This is why we can't have nice things, religion.

[thistlechaser]

I was listening to NPR on the way home from the farmers market, and they kept running a promo on an upcoming story: a clip of a kindly sounding southern woman explaining how she had faith that they'd get through the lack of jobs/money after the Gulf oil spill. She used the quote "God feeds the birds".

It made me smile every time. A simple statement showing so much faith. (Misplaced and illogical yeah, but still faith.) Then the whole story played and I heard the entire quote. "God feeds the birds, and we are far more valuable to him than they are."

UGH UGH UGH. And so once more religion has shown its true colors. The self-centered-ness of it! Why couldn't the first half of the quote be enough for her? Then I came home and googled, and found that that's actually what it says in the Bible.

I'm just so UGH now. I hate it, hate it hate it hate it, when I find something about religion I can like and then inevitably it does a 180.

Heck, looking at the whole quote from the Bible, what does this even imply?

MATTHEW 6:26 LB
26 Look at the birds! They don't worry about what to eat-- they
don't need to sow or reap or store up food -- for your heavenly
Father feeds them. And you are far more valuable to him than
they are.

Is that saying that if you believe in god you shouldn't have to work for your food? (Not to mention it's wrong. Some birds do store food!)

Heh. Analyzing Bible quotes, a first for Thistle LJ!

Edit: Now that I think about it, isn't there something in the Bible that says you're supposed to be humble? Isn't saying "God loves me more than X, teehee~!" just the opposite of humble? Bah!

Comments

[teslanomaly]

I'm a Christian, but I've never been able to buy into the "animals don't have souls but people do, so we're more important" doctrine that some churches espouse. It's all life, and I believe life is sacred.

But I don't hate religion (although some of the conservative Christian agenda is pretty hateful, and makes me very ashamed, I have also met some genuinely good, loving, accepting congregations). I reconcile things like your quote -- and a lot of the contradictory things in the Bible -- by reminding myself that for all its wisdom, the Bible was written by men. And it was written by men who lived in a world where values (especially women's rights, yikes!) were very different from the societal values we now accept. I don't think any interpretation of a holy book is context-free.

Haha, sorry, this is a common rant of mine. I could never be a Biblical literalist.

I think all religion is like that. There are some real gems of wisdom, things I truly believe we should take to heart - but there are also instances where that wisdom has been twisted, perhaps by those who mean well, or perhaps by the less-well-meaning with an agenda. I think no matter where you find enlightenment, you've got to enjoy the good, regret the bad, and strive to make it better.

So I think, personally, I will stick with "God feeds the birds." But I will still fill up my feeder today.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

There are many, many reasons I'm not religious, but the whole animals not having souls one is way up there. Maybe if religions said they had souls (instead of being put on Earth for folks to use) people would treat them better.

Also, for some reason my fingers keep typing soup instead of soul. I'm sure animals should have soup, too!

and a lot of the contradictory things in the Bible -- by reminding myself that for all its wisdom, the Bible was written by men. And it was written by men who lived in a world where values (especially women's rights, yikes!) were very different from the societal values we now accept.

I'd have a lot fewer issues with religion if more people would feel that way.

So I think, personally, I will stick with "God feeds the birds." But I will still fill up my feeder today.

That made me smile. It reminds me of one idea I like, too. "God helps those who help themselves." A big part of my issue with religion is that so many people use it as a crutch. "Why did bad things happen? I can't help it, nothing can be done, it's god's will." Sometimes random bad stuff happens, you have to be strong enough to accept that. Sometimes bad stuff happens you can do something about, you have to be strong enough to do that something. "It's in god's hands now" only hurts people if it stops them from acting themselves!

...now I'm ranting at you, sorry. :P

[low-on-mana.livejournal.com]

*drive by comments*

That bird part is merely to illustrate a point. The passage is about worrying and it merely means to have faith in God, and don't worry so much. And that's not saying not to work, because that is just, ugh, no. Nor does it mean "BELIEVE IN GOD, HE'LL MAKE FOOD APPEAR MAGICALLY ON YOUR PLATE WHENEVER YOU WANT. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO LIFT A FINGER" Nah, just...Don't kill yourself stressing.

...

>>; I'll go away now. *slinks off*

[kaelash.livejournal.com]

Exactly this. In context, it's just used to illustrate a point to -not worry-. That's the usage. The bible also says if you don't work, you shouldn't eat, it's not saying 'oh God will give you everything if you believe', as mentioned!

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I'd so believe in god if he gave me everything! I suppose being given stuff by god would be proof that god existed so I could believe in him... It's a circle!

But seriously, yeah, that makes sense to read it that way.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I'd so believe in god if I could get free magic food out of it. :|

But more seriously, that makes sense, yeah. I don't like the idea of people needing a crutch to tell them not to worry, but as long as they do work at the same time, well... it's their lives.

[veloxe.livejournal.com]

See this is why I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

The world would be a better place if we all did.

[quistie.livejournal.com]

I read that as: God will take care of all things, even those who do not sow or reap. Human beings, of course, do sow and reap and store up food, and that makes humans more worthy of God. So don't worry, dude!

Of course, the quote seems to imply that birds do not need to work to stay alive, and that just isn't true. I am willing to ignore that here though, because that's not the point of the passage. Nor do I see the point of examining how biological facts are presented in the Bible. I will leave that to the silly Creationists.

Ultimately, I think the point is made rather clumsily. The biggest problem for me is that even in an agrarian society, not all humans sow or reap or store food. And some people can afford to be lazy, while others can't. To blithely ignore economic realities like that is rather callous. Also, the implicit comparison between the birds and human beings blunts the basic "Don't worry!" message somewhat. I am fine with the "Don't worry!" message, but I would much rather the passage reads something alone the line of "God takes care of all of his creations, even those who do not sow or reap or store up food. Since you do those things (and thereby taking charge of your own life), you really have nothing to worry about."

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

"God takes care of all of his creations, even those who do not sow or reap or store up food. Since you do those things (and thereby taking charge of your own life), you really have nothing to worry about."

I'd be fine with that message as well.

[sevataru.livejournal.com]

Stop taking a Biblical quote literally.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Call me cynical, but I find it rather cynical to quote the "See the birds" line in connection with the Gulf oil spill, considering what happened to the birds there. I didn't see god exactly rush to help when they were dying by the thousands. So it's sort of... exactly the opposite of what she wanted to express.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Ah, gah! I hadn't even thought of it that way. Good point!

[sahn.livejournal.com]

Yes, the birds was a very bad illustration in this situation. But this wasn't exactly a natural disaster. I think even Christians would admit that mankind is perfectly free to screw everything up (for example by dumping oil on everything) if he so chooses.

[sahn.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't call that passage self-centered, I would call it human-centered. And that quality isn't unique to Christianity, many other religions (and many non-religious people) believe that man is somehow above the other animals. And of course there are yet other religions that say every living thing is equally sacred, but Christianity isn't among them.

There is stuff in the Bible that says you're supposed to be humble, but that's with regard to the way you treat other people. It doesn't apply to animals. According to the theology, nature isn't sacred or equal to mankind, instead mankind is supposed to be the steward of the earth. So it's acceptable to say "God loves me more than the birds" but it's not acceptable to say "therefore I can kill all the birds just for the fun of it."

"UGH UGH UGH. And so once more religion has shown its true colors."

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "true colors", but I get the impression that you assume that there can't be an environmentally friendly religious person.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

And of course there are yet other religions that say every living thing is equally sacred, but Christianity isn't among them.

There is stuff in the Bible that says you're supposed to be humble, but that's with regard to the way you treat other people. It doesn't apply to animals.

Those are some of my issues with Christianity. How can you (not you-you, general you) be selectively humble? How could a modern-day Christian not treat animals as sacred as themselves?

but it's not acceptable to say "therefore I can kill all the birds just for the fun of it."

But killing some of the birds is okay to them. How many "good Christians" hunt for sport?

It just bothers me how self-claimed "good" people can act so badly and yet still claim to be good.

[sahn.livejournal.com]

"How can you (not you-you, general you) be selectively humble?"

It's not about being selectively humble, it about where people draw the line between "us" and "them" (or "like us" and "not like us", or whatever names you want to give it). Everyone draws the line somewhere, the question is what's included in the "us" category? Christians include humans and exclude birds, but someone else could just as easily include birds but exclude reptiles, or include reptiles and exclude ants, or include cows and exclude pigs, or include the living but exclude the unborn, or include democrats and exclude republicans.

"How could a modern-day Christian not treat animals as sacred as themselves?"

It's easy if you believe that men are created in the image of God and have eternal souls whereas animals don't. In fact, it's easy even if you don't believe that. Even among atheists (generally speaking), human life is more valuable than the lives of animals (shooting a person is murder whereas shooting a bird isn't). The idea that anything is sacred implies a religious belief (or at least some sort of subjective value judgement). In purely naturalistic terms, nothing is inherently sacred and organisms have evolved to value other organisms primarily in terms of genetic similarity and secondarily in terms of usefulness.

"But killing some of the birds is okay to them. How many "good Christians" hunt for sport?"

Hunting animals, or environmentalism in general, doesn't have a big role in Christian doctrine. (If you look hard enough you could probably find something in the Bible that suggests you shouldn't hunt for sport, but it's not a major tenet.) Christianity deals more with man's relation to God and with man's relation to each other, but not so much with man's relation to nature. So when it comes to things like Christian people going hunting, I don't think their hunting has anything to do with their being Christian. Hunting, I think, is more of an American cultural thing than a Christian one. And I think you'd find just as many non-religious people who are into hunting as Christians, and I think you'd find just as many Christians who are against hunting as non-religious people. I think it's unfortunate that when people think of Christians, they think of people like Palin and assume that hunting (and many of her other qualities) has something to do with Christianity when in fact Christianity has very little to say about it.

"It just bothers me how self-claimed "good" people can act so badly and yet still claim to be good."

That's not just Christians, that's pretty much everyone (politicians quickly come to mind). Christians happen to be convenient to point to since they've huddled together under a roughly similar moral standard so that when one person falters, it's easy to point at the group ("Hey look, that unmarried Christian girl had a baby so Christians are hypocrites"). And it's easy to apply the entire standard to anyone who claims to be a Christian regardless of whether that individual believes in the entire standard ("You're a Christian so you're supposed to believe that it's wrong to get drunk"). And it's easy to assume that things are part of the standard when they're really not ("Don't Christians believe that hunting is morally wrong?").