I love it when Non-Fundie “Christians” attempt to distance themselves from the Fundie shit-show:
It is remarkable how gullible this administration considers the electorate to be. I find it interesting because of the way this approach resembles and reflects fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalist religion, Christian or otherwise, feeds and grows on the gullibility of people to believe what they want to believe. It thrives on the propagation of beliefs that defy logic, reason, science, and common sense, but somehow appeal to our lower instincts and passions.
For example, consider how many Christians believe that the biblical account of the ark (we have got a big one here in Kentucky supported by tax dollars) and Noah’s flood is actually a historical, factual account. The actual logistics of this is impossible (it denies science) and the theology it expresses is terrible. God commits genocide of an entire species with the exception of a few people he chooses. And yet consider how many Christians believe in this religious story as an “alternative fact” that reports a historical event.
Whether these “alternative facts” are being propagated by the White House or by fundamentalist Christian leaders, the end result is about control. Far too many political and religious leaders want to control what people believe and think. These “alternative facts” become the grounds for determining who is “in” or “out.”
Now, what I find particularly amusing about the above is: Don Wilkerson (or any other “Progressive”/”Moderate” Christian, for that matter) has to deal with the following questions:
1. Given that the “Noah’s ark” thing NEVER HAPPENED (given the utter impossibility of the events as portrayed in the account) — why should anyone GIVE A SHIT about that specific set of “folklore”?
Why should the garbled scribblings of savages have any place in a civilized society?
I ran up against this level of self-delusion some while back, when some mutual acquaintances attempted to “clarify” the Noah’s Ark thing. I had always wondered why the two separate versions had discrepancies: ONE version (the infamous “two-by-two”) explicitly states two of every animal.
However, another version explicitly states seven. Now, any even semi-rational person, when confronted with discrepancies of this kind, will not attempt to “hand-wave” such things away.
(Then again, there is a certain strain of “believer” who see questions of this type as a mere “snare for the proud”, so…..Fundies have acess to a “bottomless pit” of stupid.)
Now, The “snare for the proud”-types can be summarily dismissed out of hand They have basically been “theologically lobotomized”, and are, basically, beneath any further examination. Their delusional babbling merits exactly as much inquiry as that of the most disordered schizophrenics.
No. the ones who are in some ways more pitiful, are the ones who pretend to respect the basic rules of sanity and evidence. Their “explanations” typically end up being even dumber then the inanity they’re trying to “explain away”.
In the case of my acquaintances, the “solution” involved making the Noah’s Ark scenario infinitely less possible, by attempting to “split the difference” between both accounts:
7 of each “clean” kind of animals
2 of each “unclean” kind of animals
See the problem?
If the “Noah’s ark” thing is ALREADY inane via the 2-by-2 scenario, then it is MUCH worse under the “7 of each animal” version. However, the attempt to combine BOTH versions just leads to an EVEN LESS credible scenario.
But, that begs the question: If the story IS merely a “story’ (as opposed to one of those pesky “Western” historical facts), then WHY privilege one set of such fables, over any other?
And that — more than any other issue — is the question no “progressive” or “moderate” Christian can ever afford to ask.
Because quite frankly, there are only a few honest answers:
- simple inertia/conformity: You cling to the fables which were perpetrated on your back during childhood — merely because you happen to be ‘familiar” with them. Everything else looks “exotic” by comparison.
- Your cherished fables are “less stupid” than other mythologies (the notion that YOUR fables are somehow “less wrong”.)
- Frantic hand-waving about the dangers of ‘literalism”, backed up by claims that such cherished falsehoods nevertheless contain “valuable insights”. (Like “the smurfs”.)
That’s the point: AT LEAST Fundies are (typically) brazen enough to openly revel in an “evidence be damned!’-type attitude.