ljwrites: black and white yin-yang symbol (yin and yang)

I am a Christian atheist.

Let me state up front what I don't mean by that; I don't mean I believe in the obscure branch of Christian theology which states that God is dead and we must love each other and save each other in that absence. While I admire the poignancy of it, it doesn't gel for me even as metaphor because I don't believe God is dead but rather that he never existed, at least in any physical sense outside the sensemaking that we do through story.

I also don't use "atheist" as a pejorative here, as a Christian pastor does in his book The Christian Atheist criticizing Christians for living as though God does not exist. I don't think it's morally or intellectually inferior or superior not to believe in God.(1) By atheism I mean, simply, the lack of belief in God as a supernatural being. I don't assign any moral or other value judgment to it.

Fortunately, Christian atheism seems a lot more visible than it was back when I was first searching for the term back in 2013. The above two senses were the only ones I could find at the time, but now I am able to find entire articles on cultural Christianity(2) and more expanded information on Christian atheism itself, not to mention modern Christian atheists openly expressing their convictions.

What Christian atheism means to me )

ljwrites: Mermista from She-Ra and the Princesses of Power (mermista_glare)

In reponse to a thread going around on Tumblr about young girls being told to cover up, this atheist was actually moved to spouting Bible verses. This interpretation was in a book my mom had about a feminist reading of the Bible, though I have, let's say, spiced it up a little.

"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." (Matthew 5:28-29)

This is a revolutionary passage because it upends the idea of the woman (or child, dear God) as a temptress. It's a giant middle finger to the conventional "wisdom" that it's a woman's job to keep herself modest and out of the way of men because men can't be held responsible for their own gaze, urges, and actions once they have been "tempted" by the sight of a female body.

Here Jesus is saying, basically, no, fuck that and fuck you. You've committed adultery and you're the pervert if you've looked on somebody with as an object for your sexual gratification. And no, that's not the same thing as feeling an attraction, I'm talking about what you're doing with that attraction--as something they're doing to you, making it their fault and giving yourself license to treat them as dirty and wrong.

What's that, you have no control over where you look? You have no control over your thoughts and actions? Why then, you're saying your eye is damning you to hell because no, you do not get an exemption from basic personal responsibility by virtue of owning a dick and if your eye does something, news flash, that's you.

But if your eye literally has a will of its own and it's making you sin, then why not cut it the fuck out, man? Yeah, I mean literally. You talk about it like it's demonically possessed and not under your dominion. Well, are you going to let a part of you drag you down to hell? Rip it out! I could say the same for a few other body parts, too. Better missing a few bits in heaven than all of you in hell, eh?

Do not give me this nonsense about having no control over yoursef. Take some responsibility and grow the hell up.

This is anti-purity culture, anti-dress code, anti-slut shaming, anti-body policing rhetoric. Each person takes responsibility for their own thoughts and actions, and no one gets to use the whiny excuse that another person made them act inappropriately just by existing.

Jesus fucking Christ, people, it's been 2,000 years. Let's get our act together.
ljwrites: A man with his hand over his face. (sisko facepalm)
I watched [personal profile] attackfish have a conversation on Tumblr about good/evil dualism in the Star Wars franchise and was amused that her interlocutor was denying such dualism existed in the series. As Fish and I discussed afterward, it is sometimes hard for people who live in a dominant thought system like the Christian duality to recognize that a) they actually subscribe to a very specific and non-universal worldview, and b) this view colors how they view everything else, because that’s what a worldview does.

Fish has a good breakdown in the linked thread on why the Jewish concept of yetzer hara does not map to the Dark Side of the Force as portrayed in the franchise. She also referenced poorly understood Buddhist and Taoist concepts, and as she pointed out, ideas from Buddhism and Taoism used in Star Wars are heavily distorted by a strict moral dualism that is alien to these traditions.

This post is weirdly appropriate for Christmas, come to think of it )

Face it, Western Star Wars fans, your franchise isn’t based on Asian philosophy. It’s a quintessentially Euro-American and Christian story of the conflict between good and evil, and it’s perfectly enjoyable as such. There’s no need to bastardize concepts from other cultures trying to make Star Wars seem profound or spiritual. You don’t have to, because Christianity is–surprise!–also a spirituality and one associated with respected philosophical traditions. And Asian ideas are no more ornaments to make yourselves seem smart and hip than Asian people are.

(Originally posted on Tumblr. Yeah, I believe they have an app for that now.)

Profile

ljwrites: A typewriter with multicolored butterflies on it. (Default)
L.J. Lee

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  1 2345
678 9101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags