An Atheist's Defence of Christianity

The Autonomist ^ | 10/25/06 | Reginald Firehammer

[wolfpat]

bump

[Tribune7]

Those who recognize that absolute truths exist. and that the rights and wrongs summed up on the Sermon on the Mount are universal, are on the same side in the fight.

[Mamzelle]

re: The reason Christianity is singled out as the untolerated religion bewilders most Americans.)))

Sigh. The trouble is, when you stop being bewildered, and the whole awful spectacle opens up.

[Hank Kerchief]

Hi grey_whiskers

Mine are too, that is, my whiskers, and what few hairs I have left, are grey.

I would never attack "Christianity" for the very reasons given in the article, and also because I do not attack things. My only way of dealing with others is reason.

My "beef" is with the concept of forgiveness itself, whether its found in Christianity or some bleeding heart liberal's rant, it's contrary to two concepts which are fundamental to a correct ethics--namely justice and personal responsibility. In most cases, forgiveness is the equivalent of letting someone off the hook for something that ought to have a price (consequence), but in all cases where there is a price, if the one who entails it does not pay it, it means someone else has to. For example, when some welfare mother has one bastard child after another and the public is required to support them. They're forgiven their "mistake" at someone else's expense.

I never want forgiveness. In fact I would consider it an insult. I bear the consequences of my wrong choices, even when they are made in ignorance, a condition I strive continually to avoid. Bearing the consequences of my own wrong choices means I know I have a right to the benefit of all my right choices, that what I enjoy in this life I've earned by my own effort and it is mine by right. It also prevents me from having the illusion that dominates most of today's society, that one can do wrong and get away with it, or that one has a right to anything they have not earned.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

Hi Tribune7

"Those who recognize that absolute truths exist. and that the rights and wrongs summed up on the Sermon on the Mount are universal, are on the same side in the fight."

In terms of the "fight" against anti-intellectualism, post-modernism, hedonism, and nihilism swamping our culture, I agree.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

Hi Mamzelle,

"The reason Christianity is singled out as the untolerated religion bewilders most Americans.)))

Sigh. The trouble is, when you stop being bewildered, and the whole awful spectacle opens up."

I'm going to suggest something that is at least part of the answer. All my life I've experienced a kind of instant antipathy from a certain class of people. I'm an atheist, but have very strong personal ethical views, and it is apparent in the way I live. Most people use expressions like, "it's only human" to excuse some of the more despicable things in their lives, as though living a decent moral life were something impossible. My life is the proof of that lie to them, and for that they hate me. (Which doesn't bother me in the least, by the way.)

If you want to know why Christians are hated so much, it's not all the "dangers" they are supposed to be to society or politics--those are just covers for the real source of that hatred. Christians are hated for their high moral standards, sense of integrity, and decency. They prove that people can have those kinds of values and live by them. There is verse in the Bible that states if very well:

"Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil."

Christians are a kind of light, not the one they usually mean themselves by that expressioin, but an example of what is possible to decent men.

Hank

[GSlob]

Well, I would suggest that the theoretical aspects are to be separated from the absolutely [selfish and] applied one: how to maintain the forward momentum, which has somewhat slackened. One could advance the argument that root and branch repudiation of multiculturalism, and the adoption of "civilizationist" attitudes [civilization is the sociology, i.e the frame of mind which is almost as (not quite as, but coming close) resilient as genetics] could go a long way. And then one could proceed from there, and revisit the theory.

[grey_whiskers]

My "beef" is with the concept of forgiveness itself, whether its found in Christianity or some bleeding heart liberal's rant, it's contrary to two concepts which are fundamental to a correct ethics--namely justice and personal responsibility.

As an atheist, your very axioms and presuppositions preclude me from profitably discussing this point with you--but it rests in nature and power of God.

It is risky to go around forgetting about temporal consequences. Some Christian circles even have a name for it, "sloppy agape." OTOH, without forgiveness, there is no chance for "justice to be tempered with mercy". You run the risk of an over-emphasis on legalistic approaches without the chance for people to "pay their debt to society".

The problem is that the best approach is not "either-or" but "both-and"; and knowing WHEN to be harsh, and when not.

That wisdom is often beyond humans.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Only problem is, different underlying theories might give completely different *ways* to maintain the forward momentum; and what is to "replace* the multiculturalism.

Hitchens, for example, advocates literature;

Dawkins wants scientism;

Paris Hilton just wants to party;

etc. etc.

One needs a coherent value system to *choose* among courses of action; and then one needs socieetal consensus to express the value system through the laws, culture, and institutions.

Cheers!

[GSlob]

Plato would agree with all of them: partying - in appropriate measure and in season; scientism - yes, but not scholasticism; literature - depends on the kind of it, and so on. The value system coherence is not, and should not be, an absolute requirement - we have all seen the excessively coherent systems, from islam and inquisition to Nazi Germany and the thucking USSR. For the beginning, one could start with "multiculturalism is baboonery", and then strive to avoid all other babooneries as well, for the multiculturalism is not the only one.

[jennyp]

Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately I've given up on dhimmitude, so I don't think I'll be posting here anymore.

You can find me at DarwinCentral.org.

[Hank Kerchief]

Hi jennyp,

I am an atheist, and an independent individualist and regard evolution as the academic religion of the day, based as much on faith as any mystic religion, wrapped in pseudo-scientific trappings. I have not yet found a "true-believer" in evolution who will honestly answer objective questions regarding it. Maybe you are different.

Hank

[UnklGene]

Thanks, Hank. I'm reading Mark Steyn's novel, America Alone. It's really chilling and comes to the same conclusions as Dalrymple.

[Valpal1]

God doesn't forgive the sin or the evil, he forgives people. God has the right to forgive because every sin is first and foremost a transgression against God. A sin may or may not be a transgression against another human being and may or may not result in evil (harm to another) but they are all a trangression against God.

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

[Hank Kerchief]

Valpal1, I do not think we have a debate. The verse you quoted needs to be united with another:

Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

I've read your Scripture in Hebrew (hatlingly, I admit) and Greek and altogether from cover to cover over 40 times, and most parts hundreds of times. I am familiar with all the theologians and read most extensively. There is not going to be an argument or explanation I am not totally famaliar with. I find the doctrines of original sin, the "sinful nature" or "total depravity" (if you are a reformed or Presbyterian), eternal security (once saved always saved) and the vicarious atonement all contrary to both sound reason, and except for the latter, unsupported even in Scripture.

Now, my dear Valpal1, I will never try to convince you of my views, because I do not believe one can change another person, and that the attempt is tantamount to presumption and interference. We'll most likely never agree on such things, which is not the essential thing in our relationship. We can walk with one another so far as we are going in the same direction, but when your life and intentions take you in another, we must part company, and someday find, in the long run, truth will find us walking on the same path again.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

Hi UnklGene,

I envy you. I've order Steyn's book, but it has not yet arrived. I think Steyns demographic vies are a bit stonger than Dalrymples, but generally they agree, and as I've said in another place it bye bye Europe.

Hank

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the very interesting ping! Excellent topic. I just reserved "Our culture, what's left of it : the mandarins and the masses" by Theodore Dalrymple and "The case for Christ : a journalist's personal investigation of the evidence for Jesus" by Lee Strobel at my local library. I look forward to reading both.

You're welcome :)

[little jeremiah]

Really long article that looks interesting.

[apackof2]

Thanks for pinging me to the thread.

Your welcome

Overall, though, it has provided a center of belief that has held people more or less together. I wonder, though, whether that can last. Christianity, in the past couple hundred years, has fractionated itself into a vast multitude of sects and denominations, each believing that it has the correct interpretation of Christianity.

Yes that true. I believe its part of the “divide and conquer” tactic that has been used against the church by satan. However in Matthew 16:18 Christ makes this statement “And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it “

So there is no danger of the body of Christ not continuing. However the divide makes the church less effective at communicating the Good News of the gospel.

We see this every day here on Free Republic, and even here in the Religion topic. Even though the Religion Moderator does a fine job of keeping the dissension among Christians to a low roar, I'm alarmed at the number of posts that discount one denomination or another as somehow not "true" Christianity....It is a shame, and it is divisive. I'm sure it's not what Jesus would have taught.

Yes. you are right. I have been guilty of that myself on occasion.
2 Timothy 2:24 “And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.”

Because if one believes the Scripture, Jesus was the Son of God, He died for our sins, He was buried and arose from the dead to re-establish a fellowship with the Lord, than we are all of the body of Christ, regardless of denomination. (Although I am sure you know that there are “false prophets” who promote a different Gospel. (Jer. 14:14, Ezekiel 22:28, Matt 24:11, etc.)

For me, as an outsider, but a former believer, there is a core to Jesus' teachings that should suffice to unite all Christians. It used to, I think, mostly. These days, I am not sure.

I find it interesting that you say you are a “ former believer”. James said, "You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror." James 2: 19

So "believing" isn’t really being “saved” Unless of course you are a believer like the Heb. 6 :4-6 former believer. By being “saved’ I mean, simply having a relationship with the person of Jesus Christ.

I DO know that if you really did at one time have a relationship with Jesus you would NEVER turn away to deny Him. To me the really tragic thing is that you are missing out on the greatest love you will ever know

[elfman2]

"The "objective" rule if we are only meat can only be "do whatever you want as long as the consequences don't outweigh the pleasure or survival benefit gleaned from doing as you choose." So murder is OK as long as you have a very low probability of getting caught. Or, if like Ted Bundy, the pleasure of murder outweighs the consequences.

I was an Objectivist many, many years ago. "

That’s not remotely consistent with Objectivism, which recognizes our right to life as the foundation for which all other rights derive. Murder in a prudent predator fashion has no possibility of Objectivist sanction. An Objectivist may have a moral laps and commit murder, as might a Christian, but anyone arguing in its favor is not arguing from Objectivist ethics.