"You can't have your cake and eat it, too." If that confuses you, let me help you out. You can't both have a cake and eat a cake. If it's eaten, you don't have it anymore. See? So ... what's the point? The idiom is intended to tell you that you can't have it both ways, whatever "it" is.
This, of course, is an amazingly common goal these days. At least, it seems to me. I cannot tell you how many people have told me that 1) the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, but simply ideas from which we can (or cannot) derive truth and 2) we ought to obey the Bible. Oh, they don't typically do this in the same sentence. Usually it occurs in two separate conversations. Bob and Ted are talking. Ted will say, "The Bible says ..." and then express an opinion, based on Scripture, that differs with Bob's perspective. "Oh, no," Bob will assure Ted, "you can't go basing your argument on Scripture. That's a man-made book that you can't take literally ... you rotten literalist. I mean ... sure ... it's got good stuff in it, but not the literal 'Word of God' like you're using it." And Ted is no longer able to defend his position because now he's forced to defend the Bible. Fast forward. Now Ted says something like, "It's not right for the government to take from the rich to give to the poor" and Bob will sputter and complain, "Doesn't the Bible say that we're supposed to care for the poor?" Now, wait, Bob. Didn't you just explain that he can't take the Bible literally, that it's not inerrant, that he shouldn't be arguing that way? And now you get to argue the way you told Ted he couldn't? Because, you see, Bob is planning to have his cake and eat it.
This, of course, happens with all sorts of nuances. The atheist will argue that "Religion has done all sorts of evil over the ages", but if you ask him/her the source of the definition of "evil" in the absence of any moral authority, he/she is stuck. You need a moral authority to define immoral, and they deny any such authority. So on what basis can they accuse religion of doing something that they deny can exist? Sounds to me like an attempt to both have and eat one's cake.
It is much more common, I think, than most of us realize. They will rise up and shout, "Stop being so judgmental and intolerant", a thoroughly judgmental and intolerant thing to shout. They will complain, "Don't try to tell people what to believe" which is, of course, an attempt to tell people what to believe. "You can't legislate morality," they'll assure us, but complain that the laws are not strong enough on their pet problem. (If that one was unclear, think about the complaints that too many Christians think that homosexual behavior is a sin, so they try to pass laws to make it illegal for Christians to have such an outlook -- legislating morality.)
It's an easy mistake to make. It's far too common. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want to argue that "The Bible says ..." for your position, please don't argue "That's not in the Bible" when your view is disputed ... and the references are offered. If you want to argue, "Don't use the Bible for your argument", please don't use the Bible for your argument. If you want to argue the separation of Church and State, please don't complain when the removal of the moral influence of religion brings about negative effects. And please, please, if you want people to be less judgmental and intolerant, don't be so judgmental and intolerant of what they believe. If you want them to be accepting of other beliefs, do the same thing for theirs. This kind of stuff just baffles me.
Cake, anyone?
2 comments:
Jesus never, not once, went to the mat for doctrine. Yet every split and schism in the church happened because our stubborn insistence that others must profess the "right" beliefs. We have expended huge amounts of resources and goodwill, defending the very aspect of religious life Jesus valued least. This is the great irony of Christ's church – a significant number of its members care more about believing certain things //about// Jesus, than following his example of love and service. If the church were Christian, mirroring the compassion of Jesus would be more important than echoing the orthodoxy that has built up around him.
That's cute, Naum ... you know ... the way you present that like it's fact. "Jesus never, not once, went to the mat for doctrine." He didn't correct the Pharisees on divorce. He didn't correct the Sadducees on the resurrection. Not once?
Doctrine is simply a body of principles presented for acceptance or belief. It is the truth claims of anything at all (although it is admittedly primarily a religious thing). Political, scientific, and philosophic groups have "doctrine" -- truth claims about what they believe. The military has doctrines. There is the Monroe Doctrine, the Stimson Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine, the Brezhnev Doctrine, the Kirkpatrick doctrine, and the Bush Doctrine. But doctrine -- truth claims -- is evil and Christ rejected it and no one should ever actually make a truth claim ... right?
I think that either you are misunderstanding "doctrine" or have horribly failed to understand Christ ... who made hundreds of truth claims, principles presented for acceptance or belief.
Ironically, the post it not about doctrine, but about inconsistency. You know, like how you claim that "Jesus never, not once, went to the mat for doctrine" (which is a truth claim) while you argue that the only true doctrine (principle offered for acceptance) is "love and service". That's the kind of thing I was talking about.
Post a Comment