|
I can't remember how this came up, but yesterday, talking to my therapist, he suggested that atheists have more freedom than Christians.
"What makes you say that?" I asked.
"Christianity has rules, about what you can and can't do... like the Ten Commandments, and so on," he answered.
"... I'm not Catholic," I told him. "Catholicism lays down a lot of rules, Anglicanism really doesn't. I mean, yes, I feel that as a Christian I should try to live my life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, but they really boil down to 'be kind', do unto others, that kind of thing. And I think that people should live by those principles whether they're Christian or not. I only became a Christian in my early twenties, and it hasn't really changed how I live my life that much."
I find myself thinking about what he said, and I really wonder about where his ideas on this come from. Because my therapist does seem like a genuinely nice guy. He goes out of his way to help people. I'm not, personally, paying for my sessions with him; he's bulk-billing me to Medicare. He doesn't have to do things like that, but he wants to help me, so he arranged to do so.
But he thinks that Christianity denies freedom of action to its adherents. It's just so odd.
Or maybe he's one of those people who treats Paul as canon. A lot of people do, I know.
Me, I call myself a Christian because I believe in the teachings of Christ. Paul wasn't Christ, but he was a misogynistic and hateful opportunist, whose writings have been of tremendous value to everyone who wants to use Christianity as a weapon.
His words were not those of the Saviour, nor had he followed Jesus during Jesus's lifetime, nor did he even follow the Gospels of those who had actually done so.
I'm at risk of getting distracted onto a rant about Paul, because oh, boy, do I have issues around his inclusion and the general self-serving nature of some people's approach to religion, including the various councils etc that defined the biblical canon, but really, the point is this:
Jesus's teachings really don't prohibit anyone from doing things that, in a perfect world, they would want to do anyway. For the most part, the Bible in general (Paul excluded) doesn't; most of the Old Testament restrictions, including the dietary ones, are actually pretty logical. The dietary restrictions are generally really good sense when you consider the geography, climate, and lack of refrigeration the ancient Jews lived with; most of the rest (in Leviticus, for example) are markers for the maintenance of cultural identity in an era when Roman/Hellenisation was overtaking just about everyone.
Like so many things, really, the problem with the Bible only starts when people stop thinking about what they're doing, and just follow thoughtlessly - particularly if they follow 'leaders' who cherrypick and twist the texts to serve their own purposes instead of God's.
The "Religious Right" and al Qaida, I'm looking at you. Protip: Jesus didn't hate anybody and the Koran actually tries to make a case for moderation in religious observance, to the point where excessive displays of piety are actually forbidden; also, the Muslim world in the period following the actual life of the Prophet was the centre of culture, science, and learning of its era. And women were both respected and well-educated, if only because educated, strong mothers produced educated, strong sons.
(Seriously: Staying up all night praying, fasting at night as well during Ramadan, that sort of thing: the Koran actually says not to do that shit. Fasting during Ramadan when it will be dangerous to your health, again, not cool with the Prophet. Islam is not supposed to be the religion of batshit insane extremism. But then, being cruel, being hateful, being avaricious, being wealthy and ignoring the plight of the poor, are all things that are deeply uncool with with the Christian Saviour, and hello, have you met the Catholic Church, so. *sigh*)
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}