Does Christianity breed immorality?
In the September 25 edition of the National Post, a debate between militant atheist writer Christopher Hitches, and Christian apologist Douglas Wilson is featured, to consider the question "Is Christianity good for the World?"
In seeking to propose that Christianity breeds immorality, Hitchens offers 3 points.
1) Christianity, though often credited (either by others or its own followers) for spreading the precept of "love thy neighbour (as yourself)", there is no evidence that Christianity is the actual origin of this ideal.
2) Christianity features many immoral teachings, namely "vicarious redemption, whereby one's own responsibilities can be flung on to a scapegoat and thereby taken away," and the idea that non-acceptance of this forgiveness will lead to eternal damnation. He then launches into an argument that Christianity somehow derides thrift, family, and planning for the future.
3) Christianity, if it is to claim credit for the work of outstanding Christians, must also accept responsibility for the opposites. Furthermore, to believe that the cosmos was made with man in mind is "the highest form of arrogant self-centeredness." There is more reverence and awe to be derived from studying the heavens and our DNA than can be found in any book written by superstitious, myth-propagating committees of uneducated men.
All three of these points falter; indeed, one of them fails to even get out of the starting gate (even against as uneducated and dim a mind as mine).
Addressing the first point is tremendously simple, in that Hitchens himself answers it in his question: Christianity never claims to be the sole originator of the concept of "love thy neighbour" - however, either through coincidence, or design, Christianity IS largely responsible for the spread and ubiquitousness of this concept, as Christianity spread from a group of lowly and uneducated Jewish fishermen and tax collectors, to become, through design or a quirk of history, the most widespread religion in the Roman Empire, as well as serving as the spiritual and moral underpinnings of modern Western civilization as we know it. In otherwords, Christianity doesn't have to be the origin of this ideal - what matters is that, thanks to Christianity, by design or by accident, "love thy neighbour" is now touted almost-universally as the moral bottomline in society - regardless of whether or not society actually follows it.
As it stands, this argument is weak, at best, and pointless at worst.
The second point is better, though it does contain parts which flounder. The latter part of the argument claims that Christianity denounces thrift, family and future planning.
To put it simply, I have absolutely no idea where Hitchens gets this from. It almost certainly does not come from the Bible I read, or the Christ I follow, all of which commend thrift (all Christians being viewed as stewards of the resources provided by God, including money, which we spend not for frivolous pursuits, but for eternal purposes), family (see all the passages exhorting men and women of God to responsibly raise their families in the Lord), and wisdom in preparing for the future (see the parable of the wise and foolish men who build on solid rock and sand respectively). The only possibility is if he were to take out of context the calling of the first disciples (including some who left their homes and family to follow Jesus), or the call for us not to worry so much about the provision for our worldly needs, instead relying on God to provide (notwithstanding that God can and does provide for us by way of gainful employment for wages).
The best argument of his second point is when he takes exception with Christianity's central point: That Christ came to earth and took upon Himself the full responsibility and punishment for all the sins of all mankind, past, present and future. There is a certain hint of noble and honourable intent in his rejection of this idea: Hitchens believes that at the end of the day, each and every person is responsible for themselves, including the consequences of their actions and missteps. However, this also carries a conteptuous hint of arrogance as well: it is as if Hitchens is dictating to God how He should proceed towards the goal of rescuing His people. Considering that Hitchens makes a point of highlighting Christian "arrogance" and the "tyranny" of Christian belief in his third point, this carries a touch of hypocrisy, as a mere man should find himself lecturing an Almighty God about how He ought to do things.
If God were forced to do things in a way that is bound by human reason, He really wouldn't be much of a God, would He? And if He is indeed almighty and all-powerful, who is to say that He can or cannot do such a thing? If Hitchens is implying that it isn't fair to have the sins of all rest on the shoulders of One, he can find comfort in knowing that all believing Christians share that view with him. Where we part ways is in our reactions: Some will simply reject this situation for being what it is, and with it, the gift of grace and mercy on offer. Others will choose to accept that they did not deserve this grace, and that it is unfair, but that this sacrifice was offered in love, and in such a way that demands an affirmative response.
Sadly, Hitchens belongs to the former group. The response to his rejection of the idea of hell as an eternal consequence is similar: if the exit has been offered to you, yet you refuse to accept it, whose fault is it when the consequences are doled out? It isn't God who seeks to condemn you, but you yourself who put yourself into that unenviable situation. If the question then becomes "well, why can't God just do away with the consequences?", the answer lies in God Himself, who carries the attribute of justice in His character. If it is unfair for one to shoulder the sin of the many, then how can you seek to reconcile justice without consequences? To those who are willing to accept it, Christ has already born our punishment.
The third point argues that Christians ought to take responsibility/credit for the darker aspects of our history as well. To this, I have no argument: Every group of people has its dark side, and Christians are no exception. However, I would argue that this is not so much indicative of a flaw in Christianity, as it is a humbling reminder of just how weak our spirits and flesh really are; how susceptible we are to temptation and corruption as a race. Christianity has always implored its followers to confess to their sins, accept forgiveness from God, and strive towards conquering their sins and weaknesses by relying on God. Were it possible to defeat our sinful nature by ourselves, there would be no need for the Cross. Furthermore, it is dishonest to claim, as Hitchens does, that Christians have not taken responsiblity for their failings.
I contend that there are few groups which will so quickly, or so profusely, apologize for wrongdoings. More importantly, I contend that there are few groups of people who will just as readily move to forgive the offending party, and seek to heal them and rehabilitate them.
Finally, he boldly accuses Christians of self-centeredness and arrogance for our belief that a loving God created the entire universe with us in mind. This assumes that there is no God; yet, there is really no possible way to physically prove the existence (or inexistence) of the spiritual and supernatural. If so, on what basis does Hitchens (and all other atheists) make this assumption? Christians, on the other hand, point to results in the lives of those who have been touched by God, in many cases, dramatic changes which could not have been accomplished through sheer willpower and perseverance alone. If so, is it not even more arrogant to assume that there is no God who created the universe? And if one assumes there is a God, is it not also arrogance to (again) dictate to God the reasons He created the cosmos, or to somehow say that humanity is not a good enough reason to do so? To assume that we somehow know the reasons behind creation will always be arrogant - the difference is, the Christian believes his view to have been given to us by the Creator Himself, so that it is not I who say the cosmos were created for humanity, but the Creator.
Hitchens then falls into the trap that so many succumb to: in refusing to acknowledge or worship the Creator, he goes to revere the created (in this case, DNA and the heavens). While there is indeed much to be admired in the handiwork of God, this focus on the works and not the Workman makes him not unlike the old idol worshippers, who worshipped images created by human hands, or those superstitious mystics who worshipped and deified inanimate objects like rocks or the sky - in short, the creation instead of the Creator. Have you ever heard someone express reverence for the Mona Lisa itself? Or do we profess admiration for its creator, Leonardo Da Vinci?
Finally, though the Bible may have been written or passed through the ages by a bunch of men living in (comparatively) unenlightened times, there is no denying that the same questions posed then are being posed today: namely, why am I here? What is the meaning of life? Is there more than what we can experience with our five senses?
Seeing as so many have found their answers in the Bible, and seeing how atheism has offered no answers and only criticisms, perhaps this collection of books, supported by history and archaeology, is more deserving of a second (and I suspect in most cases, a first) look?
At the end, Hitchens' points, while useful for provoking thought and shaking the cobwebs from my mind, fall exceedingly short of their intended goal of proving Christianity immoral.
For Douglas Wilson's response to Hitchens:
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=832988
For anyone who has bothered to read this piece to its conclusion, some light-hearted reading that goes to show: aggressive proselytizing and evangelism to the point of hostility, bullying and aggression are by no means restricted to the religious:
http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=839410
In seeking to propose that Christianity breeds immorality, Hitchens offers 3 points.
1) Christianity, though often credited (either by others or its own followers) for spreading the precept of "love thy neighbour (as yourself)", there is no evidence that Christianity is the actual origin of this ideal.
2) Christianity features many immoral teachings, namely "vicarious redemption, whereby one's own responsibilities can be flung on to a scapegoat and thereby taken away," and the idea that non-acceptance of this forgiveness will lead to eternal damnation. He then launches into an argument that Christianity somehow derides thrift, family, and planning for the future.
3) Christianity, if it is to claim credit for the work of outstanding Christians, must also accept responsibility for the opposites. Furthermore, to believe that the cosmos was made with man in mind is "the highest form of arrogant self-centeredness." There is more reverence and awe to be derived from studying the heavens and our DNA than can be found in any book written by superstitious, myth-propagating committees of uneducated men.
All three of these points falter; indeed, one of them fails to even get out of the starting gate (even against as uneducated and dim a mind as mine).
Addressing the first point is tremendously simple, in that Hitchens himself answers it in his question: Christianity never claims to be the sole originator of the concept of "love thy neighbour" - however, either through coincidence, or design, Christianity IS largely responsible for the spread and ubiquitousness of this concept, as Christianity spread from a group of lowly and uneducated Jewish fishermen and tax collectors, to become, through design or a quirk of history, the most widespread religion in the Roman Empire, as well as serving as the spiritual and moral underpinnings of modern Western civilization as we know it. In otherwords, Christianity doesn't have to be the origin of this ideal - what matters is that, thanks to Christianity, by design or by accident, "love thy neighbour" is now touted almost-universally as the moral bottomline in society - regardless of whether or not society actually follows it.
As it stands, this argument is weak, at best, and pointless at worst.
The second point is better, though it does contain parts which flounder. The latter part of the argument claims that Christianity denounces thrift, family and future planning.
To put it simply, I have absolutely no idea where Hitchens gets this from. It almost certainly does not come from the Bible I read, or the Christ I follow, all of which commend thrift (all Christians being viewed as stewards of the resources provided by God, including money, which we spend not for frivolous pursuits, but for eternal purposes), family (see all the passages exhorting men and women of God to responsibly raise their families in the Lord), and wisdom in preparing for the future (see the parable of the wise and foolish men who build on solid rock and sand respectively). The only possibility is if he were to take out of context the calling of the first disciples (including some who left their homes and family to follow Jesus), or the call for us not to worry so much about the provision for our worldly needs, instead relying on God to provide (notwithstanding that God can and does provide for us by way of gainful employment for wages).
The best argument of his second point is when he takes exception with Christianity's central point: That Christ came to earth and took upon Himself the full responsibility and punishment for all the sins of all mankind, past, present and future. There is a certain hint of noble and honourable intent in his rejection of this idea: Hitchens believes that at the end of the day, each and every person is responsible for themselves, including the consequences of their actions and missteps. However, this also carries a conteptuous hint of arrogance as well: it is as if Hitchens is dictating to God how He should proceed towards the goal of rescuing His people. Considering that Hitchens makes a point of highlighting Christian "arrogance" and the "tyranny" of Christian belief in his third point, this carries a touch of hypocrisy, as a mere man should find himself lecturing an Almighty God about how He ought to do things.
If God were forced to do things in a way that is bound by human reason, He really wouldn't be much of a God, would He? And if He is indeed almighty and all-powerful, who is to say that He can or cannot do such a thing? If Hitchens is implying that it isn't fair to have the sins of all rest on the shoulders of One, he can find comfort in knowing that all believing Christians share that view with him. Where we part ways is in our reactions: Some will simply reject this situation for being what it is, and with it, the gift of grace and mercy on offer. Others will choose to accept that they did not deserve this grace, and that it is unfair, but that this sacrifice was offered in love, and in such a way that demands an affirmative response.
Sadly, Hitchens belongs to the former group. The response to his rejection of the idea of hell as an eternal consequence is similar: if the exit has been offered to you, yet you refuse to accept it, whose fault is it when the consequences are doled out? It isn't God who seeks to condemn you, but you yourself who put yourself into that unenviable situation. If the question then becomes "well, why can't God just do away with the consequences?", the answer lies in God Himself, who carries the attribute of justice in His character. If it is unfair for one to shoulder the sin of the many, then how can you seek to reconcile justice without consequences? To those who are willing to accept it, Christ has already born our punishment.
The third point argues that Christians ought to take responsibility/credit for the darker aspects of our history as well. To this, I have no argument: Every group of people has its dark side, and Christians are no exception. However, I would argue that this is not so much indicative of a flaw in Christianity, as it is a humbling reminder of just how weak our spirits and flesh really are; how susceptible we are to temptation and corruption as a race. Christianity has always implored its followers to confess to their sins, accept forgiveness from God, and strive towards conquering their sins and weaknesses by relying on God. Were it possible to defeat our sinful nature by ourselves, there would be no need for the Cross. Furthermore, it is dishonest to claim, as Hitchens does, that Christians have not taken responsiblity for their failings.
I contend that there are few groups which will so quickly, or so profusely, apologize for wrongdoings. More importantly, I contend that there are few groups of people who will just as readily move to forgive the offending party, and seek to heal them and rehabilitate them.
Finally, he boldly accuses Christians of self-centeredness and arrogance for our belief that a loving God created the entire universe with us in mind. This assumes that there is no God; yet, there is really no possible way to physically prove the existence (or inexistence) of the spiritual and supernatural. If so, on what basis does Hitchens (and all other atheists) make this assumption? Christians, on the other hand, point to results in the lives of those who have been touched by God, in many cases, dramatic changes which could not have been accomplished through sheer willpower and perseverance alone. If so, is it not even more arrogant to assume that there is no God who created the universe? And if one assumes there is a God, is it not also arrogance to (again) dictate to God the reasons He created the cosmos, or to somehow say that humanity is not a good enough reason to do so? To assume that we somehow know the reasons behind creation will always be arrogant - the difference is, the Christian believes his view to have been given to us by the Creator Himself, so that it is not I who say the cosmos were created for humanity, but the Creator.
Hitchens then falls into the trap that so many succumb to: in refusing to acknowledge or worship the Creator, he goes to revere the created (in this case, DNA and the heavens). While there is indeed much to be admired in the handiwork of God, this focus on the works and not the Workman makes him not unlike the old idol worshippers, who worshipped images created by human hands, or those superstitious mystics who worshipped and deified inanimate objects like rocks or the sky - in short, the creation instead of the Creator. Have you ever heard someone express reverence for the Mona Lisa itself? Or do we profess admiration for its creator, Leonardo Da Vinci?
Finally, though the Bible may have been written or passed through the ages by a bunch of men living in (comparatively) unenlightened times, there is no denying that the same questions posed then are being posed today: namely, why am I here? What is the meaning of life? Is there more than what we can experience with our five senses?
Seeing as so many have found their answers in the Bible, and seeing how atheism has offered no answers and only criticisms, perhaps this collection of books, supported by history and archaeology, is more deserving of a second (and I suspect in most cases, a first) look?
At the end, Hitchens' points, while useful for provoking thought and shaking the cobwebs from my mind, fall exceedingly short of their intended goal of proving Christianity immoral.
For Douglas Wilson's response to Hitchens:
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=832988
For anyone who has bothered to read this piece to its conclusion, some light-hearted reading that goes to show: aggressive proselytizing and evangelism to the point of hostility, bullying and aggression are by no means restricted to the religious:
http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=839410
Good heavens! Christian woman harassed over religious car decal
A British man was arrested after attempts to cover up a Jesus fish car sticker turned into a campaign of harassment, according to the East Anglian Daily Times.
Timothy Brown pleaded guilty to harassment charges after a yearlong campaign to convert a Christian woman to atheism.
Brown initially placed stickers displaying such words as "myth," "deceived" and "sucker" over Watson's car decal. Police installed closed-circuit cameras at Watson's home, revealing that Brown repeatedly visited the property in an escalating campaign to get her to "reconsider her religious beliefs." The thwarted Brown eventually abandoned his efforts at persuasion and smeared dog excrement on Watson's car. "Brown became frustrated that he got no reaction," said prosecutor Naomi Turner. "The incident with the dog excrement was done in anger and the urinating was meant to be a dirty protest."
posted by Johan @ 8:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home