Recently an undisclosed magazine published an article written by a pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, “progressive Christian” (sic), Raffaele *****, who heralded:
“I am a Christian, and guess what I believe that abortion should be legal, that same sex couples should have equal rights, that they should be allowed to marry, that the death penalty is immoral in all circumstances… To be Christian, to have a religious belief, need not necessarily invoke images of conservatism, intolerance, homophobia, and the list goes on.
It may seem fair to ignore the Judeo-Christian bibles’ explicit condemnation of abortion, homosexuality, or its endorsement of slavery, given that modern civilization runs on the principles of democracy, personal freedom and liberty.
But slavery and abortion aren’t really directly mentioned in the New Testament – the Old Testament and Torah aren’t really relevant to the modern “progressive Christian”.
The idea of one god started with the Torah.
The Torah declared that this one god is all loving, merciful, yet vengeful – like a drunk Republican at Christmas. The Torah also makes repugnant claims on all sorts of antiquated ‘ethical’ matters – male foreskin anyone?
But the Old Testament, followed by its successive best seller, the sexier, New Testament, gave us: hell, devil(s), immaculate cum, the resurrection and all manner of mythical/miraculous/misogynistic rhetoric.
Surely then, if the “progressive Christian” disregards the various scriptural passages that condemns homosexuality in the New Testament, or abortion in the Old, than it follows that one should also question the very ideas of god(s) and an afterlife.
But surely hard-line religious orthodoxy is to blame for the heinous ‘misinterpretations’ of the holy texts?
The “progressive religious’” selective adoption/adaption of canons from the ‘holy’ texts that they deem still relevant (e.g. a ‘personal god’), further ensures hypocrisy, distortion and absurdity. At least the hard-liners don’t discriminate which texts they utilize for grounds to discriminate.
So why then do “progressive” religious followers take the holy texts’ monotheistic and afterlife canons as givens, but disregard most biblical stories as nothing more than poetic metaphors or quasi-moralistic allegories?
Of course it depends on one’s nature/ nurture situation. Plus, heaven sounds pretty sweet!
It’s just a shame that the monotheistic god couldn’t speak Aboriginal dialects or Quechuan (Incan), providing separate anecdotal corroboration of ‘his’ omnipresence.
Raffaele argues, “So next time somebody says that they are a Christian, and thus must be against gay marriage or abortion, do not be afraid to question them.
He might have a point that Christians face stigma from rational persons’ perceptions of the religious’ revel for mythical dogma, but I am glad to watch religion’s reign of control, anti-rationalism, anti-intellectualism and fear-mongering unravel like the metaphorical altar boy’s ecclesiastical robe.
(Digg this? http://digg.com/d318rnj)
My friend, from –
“But slavery and abortion aren’t really directly mentioned in the New Testament – the Old Testament and Torah aren’t really relevant to the modern “progressive Christian”.”
to:
“It’s just a shame that the monotheistic god couldn’t speak Aboriginal dialects or Quechuan (Incan), providing separate anecdotal corroboration of ‘his’ omnipresence.”
- this is filled with gross oversimplifications which frankly belie your lack of understanding of that which you seek to condemn here.
I don’t know if you read Christopher Hitchens or not, but you and he both seem to be under the same weird notion that in order to be authentically Christian, one must accept everything in the chosen holy books verbatim, and if one doesn’t, her beliefs don’t count. I defy anybody to subject himself to a similarly foolish standard in any other scientific or philosophical field: take all of Plato verbatim, or take none of Plato. Take all of Nietzsche, or none of him. Take all of Sartre, etc. This approach to anything – knowledge, belief, science, etc. – is clearly absurd.
Where did we get this idea that there is no validity to any body of work unless it is all literally true? From Christians? Maybe some of us, sure. But when others of us reject this paradigm, please don’t act as if religion is supposed to operate differently from any other human activity when it comes to how we form our beliefs.
As a progressive Christian, I am a pluralist, which means that one of my foundational beliefs is that God is too big to be fully understood by any humans. Ergo, to quote one of my professors, constructing theology means “groping toward the infinite with the tools of finitude.”
Rather than provide a single, unified view of God, I think the Bible’s various narratives and themes instead reflect ongoing traditioning and theological changes and different emphases over a thousand years or more, and such traditioning and changes in interpretation have been ongoing ever since.
I don’t mind that you or anybody else call into question any aspect of faith that you find problematic. But I do object to atheists or Christian fundamentalists alike who try to ascribe universal definitions to what it means to be Christian, or who God is, or Christ, and so forth. Neither camp is capable of defining the terms and forcing everyone else to adhere to them. So, militant atheists and frothing Christians alike, kindly knock it off already.
In peace,
Tom
Tom
I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
I can understand that the religious person can be ‘pluralist’ about accepting part or all of many different philosopohies, or anything else for that matter, just as non-religious people can.
But if you don’t believe in: the ressurection, the immaculate conception, heaven and hell; then there’s scarcely any point in calling yourself a Christian in the first place. Deist seems more appropriate.
If you do believe in any of those things, which you admit are subject to “interpretation” and “traditioning” (sic), then you can at least appreciate that your belief in them is based on faith, not reason.
If so, you are unreasonable (“faith” is not “reason”). If not, then you are not a Christian.
In mutual peace
TM