Religion
Related: About this forumJohn Scalzi: On Leviticans
http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/002675.htmlLeviticans
On occasion people ask me what, exactly, it is I have against Christianity, inasmuch as I seem to rail against it quite a bit. My general response is: I have nothing against Christianity. I wish more Christians practiced it. The famous bumper sticker says "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven," but I often wonder just how often they check in with Christ about that last one. I look at the picture I included with the last entry, the one with the kid protesting the gay marriages in San Francisco, wearing the shirt that has "homo" written on it with a circle and slash through the word, and I try to find some of Christ's teachings in that. As you might imagine, I'm finding very little.
If that kid were hit by a bus and got to meet Christ shortly thereafter, I do imagine the conversation would be a sorrowful one, as the homo-negating young man would have to try to reconcile his shirt with the admonition to love others as one loves one's self. I would imagine at the end of that conversation, the young man would be looking to see if Christ were holding a lever, and if there were a trap door under the young man's feet.
In the comment thread of the last entry, one of the posters wondered why many fundamentalists spend so much time in Leviticus and so little time in the New Testament, and I think that's a remarkably cogent question. Indeed, it is so cogent that I would like to make the suggestion that there is an entire class of self-identified "Christians" who are not Christian at all, in the sense that they don't follow the actual teachings of Christ in any meaningful way. Rather these people nod toward Christ in a cursory fashion on their way to spend time in the bloodier books of the Bible (which tend to be found in the Old Testament), using the text selectively as a support for their own hates and prejudices, using the Bible as a cudgel rather than a door. That being the case, I suggest we stop calling these people Christians and start calling them something that befits their faith, inclinations and enthusiasms.
I say we call them Leviticans, after Leviticus, the third book of the Old Testament, famous for its rules, and also the home of the passages most likely to be thrown out by Leviticans to justify their intolerance (including, in recent days, against gays and lesbians -- Leviticus Chapter 18, Verse 22: "Thou shalt not not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination" .
<snip>
Read the rest of the piece at the link
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Not familiar with him, but this piece is well written and he makes a good case.
I like the term "leviticans".
Thanks for bringing this here.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)― W. Somerset Maugham
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)~My~ soul is God-approved, 99 44/100 percent pure. Even Mr Whipple couldn't resist squeezing this one.
Look what they've done to my soul, ma..
rug
(82,333 posts)Thanks for the earworm. Here's a surprisingly good remake.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Miley covers Dylan.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10341544
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)"Christian fundamentalist" is an oxymoron, along the lines of "born again".
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Christians have been screaming at each other since the first schism over who's the "real" Christian. This article seems to just be more of the same. If it were so simple to determine what the bible says, and what the teachings of Jesus are, why is there such disagreement, and why has it lasted 2000 years? Doesn't god want to see its children get along?
Are the "Leviticans" evil? Stupid? Are they secretly atheists? Hey, guess what - they're asking the same questions about liberal Christians. And with both sides so rigidly sure they they are right, and the "others" are wrong, and both sides absolutely certain that logic and reason are invalid to try and resolve this impasse, gee, what a surprise that nothing changes.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)The Bible has zilch to say about abortion (except for a passage that can be read as prescribing a religiously sanctioned abortion as proof that a woman has been unfaithful), but the fundies crusade against it anyway. This is about appointing themselves the grand inquisitors of sex. The Bible comes into it because it dates from a time when the patriarchy they support was deep and pervasive. So if they can succeed in freezing interpretation of the Bible in more patriarchal times, they can use it as a weapon of convenience.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)There are passages they can interpret. The whole "In the womb I knew ye" or whatever.
I really don't think it does much good to just say other Christians that they aren't interpreting the bible correctly. Has that ever worked? Isn't that exactly what the fundies say about liberal Christians, too?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Liberals turned out to be right then, to the point that if you ask conservatives about it today, they'll deny that the Bible could ever truly support slavery.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Popular opinion turned against slavery. This doesn't say anything to whether an anti-slavery interpretation of scripture is accurate.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)They rarely follow all those rules about burnt offerings, or about how to farm. They mostly don't pay much attention to the ruling that if you commit adultery with someone else's wife you should be put to death quite as much as if you do so with a man, while if you have sex with a woman on her period, both of you should be 'cut off from your people'.
They certainly rarely follow the following advice:
When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)interpretations of Leviticus to fit their purposes.
I love the "Dear Doctor Laura" letter on this.