Letter to the editor" Religion Is the Enemy " (really severe barf alert)

The problem is not all religion, it is certain specific religion.

In my never humble opinion, it is any religion which attempts to force their beliefs and morals on others.

Most religions forget the concept that it is up to God to sort out the sinners, and believe they must do God's work for God. Judge not, lest ye be judged!

This, I think, is the Christian view that is often misused. It is not the value of man, in the, "eyes of God," that we must use when judging our relationships to one another. When I must judge how to relate to a rapist or thug threatening my wife or daughter, it is not his value in the eyes of God I am or should be concerned with but his value (a very negative one) to me at the moment. Essentially, in human relationships, it is this visible practical value that should always determine our moral relationships. The higher value of man in the Christian view should be handled in a higher court.

I think that we may be talking past eachother here. I was not arguing in the slightest that we should not go after the Bin Ladens in the world and kill them, nor should you hesitate in incapacitating/killing the thug who is trying to hurt your loved ones. Your actions in doing so are not due to a lack of value of the other person- it is in defense of the ones you love and your neighbors.

Practical personal values of people are well beyond the scope of this thread- everyone has different standards upon what they subjectively value in a person. However, if there is a God, particularly one who is actively involved in Creation and interacts with and cares about the people in that Creation (as Christianity asserts), then the values that Creator places on things become the objective values of those things. They are objective values because all things would theoretically proceed from Him (note that this concept goes a bit beyond what I can articulate here). Basically put, though, there is the subjective value of a person in another person's eyes, and then there is the objective value which proceeds from the creator. A Christian's goal would seem to be to conform their subjective views of people to God's objective view, in love of both God and the person being valued.

What I have said is by no means clear and by no means acceptable by everyone, but that is how I see this problem.

Low character, for sure.

Wait 'till I show this to my wife. She won't believe it. That's the mildest thing I've been called in ages.

Thanks!

Hank

On a practical level, I think we would be for the very same thing, I agree.

I cannot, however, accept you view of, "objectivity." It would mean a person could not be objective without believing in God and what the Bible teaches. I happen to believe a person has to be capable of objective thought and to reason objectively before he can believe in God or understand the Bible.

I'm not questioning your view, or making an argument, just pointing out our basic difference on this point.

Athiests always have one basic problem, I think we can agree on. It is impossible for them to admit that if this life is all there is, at some point in their life, they are going to have to ask the question, what's the point, and they won't have an answer. Those who admit it usually become exhistentialist, and settle for their philosophy of despair. It is what Paul meant by "having no hope, and [being] without God in the world."

Hank

On a practical level, I think we would be for the very same thing, I agree.
I cannot, however, accept you view of, "objectivity." It would mean a person could not be objective without believing in God and what the Bible teaches. I happen to believe a person has to be capable of objective thought and to reason objectively before he can believe in God or understand the Bible.
I'm not questioning your view, or making an argument, just pointing out our basic difference on this point.

Athiests always have one basic problem, I think we can agree on. It is impossible for them to admit that if this life is all there is, at some point in their life, they are going to have to ask the question, what's the point, and they won't have an answer. Those who admit it usually become exhistentialist, and settle for their philosophy of despair. It is what Paul meant by "having no hope, and [being] without God in the world."

I generally agree with you more than you probably think. It is possible for one not to believe in God and still view things in ways close to as God does. And men as a whole, whether they believe in God or not, rarely tend to be COMPLETELY objective anyway. I have probably met some atheists who are more objective than some theists!

I think your assessment that honest atheists must eventually, if they are being completely reasonable and objective, come to atheistic existentialism. The mathematician Blaise Pascal made very good use of this in his Pensees (I'd strongly suggest him to anyone looking for a good thought provoking read... I find his arguments in favor of theism to be the most convincing).

Thanks for the interesting dialog. :)

I guess one can say Orthodoxy has killed more than Hitler could ever think of. It's all called Power and Control of the masses.

Wouldn't it be great if we could emulate the great atheist regimes? Think of the peace, harmony, safety, and general welfare of those fortunate enough to live in a society without any religion at all. There would be nothing to fight about. It would be like John Lennon's dream world in his humanist hymn "Imagine". Stalin's Russia and Mao's China come to mind. No, wait ...

Islam: the only religion where 90% is considered "the few".

Pierre needs to learn to use the English language before trying to pass off chatroom blurbs as columns. Maybe his readers have extremely short attention spans and no discernment.