Insufficient Christianity: 17.1

You should subscribe to the Ziztur.com RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

For those of you just joining us, Flimsy and I have been reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and writing up a thorough critique of it in near-daily blog posts. If you want to find all of the posts we have written on this subject thus far, go to the bottom of this post and click the “C.S. Lewis” label.

I read all of chapter 17 of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and discovered that for the most part I have no real objections to most it, philosophical or ethical, but I do have a few points to make. Lewis lays out the idea of forgiveness in his convoluted and analogy-heavy way, going so far as to say some things about forgiveness that I wish people of all stripes would take to heart, namely:

“The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, `Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything – God and our friends and ourselves included – as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.

I’ve noticed that in many circles where atheists and theists butt heads, there is a tendency to demonize the opposition or to paint them in the worst light possible. Atheists and theists often accuse each other of destroying the fabric of morality or persecution, demonizing their opponent into being a wholly selfish and cruel individual. I don’t particularly think this practice will necessarily lead to the slippery slope Lewis lays out, but I do think that the apparent pleasure some people seem to derive from the ability to demonize their opponent is the moral lowground.

Though I have characterized atheism and theism as being guilty of the same moral crimes, there is a distinct difference. Atheist groups do not have leaders all across the country to stand in front of groups of followers, proclaiming that religion will destroy America and that all theists are immoral. We have a few people who hold this opinion and want nothing more than the total annihilation of religion, but they are at the very end of the bell-curve of atheist beliefs about religion.

On the other hand, preachers and pastors regularly claim that atheism will destroy America and that atheists reject god so that they can be immoral without consequence. I know this because I have personally observed this to occur. Atheists continue to be vilified in the way Lewis describes above, and this is one of the major contentions I have with certain religious people. They have every right to hold the opinions they hold, but I cannot see this hatred as moral.

After this, Lewis goes on to talk about killing, stating that Jesus did not mean “thou shall not kill” but “thou shall not murder”

I’ve had this discussion with theists before about this particular commandment. Focusing just on human beings, killing means, “to take the life of another human being” and murder means “the wrongful or unjust killing of another human being”. Obviously the difference between the two is the wrongfulness of the act. Anytime you accuse someone of murder, you are accusing them of doing something wrong.

In my discussion with theists about whether or not the Christian god murdered people the Bible, theists will often argue that god did not murder people because the killing that occurred in the Bible is always justified by god, since god always does just things. God is therefore exempt from “murder” because god is incapable of being unjust. I find this line of reasoning disturbing.  I do not think it is morally acceptable to teach people that if they have god on their side, they are right and just, no matter what the opposition thinks.

To the theists that read my blog, I have a question for you: If your god spoke directly to you and told you to kill me, would you do it?

“My god would not say that” is not an answer – this is a hypothetical question, and so the point is not whether or not god would say that but what would happen if in a crazy world he did.