It's a horrible thing.
As usual, someone in the media is blaming Christianity; they are using this event to further their own agenda.
The man kept an online journal where he pretty much described exactly what he was going to do and how he was going to do it - if anyone had been reading it might have saved lives. In a very unfortunate way, it serves his point that no one read it. He was angry that women never paid attention to him and after being single since the mid-eighties he decided to end his life in this miserable way.
According to this article from The Examiner (published in my city), Christianity is to blame. This murderer was told by his church that he could go to heaven even if he were a killer. According to that article, this made it easier for him to do what he did. In a secular non-religious society, says the author, these murders would not have been as likely to happen.
There you have it: Christians are to blame for the murders. Make no mistake about it, the journalist literally blames the church. Are churches creating violence?
A local church I work with just spent a week doing jobs in their community for people who could not afford them. The volunteered to paint old houses and replace old doors just to help out. My own church is currently collecting supplies to help Bhutanese refugees who have no place to go. I have spent time downtown working with homeless shelters and most of them are religious in nature.
This is the site of Mission Arlington - a faith-based charity that helps homeless people find jobs and places to live, as well as health care. Churches appropriate large portions of their budget to these types of places. Instead of gratitude, members of the media blame Christians for violence that they were not connected with.Christianity is not teaching violence and it is not responsible for the actions of madmen. As a matter of fact, you will be hard pressed to find a local community organization that does as much charity work as your local church. Even a cursory glance at the Bible will teach an individual that murderous actions like this are wrong and no one (who isn't crazy or looking for excuses) could receive any contrary instruction from it. By teaching love and patience the church attempts to stop such acts - they are not responsible for them.
In any event: three innocent ladies are in body bags. Is this really the time to further you own social agenda?
16 comments:
What an idiot--the writer of the article. I'm not sure where to begin. He's right, it isn't about misinterpreting Scripture... it's not even that complicated. The killer is right, murderers can go to heaven; Christianity may be the only religion of which that's true. Ironically, it isn't Christianity that claims followers get rewarded for killing; that's a different religion entirely.
People murder in the name of science. I suppose in a non-scientific society those murders would not have been as likely to happen.
All sorts of virtues painted in the fantasy or approved by the intellect or even, in some measure, loved and admired, will not keep a man from our Father's house: indeed they may make him more amusing when he gets there,
Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE
The particular Christian assertion of ultimate divine judgment is one I have always found very disturbing on ethical grounds.
Such a claim implies that a there is a "double jeopardy" if you will that allows for temporal punishment ("Man's Law") and an afterlife punishment that will be even "harsher".
The additional tenet that we are, each and all, "born sinners" because of the rather benign crime of two ancestors being beguiled by a talking serpent into disobeying the order of a wrathful and jealous deity would, in effect, make us equally flawed as the Dahmer's and Gacy's and George Sodini's of the world.
Further, that these "sins" which we are purportedly born into can be perceived as "washed away" because of the brutal torture and human sacrifice of someone who committed no crime, in my view, is not a morally sound foundation of justice. One we reject in our secular laws, in any event.
I do understand that some find comfort in such notions, but given a closer examination, the Christian religion can be seen to diminish our own culpability for our own actions, successes and failures.
Atheism is merely the disbelief in any of the purported God(s)ess(es) due to a lack of evidence for them.
It isn't a word that addresses human moral behavior in any way, much like the word "theism" or, for that matter, "science".
That said, Christianity is rife with descriptive examples of a foundational deity behaving in much the same way, and with many of the same motives, as George Sodini...namely, jealousy, objectifying women and wrathful spite.
So, in my view, to assert that Christian scripture on the whole can be shown to condemn the actions of Sodini, when he speaks of how they affected his life and mind specifically, would be to dismiss an important examination of the ramifications of religious dogma.
To show that some folks can, in fact, be motivated to express the basic human emotion and tendency toward reciprocity and caring for others in subset groups via religious tenets or communal peer pressure is fine.
Islamic charities provided this sort of beneficial support for our community of Biloxi in the aftermath of Katrina as did humanists and atheists and Buddhists and even a nice couple of Scientologists I met.
I think that this speaks toward our common humanity as expressed by many of the depictions of Jesus in your tradition if we pick out the parts that weren’t affected by the supernaturalism and xenophobia of Paul and other authors and patriarchal canonical authority.
But to deny the existence of a flawed moral assertion of absolute "sin and salvation" that Sodini expressed in his blog in order to claim some sort of “social agenda” taking place is missing the point badly.
We must examine incidents like this one in stark terms and see where we all can find some understanding or, at least, agree to disagree on civil terms.
I think you've mischaracterized my position. Keep in mind that I also said, "Now whenever stories like this pop up, it’s always important to establish that the guy was crazy from the start, so I’m not saying that religion carries all or even most of the blame here." I also didn't say that in a secular non-religious society, this would not have happened. What I did say was, "Perhaps Sodini still would have found something to justify his actions had he not been religious. We’ll never know for sure. But in a more secular humanist society that actively promoted critical thinking, I think he’d have his work cut out for him." That's very different. Further, I didn't just declare my statements true by mere fiat alone. I showed my work by explaining the reasons that led me to believe religion did contribute, none of which you seemed to think were worth addressing. Instead, you mischaracterized my position and changed the subject to all the good charity work Christians do. So what? It's an irrelevant point that doesn't address the facts of this case. Atheists do charity work too. As do $cientologists. So does Al Qaeda. That doesn't preclude any group from criminal activity. I think you're reading what you want to read in my article as opposed to what I actually said. I recommend rereading it while leaving your bias at the door. I agree with much of what commenter Steve has said as well.
I try not to read anything with a bias; in fact, I didn't know your article was part of an Athiest column until after I wrote this!
Statements like this are very accusatory, "...it seems impossible to ignore the fact that religion was so easily used by the killer to justify his actions. And such a justification would not be a mere twisting of religious dogma (as I’m sure many religious will be claiming tomorrow), but indeed fits with passages in the Bible and the teachings of many Christian evangelicals."
You said that it wasn't all the fault of religion but you also say Christianity allows criminals to more easily justify violence. These accusatory statements are very unfair to a religious group trying to help the world.
I discussed charity because the churches I know are characterized by it.
A very interesting discussion. It's important to note that in the original Examiner article, the author does point out that Christianity teaches that "if someone continues to sin then that’s a sign that they haven’t truly accepted Jesus or they’re not a “true Christian."" This doctrine would, in fact, be my primary argument against the killer's belief that he would go to heaven even though he willfully committed murder. Now, the author of the article believes that this doctrine is insufficient due to the way Christianity considers all sins as equal, making it impossible to decide who should be considered a "sinner" or a "Christian" since all professing Christians struggle with some type of sin, though it is usually not murder.
In response to this, I can only say that Christian conversion should include a total change of heart and mindset, so that while we may still struggle with our former proclivities toward certain sins, it seems impossible that we would willfully and remorselessly pursue those sins. But, this is a difficult issue that is a source of much debate even within the church.
I am thankful that the author of the original article was well rounded in his thought process, even if his conclusions were flawed, so I wanted to respond to that part of his argument.
The following quote from this article grabbed my attention:
"Of course religious leaders weren’t telling Sodini to kill anyone. But again, he justified his actions using a perfectly valid reading of church teachings and not just a misinterpretation. The truth is that many evangelicals DO teach that reaching Heaven has no basis in whether one is a good person or not on Earth but is strictly determined by whether one accepts Jesus into their hearts or declares themselves a follower of Jesus. And that is a very dangerous message."
Especially the last line, "And that is a very dangerous message."
That message is one of the things that sets Christianity apart from every other religion. And, from Satan's perspective, he's right: It is dangerous.
Grace is receiving that which we do not deserve (salvation, life eternal with God Almighty) and not receiving that which we do deserve (death and total condemnation). God's grace shown and offered to us through the death of Jesus Christ is an amazing, beautiful, and wonderful thing.
@Skepticism Examiner and Steve - Your argument is an old one, and you're not saying anything new. There's are millions of things that you could blame this guy's actions on. Religion is not the culprit however. Sure, maybe he picked up on the thought that he could be saved in spite of his sin and that enabled him, in his twisted mindset, to reason a way into how he could get away with murder. But, it's clear he was interested in murder for other reasons. It seems to me like he wanted to lash out at society for not meeting his expectations. That's not religion's fault. You could argue more easily that secular society and the dreams and aspirations that it tells us we can and should all be able to reach because we're awesome human beings is more at fault. You argue that we're reading into your article for what we want, but I think it's the opposite. I think you're reading into this crime for a viewpoint that allows you to lash out at religion and, ultimately, God. That's the proverbial black pot calling the black kettle black, sir.
In response to Kelly: it does sound like this man was lashing out after not receiving what he expected from society. That's a good point.
In my opinion, I believe that if you truely except Jesus as your Lord and Savior because you realized what He did for this world and the people inhabiting it, the shame of taking any person's life would be too great to allow you to do such a thing. I try to keep it simple in always remembering that Jesus gave his life for me before I was even born. Perhaps in times like these when we find ourselves arguing to be right in debates, we must remember that we really don't need to be the one who is right. "Do unto others, as I have done unto you" A good piece of advice even if you believe it is from God or not. Maybe we should all be right towards each other? Quit pointing the finger and ask yourself, am I right with my God? Or to what ever God of your choosing. Let this man's mistakes be a lesson to all of us. What you learn from this is solely based on your character as a human being. - MAM
@Skepticism Examiner - one more thought here. You suggest that Adam mischaracterized your position and that you were not saying, "that religion carries all or even most of the blame here"
Why then did you use the word "implicated" in your title? I think you were asserting blame here from the beginning.
I am assessing the stories, fables and parables of both the Old Testament and the New Testament which I have studied (along with other cultural religious memes and mythology) for many years with an open heart and an open mind.
I’ll be happy to exchange personal anecdotes and counting of the years spent doing so with anyone here as long as we venture away from the continued “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
To be clear, it is correct that many of my assessments of Christianity are not new.
Many critical thinkers throughout history have found that the establishing foundation of "original sin", whereby all human beings (regardless of moral intent or "works") are cast, from birth, into the equally flawed condition of "sin" based upon the actions of the two original human ancestors (one magically crafted from clay and the other from bone) disobeying a creator deity beyond space and time by eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Conscience (Hebrew)/Good and Evil to be not only unbelievable, but actually diminishing of our own culpability for our own actions in this one wondrous life.
That the seeking of knowledge and awareness is purportedly at the core of human error according to this ideology and mythos should not be lost on anyone.
That some can still maintain the position that a brutal and tortuous human sacrifice of one innocent of any crimes as the necessary application of the cure of "salvation" for this originally purportedly flawed sinful condition from human birth speaks in contrast to any known sense of justice I know.
The reasons for this continued perception are many and varied and unique to each individual still espousing it as necessary or, astoundingly (to me) an ethically correct virtue and planned action.
In short, in my view, the condition of “sin” is implausible as defined in the texts canonized by the Roman government by a patriarchal council of Nicea and the claimed act of murdering an innocent human being due to that originally assumed condition is part and parcel of the philosophical problem hounding Christianity to this day regardless of any emotive special pleading to just believe in it.
George Sodini appears to be a narcissistic and completely disconnected personality with many social and psychological ailments who objectified and dehumanized women as things to be acquired and found the popularly endorsed Christian methodology to embolden himself to get past what he ultimately forgot…
That he is responsible for his own actions and no one can save him from himself.
@Steve - Are you suggesting that we have an inherent moral law to which we are accountable? If there is no God, who is the creator of this inherent moral law? Where did it come from? Who is this man, this killer, responsible and accountible to? Himself? The failure then would be in his suicide, but not so much in the murders. And, more significantly, that accountability would now be ended, being that he is dead.
I do believe though that we are responsible for our actions, our deeds, our choices, our lives. The scripture and the gospel it proclaims do not negate this accountability. In fact, the bible says that the whole world WILL be judged. (Acts 17:31)
But as to any agreement with your final assertion, I stop there. You state that no one could save this man from himself, but, as a Christian, I believe differently. I hold to the words in Romans 8:1-4 where it is written that there is NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. In other words, we are guilty and yet our punishment, our condemnation, has been put onto another: Jesus. We have been wiped completely clean of guilt through his atonement. (There's a beautiful word to describe this which you might look up if my words seem to fall short: propitiation) So, you say no one can save this killer from himself, but, frankly, Jesus can. And Jesus can save you from yourself, too.
I'm an idiot.
http://reneamac.blogspot.com/2009/08/im-idiot.html
Post a Comment