I Want My Religion Back – You Can Keep the Ugly Baggage

[cbayer]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thegodarticle/2014/07/i-want-my-religion-back-you-can-keep-the-ugly-baggage/

uly 27, 2014 by Mark Sandlin


Copyright: quintanilla / 123RF Stock Photo
I don’t like telling people I’m a Christian.

It’s not that I’m ashamed of being a Christian; I’m not – at all. It is just that the word “Christian” comes with so much ugly baggage.

Telling someone I’m a Christian means I must immediately follow it up with, “but not that kind of Christian.” It’s like saying, “Yeah, sure, these are some mind bogglingly ugly suitcases, but I’ve got the coolest stuff on the inside of them. No, really, I do.”

It’s just not worth the effort; and, frankly, I’m tired of lugging these ugly, heavy things around.

more at link

[longship]

1. But the author is still carrying a lot of the baggage.

Truthfully, I don’t blame people who assume that if you’re Christian you’re anti-LGBT, anti-abortion, anti-real equality, anti-other religions and pretty much anti-anything else that one small but loud subset of Christians find offensive or threatening.
It completely makes sense. It’s why I don’t want to use the word to describe my own beliefs.
I get it.
Who can blame people for thinking Christians are all anti-everything kind of people when members of the U.S. congress like Michele Bachmann present themselves as speaking for all Christians –and via radio waves – accuses gay people of not only threatening the sanctity of “traditional marriage” but claim they are pedophiles who want to “freely prey on little children sexually.”
I get it. I really do.
I don’t want to be that kind of Christian. So, if that’s the only option, I’m opting out. And, I’m not alone. A whole slue of Christians is opting out as well.

She gets it? Really? There are a whole lotta people in the country who do not get it. You can take that any way you want.

But what makes sense to the author makes no sense to many.

[Brettongarcia]

2. But the author, Mark, doesn't really get it: he implies there is still a good Christianity

It's not clear in this excerpt above. But finally the author thinks that he can get rid of the baggage of bad religion. And publicize a good, liberal Christianity. One that jettisons the bad old churches. To really follow Christ, as he says in his final line.

The author is a typical liberal Christian. He is one who really thinks that he can come up with a "real," good Christianity. Just by say, leaving the churches: "As a 2012 Pew Research study indicates that while the number of people who identify as Protestant or Catholic is decreasing, the number of those who consider themselves religious, but identify with no formal religious group is on the rise."

This development he thinks, will solve the problem: just leaving the old bad churches behind. But the problem is that ... he and other liberals will still be following a corrupted Bible, no doubt. Or a religion that still has really, really basic, fundamental falsehoods in it. Like say the promises of physical material miracles; even "all" and "whatever" we "ask" for (John 14.13 ff.).

The notion that you can jettison earlier religious errors, Fundamentalists, and yet still hang on to say biblical principles, to be cleansed of religious sins, is wrong. There is just too much bad stuff. Even in the original core material.

[cbayer]

5. I'm not sure what you are saying here.

My read on this is that he is saying that he feel unable to change the perception that others have or the generalizations that they make, so he see her only choice as opting out completely because he does not want to be identified with them.

[Brettongarcia]

9. I'm reading this more: there will be bad Christians. But ignore them, and follow Jesus (last line).

"Jesus wasn’t a fan of ugly baggage. He confronted the Pharisees every time they tried to unload it onto him or others.

If we want our religion back, we are going to have to do the same.

If we want a Christianity that doesn’t come so unnecessarily cluttered with all of this ugly baggage, we are going to have to start standing up more consistently and begin challenging these power plays wrapped in religion.

Collectively we need to more closely follow the lead of Jesus and lovingly confronting those who want to turn the Prince of Peace into a tool for dividing and marginalizing. Every time anyone tries to exclude a group of people they dislike in the name of the Great Shepherd, we must pronounce the radical inclusion of a loving God.

And when they accuse us of being un-Christian (and they will), we must stand strong and tell them, “You no longer get to own that word. You have used it and abused it and crucified it on crosses of hate, greed, power and control. We are taking our religion back – way back.

All the way back to the teachings of Jesus.”

[intaglio]

3. I have posted the following on his blog

I must observe "welcome to how the world regards atheisism" or "welcome to how the world regards Muslims"

In respect of atheism that attitude has largely vanished in the UK but even as late as 1992 there was still a significant proportion of people over here who regarded atheists (and agnostics) as somehow untrustworthy. The ethical shortcomings of the people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Harris hasn't helped the situation because of the dubious statements they have made on various subjects. However the advantage that atheists have is that we are not dependent upon divine revelation for the source of our ethics. Instead of such unreason we use upon reason and empathy, this leaves us free to condemn words that display bigotry or other hateful attitudes from those who otherwise speak clearly about atheism.

The contrast is that faiths are wholly dependent upon revelation for their source and criticising one part of that revelation opens all other parts to condemnation or, perhaps worse, reinterpretation. For example it is difficult for a moderate Christian to criticise Jesus for accepting Old Testament Law without rendering the humanist statements He made equally open to reinterpretation by Christians with other outlooks.

The selection of texts opens the person so selecting open to the charge of cafeteria Christianity from the more Biblically literalist community. Indeed often the more moderate Christians will try to explain their selectiveness by saying something on the lines of "Jesus was just a man," but in that case how does such faith differ from Deism or Universal Unitarians?

[cbayer]

6. Well done. I think the comparisons are apt to some extent, but you take it too far.

I object to the part about divine revelations and ethics. I think all individuals get to their ethics on their individual roads. Some incorporate religious tenets or beliefs, others don't. But as well all know, the religious tenets can be wide open to interpretation.

While some individuals just want to me spoon fed their morals, I think this can be said of both believers and non-believers. Believers just tend to use some holy texts to back themselves up.

You seem to just paint religious believers as sheep who do not think or ask questions. In doing so, you really just lend credence to what this author is saying in the first place.

[intaglio]

10. The problem I face is that divine revelation, however received

... often trumps reasoned ethics. The devout Muslim cannot eat or even touch pork even if they are starving. Circumcision is de rigeur in both Islam and Judaism despite the problems with such mutilation. In Catholicism the tradition of Apostolic Succession makes the words of the Pope (spoken ex cathedra ) unable to be challenged. For Mormons tea and coffee are forbidden - even if they might be beneficial.

As you have observed elsewhere (and thanks for the complement)

Religion by its very essence provides the perfect excuse to do pretty much anything you want. As long as you can claim that you are religiously obligated to do so and that your instructions are coming from something greater than you, you can probably rationalize just about anything.

[cbayer]

15. You are talking about extreme positions.

I know lots of muslims who follow some of the rules, but not all of them. I know lots of Jews who follow some of the rules, but not all of them. I know lots of christians who follow some of the rules but not all of them. In fact, I don't know a single religious person that follows all of the rules. Do you?

If you take the position that everyone is a literalist and interprets all religion teaching as divine revelation, then you are again reinforcing the point of this article.

Each religious person has their own personal religion. They may base it tightly or loosely on a big and defined dogma, but when it comes right down to it, they have developed their own ethic and their own morals.

Just like a non-believer.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Christianity is *built* on a foundation of scapegoating.

So, can't really check the baggage at the door. It's the core proposition of the faith.

[cbayer]

7. You say that like it is a bad thing.

Scapegoating is a religious construct that predated christianity and can be found in many ancient cultures. It served a ritual purpose.

I know it has a pejorative definition, often being used to accuse people of not taking responsibility for themselves. But that is a very simplistic interpretation and ignores the underlying complexity of the whole narrative.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. It is a bad thing.

Complexity of the narrative adds nothing to your position.

Belief in heaven/hell/redemption/forgiveness by 'god' has very interesting social implications. Most of them negative.
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2012/06/22/study-finds-people-who-believe-in-heaven-commit-more-crimes/

[cbayer]

12. If you are going to post the link to a very bad newspaper piece

about a study, you might want to take the time to look at the actual study.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0039048

This study looks at national data on religiosity and national crime rates. It found that countries where there is a strong belief in hell had lower crime rates and those where there is a strong belief in heaven had higher crime rates.

While that is an interesting piece of information, you really can't take it very far.

You conclusion that belief has very interesting social implications, most of which are negative, is not supported in any way by this article or this study. In fact, the study discusses both the pro-social and anti-social aspects of religious belief.

Science, it's good for what ails you and much better than just making shit up.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Did you catch the overpayment issue?

I read it, did you?

This is one indicator among many. Another interesting one is the higher rate of crime among people who are 'spiritual but not religious'. That one is fascinating to me.

[cbayer]

17. Again, these sociological studies of religion might be fun to read and discuss, but

they hardly ever provide meaningful data. First and foremost, they are hardly ever replicated and even ofter contradicted by the next study.

My advice would be not to ever use them to make an important point. There are too many variables and the definitions are never tight enough or consistent across studies.

Using them as data points may make one look foolish in the end.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Hence my use of 'implications' and 'indicators' not 'proof'.

[cbayer]

19. I'm not one to parse words, just studies.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Really?

Would you like some reminders?

[cbayer]

23. Reminders of what? Me parsing words? No thanks, I don't really like these games.

Got over them as a child. I'll just say, "you win" and let it go at that.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Wise choice.

[cbayer]

26. You bet. Would hate to be humiliated by you in front of all these people.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. I hear laughter is a good defense mechanism.

[cbayer]

37. Oh, my friend, it is one of the best defense mechanisms.

Defense mechanisms are critical for well being.

Show me someone without them, and I will show you an infant.

[Brettongarcia]

20. Witch hunts are a common form of scapegoating.Here's one academic reference at random.Among hundreds

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&sid=f79660f2-0d90-4da2-a174-bf39d0c64579%40sessionmgr115&hid=125&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=83256168

Here's another one, among hundreds of others: http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=12&sid=559eac3a-f7ca-4be8-9520-3dba5033efda%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=9410117672

Like history? Here's one that apparently refers to killing of Gauls by Romans, as a form of scapegoating Varhelyi Z. The Specters of Roman Imperialism: The Live Burials of Gauls and Greeks at Rome. Classical Antiquity [serial online]. October 2007;26(2):276-304. Available from: Humanities Full Text (H.W. Wilson), Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 29, 2014.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I'm trying to think of a 'nice' example of scapegoating, but the word/usage doesn't really allow for

that.

[cbayer]

25. It's not meant to be nice. It's an old ritual that is used to perform a service

for a community.

You are clearly using it in a way that is not nice, but also in a way that doesn't recognize that it may be useful at times.

[Brettongarcia]

28. The standard dictionary definition of scapegoating gives witch hunts as an example.

So Ms CBayer: are you including the "usefulness" of burning witches, as an example of the wonderfulness of scapegoating?

Or are you demanding authoritatively, with the full authority of your medical expertise, that we simply ignore/deny/blackout/censor/ deny/suppress these rather negative examples?

Psychological denial is a big, big problem in Religion. Perhaps the main problem in fact.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I didn't ascribe nice/meanness to it. It IS scapegoating.

With a double meaning, in this specific case, because jesus allegedly escapes death.

bingle for 'Jesus scapegoat' and enjoy the hundreds of thousands of links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat#The_Bible

[cbayer]

30. Yes, I agree that christianity is based on an episode that could be called scapegoating.

Other than that being relatively factual, I'm not sure what the point is?

I just don't see how it accomplishes anything when used as a weapon of some sort, unless one only wants to fall back on the rather secular and pejorative definition.

When and where did you first discover this?

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Scapegoating is repugnant.

If you asked most christians if they would torture one innocent person to death to make humanity better, they would refuse.
Yet they ignore the negative connotations when they embrace their god's alleged sacrifice.

For the most part, I raise the issue, because most christians I encounter are utterly blind to the implication, and do not understand why I consider their religion an outrageously vile moral proposition.

[cbayer]

34. You are again using a very narrow and colloquial definition of the word.

As long as you keep doing that, the only thing you show is why you are using it as some sort of negative attribute of christianity.

Most of the christians you encounter probably find your view of their religion as an outrageously vile moral proposition repugnant. In fact, they might even see your religious repulsion as a form of scapegoating.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Now you're just rearranging words. I can see you are done with this conversation.

Begone.

[cbayer]

38. I am scatting as we speak.

[Brettongarcia]

27. This reminds me of the time CBayer celebrated the "wonderful diversity"of African religious genocide

Inadvertently?

Religion is so wonderful. We just don't understand it.

[cbayer]

31. You are now accusing me of celebrating african religious genocide?

There seems to be quite a bit that y'all don't understand.

[Brettongarcia]

39. In one OP you "celebrated the diversity" of religion, including African religion

Then I noted that however, African religions were often guilty of Genocide. Most recently, in Rwanda.

I believe that you should not be celebrating religions, in a blanket way; not at all. Because that kind of endorsement ends up endorsing many evils.

[cbayer]

40. I have no idea what you are talking about, but equating celebrating diversity with endorsing

genocide is quite a stretch.

I would ask that you lay off making these kinds of accusations.

[trotsky]

43. But equating concern over the Catholic takeover of secular hospitals...

with endorsing/promoting genocide, that's OK, right?

[okasha]

44. That's okay.

BG doesn't know what he's talking about, either.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. But, there's beauty in there too. Somewhere. Maybe somewhere between the skulls.

Maybe in a ditch full of corpses. Maybe a nice poem or something in a murdered refugee's pocket.

You have to look for the beauty, and ignore the horrors, you see. Otherwise you're not being fair to 'religion'.

[Brettongarcia]

11. But it's accurate enough: it's used to kill innocents, by blaming things on them. But that's OK?

Since it "is a religious construct." And "served a ritual purpose."

No doubt, ripping the hearts out of innocent people, was religious, and served a ritual purpose too. But the point is that it also served some very, very evil ideas too. (By the way, scholars are now once again allowing that this likely happened, in ancient cultures like those in Central and South America).

But again, religious believers to this day, have no problem excusing countless murders. As you have here.

[cbayer]

13. You are accusing me of excusing countless murders?

Really?

[Brettongarcia]

16. Scapegoating often means blaming innocents for problems ... then killing them.

Your response:

"You say that like it is a bad thing. Scapegoating is a religious construct that predated christianity and can be found in many ancient cultures. It served a ritual purpose.

I know it has a pejorative definition, often being used to accuse people of not taking responsibility for themselves. But that is a very simplistic interpretation and ignores the underlying complexity of the whole narrative. "

In many ancient religions, when something bad happened in a tribe, even bad weather, the members of the tribe often went to look for the individual they thought "caused" it. Then often, they would kill him. This was an extremely common type of scapegoating.

[phil89]

36. How is there a "good version"

Of believing that someone being tortured and crucified has absolved a person of all "sin" in their lives? The whole premise of the religion is offensive really.

[Brettongarcia]

41. Even if good, there were bad cases;Christians also scapegoated women as "witches," killing them

While indeed, many theologians agree there is something incoherent about the notion of "Substitutionary Atonement," and related theories of how the crucifixion (and scapegoating) of Jesus "saved" us.