|Sent on:||Tuesday, June 10, 2008 1:02 PM|
We've seen this argument a thousand times. It was bullshit the first time they posited it, it is bullshit now, and will always be bullshit. -- Skydivers don't knock on death's door; they ring the bell and run away... It really pisses him off. The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808 EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption. -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Jeff Wismer <[address removed]> > http://www.renewa... > > *Atheists are hypocritical in blaming atrocities on Christianity > > * * > *Robert Meyer > *Robert Meyer* <http://www.renewa...; > June 9, 2008 > > > Editorial letters and columns often cite religion, particularly > Christianity, for much of the world's past and present brutality and > atrocity. Such was repeated in a recent diatribe printed in my local city > newspaper. > > I have no trouble in apologizing for atrocities involving my religious > tradition, though I wasn't personally responsible, except for the guilt by > association in claiming to be personally a Christian. Presumably, if I > called myself an atheist, I wouldn't have been held ideologically culpable > by this detractor. > > However, critics must be honest and objective in their condemnations of > atrocities whether caused by religion or secular movements, lest we believe > their intentions are really gratuitous attacks against religion, not > condemnation against atrocities altogether. > > Therefore, to atheists and humanists who want to make this charge, you > should be equally considerate, apologizing for the proportionally larger > atrocities committed by cultural leaders, espousing godless, non-theistic > Utopian ideologies, within the "enlightened" 20th century alone. Because > whatever principle makes me guilty of the former, makes you equally guilty > of the latter. > > The point is not that any such examples of secular violence would excuse or > diminish religious atrocities, but rather, that the critic who uses examples > of religious atrocities without making reference to crimes motivated by > secular ideologies, is obviously biased and short-sighted in his approach. > > Critics will say that demagogues, such as Stalin, Poll-Pot, and Mao (who are > among the greatest mass murderers of all time), didn't really act on the > basis of their atheism, but because of fanatical political and economic > objectives. > > Yet their policies were informed by a view of man consistent with > metaphysical atheistic/evolutionary dogmas. Lenin retorted that, you have to > crack a few eggs to get an omelet, and Stalin obliged him as the short-order > cook, carrying out his purges that viewed the masses of humanity as > expendable instruments to achieve a cause. > > We must also be careful to observe that when people commit atrocities in the > "name of Christ," or under some similar ecclesiastical declaration of > authority, these acts are clearly abuses, for they do not represent the > values of Christ himself. We never see acts of violence carried out by > Christians in the first century. These violent activities largely result > from improper convolutions of the jurisdictions in church/state spheres of > sovereignty. These errors can be corrected though a proper application of > the Christian world view. > > On the other hand, secular violence can be directly related to the faithful > application of materialist/evolutionist metaphysical narratives carried out > to their logical end. Fortunately, most secularists are inconsistent, in > that they do not live or reason in a way that comports with their stated > ultimate view of reality. The correct application of such world views would > themselves lead to the violent ends that secularists claim to loath while > pointing their collective fingers derisively at religion. > > One must honestly ask the question, which claim about reality is likely to > produce a more harmonious world, if carried out faithfully to its logical > end? The assertion "God created man in his own image," representing the > Judeo-Christian tradition, or the manifesto by atheist/evolutionist Richard > Dawkins, representing the ideological epitome of the atheist movement, "the > universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there > is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but > pointless indifference." > > We must point out that if Dawkins' assessment of an atheist universe is > correct, it leaves critics, such as the one remonstrating in my newspaper, > with nothing left to complain about. > > ------------------------------ > Robert Meyer is a hardy soul who hails from the Cheesehead country of the > upper midwest. Robert is known by his opponents as a "clever rhetorician" > who often exposes the fallacies of knee-jerk arguments presented in local > papers. Seeking to develop precepts for every aspect of life �� based on a > conservative Christian worldview �� Robert often gleans inspiration from > looking off his back deck, over the scenic Fox river and recalling the wise > counsel of those who mentored him. To bark about this editorial, contact > Robert at Junkyarddog58@<NOSPAM>msn.com <[address removed]>. > > (c) Copyright 2008 by Robert Meyer > http://www.renewa... >
This email message originally included an attachment.