unusualmusic_lj_archive

As you can see, I was wallowing in the goodness that is this blogger tonight.

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/08/a-self-referent.html

A Self-Referential Game of Twister: What Religion Looks Like From the Outside

(Quick explanation: I've been in some frustrating debates with religious believers lately -- one in particular -- and it seems like the point-by-point squabbles have been missing the point. This piece is an attempt to step back from that, and look at the whole disagreement from a larger perspective.)
Here's the thing, Rev. Cawley. I'm not dying to continue the point-counterpoint debate on the points you raised.

Instead, I want to step back for a moment and give you an idea of what your arguments sound like to someone who isn't already a Christian. Not just to someone who's a pretty convinced atheist, but to someone who doesn't know what they think one way or another, who's looking at different religious beliefs and deciding what to think. You seem to be at least somewhat sincere about wanting to understand non-believers, and I want to give you, and other believers, an idea of what religion -- and religious apologetics -- looks like to us.

*****

When it comes to some Bible verses (such as the ones about hell), you say, "These shouldn't be taken literally. You have to see them in context: the context of the times, the context of Jesus's other teachings, etc. It's a mistake to interpret them too literally."

But when it comes to other verses, you say, "Look, how wonderful! The divine word of God! Isn't it inspiring?"

Similarly, when there are factual things that the Bible got right, you say, "Look how accurate it is! It's clearly a trustworthy source!" But when faced with Biblical inaccuracies and inconsistencies, again you say, "It's a mistake to take the Bible too literally."

This is what non-believers call cherry-picking. And it drives us nuts.

Here's why. You obviously can make a case for why your interpretation is the right one, why you're correct about which verses to take literally and which not to. The problem is this: When I -- and other atheists and non-believers and even just non-Christians -- hear these kinds of interpretations and apologetics, you have to understand that we've heard dozens of them before. Possibly hundreds.
From people who are just as convinced as you are that their version is the right one, and who have equally extensive arguments to support their positions.
And all these versions are different.

In some cases, radically and wildly different, and completely in opposition to one another.

Every single Christian sect -- arguably every single Christian -- has their own different idea of how to correctly interpret the Bible; their own idea of which verses are important and which are trivial; their own idea of which verses to take literally as the divine word of God, and which verses are mis-translations or historical mis-interpretations or even flat-out mis-quotations. Some Christians believe that "Drink, for this is my blood" is meant to be taken literally; others believe it's meant as a metaphor. Some believe that the verses about blasphemy being an unforgivable sin are trivial; others take them very seriously. Some believe that the idea of hell as eternal torment is a misunderstanding of Jesus's message; others believe it's one of the most central and vital messages in the book. Etc., etc., etc.

And they all have arguments for why their version is the right one.

Then, of course, you also have Muslims and Hindus and any number of other non-Christian religions and religious sects. They all have their own texts, and their own rationalizations for the errors in their texts, and their own explanations for why their faith -- and their personal version of that faith -- is the right one. Again, all with wildly different versions of those faiths.

And from the outside -- from the point of view of a person who isn't attached to any of these beliefs -- it all looks like one big self-referential game of Twister.

Everyone is contorting themselves into pretzels to rationalize away the factual and moral problems with their sacred texts. And everyone just keeps pointing back to those texts, and to other believers, and to their own hearts, to prove their points. Nobody's pointing at evidence out in the world to show why their understanding of God is the correct one... or if they do, as with the argument from design, they're not doing a very good job of it.

Read rest here:

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/08/a-self-referent.html