We got into this with a deep sense of conviction and a sense that there were things happening in Washington, D.C., that were not okay, that people were being hurt by decisions that were being made there. There was corruption. There was belittling and demeaning people. I just kept saying: This is not okay. Somebody’s got to do something.
Finally, earlier this year my wife looked at me and said: “Why not you?” And we began to pray more seriously about that. So we jumped in the race.
. . . I’ve been reading through the Psalms during the campaign. Often, David talks about his enemies reviling him or harassing him. Those passages in the Psalms never really spoke to me before, but this time, every psalm I read with these passages, I’m like, “Wow. He was going through what I’m going through right now.”
Those passages really began to speak to me in ways that they never had before. What I found interesting, though, was David — or the psalmist — often then says, tear my opponents limb from limb, or destroy my opponents. But when I came to those verses, I just kept remembering Jesus, who told us to pray for those who persecute us, who told us to love our enemies.
I thought Jesus’ answer is a much better answer.
. . . In the Democratic Party in particular, that’s not often talked about publicly, but I think that’s going to change. I think there’s people saying, “Okay how does our faith in particular inform our ethics?”
Here, I think of the 2,000 passages in the Bible that speak about being concerned for the poor, being concerned for widows and orphans or the stranger in your midst. Love one another. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. So many other passages.
Yeah well Theology as a discipline doesn’t have much to do with that. Admittedly, probably more responsible for any of it than, say, geology. But “The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions” isn’t good or bad by itself. Unless any discussion about “g*d” is bad.
Which, it sounds like it is for you, so - okay. No theological questions for you.
The rational response is to acknowledge that every god is almost certainly fiction.
We can talk about history, we can analyze texts, but there is seemingly no actual god to study, no verifiable answers to any theological questions because someone somewhere has made an opposite claim with the exact same lack of evidence. People must stop reinforcing deadly delusions. It’s in our shared best interests to believe whatever is most likely true, not whatever we want to be true.
Good examples of theology, yes.
You’d acknowledge there are questions, though, that often get attributed to a god of some sort? Where did the earth come from, why do the seasons change, that sort of thing? Western empirical science being a very relatively recent addition to our societies, those questions exist and, theoretically, or perhaps heretically, have answers that perhaps science is unable or unwilling to put forth.
No argument there.
Also agree. So. What’s the deal with platypi? Or UFOs? Because science is really dragging their heels on those.
Oh, you didn’t know what science is. It’s not a person.
Science is the process by which we acquire, refine, and communicate knowledge while minimizing our known human biases. Unlike theology, it is verifiable, peer review is an important part of the process. You don’t have to take my word that gravity exists, we can demonstrate it.
“What are things?” you ask, but you have it backwards. Humans describe what they sense and invent categories to organize their knowledge. We call a platypus an animal, a living being, based on how we have defined those terms. Arguably there are no “things” in the universe, it’s all energy in motion. We arbitrarily draw lines where we see them. Some categorizations are more useful than others.
Scientists are human beings who practice science. Theologians are human beings who assert things as true despite lacking any evidence. I disagree with your perspective that a historical study of religious texts is the same as theology. I think it’s very important that we distinguish between claims for which we have overwhelming evidence and claims for which we have none.
Okay then.