Yet Another Odd Complaint Against Religion
There’s a new thingie (I refuse to use the word “meme”) floating around Facebook telling the story of a new pastor who dresses as a homeless man and goes to his new church, with only the church elders in on the secret. As you might expect, he is shunned by his new flock, and the ushers ask him to sit in the back. The elders introduce the new pastor to the church, and they start applauding and looking around for the guy to walk in. Then the “homeless” guy walks to the front, gets up there, and starts reciting Jesus’ words:
34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
OK a pretty neat story, right? I doubt it’s true; here’s Snopes’ take on it. (And incidentally, I don’t doubt that a Christian congregation would be rude to a homeless guy who walked in to their Sunday service. Rather, I doubt that a new pastor would be that bold when he’s trying to assume a leadership position with people who don’t know him.)
Now the funny thing is, I came across this story by a Facebook friend who posted it with the comment: “Religion is s**t. Just be a better person.”
Now let’s think about this for a second. Does anybody doubt that if a homeless person tried to go to any type of social gathering of atheists–except for a soup kitchen’s anniversary party that happened to be run by atheists–that they would be bummed out and wish the guy would leave? For heck sure if it were a group of Randians, they wouldn’t embrace the guy with open arms and share a cigarette with him.
The reason this story is compelling, is that the Christians all pledge allegiance to someone who explicitly taught them to care for the poor, the imprisoned, the sick, etc. So if the story were true (which I doubt that it is), the congregation in question would burn with shame. In contrast, there is nothing analogous for a group of atheists who treated (say) their new CEO poorly, if he dressed up like a homeless guy. All he could do is get up there and say something like, “Hey, I expect you guys to be better citizens if you’re going to work for this company. We only want socially conscious people on this team.” That wouldn’t be nearly as powerful and burning of their consciences.
Now I now full well that people are going to say the difference is hypocrisy. But no it really isn’t, not in this case. If a pastor gets caught with a prostitute, then heck yes THAT is hypocrisy, because Christians say they disagree with the sexual mores of the culture, and they browbeat others for sexual promiscuity etc. Thus, if a Christian gets caught doing the very thing he complains about, then that’s hypocrisy.
But that doesn’t really work in this alleged case of the homeless pastor. It’s not as if Christians go around condemning atheists to hell for not doing enough to help poor people. And, the concern for the homeless isn’t a uniquely Christian hangup, the way “the traditional family” is. Indeed, the person on Facebook agreed that “being a better person” meant helping a homeless guy and not ignoring him.
So I really don’t see why this story should be considered a strike against religion. It’s akin to a guy in AA falling off the wagon at a party, and then being shocked to discover that this sponsor is standing right next to him. Would such an anecdote prove the 12-step program is s**t?
Now what could make sense is if you presented me with evidence that on average, Christians (or “religious people” if you want to make it broader) don’t donate to charities or do volunteer work etc. more than atheists. (I don’t know if they do or they don’t; I’m willing to look at studies if people want to put them in the comments.) Then you could reasonably conclude, “Hey, it looks like this ‘belief’ in Jesus comes with no actual change in behavior.”
In any event, I will say this: When I went to Haiti after their earthquake (and I went with a secular organization FYI), in the airport terminal on the way back, it was chock full of teams sent by their churches in the US.
“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil: 42
….
All he could do is get up there and say something like, “Hey, I expect you guys to be better citizens if you’re going to work for this company. We only want socially conscious people on this team.” That wouldn’t be nearly as powerful and burning of their consciences.
Exactly. The atheist must ultimately use reason and persuasion to convince people that they should behave better.
In contrast, some irrational Christian just has to threaten people with grotesque, eternal torture! And you theists think you have the moral high ground….
How to talk to people… Regardless of the Result.
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained … only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile. Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon … and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine … shall distill upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
Now as for the actual result as any ‘theist’ can tell you the people who do not believe cannot be forced. There is a difference between God explaining what will occur. Now how about this on for size for the true torture. God does not ‘punish’ people. People punish themselves. Imagine reliving all the moments of your life where you did the wrong thing and seeing with perfect clarity the mistake you made with no ability to absolve yourself of the mistakes. That you must endlessly know that you had every opportunity to change from that course. That people stood before you and gave you signs and signals to learn a greater truth. Instead of accepting it you wallowed in your own willfulness, rather than seeking knowledge you cast it aside as fancy. This will most likely be the condemnation spoken of. Nothing truly physical but rather a complete understanding of the knowledge and truth that you so blatantly deemed as nothing.
Put another way have you even gone to a formal event and been ‘under dressed’ for the occasion. Regardless of what others ‘think’ of you it will be your own thoughts and feelings that condemn you for your mistake. This too will be how it is before God. You will stand there deeply aware of your failings, opportunities, and current state. You will know God at that moment and you will feel ashamed.
Now you may feel this is a judgement against you. Goodness, it is simply the way it will be ( according to that which God has said ) and it will be as though it were an unquenchable fire. How is this not attempting to use reason and persuasion.
You see in the Gospel there is cause and effect. Just as in all things. Yet you say that an Atheist can use persuasion alone. Does not the Atheist attempt to explain Natural Law in any less glowing terms than the Religious Zealot? Is there not a law irrevocably decreed in heaven upon which all blessings are predicated?
What the Gospel really shows is that regardless of the failings of the individual, and we have many of them. Christ can and will support us in our attempts to become a better person than the day before. At times we get stuck, we stop our walk on the path toward God, we indulge in our own wishes and carnal nature, but despite this we can achieve a greater understanding of the world and life by following Christs teachings and the good news that there is a greater law in God than the Mosaic law. That all who live on this earth, do so with a purpose, and to all who knock the door shall be opened.
Anyway. God is not Magical. He is rational, the irrational part comes from people who attempt to use God as a justification rather than for what he is. This occurs in religion and outside of religion. I do not think the Nazi’s or the Communists were overly ‘religious’ and look at the wonderful things they accomplished… There will always be people who SAY they are religious who do horrible things. Then there are those that truly are religious that live the most remarkable of lives.
Put another way have you even gone to a formal event and been ‘under dressed’ for the occasion. Regardless of what others ‘think’ of you it will be your own thoughts and feelings that condemn you for your mistake. This too will be how it is before God. You will stand there deeply aware of your failings, opportunities, and current state. You will know God at that moment and you will feel ashamed.
That’s a really good analogy. Did you invent that?
No I had a private tutor when I was twelve and we often times discussed philosophy and religion. I was taught about all the various religions and they all seemed to have this root connection of guilt being the primary cause of suffering. I brought it up to my tutor and he painted it in this fashion that has remained in my mind very vividly. It feels right… So while I would like to take credit for it I cannot.
The Randians would actually get more pissed AFTER he gave his little spiel.
Good one!
This is right.
Your facebook friend overlooks a simple point. Being told to simply be a better person doesn’t work nearly as well as a burning conscious or shame.
It’s interesting how Murphy, and you, have the impression that to do good deeds humans require severe punishment should those deeds not be done.
So doing good deeds isn’t done out of the benevolence or philanthropy of the individual’s heart, but instead to avoid harsh punishment from some authority figure.
It’s rather disheartening to me that you both actually believe that.
Rather than this being something a Christian would take pride in, I think it’s a warped and depraved view of man.
Is a man really being benevolent if he is coerced into helping others? I don’t think that’s benevolence at all. It’s pure parasitism and greed on the part the benefactor, and for the Christian that’s God.
I wasn’t talking about fear of big daddy MF, but of the shame of realizing you don’t meausre up to your professed belief. The irrationality of that belief doesn’t weaken the effect, sometimes it heightens it.
“Now I now full well that people are going to say the difference is hypocrisy.”
It actually is the difference. Bob assumes a reaction from the atheist group – one that very well may be true. The difference between the Christian group and the atheist group is that we know the Christian group is commanded to behave a certain way by their god and when they don’t we call it hypocrisy. It really is hypocritical. The good book commands various behavior by believers and when the believers cherry pick the palatable or comfortable behaviors and ignore the others they are being hypocrites. I sound like I’m being harsh with believers and I’m not – they are human beings too. The difference between the atheist and the believer is that the atheist pays no homage to the vice because they don’t believe they are commanded to the virtue.
I think people would have more credibility if they called out the hypocrites most associated with them. How easy to call out the hypocrites of people that do not share a fundamental identity with you (i.e., atheism, specific Christian religions, other theologies and agnosticism, what have you). More importantly, why aren’t people more charitable in spirit when it comes to other human beings? All day long I see hostilities and can’t help but wonder, who’s perfect? For Christians, Jesus is perfect–a righteous man by all counts, essentially put to death by all of us in a sense, so why must someone who worships Jesus and believes in His glory because he rightly deserves His glory be perfect themselves? What’s wrong with forming a community of worshipers just because we aren’t perfect ourselves? Being a Roman Catholic, I constantly push back against leadership supporting state initiatives but I will not ditch the community for another imperfect community–I have grown accustomed to the mass and am grateful for the freedom to exercise the worship and foster my faith. Just some thoughts. Tricia.
Sorry, I had to stop reading at the first line:
There’s a new thingie (I refuse to use the word “meme”)
So, you agree there’s a useful generalization of several similar concepts out there, that it already has the name “meme”, and that you don’t have an alternate term for it, and yet you still reject it in preference to … “thingie”.
That is *really* stubborn. I suggest you either try to coin a better term for meme, or roll with it.
Bob is tryng to start a new thingy. His new thingy is avoidance of the word meme. He hopes it will catch on and spread, displacing meme. He hopes this way to refute the idea of memes.
Meme
[WWW]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Trololol to both of you.
😀
Aside: Here is a meme research site for Bob Murphy:
Know Your Meme
[WWW]http://knowyourmeme.com/
Damn, I missed the correct “Reply” link.
I actually wouldn’t doubt if this story is true. I’ve seen (and experienced) churches like the one depicted in my lifetime; they’re havens for egotistical, presumptuous Bible Thumpers who wouldn’t truly live by any sort of scripture if their lives depended on it.
Ken Pruitt I don’t understand your comment. I also said I would believe a congregation would act like that. My point was, I doubted that a pastor of such a congregation would risk shattering his welcome by pulling such a stunt on the first day.
Wait, why would a pastor not be welcomed by Christian attendants in his own church?
Sounds like your view of this Christian congregation, and thus the average Christian congregation, isn’t as highly esteemed as I had expected.
Shouldn’t the Christian welcome this person, stunt or otherwise?
MF wrote:
Wait, why would a pastor not be welcomed by Christian attendants in his own church?
Sounds like your view of this Christian congregation, and thus the average Christian congregation, isn’t as highly esteemed as I had expected.
Shouldn’t the Christian welcome this person, stunt or otherwise?
I’ve got another one for you, MF: If you walked up to the average Christian and punched him in the face out of nowhere, I bet he’d get really mad and there’s a good chance he’d swing back at you.
Therefore, Jesus wasn’t God, right?
Well, Jesus did say to “turn the other cheek.”
But anyway, my point wasn’t about grand questions like whether God exists, but rather, what Christian faith says Christians ought to do, and what Christian are expected to do.
If Christians are told to turn the other cheek, but we (and you, from your comments) expect them not to, and if Christians are told to be welcoming (of bums and pastors who pull stunts), but we (and you, from your comments) expect them not to, then what’s the point of Christian morals?
If what Christians ought to do is perpetually different from what they are expected to do, don’t these morals become vain?
Bob is right on this point. I cite as an example Robert P Murphy. I believe he is a sincere Christian, and have observed several times here he is not terribly good at cheek turning. Bob’s failure to fully live up to his ideal says bupkis about his ideal.
“Bob is right on this point. I cite as an example Robert P Murphy.”
Bob is right about Christians because he’s right about himself? Huh, that’s a new one.
“Bob’s failure to fully live up to his ideal says bupkis about his ideal.”
I think if an ideal cannot be lived up to, or is expected not to be lived up to, then it’s the wrong ideal. In which case I am saying something non-bupkus related about that ideal.
I’ve encountered this phenomenon among militant atheists quite a few times, and always thought it was bizarre. Many of them seem to genuinely hate “hypocrisy” more than they have actual acts of aggression. I’ve had more than a few people tell me that they’d rather live next door to a thief who was completely and totally unrepentant of his crimes and who believed it was his right to steal whatever he wanted than next to a christian thief who stole a similar amount, but often told others that stealing was wrong and occasionally even repented of his own stealing and vowed to combat his urges and attempt to stop stealing.
I’m not religious myself, but I am very sympathetic to religion in general and Christianity specifically because it says “we are all fallen and we will all mess up, but we should constantly remind and encourage each other not to.” That’s what the (perhaps non-existent) pastor in this story was attempting to do, remind and encourage his congregation to do better.
What exactly is the atheist equivalent of this? Sure, atheists can learn morality from non-religious sources, but exactly when do they get together on a weekly basis and remind and encourage each other about how it’s very important to be a better person and live their lives in morally upright ways? I attend church every once in awhile, not because I’m a believer, but because every so once in awhile it’s nice to listen to someone speak from a position of authority and tell me that I’m falling short and I need to do better. I haven’t found any non-religious place willing to serve this particular need for me.
Maybe atheists don’t need the constant reminder and exhortation to behave well. Studies seem to indicate that atheists are underrepresented within prison populations. Possibly atheists are more evolved and don’t need the specter of god to scare them or fellow myth-believers to encourage them to behave well?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YLzlIsrU4o