The "true" meaning of the rainbow

 A deconstructed Evangelical who goes by "The Naked Pastor" posted this on Facebook:





Highly recommend following his page, by the way.


Well, there were Christian bigots commenting on his critique of Christian bigotry with exactly the lack of self-awareness that we've all come to expect of them. One particularly stood out to me, who said "Looks like the true meaning of the rainbow frightens folks".


And there's never any point in responding to these people directly, but I have to write out a response SOMEWHERE or I'll explode, so here it is:


By "the true meaning of the rainbow" you mean the story of Noah's Ark, then? Where your all-knowing, all-loving and merciful god had to put a giant sticky note in the sky to remind himself not to commit genocide by flood again? (But left genocide by fire, famine, plague, blood-up-to-the-horses'-bridles wars, scorpion-lion-locust-things, and a host of other species-ending options still on the table for the next Apocalypse)? 

The fact that so many people in our country (a) believe that story is true, (b) believe that, granting it to be true, their god is the GOOD GUY in the story, and (c) believe this god deserves to be not only worshipped but emulated... that does indeed frighten any rational person, yes. And it should frighten you too.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Baby in the bathwater?

Image
A Christian minister asked a Christian president, who was elected by Christians for Christian reasons, to behave in accordance with Christian principles. And yet, the majority of the country's Christians are mad about it. And despite that, the rest of the nation's Christians continue to insist that there's a "real" Christianity that somehow the majority of Christians are failing to practice despite the fact that those Christians make their whole personality about how Christian they are. The decent humans that still adhere to Christianity - who are very much the minority of Christians - continue to believe that Christianity has an actual moral core and a message that can make its adherents behave in a more moral way. They continue to tell me that there's a baby I've thrown out with the bathwater by rejecting Christianity in its entirety.  And I get it. I used to think the same, for decades. I would "no true Scotsman" every Christian who behaved im...
Read more

On Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Evangelical Republicans, and Judas Iscariot

Earlier today, I posted this on Facebook: "Tonight, for Maundy Thursday, Christians all over the world will commemorate a time when an innocent man who had done nothing more than criticize people in power was imprisoned and ultimately executed without due process, due in large part to a mob of religious people demanding his destruction and claiming he was a danger to the rule of the emperor. And 80 percent of American Evangelicals will never, EVER realize that they are the Judas in this story." But on further reflection, I realized that this was unnecessarily harsh and insulting. ... ...to Judas. After all, Judas realized almost immediately that he had done something monstrous, something unforgiveable, and felt such remorse at the enormity of his betrayal that he could no longer live with himself. But Evangelical Republicans lack the moral clarity of JUDAS FUCKING ISCARIOT. No, they're something far worse. They're the crowd chanting "Crucify him!" and "...
Read more

A matter of principle

Ever since November of 2016, the question has haunted me: How did the conservative Evangelicals I grew up with so thoroughly lose their principles? And the correct answer is: They never had principles.  But for once, I don't intend that as an insult. I mean this as a distinction between two different ways of looking at morality. Evangelicals never had principles; they had RULES. Because that's how their churches train them to think. They (along with the Catholics, who have fallen into the same error) are religious fundamentalists. They don't treat morality as a set of flexible guidelines that can and should change over time; they treat morality as a set of rules that are "the same yesterday, today, and forever". If the Bible said it in 2000 BCE, then it's still binding 4 millennia later (except if there's another rule that negates it, such as the "no bacon" thing being negated by Peter's vision in Acts).  But there wasn't a "That wa...
Read more