Tonight I saw a dangerous side of religion...

[Amicale]

I saw old family friends I've known my entire life. The woman is sweet, funny, kind, caring, etc. Her husband can also be friendly and funny, but he tends to make some very absurd, hardcore claims that his wife never would. Both are evangelical Christians. The best way I can describe their faith is to say she extends herself lovingly to anyone, whoever they are, whereas he's quite happy to bash someone over the head with his beliefs. Case in point: he was watching the Republican coverage on TV, and who was leading in which state. He commented on how surprised he was that a certain candidate had gotten as far as he did, but then he added 'Not that it really matters, whoever wins is the person God wants in office'.

I asked him about that. I said 'Really? So no matter who wins and becomes President, God wants them there?'
He replied 'Yes, absolutely!'
I asked 'How about in other countries, past or present?'
He said 'Yes. That's what the Bible says. No matter who becomes leader of a nation, God wants them there!'
I replied with 'Even people like Hitler and Stalin??'
and he said 'For sure! God wanted them there if they were there! He used them to further His plan for the upcoming return of Christ! If you don't believe that, you don't believe the Bible! It says it right there, all leaders are there because God wants them there!'

.... and all I could say was 'well, it's unfortunate you think so.' and I changed the subject. I'll love his wife like an aunt for the rest of my life, but he seriously lost a lot of my respect tonight. This is a very dangerous side of religion. When people are willing to sit back, passively accept horrific actions, and attribute them to a 'loving God', that creates people who'll NEVER speak out against the mass slaughter of innocent humans at the hands of their leaders.

Sure enough, the Bible of course backs up his general sentiments:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ..."

Romans 13:1-7 ESV

Sigh.

[Brieze]

God just hates us. It's cool.

I agree though, religion- or most anything for that matter, taken to such an extreme is flat out scary. It's almost like they lose touch with reality.

[xSilverPhinx]

Though what he said is disgusting, he is being consistent with fundie theism and the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent god

The part about saying that loving god would cause the suffering of millions of people, possibly billions througout history, is disturbing.  

I find it difficult to see how christians can reconcile this sort of stuff.

I personally find the lack of general thinking that goes on within religion to be more dangerous than the passive acceptance of atrocities, from far away at least, because it's just too easy to passively accept something that doesn't directly affect you in any way and is not on your doorstep. Something that you don't have to keep seeing all the time.

Even for non-religious people.

Fix the passive sheep/herd behaviour and ideas such as that will be less likely, IMO.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ..."

As for that...heh...goes without saying. Naive believers in the bible...

[Genericguy]

No wonder Constantine leagalized Christianity and sanctioned it as the official religion of the roman empire!

[Asmodean]

Bienvenido a la vida!

Religion has, throughout history, been a good shield for ones motives, no matter what they are... And it continues to shelter and justify pretty much anything even now.

[history_geek]

Religion has, throughout history, been a good shield for ones motives, no matter what they are... And it continues to shelter and justify pretty much anything even now.

This.

Also, someone owes me a new pseudo-science, apologist and fundie proof irony meter, because it apparently isn't enough to account for historical ignorance...

And yes, I'm reffering to the fact that this conversation took place in a country that came to being by revolting against a "god appointed" ruler!

and Constantine was a clever SOB, as was apparently his mother who found all those wonderful "relics"....

And actually, Constantine wasn't the Emperor who made Xtianity the official religion of the Empire, but Theodosius I. Constantine was just the first emperor to convert to this new cult and use it as a political tool....

[Traveler]

...And yes, I'm reffering to the fact that this conversation took place in a country that came to being by revolting against a "god appointed" ruler! ...

Yeah, but, that just means that the new ruler was god's NEW choice over god's OLD choice. Oh, my head hurts!!!

[Ali]

He said 'Yes. That's what the Bible says. No matter who becomes leader of a nation, God wants them there!'
I replied with 'Even people like Hitler and Stalin??'
and he said 'For sure! God wanted them there if they were there! He used them to further His plan for the upcoming return of Christ!

Yet again showing that people worship a god that makes plans that involve the wholesale slaughter of innocent people.  Hey, what are the lives of all of these people (per Wikipedia) if it means that somehow the return of Christ can be paved by their dead bodies.

Jews      5.9 million    
Soviet POWs    2–3 million    
Ethnic Poles    1.8–2 million    
Romani    220,000–1,500,000    
Disabled    200,000–250,000    
Freemasons    80,000    
Slovenes    20,000–25,000
Homosexuals    5,000–15,000    
Jehovah's Witnesses    2,500–5,000    

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

[xSilverPhinx]

Religion and politics have always gone hand in hand like damn siblings

I think it's safe to say that it's the best social control mechanism that evolved out of human psychology.

[Sandra Craft]

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ..."

Romans 13:1-7 ESV

Sigh.

And yet Obama still gets crap from the fundies.  Remember when we had that Sec of the Interior who wanted to bulldoze all the trees as a "welcome back" present for the returning Jesus?  And some people wonder why the idea of a theocracy scares me.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Romans 13:1-7 ESV

When the apostle Paul wrote this passage, Nero was the emperor of Rome, but had not yet persecuted any Christians, or at least not on any significant scale.  The early Christians were not political and had no interest in dominionism or overthrowing governments.  They just wanted to be allowed to live their lives and proclaim their message in peace.  The Roman government generally gave them a stable environment in which to operate.  So, this passage needs to be read in the historical context in which it was written. 

Fundamentalism takes a passage and applies it dogmatically to every situation without understanding the historical context.  Lutheran pastors such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer opposed Hitler during Nazism, and did not interpret this passage as preventing them from doing so.  The general rule is that a Christian ought to be a good citizen and support the civil government in the country in which he/she lives.  But if that government turns evil, there is no requirement that the Christian blindly follow along. 

It's like the "turn the other cheek" passage.  That's meant to avoid escalation of hostilities, so that you don't get in the practice of retaliating every time someone does something nasty.  But it doesn't mean you have to let people run over you or that you can't resist a bully.  There are rational, common-sense limits to every general rule. 

[Amicale]

Romans 13:1-7 ESV

When the apostle Paul wrote this passage, Nero was the emperor of Rome, but had not yet persecuted any Christians, or at least not on any significant scale.  The early Christians were not political and had no interest in dominionism or overthrowing governments.  They just wanted to be allowed to live their lives and proclaim their message in peace.  The Roman government generally gave them a stable environment in which to operate.  So, this passage needs to be read in the historical context in which it was written. 

I'd agree that more liberal Biblical scholars would agree that passages need to be read in their historic, sociological contexts... and they'd probably also agree that edicts given to first Century Christians weren't necessarily intended to cover all future situations in the centuries to come. That being said, most conservative fundamentalist Christians tend to believe that even though passages like these were written in a historical context, they're just as binding today as they ever were -- the whole 'God's the same yesterday, today and tomorrow' mentality. Paul's words may have worked to some extent in the first century, although I'm not sure how 'stable' the environment was, as early Christians were killed at the hands of authorities even when Paul was writing. Point is, a lot of fundy evangelicals in particular believe that Christians have to take passages like this, and apply them universally even now -- and that's when the trouble starts.

Fundamentalism takes a passage and applies it dogmatically to every situation without understanding the historical context.  Lutheran pastors such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer opposed Hitler during Nazism, and did not interpret this passage as preventing them from doing so.  The general rule is that a Christian ought to be a good citizen and support the civil government in the country in which he/she lives.  But if that government turns evil, there is no requirement that the Christian blindly follow along. 

The idea that if the government turns evil, there's no requirement that Christians follow blindly along is actually rooted in Orthodox and Catholic tradition. It doesn't seem to be expressed clearly in the Bible itself. So, Christians who reject this tradition of interpreting texts historically, in their context, very often take the position that no matter who a leader is, they're still subjects of that leader whether the leader's actions would be considered evil or not. Again, that's a dangerous, slipperly slope.

It's like the "turn the other cheek" passage.  That's meant to avoid escalation of hostilities, so that you don't get in the practice of retaliating every time someone does something nasty.  But it doesn't mean you have to let people run over you or that you can't resist a bully.  There are rational, common-sense limits to every general rule. 

Sure, there are definitely rational, common-sense limits to every general rule. The NT even features these, with Jesus instructing his followers in Luke 22:35-38 to buy swords to defend themselves as needed, although John 18:11 has Jesus telling Peter to put his sword away rather than defend Jesus, as that wasn't the time and place for it, and Matthew 26:52 has Jesus telling them to put their swords away, since those who live by the sword die by it. So it seems even Jesus thought there were instances where self-defense were needed, but those would be few and far between. The problem then, isn't that the whole of the NT is a pacifist document... it's that a lot of (not all) evangelicals take little snippets, like the one in Romans I originally quoted, and they extrapolate the whole thing to present day modern society, while choosing to ignore other verses that may give them a more complete picture. It's the lack of critical thinking that can become dangerous. Affixing yourself (univeral you) to one particular verse and assuming that it's meant for each and every situation, no matter what, creates a herd mentality where people will not be willing to rise up against their oppressors.

I've heard this same family friend even say things like, 'if Jesus didn't stop the Roman government from killing him, why should we speak out against the government when they kill us?' -- again, very dangerous mentality.

Just so you know, Ecurb, I'm not really arguing/disagreeing with you, just commenting.

And yes, now everyone here knows I'm pretty darn familiar with the New Testament, lol.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The idea that if the government turns evil, there's no requirement that Christians follow blindly along is actually rooted in Orthodox and Catholic tradition. It doesn't seem to be expressed clearly in the Bible itself. So, Christians who reject this tradition of interpreting texts historically, in their context, very often take the position that no matter who a leader is, they're still subjects of that leader whether the leader's actions would be considered evil or not.

John the Baptist spoke out against Herod Antipas when he committed adultery by marrying his brother Philip's wife, so there is a biblical instance of speaking out against government excesses.  But Christian traditions such as the ones you mention add important principles. The point is that each generation of Christians has to determine how the teachings of Jesus apply to current circumstances, and this involves analysis and thought.  There are some basic principles laid down in the NT, but how those are applied in any given setting requires some work.

Just so you know, Ecurb, I'm not really arguing/disagreeing with you, just commenting.

Sure, I know.  Just assume that there is a smiley face by each one of my posts.

[Sweetdeath]

He said 'Yes. That's what the Bible says. No matter who becomes leader of a nation, God wants them there!'
I replied with 'Even people like Hitler and Stalin??'
and he said 'For sure! God wanted them there if they were there! He used them to further His plan for the upcoming return of Christ!

Yet again showing that people worship a god that makes plans that involve the wholesale slaughter of innocent people.  Hey, what are the lives of all of these people (per Wikipedia) if it means that somehow the return of Christ can be paved by their dead bodies.

Jews      5.9 million    
Soviet POWs    2–3 million    
Ethnic Poles    1.8–2 million    
Romani    220,000–1,500,000    
Disabled    200,000–250,000    
Freemasons    80,000    
Slovenes    20,000–25,000
Homosexuals    5,000–15,000    
Jehovah's Witnesses    2,500–5,000    

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

Yeah, totally cool. god will bring em all back for beer and pigs in a blanket.

[MadBomr101]

Yet again showing that people worship a god that makes plans that involve the wholesale slaughter of innocent people.  Hey, what are the lives of all of these people (per Wikipedia) if it means that somehow the return of Christ can be paved by their dead bodies.

Jews      5.9 million    
Soviet POWs    2–3 million    
Ethnic Poles    1.8–2 million    
Romani    220,000–1,500,000    
Disabled    200,000–250,000    
Freemasons    80,000    
Slovenes    20,000–25,000
Homosexuals    5,000–15,000    
Jehovah's Witnesses    2,500–5,000    

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

Why exactly does Jebus require this runway of slaughter on which to land his holy helicopter?  It's all sooo, what's the word...psychotic.