How has Religion become a Justification for Murder?

Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan

Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan

Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan began their ’round-the-world bicycle trip in South Africa in July of 2017. They pedaled through several countries in Africa, then through Europe, and then into central Asia.

All along the way, people followed their journey on their blog, Simply Cycling, and on their Instagram feed. Jay and Lauren spoke of the beauties of the landscape through which they traveled, of their struggles and triumphs cycling day after day and month after month, of the friendliness and kindness of so many people in so many places, and yes, of the disinterest or outright meanness of a few.

However, in July, 2018, as they were climbing the mountain passes of the old Silk Road through Tajikistan, their posts and updates abruptly stopped mid-story. Sad news came of an attack in which religious extremists killed Jay, Lauren, and two other cyclists from Switzerland and the Netherlands. You can read about their journey and its heartbreaking end here:

Whether or not the killers were actually affiliated with ISIS is hard to know for sure. Regardless, the attackers believed that they were doing a good deed by killing infidel unbelievers. The Tajik authorities did an efficient job of tracking down those responsible for these senseless killings. But the four cyclists remain just as dead.

And the question remains: How has religion become a justification for murder?

What leads religious people to murder?

Jay and Lauren were not engaging in any acts against Islam, or any acts at all that deserved death. They were simply cycling peacefully, with no ill will toward anyone.

The men who killed them were murderers, pure and simple.

But . . . maybe it isn’t quite so simple. Those men likely believed that they were doing God’s will in killing infidels—enemies of the faith.

So what leads religious people to become murderers in the name of religion? Here are a few reasons:

  1. Taking Scriptures out of context
  2. Living in areas torn by violence
  3. Racism and xenophobia
  4. Taking Scriptures too literally

Let’s look at these one at a time.

1. Taking Scriptures out of context

In the Qur’an, in Surah 9, “Repentance” (at-Tawbah), verse 5, we read:

Slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them, and take them captive or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every likely place.

This passage is among those quoted by militant Muslims to support their war against “infidels” (non-Muslims), and, ironically, also by opponents of Islam who wish to paint Islam as an intrinsically violent religion.

There’s only one problem: Using this verse (and similar ones elsewhere in the Qur’an) to justify general slaughter of non-Muslims is taking it completely out of context.

First of all, this statement was made in the context of war, during a time when the new religion of Islam was just beginning to establish itself. Naturally, the existing non-Muslim powers were not pleased about this. They engaged in a fierce, sustained, and bloody battle against Muhammad and his followers.

It was in this context that Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, stated that “idolaters”—i.e., non-Muslims—must be sought out and killed. In other words, Muhammad was commanding his followers to seek out and kill people who were engaged in active warfare against them.

Meanwhile, if you read the statement in context, you will see that any non-Muslim who had a treaty with the Muslims, and was honoring that treaty, was exempt from the kill order. Further, any non-Muslim who sought protection from Muslims, or agreed to pay the required tax to the Muslim authorities, or in general who ceased hostilities against Muslims, was also exempt from the order.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no order in the Qur’an to kill all non-Muslims. Only to kill those who have taken up arms against the Muslim community, and are actively attacking it. In general, Islam is a religion of peace, just as its more moderate adherents regularly say. But it is not a pacifist religion. It does allow for self-defense, including the right of armies to defend their communities and nations against hostile invaders.

In this, it is no different than most of the other major religions of humanity. Most Christians have a similar belief: that if their communities and countries are attacked by hostile forces, they have a right to defend themselves, including by the use of deadly force, until the attackers are defeated and turned back.

Similar to the teachings of Islam, most Christians believe that it is wrong to attack and kill anyone who is not engaging in hostile actions against them, and who is living in a peaceful and respectful manner. This is true even though like the Qur’an, the Bible contains various commands to kill enemies, such as this especially brutal one:

Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” (1 Samuel 15:2–3)

Christians as a body don’t take various orders in the Bible to kill enemies, made in specific circumstances, to mean that Christians should systematically kill all non-Christians. Neither do Muslims as a body take various orders in the Qur’an to kill enemies, made in specific circumstances, to mean that Muslims should systematically kill all non-Muslims. Historically, Islamic nations have commonly allowed non-Muslim communities such as Christians and Jews to live peacefully in their midst, just as Christian nations have commonly allowed non-Christian communities to live peacefully in their midst.

In short, just as mainstream Christians recognize that orders in the Bible to attack and kill enemies do not mean that Christians should systematically kill all non-Christians, mainstream Muslims recognize that orders in the Qur’an to attack and kill enemies do not mean that Muslims should systematically kill all non-Muslims.

Such statements in the Qur’an, like similar statements in the Bible, must be read in their scriptural and historical context, not ripped out of context and used as a justification for indiscriminate murder of the sort that those militants committed against cyclists who were peacefully touring the countryside.

For a good contemporary article on this subject from a Muslim perspective, see: “Does the Quran Really Sanction Violence Against ‘Unbelievers’?” by Kabir Helminski.

2. Living in areas torn by violence

When one of Jesus’ followers sought to defend him by force, Jesus said:

Put your sword back into its place; for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)

In a more recent phrasing: Violence begets violence.

It’s just human nature. Most people, when attacked, will fight back. In areas of the world torn by violence, even normally peaceful people will commonly resort to violence to defend themselves—and yes, to seek vengeance against those who have attacked and killed their relatives and friends. This leads to a spiral of violence that can be very difficult to stop.

Unfortunately, significant parts of the Muslim world are now torn by ongoing violence.

Does this mean that Islam is an especially violent religion, as its detractors claim?

No objective view of the recent history of that region could support such a claim. Outside powers from Europe and North America have repeatedly invaded the Middle East for a century or more, partitioning it and colonizing it through military force, and later attacking and destabilizing the now-independent nations there.

While the violence of Islamic militants cannot be condoned or excused, a fair reading of the past and present history of the region shows that not only Muslims, but also Christians and Jews have engaged in extensive violence in the Middle East. However justified the people of the various religions who are engaging in this violence may think their violence is, the reality is that all of this violence has not led to peace in the region. It has only led to more violence.

More to the point of this article, it has led to a radicalizing of the various religious adherents in the region. Among others, it has led many young Muslims who would otherwise live peacefully to embrace a militant version of their faith and take up arms against the “infidels.”

But really, they are taking up arms against the people whom they see violently attacking them and destroying their communities. Most people simply want to live in peace “under their vine and fig tree,” to use a biblical phrase. But if they live in the midst of violence, they will themselves become violent as well.

Violence begets violence.

The idea that we can fight our way to peace in the Middle East—or anywhere else in the world—keeps getting proven wrong over and over again. Living in an area torn by violence will turn otherwise peaceful people toward violence and even murder. Unfortunately, they will quote their Scriptures to support this violence. But it is violence itself that is causing more and more violence.

Only when the people involved in these ongoing conflicts finally decide to “put their sword back into its place” will there be any hope for peace.

3. Racism and xenophobia

We humans start out in life engrossed almost entirely in ourselves and our own wants and needs. As infants, we’re all about letting people know when we’re not happy. If we’re hungry or thirsty or uncomfortable in any way, we’ll make a fuss, then a bigger fuss, then a bigger fuss until someone takes care of our needs.

Soon we become identified with our family, which becomes an extension of ourselves. Then our friends, or our neighborhood, or our town, or our state or province, or our nation becomes an extension of ourselves. And of course, people who look like us become the “us” as compared to the “them” who live somewhere else, and don’t look like us.

This is how racism and xenophobia are born.

At their root, racism and xenophobia are simply an extension of our natural, inborn self-absorption. We naturally think of our own wants and needs first, and think that others should serve our wants and needs. That’s just where we start out in life.

As adults, we’re supposed to grow out of this, and broaden our horizons. And many people do. But far too many people remain stuck in the childish state of thinking that my needs, and my people’s needs, are the most important, and everyone who doesn’t serve our needs is at best irrelevant, and at worst an enemy.

When this lack of emotional and spiritual maturity gets mixed in with religious belief, it turns the people of one religion against the people of other religions. Every decent religion has a commandment not to kill. But when the people of any religion fail to grow up spiritually, they ignore the commandments of their own religion and engage in murder and warfare against people of other religions, races, and nations.

And so, once again, religion becomes a justification for murder.

I am not going to solve the problem of racism and xenophobia in this short section. But I will offer a picture of how I believe God intended the various races and nations to relate to one another.

Think of the world, and all its nations and peoples, as being like a vast human body. Every cell in the body has the same DNA. As human beings, we all have the same range of intelligence, the same emotions, the same basic capabilities.

And yet, though we all share that common human DNA, we each apply it differently. The human body has many different parts, each with its own character, function, and contribution to the whole.

  • Bones provide structure and integrity to the body.
  • The skin provides protection and sensory information to the body.
  • The cardiovascular system provides nutrition and waste extraction to the body.
  • The lungs provide oxygen to and extract carbon dioxide from the body.
  • The nervous system provides coordination and order to the body.
  • The legs and feet provide the body with mobility.
  • The arms and hands carry out the body’s wishes.

Every part, organ, and cell makes its own unique contribution to the functioning of the body based on its own unique character. Together, all of these very different parts make a constructive and harmonious whole. If any part is missing, the health and effectiveness of the whole body suffers.

This, I believe, is why instead of making everyone the same as everyone else, God made each person, group, race, and nation uniquely different. Our differences are not meant to be a source of conflict. Rather, every individual, and every group, race, and nation, is meant to make its own unique contribution to the whole body of humanity, based on its own unique character.

If we think of the various peoples and nations of the world in this way, there is no need for conflict, war, and murder based on race, nationality, and religion. Instead, we can celebrate both our own unique character and contributions and the uniquely different character and contributions of every other person, group, race, and nation on the face of the planet.

Further, though we humans may create hierarchies, and may believe we are meant to rule over one another, God has made us all brothers and sisters. Only God is to rule over us. Jesus said:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:25–28)

4. Taking Scriptures too literally

The Bible, the Qur’an, and many other holy books are full of wars and conflicts. Many religious people have used this as a justification for violence, murder, and war. Many non-religious people have seen this as a reason to reject those Scriptures, and to reject religion altogether.

I would suggest that both responses are a result of taking the Scriptures too literally.

Certainly there are many things in the various sacred books of humanity that are meant to be taken literally. For example, the commandments not to kill, commit adultery, steal, lie, and so on—commandments that are found in various forms in the Scriptures of all the major religions.

But what about all of the killing that does go on in those Scriptures? What about the commandments in the Qur’an to seek out and kill people who are actively fighting against Islam and its people? What about all of those wars that are described in the Bible, as the ancient Israelites conquer their enemies, slaughter them wholesale, and dispossess them of their land?

Skeptics have pointed out that all of those God-sanctioned wars in the Bible flatly contradict the Bible’s own commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” And if we take everything in the Bible literally, it’s hard to refute that charge.

But what if the Bible, and the other sacred books of humanity, were never meant by God to condone and encourage physical violence and killing against one another? What if, instead, these Scriptures are using war and killing as metaphors for the spiritual battle that we humans are constantly fighting, both individually and collectively? What if the real wars God wants us to fight are the battles of good against evil, of justice against injustice, of compassion against inhumanity?

What if, instead of reading the stories of war, conflict, violence, and murder in the Bible and the other Scriptures of humanity as commandments to take up literal swords against literal human enemies, we read them as commandments to take up the spiritual sword of truth and justice against the spiritual enemies of untruth and injustice?

The apostle Paul said:

God . . . has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. (2 Corinthians 3:5–6)

And Jesus said:

It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63)

What if, instead of paying attention to the letter that kills, with all of its wars of people against people, we paid attention to the spirit that gives life? What if we all put our literal swords—and knives, and guns, and bombs—back into their place, and instead took up the spiritual fight against all of the real enemies of humankind, such as racism, xenophobia, anger, jealousy, greed, and lust for power?

If, instead of continuing with our never-ending literal wars full of violence and murder, we take up the true metaphorical and spiritual meaning of the Bible, the Qur’an, and other sacred literature, we will instead fight a battle against war, violence, and murder themselves. And as we win this war, the prophecy of Micah will finally come true:

In the days to come,

The mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established
as the highest of the mountains;
it will be exalted above the hills,
and peoples will stream to it.

Many nations will come and say,

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the temple of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths.”

The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He will judge between many peoples
and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide.

They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.

Everyone will sit under their own vine
and under their own fig tree,
and no one will make them afraid,
for the Lord Almighty has spoken.
(Micah 4:1–4)

For further reading:


Lee Woofenden is an ordained minister, writer, editor, translator, and teacher. He enjoys taking spiritual insights from the Bible and the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg and putting them into plain English as guides for everyday life.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Current Events
21 comments on “How has Religion become a Justification for Murder?
  1. larryzb says:

    There is also another factor and that is the bifurcated set of ethics found in both Judaism and Islam (which appears to be an offshoot of Judaism). Both the Talmud and the Quran tell believers that it is permissible to rob, cheat, murder, enslave, rape, etc. “infidels”. Yet these same actions are condemned if these are done against Jews (in the Talmud) or against fellow Muslims (Quran).

    When Christians talk of finding “common ground” with Jews and Muslims, I think to myself, “How is that possible(?) – as Judaism and Islam are both anti-Christ.”

    Of course, Lee, your post above is quite correct in many ways. Recall the wars of the 17th century in Europe among Christians! Jesus told us in the Sermon on The Mount “Blessed are the peacemakers . . .” Christians were behaving in a very un-Christian manner then. More recently, allegedly Christian nations in the 1940s committed terrible atrocities on a horrific scale against non-combatants (I am referring to the Allied war crimes both during and after the war in Europe). Allegedly Christian nations have embraced abortion, and now appear to be accepting infanticide in their hospitals.

    • Lee says:

      Hi larryzb,

      The Bible also has a “bifurcated sense of ethics” when it comes to treatment of people of one’s own religion vs. treatment of people of other religions. This is quite strong in the Old Testament, but even in the New Testament there are plenty of statements that Christians have historically interpreted to mean that it’s okay to mistreat non-Christians. I think they’re wrong about that, but historically Christians have visited many horrors on non-Christians that they haven’t visited on Christians. One example is the African slave trade, which the so-called Christian nations justified using arguments from the Bible.

      I simply don’t think there is all that much difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on these things.

      Jews naturally don’t accept Christ, or they’d be Christians. But Muslims actually do accept Jesus as the Messiah, and as being born of a virgin by a miracle of God, though not as the Son of God.

      The real differentiation is among the fundamentalist, moderate, and mystical branches of all three religions. The fundamentalist branches of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all interpret their Scriptures very harshly as condemning everyone not of their own religion, while the moderates of all three religions generally live at peace with peaceful people of other religions, and the mystical ends of all three religions actually celebrate the different religions as all being part of the varied tapestry of God’s kingdom.

      As for the rest, since this is a spiritual blog, not a political blog, I won’t get into the horrors of war except to say that it is well-documented that nearly every army in nearly every war of which we have reasonable records committed many atrocities and war crimes. War itself is a horrible thing involving much death and destruction. And I believe it is high time in human history that we abolish it altogether. It’s time to grow up and quit squabbling with each other like spoiled little children.

      Oh, and I should add that though historically Islam is not an offshoot of Judaism, it is, I think, a similar type of religion, focused on law and obedience to law. Under God’s providence, I believe that Muhammad arose and established Islam to stamp polytheism out of the Middle East and surrounding areas, and replace it with monotheism. This is what Judaism was intended to do, except that Judaism confined itself to the Israelite people and never spread significantly beyond them.

      Long story short: Since the Jews never sought to spread monotheism beyond their own clan and nation, and since Christianity sunk back into polytheism within a few centuries of its founding when it adopted the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons, neither of those religions was suitable to establish monotheism in the Middle East. Plus, of course, there were other cultural reasons, such as polygamy still being prevalent within Middle Eastern culture, whereas Judaism and Christianity were both largely monogamous by the time Islam was founded as a religion.

      • larryzb says:

        Thanks Lee for your reply.

        ” . . . Christianity sunk back into polytheism within a few centuries of its founding when it adopted the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons, ”

        I am not sure what you mean by that. Is the concept of 3 persons in one Godhead a problem? The Trinity is a mystery. And, human understanding is rather limited, that is why we cannot fully grasp the Trinity, or the full nature of God.

        As to my view on Islam essentially being an offshoot of Judaism, I say this because of its similarity to Judaism on many points and because of Mohammed’s familiarity with the Jews of Arabia in the late 6th and early 7th centuries AD. Mohammed claimed to be a prophet of “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”. Hilaire Belloc (died 1950) believed that Islam was a Christological heresy, but I disagree with that conclusion.

        In the Gospels, Jesus gives us His 2 commandments. He does not say that the 2nd commandment only applies to one’s co-religionists. Yes, we have many examples of Christians failing to behave as though they really were sincere and devout Christians. But, G K Chesterton (died 1936) addressed that when he said that it was not that the Christian ideal had failed or was found wanting, but rather that it was found difficult and left untried (paraphrasing from memory).

        • Lee says:

          Hi larryzb,

          The doctrine of the Trinity of Persons is not taught in the Bible, and it was unknown in the early church. The idea of God in three persons likely originated with Tertullian in the third century. It was first adopted in modified form at the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century. It was fully defined only with the Athanasian Creed a century or two later. So yes, there is a problem with the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons—especially if it is claimed to be an essential teaching of Christianity. No doctrine that is not taught anywhere in the Bible has a valid claim to being an essential doctrine of Christianity.

          Further, despite trinitarians saying “there is one God” with their lips, the reality is that they picture three gods in their mind: the Father as one god, the Son as another god, and the Holy Spirit as another god. This is reflected in the Athanasian Creed itself, where it says:

          For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.

          Put plainly, this is saying that even though there are really three Gods and three Lords, we’re not allowed to say that there are three Gods and three Lords. However, it’s not what we say with our lips, but what we picture and believe in our mind that is our true belief. And trinitarians picture three gods and three lords in their mind. They are therefore polytheistic in their conception of God no matter how often they insist verbally that there is one God.

          All of this is covered more fully in these articles:

          Judaism and Islam are both strictly monotheistic religions. As long as Christianity as a body espouses a doctrine that in reality and according to common sense is polytheistic, Jews and Muslims will never be able to accept Christianity, and they will continue to reject Jesus Christ as the Lord and God of the universe.

        • Lee says:

          Hi larryzb,

          About Islam being an offshoot of Judaism, I suppose that argument could be made. But it could also be argued that Islam is an offshoot of an alternate version of Christianity that existed in Arabia at that time. The Qur’an draws on both the Old Testament and the New Testament. But its interpretation of both diverges from traditional Jewish interpretation and also from the branches of Christianity that became dominant such that they are now thought of as “Christianity.”

          I think it would be more accurate to say that Islam drew on Jewish and Christian scriptures, but formed its own specific religion, which is neither a form of Judaism nor a form of Christianity. However, of the two, I would say that it is closest to ancient Judaism in character. Specifically, as I said before, it is a religion of laws and of obedience to laws, which is also the character of Judaism.

          And I would agree that Christianity as it was taught by Jesus and his disciples has never really been tried on a large scale. It quickly veered off into an institutionalized and politicized church whose basic teachings—such as the Trinity of Persons—are not taught in the Bible and would have sounded strange and foreign to Jesus and his disciples. Here are a few more articles along these lines:

  2. larryzb says:


    I have perused some of these other posts of yours, and because of time constraints cannot read them entirely at this time. The sense I get is that you are reinterpreting Christianity. So, let me ask a few questions with respect and make no mistake there is no sarcasm intended here. (After my questions, I will point out some serious areas of concern that you might want to be aware of. Thank you.)

    What are your bases of certitude for your spin or interpretation of Christianity?

    Are you relying on the visions of Swedenborg, or have you have had revelations or spiritual experiences yourself that lead you to your positions?

    Informing readers that certain long held positions, such as the Trinity, are not in the Bible causes me to write this. The Bible itself is problematic in the Old Testament. Much of the OT was in oral tradition for centuries before finally being committed to writing circa 600 BC. Then, after the Babylonian Captivity (really only the Hebrew intelligentsia was deported to Babylon, many of whom (their descendants) remained there after being later freed by Cyrus the Persian), the priest Ezra made significant changes to the religion of the so-called Jews.

    So, again, not intending to be in any way offensive or insulting, why can readers have confidence in your writings and views (interpretations) as being authoritative in these matters? Can you define in a few sentences (not to tax your time) what it means to you to be a Christian? Do you accept the divinity of Christ?

    Again, thank you for your time in responding.

    • Lee says:

      Hi larryzb,

      Several of your questions are already well-covered in articles here. I won’t repeat myself on those, but will link a few of the most relevant articles at the end.

      Yes, I accept the divinity of Christ, much more thoroughly than traditional Christianity does. Jesus Christ is my Lord and my God. There is no other.

      Christianity is defined by what Jesus taught in the Gospels. The core of that teaching is contained in the two Great Commandments: to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus also taught repentance from sin, and he taught that those who engage in active good works toward their fellow human beings in need will be saved, while those who do not will not be saved.

      There is more, of course, but these are some of the basics of what Jesus Christ himself taught in the Gospels. When it comes to essential Christian doctrine, I do not put any human doctrine or teaching ahead of the teaching of Jesus Christ in the Gospels. Paul and the rest of the Apostles must also be read in light of the teaching of Jesus Christ, and not the reverse.

      As for the Bible, I have every confidence that God was able to deliver the message God wanted to deliver in the Bible, not despite, but because of the many human cultures it came through and was influenced by. God’s purposes are not frustrated by the Babylonians or the Persians or Ezra or any other human beings. God works through the whole sweep of human history to accomplish God’s purposes.

      I have not had significant visions of my own, nor do I claim any special enlightenment of my own. Just a lifetime of study and of devotion to the spiritual work that the Lord called me to do.

      Here are a few key articles that express my views on your main questions:

      There are more where those came from, but that’s enough for now. I would only add that while you are, of course, free to express your concerns, I am very solid and comfortable in my beliefs. If your purpose is to try to change my mind, you will be wasting your breath. However, I am happy to answer any of your questions, or to engage you in conversation about true Christianity, at your pleasure.

      • larryzb says:

        Thanks Lee for your reply. As time permits in the coming days, I will read the linked posts above.

        I can assure you that my questions and comments are not intended to try to change your mind on any views you solidly hold. Rather, my purpose was to get a better understanding of how you arrived at your positions. Let me say that I do respect the effort you have put into your blog with its many lengthy and well thought out posts. As well, I respect a person (man or woman) who has “the courage of their convictions”. Thanks again for your reply.

        • Lee says:

          Hi larryzb,

          Thank you. On that basis, I am quite willing to continue the conversation as you have the time and inclination to do so.

    • Lee says:

      Hi larryzb,

      In answer to this question:

      Can you define in a few sentences (not to tax your time) what it means to you to be a Christian?

      Please see:

      Christian Beliefs that the Bible Does Teach

  3. NylaTheWolf AJ says:

    That’s awful! Those poor people…They weren’t even doing anything that would’ve been considered against their religion!

    Some people are just so screwed up..

  4. Griffin says:

    Good exploration of this topic! One thing that troubles me a little bit, though, is the idea of different races having distinct characters and contributions to the whole of humanity from one another. There’s certainly value in all the cultures of Earth, but I don’t think there are any traits that are unique to individual races, especially since the racial categories we recognize, though based on certain biological characteristics, are fairly arbitrary, and people frequently disprove stereotypes about their racial groups. I may be misunderstanding your point here, but I just wanted to express my thoughts on this issue that your article touched on.

    • Lee says:

      Hi Griffin,

      First, we’re all human. Physically, people of every race have two eyes, two ears, heart, lungs, arms, legs, hands, feet, and so on. Spiritually, we all have the corresponding human capabilities. So the idea is certainly not that some races do not have the same human capabilities as other races.

      However, physically, we can generally tell different races from each other by their overall variations in some physical attributes such as hair, facial configuration, skin color, and so on. These are relatively minor variations compared to the similarities. But they do make us look different from one another as groups. In the same way, some racial groups have particular cultural characteristics that set them apart from other racial groups.

      This doesn’t make one race better or worse than any other race. Thinking this way is a short-sighted and self-absorbed attitude based on thinking that the particular characteristics that my race has are better than the ones that your race has. That is foolishness. God created every race and every individual to make an important contribution to the whole “body” of humanity.

      Also, this emphatically does not mean that some races are smarter than others, etc. We all have basically the same brain. Access to education has much more to do with general intelligence level than any racial or cultural distinctions.

      I realize race is a hot-button issue that people are very sensitive about. I’m just not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater by saying that all races are exactly the same. Why would we want them all to be exactly the same? The differences in individual human beings and in groups of human beings makes for a greater whole.

      • Griffin says:

        I can respect your view on this matter, but I still tend to see race as more of a social and political category than a biological one, due to research indicating that it’s not a particularly helpful genetic marker. To me, differences between the peoples of the Earth are more cultural than racial. But I guess at a certain point that gets into semantics about the difference between biological and sociological definitions of race, and I think ultimately the important thing is recognizing that we all have the same spiritual potential and are of equal value as human beings.

        • Lee says:

          Hi Griffin,

          Race and culture do tend to intermix quite a bit, such that it’s difficult to separate them out from one another. And once again, our physiology, which includes our genetics, is mostly the same across all races. And perhaps in the future there will come a time when the races are indistinguishable from one another. However, I’m not convinced that would be a good thing. Humanity thrives on variety and uniqueness, not on interchangeability.

          As far as being of equal value as human beings, and having the same spiritual potential, that, to me, is just a given.

        • Lee says:

          Hi Griffin,

          To add some more to what I have said so far:

          I do understand the desire of many people to erase the distinctions between the races. It is similar to those who wish to erase the distinction between the genders. The fear is that if we admit there are real differences, one will inevitably be held up as better than another, and this will be used as a reason for one group to dominate and abuse another.

          However, I do not think the solution is to attempt to make everyone the same as everyone else, so that there are no differences on which such better-and-worse judgments could be made. Rather, the solution is to come to an understanding and appreciation of the value of our differences as human beings and as groups of human beings, and of what each individual and group adds to the whole.

          Paul addressed this in 1 Corinthians 12. Swedenborg similarly spoke of humanity as a whole forming a “Universal Human” (“Grand Man” in the old translations): many people and many groups of people all working together to make one “body of Christ,” to use Paul’s term. We might think one part of the body is better than another. But all of them are necessary to be a complete and effective human being. Is the brain better than the hands? It’s a useless question. Without hands, the brain can’t get much done. It is illogical and counterproductive to engage in the comparison game. Is an apple better than an orange?

          I work mostly with my brain. But when our water heater stopped working, I was very glad that there are people who like to work with their hands, who could come and replace it. Plus, if I didn’t have my hands, it would be a whole lot harder to type this reply to you. 🙂

          So although I understand the motivation of those who wish to erase all the differences between human beings and groups of human beings, I don’t think that’s realistic, nor do I think it is ultimately a good thing. Human society needs all different types of people to get its work done.

        • Griffin says:

          I certainly agree about strength in diversity. I think even well-intentioned efforts at unity can sometimes ignore how important ethnicity and gender are to many people’s, often chiefly belonging to marginalized groups, identities.

        • Lee says:

          Hi Griffin,

          Yes. My experience is that various ethnic and gender groups don’t want their identity to be erased. Rather, they want it to be recognized, respected, and valued.

          There also seems to be an idea out there that white males are the measuring stick by which all other groups are to be evaluated. If a particular group can be like white men, and do what white men do, then they have value.

          White males certainly do have a contribution to make. But even though I am a white man myself, I do not believe everyone should be compared to white men, nor do I want everyone to be like me. Other people and groups have intrinsic value that doesn’t depend upon comparison to white men or to any other group.

          What I do believe is that people of various groups should not be blocked from access to all of the advantages that white men (and women) have historically enjoyed. Once the tools are in their hands, various individuals and groups can move forward in their own way, and the world will be richer for it. Human society is not a zero sum game.

  5. Andrew says:

    Can you explain Luke 19:27, “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me”.

    • Lee says:

      Hi Andrew,

      Thanks for stopping by, and for your comment and question.

      First, it is important to keep in mind that these words are part of a parable: The Parable of the Ten Minas in Luke 19:11–27. They are not spoken directly by Jesus, but by “the nobleman,” who is a character in the parable. Jesus is not saying that we should have our enemies slain before us. Rather, he is saying that this is what the nobleman in the parable would say. In his parables, Jesus used imagery from the common culture of the day to convey a spiritual message. They are not meant to be taken literally.

      The important thing is the deeper meaning of the parable. Luke 19:27 is the final verse of the parable.

      In the deeper meaning of Jesus’ parables, the “king” or “nobleman” refers to the Lord himself. He is the one who rules over us. The other people in the parable represent the people of the Lord’s kingdom, meaning especially Christians.

      The servants who used the minas given them to earn more represent Christians who put their faith into practice and accomplish good deeds based on it. The servant who buried his mina so that it did not do any good work represents Christians who say they have faith, but do not put it into practice.

      The enemies who did not want the nobleman to rule over them represent Christians who reject Jesus’ teachings and are unwilling to live according to them. Being “slain before him” represents the spiritual death that results from rejecting God and being unwilling to live according to God’s commandments. Spiritual death means having no spiritual life at all because we have chosen to live from self-centered and greedy motives rather than from motives of love for God and the neighbor. This, and not mere lack of correct belief, is what causes us to go to the “second death” that is eternal hell.

      The message of the parable as a whole is that we must put what we know to good use, and the greater use we make of it, the greater will be our spiritual wealth, which is love, wisdom, and joy. And that if we don’t put what we know into practice, in the end we will lose everything good and true that we have. And if we reject God altogether by refusing to live by God’s commandments, we will suffer spiritual death.

      This death said to happen “before the Lord” (in the deeper meaning of the parable) because it is God’s presence in our life that saves us, whereas when we turn away from God, the presence of God becomes death to us, because we twist everything good and true that comes to us from God into evil and falsity. God’s presence, and our reception or rejection if it, determines our spiritual life or death. Everyone in heaven faces toward the Lord. Everyone in hell faces away from the Lord.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Lee & Annette Woofenden

Lee & Annette Woofenden

Featured Book

Great Truths on Great Subjects

By Jonathan Bayley

(Click the cover image or title link to review or purchase. This website receives commissions from purchases made via its links to Amazon.)

Join 1,248 other subscribers
Earlier Posts
Blog Stats
  • 3,770,065 hits
%d bloggers like this: