Fifty-seven years...wow.
Are we approaching vision 2020? Not quite. 59th on GDP per capita don't even bring us in sniffing distance with the world's economic elites. Protectionist policies coupled with race based state benefits to the majority of the populace pours cold water on the hope for prosperity. The constant comparisons with Singapore only makes us more envious as a people. Entertaining the idea that one day the possibility of Indonesian hiring our kinsman as servants makes me sick( nothing against Indonesians ). Businesses failing to attract foreign investors and ideas. Could go on and on.
How about our journey towards being a more democratic society? Religious intolerance still consuming large segments of our major media sources. Ignorance clouds the nation. Ethnic friction still, very depressingly, exist. You'd think 57 years of cultural assimilation would move us away from the damnation that is May 13. Liberalism is thoroughly rejected by many in the nation, but somehow they still believe that Malaysia can achieve modern political atmosphere without a fundamental understanding of rights without it. Talks of an Islamic theocracy even surfaces from time to time. Could go on and on.
But lets clear the elephant in the room. Race is the biggest locus of Malaysian conversation. Implicitly in hiring jobs, whether one acknowledges it, race is a influential factor. When dealing with business partners, many would engineer their actions based on the stereotypes that they perceive for the other races. Interracial marriage, though legal, still causes an undesirable amount of tension in families. Cliques in government schools are still bordered by race. School canteens can often be divided into three- Malay, Indian, and Chinese. Not the case for all schools, some will cry, but the fact that they exist prevalently bugs me infinitely. So the alpha question to ask is: " Why is a country, so preoccupied with racial integration ala 1Malaysia, failing so miserably to achieve is goals? ". The answer is very simple. Multiculturalism when understood properly, intends to tell the sub-concious mind, that race is important. In fact, so important that it could be utilized as a life defining entity. If you accept my mundane hypothesis, then it is easy to explain why races still clash swords. If you believe that you are defined by your race, then any threat to your racehood will give you an unearned sense of moral superiority over the critic. Giving unconcerned politicians leverage for more than decent polling results during elections. This, ladies and gentlemen, is Malaysia's biggest problem- the notion that ones race and culture is of great importance. In a free society, blood/race is not essential, merit is. The greatest obstacle to progress is what we believe to be pure and tranquil--Multiculturalism.
But hey! For all Malaysia's shortcomings, we still have awesome food and natural habitats right? Laid back lifestyles and cultural heritage will always be an attraction. But all of this comes at a cost. Stay put with current methods, fear is the only emotion that be can associated with the predictions one makes for the next 57 years. Happy Independence Day all Malaysians.
Saturday, 30 August 2014
Sunday, 17 August 2014
Tale of The Conceited Non-believer
http://www.bukisa.com/articles/107211_top-50-questions-christians-cant-answer
I came across this article( the one in the link above ) some time ago and I decided that I would one day take advantage of one of my blog post by elaborating on this rather arrogantly written article, the kind of article that makes you wonder how someone could manifest in him/her self such high self esteem when the issues that they are discussing requires a substantial amount of research done. Having said this, I'm pretty confident that I spent at least three times the length of time in my response in comparison to this fellows article. Nevertheless a challenge is a challenge, and I have no complaints about the research that I have to do in order to undercut the presumptuous nature of this piece of frustration. This article, as it claims, is written in an attempt to provide a case against the Christian faith. The case being that no answers will satisfy the evidential standards of these fifty questions. The equally cringing part of this article is actually his opening statement, where he remarked that no matter the Christian, they will not have sufficient reasoning to meet the ' lofty ' demands of his ' challenging ' questions. Upon reading the entire piece, I think it is safe to point out that he has only interacted with a grand total of two Christians in his life. This is perhaps why he is so cocksure of the validity of his questions. As I will show you, most if not all his questions are flimsy at core and can be soundly deflected. It will be a bit of a long read, but if you are interested, bear with the fifty questions posed and the length of my responses. Here we go.
Q1: ' If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), why did he take six days to create everything? Why not speak everything into existence all at once? '
- Well here we need to first understand the meaning of timelessness. God, as pointed out many times by the bible, is an eternal being ( Psalm 90:1-4, Exodus 3:13-14, Ephesians 3:10-11, Revelation 1:8,1 Timothy 1:17 ). Perhaps a better word to describe God is ' atemporal ' . In other words, a being that exist without relation to time as we humans perceive it. Whether its six or four hundred or eight billion years, God still spoke everything into existence in an instance in his dimension, not necessarily ours. In short, to us, six days might represent a ' duration ' , but to God, as the bible defines it, its nothing.
Q2: ' Why won't God heal amputees? '
- Is this the Judeo-Christian God's aim with respect to humans? Did he promise that he will be a physical doctor to everyone? Behind this is the ' Why would an all-loving God not solve the problem and suffering of humans? ' objection. Firstly, happiness and eternal life is not available on earth according to Christian doctrine, that is why heaven exist. But to answer the question directly, I can think of so many ways as to why God would refuse to intervene and heal our physical deficiencies. One good example is that he wants give us lessons on the harshness on life. There are a multitude of Christians being persecuted in the middle east as I write this, I don't see them complaining? Not as often as first world inhabitants like the writer and me at least. Perfection is for the afterlife and suffering is for this.
Q3: ' If God is so perfect, then why did he create something so imperfect allowing pain, suffering and daily atrocities? '
-Because free will and love are intertwined inextricably. In order to be a truly loving God, he must first allow humang beings the freedom to love or hate him. God created us perfect in his image, but we disobeyed him at The Fall in the Garden of Eden. It is our fallen nature that causes pain, suffering and daily atrocities, not him. Conversely, it is because he loves us so much that he gives us up to our sinful desires instead of creating us as robots with no free will and volition.
Q4: ' Why did the little old lady that God healed one Sunday need her walker to get around again next Sunday? Was she only temporarily worthy of a healing? '
- No one is worthy of healing. What did the old lady do to ' earn ' her healing. God is under no obligation to service anyone's needs.
Q5: ' How did Noah fit the millions and millions of species on this planet into his ark?
-http://creation.com/how-could-noah-get-all-the-animals-on-the-ark
Q6: ' If Noah did fit all of these species on the ark for forty days and forty nights, how did the penguins make it from Mt. Ararat to the Antarctic? How did the koala bears make it to Australia with no eucalyptus to eat along the way? '
- Refer to the answer for Q5.
Q7: ' Why do innocent children have to suffer with terminal diseases such as cancer? What part of 'God's plan' is this exactly? '
-Refer to the answer for Q2
Q8: ' How is it that the bible explains the earth to be 6,000 to 8,000 years old when we know that dinosaur bones are at least 65 million years old? The 'missing link' fossil 'Ida' found recently is estimated to be at least 47 million years old. '
- This of course assumes that the Christian must adopt the Young Earth Creationist view with respects to genesis.
Q9: ' Why can't the all-powerful God not forgive someone of their sins after they die? Example: A christian man that is seemingly on God's good list makes a stupid decision and decides to drink a little too much at the fish fry. On his way home he crashes into a mini-van killing a mother and her two children and himself. This man led a very faithful life and made one stupid, yet grave mistake. If this man did not ask for forgiveness of his sins before the electrical activity in his brain ceased, then God will judge him and send him to hell to burn for eternity. '
- Because the all-powerful God is also an all-just God. So to forgive someone without acknowledging the legal consequences of the sin committed would make God a bad judge. The example of course misrepresents the doctrine of salvation. Where is it stated in the new testament that someone must ask for forgiveness every time he does something wrong? By the way, forgiveness is not ' requested ' , but given freely. This is called grace and lies right at the core of the Christian message. God forgives the sins that you committed in the past and forgives you for the sins that you are likely to commit in the future. Salvation is not earned but given freely. We have the ability to deny or reject it.
Q10: ' God wants everyone to worship and follow him and if they don't, they burn in hell for all eternity. What does this type of attitude say about his character? By definition, he would be described as a tyrant. '
- Another straw man. God wants everyone to worship him for their sake, not his. When we die, it's either we go to hell or heaven. Heaven is with God, Hell is without. People go to hell by choice because they refuse to worship God. God being omni-benevolent , gives them up to their desires for hell. He will not force anyone to enter heaven.
Q11: ' If Jesus died on the cross and spent three days in hell to pay for the sins of the world, then why would we have to go to hell ourselves and pay for them again? God is then, in essence, being paid for our sins twice.
- Lord help me, I can't...I just can't... the reasoning involved here is plain fallacious. Firstly, where is it stated that Jesus goes to hell during the three-day period? Secondly, why do we have to go to hell again? This me no comprehend.
Q12: ' was Jesus' sacrifice not worthy enough? If that is the case, why should we care that he died for our sins if his sacrifice means nothing at all?
- The bible does say that the sacrifice is enough, who said it isn't?
Q13: ' If God wants us all to follow and worship him, why didn't he create us as such? *Your expected answer will be addressed in the next question. Q14: What good is it for us to have free will if the intention is for us to not use it? Sure, we can use our free will, but we will burn in hell for eternity if we do. Russian roulette, anybody? It sounds like a set-up to me. '
-This is a misunderstanding of free will. It seems that the questioner thinks that free will implies free of consequences. This is logically inept. For example, someone has the free will to jump of a cliff, does he get angry at the law of gravity for breaking his bones upon landing? Free will exist to allow humans to take paths that they think is the best. When they fail, they can FREELY change their ways in hope for a better outcome. All this is only possible if God gives free will. It is a prerequisite of his all encompassing love. Hey, truth is a set up.
Q15: ' In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, why would God kill Lot's wife, Sarah, by turning her into a pillar of salt for simply looking in the wrong direction? *Warning of impending sarcasm.* God is a merciful God, right. '
- God commanded Lot and his family not to look back at Sodom and Gomorrah when sulphur was pouring on the city because God's power is too strong for the stare of men. She disobeyed God when strict orders were given. It's like if I told you to stay away from fire but you didn't listen and still got yourself burnt. Is it my fault? Parallels can be drawn with Lot's wife.
Q16: ' What purpose does hell serve? If it is punishment for sinful actions, shouldn't it be used for correctional purposes? Seeing as though you burn forever, you will never get out of hell to show that you have learned your lesson. Would it make since to live a faithful Christian life glorifying the Lord and to accidentally sin by saying a curse word the instant you smash your car into the back of a tractor-trailer, thereby being condemned to burn in hell forever? '
- Hell serves as the arena where you go when you reject God's love. God wishes desperately for humans to be with him in heaven but unfortunately there are those who are unwilling to bend. God being all-loving, must give them up to their wishes. Correction begins on Earth, not in hell. You are in hell because you DON'T want to learn your lesson, not because you haven't. From the viewpoint of a Christian, everyone who has a knowledge of right and wrong deserves hell because of our wickedness. But because Christ died for our sins, our punishment is taken away by him. This is what God has provided in the gospels in the form of Jesus Christ. A cuss word and cussing is totally different. Christ said to love your enemies as your neighbour and only if you cuss them from the depths of your heart are you sinning. There is no moral comparison between my description of cussing and cussing when you are about to get hit by a truck. One is an attack on another person the other is a cry of despair.
Q17: ' We know that we feel physical feelings through electrical impulses that send information to our brains through our nervous system. Once we die, we no longer feel pain due to the lack of a physical nervous system and, oh yeah, a brain. How could we 'feel' the excruciating flames of hell for eternity? Does God make you feel this torment for all eternity out of pure malice because you wouldn't worship him? '
- This is a complex issue, not as simplistic as the writer intends it to be. Firstly we can use brain scans to determine what impulses are sent where when you feel pain, but that does not mean we can document the ' pain ' that comes with it. This is the hard problem of conciousness and I don't want to get into a discussion about it. But as a response to the challenge, ' flames ' of hell are simple physical representations of something worse. Hell is spiritual death and despair which is infinitely worse than mere burning I assure you. Again, God sends you there because you reject him, not because he is malicious. You didn't want him in his life.
Q18: ' If God is omnipotent, why does he not just show himself to all of us, all at once, thereby ending this game of free will and temptation? '
- He has, in the form of the gospels. But assume that he reveals himself in a more direct manner, what does he prove? The God of the bible don't just want us to worship him because he exist, or that he is this almighty being. He wants us to worship out of love and repentance. That is why he distances himself from us so that we go to him volitionally, but close enough for us to experience him.
Q19: ' If God is perfect and his creations perfect, why did he fail several times? He had to impose suffering upon the human race because Adam and Eve defied him by eating of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Failed! He had to flood the planet 1,600 years later wiping out all but eight humans. Failure! He had to confuse human language after Nimrod and the Tower of Babel incident so that they could not effectively communicate with each other. Failure! How is this a track record of a perfect being? '
- This testifies to the ignorance and intellectual laziness of this writer. Why think that because God is perfect, therefore his creations are? If his creations are perfect, won't they be considered God? The punishment is not a track record of his failure, but a track record of ours. We are perfect, AS HE SEES IT. That is why he created us IN HIS IMAGE.
Q20 : ' If, in the beginning, there was only God and he created everything, why would he create angels that had the propensity to defy him? This very fallacy led to Lucifer challenging his authority because he desired to share the same power as God. This led to the rise, or fall depending on how you look at it, of Satan, the most notorious enemy of God and his followers. Failed, again! '
- Ummm.... free will?
Q21 : ' Why would you trust 'God's plan' given his track record of many failures? '
- His failing track record has yet to be shown. At times we might feel his plan is not perfect, but we must remember that this is a fallen world.
Q22 : ' A disciple of Christ, Thomas, was a skeptic. He walked with Jesus during his time on earth and physically witnessed with his own eyes certain miracles performed by him such as raising Lazarus from the dead and so forth. However, after the crucifixion, Jesus supposedly rose three days later. Thomas did not believe it was truly him despite being told, prior to the incident by Jesus, that he would rise again in three days. Thomas required physical proof. Jesus allowed him to touch him and feel the wounds in his body to offer proof. Why doesn't god extend the same proof to humans alive today? Those that doubt his existence are no different than Thomas, requiring physical proof and he was a disciple of Jesus himself. If Thomas had been born one generation later, or even living today, he would have burned in hell for all eternity because he would not believe for the lack of physical proof. Paul was born after the death and ascension of Christ. Throughout his life, he did not believe that Jesus was the son of God and even went out of his way to persecute Christians thinking that their religion was a dangerous belief system to practice. Lo and behold a flash of light came out of the sky and Jesus Christ himself appeared to Paul explaining to him that he is actually the one true god. Jesus told him that he was persecuting the followers of the only true faith. From that point on, Paul was a converted Christian. Again, if God was willing to go out of his way to physically prove to Paul that he actually exists, why is this not done today? Why isn't God willing to show those that doubt today the same degree of physical proof? Why should we be any different than Thomas and Paul? '
-First and foremost, reasons for doubt are spurious and not the same most of the time, so the comparisons between every sceptic and Thomas is in disarray. But the main question is, if you accept that the gospels are accurate in their report, that Paul and Thomas had physical proof that he existed, why do you still doubt God then? If it is true that these men has life transforming experiences, shouldn't that reduce the amount of scepticism? Physical proof isn't the only type of proof that has converted men to Christianity. People suffering dearly in the middle east today are immensely connected with God, so connected that they won't even hide the fact that they are Christians in front of persecutors, being martyrs in the process. Demanding that God MUST provide physical proof shows how blind one can be. The grace of God can be witness with seemingly mundane events like feeding the poor or shielding the weak. With regards to Thomas, you have to understand the historical backdrop of this history defining moment. Thomas was a Jew and Jewish people would never expect a dying and rising messiah. They always believed that their Messiah will come into this world with glory and power, so as a Jew, to see Jesus being crucified alone was heart shattering, let alone seeing him resurrected. That is why I would argue that the level of doubt of different standards when compared to sceptics today. I am of course open to correction with my interpretation.
Q23 : ' Christians argue evolution by asking why there aren't any half-ape half-men walking around today, right? Why don't we see giants, fiery talking serpents, talking donkeys and many other mythical creatures that are described in the Bible? '
- Well not all Christians are creationist, so the charge is once again false. Mythical figures mentioned in the bible are not necessarily true because some of them might be used for telling tales. But in any case, if God exist and that he created the world out of ' nothing ' , how hard is it to create a talking snake?
Q24 : ' If we are to only have sex for the purpose of pro-creation, and to do so outside of the scope of pro-creation is sinful, then why would God create us with an over abundance of nerve endings in our reproductive organs making sex extremely pleasurable? It sounds like yet another set-up. '
- Murder produces a high amount of adrenaline among certain people giving them an abundance of pleasure when they see blood. Is God wrong to condemn them? Is banning murder also a set up?Sex isn't solely about procreation, intimacy and lust is also essential, just not as important.
Q25 : ' Why do Christians share the same statistical rate of divorce as everyone else? "What God hath made, let no man put asunder." How could Christian marriages fail if they are sanctified by God? Hmmmm.... interesting. '
- Because, a Christian isn't inherently more ' special ' that anyone else? Why think that Christians can't sin? But a good explanation to these statistics can be that the church has failed miserably in having a spine on issues like these. Also, did these couples keep God as the ultimate goal in their marriages? We have to look at each marriage specifically to understand the reasons, instead of making general statements that are unhelpful.
Q26 : ' In the book of Luke chapter 19 verse 27, Jesus says, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." This seems pretty clear that Jesus would have Christians kill all non-believers. How do you explain this? '
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYae629sin0 . Nuff said.
Q27 : ' If God created everything, why did he create AIDS, influenza, ebola, ecoli and so on and so on? These, as viruses, are living things. You definitely can not use the free will card for this one. Is this another part of 'God's plan'? '
- Because the death is the result of sin.
Q28 : ' How can God answer a prayer giving a working-class man in the United States a raise at his place of employment so that he can move his family into a larger house, but he does not answer the prayers to stop the starvation and disease of millions upon millions of children around the world? This must be another infinitely wise part of 'God's plan'. '
- Actually it is part of his plan. Can his plan be proven to be false? You have to prove that IN NO WAY that God has no plan behind all this suffering.
Q29 : ' If God's word is supposed to be the accurate word of God himself, how are we supposed to trust it enough to model our lives after it 100% when hundreds of books were excluded from the original text throughout so many translations and revisions in history? '
- There is a reason these hundreds of books are excluded. Because they are not the word of God. I'm not even sure if there are hundreds of book excluded. The bible was not revised to the point where it's contents are edited. Also, we have good historical evidence that we have in the bible today is exactly what the authors intended to share. But since the writer did not give any specific challenge to the historicity of the gospels, I won't go any further.
Q30 : ' Why is there no evidence of any of the miracles performed by God? None whatsoever. '
- The better question to ask is : ' Are miracles possible? ' .
Q31 : ' If God and Jesus are the same, having the same mind, knowledge and power, then why would Jesus beg himself in the garden of Gethsemane, to spare himself from having to be crucified? Furthermore, why would Jesus ask himself why he has forsaken himself by allowing himself to be crucified? '
- The trinity dictates that they are not totally the same. This doesn't mean that they don't share divine traits. God via Jesus deliberately reduces his power as God to enter the world and suffer with it. Which is again proof of how much he is willing to sacrifice in order to save us.
Q32 : ' If you believe that your eternal life is more important than your physical life and you believe that all children are innocent in the eyes of God, why not kill your children so they are guaranteed to go to heaven? You can't tell me that it is because killing is a sin. First of all, you could repent thereafter and be forgiven. Secondly, if you would sacrifice your life for your child who is about to be hit by a train, and you believe your eternal life is more important than this life, then it would stand to reason that you should kill your children to ensure their entrance into heaven before they are old enough to be held accountable for being a creature of sin, right?
- Potentially the most immoral question of them all, not to mentioned ill-thought too. Just because someone believe that the afterlife is more important, doesn't warrant you to act in heniously in the current life. It is because we care about the eternal life of people that we should take other peoples welfare seriously. If I did take the life of these children, what would that make of me? Would I, not be disobeying God? Hence jeopardizing my eternal life in the process? LOL? It seems to me that the writer does not take repentance seriously. Repentance requires hard work and tough character. It is the bending of the will to do that which is righteous, NOT in order to gain God's love, but because we already have his grace and love. If you truly love God, you wouldn't take the life of an innocent child, if you truly repented, such a morally sick thought wouldn't even cross your mind. It seems to me that there is a notion in this challenge that eternal life is guaranteed only after you die. This is extravagantly false. The grace and love of God can be experience in finite lives. The guarantee of eternal life does not come into motion when you die. It begins when you accept Jesus Christ in your life. THAT is why we should die for our fellow human beings. Someone's entrance to heaven is not obtained by someone else, it is obtained through repenting and the acceptance of Jesus Christ. Full stop. By the way, killing IS a sin. By saying that one can take lives and determine the eternal fate of someone, you are essentially playing God. Which in itself is another sin.
Q33 : ' If you do believe that children are innocent in the eyes of God, wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that abortion doctors are winning more souls for Christ than Christian missionaries? Why not bomb a pre-school? That would surely win a lot of souls for Christ. '
- Once again, another poorly-reasoned claim.
Q34 : ' If you do not believe that children are innocent in the eyes of God, wouldn't it be fair to suggest that God is a monster? Do you see the conundrum here? '
- Well, who thinks that children are not innocent? By children I mean someone who has no rational thinking capabilities yet.
Q35 : ' It is a common belief among Christians that the only unforgivable sin is consciously rejecting Christ as Lord and savior. With that said, it is also believed by Christians that those who have never heard of Jesus and the Christian faith, i.e. individuals within an isolated tribe, babies and so forth, have no concept of Christ and can not, therefore, be in the position to consciously reject him. This would allow them entrance into heaven by default. With that said, why would you tell anyone about Christ? Why would you spread the word if that would put them in the position to consciously reject him? If they are already going to heaven due to their ignorance of the word of God, why not just let that be? You would, in effect, be losing more souls to Satan by spreading the word. You might want to rethink that whole "fishers of men" thing. '
- There is general revelation and special revelation. General revelation is revealed through the majesty of nature and the moral realm called conscience. People only under general revelation ie tribesman and babies have the capabilities unknown. But if God is just he will do that which is right. There are many people who did not know Christ but are in heaven. People like Abraham, Moses and the prophets. God is experientially available in many parts of the world. This is why there are so many religions in the world. This is also why there is a psychologically built in reverence for something greater than ourselves- God. But special revelations come in the form of Jesus. Which basically is the announcement that other religions, are partially correct on certain issues. And that Jesus is the truth, the way, and the life. That is why Christianity is a missionary religion.
Q36 : ' Imagine that I had the power and ability to feed millions and end all suffering. Now, imagine that I simply chose not to do so because these millions of people that are suffering did not like me. You would probably like me even less then, right? Then why does God get a 'get out of jail free card'? Wait a minute, 'God's plan,' right? '
- Have I not dealt with a question similar to this? Too lazy to scroll up. But as a side note, God does not hate people, he hates sin. Reversely, people hate God.
Q37 : ' Why are more atrocities committed in the name of God than anything else? '
- Apparently the twentieth century did not exist in the mind of this author. Which only means he does not know about secular atrocities committed by atheist/non-religious/secular regimes like communism. Stalin? Mao? Castro? Pol Pot? Ring a bell?
Q38 : ' The bible states that it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. If it is fairly impossible for the rich to go to heaven then why are there wealthy Christians? Why wouldn't these rich Christians give up all of their wealth to make it easier for them to enter the kingdom of heaven? '
- Sigh... does this mean that poor people have it easier to enter heaven? Such brain, so logic.
Q39 : ' Building upon the previous question, if it is almost impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, then why would God create heaven as having pearly gates, streets of gold and many mansions? It sounds like he wants us to be poor in life so that we will want to be rich in the afterlife, maybe? Does this make any real sense? '
- Okay, so the questions are getting ridiculous and hilarious as I move on. These are merely imaginary descriptions, no one knows exactly how heaven looks like. With the exception of people with near death experiences maybe. And no, the challenge does not make sense.
Q40 : ' If God is perfect then his creations should be perfect, right? Then that would mean that the earth is a perfect creation. Then why would God have to create another perfect place, heaven, and use it to entice us to believe in him? What kind of assurance do we have that heaven would be any better than his other 'perfect' creation, earth? '
- Refer to answer for question 19. Ten more questions. WEEEEE
Q41 : ' God allowed Jesus to be tempted as a human by Satan in the wilderness of the desert. Again, if God and Jesus are the same entity, then what kind of sense does it make for God to allow himself to be tempted by Satan in the wilderness to see if he would give in to the temptation? In addition to that, if he were all-knowing, he would have already known the outcome and, therefore, could have avoided the whole thing all together. '
- Did he fall into temptation? Last I remember Jesus did not fall into Satan's trap. Why does he need to avoid it. In fact if he avoided all of this, how would Jesus show his disciples that he is God, therefore showing that he is able to withstand the temptations of Satan? Because he knows everything, that is why there is no losing when being tempted by Satan.
Q42 : ' If heaven is to be a place free of sadness, pain and suffering, then how can you be happy in heaven knowing that the vast majority of humankind is painfully burning for eternity, especially when some of them may be your loved ones '
- Well, because the one Christians love the most is God. Hopefully one did his/her best to persuade another into accepting Christ, but if failed, there is nothing do be done.
Q43 : ' Seeing as though everything we, including Christians, enjoy in the modern world is a product of science, why do Christians so fervently deny factual scientific evidence that disproves so many aspects of the bible and their religion as a whole? '
- Of course, this must then explain why science sprung out of the Christian world. Where most of the intellects that discovered the multiple fields of science are devout Christians i.e Sir Isaac Newton, Gregory Mendel, Francis Bacon, Galileo, Copernicus.
Q44 : ' If Christianity is the only true religion, then why do practitioners of all other religions feel fulfilled in their faith and achieve the same desired results as Christians? '
- Do they? More specifications are needed to answer this question.
Q45 : ' If God created everything, then why did he create the tree of knowledge of good and evil and put it right in the middle of the garden of Eden for Eve to eat of it's fruit if he didn't want her to? Furthermore, why did God create the serpent that tempted Eve? Uh-oh, it sounds like another possible set-up. '
- Once again, free will.
Q46 : ' In the beginning God created Adam and Eve, right? Then Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. What happens next? How did the species propagate itself? Incest is genetically detrimental to offspring. It is also seen as being terribly immoral among the majority of people alive today, including Christians. There was either some incest going on or God created more people from scratch and we weren't told about it. '
- Either there are other people that God created that he didn't mention OR incest. Yes this is correct. Now if it is incest. We have to ask if incest was detrimental to people who have perfect genes, like Adam and Eve. We do not know the exact structure of their DNAs, therefore we can't establish if incest among the siblings is in anyway hurtful. But I suspect it isn't. But of course incest is forbidden later on.
Q47 : ' The same scenario applies to the flood incident. Sure, Noah's three sons had wives, but that would still mean that, out of the eight remaining individuals on the planet, there is only a 50% variation of genetic code. Mathematically, inbreeding was sure to be necessary to replenish the earth. '
- Refer answer for Q46. To add something, what if God then decided to add new people? Who knows?
Q48 : ' Why does God allow things to happen among his followers that he has already deemed to be sinful, i.e. incest example above, "thou shalt not kill" and so forth, and it is alright as long as it is done in his name? Remember, more deaths have occurred in history in God's name.
- Not true, no citations or examples are given.
Q49 : ' How did Adam live to 930, Seth 912 and Methuselah 969 years old when anthropological evidence show that we have progressively increased our longevity throughout history? If they did live that long back then, this concept would be reversed and our longevity should have been decreasing throughout history, right? That would mean that people 500 years ago should have lived to at least 200 years old. Why do we not find evidence of this throughout written historical birth and death records as well as archaeological and anthropological evidence? '
- Is it established that 1 ' year ' mentioned in the bible = 365 days?
Q 50 : ' God has killed more people than Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Sadam Hussein, Milosavic and Jim Jones combined. Why would you not follow them instead of God? Based on this standard, these monsters are compassionate compared to God. '
- Again, not true, the writer is leaving out communism here. The men mentioned above and communist leaders are responsible for at least 200 million deaths. Has religion caused as much? Let alone the Christian religion?
Q 51 : ' Why is it that when a Christian is faced with questions that have huge negative implications towards the logic of their faith, they conveniently say that it is in God's plan? Judging by the above mentioned failures, God's plan does not seem to be a very good one. '
- Is this true for everyone? As I pointed out. The author has probably only spoken to two Christians in his life.
Q 52 : ' Why would God give us the capability of logic and reason and expect us not to use it when it comes to belief in him and his word? '
- It is partially through logic and reason that I come to God and also to accept and complete the challenge.
This is me after finishing the challenge.
I came across this article( the one in the link above ) some time ago and I decided that I would one day take advantage of one of my blog post by elaborating on this rather arrogantly written article, the kind of article that makes you wonder how someone could manifest in him/her self such high self esteem when the issues that they are discussing requires a substantial amount of research done. Having said this, I'm pretty confident that I spent at least three times the length of time in my response in comparison to this fellows article. Nevertheless a challenge is a challenge, and I have no complaints about the research that I have to do in order to undercut the presumptuous nature of this piece of frustration. This article, as it claims, is written in an attempt to provide a case against the Christian faith. The case being that no answers will satisfy the evidential standards of these fifty questions. The equally cringing part of this article is actually his opening statement, where he remarked that no matter the Christian, they will not have sufficient reasoning to meet the ' lofty ' demands of his ' challenging ' questions. Upon reading the entire piece, I think it is safe to point out that he has only interacted with a grand total of two Christians in his life. This is perhaps why he is so cocksure of the validity of his questions. As I will show you, most if not all his questions are flimsy at core and can be soundly deflected. It will be a bit of a long read, but if you are interested, bear with the fifty questions posed and the length of my responses. Here we go.
Q1: ' If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), why did he take six days to create everything? Why not speak everything into existence all at once? '
- Well here we need to first understand the meaning of timelessness. God, as pointed out many times by the bible, is an eternal being ( Psalm 90:1-4, Exodus 3:13-14, Ephesians 3:10-11, Revelation 1:8,1 Timothy 1:17 ). Perhaps a better word to describe God is ' atemporal ' . In other words, a being that exist without relation to time as we humans perceive it. Whether its six or four hundred or eight billion years, God still spoke everything into existence in an instance in his dimension, not necessarily ours. In short, to us, six days might represent a ' duration ' , but to God, as the bible defines it, its nothing.
Q2: ' Why won't God heal amputees? '
- Is this the Judeo-Christian God's aim with respect to humans? Did he promise that he will be a physical doctor to everyone? Behind this is the ' Why would an all-loving God not solve the problem and suffering of humans? ' objection. Firstly, happiness and eternal life is not available on earth according to Christian doctrine, that is why heaven exist. But to answer the question directly, I can think of so many ways as to why God would refuse to intervene and heal our physical deficiencies. One good example is that he wants give us lessons on the harshness on life. There are a multitude of Christians being persecuted in the middle east as I write this, I don't see them complaining? Not as often as first world inhabitants like the writer and me at least. Perfection is for the afterlife and suffering is for this.
Q3: ' If God is so perfect, then why did he create something so imperfect allowing pain, suffering and daily atrocities? '
-Because free will and love are intertwined inextricably. In order to be a truly loving God, he must first allow humang beings the freedom to love or hate him. God created us perfect in his image, but we disobeyed him at The Fall in the Garden of Eden. It is our fallen nature that causes pain, suffering and daily atrocities, not him. Conversely, it is because he loves us so much that he gives us up to our sinful desires instead of creating us as robots with no free will and volition.
Q4: ' Why did the little old lady that God healed one Sunday need her walker to get around again next Sunday? Was she only temporarily worthy of a healing? '
- No one is worthy of healing. What did the old lady do to ' earn ' her healing. God is under no obligation to service anyone's needs.
Q5: ' How did Noah fit the millions and millions of species on this planet into his ark?
-http://creation.com/how-could-noah-get-all-the-animals-on-the-ark
Q6: ' If Noah did fit all of these species on the ark for forty days and forty nights, how did the penguins make it from Mt. Ararat to the Antarctic? How did the koala bears make it to Australia with no eucalyptus to eat along the way? '
- Refer to the answer for Q5.
Q7: ' Why do innocent children have to suffer with terminal diseases such as cancer? What part of 'God's plan' is this exactly? '
-Refer to the answer for Q2
Q8: ' How is it that the bible explains the earth to be 6,000 to 8,000 years old when we know that dinosaur bones are at least 65 million years old? The 'missing link' fossil 'Ida' found recently is estimated to be at least 47 million years old. '
- This of course assumes that the Christian must adopt the Young Earth Creationist view with respects to genesis.
Q9: ' Why can't the all-powerful God not forgive someone of their sins after they die? Example: A christian man that is seemingly on God's good list makes a stupid decision and decides to drink a little too much at the fish fry. On his way home he crashes into a mini-van killing a mother and her two children and himself. This man led a very faithful life and made one stupid, yet grave mistake. If this man did not ask for forgiveness of his sins before the electrical activity in his brain ceased, then God will judge him and send him to hell to burn for eternity. '
- Because the all-powerful God is also an all-just God. So to forgive someone without acknowledging the legal consequences of the sin committed would make God a bad judge. The example of course misrepresents the doctrine of salvation. Where is it stated in the new testament that someone must ask for forgiveness every time he does something wrong? By the way, forgiveness is not ' requested ' , but given freely. This is called grace and lies right at the core of the Christian message. God forgives the sins that you committed in the past and forgives you for the sins that you are likely to commit in the future. Salvation is not earned but given freely. We have the ability to deny or reject it.
Q10: ' God wants everyone to worship and follow him and if they don't, they burn in hell for all eternity. What does this type of attitude say about his character? By definition, he would be described as a tyrant. '
- Another straw man. God wants everyone to worship him for their sake, not his. When we die, it's either we go to hell or heaven. Heaven is with God, Hell is without. People go to hell by choice because they refuse to worship God. God being omni-benevolent , gives them up to their desires for hell. He will not force anyone to enter heaven.
Q11: ' If Jesus died on the cross and spent three days in hell to pay for the sins of the world, then why would we have to go to hell ourselves and pay for them again? God is then, in essence, being paid for our sins twice.
- Lord help me, I can't...I just can't... the reasoning involved here is plain fallacious. Firstly, where is it stated that Jesus goes to hell during the three-day period? Secondly, why do we have to go to hell again? This me no comprehend.
Q12: ' was Jesus' sacrifice not worthy enough? If that is the case, why should we care that he died for our sins if his sacrifice means nothing at all?
- The bible does say that the sacrifice is enough, who said it isn't?
Q13: ' If God wants us all to follow and worship him, why didn't he create us as such? *Your expected answer will be addressed in the next question. Q14: What good is it for us to have free will if the intention is for us to not use it? Sure, we can use our free will, but we will burn in hell for eternity if we do. Russian roulette, anybody? It sounds like a set-up to me. '
-This is a misunderstanding of free will. It seems that the questioner thinks that free will implies free of consequences. This is logically inept. For example, someone has the free will to jump of a cliff, does he get angry at the law of gravity for breaking his bones upon landing? Free will exist to allow humans to take paths that they think is the best. When they fail, they can FREELY change their ways in hope for a better outcome. All this is only possible if God gives free will. It is a prerequisite of his all encompassing love. Hey, truth is a set up.
Q15: ' In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, why would God kill Lot's wife, Sarah, by turning her into a pillar of salt for simply looking in the wrong direction? *Warning of impending sarcasm.* God is a merciful God, right. '
- God commanded Lot and his family not to look back at Sodom and Gomorrah when sulphur was pouring on the city because God's power is too strong for the stare of men. She disobeyed God when strict orders were given. It's like if I told you to stay away from fire but you didn't listen and still got yourself burnt. Is it my fault? Parallels can be drawn with Lot's wife.
Q16: ' What purpose does hell serve? If it is punishment for sinful actions, shouldn't it be used for correctional purposes? Seeing as though you burn forever, you will never get out of hell to show that you have learned your lesson. Would it make since to live a faithful Christian life glorifying the Lord and to accidentally sin by saying a curse word the instant you smash your car into the back of a tractor-trailer, thereby being condemned to burn in hell forever? '
- Hell serves as the arena where you go when you reject God's love. God wishes desperately for humans to be with him in heaven but unfortunately there are those who are unwilling to bend. God being all-loving, must give them up to their wishes. Correction begins on Earth, not in hell. You are in hell because you DON'T want to learn your lesson, not because you haven't. From the viewpoint of a Christian, everyone who has a knowledge of right and wrong deserves hell because of our wickedness. But because Christ died for our sins, our punishment is taken away by him. This is what God has provided in the gospels in the form of Jesus Christ. A cuss word and cussing is totally different. Christ said to love your enemies as your neighbour and only if you cuss them from the depths of your heart are you sinning. There is no moral comparison between my description of cussing and cussing when you are about to get hit by a truck. One is an attack on another person the other is a cry of despair.
Q17: ' We know that we feel physical feelings through electrical impulses that send information to our brains through our nervous system. Once we die, we no longer feel pain due to the lack of a physical nervous system and, oh yeah, a brain. How could we 'feel' the excruciating flames of hell for eternity? Does God make you feel this torment for all eternity out of pure malice because you wouldn't worship him? '
- This is a complex issue, not as simplistic as the writer intends it to be. Firstly we can use brain scans to determine what impulses are sent where when you feel pain, but that does not mean we can document the ' pain ' that comes with it. This is the hard problem of conciousness and I don't want to get into a discussion about it. But as a response to the challenge, ' flames ' of hell are simple physical representations of something worse. Hell is spiritual death and despair which is infinitely worse than mere burning I assure you. Again, God sends you there because you reject him, not because he is malicious. You didn't want him in his life.
Q18: ' If God is omnipotent, why does he not just show himself to all of us, all at once, thereby ending this game of free will and temptation? '
- He has, in the form of the gospels. But assume that he reveals himself in a more direct manner, what does he prove? The God of the bible don't just want us to worship him because he exist, or that he is this almighty being. He wants us to worship out of love and repentance. That is why he distances himself from us so that we go to him volitionally, but close enough for us to experience him.
Q19: ' If God is perfect and his creations perfect, why did he fail several times? He had to impose suffering upon the human race because Adam and Eve defied him by eating of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Failed! He had to flood the planet 1,600 years later wiping out all but eight humans. Failure! He had to confuse human language after Nimrod and the Tower of Babel incident so that they could not effectively communicate with each other. Failure! How is this a track record of a perfect being? '
- This testifies to the ignorance and intellectual laziness of this writer. Why think that because God is perfect, therefore his creations are? If his creations are perfect, won't they be considered God? The punishment is not a track record of his failure, but a track record of ours. We are perfect, AS HE SEES IT. That is why he created us IN HIS IMAGE.
Q20 : ' If, in the beginning, there was only God and he created everything, why would he create angels that had the propensity to defy him? This very fallacy led to Lucifer challenging his authority because he desired to share the same power as God. This led to the rise, or fall depending on how you look at it, of Satan, the most notorious enemy of God and his followers. Failed, again! '
- Ummm.... free will?
Q21 : ' Why would you trust 'God's plan' given his track record of many failures? '
- His failing track record has yet to be shown. At times we might feel his plan is not perfect, but we must remember that this is a fallen world.
Q22 : ' A disciple of Christ, Thomas, was a skeptic. He walked with Jesus during his time on earth and physically witnessed with his own eyes certain miracles performed by him such as raising Lazarus from the dead and so forth. However, after the crucifixion, Jesus supposedly rose three days later. Thomas did not believe it was truly him despite being told, prior to the incident by Jesus, that he would rise again in three days. Thomas required physical proof. Jesus allowed him to touch him and feel the wounds in his body to offer proof. Why doesn't god extend the same proof to humans alive today? Those that doubt his existence are no different than Thomas, requiring physical proof and he was a disciple of Jesus himself. If Thomas had been born one generation later, or even living today, he would have burned in hell for all eternity because he would not believe for the lack of physical proof. Paul was born after the death and ascension of Christ. Throughout his life, he did not believe that Jesus was the son of God and even went out of his way to persecute Christians thinking that their religion was a dangerous belief system to practice. Lo and behold a flash of light came out of the sky and Jesus Christ himself appeared to Paul explaining to him that he is actually the one true god. Jesus told him that he was persecuting the followers of the only true faith. From that point on, Paul was a converted Christian. Again, if God was willing to go out of his way to physically prove to Paul that he actually exists, why is this not done today? Why isn't God willing to show those that doubt today the same degree of physical proof? Why should we be any different than Thomas and Paul? '
-First and foremost, reasons for doubt are spurious and not the same most of the time, so the comparisons between every sceptic and Thomas is in disarray. But the main question is, if you accept that the gospels are accurate in their report, that Paul and Thomas had physical proof that he existed, why do you still doubt God then? If it is true that these men has life transforming experiences, shouldn't that reduce the amount of scepticism? Physical proof isn't the only type of proof that has converted men to Christianity. People suffering dearly in the middle east today are immensely connected with God, so connected that they won't even hide the fact that they are Christians in front of persecutors, being martyrs in the process. Demanding that God MUST provide physical proof shows how blind one can be. The grace of God can be witness with seemingly mundane events like feeding the poor or shielding the weak. With regards to Thomas, you have to understand the historical backdrop of this history defining moment. Thomas was a Jew and Jewish people would never expect a dying and rising messiah. They always believed that their Messiah will come into this world with glory and power, so as a Jew, to see Jesus being crucified alone was heart shattering, let alone seeing him resurrected. That is why I would argue that the level of doubt of different standards when compared to sceptics today. I am of course open to correction with my interpretation.
Q23 : ' Christians argue evolution by asking why there aren't any half-ape half-men walking around today, right? Why don't we see giants, fiery talking serpents, talking donkeys and many other mythical creatures that are described in the Bible? '
- Well not all Christians are creationist, so the charge is once again false. Mythical figures mentioned in the bible are not necessarily true because some of them might be used for telling tales. But in any case, if God exist and that he created the world out of ' nothing ' , how hard is it to create a talking snake?
Q24 : ' If we are to only have sex for the purpose of pro-creation, and to do so outside of the scope of pro-creation is sinful, then why would God create us with an over abundance of nerve endings in our reproductive organs making sex extremely pleasurable? It sounds like yet another set-up. '
- Murder produces a high amount of adrenaline among certain people giving them an abundance of pleasure when they see blood. Is God wrong to condemn them? Is banning murder also a set up?Sex isn't solely about procreation, intimacy and lust is also essential, just not as important.
Q25 : ' Why do Christians share the same statistical rate of divorce as everyone else? "What God hath made, let no man put asunder." How could Christian marriages fail if they are sanctified by God? Hmmmm.... interesting. '
- Because, a Christian isn't inherently more ' special ' that anyone else? Why think that Christians can't sin? But a good explanation to these statistics can be that the church has failed miserably in having a spine on issues like these. Also, did these couples keep God as the ultimate goal in their marriages? We have to look at each marriage specifically to understand the reasons, instead of making general statements that are unhelpful.
Q26 : ' In the book of Luke chapter 19 verse 27, Jesus says, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." This seems pretty clear that Jesus would have Christians kill all non-believers. How do you explain this? '
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYae629sin0 . Nuff said.
Q27 : ' If God created everything, why did he create AIDS, influenza, ebola, ecoli and so on and so on? These, as viruses, are living things. You definitely can not use the free will card for this one. Is this another part of 'God's plan'? '
- Because the death is the result of sin.
Q28 : ' How can God answer a prayer giving a working-class man in the United States a raise at his place of employment so that he can move his family into a larger house, but he does not answer the prayers to stop the starvation and disease of millions upon millions of children around the world? This must be another infinitely wise part of 'God's plan'. '
- Actually it is part of his plan. Can his plan be proven to be false? You have to prove that IN NO WAY that God has no plan behind all this suffering.
Q29 : ' If God's word is supposed to be the accurate word of God himself, how are we supposed to trust it enough to model our lives after it 100% when hundreds of books were excluded from the original text throughout so many translations and revisions in history? '
- There is a reason these hundreds of books are excluded. Because they are not the word of God. I'm not even sure if there are hundreds of book excluded. The bible was not revised to the point where it's contents are edited. Also, we have good historical evidence that we have in the bible today is exactly what the authors intended to share. But since the writer did not give any specific challenge to the historicity of the gospels, I won't go any further.
Q30 : ' Why is there no evidence of any of the miracles performed by God? None whatsoever. '
- The better question to ask is : ' Are miracles possible? ' .
Q31 : ' If God and Jesus are the same, having the same mind, knowledge and power, then why would Jesus beg himself in the garden of Gethsemane, to spare himself from having to be crucified? Furthermore, why would Jesus ask himself why he has forsaken himself by allowing himself to be crucified? '
- The trinity dictates that they are not totally the same. This doesn't mean that they don't share divine traits. God via Jesus deliberately reduces his power as God to enter the world and suffer with it. Which is again proof of how much he is willing to sacrifice in order to save us.
Q32 : ' If you believe that your eternal life is more important than your physical life and you believe that all children are innocent in the eyes of God, why not kill your children so they are guaranteed to go to heaven? You can't tell me that it is because killing is a sin. First of all, you could repent thereafter and be forgiven. Secondly, if you would sacrifice your life for your child who is about to be hit by a train, and you believe your eternal life is more important than this life, then it would stand to reason that you should kill your children to ensure their entrance into heaven before they are old enough to be held accountable for being a creature of sin, right?
- Potentially the most immoral question of them all, not to mentioned ill-thought too. Just because someone believe that the afterlife is more important, doesn't warrant you to act in heniously in the current life. It is because we care about the eternal life of people that we should take other peoples welfare seriously. If I did take the life of these children, what would that make of me? Would I, not be disobeying God? Hence jeopardizing my eternal life in the process? LOL? It seems to me that the writer does not take repentance seriously. Repentance requires hard work and tough character. It is the bending of the will to do that which is righteous, NOT in order to gain God's love, but because we already have his grace and love. If you truly love God, you wouldn't take the life of an innocent child, if you truly repented, such a morally sick thought wouldn't even cross your mind. It seems to me that there is a notion in this challenge that eternal life is guaranteed only after you die. This is extravagantly false. The grace and love of God can be experience in finite lives. The guarantee of eternal life does not come into motion when you die. It begins when you accept Jesus Christ in your life. THAT is why we should die for our fellow human beings. Someone's entrance to heaven is not obtained by someone else, it is obtained through repenting and the acceptance of Jesus Christ. Full stop. By the way, killing IS a sin. By saying that one can take lives and determine the eternal fate of someone, you are essentially playing God. Which in itself is another sin.
Q33 : ' If you do believe that children are innocent in the eyes of God, wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that abortion doctors are winning more souls for Christ than Christian missionaries? Why not bomb a pre-school? That would surely win a lot of souls for Christ. '
- Once again, another poorly-reasoned claim.
Q34 : ' If you do not believe that children are innocent in the eyes of God, wouldn't it be fair to suggest that God is a monster? Do you see the conundrum here? '
- Well, who thinks that children are not innocent? By children I mean someone who has no rational thinking capabilities yet.
Q35 : ' It is a common belief among Christians that the only unforgivable sin is consciously rejecting Christ as Lord and savior. With that said, it is also believed by Christians that those who have never heard of Jesus and the Christian faith, i.e. individuals within an isolated tribe, babies and so forth, have no concept of Christ and can not, therefore, be in the position to consciously reject him. This would allow them entrance into heaven by default. With that said, why would you tell anyone about Christ? Why would you spread the word if that would put them in the position to consciously reject him? If they are already going to heaven due to their ignorance of the word of God, why not just let that be? You would, in effect, be losing more souls to Satan by spreading the word. You might want to rethink that whole "fishers of men" thing. '
- There is general revelation and special revelation. General revelation is revealed through the majesty of nature and the moral realm called conscience. People only under general revelation ie tribesman and babies have the capabilities unknown. But if God is just he will do that which is right. There are many people who did not know Christ but are in heaven. People like Abraham, Moses and the prophets. God is experientially available in many parts of the world. This is why there are so many religions in the world. This is also why there is a psychologically built in reverence for something greater than ourselves- God. But special revelations come in the form of Jesus. Which basically is the announcement that other religions, are partially correct on certain issues. And that Jesus is the truth, the way, and the life. That is why Christianity is a missionary religion.
Q36 : ' Imagine that I had the power and ability to feed millions and end all suffering. Now, imagine that I simply chose not to do so because these millions of people that are suffering did not like me. You would probably like me even less then, right? Then why does God get a 'get out of jail free card'? Wait a minute, 'God's plan,' right? '
- Have I not dealt with a question similar to this? Too lazy to scroll up. But as a side note, God does not hate people, he hates sin. Reversely, people hate God.
Q37 : ' Why are more atrocities committed in the name of God than anything else? '
- Apparently the twentieth century did not exist in the mind of this author. Which only means he does not know about secular atrocities committed by atheist/non-religious/secular regimes like communism. Stalin? Mao? Castro? Pol Pot? Ring a bell?
Q38 : ' The bible states that it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. If it is fairly impossible for the rich to go to heaven then why are there wealthy Christians? Why wouldn't these rich Christians give up all of their wealth to make it easier for them to enter the kingdom of heaven? '
- Sigh... does this mean that poor people have it easier to enter heaven? Such brain, so logic.
Q39 : ' Building upon the previous question, if it is almost impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, then why would God create heaven as having pearly gates, streets of gold and many mansions? It sounds like he wants us to be poor in life so that we will want to be rich in the afterlife, maybe? Does this make any real sense? '
- Okay, so the questions are getting ridiculous and hilarious as I move on. These are merely imaginary descriptions, no one knows exactly how heaven looks like. With the exception of people with near death experiences maybe. And no, the challenge does not make sense.
Q40 : ' If God is perfect then his creations should be perfect, right? Then that would mean that the earth is a perfect creation. Then why would God have to create another perfect place, heaven, and use it to entice us to believe in him? What kind of assurance do we have that heaven would be any better than his other 'perfect' creation, earth? '
- Refer to answer for question 19. Ten more questions. WEEEEE
Q41 : ' God allowed Jesus to be tempted as a human by Satan in the wilderness of the desert. Again, if God and Jesus are the same entity, then what kind of sense does it make for God to allow himself to be tempted by Satan in the wilderness to see if he would give in to the temptation? In addition to that, if he were all-knowing, he would have already known the outcome and, therefore, could have avoided the whole thing all together. '
- Did he fall into temptation? Last I remember Jesus did not fall into Satan's trap. Why does he need to avoid it. In fact if he avoided all of this, how would Jesus show his disciples that he is God, therefore showing that he is able to withstand the temptations of Satan? Because he knows everything, that is why there is no losing when being tempted by Satan.
Q42 : ' If heaven is to be a place free of sadness, pain and suffering, then how can you be happy in heaven knowing that the vast majority of humankind is painfully burning for eternity, especially when some of them may be your loved ones '
- Well, because the one Christians love the most is God. Hopefully one did his/her best to persuade another into accepting Christ, but if failed, there is nothing do be done.
Q43 : ' Seeing as though everything we, including Christians, enjoy in the modern world is a product of science, why do Christians so fervently deny factual scientific evidence that disproves so many aspects of the bible and their religion as a whole? '
- Of course, this must then explain why science sprung out of the Christian world. Where most of the intellects that discovered the multiple fields of science are devout Christians i.e Sir Isaac Newton, Gregory Mendel, Francis Bacon, Galileo, Copernicus.
Q44 : ' If Christianity is the only true religion, then why do practitioners of all other religions feel fulfilled in their faith and achieve the same desired results as Christians? '
- Do they? More specifications are needed to answer this question.
Q45 : ' If God created everything, then why did he create the tree of knowledge of good and evil and put it right in the middle of the garden of Eden for Eve to eat of it's fruit if he didn't want her to? Furthermore, why did God create the serpent that tempted Eve? Uh-oh, it sounds like another possible set-up. '
- Once again, free will.
Q46 : ' In the beginning God created Adam and Eve, right? Then Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. What happens next? How did the species propagate itself? Incest is genetically detrimental to offspring. It is also seen as being terribly immoral among the majority of people alive today, including Christians. There was either some incest going on or God created more people from scratch and we weren't told about it. '
- Either there are other people that God created that he didn't mention OR incest. Yes this is correct. Now if it is incest. We have to ask if incest was detrimental to people who have perfect genes, like Adam and Eve. We do not know the exact structure of their DNAs, therefore we can't establish if incest among the siblings is in anyway hurtful. But I suspect it isn't. But of course incest is forbidden later on.
Q47 : ' The same scenario applies to the flood incident. Sure, Noah's three sons had wives, but that would still mean that, out of the eight remaining individuals on the planet, there is only a 50% variation of genetic code. Mathematically, inbreeding was sure to be necessary to replenish the earth. '
- Refer answer for Q46. To add something, what if God then decided to add new people? Who knows?
Q48 : ' Why does God allow things to happen among his followers that he has already deemed to be sinful, i.e. incest example above, "thou shalt not kill" and so forth, and it is alright as long as it is done in his name? Remember, more deaths have occurred in history in God's name.
- Not true, no citations or examples are given.
Q49 : ' How did Adam live to 930, Seth 912 and Methuselah 969 years old when anthropological evidence show that we have progressively increased our longevity throughout history? If they did live that long back then, this concept would be reversed and our longevity should have been decreasing throughout history, right? That would mean that people 500 years ago should have lived to at least 200 years old. Why do we not find evidence of this throughout written historical birth and death records as well as archaeological and anthropological evidence? '
- Is it established that 1 ' year ' mentioned in the bible = 365 days?
Q 50 : ' God has killed more people than Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Sadam Hussein, Milosavic and Jim Jones combined. Why would you not follow them instead of God? Based on this standard, these monsters are compassionate compared to God. '
- Again, not true, the writer is leaving out communism here. The men mentioned above and communist leaders are responsible for at least 200 million deaths. Has religion caused as much? Let alone the Christian religion?
Q 51 : ' Why is it that when a Christian is faced with questions that have huge negative implications towards the logic of their faith, they conveniently say that it is in God's plan? Judging by the above mentioned failures, God's plan does not seem to be a very good one. '
- Is this true for everyone? As I pointed out. The author has probably only spoken to two Christians in his life.
Q 52 : ' Why would God give us the capability of logic and reason and expect us not to use it when it comes to belief in him and his word? '
- It is partially through logic and reason that I come to God and also to accept and complete the challenge.
Sunday, 10 August 2014
A response to Steph Micayle: The Gay Debate
Apart from her well sung covers of songs, Steph Micayle has garnered interest from Youtube with her controversial rants about Singaporean culture such as the video titled: " Why I'm not proud to be Singaporean". Recently, she posted another less controversial, but important, video about the 'Pink Dot' movement where they advocate gay rights in Singapore. My aim is to explore her video word for word to see if her arguments hold water.
The video link for her gay rights video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8PLSmAkv-Y&list=UU-Q0CZ73ywaFl-P6pf0_ZHg. If you do not wish to watch the whole video, I have decided to type out her entire dialogue here. This also helps me get a better grasp of her stances.
"So just this morning I was reading an article on facebook about the 'Wear White' movement going against the ' Pink Dot ' movement, and I got really angry because of it, so I've got quite a few things to say. Well firstly, I would like to establish myself as a supporter of homosexuality and same-sex marriages and even if I wasn't, I would have at least some sort of basic human respect to not call everyone who supports my cause to wear white on this day. So let's go through the history of ' Pink Dot ' rally. What is the purpose of the PD rally- to promote homosexuality or the freedom to love? The PD movement believes that everyone has the rights to love regardless of your sexual orientation and the turnout is getting bigger and bigger every year because more and more people are accepting the idea that people can love anyone they want and not be judge for it. So, if you, for a second think that everyone at the rally are gay and that the turnout represent the number of gays in the country, you're a f****** retard. I would like to respond to Mr. Kong's statement on PD and rebut it. So he clearly doesn't understand what PD is about. First thing he said is: 'I find it totally confounding that Pink Dot is allowed to promote their agenda. I find it even more disconcerting that the event is being used as a platform of public persuasion to push their alternative lifestyle.' What alternative lifestyle?! They have family and friends, they love and they live, the only difference is that they are attracted to people of the same sex. There is no alternative lifestyle being pushed here. The only thing that they're 'pushing' is their right to love, and are you going to be the one that takes away that right? 'Ultimately, they want to redefine Love, redefine Marriage, and redefine Family. Is this the kind of Singapore we can be proud of and want for our children? I feel sad at the thought of Singapore in moral decline.' Do you honestly think that PD can redefine all these things? There's no way to redefine it. Love is love. Marriage is marriage. Family is family. It's never going to change. Hell, even legalizing same-sex marriages isn't going to redefine all these things. They want to love, get married, and have a family just like everyone else, they just want to FIT IN. The Singapore that I would feel proud of is one that would accept people for who they are and what they stand for. That's the Singapore that I want my children to grow up in. To be friends with gay people and to know there's nothing wrong with it, just like the rest of us. And guess what? Singapore is already in moral decline thanks to people like you- Mr Khong, who choose to fight against such a beautiful movement. All PD wants to do is to push love and acceptance. So you people leading this ' Wear White' movement, shame on you. Aren't a little too old to be this immature? Stop trying to force your views on others. People have the right to love who the hell they want and you shouldn't do something that goes against it. Wearing white and the PD rally can't and won't change anything and here's the cold hard truth-If someone is born gay, then their gay. If your kid is born gay, then what are you going to do? See him or her as an abomination? Are you going to condemn them? Deny who they are? Try to change them or try to embrace your children for who they are? Scientific research that specialize in human sexuality have repeatedly shown that homosexuality is genetic. There's a reason why the term sexual preference have been changed to sexual orientation and I can tell you now, that it's going to be a lot easier to accept your children for who they really are than to try and change them, because the change you want is not going to happen. And if you have a straight kid, no amount of PD rallies will turn your kid gay. So who are you to tell people who they should and shouldn't love? You have every right to practice your religion, you have every right to be conservative in thought but you do not have the right to impose your views and impose others to live like you do if you do not agree with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what this rally represents. The only reason these people rally together is not to promote homosexuality, it is to help you( Mr. Khong ). They're not trying to make you accept it or support it. All they want is for you to stop discriminating them and understand that this is how they are and that is all there is to it. If they want to love people of the same gender then so be it. They're not promoting anything. Like I said, homosexuality is not a choice. If you are born straight, then you won't be gay. All they want you to understand is that what they are is completely natural. There might be a point in life that people get a little bit vicarious, but that doesn't mean that they turn gay. This rally represents the message of love. The freedom to love as you are and as who you are. The freedom to be you, yet at the same time, they aren't asking you( Mr.Khong ) to be like them, they aren't asking for special rights. They're asking for the rights everyone has-The same freedom that everyone has. The right to get married, to love, and the right to have a family. What is wrong with that? So what should we do? Homophobes, stop being scared!Protesters, stop protesting! People love, who they want to love. Freedom of speech is the same as freedom to love. Homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, heterosexuals, we're all people. The only difference is our orientation. I'm not asking you to join the PD rally and support, I'm asking you to not protest and leave them be. Don't ask your entire family to wear white and bring them to a rally, dominated by homosexual advocates, to protest against the way some people are born. They're people too, just like me, just like you. just normal everyday people, no different from the rest of us. Their proud of who they are, and how they're different. So stop fighting, because the PD supporters are not fighting against you nor are they trying to push anything on you. They just want acceptance and they will get it. Some day same sex marriages might get legalized. Hell I hope it does! Because who are we to take away people's basic rights."
So, this is your typical gay rights advocate reasoning or lack thereof. It pains me to see that the entire video was not only emotional, but repetitive. Oh not to mention false as well. I will have four basic contentions in response to her views.
1.The interaction between 'Love' and law.
-The misconception that takes place in this video begins when she mentions that people should be able to get married simply in the name of 'Love'. Singapore's marriage laws strictly defines marriage only between a man and a woman. So in light of this, it is obvious to see why she would want to repeal the existing marriage laws in Singapore. Now I know very little of Singaporean law but the fundamental question that anyone can ask is: ' What is the governments role in marriage? ' Another way to phrase it is to ask what the criterion is for allowing marriage in a society, and what are the reasons supporting these criterion. 'Love' is definitely not one of them. It is never an imperative for marriage legals to legalize marriage on the basis of 'love'. But just imagine what this would lead to. Beastiality would be viable, so would polygamy, even incest becomes legitimate.
2.Hypocrisy of moral imposition.
-Large portions of her case revolve around the complaint that Mr.Khong is morally trying to impose his views on society at large, and how that is apparently morally reprehensible and discriminatory. What she doesn't realize, however, is that all laws are discriminatory. Every view on something requires that the advocate of that view discriminate on something, including her. Take for instance, the law against murder, isn't this discriminating on murderers? How about anti-theft laws? Does that not discriminate thieves? Discrimination isn't always wrong and the context must be carefully examined before arriving at conclusions. The irony of her comments is that she accuses Mr. Khong for judging people, yet in return, judges the 'wear white'-ers with statements like 'Don't ask your entire family to wear white and bring them to a rally, dominated by homosexual advocates, to protest against the way some people are born.' Is this not a blatant use of moral judgement? Isn't she trying to prohibit certain groups of people from protesting? Isn't she IMPOSING her views on others like Mr.Khong?
3.Scientific ignorance and misuse.
-Upon reading every 'science' article she provided, I realize that they were misconstrued. None of the articles give a definitive view that homosexuals are born that way, this is not to say that the opposite is true, but it does show that the evidence is insufficient. What is even more striking about the articles is that none of them provide any academic citations accept one. When you do actually go to the source, you realize it not a study that proves that people are born with the gay 'gene' but this is their conclusion: "The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first–born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters." Does this sound anything like :" It is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that people are born gay." ? The level of research done by is astoundingly childish. I will provide the actual link below. But let's just say for the sake of argument, that homosexuals are actually born that way. So what? That does not imply we should implement laws that allow homosexual marriages. There are people born with pathological killing desires, should we create laws that allow them to do it? How about kleptomaniacs? Should we allow them to steal? The ' it's natural' argument is probably the most baseless argument ever. In fact, all laws are implemented on the understanding that human nature is destructive, that's why laws are prohibitions.
*http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217
4. Issue of identity.
-This I believe lies at the crux of her rant. Ultimately what the Pink Dot movement wants is to tell the world that they are humans too. But the assertion here is, that deniers of same-sex marriages here regard homosexuals less of a human being. This is certainly false. What people like Mr.Khong is arguing against is not homosexuals, but homosexual behaviour and the ideas supporting it. You should love and accept someone who is gay, this is a must for everyone, But you cannot use sexual orientation as an excuse to revamp the entire marriage system. Laws by definition must deny liberty to harmful ideas. Same sex marriage is one of them. But of course, this is for another day.
The video link for her gay rights video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8PLSmAkv-Y&list=UU-Q0CZ73ywaFl-P6pf0_ZHg. If you do not wish to watch the whole video, I have decided to type out her entire dialogue here. This also helps me get a better grasp of her stances.
"So just this morning I was reading an article on facebook about the 'Wear White' movement going against the ' Pink Dot ' movement, and I got really angry because of it, so I've got quite a few things to say. Well firstly, I would like to establish myself as a supporter of homosexuality and same-sex marriages and even if I wasn't, I would have at least some sort of basic human respect to not call everyone who supports my cause to wear white on this day. So let's go through the history of ' Pink Dot ' rally. What is the purpose of the PD rally- to promote homosexuality or the freedom to love? The PD movement believes that everyone has the rights to love regardless of your sexual orientation and the turnout is getting bigger and bigger every year because more and more people are accepting the idea that people can love anyone they want and not be judge for it. So, if you, for a second think that everyone at the rally are gay and that the turnout represent the number of gays in the country, you're a f****** retard. I would like to respond to Mr. Kong's statement on PD and rebut it. So he clearly doesn't understand what PD is about. First thing he said is: 'I find it totally confounding that Pink Dot is allowed to promote their agenda. I find it even more disconcerting that the event is being used as a platform of public persuasion to push their alternative lifestyle.' What alternative lifestyle?! They have family and friends, they love and they live, the only difference is that they are attracted to people of the same sex. There is no alternative lifestyle being pushed here. The only thing that they're 'pushing' is their right to love, and are you going to be the one that takes away that right? 'Ultimately, they want to redefine Love, redefine Marriage, and redefine Family. Is this the kind of Singapore we can be proud of and want for our children? I feel sad at the thought of Singapore in moral decline.' Do you honestly think that PD can redefine all these things? There's no way to redefine it. Love is love. Marriage is marriage. Family is family. It's never going to change. Hell, even legalizing same-sex marriages isn't going to redefine all these things. They want to love, get married, and have a family just like everyone else, they just want to FIT IN. The Singapore that I would feel proud of is one that would accept people for who they are and what they stand for. That's the Singapore that I want my children to grow up in. To be friends with gay people and to know there's nothing wrong with it, just like the rest of us. And guess what? Singapore is already in moral decline thanks to people like you- Mr Khong, who choose to fight against such a beautiful movement. All PD wants to do is to push love and acceptance. So you people leading this ' Wear White' movement, shame on you. Aren't a little too old to be this immature? Stop trying to force your views on others. People have the right to love who the hell they want and you shouldn't do something that goes against it. Wearing white and the PD rally can't and won't change anything and here's the cold hard truth-If someone is born gay, then their gay. If your kid is born gay, then what are you going to do? See him or her as an abomination? Are you going to condemn them? Deny who they are? Try to change them or try to embrace your children for who they are? Scientific research that specialize in human sexuality have repeatedly shown that homosexuality is genetic. There's a reason why the term sexual preference have been changed to sexual orientation and I can tell you now, that it's going to be a lot easier to accept your children for who they really are than to try and change them, because the change you want is not going to happen. And if you have a straight kid, no amount of PD rallies will turn your kid gay. So who are you to tell people who they should and shouldn't love? You have every right to practice your religion, you have every right to be conservative in thought but you do not have the right to impose your views and impose others to live like you do if you do not agree with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what this rally represents. The only reason these people rally together is not to promote homosexuality, it is to help you( Mr. Khong ). They're not trying to make you accept it or support it. All they want is for you to stop discriminating them and understand that this is how they are and that is all there is to it. If they want to love people of the same gender then so be it. They're not promoting anything. Like I said, homosexuality is not a choice. If you are born straight, then you won't be gay. All they want you to understand is that what they are is completely natural. There might be a point in life that people get a little bit vicarious, but that doesn't mean that they turn gay. This rally represents the message of love. The freedom to love as you are and as who you are. The freedom to be you, yet at the same time, they aren't asking you( Mr.Khong ) to be like them, they aren't asking for special rights. They're asking for the rights everyone has-The same freedom that everyone has. The right to get married, to love, and the right to have a family. What is wrong with that? So what should we do? Homophobes, stop being scared!Protesters, stop protesting! People love, who they want to love. Freedom of speech is the same as freedom to love. Homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, heterosexuals, we're all people. The only difference is our orientation. I'm not asking you to join the PD rally and support, I'm asking you to not protest and leave them be. Don't ask your entire family to wear white and bring them to a rally, dominated by homosexual advocates, to protest against the way some people are born. They're people too, just like me, just like you. just normal everyday people, no different from the rest of us. Their proud of who they are, and how they're different. So stop fighting, because the PD supporters are not fighting against you nor are they trying to push anything on you. They just want acceptance and they will get it. Some day same sex marriages might get legalized. Hell I hope it does! Because who are we to take away people's basic rights."
So, this is your typical gay rights advocate reasoning or lack thereof. It pains me to see that the entire video was not only emotional, but repetitive. Oh not to mention false as well. I will have four basic contentions in response to her views.
1.The interaction between 'Love' and law.
-The misconception that takes place in this video begins when she mentions that people should be able to get married simply in the name of 'Love'. Singapore's marriage laws strictly defines marriage only between a man and a woman. So in light of this, it is obvious to see why she would want to repeal the existing marriage laws in Singapore. Now I know very little of Singaporean law but the fundamental question that anyone can ask is: ' What is the governments role in marriage? ' Another way to phrase it is to ask what the criterion is for allowing marriage in a society, and what are the reasons supporting these criterion. 'Love' is definitely not one of them. It is never an imperative for marriage legals to legalize marriage on the basis of 'love'. But just imagine what this would lead to. Beastiality would be viable, so would polygamy, even incest becomes legitimate.
2.Hypocrisy of moral imposition.
-Large portions of her case revolve around the complaint that Mr.Khong is morally trying to impose his views on society at large, and how that is apparently morally reprehensible and discriminatory. What she doesn't realize, however, is that all laws are discriminatory. Every view on something requires that the advocate of that view discriminate on something, including her. Take for instance, the law against murder, isn't this discriminating on murderers? How about anti-theft laws? Does that not discriminate thieves? Discrimination isn't always wrong and the context must be carefully examined before arriving at conclusions. The irony of her comments is that she accuses Mr. Khong for judging people, yet in return, judges the 'wear white'-ers with statements like 'Don't ask your entire family to wear white and bring them to a rally, dominated by homosexual advocates, to protest against the way some people are born.' Is this not a blatant use of moral judgement? Isn't she trying to prohibit certain groups of people from protesting? Isn't she IMPOSING her views on others like Mr.Khong?
3.Scientific ignorance and misuse.
-Upon reading every 'science' article she provided, I realize that they were misconstrued. None of the articles give a definitive view that homosexuals are born that way, this is not to say that the opposite is true, but it does show that the evidence is insufficient. What is even more striking about the articles is that none of them provide any academic citations accept one. When you do actually go to the source, you realize it not a study that proves that people are born with the gay 'gene' but this is their conclusion: "The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first–born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters." Does this sound anything like :" It is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that people are born gay." ? The level of research done by is astoundingly childish. I will provide the actual link below. But let's just say for the sake of argument, that homosexuals are actually born that way. So what? That does not imply we should implement laws that allow homosexual marriages. There are people born with pathological killing desires, should we create laws that allow them to do it? How about kleptomaniacs? Should we allow them to steal? The ' it's natural' argument is probably the most baseless argument ever. In fact, all laws are implemented on the understanding that human nature is destructive, that's why laws are prohibitions.
*http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217
4. Issue of identity.
-This I believe lies at the crux of her rant. Ultimately what the Pink Dot movement wants is to tell the world that they are humans too. But the assertion here is, that deniers of same-sex marriages here regard homosexuals less of a human being. This is certainly false. What people like Mr.Khong is arguing against is not homosexuals, but homosexual behaviour and the ideas supporting it. You should love and accept someone who is gay, this is a must for everyone, But you cannot use sexual orientation as an excuse to revamp the entire marriage system. Laws by definition must deny liberty to harmful ideas. Same sex marriage is one of them. But of course, this is for another day.
Friday, 8 August 2014
Judgementalism: A social hoax of our time.
Social ideas/phenomenons/mechanisms that are venomous never happen to be the ones people discuss often, but the ones that are assumed nonchalantly. I submit to you, in my observation, judgementalism to be one of most pernicious ones. The root word of this social furniture is of course 'judge', and its adjective, 'judgemental'. Most people, at some point in their lives have either been accused or accuse someone else of being judgemental. It is highly probable that you have never heard of the word 'judgementalism', there is good reason for your ignorance, I just invented it. Not out of thin air of course, as I define judgementalism as the 'social phenomena that trivializes judgement.' This is a very prevalent phenomena in twenty first century first world cultures that has telling implications for politics and private lives. So to begin, lets look at Oxford dictionaries two definitions and I will show you which, I think is more useful and adequate. I will avoid sentence usage for pragmatic/practical reasons.
Judge: (1)A public officer appointed to decide cases in a law court.
(2)Form an opinion or conclusion about.
Origins: Middle English: from Old French juge (noun), juger (verb), from Latin judex, judic-, from jus 'law' + dicere 'to say'.
Judgemental: (1)Of or concerning the use of judgement.
-[1.1] Having or displaying an overly critical point of view.
Now you might put forward that Oxford dictionary isn't the sole dictator on word definitions and you would be correct. But I chose it for, again, practical purposes and also to avoid going into purposeless lexical debates about its definition. However if you do find some fault in Oxford's definition, do exploit the error in the comments below! Make sure to also provide an alternative to Oxford.
Definition (1) of judge is rather uncontroversial so there isn't anything moot to discuss. Definition (2) of judge is probably the definition that I fully advocate. I would actually put it as 'The act of differentiating that which is true or false/correct or wrong.' If you tie this with definition (1), you see a connection between them and understand why it is necessary. The more I ponder about definition (2), the more I realize how much people judge everyday. In fact, it is actually an impossible thing to avoid so long you consider yourself a human being. Just for the sake of survival alone, do we have to judge things. Take for instance, choosing a university of your choice. If you desired to obtain the best possible offer, necessarily you would have to evaluate which university will provide you with optimum satisfaction, at the expense of other universities. Economically speaking, this is called the opportunity cost. This can also apply to employers choosing their new job intakes. If an employer wishes to hire an employee that has the level of productivity that justifies their wages, unavoidably he/she would have to judge the applicants by their merits/character et cetera. These examples highlight( only partially ) the importance of judgement in any free society, and in light of this fact, it is perplexing to think that we encourage people to be devoid of judgement or something to that effect. How detrimental could it be if the members of a society don't even judge? Let alone have better judgements.
This is where the controversy lies. Definition ( 1.1 ) of ' judgemental ' is very, very debatable. This is because it has sneaked in something that betrays the purpose of the word. If the word 'judgemental' is an adjective, logically, based on definition ( 2 ) of ' judge ', its definition should be ' having or displaying desires to form opinions or conclusions about X '. But why is it then defined as ' Having or displaying an overly critical point of view ' ? Surely, there is has been a misstep in Oxfords definition. Could it be that they, too, have been sucked in by cultural definitions? Then again, this is a red herring, while Oxford may have made an error, they have certainly unintentionally described the social climate of our times very concisely. This impairment has let me to think carefully about this subject and shed light on its complexities. It is perhaps more helpful to give you an imaginary example in hopes of clearing the fog that clouds this controversial issue. I will provide below.
Situation: Imagine a conversation between two ladies, one in her early twenties, another in her late forties with children. Her children happen to be around the same age as the other lady she is talking to, and the lady in her twenties know some of the children personally, not necessarily close in relationship. So the older woman, let's call her Jane, is a church goer and has conservative views about life. The younger lady, let's call her Bianca, is, like most young ladies in the twenty first century, very liberal. The conversation begins over dinner during some gathering.
Jane: "Hello Bianca! How have you been? Doing well?"
Bianca: "Hi ma'am, yes It's been good recently."
Jane: "I have to say that you look more beautiful since I last saw you months ago! However, I don't think you should be wearing skimpy clothings like the tight and short skirt you are wearing right now, you might give men the wrong impression of you and that's not what you want in a man.Also, those piercings on your tongue make you look sinful. I hope you remove them some day."
Bianca: "Excuse me miss? I am over 21 and I'm allowed to do and wear whatever I want and I have no obligations to obey whatever you say. How judgemental are you?! You think I'm bad? You don't even know what your own children are doing behind your back and you have the nerve to lecture me! Go teach your own kids first before you even begin with me. Damn you religious hypocrites!"
This is a pretty common conversation that arises whenever people of different generations meet and its a believable reality even though its merely an imaginary conversation. The reaction of Bianca is one that I resonated emotionally within first glance but during my second inspection, I find that Bianca actually missed the point. What Jane was saying was that if one is to wear tight clothings, men, being the 'pigs' that we are would tend to direct our eyes more towards an hour glass body, it could be the case that we develop perverse thoughts about women that way, would Jane go the way of refuting this? If we adopt definition ( 2 ), we realize that Bianca's accusation of Jane is, well, not really an accusation at all. Instead, its merely a description of the obvious- that Jane is judging her. But notice how rhetorically powerful this is? It completely trivializes the judgement( that skimpy wear tend to lead to perverse thoughts among men) and shifts the discussion to Jane's children via the 'judgemental' trump card. Most of us don't realize this but it happens as often as breathing. Moving on to the children bit. Notice that Jane's children has nothing to do with Jane's judgement at all? Is there a relevant correlation between Jane's judgement of Bianca's clothing and her children's? Also, how does Bianca know that Jane doesn't lecture her children? But here's the knock-down argument. This question would destroy the intellectual merits of Bianca's reaction. Is she judging Jane for judging? According to my edited definition of 'judge', is Bianca not differentiating right and wrong by calling out Jane for judging? Is she not saying that Jane is wrong for judging? Ultimately, Bianca defeats herself unknowingly. I would like to clarify that I'm not arguing in favour for Jane's perspective of skimpy clothing, but arguing for Jane's right to judge. In order for Bianca to maintain her charge against Jane, she must herself be willing to admit that she too is judging. But of course if she allows that to happen, her accusation self implodes.
This is why judgementalism is a progress inhibiting social phenomena. It craftily shifts the discussion via the use of emotion and rhetoric to what the user really intends to communicate- the disdain towards the judgement itself. What's a good way of getting rid of a judgement that you don't like? Define judging as bad of course! This ruse of a social conduct has infiltrated society with much subtlety and swiftness. I would be happy to reverse this process. Judgement is a fact of life. No judgement, no life. What would help is not to protest against judging, but to protest against the judgement itself, with reason of course. It is only then, when we can truly fortify our views and beliefs without having to throw mud at each other.
Judge: (1)A public officer appointed to decide cases in a law court.
(2)Form an opinion or conclusion about.
Origins: Middle English: from Old French juge (noun), juger (verb), from Latin judex, judic-, from jus 'law' + dicere 'to say'.
Judgemental: (1)Of or concerning the use of judgement.
-[1.1] Having or displaying an overly critical point of view.
Now you might put forward that Oxford dictionary isn't the sole dictator on word definitions and you would be correct. But I chose it for, again, practical purposes and also to avoid going into purposeless lexical debates about its definition. However if you do find some fault in Oxford's definition, do exploit the error in the comments below! Make sure to also provide an alternative to Oxford.
Definition (1) of judge is rather uncontroversial so there isn't anything moot to discuss. Definition (2) of judge is probably the definition that I fully advocate. I would actually put it as 'The act of differentiating that which is true or false/correct or wrong.' If you tie this with definition (1), you see a connection between them and understand why it is necessary. The more I ponder about definition (2), the more I realize how much people judge everyday. In fact, it is actually an impossible thing to avoid so long you consider yourself a human being. Just for the sake of survival alone, do we have to judge things. Take for instance, choosing a university of your choice. If you desired to obtain the best possible offer, necessarily you would have to evaluate which university will provide you with optimum satisfaction, at the expense of other universities. Economically speaking, this is called the opportunity cost. This can also apply to employers choosing their new job intakes. If an employer wishes to hire an employee that has the level of productivity that justifies their wages, unavoidably he/she would have to judge the applicants by their merits/character et cetera. These examples highlight( only partially ) the importance of judgement in any free society, and in light of this fact, it is perplexing to think that we encourage people to be devoid of judgement or something to that effect. How detrimental could it be if the members of a society don't even judge? Let alone have better judgements.
This is where the controversy lies. Definition ( 1.1 ) of ' judgemental ' is very, very debatable. This is because it has sneaked in something that betrays the purpose of the word. If the word 'judgemental' is an adjective, logically, based on definition ( 2 ) of ' judge ', its definition should be ' having or displaying desires to form opinions or conclusions about X '. But why is it then defined as ' Having or displaying an overly critical point of view ' ? Surely, there is has been a misstep in Oxfords definition. Could it be that they, too, have been sucked in by cultural definitions? Then again, this is a red herring, while Oxford may have made an error, they have certainly unintentionally described the social climate of our times very concisely. This impairment has let me to think carefully about this subject and shed light on its complexities. It is perhaps more helpful to give you an imaginary example in hopes of clearing the fog that clouds this controversial issue. I will provide below.
Situation: Imagine a conversation between two ladies, one in her early twenties, another in her late forties with children. Her children happen to be around the same age as the other lady she is talking to, and the lady in her twenties know some of the children personally, not necessarily close in relationship. So the older woman, let's call her Jane, is a church goer and has conservative views about life. The younger lady, let's call her Bianca, is, like most young ladies in the twenty first century, very liberal. The conversation begins over dinner during some gathering.
Jane: "Hello Bianca! How have you been? Doing well?"
Bianca: "Hi ma'am, yes It's been good recently."
Jane: "I have to say that you look more beautiful since I last saw you months ago! However, I don't think you should be wearing skimpy clothings like the tight and short skirt you are wearing right now, you might give men the wrong impression of you and that's not what you want in a man.Also, those piercings on your tongue make you look sinful. I hope you remove them some day."
Bianca: "Excuse me miss? I am over 21 and I'm allowed to do and wear whatever I want and I have no obligations to obey whatever you say. How judgemental are you?! You think I'm bad? You don't even know what your own children are doing behind your back and you have the nerve to lecture me! Go teach your own kids first before you even begin with me. Damn you religious hypocrites!"
This is a pretty common conversation that arises whenever people of different generations meet and its a believable reality even though its merely an imaginary conversation. The reaction of Bianca is one that I resonated emotionally within first glance but during my second inspection, I find that Bianca actually missed the point. What Jane was saying was that if one is to wear tight clothings, men, being the 'pigs' that we are would tend to direct our eyes more towards an hour glass body, it could be the case that we develop perverse thoughts about women that way, would Jane go the way of refuting this? If we adopt definition ( 2 ), we realize that Bianca's accusation of Jane is, well, not really an accusation at all. Instead, its merely a description of the obvious- that Jane is judging her. But notice how rhetorically powerful this is? It completely trivializes the judgement( that skimpy wear tend to lead to perverse thoughts among men) and shifts the discussion to Jane's children via the 'judgemental' trump card. Most of us don't realize this but it happens as often as breathing. Moving on to the children bit. Notice that Jane's children has nothing to do with Jane's judgement at all? Is there a relevant correlation between Jane's judgement of Bianca's clothing and her children's? Also, how does Bianca know that Jane doesn't lecture her children? But here's the knock-down argument. This question would destroy the intellectual merits of Bianca's reaction. Is she judging Jane for judging? According to my edited definition of 'judge', is Bianca not differentiating right and wrong by calling out Jane for judging? Is she not saying that Jane is wrong for judging? Ultimately, Bianca defeats herself unknowingly. I would like to clarify that I'm not arguing in favour for Jane's perspective of skimpy clothing, but arguing for Jane's right to judge. In order for Bianca to maintain her charge against Jane, she must herself be willing to admit that she too is judging. But of course if she allows that to happen, her accusation self implodes.
This is why judgementalism is a progress inhibiting social phenomena. It craftily shifts the discussion via the use of emotion and rhetoric to what the user really intends to communicate- the disdain towards the judgement itself. What's a good way of getting rid of a judgement that you don't like? Define judging as bad of course! This ruse of a social conduct has infiltrated society with much subtlety and swiftness. I would be happy to reverse this process. Judgement is a fact of life. No judgement, no life. What would help is not to protest against judging, but to protest against the judgement itself, with reason of course. It is only then, when we can truly fortify our views and beliefs without having to throw mud at each other.
Tuesday, 5 August 2014
The Second Coming.
Well, I have returned. From what you say? A six year blogging absence of course. As a quick
response to the question that might be probing your head right now, NO, I will not provide a link to my old blog. I have my dignity to protect. Upon leaving the introspective blogging scene, I would never envision myself returning years later. Actually, how dare I say my old blog was introspective. You know what, here it is.
http://iammingjie.blogspot.com/
Go ahead. Slay me.
Now that I have completely killed it in my introduction, it is time for me to give y'all snippets of what this blog is to become. A plethora of subjects will arise in my future posts, there will be no limits as I wish not to put boundaries on anything. To prove it, continually read my blog of course! As you can gather from my thought-filled description, much of my personal life and thoughts will be gradually revealed in each post, it is solely up to you( the reader) to evaluate who I am, or what I represent.
However, I think it is a tad bit unfair to leave you with so little. So here are some things that constitute my life.
Philosophy . Politics . Economics(mildly) . Science . Religion( Christ in particular) . Culture . Football(not the American one) . Cooking . Dota 2
Well that just about covers the whole of reality! Mostly I will provide critiques and reviews of stuff that, you know, affects people generally. As I go, I hope to increase vibrancy and creativity in this blog, but should I fail to do so, rest assure that substance is the most important virtue of this blog, not style.
First post incoming!!!
response to the question that might be probing your head right now, NO, I will not provide a link to my old blog. I have my dignity to protect. Upon leaving the introspective blogging scene, I would never envision myself returning years later. Actually, how dare I say my old blog was introspective. You know what, here it is.
http://iammingjie.blogspot.com/
Go ahead. Slay me.
Now that I have completely killed it in my introduction, it is time for me to give y'all snippets of what this blog is to become. A plethora of subjects will arise in my future posts, there will be no limits as I wish not to put boundaries on anything. To prove it, continually read my blog of course! As you can gather from my thought-filled description, much of my personal life and thoughts will be gradually revealed in each post, it is solely up to you( the reader) to evaluate who I am, or what I represent.
However, I think it is a tad bit unfair to leave you with so little. So here are some things that constitute my life.
Philosophy . Politics . Economics(mildly) . Science . Religion( Christ in particular) . Culture . Football(not the American one) . Cooking . Dota 2
Well that just about covers the whole of reality! Mostly I will provide critiques and reviews of stuff that, you know, affects people generally. As I go, I hope to increase vibrancy and creativity in this blog, but should I fail to do so, rest assure that substance is the most important virtue of this blog, not style.
First post incoming!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)