For Christians, God is love. In this sense, god exists simply because "love" does. Atheists, however, do not believe that God exists simply because love does. Indeed, the greatest evidence that God does not exist is often all those who claim that he does, and mostly because of how those "believers" honor their "love" for such a God by pretty much hating anyone who does not "obey" their God, as they see fit.
Of course, the "believer" conveniently separates the hatred they have for those who refuse to simply conform to the "beliefs" of Christians (especially since they have no evidence to support such "beliefs" but an ancient book and the "beliefs" themselves), by justifying their hatred as being directed solely at the "sin," and not the "sinner." But this is like an atheist saying they are directing their ire and disdain at a Christian's "beliefs," and not the Christians themselves.
For the Christian, it is the sinner's soul (which is yet another religious invention, like original sin and hell, that the "believer" is simply expected to accept without evidence or any serious consideration) that the Christian is only ever
trying to save, by getting said "sinner" to see just how blinded by a
lack of "faith in God" they really are.
That the Christian adamantly refuses to ever accept that they could ever be the one who is, in fact, "blinded" by their "faith" in an organized religious system - one that convinces them their "belief" in God necessarily comes with a laundry list of "beliefs" about everything else, and from which alone the "believer" must derive all of their "true" hopes and meanings about themselves and the world they inhabit - only demonstrates that debates between atheists and Christians are less about the existence of "God," and more about the definition of "love."
That the Christian adamantly refuses to ever accept that they could ever be the one who is, in fact, "blinded" by their "faith" in an organized religious system - one that convinces them their "belief" in God necessarily comes with a laundry list of "beliefs" about everything else, and from which alone the "believer" must derive all of their "true" hopes and meanings about themselves and the world they inhabit - only demonstrates that debates between atheists and Christians are less about the existence of "God," and more about the definition of "love."
The Christian is just as sure that the atheist's definition of "love" does not exist as the atheist is sure that the Christian God does not exist, since, as any Christian will tell you, God is "love." But what kind of "love" is it that the Christian is advocating for?
The Christian starts with supposing that the best way to love a child, and thus to improve that child, starts by first convincing that child that they are born with "original sin," which is like teaching the child to believe they are born deeply flawed. By convincing the child of this, the Christian parent can then engage in the work of "improving" that child, by fostering within them an indissoluble addiction and dependence upon, not the God who they are to believe is working through their prayers and supplications to "help" them overcome their deep flaws, but upon His man made Church, that claims to only ever be working to help that flawed child in God's stead.
Of course, when that 'church' is caught molesting children around the world, it always has the means of pointing out that the real "evil" has nothing to do with the Church itself, but the devil the Church is only ever working to oppose. This is like Southern slave owners assuring their African slaves that, but for their Christian benevolence, those Africans would be both unemployed and headed to a fiery hell; or bankers destroying the global financial systems in 2008, only to claim that it is specifically because of such damage that the world needs bankers!
That Christian parents everywhere agree they should teach their children just how totally flawed and even possibly deserving of hell they are, even though those same Christian parents would be the first to sue a school teacher for daring to suggest any such thing of their perfect little darlings, is clearly a "miracle of faith."
And even though the Christian parent will admit that studies show just how damaging it is to teach someone that they are only flawed and imperfect, which are ideas that have always been used to support slavery, racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, and so on, they make an exception to this "golden rule" when it comes to convincing their child that their soul is irreparably addled by a "sin" committed at the beginning of time. (What the "sin" was exactly, has been lost to history, but the important thing is that the child accept that whatever that "sin" of disobedience was, veiled as it is in the mythical story of Eden, it is surely their burden to carry for all their live long days, much like the crucifixion of their "savior" a couple of thousand years ago.)
And all of this is done so the Christian parent can convince the child that the single most important part of life is that they should become, and indeed inspire all others to become, completely addicted to the bread and wine offered at church every week, as the only possible means of fixing them, others, and even the world, let alone having any chance at happiness or finding any hope or meaning to their lives. And all of this, so the Bible tells us, for the low weekly installment price of only 10% of their yearly income!
And all of this is done so the Christian parent can convince the child that the single most important part of life is that they should become, and indeed inspire all others to become, completely addicted to the bread and wine offered at church every week, as the only possible means of fixing them, others, and even the world, let alone having any chance at happiness or finding any hope or meaning to their lives. And all of this, so the Bible tells us, for the low weekly installment price of only 10% of their yearly income!
The atheist, in return, points out that the Church not only has no authority to dictate the meaning of "life" or "love," let alone which kind of "love" is pleasing or displeasing to the "God" they worship (which is actually only an "idea" in the head of the "believer," that is often only as strong as the "believer" is deficient in their understanding of the universe itself), but that such judgemental and conditional "love" is no different than that exercised by those who commit genocide out of love for their own race.
The Christian version of "love," in this sense, comes with necessary conditions, that always conform to ideas the Christian alone carries and indeed worships in their own head, as being reflective of how they alone think a "man-god" should behave. The atheist, on the other hand, recognizes that if the "God" such Christians claim to worship exists at all, and is in anyway as "infinite" as the Christian everywhere boasts that "he" is, then that would mean that any attempt by the Christian to suggest that certain attributes are "godly" while other are not, is impossible.
For one cannot say that God is infinite on the one hand, and then begin pruning away at something so infinite, just so their "infinite" God will resemble the very idol they worship in their heads, and pray to in their churches.
Comments
Post a Comment