My most clearly defined political stance is "anti-authoritarian" but I think it would be cool to be an anarchist in a similar way to being an atheist. I don't think the state exists
My biggest problem with Christianity (besides how baked-in the colonialism is) has to be the authoritarian implications. Sure, the teachings of Jesus are anti-authoritarian but the Christian conception of God sort of assumes that an omnipotent God should be automatically worthy of my reverence, and that anyone who recognizes that God exists and is powerful should automatically want to worship him.
Furthermore, the main reasoning for worshiping the Christian god instead of other gods is that the Christian god is more powerful. Really! Christians when asked why not worship Thor will often say something like "Well, Thor can't [resurrect from the dead/create the universe/save you from Hell etc]"
So? Power doesn't make something right or good. Even if you discovered irrefutable proof of a God with power over every aspect of this universe, that wouldn't automatically mean you should worship that God, from an ethical and moral point of view, any more than you should regard a dictator with undying devotion because he can kill you.
And this is where we get things like Pascal's wager, which really showcases the utter nihilism in a lot of Christian thought. Pascal's wager basically posits that worshiping God is a rational self-interested move because the cost of being wrong if Hell is real is much higher than the cost of being wrong if Hell isn't real.
Any Christian who has spoken approvingly of Pascal's wager has essentially just admitted that they worship God because of his power to hurt them.
A lot of Christians don't have a cohesive ethical framework apart from what the Bible appears to say because they don't think things are good or evil apart from God designating them as such. For example being gay is wrong even though it doesn't harm people, because God says so. There's no consistent thread in the things that are "sin" apart from God disapproving of them. The framework is one where God is just powerful enough to decide what morality is.
It doesn't make sense unless you think power automatically confers moral authority, or that right and wrong is created by power.
This is such a fascinating point of view to read for me
I was raised Muslim and the way I was taught is that âââââourâââââ God is exactly the same God that Christians and Jewish people worship
But I was also taught that God as understood by monotheism isnât just âa god, but very powerfulâ, but rather - and I will paraphrase here because itâs very difficult for me to put it into simple words - the unifying spirit that created the universe, that gives it order, and that inhabits all things and living beings that exist.
The way I was taught, other religions donât worship different gods in the sense that they contradict monotheism, but rather that they worship the same source of truth in different forms and with different rules. In a way, each pantheon relates to that one truth the same way a rainbow relates to a single beam of white light. They are one and the same, but they look different when seen under a different perspective. And itâs a precious and important thing that both exist because they allow humanity to see how wonderfully multifaceted this world truly is.
And even though I struggle to keep considering myself a Muslim, that core idea stuck with me because it just... makes sense. It elegantly explains why different people across the world worship completely different gods (or worship no gods at all but still follow a set of moral principles) while avoiding the condescending trap of thinking âoh yeah they may seem to worship different gods but deep down they believe in OUR godâ which that idea can be twisted into.
And indeed, if thereâs one thing Iâve seen Christians struggle with (at least, the white Catholics Iâve encountered throughout my life) itâs this idea of God as A Powerful Supernatural Dude, which is ironically a lot more materialistic (idolatrous, one might say) than I would expect from people who are supposed to acknowledge and value the spiritual side of existence. Itâs a superficial, incurious way of seeing things that doubles as fertile ground for proselytism and colonialism - because instead of seeing different faiths as siblings in this world, they end up seeing them as competitors, or as enemies to subdue
itâs this idea of God as A Powerful Supernatural Dude, which is ironically a lot more materialistic (idolatrous, one might say) than I would expect from people who are supposed to acknowledge and value the spiritual side of existence.
Wait you're so right I never thought of it like this
What if "revering power for power's sake"...is the proper sense of what "idolatry" ought to mean
I mean.., I could get into the etyology and all, but... kind of?
An idol is a figure made from wood or stone and worshipped as a god. And the idea is that you are worshipping these things not because they are great and good and deserve worship, but because you seek power from them/fear the power they have.
At least from the Christian point of view.
Judaism... well, Judaism says that every people and culture have their own god or gods or path to god*, and that's fine. But to worship the god of a people not your own is idolatry. And since the Jewish god cannot be depicted (Maimonides famously said that we can say what Hashem isn't, but not what Hashem is.)
Which, from a Jewish perspective, means that for a Jew to worship any graven image is idolatry because no grave image can be Hashem or a depiction of Hashem. (There's other stuff in there -- idols are things in the sense of people a physical form, and Judaism is built around time and the sacredness of time, but...)
Anyway, from a Jewish perspective, one could say that Christians have been forcing *others* to commit idolatry with their forced conversions.
But Judaism also works on 'two Jews, three opinions,' and 'for everything sacred law there is a majority and a minority opinion, and which one is right depends on the situation, and sometimes they are both right'. And 'God loves when we argue with them.'
So at least half the Jews in the world will tell me I'm wrong for one reason or a dozen reasons.
But I really like the idea of a anti-authoritarian atheist.
I raise you -- the Jewish version of an anti-authoritarian atheist: Someone who doesn't care if the state exists or not, and views laws as customs and tradition; but recognizes that these laws and tradition exist for a reason and need to be examined and challenged by every generation for how worth following they are.
(Anyone up for a chevrutah on the US Constitution?)
Christians have been forcing *others* to commit idolatry with their forced conversions
Wait wait this is also blowing my mind a little bit. That makes complete sense to me
I mean, it's a bit more complicated than that, because most polytheistic peoples don't really have the idea of idolatry as-such. But it's the closest word we have for forcing someone to give up worshipping the god(s) of their people and take up worship of a foreign god who has no connection to their history or culture.
Acknowledging that not all conversions were forced, and Christians historically have been really really good at getting people to start worshipping their god just with talking him up. The 'stopping worship' is usually where the force came in.
Yeah, I don't know how well this reflects what went down in all places, but I have read that early religiously-based conflicts with Native Americans early in colonization happened when missionaries showed up like "Hey, here's our god, he's really cool" and a lot of Native American folks were like "huh, that's neat I guess" and (in some cases) incorporated him into their existing religious practices, and the missionaries were like "WAIT NO NOT LIKE THAT. We meant become Christian as in become European."
It really does seem like the exclusivity that Christians usually take for granted isn't super...normal? globally speaking, among religious people?
Like even in major monotheistic religions, there is absolutely a ton of syncretism in local manifestations of a religion, and local folk heroes often get kinda absorbed and re-designated as "saints" or an equivalent. Folk magic, ascetic traditions, mystic traditions involving a lot of mind-altering substances, and so on just sort of Happen repeatedly
Like none of my Appalachian ancestors (mom's side of the family) would have called themselves "witches", EVER, and yet. Things like dowsing, curing warts by knotting a string and then burying it, the intersection of herbal medicine and faith healing, all of that stuff looks an awful lot like "witchcraft."
I guess what I'm getting at is that there's sometimes more variety within religions than between them and the whole concept that everyone practices one (1) religion or system of spiritual beliefs doesn't reflect how people actually exist
I think it makes the case that missionary work is colonialist quite well because it's not difficult to show people your god, that naturally happens whenever cultures come into contact.
Missionaries just get mad when the people they're preaching to have agency over the interaction and to interpret, adapt, or reject the missionaries' beliefs the way they see fit, instead of being a captive audience.
I think Christians especially American Evangelicals are so weird and victim-complex-y about feeling like they can't "share their beliefs" because they were brought up on these stories of people hearing about Jesus for the first time and then having an explosive cascade of total conversions. They feel like this should happen when they tell people about Jesus, and if the culture around them seems aware of Jesus but isn't rabidly Christian, they think their efforts are being undermined or repressed somehow.
But that's not true. A genuine non-coercive cultural exchange is not going to have totally one-sided results, period. This is why so many Christian Evangelicals go for cornering people in very vulnerable states when trying to "convert": that's what works to produce those one-sided results, when the person you're preaching to is powerless and being taken advantage of.
A non-coercive cultural exchange holds the potential that the person you're trying to convert might convert YOU. And that possibility is so, so, so, so, scary to Christian Evangelicals because they don't recognize that there is a whole spectrum of outcomes here, the most common of which is "neither person changes their religion but both people walk away with a new perspective or idea they'd never thought of." And Evangelicalism does not have room for this, because Christianity is Superior, Period, and the mere act of recognizing that another religion might have a good perspective on something feels like total sacrilege and terrifying.
Evangelicals especially do not realize that a belief system may just reach its maximum saturation point within a culture, where everyone that is interested already follows it and everyone else just isn't interested. Since Christianity is RIGHT and everything else is WRONG, a decline in church attendance or whatever must mean that they need to ramp up their proselytizing efforts, and if that still doesn't work, it must be a Conspiracy to Suppress Christianity.
There's a really interesting thesis here about how Evangelical Christianity's expectation of limitless growth is identical to capitalism and how those things have influenced each other.


















