why Christianity?

And not because I converted.

This is a response to why choose Christianity and not something else or nothing else? It is an exercise in special pleading, appeals to authority and a case of ignorance.

The author starts by telling us most other religions are explicable without appeal to the supernatural. In his words

The naturalistic explanation, saying “men came up with myths about Zeus and others” fits all the data we have available much better than an appeal to a supernatural explanation; “men spoke about Zeus and the rest because those gods were real.”

and I ask where is the difference between this and Christianity. All the data we have point to the bible and its god[s] being a work of humans. They are created and dressed in human language and given human character just as the ancients did, except in their case, people could surpass the gods. The christian has created a monster that no matter how much effort, you can’t outdo it in cruelty and pettiness.

The author even has the mind to tell us

In this sense, atheism is a powerful ally to Christianity for the atheists help us make the case for why we reject the vast majority of religions.

The atheist rejects all gods. All includes the middle Eastern god to whom billions of Muslims, Jews and Christians around the world genuflect. To think yours is an exception is to me, the height of blind ignorance.

To make his case for Christianity, he gives, what he calls supernatural pseudo explanations. I call them pseudo explanations because they have not been shown to be true. The reasons he alludes to are

  1. coherency in the biblical message- while here, forget that there are two creation stories, that the story of Jacob and Isaac [?] look like cardboard copies, that we don’t know, from the supposed biographers of J. Hubris Christ his correct genealogy
  2. People willing to die for the claim Jesus is risen- the people who willingly died in Uganda following the advice of the cult leader must make it true
  3. Sudden birth and rise of christian theology- anyone who reads history would know this is not the case. Maybe he should have said the slow and violent rise of Christianity. This would be close to the facts.
  4. Many indoctrinated people have remained Christians. I thought if he had any sense he would see this is true of all other religions.
  5. His last point is so absurd I have to put it here in its entirety for prosperity –
    • The supernatural explanation accounts for the big questions like “Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there life when the odds are against there being such? How did the universe get started? Why is there something startlingly different about humans compared with other animals? Why is there such a strong yearning for purpose among humans? Why do humans reflect on morality so much? Why is there evil and what can be done about it?” Naturalism struggles to explain what Christianity simply and  profoundly answers.

From here on, he goes of the rails in so complete a fashion that only a brain replacement would restore him. In the example of Paul, where there are many plausible explanations, he sticks with a pseudo explanation because it is good for his script. Facts be damned.

You would expect this fellow is going to make a serious case for his religion only to repeat the trope of Jesus rose from the dead and why? It is in the bible.

Why should one become a christian? Because the bible says there is an afterlife and you may have a chance with angels if that is your kind of thing. Really? Can’t we have apologists who are reasonable and who tell us reasonable things? Or is their target audience the already damned deluded?

while I was away

Yours truly has been away on an annual convention for architects, time which I was busy holidaying to post much.

I say

With Dresser,

I do not know what truth is, what beauty is, what love is, what hope is. I do not believe any one absolutely and I do not doubt any one absolutely. I think people are both evil and well-intentioned.

Every generation thinks the generation after them is immoral

I couldn’t have chosen a better title for this post, so we will make do with the above. In his post, glorifying sex, alcohol and drugs Aloo wants to portray a picture of decadence of morals among the present generation school going children.

He tells us, in his own words

As I join everybody else in condemning the behavior of the students in question and their lackluster approach to life, I must point out that there was nothing shocking about the incident because ours is a rotten society. [emphasis by me]

How is the society rotten? Is it because school girls and boys were having sex, doing drugs or because they were found doing this? Whilst I don’t urge drug use among adolescent you, blanket condemnation of society as being in a state of decay maybe because there is so much sex is in my view hypocritical.

Our interlocutor goes ahead to claim, unashamedly, that

What you have to understand is that the society is affected by reckless (allow me to use this word again) sexual behavior of young people. This is reflected in the rate at which sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS is spreading across the nation.

And when pointed to statistics from the ministry of health about which demographic leads in the spread of HIV/AIDS, he brushes it off with a slight of hand because it doesn’t fit into his scheme of propaganda. He blames everyone else of sugaring their stories with sex tales to sell while he does the same while ignoring facts. One wonders what his goals are. Is it to demonize the unlucky students who were unlucky or to offer guidance in how to solve the problem.

Before you start demonize yours truly for promoting loose morals; lets not pretend that our generations were far better than the current breed of children. We may not have been caught in buses during school holidays not because we were paragons of virtue, far from it. It could be because we didn’t attend school far from home and did not have access to drugs.

End of rant.