It amazes me how sometimes, when I criticize something in religion, the defence that theists supply are just as bad or worse than my original criticism. For instance, I have often said that the sermon on the mount promotes the idea of thought crime. Thinking hateful things is the same as murder and thinking sexy things is the same as adultery. If anything could show Christian dogma to be one of totalitarian fascism rather than of love, its the idea that you can be guilty just by thinking something.

When I point this out, I often get told that the message that I OUGHT to be getting from that passage is that, in the eyes of god, a sin is a sin. Sins are all equal under god’s divine judgment.
The first time I heard this, I did a double take. Even someone who’s had their intelligence ebbed by the retarding forces of religion should be able to see the horrible consequences of that little gem. Alas, once again, my optimism and charity were quickly deflated. That person was serious. So were the great number of believers who have told me the same thing since.
So, for them, and any who happen to think along the same lines, I would like to explain why it is so horrible. By saying a sin is a sin is a sin, and they are all morally equivalent in the eyes of god, the theist is equating the suffering a shop owner feels when someone steals a piece of gum from his store to the suffering felt by a rape victim. Indeed, if two people each steal a piece of gum, the shop owner has suffered from twice as many sins against him than the rape victim, so the shopkeeper has, by Christian math, been wronged more.

While I could go on at length why this is horrendous in the worst kind of way, I think if you can’t figure it for yourself, you are beyond any help that my postings can ever hope to give. But, to my amazement, the believers aren’t stumped by this. They say ‘oh, of course, to us humans one is much worse than the other, but I’m talking about in GOD’S eyes, not ours’.
They don’t seem to realize that their answer still doesn’t make anything better. They say that their god is perfectly good and just. If that is so, any difference between humans perception and that of their god would mean a deficiency on our part. That means, according to this abhorrent little bit Christian philosophy, rape victims are WRONG when they feel worse than the robbed shopkeeper. And our justice system is WRONG to treat the rapist more severely than it treats the gum thief. For if they were a bit more like Jesus, they would see that a sin is a sin and the right thing to do is to treat them equally.

If it’s morally reprehensible that a human take a certain view (like candy burglary is as bad as rape) then it would be just as revolting if a sky faerie took that view. So, not only does this sermon on the mount establish the ground rules for thought crime, it also, thanks to the defence posited by Christians, shows their god to be a despicable and morally bankrupt entity that belittles the suffering those who have endured the worst of crimes.




6 comments
August 18, 2010 at 4:16 pm
~L
for every action their is a consequence, however for ever action can be forgivable by the God that I believe in., if you’re truly sorry… he will forgive you. Forgiving does not mean that the consequence should not be followed out. Every action will have a different consequence. I have had someone steal something minimal from me and was upset, and I have had someone rape me(again a first word for me and again it’s as I write to you… I guess if your going to be real with me I am going to be real with you)
Sigh… look Christians don’t have all the answers and their are a lot of topics that are misunderstood. If you really want to form a true opinion for your self than you should pick up the holy bible read it with an open mind. Put everything you have heard about Christianity out the window, as well as any other thing that you believe and formulate your own opinion.
~L
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Mystro
I did just that. I had no idea what was in the sermon on the mount and upon reading it, I found the ground rules for thought crime. That, in itself, is quite horrible. This post, however, only dealt with how people have commonly answered me when I point this out and why their claims are atrocious.
If you disagree with the ones who claim “a sin is a sin is a sin”, I’m glad, but would you then agree with my original assessment of the sermon on the mount? Or do you have some other explanation to excuse the promotion of the fascist doctrine of persecuting thought crime?
LikeLike
August 19, 2010 at 8:49 am
Vern R. Kaine
I happened to like Harold Kushner’s conclusions from his book, “When Bad Things Happen to Good People”, that:
1) God Is All Powerful,
2) God is Benevolent,
3) People are Good,
…but you can only believe two of those by denying the third.
LikeLike
August 19, 2010 at 11:46 am
Mystro
Thanks for saving me the read. It would be so disappointing and such a waste to read an entire book only to arrive at a self-contradictory conclusion.
I must express some confusion, though, as I don’t see how this is relevant to the post.
LikeLike
August 19, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Mystro,
It was less to your original post and more a response to ~L’s comment of reading the Bible and having an open mind.
Kushner sought to revive his faith after his son was diagnosed with progeria and he found that the words he had used in efforts to comfort and console his congregation were not working when he tried using them on himself. In essence, he was angry at God and was told that he couldn’t be, which I think touches on your “thought crime” point of the main post. Although not to the same extreme, Kushner found many getting angry at him for being angry (instead of somehow seeing his son’s condition as a blessing), and questioning God (how dare he!)
What Kushner points out is that the three beliefs posted, which many believe wholeheartedly, have an embedded contradiction. Kushner points this out, and to ~L’s point, I believe the process that he went through is part of having the same “open mind” that she’s asking you to have on the subject. His conclusion might not be as dismissive as yours, but it doesn’t make it meaningless.
As for your prejudgment of his book, his faith, and his story, I’d suggest to you that perhaps it doesn’t owe you an intellectual satisfaction. It’s a story about how a father deals with his own suffering and the suffering of his child. Whatever his process/journey, he’s happier and more at peace as a result, and although you might believe it is “fake” because his happiness and peace are largely faith-based and less “rational”, it is a heartwarming story nonetheless that should have at least SOME merit for anybody human.
LikeLike
August 19, 2010 at 5:26 pm
The Arbourist
If you really want to form a true opinion for your self than you should pick up the holy bible read it with an open mind.
Okay, well reading the Bible I’m not really happy about little things that seem to work out a-okay for god and jesus –
Like Slavery:
Leviticus 25:44-46
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.
And slaves may be beaten, as long they survive for at least a day or two after the beating.
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Exodus 21:20-21
Rape –
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. — Numbers 31:15-18
Misogyny –
“The male and his female …” Notice that in the Bible female animals are the property of male animals, as women are the property of men. –Genesis 7:2
Genocide –
Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the LORD of hosts … go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
So yah, not really a big fan of the whole christian thing. I think I would have to be with Thomas Pain from his writings in the Age of Reason; his thoughts on religion:
If you actually read the Bible it is quite compendium of misogyny and intolerance and also is a grotesquery of torture, suffering and cruelty. As a rational being, I have to say, no thanks.
LikeLike