I am a Christian whose attributes are derided by both atheists and Christians, i.e. I do not condone the OT violence and ‘un-modern’ rules, abide by the modern law, is pro-choice, do not condemn divorce, try to live by the Beatitudes mainly, and support gender equality. A poor Christian by both standards.
My 1st article on MyNews24 explained why I respect atheists. (www.news24.com/MyNews24/Why-I-respect-Atheists-20121001). I stand by those sentiments.
It is thus sad that of late certain atheists have taken it on themselves to resort to argumentum ad nauseum tactics in an endeavour to support their position. Sometimes even resorting to either outright abuse or retorts without properly reading, (comprehending?), a response or comment on their article. Playing the man rather than the ball is not cricket.
It is equally not without chagrin that it must be observed that quite often the Christian position is espoused with pure emotion and unsubstantiated facts. These cut & paste crusaders, which have a knack for mangling scientific principles, are as bad as the OT bashing and “Another priest buggers another altar boy” brigade.
The argument that Christians are indoctrinated and thus should be liberated is rather interesting. Surely a Christian is free to decide whether s/he should question (or not), his/her faith? Certainly such a person should not be re-indoctrinated by an atheist towards an opposing stance, using the same tactics as those that ‘coerced’ the person to become a Christian in the 1st place?
As happened the other day; I get equally pissed off when I get asked whether I have given my heart to Jesus. Why only my heart? Is the rest of my body not required? What about my brain or my left buttock? It is interesting that all Christians want to go to heaven, but they will fight like a tiger not to die. Even pray not to.
One truth I have gleaned from the Christian/atheist debate. The question why God would allow death, sickness, murder et al, is never properly refuted and repeatedly offered as evidence as to his vindictive, dominating, viscous and domineering character.
One would imagine that it would be self evident to a Christian that since he is God he may be what he wants to be, even creating man in his image, albeit as described above. Besides, this is Earth, not Heaven. It is in heaven that there will be no pain and suffering. On Earth Christians are supposed to experience pain and suffering. Life is supposed to be difficult. And not fair either.
I cannot understand why one would or should want to be presented with evidence as to the existence of God. It is a belief system. ‘Right’ or ‘wrong’. One could also understand scepticism about God, when one’s life and life’s works involves, nay is embedded in the observable, the measureable and the reasonable. The dichotomy between Leviticus and the norms held forth by Christ and/or modern law is a given. Constant re-iteration serves to irritate not educate.
It seems futile that someone would take time to research and publish the 14 most Abominable Bible Verses, based on writings of 2000 plus years ago. To achieve what? As bad, is wasting time to reply on this. To achieve what? Satisfaction of or pandering to which driver?
It is a well known fact that Christmas is celebrated on the “wrong” day for the “wrong” reasons. Does it really matter? To those who believe in God or to those that do not?
Seeing that Mankind did survive the end of the world, would it be too much to expect not to have someone quote from the Bible to prove the truths of the Bible? That is like believing a politician, because he is a politician.
Is it too much to expect that the M2M behaviour of certain Catholic priests is not held forth as the norm of the garden variety Christian? That is like believing all blacks are crooks or all whites are racists.
Someone once said: “If the Christians had more Science and the Scientists more Christianity, the world would have been a better place”
Surely it is illogical, even presumptuous that a music teacher would enter into dispute with a graduated scientist,when the teacher’s understanding of the subject matter is based on and limited to high school learning? Equally, it is not specious (unscientific?), to judge and categorize the biggest religion, based on the lifestyle, morals and actions of some of its members? Or a personal experience, in some instances, many years ago?
Sad that the here and now of our failed state called South Africa creates only moderate emotion, but any mention of whether God exists or not, make Marikana look like the Teddy Bear’s picnic.
Or is our intolerance of each other just another manifestation of our egos’ need for feeding in order that the self can survive in an increasing immoral, violent and vicious society?
Being a Christian or an Atheist does not preclude one from rendering good service, being honest at work and polite when driving, performing charity without flaunting it, or debate in a civilised manner?
Is debate (which should be encouraged), to be relegated to cherry picking of verses from the Bible, or should there be more substance to the theme? It appears as if one has to sift through heaps of dross just to glean one thought provoking idea. Should, as has been previously suggested, N24 be petitioned for a separate Religion forum?
Or should one just accept the status quo as a natural evolution of the subject matter? How about the 30 000 other gods available? Will they be in for a bashing at sometime in the future as well?
Is there any possibility that we might recognise that both Christians and Atheists:
Can contribute to humankind in equal proportions
Believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong
Have a belief of what happens after death
Believe in an ultimate reality
Cannot live in isolation.....