through their experience and experience through belief, importantly they must be in harmony with each other.
Post moderns are post confident because they have seen the damage done by the confidence where someone is sure that they are right and all others wrong. Examples include slavery, crusades, etc. These are almost always due to a blind confidence in what poeople believed or were doing. There was no doubt or questioning.
I'm wondering in fact doubt feeds compassion. The more confident and right someone is the less compassionate they seem to be. Could this be because they believe they understand a truth that explains why someone is suffering be that because of the individuals own actions or because some supernatural force has inflicted that on them. If you know that then others doesn't If you know why someone is suffering don't need to act. If you are doubtful confused and are not sure of the big story you are faced with just one suffering person and compelled to act. If you have a meta-narrative why then you are not compelled to act.
Apologies if these thoughts are a little rambled and unstructured. I kind of vomited the sentences out.
15 comments:
I don't think this post modern era is the rejection of truth rather it is the rejection of confidence.
Your post is very germane to a discussion I'm having at New Lines From a Floating Life.
Is the rejection of confidence the sole province of postmodernism? It strikes me that there is a strong element of fallibilism in scientific thinking that itself constitutes a rejection of confidence.
It seems to me that PM may also lead to doubt about actions that are compassionate.
As an example, we may be hesistant to intervene in another nation's affairs where ethnic repression is occurring because we are unsure that such intervention is the right thing to do. Do we accept the negative consequences and 'collateral damage' of invading the nation to free the oppressed, or is international law and self-determination the greater virtue? Many will suffer while we cogitate, is this morally acceptable? What of Howard's intervention in NT aboriginal communities, compassionate or neo-colonialism?
We need to establish some foundational truths that we have complete confidence in, in order to guide our actions, or have a logical and infallible method for determining these.
I have chosen Jesus Christ as my foundational truth for morality/ethics, although my actions often don't live up to my stated beliefs.
Jesus was confident in the righteousness of his doctrine and he was compassionate. Would he have done the same if he was PM?
Would William Wilberforce have had the stamina to abolish the slave trade if he was not completely confident of the righteousness of his cause?
Compassion is different in different cultures. On many streets of India you will find the
dead and dying. Other people walk casually by, going about their business. It would be
compassionate to help these people by our Western standards (this is our meta-narrative), but for many Indians, the attitude is 'such is life'. Whose meta-narrative, our's or the Indians' is correct? If it be our's, then the Indian people lack compassion. According to PM, neither is believable.
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
We need to establish some foundational truths that we have complete confidence in, in order to guide our actions, or have a logical and infallible method for determining these.
How do we arrive at these truths, such that we are able to have complete confidence in them? Obviously we don't just conjure them out of thin air.
I have chosen Jesus Christ as my foundational truth for morality/ethics,
According to what criteria did you make this choice?
Jesus was confident in the righteousness of his doctrine
I would put to Jesus a question similar to that I put earlier. What justifies your confidence in the righteousness of your doctrine? Why ought anybody else share this confidence?
Would William Wilberforce have had the stamina to abolish the slave trade if he was not completely confident of the righteousness of his cause?
Would the September 11 hijackers have had the courage to fly those planes into the World Trade Centre if they were not completely confident in the righteousness of their cause? What of the abortion clinic bomber? What of Fred Nile and his rabble-rousing at Camden?
My point is that confidence in the righteousness of one's cause does not guarantee good outcomes.
Whose meta-narrative, our's or the Indians' is correct?
Couldn't we make use of negative utilitarianism to answer this?
Arthur, I agree that confidence in the righteousness of one's cause does not guarantee good outcomes. However, we should not present an argument that implies that people with strong beliefs are irrational and incapable of making correct moral decisions. Even Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins can recognise that religious people have done good (as well as evil) in the world.
We could use negative utilitarianism, or Jesus' "do unto others what you would have them do unto you", the point is that we have some moral foundational truths that we do not forsake to doubt, and therefore universally apply.
I think Jesus' moral teaching is objective and that it is self-evidently good. We can appeal to both self-interest and altruism as virtues (what other criteria can we use?) in an objective manner to support it. Good for me, good for you. I have complete confidence in win-win outcomes, why shouldn't anyone else, unless they have malice?
The fact that some people, claiming to be Christians, have ignored or misapplied that teaching does not undermine the correctness of that teaching. (I include myself in this category at times -- I believe we all sin).
PM and doubt does not alleviate the problems that moral questions present to us, it merely sidesteps an answer to them.
PM and doubt does not alleviate the problems that moral questions present to us, it merely sidesteps an answer to them.
But so too does absolutism. Take, for example, the statement "Jesus' moral teaching is objective and it is self-evidently good." Is it? Doesn't this claim have to be demonstrated, tested against the real world? Why should anyone just accept it at face value? It strikes me that merely making assertions of this kind--"X's moral teaching is objective and self-evidently good, and that's that"--is another way of sidestepping answers to those moral questions you mentioned. Indeed, it constitutes an attempt to shut down debate on those questions altogether: "X's moral teaching is the right one, and it's right because I say it's right".
The fact that some people, claiming to be Christians, have ignored or misapplied that teaching does not undermine the correctness of that teaching.
But it is also a fact that they don't believe they have misapplied that teaching. The notion that your interpretation trumps theirs is, again, something that needs to be demonstrated, not merely asserted. (Beware the No True Scotsman fallacy!)
However, we should not present an argument that implies that people with strong beliefs are irrational and incapable of making correct moral decisions.
We also should avoid the notion that strong belief is a virtue in itself. What's more important than having strong beliefs is having strong grounds for one's beliefs.
To return to the Wilberforce example, and following on from my point about No True Scotsman, there were Christians on both sides of the abolition debate pointing to the Bible to defend their positions. This raises a question, which is sort of related to the famous Euthyphro dilemma: is slavery wrong because God/Jesus says it's wrong, or are there other reasons?
Would Wilberforce have opposed slavery if he had not been a Christian? If the answer is "no," then that doesn't speak very highly of Wilberforce, does it?.
We could use negative utilitarianism, or Jesus' "do unto others what you would have them do unto you", the point is that we have some moral foundational truths that we do not forsake to doubt, and therefore universally apply.
But there has to be room, surely, for asking questions about those "truths," where they come from, and how it can be demonstrated or justified that they hold absolutely? Again, simply responding with "No! They're foundational," "No! They're absolute," "No! They're universal," is an attempt to stifle debate. These aren't answers--they're evasions. Nor will it do to label those asking such questions as "pomo" or "relativist," as too often happens: that's not argument, it's just name-calling.
Even Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins can recognise that religious people have done good (as well as evil) in the world.
And it is as incumbent upon Hitchens and Dawkins as it is upon religious people to justify their use of the terms "good" and "evil"--and not just bandy them about in the quasi-mystical sense in which they are frequently used in post-September 11 public discourse.
I have complete confidence in win-win outcomes, why shouldn't anyone else, unless they have malice?
It's not as simple as that, unfortunately. As David Kuo's 2006 revelations about the relationship between the Bush Administration and the Religious Right demonstrated, the former publicly adopted policies (such as "abstinence education" and "faith-based initiatives") and rhetoric (such as "family values") to appeal to the Religious Right and cultivate a voter base among conservative evangelicals, while behind closed doors the Administration mocked evangelicals, especially figures such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson. This makes sense when you consider the influence of Straussian neoconservatism on the Bush Administration: for Strauss, pious frauds were very useful for keeping the great unwashed in line.
The point is that there can be a great deal of malice and cynicism behind apparently "win-win" situations.
I think Jesus' teaching has been tested in the real world and proved to be moral. The essence of Jesus' moral teaching is found in many other religions of the world and indeed in secular humanism. When these other religions and philosophies apply themself as stated in particular texts, the results are also good. Examples are far too numerous to bother mentioning any here.
There is a huge gap between what I said and what you said, "X's moral teaching is the right one, and it's right because I say it's right".
You can read a description of what an apple is, compare it to an orange and find it a false description of an orange in a totally objective way. False Christians can and have been demonstrated to be such using the bible as a standard in a similar objective manner. Of course, there are problems of biblical interpretation, but right and wrong can still be interpreted in an objective manner on many matters. On issues that the bible does not specifically mention, e.g. abortion, there is rational and intelligent debate on both sides. Of course, there are loonies too, but lunacy can be found in many political issues that are of no specific importance to religious people.
A strong ground is a strong foundational belief. Exactly, what I've been arguing for. Christians and religious people are not mindless idiot followers of the bible -- this a favoured stereotype of some anti-religious people. They do compare it to reality, actively. There are very few who say "because the bible says". Most of us have sound reasons for engaging our faith apart from the bible. I suspect that you would find such the case for Wilberforce.
An individual person asserting a belief does not necessarily mean that they are not interested in hearing alternative beliefs or explaining themself. For example, in Christianity, there is a huge field of Apologetics devoted to defending and answering questions about the Christian faith.
I believe in real win-win outcomes, not apparent ones. Win-win means win-win for all parties involved (Robertson, Falwell, etc.), not win-lose.
I think Jesus' teaching has been tested in the real world and proved to be moral.
You've contradicted yourself. Earlier, you claimed that Jesus' teaching is "self-evidently" good. Now you claim that Jesus' teaching has been "proved to be moral" as a result of having been tested against the real world. So my next questions are as follows: what do you mean when you claim that Jesus' teaching has been "proved to be moral?" And if you mean that Jesus' teaching produces good outcomes, what criteria are you using to determine what is (and what isn't) a "good" outcome?
(Note: I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't think the questions I am asking can be lightly brushed aside--by anyone.)
You can read a description of what an apple is, compare it to an orange and find it a false description of an orange in a totally objective way. False Christians can and have been demonstrated to be such using the bible as a standard in a similar objective manner.
False analogy. There's an overwhelmingly strong consensus about the distinction between apples and oranges (which accounts for the success of that idiom). By contrast, there is no such consensus on what constitutes a True Christian (TM), or, for that matter, a "false" one--that is a matter of intense debate.
False Christians can and have been demonstrated to be such using the bible as a standard in a similar objective manner. Of course, there are problems of biblical interpretation, but right and wrong can still be interpreted in an objective manner on many matters.
If that is the case, it has to be demonstrated, not just asserted. Why is your interpretation of the bible the "right" one? If you're not certain about that, but insist that an "objectively true" interpretation of the bible exists, how can this be demonstrated? Furthermore, how do you know that the bible is the "objective standard" for distinguishing "true" from "false" Christians?
On issues that the bible does not specifically mention, e.g. abortion, there is rational and intelligent debate on both sides. Of course, there are loonies too, but lunacy can be found in many political issues that are of no specific importance to religious people.
I agree.
A strong ground is a strong foundational belief.
I don't quite know what you mean by this, but that's not what I said. I said that it is more important that we have strong grounds for believing the things we believe, rather than merely having strong beliefs. I might believe quite strongly in the idea that the world was created in its present state last Thursday, but since I have no evidence that such is the case, I don't have strong grounds for my belief (however fervently I believe it).
Christians and religious people are not mindless idiot followers of the bible -- this a favoured stereotype of some anti-religious people. They do compare it to reality, actively.
I never claimed that all Christians and religious people are mindless idiot followers of the bible, but some of them certainly are, and some others, by no means idiotic, are rather clever in finding ways to impose their dogma on the rest of us (e.g. the Religious Right). It is the latter groups that concern me, and I accept that they probably concern the majority of Christians, too.
Most of us have sound reasons for engaging our faith apart from the bible. I suspect that you would find such the case for Wilberforce.
But did Wilberforce have reasons for opposing slavery other than his faith? If not, it doesn't really speak very highly of Wilberforce.
Something can be both self-evidently good and provenly good without contradiction. If I must give an example: the clouds are obviously above the earth from where I stand and can be/have proven to be so.
What's a good outcome? I am sure you have an opinion about this and that I would largely agree with you, as would others. You name some things and I'll say yay or nay (if you want).
There are certain things that all Christians would agree on and others that 99% of Christians would agree on. Consensus varies according to issue. If you want specific examples of False Christians of which very few, if any, Christians would doubt, see this page: http://www.carm.org/heresy.htm
Apples can be shown to be different to oranges without regard to consensus understanding of their difference (just compare colours, seeds, etc.). The objectivity of the scientific method depends on ignoring consensus presuppositions. Surely, I can say that 2 + 2 = 4 and that black isn't white, regardless of what other people think, and be objectively correct. Likewise, if someone claimed that Jesus taught us to kill all our enemies I can objectively demonstrate that such is not true without regard to consensus opinion. I'd show what Jesus said in the bible about our enemies. Of course, for some other issues, it would be much harder than this to prove what Jesus would have wanted. The bible is the objective standard for distinguishing "true" from "false" Christians because that is where Jesus' teaching can be found in this own words. It's a bit like asking me how I know that the U.S. Constitution is the objective standard for judging what is constitutional in the U.S or not.
By "grounds" do you mean scientific evidence? My dictionary has a number of definitions for "grounds". One definition is "your basis for belief or disbelief". I believe all men are created equal (my foundational truth or "grounds"), so therefore I don't believe one man should be the slave of another.
On Wilberforce, I suggest you see the movie "Amazing Grace". Why would the beliefs motivating Wilberforce speak low of him if they happened to coincide with his faith? If Wilberforce wasn't who he was I have no idea what he would do.
Hey there Paul and Arthur,
I'm doing Chritmassy family catch up things at the moment and won't be able to reply to your posts for a week or so, as computer use is limited. None the less I will reply in a week or so when I can.
Chris
Something can be both self-evidently good and provenly good without contradiction. If I must give an example: the clouds are obviously above the earth from where I stand and can be/have proven to be so.
The example you gave is not an example of something self-evidently good.
I am sure you have an opinion about this and that I would largely agree with you, as would others.
Does our agreement about what consitutes a good outcome make it self-evidently good?
There are certain things that all Christians would agree on and others that 99% of Christians would agree on.
This is tricky, because a lot depends upon how you and I define "Christian," and I suspect your definition would be narrower than mine. Indeed, I'm content to define as Christian anybody who chooses to define themselves thus, and I prefer to leave interdenominational squabbles over who does and does not count as a True Christian (TM) to those who define themselves as Christians. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm not going to be persuaded by appeals to popularity ("99% of Christians believe X is not a True Christian; therefore, X is not a True Christian") or appeals to authority ("CARM does not consider Mormons to be True Christians; therefore, Mormons are not True Christians").
Surely, I can say that 2 + 2 = 4 and that black isn't white, regardless of what other people think, and be objectively correct. Likewise, if someone claimed that Jesus taught us to kill all our enemies I can objectively demonstrate that such is not true without regard to consensus opinion.
But if someone claims that the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, is this the same kind of claim as 2 + 2 = 4?
The bible is the objective standard for distinguishing "true" from "false" Christians because that is where Jesus' teaching can be found in this own words. It's a bit like asking me how I know that the U.S. Constitution is the objective standard for judging what is constitutional in the U.S or not.
That's a poor analogy on several levels. First, for a significant proportion of the world's Christians, namely Roman Catholics and those belonging to the Orthodox churches, the Bible is not the alpha and omega of their belief system, so it is hardly comparable to a "constitution." This is further demonstrated by the very fact that there are so many different denominations--and hence so many different perspectives on who and who doesn't count as a True Christian (TM)--even within Protestantism. Second, the relationship between the US constitution and constitutionality is not as straightforward as you think. Is it constitutional to teach ID in public school science classrooms? According to precedent, no--but if you get enough creationist judges into the Supreme Court, some day it may be.
Which brings us to "Jesus' teaching in his own words." In Luke chapter 12, he tells a parable in which he condones the beating of a slave even if the slave is unaware of his transgressions. In Paul's Letters, slaves are commanded to obey and respect their earthly masters. Does this mean that Christianity condones slavery? Does it mean that the condoning of slavery determines whether one is a true or false Christian? There were Christians on both sides of the abolition debate citing the bible to justify their positions. And that's the point. You can't wave the Bible about as the gold standard of who is and who is not a True Christian, when the very murky endeavour of interpreting the Bible is what is at issue (and what is often most certainly at issue when various denominations within Christianity declare each other heretics). All you're really saying is this: "my interpretation of what Jesus said in the Bible is the objective standard for distinguishing True from false Christians." Argument by assertion.
By "grounds" do you mean scientific evidence?
By "grounds" I mean reasons sufficient to justify your belief--to accept that belief as (tentatively) true. (I say "tentatively" because I tend towards fallibilism). Empirical evidence certainly falls into this category.
I believe all men are created equal (my foundational truth or "grounds"), so therefore I don't believe one man should be the slave of another.
Ah, but what are the grounds of your belief that "all men are created equal?" By labelling this belief a "foundational truth" you are implying that I shouldn't ask you to justify why you hold it to be true--that I should just accept it as true myself. Am I correct? Because I see no reason, if I am to be convinced of the truth of your belief, not to demand justification.
Why would the beliefs motivating Wilberforce speak low of him if they happened to coincide with his faith?
That's not what I meant. What I said was that if the only reason Wilberforce found for opposing slavery was his faith in a sky-god--if he could offer no reasons that could be accepted by others regardless of their position on the existence of sky-gods, or could be accepted by Wilberforce himself if his position on the existence of sky-gods had been different--then that would not speak very highly of him as an advocate of abolitionism. It is, as you rightly point out, an academic question, but if his position on slavery was wholly contingent upon his faith, what if at some point during the campaign he lost his faith?
It's like when some Christians will tell you that without a belief in God, there is no reason not to go outside and indulge in a frenzy of murder, rape and pillage. I think society as a whole would be a lot safer if such individuals remained Christians--and they should probably also be kept away from children, lest "the change" should occur at an inopportune moment!
Arthur, this conversation is going nowhere. Now you've become the bible exegete, with some rather silly interpretations. Of course, you expect me to accept these ridiculous interpretations as equally valid as that of someone who may actually be interested in what Jesus is trying to teach. I have spent a lot of time dealing with your allegations of contradiction, false analogy, and logical fallacy, and clearing up what you allege I imply. You have blatantly contorted my words and attributed claims to me of your own making to suit your own argument. You've thrown this pretension at me consistently. It is really getting rather tiresome. I'm going to withdraw from the conversation. If your dogma can't allow me to objectively say that when Jesus said "love your enemies", he didn't mean "kill your enemies" than your dogma is really rather ridiculous. If you claim I can't objectively say that a person, claiming to be a Christian, but proposing that Jesus taught "kill your enemies" is false, than you are a loony. Cogitating about irrational, self-contradictory and anti-empirical intellectual dogmas such as falliblism does not interest me. Nor am I interested in the bigoted, selective applications of these nonsenses by one such as their zealous, close-minded ideologue.
My apologies for the rant, Chris.
I'm sorry too, Chris. I wasn't expecting the discussion to end up like this.
Paul says somewhere on his blog that he intends to use "emotional appeals" to bring others to Christ. I see now what he means.
Arthur, this conversation is going nowhere.
Where did you want it to go? I was enjoying our discussion until you decided to go all "Angry German Kid" on me.
Now you've become the bible exegete, with some rather silly interpretations. Of course, you expect me to accept these ridiculous interpretations as equally valid as that of someone who may actually be interested in what Jesus is trying to teach.
Nope, that wasn't the point I was making at all. (And you have the cheek to accuse me of "blatantly contorting" your words!) Read the comment again.
I have spent a lot of time dealing with your allegations of contradiction, false analogy, and logical fallacy, and clearing up what you allege I imply.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Paul. If you employ faulty reasoning, sooner or later someone is going to call you on it.
You have blatantly contorted my words and attributed claims to me of your own making to suit your own argument.
I don't think so.
It is really getting rather tiresome. I'm going to withdraw from the conversation.
You're withdrawing from the conversation because you insist on making claims you are unable to defend. I'm not taking responsibility for that.
If your dogma
What is my "dogma," Paul?
If your dogma can't allow me to objectively say that when Jesus said "love your enemies", he didn't mean "kill your enemies" than your dogma is really rather ridiculous.
Where did I even mention anything about what Jesus really means when he says "love your enemies?" You're the one who brought that up, not me. Let's add "strawman" to your list of argumentative sins, shall we?
If you claim I can't objectively say that a person, claiming to be a Christian, but proposing that Jesus taught "kill your enemies" is false, than you are a loony.
. . . as well as ad hominem. Look, my only crime, it appears, has been to ask you to justify your claim that there is an objective interpretation of the bible, given your original claim to be able to discern true from false Christians on the basis of said interpretation. All you have offered me in response has been assertion, appeal to popularity, and appeal to authority. These are bad arguments, and I am not a "loony" for saying so.
Cogitating about irrational, self-contradictory and anti-empirical intellectual dogmas such as falliblism does not interest me.
Fallibilism is irrational, self-contradictory, anti-empirical and dogmatic? Please explain.
Nor am I interested in the bigoted, selective applications of these nonsenses by one such as their zealous, close-minded ideologue.
I'm not the one trying to establish lines of demarcation between in-groups and out-groups (I'm referring to your True Christian/False Christian dichotomy here), but then again we atheists are liberated from having to waste time and energy doing that.
From the original post:
I'm wondering in fact doubt feeds compassion. The more confident and right someone is the less compassionate they seem to be.
Actually I think it's just the opposite. Doubt feeds confusion and fear; confidence feeds certainty and compassion.
In my experience the ones who fit your description of "more right and less compassionate" are nowhere near as sure of themselves as they appear to be. Dig any deeper than surface issues and you'll trip over their insecurities, causing the "less compassionate" reactions you have observed.
Something Paul said that I take issue with:
Paul, you claim Jesus' teachings to be moral.
Until Jesus borrowed Hell from the Greeks' Hades, Yahweh was comfortable torturing people on this earth and then just letting them die. But Jesus, ever so masochistically, allegedly invented the concept of eternal, unquenchable, insufferable punishment for the mere "sin" of not believing in what no trustworthy evidence has ever shown.
Explain to me the morality in this Nero-esque ultimatum of "Devote every ounce of your life to me, without question, even though I cannot provide any real evidence that I am who I say I am, or burn, not for a trillion trillion trillion years, but for an infinite amount of time."
That's one of the most horrible concepts anyone can conjure up: unimaginable pain for unimaginable time, and it came (allegedly) right out of the teachings of gentle Jesus, meek and mild.
Too bad Herod didn't find the baby, else we may have been spared that lovely piece of theology.
Also, how is it moral for God to send himself to be tortured and killed for us when we didn't ask for him to, nor would any of us wanted him to if we were there. If he's judge and jury of our supposed souls, who is he trying to impress? It certainly doesn't seem moral at all to waste time on planning an elaborate snuff job and force all of your followers to genuflect to effigies of a bloody and mangled body when you, as God, could simply forgive all sins without that whole charade.
And don't even get me started on original sin! What an awful and immoral concept!
Post a Comment