This post is adapted from a speech written by Alex Shaw. Alex is 17 years old and from Augusta, Georgia. He attended Church for the first 16 years of his life and 'came out' to his parents one year ago. Alex will soon be attending college and plans to study religion at grad school. Enjoy!
Religious individuals often claim that, without religion, a significant amount of morality is lost within culture, when in fact, if one were to follow the Bible’s morality to the letter, we’d have stoned kids, stoned gays, and stoned adulterers. Today, when someone reads the Bible, they apply their own morality, the morality of the modern day to the ‘Word of God’. It’s a concept known as ‘cherry picking’, or simply taking the good and leaving the bad. Either God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, his word in biblical form is unquestionable and we follow its every word and stone gays, or there are holes and incongruities in the Holy Book and its law should not be followed. It’s just false to assert that Jesus established a new covenant and that the law of the Old Testament was no longer needed – Matthew 5:17-19.
I realize there are many moderate Christians who selectively chose what they do believe and what they don’t believe about the contents of the Bible. Most Christians, who believe the Bible is the 'Word of God', do not believe that their Jewish friend or Muslim friend will go to Hell because they lead a good life and are, overall, a good person. However, the ‘Word of God’ begs to differ – John 15:4-6. Yes, ok, so the word of the Christian saviour condemns a host of good people solely because they don’t abide in Jesus, but the moderate Christians chose not to believe this because their God is a benevolent God and would never do such a thing. They have committed a grievous error. They have applied their own standards of morality and reason to God’s. If you are able to read the ‘Word of God’ and decide for yourself what is right or wrong, then you do not need a book of divine origins to define your morals, you simply need more books with more situations from which you can figure out your own beliefs. You have, in effect, nullified the need for a supernatural decree of any kind, seeing as how you had no problem believing against the teachings of ‘your’ saviour in the first place.
And if this or that portion of the 'Word of God' is invalid, why is any authority lent to any portion of the Bible? The golden rule is good not because it is of Godly descent, but because it is an exceptional way for any man or woman to lead their life. In the same way, stoning rebellious children for disobeying their parents is not a good rule, not because it too is of Godly descent, but because it is a deplorable way for any man or woman to lead their life.
To state that religion is necessary or even relevant to someone leading a good life isn't an accurate statement. Plenty of atheists have good moral codes, just as many believers have bad ones. People often cite governments without religion such as those of Stalin and Hitler to show what can go wrong if religion is essentially removed from government. But one has to ask the question, "Was it their atheism that moved them to slaughter the innocent?" The obvious answer is no. No one that I'm aware of has committed atrocities in the name of atheism. Think of all the bad in world that has been done in the name of God or Allah before asserting anything about religion being necessary for morality.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought or its editors.
6 comments:
To save you the trouble, here are the Bible references cited.
Matthew 5:17-19 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them'
John 15:4-6 "Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."
Simply and unarguably well put Alex. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Well put! Only one small thing..Hitler was Catholic, not an Atheist.
That was quite some speech you must given, Alex. I wished I could've seen your audience's reaction.
On a different note, is it just me, or do most theists read their holy scriptures blind? From anecdotal evidence (i.e my own interaction with them), many of them have a pretty shallow knowledge of their holy books. Take for example a survey that found that most American Christian cannot state the 10 Commandments. These people get surprised when you quote biblical passages detailing various cruelties inflicted on humans by God. And yet, they will tell you that your particular interpretation is wrong! Pretty convenient eh?
Lastly, perhaps you could write in about your coming out story? It's always interesting to read about coming out stories, especially from a peer. I hope it wasn't as painful as this!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZdLD-AoUB8
First, I'm sincerely impressed by the writing ability and reasoning that you and the others writers on this site have demonstrated.
As far as this speech/article goes I would agree with most of what you've written - Your point about those people who claim to have been saved from their rebellion and then blatantly deny clear teaching of the Bible is right on. But I'm not sure what you've proved. Your conclusions regarding the necessity of religion for good are correct. I agree that one does not need to be "religious" to do good in the world. The issue for the atheist is justifying how you can call anything "good" at all. You condemn stoning "because it is a deplorable way for any man or woman to lead their life." I share your opinion but I get the feeling you believe this to be far more than an opinion. Am I correct? If so, I'm not sure how you can claim that this is universally true. If it’s not universally true then I’m not sure how you can condemn it in any other culture.
Regarding the new covenant you're right to anticipate this response but as far as Matthew 5:17-19 goes I think you're guilty of the very thing you've accused these Christians of. You've taken a relevant passage and come to a hasty and emotionally charged conclusion regarding its meaning and relevance. I'll try to be succinct with why I believe that. Notice that Jesus said he came to "fulfill" the law. He’s not abolishing it but he’s letting it stay the same either. He’s fulfilling it. It is widely understood that the OT law consists of civil, ceremonial and ethical regulations. The Christian belief is that Jesus's life, death and resurrection accomplished all that was laid out in the Old Testament but the ethical regulations remain summed up in "the law of Christ" - to love God with all of our being and to love others as ourselves (Matthew 22:35-40, essentially the summary of the 10 Commandments). This is not cherry picking. To use your example of stoning children for dishonoring parents: The civil code that was necessary for a specific people in a specific time (The Israelites) because of the presence of sin in humanity has been fulfilled but the ethical requirement to honor parents is still intact (see Ephesians 6:1-2). To use another example, stoning as a consequence for homosexuality was evidently necessary at one time. Christians today would not do that because we know that that civil requirement is no longer necessary (Christ took that upon himself in his death on the cross) but the NT still explicitly condemns homosexuality, just as it does gossip, boasting, disobedience to parents, etc. (See Romans 1:18-32).
Let me also make a clarification that may not seem important to you but is foundational to real faith in Christ and I think relevant to this discussion. There used to be a day when the word religion positively referred to the right exercise of one's faith. Today it stands negatively for any sort of approach to life that is not atheistic. Hence, you may have heard the cute cliche "Christianity is not about religion, it's about a relationship." There's truth in that statement but I still think it's misleading. The thing that separates Christianity from other religions is their approach to salvation. Salvation in all other religions, including forms of what is termed Christianity, is attained through moral effort. The gospel, which is the essential Christian message, refers to salvation through grace. These are two fundamentally distinct ideas. Christians don’t obey to be accepted by God, they obey because they’ve been accepted.
To conclude, you (and Hairtonic) make good points about the inconsistencies of those who call themselves Christians but you haven't done anything damaging to the essential claims of Christ or Christianity.
You made a great point on moderates and cherry picking. I will definitly need to use that point in my next conversation on the subject.
Post a Comment