Response to Local Readers' Forum Comments

[Minimalist]

Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.” (ROA, 82)

Fundies will promptly explain to you that catholics are not xtians.

In fact, most of them think that anyone who thinks differently from them cannot be a xtian because they think their fucking sky-daddy talks to them.

They are really sick bastards.

[pocaracas]

Evolution, a doctrine that Pius XII only acknowledged as an unfortunate possibility, John Paul accepts forty-six years later “as an effectively proven fact.” (ROA, 82)

Fundies will promptly explain to you that catholics are not xtians.

Southern Europe born and raised.... around here, if you're christian, you're catholic. No if or buts.... bring on those fundies.

[Ryantology]

I would respond to that response by simply pointing out that bias does not necessarily make a point wrong, and ignoring the point in favor of attacking the bias only makes the point seem that much sturdier. I would also point out that appealing to Scripture automatically balances the bias.

Welcome to the forums!

[Tobie]

What I have a problem with most is the "the world would be a worse place if there was no christianity", which would be true if you forgot about The Crusades, Thirty Years War, Ireland's problems, all the executions for being the wrong religion/denomination, the Pilgrims (the american mayflower stuff is a myth - the pilgrims went to America so they were free to persecute people for not being puritans), Slavery (encouraged in the bible), anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Homophobia, general bigotry and many more I can't think of right now.

[EscapingDelusion]

...I have been told I look like Tin tin, hence the avatar. :-) I guess being a redhead with a faux-hawk doesn't help...

---

"Indeed,as did our erstwhile Prime Minster,Kevin Rudd, who often appeared in political cartoons in that guise. [...] His rotund buffoon of a deputy, (Joe Hockey) is known as 'Shrek'."
...Then you have the English footballer Wayne Rooney who interestingly looks like a cross between Tintin and Shrek!

---

Thank you all for your replies! After reading your feedback, I decided to respond with a lengthy rebuttal. Here it is for anyone with enough time on their hands to read it...

-----

Jeff, I welcome your response and any healthy, friendly debate on this matter. Please recognize that any argument I make is in no way an attack on you. A few notes:

* "Just a few notes in response to your discussion. First, your quoting of Richard Dawkins shows an inherent bias against any spiritual. It would be like asking a Japanese soldier trapped and being bombed on Okinawa what he thought of FDR."
- I will not argue that I do have a bias against the spiritual. Any person who ignores his or her own bias and believes himself or herself to be truly objective is either a liar or a fool. As an atheist, I am biased against the spiritual. However, I do my best to think objectively and set that bias aside (recognizing and accepting that this is impossible). With that said, I also was raised as a fundamentalist Christian and I harbor no resentment for my parents for raising me as such. I learned the bible and creationism inside and out. I went to college with the intention of converting everyone I met. It was a much more in-depth study of the bible, other religions, and more that led to my "deconversion". I had many wonderful memories as a Christian. Nearly my entire family is still Christian. Almost all of my friends are Christians, and I even go to church fairly regularly to continue to learn more about this religion and to visit with many of my wonderful friends there. Many of my friends who are Christians are smarter than me, so I certainly do not believe that a belief in God makes someone unintelligent, as many atheists claim. I say this to explain that while I do have a bias against the spiritual, I have no bitterness against Christianity. My arguments are purely for the sake of holding a healthy debate.

* "The Scriptures are very clear in pointing out that mankind in general is the enemy of God and hates His laws and everything about Him."
- This really is not a very positive argument for Christianity. I would argue that the bible explains that many people reject "God's laws" but not that mankind, supposedly made in God's image, is God's enemy. Arguing that mankind is "the enemy of God" just seems like an odd argument.

* "Dawkins is just more vocal in his mischaracterization of the God of the Bible. He comes across differently in different books because of the great ignorance of His enemies and the biased hatred in their hearts they have toward Him."
- I apologize for sending you down a rabbit-hole. I was not emphasizing any sort of attachment to Richard Dawkins' views; I was simply quoting him to make a point. While I enjoy much of his writings, I also disagree with him on many points and am not afraid to do so or admit it. An argument against Richard Dawkins in general is not an argument against the points I made.

* "Thousands of others have studied the Bible and came to opposite (and more reasonable) conclusions."
- I find fault with your parenthetical "and more reasonable" note. I agree that thousands--tens of thousands--of people have studied the bible and come to different conclusions. Some are clearly unreasonable (consider my "infinitely just" versus "infinitely merciful" note, which is just an example, as it is definitely not an argument you made), but the majority are just different. Stating that these other conclusions ARE more reasonable (not that you simply find them more reasonable personally) because they agree with your own view is rather bold. Consider Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew. Jesus clearly states that people will be separated into heaven or hell based entirely on their actions toward the poor and needy. This makes sense when you read the entire gospel of Matthew (clearly the most Jewish of the gospels), which emphasizes that people still needed to follow the Jewish law and that Jesus' gospel supplements--not replaces--the Jewish law. This point is emphasized repeatedly in the book of James. In Paul's writings, however, he emphasizes that people are saved by grace alone and that it has nothing to do with works. Paul goes as far as to say that it is wrong to even TRY to follow the Jewish law. These are clearly conflicting views. Attempting to reconcile them and trying to explain away their differences to keep a consistent message requires making some large leaps and stretches and ignoring some key passages. Beyond this, however, it does an enormous disservice to the authors of these books. Each author had a point that he or she wanted to make, and to change that point so that it agrees with everything else is wrong. If you were a pastor, how would you feel if someone listened to your sermon and afterwards said, "what the pastor really meant by this was...” changing your point entirely so that it agreed with everyone else? We should read each book and let each author say what he wanted to say; to do anything else would be an insult to these authors.

* "Though Dawkins makes great sport of mocking the spiritual, he has no real answers to the origin of life, any more than the uneducated atheist drunk at the bar."
- Define "real answers." While Dawkins does not have inarguable proof of exactly how life began (no scientist does, as this is still cutting-edge science that will one day result in a generally-accepted theory), he does have some very good ideas. For all his sarcasm, wit, anti-theistic rants, and pro-atheistic message, Dawkins is a very intelligent scientist as well. Now that he is much more involved in the promotion of science and atheism and writing books, many forget his scientific contributions. He definitely has far more answers of how life likely began or could have begun than uneducated drunks at bars. This brash statement is rather insulting and really is beneath you, sir, as you seem like an intelligent, educated man.

* "It takes great faith to believe that the great complexity of life and the universe around us somehow 'evolved' from nothing (against all scientific observation)."
- I would agree that this would take great faith if it was against all scientific observation. However, science provides much evidence for evolution and explains in enormous detail exactly how we have the great complexity of life that you see today. I will not go into this detail now, but perhaps I will write some notes on it for you and we can exchange email addresses at some point. In the meantime, I encourage you to read non-Creationist scientific sources explaining the big bang theory, geology, biological evolution, and natural selection (the key mechanism to evolution). Please feel free to keep your bias and even read these sources skeptically; it is important and in your own best interest (even if you remain a fundamentalist Christian, as I am sure you will) for you to know what the scientific sources are actually saying instead of what Christian and Creationist organizations claim they say.

* "So Dawkins goes on his rampages, and the spiritually blind mockers join right in, having no more idea how we got here than he does."
- I agree that Dawkins does have a tendency to be a bit harsh and to rant at times. I will also agree that many of the folks following him in mocking Christianity are completely blind to what the religion says, and I condemn this strongly. I encourage everyone to read the bible and study it thoroughly; I believe it is one of the most important collections in the world, as it offers tremendous insight into the history of all three of the world's leading monotheistic religions, especially Judaism and Christianity. Regardless of one's views, no one can argue the impact of these religions, and it is important to know and understand their bases.

* "I am not going to rehash the dozen or so arguments you pose against the Christian religion, other than to say this - exactly what would this world be like had it not been for Jesus Christ? Follow Christianity around the world and around the centuries, and you see the end of cannibalism, Viking raids, widow burning, polygamy, and so forth. Even the freedom we enjoy right now is the result of the Protestant idea of religious liberty, and the chaos we see happening at the same time is the result of our losing that foundation."
- Consider the following: the Crusades were fought and hundreds of thousands of people killed in the name of Christianity. The Thirty Years War was started entirely because of Christianity alone and claimed more than 8 million lives. Northern Ireland has been in various levels of turmoil for hundreds of years accompanied by thousands of murders and many terrorist acts in the name of Christianity. Countless Christians have been executed and martyred by other Christians simply because they differed in a few theological points. Martin Luther, a prominent figure of the Protestant Reformation, explicitly said that he wished he could burn all Franciscan friars, that Christianity should be forced on people by "the law and the sword", that the Jews should be wiped out (there is some evidence that Hitler was a Luther admirer), and he personally saw to the murder of many Christians who disagreed with him. This is the founder of our modern Christian denominations! John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, had Michael Servetus (a Spanish theologian and doctor) burned at the stake because he disagreed with him theologically! Yes, this man revered by many Protestants personally saw to the horrible, painful murder of another man. The Pilgrims who founded our country in the spirit of "religious freedom," quickly forgot their own religious persecution and took it upon themselves to persecute and murder anyone who did not subscribe to their religious views. This is a theme throughout Christianity. One group was persecuted for a while, but as soon as it is in social or political power, it will quickly begin persecuting and killing others. Slavery was justified using passages in the bible. Many assert that these passages must be taken in the context of their day, but this is a faulty argument: 1) Jesus and Paul did not appear to be afraid of upsetting the culture of that day, so if they truly believed that slavery was evil, you would think that they would mention it, and 2) No fundamentality is willing to concede that passages condemning homosexuality must be taken in their own context and not applied to today; Christians pick and choose which passages only applied to people back then and which passages apply to us today. Moreover, it is a bit of a moot point to argue any of this; all that matters for this point is that slavery was a terrible, horrible evil that was justified (rightly or wrongly) using Christianity. Anti-Semitism has been encouraged by Christianity for thousands of years, from the author(s) of the Gospel of John to Hitler to Mel Gibson. Hitler claimed to be a Christian and believed that his mission was blessed by divine providence. He is quoted as saying "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." He attended a catholic church as a young man and wrote, " "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Hitler is known to have said: "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them," "In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders," "How terrific was his fight for the world against the Jewish poison," "it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross, "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice," "for as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." You may (rightly) argue that Hitler was not a true Christian, as his hatred and evil were entirely opposed to the teachings of Christ. What is important, however, is only that Hitler believed that he was a Christian and truly felt that his mission to exterminate the Jews was a Christian one. To this day, bigotry and hatred are encouraged around the world in the name of Christianity. I am not implying that Christianity is an evil religion. I am simply responding that, although you write that the world would be worse off without Christianity and that Christianity has led to freedom, in fact, millions and millions of people have been killed, tortured, persecuted, and bullied in the name of this religion. Christianity alone is clearly not the shining beacon you argue.

* "Atheism has produced only the Russian gulag and the Chinese mass murder, forced abortions, and general cruelty. Jesus said you will know them by there [sic] fruits, and there is no denying the bloody fruit of Atheism. As a side note, how many hospitals around the globe are founded, funded, and staff by self-sacrificing atheists? "
- Just as you will argue that Christianity cannot be held responsible for the Holocaust (and I will agree), I will argue that atheism cannot be held responsible for Stalin's atrocities, forced abortions, and "general cruelty." The bottom line is that evil people do evil things. They will justify their evil by their religion (interestingly, there is little to no evidence that Stalin attempted to justify his atrocities by his atheism, although Hitler clearly justified his by his Christianity). In other words, evil has been conducted by evil Christians without any evidence that it was because of their Christianity. Evil has also been conducted by Christians justifying it by their Christianity. Evil has been conducted by evil atheists without any evidence that it was because of their atheism. However, little to no evil has been conducted by atheists BECAUSE of their atheism. If you are looking to justify compare religious or non-religious views based solely on the lack of "bloody fruits," atheism comes out on top of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam every time. Many hospitals have been founded, funded, and staffed by atheistic secular-humanists. If an atheist believes that he or she has a moral responsibility to make this world better for others, they will do good, without requiring the promise of an eternal reward. However, I will not state that any of this is an argument for or against atheism. I am simply refuting your argument accusing atheism of horrible atrocities. Evil people do evil things. Good people do good things. All people will often justify their evil or good by whatever religion they profess. That's it.

* "When it comes to the idea of how we and the universe got here, atheism draws a big blank. Something does not come form [sic] nothing. The complex does not arise from the nonexistent. That is observable science, and it also why a person should start looking for answers in Genesis 1:1."
- Atheism alone will draw a blank with all this, as it does not claim to have any answers. All atheism is, is the absence of a belief in God. Science, however, does have answers for many of these things. There are many hypotheses regarding how our universe originated, and rather than condemning our current uncertainty, we should simply recognize that we live in an exciting time where we are still learning. We are fortunate to live at a time when we are making such progress. Uncertainty is not a fault; it is an opportunity to learn. Also, you cannot use the argument that "something does not come from nothing" to argue that the universe has a creator. To explain this quickly and simply, the universe is not a "thing." All "things" are subsets of this universe. To claim that the same laws that explain the behavior of those subsets must also apply to the overall set (i.e. the universe) is faulty logic. Perhaps we will discover that it does, but this is not necessarily true. The bottom line is that we observe a conservation of energy (i.e. something does not come from nothing, although quantum mechanics indicates that on a quantum level this law may be "broken") within the universe. Everything we observe MUST be within this universe. We cannot assume that the same laws that apply to a rock or a bird in this universe must apply to the universe itself.

In conclusion, I found it surprising that you responded to my arguments that many Christians ignore the wrathful God of the bible (with which you seem to agree) and that in fact God himself is a nonexistent, human-invented being with arguments for creationism and against science. I was surprised by how much you argued against Richard Dawkins, when I only quoted him once. Finally, I find your arguments for Christianity and against atheism based on perpetrated evils or good very faulty. Please continue to use this forum, and I welcome the opportunity to hear from you and engage in friendly debate again. I welcome anyone willing to defend their views, as long as they are willing to listen to mind and sincerely want to learn more. In spite of the fact that I do not agree with you on quite a bit, I think we would enjoy having a good discussion at some point. You made it a point to attack my arguments and defend yours; you made no personal attacks on me, for which I am appreciative. Thank you very much for your letter, your thought-out response, and your respect.

[EscapingDelusion]

After some time, this fellow with whom I had been debating took the time to post a lengthy reply. Although I definitely take issue with most of his statements, I believe I will allow him to have the last word, as I know that there is really no point to arguing this further. Here is his reply:

Dear “Escaping”,

I have a little time and as promised will respond to some of your comments from the Tribune website. The first is a theological one regarding your statement in paragraph 4, where you took issue with my assessment of mankind as the enemy of God: “mankind, supposedly made in Gods image, is God’s enemy.” One only has to start with Genesis three at the fall of man, where death is announced, follow that through to the flood of Noah, and continue through to the end with the judgments of Revelation to see that man is in a heap of trouble. We are given the reason for this in Romans 8:7, which proclaims unsaved people are God’s enemies. “Natural man”, or man devoid of the Spirit of God, cannot understand the things of God and has no desire for them. That is why Jesus said that unless a man is “born from above”, he cannot see the kingdom of God . Yes, man was made in God’s image, but that image is badly marred because of sin. That was the reason for the coming of Christ, whose mission is to restore that image through faith in Him.

Secondly, you spend a great deal of time in the 5th paragraph attempting to show a contradiction in the Bible regarding the issue of faith a works – where Christ teaches that men are judged entirely on their actions whereas Paul teaches that they are people are saved by grace alone. This is a common error, even among some Christians, who fail to see that faith and works are inseparable. In other words, because of the condition of man (as described partially above), as the enemy of God and “spiritually dead” (Ephesians 2), there is no possible way that works can justify before God. James points out, however, that good works are necessary to VERIFY whether a faith is genuine or false. That is what Jesus meant when separating the sheep and the goat by their deed, for in Matthew 7 he teaches that we can know false teachers “BY THEIR FRUITS”. Let me put this as plain as possible – any person who claims to be a Christian, and still follows after their carnal lusts and sinful lifestyle, is lying. Christianity is SPIRITUAL in nature, and when the Spirit of God has entered a person’s life, that life is altered and will produce good works.

You mention in the next paragraph that Dawkins “does not have inarguable proof of exactly how life began” and admit that no scientist does. This is the whole crux of my argument, for it is the very root of the issue. That is what I meant by the “atheist in the bar” argument. Not to insult drunk atheists, but to point out the fact that it is not an issue of intelligence. I love science. I spent my younger years reading everything scientific, and wondered how some of the other kids in school had such a rough time getting good grades. I took it very seriously. One of the things I remember about science is that unless something can be observed and then repeated, it is not proven science. Louis Pasteur’s experiment regarding spontaneous generation is proven science. In other words, life does not spontaneously arise from non-living matter. If one starts with non-living matter, or even nothing, than all we will have, even after millions of year, is non-living matter. Evolutionists skip the issue of origin and jump right into the changes of millions of years. I cannot do that. Life is too complex and mysterious, and will always remain so to carnal science, because it is SPRITUAL in nature. As I was typing this paragraph, my daughter brought me her science homework which had on it this statement: “Life formed, probably in the seas, and migrated onto land.” That is NOT science, it is conjecture. It cannot be proven, never will be. The Bible, on the other hand, is a documented account. We can chose to believe Genesis 1 or not, but it is just as “scientific”, and actually more so, than the “swirling cloud of dust particles” that formed the universe.

Lastly, you close with a lengthy article about the Crusades, Thirty Years War, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and a few other historical issues that you see cast Christianity in a bad light. It should be noted that in my first argument I go into detail about the sinful condition of man. It stands to reason that evil men, when given the opportunity, will take the Christian religion and use it to increase their influence and power if they can. That is exactly what they did. The Crusades were not a mission work of the biblical Christian church, they were a power grab of an apostate “pope”. By that time in history evil men had corrupted the church for political power. That is why they called it the “Dark Ages”. It was not only the Muslims and Jews who suffered, but any sincere Christian who bucked the system did so at the risk of being burned alive. They did their best to stamp out any vestige of the Bible, condemning and killing any who might try to translate it into the language of the people. Protestant nations had to fight for survival, as Rome sent their armies and armadas to snuff out any freedom of conscience that might arise from biblical principles. This went on for centuries until Rome was forced, by political pressure, to lay of the murder and mayhem.

Luther is an enigma in Protestant circles when it comes to the issues you brought up. On the one side, he put his own life on the line for freedom of conscience, yet was reluctant to allow that same for others, such as the Jews. He was known for his hot responses, and many times he apologized for going over the top. To boil it down, Luther as well as Calvin were men of their times, and did not understand the concept of separation of church and state. Much more can be said, but the birth pangs of religious freedom (from which all other Western freedoms arise) took centuries to finally reach full bloom. You did not answer my question regarding what the world would be like without Jesus Christ – let’s just say it probably would not have changed much. Pagans, cannibals, widow-burnings, and so forth would continue in societies.

Briefly, you refer to Hitler as claiming some form of Christianity. Let me say this kindly, that no person in their right mind would accept the notion that he was a Christian in any sense of the word. He was simply one of many in a long line evil men who used Christianity for his own purposes when it was to his advantage.

Finally, the issue of slavery. One of the world’s big bugaboos about the Bible is that somehow it condoned slavery. No, like many other issues, it regulated it, as Christ said, “because of the hardness of men’s hearts”. The Bible says in Malachi that God “hates divorce”. Yet large portions of the law are given over to regulate it. The same with polygamy and other vices. Slavery was not condemned outright, as it existed in the Roman system, but when push came to shove slavery lost. The reason it lost was because the New Testament teaches a certain equality of value in men, which was incompatible with the system. Yes, Paul commanded slaves to be loyal and respectful to their masters and work hard. His purpose was not to condone the evil of slavery, but to promote the superior ethics of Christianity. Christianity is not a political religion, but a spiritual one. Jesus told Pilate at his trial that His kingdom was not of this world, or servants would fight for Him. Slavery still existed in Western culture because evil men could make money off of it, but it was CHRISTIANS such as William Wilberforce, who spent their lives fighting it.

This is a lengthy response, and I probably will not have time to continue responses like this. I am doing so partly because I sense that you do enjoy the discussion and desire to learn from it. My real concern is that you face the issue of the shortness of life and the fact of death, and that you contemplate the consequences if your system is wrong. Finally, boil it all down to this – life does not come from non life. The Complex NEVER arises from nothing. We have been left a written revelation that explains how this occurred, and are offered the chance to accept it or reject it. My hope is that you reconsider your rejection of Christianity and look at it again, remembering the the unscientific premises of evolution and atheism have no answer for what is really important, the origin of life.