Video – Richard Dawkins
Has anyone ever seen this? I have never heard of this show, but I just stumbled into it yesterday while browsing some videos. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (author of The Selfish Gene) discusses his thoughts on the dangerous, delusional and ugly sides of religion and explains why he thinks belief in God should be a left as a relic from our superstitious past. This also includes some fascinating, and even gutsy interviews with disgraced evangelist Ted Haggard, and an American Islamic cleric in Jerusalem (I forget his name). It’s about 45 minutes long so grab some popcorn.
Is Dawkins right or wrong? Critique this for me – what are your thoughts? I will save my thoughts for later. Oh yeah, and to my personal friends who I hope are still reading this blog – don’t blow this off even though you may be offended. Just watch it with an open mind and critique it.
[update 30 March: The original video has mysteriously disappeared, but I found this alternate one which is also dubbed into Spanish]
March 26th, 2007 at 4:00 am
Here some disjointed thoughts on the Richard Dawkins video:
Calling religion the root of all evil is giving it too much credit. I still think the Bible is onto something about the love of money thing.
Dawkins is absolutely correct though, in saying that strict religious belief stunts scientific progress. The Intelligent Design movement wants to attribute our complex universe and everything in it to God – and stop, and do this based on no research, no evidence, nothing but conviction from a couple of Chapters in Genesis and Job. The default position when studying origins, the cosmos, or life cannot be “God did it”, or we would never learn anything. You cannot just take a temporary stumbling block in our knowledge, stop and attribute it to God. If we did that, we would still be stuck with Zeus hurling lightning bolts or Helios traversing the heavens in a fiery chariot. In the United States today, scientific thought is under attack by those who take Adam and Eve stories literally and seriously. The consequences of this are serious, and if you don’t believe me, ask Galileo. So while we enjoy the work of scientists who gave us all the electronic, engineering and medical wonders of the last century, those same scientists become heretics, liars and buffons when they threaten our Adam and Eve story. We need a creator and original sin to make our Christian Doctrine work.
Watching the hordes of invalids on stretchers at Lordes hoping for a miracle was heartbreaking. 80000 visitors per year times 100 years, and only 66 recorded miracles, and of those, they were illness that may have healed by themselves anyway. I found it revealing that the director was including things like “renewed hope” in the miracle category. See my article “My Miraculous Hangup” for my thoughts on miracles.
The interview with Ted Haggard was chilling. Haggard was speaking like a bad actor portraying a villian in a B-movie, and I had to remind myself that this was unscripted. I think Dawkins style was a little confrontational, but really I cannot blame him considering what he wants them to talk about. I think he intended to offend. No matter, I have no doubt that Haggard, had this interview been contucted in another time and place, would have called the authorities to have Dawkins arrested on the spot. I have no doubt about that at all. When haggard said he fully embraced the scientific method, then called Dawkins arrogant for declaring evolution to be true based on mountains of evidence was just crazy. Oh, and don’t get me started about Haggard threatening him and the film crew in the church parking lot – so much for the love of Christ from the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals.
The interview with Yousef al-something was just as chilling. I believe the same thing about this young man, who would just as easily have Dawkins arrested or killed had this been another time and place. He has his party line down. Notice that he never directly answers any of Dawkins questions, rather just rants political statements that he has probably ranted 1000 times before. One thing that struck me about Haggard and Al-Something was the WILLING IGNORANCE of each. Athiests don’t care if there is fornication in the streets? Athiests have no law from God so they are left with nothing – HUH? I am no athiest, but give them a little credit here.
One more note before I quit – I cannot help but find dark humor with the guy conducting a business deal via cellphone in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre while the tour conductor tells him to place a candle and say a prayer at the site of Jesus’ resurrection. Hilarious. A sign of the times, no?
In the end, no I don’t think religion is the root of all evil. Religious belief in itself is not a bad thing, and much good has come out of it. I am certainly a better person for my ethical convictions. And yet the dangerous aspects of religious divisions cannot be denied or ignored. What do we do when our gods demand the conversion of all heathen and heretics? I enjoyed the video and it gave me much to think about – like it or not, it reveals a lot of truth. If you have not seen it, please watch it. I found it uncomfortable to watch at time, but that is ok. It is sometimes good to have your beliefs questioned and to get a little uncomfortable sometimes.
March 26th, 2007 at 4:54 am
**Religious belief in itself is not a bad thing, and much good has come out of it. ** Agreed. In many ways, I don’t think we’d be where we are without religion. At the same time, though, it does seem to try and hinder many advancements as much as possible, as you said. I read somewhere, though can’t locate the source so I may be remembering wrong, that Christians didn’t support vaccines like the smallpox one, because it hindered God’s will. They didn’t support pain medicine for women giving birth, because the ‘birth pangs’ were God’s punishment. The same for slavery and women’s rights.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:23 am
I have to comment here because I agree, in part, with what you are saying. Sorry, I haven’t watched the video because my computer has no sound (maybe it’s the oldest thing in the universe
). Mostly, I believe that religion is what you say it is. It is man taking God’s words and twisting it for their own purpose, trying to push their views/”answers” on others, and, in general, making a mockery of everything that God says. I usually hesitate to call myself a Christian, not because I am ashamed of Christ!, but because I am ashamed of the sham that Christianity has become. But, even in all this, God has not changed. His words have been misused, even to a terrible end – spreading hate and self-righteousness. But in every religion (and in non-religion), there are people who do know God and are searching for Him – and finding Him. So, I just wanted to say that I am with you all the way on disagreeing with “organized Christianity”, but not on lumping God in there, too. Those people are NOT God’s “messengers”, no matter what they say they are. If we want to know who to follow, or even give credibility to, we need to compare their teaching to the God of the Bible, who is a reasonable, holy God. And if they do not parallel His teaching, I throw them out of my category of “followers of God”. As far as scientific research goes, I am with you that we must study and learn. I am a lover of science. My views of how science and God mix may be a bit different, because I believe that God invented science. That science is actually proof of His very being, but I am not well versed in this topic because I find it to be overrun with extremists. There seem to be only 2 sides of thought – either science is right and God is not, or God is right and science can be dismissed. I don’t agree with either. I know I’m in a bit over my head here so be gentle.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:19 am
GREAT VIDEO! Joeyanne I just have a quick question which I am totally asking sincerely–I’m not trying to make a point–
You said, “Those people are NOT God’s “messengers”, no matter what they say they are. If we want to know who to follow, or even give credibility to, we need to compare their teaching to the God of the Bible, who is a reasonable, holy God.”
But I wonder–regardless of the Bible’s very questionable reliability–the Bible, and the God of the Bible is not very accessible in our world. It has not been translated in every dialect, distributed to every corner of the world, nor does everyone who exists have the time to go through it and sincerely learn the message of Jesus, the Old Testament lessons, etc. let alone get a great hold on who this Holy God is and compare his teachings to those of the “messengers”–so in that, we have to depend on people to be God’s Messengers and “spread the word.” In that, there are tons of other people who spread God’s word but who are the same as or worse than those in the film–How can people deserve to go to Hell, when their only option in learning about God and believing is to hear it from those we saw in the film who you say are so different from the real God? It just seems unfair to me.
(sorry if that was hard to understand, I am laying in bed still! But that is just an honest question I have)
Other thoughts on the film–Very interesting. I agree with Dawkins almost the whole time. He makes it seem so obvious that religion is a farce and crutch and danger. I just wish he wasn’t so frowny because it made me get back into the old mindset that atheists cant be happy and they are just bitter and stuff. So if he smiled that would have helped me.
But wow, it is creepy to look at christianity from without it–especially in conjunction with religion in general. When you can assume in your head that religion is false, things like the wailing wall and colorado springs look downright culty. It is so crazy how Dawkins can listen to these religious leaders, and then ask some of the most straightforward, logical questions–and the leader gives no answer, but just gets huffy and rambles about subjective truths and such. Dawkin’s point was less proved by his own words and moreso by the words of the people he talked too.
This film also scared me. I am a struggling agnostic with 95% of my life lived previously as an evangelical. I cant help but think about the fact that i am becoming more comfortable away from christianity (and the fear of eternal damnation is always sitting in my stomach)–this film made me more confident in my rejection of christianity which still doesnt feel good–it is like leaving what has always been comfortable and venturing into the unknown.
One of the most interesting things I think he said, was that the Muslim fundamentalist movement is not far removed from American Christian fundamentalism. As the Muslim in the film wants a pan-Islamic world…essentially so do Christians…At least in the current stage of history, Muslims may be seen to use more outwardly recognizable violence, but christians may be seen to use more violence also through state-sponsored means…But all this is pretty irrelevant in the general theme of the film.
I dont know, i feel empowered, scared, confused, and intrigued.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I have watched this video a few times – on a documentary channel up in Can-e-duh (lol). I really liked what Dawkins brought to light.
I like Dawkins critiques about religion and pure fanaticism – and he is right – any religion that is too ‘literal’ can be dangerous (resulting in ignorant fundamentalism – not the balanced kind).
The big point against religion seems to be the some of the ideas floating around (ex: jihad, end-times scenarios, etc)…and I think he has some good insight here. A close look at all the religious craziness as of late (jonestown, koresh-ians, heaven’s gate, suicide bombers) all rotate around those aforementioned ideals. Heck even Japan had some of that in WW2 (kamikaze missions related to one’s faith – not in the video). But it seems the belief in some ‘eternity for the chosen elect’ can create some thorns in our sides.
I think Dawkins doesn’t overlook that religion played it’s part in a lot of this craziness (heck the Muslim dude is pretty freaky on the video and the religious right has some morals that escape reason – supporting war) and I think he is pointing to the idea ‘neither should we’. I don’t mind a single idea about this that he said – it’s honest and it’s ‘time for us to wake up’ to it.
But as for his outright condemnation of religion – well that’s a little far fetched in my opinion. One could make the same arguement for anything a human mind touches – ex: politics, science, and media. I could look at the last 3 things I just mentioned and point out in detailed history some of the abuses involved within them and here is a few examples: Politics brought about Facism and it’s various abuses (and dictatorship); Science has created some of our greatest weapons and the power to destroy ourselves (not that we will – fingers crossed here); and Media was used by the German war machine to help fool countries and business endeavors (so they could further brutalize Jewish people and immigrants). Point of the examples is simple – these things the human mind touches aren’t the problem – we are – which oddly enough, is found in religions as a teaching. So do away with religion – I don’t think so – it offers some great philosophical thinking also – and adds to humanity some ‘grace’ if taken correctly.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Thus saith SocietyVs:
“But as for his outright condemnation of religion – well that’s a little far fetched in my opinion. One could make the same arguement for anything a human mind touches”
I think you are absolutely correct about this SocietyVs. A lot of legitimate horrors have been done in the name of God, and in most cases I really think the perpetrators thought they had the approval of God. But I often wonder if religion did not exist, if those same perpetrators would not just find some other reason to commit those same attrocities. I have no way of proving this one way or the other, but I do think the Bible is right when it talks about the corrupt flesh – Some people are evil with whatever excuse given to them. I won’t give religion a pass on this, but at the same time I think the nature of mankind carries some guilt as well.
********************************
Marie answered and said, Behold!
“I just wish he wasn’t so frowny because it made me get back into the old mindset that atheists cant be happy and they are just bitter and stuff. So if he smiled that would have helped me. ”
Marie, given the context of the video I personally don’t think a smile would have worked well after interviewing some of those characters. At the same time, I understand what you are saying. Athiests are viewed by Christians as being what you suggest: dour, sour, grumpy, guys without God and without hope. I don’t think I could ever be an athiest, but I have known many throughout the years (mostly fellow scientists). They are some of the most pleasant, easygoing, and genuinely peaceful humans I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. Yes they are intense when concerning their work, and most are married to their research, but outside of work they are a joy to be friends with.
We are usually taught by our pastors just the opposite. Athiests are viewed as actively hating God, haughty in their arrogance, and committed to the elevation of man and the overthrow of God. Trust me, except for a zealous few, this sort of stuff just never enters their minds.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Very entertaining video. Dawkins did hit a home run by having the soon-to-be-fallen Pastor Haggard as his main Christian antagonist. Haggard was right to criticize Dawkins’ arrogance, but shouldn’t have made the claim that “some scientists” claim the Earth is young nor should he have acted rudely in throwing Dawkins off the property. Dawkins’ mockery of the pilgrimages to Lourdes is well-deserved and funny.
Here is what Dawkins did not touch on.
Could these “dangerous” turns of faith, particularly the apocalyptic/xenophobic Muslim dude, be due to corruptions of faith in God?
What of the atheist regimes of Hitler (yes, he was atheist), Stalin, Mao, and company? Atheistic regimes have killed many times more people than religious ones have. If Dawkins is going to lump the faithful in one pile then shouldn’t we lump the faithless in a pile of their own? A response to this could be called “The No God Delusion”.
I agree with a large part of what Dawkins says, but I think he deliberately scratches the surface looking for half-dead fish. He doesn’t take on any intellectual defenders of the faith.
Is there a sequel? Thanks for posting this!
March 26th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I hate to admit it, but I’m throwing my vote in with Jim on this one. I did watch this, but my review was rather too lengthy to be a comment, so I posted it on my own blog. If you are interested, feel free to swing by: http://www.jennypo.blogspot.com.
HeIsSailing, you’ve rallied quite a community here! My sis, joeyanne, liked your questions and recommended this blog. While I think she rocks, what we like is usually pretty different. I just came by for a peek, but I find myself like her, waiting for your next post!
March 27th, 2007 at 2:03 am
**What of the atheist regimes of Hitler (yes, he was atheist), Stalin, Mao, and company?** No, Hitler believed in a Creator, and that there was a divine mandate that the white people had a special place. And part of what made his attacks on the Jews so succesful was the Anti-Semetic views, which does have contributions from Christianity.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Hi Heather
Anti-semitism is an extra-biblical corruption. The rampant corruption among supposed believers is why I found Dawkins’ little documentary refreshing.
You have a point about Hitler. He believed in a Creator but in a “Son of Sam” sort of way. Long story short, the man was “freakin’ crazy” as my sister would say. Perhaps he is an outlier in this debate.
I forget to add to the history of deadly atheism its greatest protagonist, the abortionist. Therefore you have 150 million deaths from Karl Marx’ descendants and 500 million from the Darwinists through abortion on demand. That’s 650 million dead versus what?
Again I’m only mimicking Dawkins’ claim that the sum of religious crimes equals its cumulative evil. Apples to apples.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
**500 million from the Darwinists through abortion on demand. That’s 650 million dead versus what?** Jim, that’s quite a claim, and it’s using loaded language. Those who support the right to choose are not synonmous with with atheism. The advancement of the theory of evolution also isn’t really connected with abortion. I’ve read many stories of those who have had abortion and for most women, it was a devestating choice that wasn’t made easily. Most of them didn’t wake up with a sense of thrill that they could go get an ‘abortion on demand.’ This may be how you see it, but you were frustrated earlier when you felt that you were called ‘close-minded’ for viewing the Bible in a certain way, and were automatically dismissed as a fundamentalist. Yet you’re dismissing a lot here with that statement.
The thing with religious crimes compared to athiest crimes is that religions such as Christianity say that they are following a moral Deity, and yet history is full of immoral acts done by religious followers, who claim to have the only outlet to morality.
**Anti-semitism is an extra-biblical corruption.** Perhaps, but the NT has been read in an anti-semtic light for a very long time. Martin Luther is one such example.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Jim Jordan sez:
” forget to add to the history of deadly atheism its greatest protagonist, the abortionist. Therefore you have 150 million deaths from Karl Marx’ descendants and 500 million from the Darwinists through abortion on demand. That’s 650 million dead versus what?”
Oh man, you gotta be kidding me. First off, where are you getting your numbers? 500Million from abortion *on demand*??
Second, athiest does not necessarily mean amoral, whether you are talking about abortion or not. This is no better than Yousef al-Something in the video ranting about athiests not caring if whores fornicate in the streets because they have no laws from God. I accused him of willing ignorance in the video, and I would claim willing ignorance on your part – but I promised myself to be civil on the internet. Yes there are angry athiests out there, just like angry Christians. People are people of all different shapes, colors, sizes and varieties. People are not in the black and white world of two categories: sinner and saint. It just does not work that way.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
500Million from abortion *on demand
Worldwide
There is no theistic call for abortion.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
i am just curious about where the 500 million abortion deaths go? dont they go to Heaven? I am not saying that abortion isn’t wrong i am just wondering
March 27th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
**There is no theistic call for abortion. ** There’s no call for abortion, period. Again, this is making it sound like ‘get an abortion’ is something one schedules in between getting a hair cut and grocery shopping. What there is a call for is for a woman to have reproductive freedom. What the pro-choice movement would really like, though, is for abortions to not be so frequent through better birth control, better awareness overall, and better societal conditions. The pro-choice movement would be thrilled if that happened.
Abortion may be a black-and-white issue for you, but for many of the women actually involved in the process, it’s about the greyest area possible.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Here are some sobering facts for abortion on demand:
The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.
Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;
1% because of fetal abnormalities;
3% due to the mother’s health problems.
Abortions Worldwide
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 126,000
Heather said Those who support the right to choose are not synonmous with atheism.
How is the “right to choose” a theistic position? Isn’t a “right to choose” advocate a practical atheist? I’ll grant you the exception that a radical religious group might force people of opposing religious faiths to abort but that is less than the 5% who had a valid reason for their abortions.
Marie, since God claims the baby in the womb (Gen 25:23-25, Psalm 22:10, Psalm 139:13-16 etc. etc.) I do believe they go to Heaven which is to say they have only just left.
The effect of this tragedy on women can’t be taken lightly either. The psychological damage is devastating. As we look again at Easter week we should also remind ourselves that no matter how bad it is here with our own crosses to bear, God can turn it around. Take care.
March 28th, 2007 at 2:50 am
Abortions Worldwide
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 126,000
Where abortions occur:
78% of all abortions are obtained in developing countries and 22% occur in developed countries.
********************************
These are indeed sobering numbers, and I am not condoning abortion. But you cannot hang this on atheism. How do you make this connection that you are claiming? You can’t get it out of the Bible either, except as an inference from ‘Thou shalt not murder’.
Too bad the Apocalypse of Peter was not accepted into the Canon of Scripture (as it very nearly was – it was highly revered). It is very explicit on abortion. Consider these consequences, straight from the pit of hell:
“And near by this flame shall be a pit, great and very deep, and into it floweth from above all manner of torment, foulness, and issue. And women are swallowed up therein up to their necks and tormented with great pain. These are they that have caused their children to be born untimely, and have corrupted the work of God that created them. Over against them shall be another place where sit their children alive, and they cry unto God. And flashes (lightnings) go forth from those children and pierce the eyes of them that for fornication’s sake have caused their destruction. Other men and women shall stand above them, naked; and their children stand over against them in a place of delight, and sigh and cry unto God because of their parents, saying: These are they that have despised and cursed and transgressed thy commandments and delivered us unto death: they have cursed the angel that formed us, and have hanged us up, and withheld from us the light which thou hast given unto all creatures. And the milk of their mothers flowing from their breasts shall congeal, and from it shall come beasts devouring flesh, which shall come forth and turn and torment them for ever with their husbands, because they forsook the commandments of God and slew their children. As for their children, they shall be delivered unto the angel Temlakos (i.e. a care-taking angel). And they that slew them shall be tormented eternally, for God willeth it so.”
March 28th, 2007 at 6:55 am
Jim,
I take exception to the following:
“What of the atheist regimes of Hitler (yes, he was atheist)”
No, Hitler was not an atheist. Christians love to dredge this one up and it is totally not true. Consider the following:
In a speach to the Reichstag (German Parliament) in 1938 Hitler said:
“I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord’s work”
Or how about when Hitler said:
“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
Now here is a real gem, Hitler said the following in Berlin on October 24, 1933:
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
Or consider what Hitler wrote on page 383 of Mein Kamph:
“Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
Jim, do you still think Hitler is an Atheist? Do you know who Hitler’s favorite anti semite was? Yup, it was none other than Martin Luther. Hitler found Luther, the Protestant reformer, an inspiration for his views on Jews and helped shaped his views for the final solution. So not only was Hitler NOT an atheist, he was a Christian. Get your facts straight before repeating an obvious falsehood.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:28 am
HIS**These are indeed sobering numbers, and I am not condoning abortion. But you cannot hang this on atheism.
Of course not. I’d be making the same mistake Richard Dawkins is making, creating guilt by association for a broad range of beliefs. Atheism or atheists are no more guilty of abortion per se than Christians are guilty of Muslim suicide bombings. [Thanks for the info on Apocalypse of Peter - I admit to not having looked at it before]
The fact is that by far most abortions in the US are had by theists. But at that critical point of decision, they are suspending their belief in God. Again, it’s a tragedy for mother and child. For generations the Christian mom has been the spiritual leader in the family as most fathers abdicated that role from the beginning of the Industrial Age (working away from home). Abortion is just that wrench that Satan would throw in to destabilize the body of Christ where it had been strongest.
Kim, I had responded to Heather already regarding Hitler’s theism.
You have a point about Hitler. He believed in a Creator but in a “Son of Sam” sort of way. Long story short, the man was “freakin’ crazy” as my sister would say. Perhaps he is an outlier in this debate.
I would disagree with the Hitler as atheist charge as being “totally not true”. Doesn’t our Bible say that we cannot hate our brother and love God? Hitler hated the Jews more than anything else. The Feurer was a great manipulater, and God was one of his tools. That he is a theist is a gray area, but your subsequent comment is indefensible.
You said, So not only was Hitler NOT an atheist, he was a Christian.
Let me get this straight. We can’t hang abortion on atheism but you can hang Hitler on Christianity? Double standard? Is Christianity just what anybody wants to call it? If Satan said he was a Christian, is he? I’ll go along with you calling Hitler a theist, but you can’t call him a Christian unless you ignore the definition of Christianity. Don’t take this personally, but I’ve only heard the “Hitler was a Christian” blather from “dogmatic atheist” bloggers. In all, I share your disgust with anti-semitism as does the apostle Paul (Romans 9:1-5 and Romans 11 et al). But the fact is that Hitler was NOT a Christian. No court on earth would convict him of being one (I’ll repeat that fact if asked).
Martin Luther was no rocket scientist nor role model. He played an important role in making the Scriptures available to all people through a much needed Reformation. Long story short, he was not Christ. Take care.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Jim,
I did not mean to come down so hard on you for your Hitler is an atheist comments, But I do appreciate you clarifications above on the topic. I would like to add that I also appreciate your clarifications regarding atheism and abortion.
The question of weather Hitler was a Christian or not is rather subjective one. From my understanding of Christian philosophy, Hitler did not act as one, this is obvious……but that does not really matter here. What matters is that Hitler BELIEVED he was a Christian and he felt he was doing the Lord’s work. And the consequences of this belief were devastating. However, Hitler was no atheist and no one can hang Hitler or the Nazi regime on atheism.
On the issue of weather one can hang Hitler on Christianity, the answer is mostly no and somewhat yes (90% no and 10% yes IMHO). The answer is mostly no because it would be unchristian like to kill millions of innocent people in the way Hitler did. But Christianity does bear responsibility for starting and nurturing anti-Semitism for 1,900 years. I would add that mainstream Christianity has made great strides after WWII in expunging itself of its anti-Semitic tendencies. Unfortunately I have no more time to explore this issue in this post.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
**Of course not. I’d be making the same mistake Richard Dawkins is making, creating guilt by association for a broad range of beliefs. ** That may not have been your intent, but that’s how it comes across in statements such as “I forget to add to the history of deadly atheism its greatest protagonist, the abortionist. Therefore you have 150 million deaths from Karl Marx’ descendants and 500 million from the Darwinists through abortion on demand,” then you are giving the impression that it is guilt by association.
**We can’t hang abortion on atheism but you can hang Hitler on Christianity? ** I don’t see Kim as hanging it on Christianity, but was just refuting an earlier statement of Hitler being an athiest. Usually, the reason why it’s brought up is in response to the ‘athiests have no morals’ argument.
And if we’re going to start talking about who is a Christian, then we’re getting into a *really* grey area.
Were Hitler’s actions Christian-based? No. But my understanding is that one’s stance as a Christian is based on beliefs, not actions. Otherwise, there are a lot of people in history who are no longer Christians.
March 28th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“But Christianity does bear responsibility for starting and nurturing anti-Semitism for 1,900 years” (Kim)
This is another claim with very little backing to it. 1900 years – are you sure? Were the disciples (all 12 Jewish) anti-semitic? I think once you realize a Jewish person wrote the ‘gospels’ or the ‘letters’ then things change quite quickly on reading anything as anti-semitic (if context is considered – cultural context).
My example which I use (and this standard has never changed for some reason) is that people of the same culture can get away with liberties others outside the culture cannot. I am a First Nation person and I can call someone an ‘Indian’ (which is offensive if someone from another culture says it) – whether in a joke or whatever. Also if someone from outside the First Nation culture critiques the values of the culture – they are not taken as seriously – and some are even laughed out of the room (having no credibility whatsoever). Now if I critique my culture my own people will stand and up and take notice – knowing me personally & my credibility – they don’t have to agree (some might) but they will respect the fact ‘one of their own’ had something to say. It’s a cultural thing – and within that culture we know who ‘understands’ (First Nations people) and ‘who might not’ (all others).
Now if some Jewish people from 30-100 AD want to critique the Jewish value system & culture (which a lot of NT is) – then they have both the right, reason, and insight to do so. But if we (outsiders) want to question/interpret the teachings as ‘racist’ – cool – but could it be that we are the ‘racist’ and not the book? I mean, I read this bible a lot and I never get the hint of Paul, John, Peter, Luke, or Matthew being bigots and ‘anti-semitics’. Seems to me they were ’semitics’ and loved their own people. But this saying takes an understanding of the idiosyncracies of culture and how it works for those that love theirs.
March 28th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
**But if we (outsiders) want to question/interpret the teachings as ‘racist’ – cool – but could it be that we are the ‘racist’ and not the book?** I’m not sure someone of Jewish origin would agree with you, though. Because there are many Jewish websites that do view the Gospels as anti-semetic, such as Jesus telling the Pharisees that they are of their father the devil, the crowd saying, “His blood be upon us and our children,” or Paul saying that Jews have rejected the Gospel. Jewish people may have wrote the Gospels, but it wasn’t long before there were tensions between the Christians and the Gospels. And while you may be able to argue that NT itself is not anti-semetic, it has been used to justify such a stance for a very long time.
March 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Hi Kim and Heather
I guess we’ve gotten ideas for new posts here.
In my defense, Heather I did say “deadly” atheism.
The “atheists have no morals” argument is a generalization that is too broad and sloppy to mean anything concrete. It’s on the level of “well Hitler was a Christian”, which is why they are usually exchanged.
**Were Hitler’s actions Christian-based? No. But my understanding is that one’s stance as a Christian is based on beliefs, not actions.**
Here’s another way of looking at it. Christian beliefs require action of the kind that is Christian. We’ll call those beliefs faith, and as James wrote “faith without works is dead”. I could cite passage after passage in the Bible supporting this but I think you’d have to admit that Hitler’s “works” were inspired by Hell and not by Christ. As for his “beliefs” I don’t think he would have ever signed a statement saying “love God, love your brother as yourself.” There is a gray area in everyone, but it can safely be declared that Hitler was no Christian. Or at the very least, his claim of being a Christian should be dismissed.
Truly being a Christian is striving to love God above all things and love your neighbor as much as you love yourself. The Christianity of Christ is a pearl. The (Anti?)Christianity of Hitler is a coprolite. A distinction has to be made between the two.
Just saw Society’s points. Very true. Blatant distortions aside, there is no argument for anti-semitism in the Bible. If it didn’t come from the Bible, then who’s to blame?
March 28th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
**Truly being a Christian is striving to love God above all things and love your neighbor as much as you love yourself.** I would agree that Hitler’s actions weren’t inspired by Christianity as it should be. But I’m also confused by this statement, because if I compare that to some of the things Martin Luther said about the Jews, then couldn’t he also be disqualified? Or using the Bible as justification for slavery — are those Christians disqualified?
**beliefs” I don’t think he would have ever signed a statement saying “love God, love your brother as yourself.” ** But what if he signed the statement of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior, the Trinity, and such? I’m not saying that you say this, because you clearly don’t since you’re saying that one must love God/neighbor, but it does come across from a lot of fundamentalists that all one needs to do to be saved is say/believe the right things. Behavior doesn’t matter. On a fun note, these are usually the same fundamentalists who go around screaming “Athiests have no morals!!”
If it helps, I am really glad that you say it’s not just enough to have the beliefs.
March 28th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Jim sez:
“Truly being a Christian is striving to love God above all things and love your neighbor as much as you love yourself. The Christianity of Christ is a pearl. The (Anti?)Christianity of Hitler is a coprolite. A distinction has to be made between the two.”
Jim, while I do agree with this statement, I have to respect a person when they describe themselves as a Christian, no matter how bad they really are. John Calvin is another great example. I have no doubt that he considered himself a Christian, but he was rabid in his hatred of Episcopaleans. But I am sure he thought he was doing the will of God, and I have no reason to deny people that conviction. In all of this, I ask again: Where is the guiding and santifying power of the Holy Spirit to make us more Christ-like?
March 28th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
HIS – I agree that we are all bad and that God’s intervention is all-important. Disqualification of Christians can only be in cases where there is no reason to believe them at all, as in Hitler’s case.
Where is the guiding and sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit to make us more Christ-like? In my experience, I’d say it comes and goes. There are times when prayer seems to evoke nothing and frustration starts to set in. I think the Spirit is still at work even when we do not sense it. But what a jolt when we feel it moving inside us!
I’ll conclude that we have two choices; to wait on and trust God loving one another or to be impatient and hate each other. That’s where Martin Luther with the Jews and John Calvin with the Episcopalians probably went wrong. The point of no return is when we refuse to let go of those impatient, addictive emotions. No mortal can know where that point is because no one can judge the human heart. Not only must we not judge the heart, we are unable to do so.