Brilliant, dude, simply brilliant!

A junior from Michigan State opines on Christianity and gleefully dives into deep waters with nary a life jacket in sight or a discernible swimming stroke to be found:

Close examination of the religion will show that morphing Christianity into a political concept - as the Middle Ages have shown - is very dangerous. If these political pastors want to play fair ball, it's time to take a look at what Christianity would look like politically. It's time to take the cat out of the bag and reveal Christianity, no matter how well-intentioned, for what it really is: a subtle form of fascism. If you think hard enough, you can draw very interesting parallels between the exclusivity of Nazism and Christianity. Hitler believed in Germany there should be a master race, and all Jews, homosexuals and political dissidents who didn't fit his blond-haired, blue-eyed utopia would be sent straight to a concentration camp. The Christian God, on the other hand, believes only his chosen people - Christians - can enter the pearly gates of heaven. In his cosmic "final solution," he sends everyone else including homosexuals, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists and all nonbelievers to the eternal concentration camp of hell. That means even Gandhi himself is smelling his own flesh burn right now and for the rest of eternity.

Overwhelmed by Plato, Jr. yet? Blinded by the incredibly original thought displayed in comparing Christianity to Naziism? No? Well, this should send you reeling:

God's love is conditional - it is conditional on the fact that we must love him back and accept his son as savior. If you don't, you get sent to hell. It's a megalomaniacal love from a tyrant king who demands complete obedience from his earthly subjects. The idea of, "I love you so much that if you don't love me back, I'll burn you forever," doesn't really sound like a very secure omnipotent being - more like a complete control freak.

To me, the true God, if there is one, would let his creation use the brain given to them and allow them to choose whatever belief they think is right.

Thus, if I follow this whirlwind of, er, logic correctly:

1. The true God allows truth to be whatever I think is right.
2. I think and believe that God doesn't exist.
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
4. Which leaves my premise in a state of moderate to serious disarray.

My brain does believe he just made Christopher Hitchens look brilliant.
 

Comments

[fidens]

Using my Automated Bigotry Translator I have transformed the above into hate speech:

"Close examination of the religion will show that morphing Islam into a political concept - as the Middle Ages have shown - is very dangerous. If these political Imams want to play fair ball, it's time to take a look at what Islam would look like politically. It's time to take the cat out of the bag and reveal Islam, no matter how well-intentioned, for what it really is: a subtle form of fascism. If you think hard enough, you can draw very interesting parallels between the exclusivity of Nazism and Islam. Hitler believed in Germany there should be a master race, and all Jews, homosexuals and political dissidents who didn't fit his blond-haired, blue-eyed utopia would be sent straight to a concentration camp. The Muslim God, on the other hand, believes only his chosen people - Muslims - can enter the pearly gates of heaven."

String him up!

[Francis DS]

"To me, the true God, if there is one..."

My nominee for Homer Simpson Sentence of the Year Award!

[rd]

though he doesn't realize it, he actually meant:

"To me, the true God, if I created one..."

[LJ]

Here's what is really bothering him:

He cannot understand how this is possible,

"Oddly enough, this feel-good religion has enjoyed a meteoric rise within the last eight years - from growing youth groups and Christian rock music to the religious right's support of President Bush's war on terror. It's not hard to come across one of the four or five Christian channels on cable TV and hear the message that Christianity is so great, our country should be based on it and our laws should be subservient to its theology."

I mean didn't we spend most of the past century undermining this Christian thing?

And this is what worries him,

"With Christianity revealed for what it is, I think we can lay to rest that old argument that "our country is a Christian nation and will only thrive on Christian values." That is not true for the very simple reason that in 1776 our country did away with the concept of divine right - the idea that the cosmic king, God, chooses kings to rule over us. We've been electing presidents for more than 200 years and, so far, God hasn't sent one plague or punishment our way."

He's only a junior. He's just arrived at college. How can he get his share of sex, drugs and rock 'n roll if the nation decides to suddenly get moral on him? Sheesh.

[Celestial SeraphiMan]

Unfortunately, he brings up very serious charges. Haven't abuses been committed in the name of Christ?

[Ed Peters]

Unfortunately, CS brings up a very serious point. Haven't stupid and reckless comments, devoid of logic but packed with denigration, been posted by people under pseudonyms?

Now, about Joe College: Used to be, back before the Net, that college students, taking their first steps in compound or complex sentences, would flex their pubescent writing "skills" before a tiny audience of college-rag readers. The rest of us would be spared their nonsense. But all that's changed now; now, we all risk being routinely exposed to their drivel.

[joe]

Curiously, does Michigan State offer some sort of tuition warranty for parents of benighted students?

-J.

[Rick]

If you think hard enough....

Someone should tell this Hitchens wannabe that there is a difference between "thinking hard" and "thinking', the use of intelligence is contingent for the former as the author demonstrates. However, it is necessary for the latter, but Mr. Michigan State shows no evidence of anyone "being home" when the intellect rings his doorbell!

[Celestial SeraphiMan]

If I posted a stupid and reckless comment, I am terribly sorry. I did not intend to denigrate you but instead to help you to understand people's anger with Christians.

[Ed Peters]

CS, yet again, as you have done many many times on this blog, you post a blatantly reckless rhetorical question behind a pseudonym, then, when someone calls you on it, you proffer an apology (of sorts) sometimes mixed in with an unverifiable claim to an emotional or metal disorder. So here's a suggestion: enough with the cavilistic comments, thus sparing yourself the need to apolgize, and deal with your issues somewhere else besides in the public forum. The rest of us would like to discuss these issues on the merits.

[Brian John Schuettler]

"We've been electing presidents for more than 200 years and, so far, God hasn't sent one plague or punishment our way."

Alas, Junior is too young to remember Jimmy Carter.

[Jen]

Perhaps instead of "With Christianity revealed for what it is" he should have said "With all my misconceptions of Christianity being laid out as The Truth (even though I think all truth is subjective)..." It's a little arrogant for him to claim that his rant once and for all reveals Christianity as the sham that every "hard" thinking person knows it to be.

[Stephen Sparrow]

That kid should be made aware of what Dante wrote in The Divine Comedy about 700 years ago. "It often happens that a quick opinion inclines in the wrong direction and afterward the intellect is hampered by vanity"

As you Carl so neatly extrapolated from his fulmination,
"1. The true God allows truth to be whatever I think is right."

Yesterday I was in Borders and looking at a book by Benedict (which I didn't buy) but inside it I caught a beaut 'take' on that view. Benedict wrote "if everybody is right, everbody is wrong."

Something very Chestertonian in that aphorism: right, right or wrong? ;-)

[Rick]

I did not intend to denigrate you but instead to help you to understand people's anger with Christians.

You denigrate in your own back-handed apology. Was is it that people need to understand? Condescension towards others may be a beatitude among internet seraphs, it isn't listed as one in the Gospels. Look, I think most of us are well aware of the flaws of Christians (including our own) and the rather unforgettable parts of Christian history. In spite of these historical gaffs and our own flaws and falleness, that does not change our love for Christ or His Church and our right to defend it. I can't speak for enlightened beings who go by angelic monikers, but many of us have experienced anger toward Christianity in one form or another, so we don't need assistance in understanding it. Rather, it comes with the territory of being a Christian.

[MMajor Fan]

Believe it or not, I've heard worse. At least he's not claiming to be the reincarnated cousin of St James brother of Jesus' hairdresser, and basing his "insight" on that.

[BillyHW]

Now, about Joe College: Used to be, back before the Net, that college students, taking their first steps in compound or complex sentences, would flex their pubescent writing "skills" before a tiny audience of college-rag readers. The rest of us would be spared their nonsense. But all that's changed now; now, we all risk being routinely exposed to their drivel.

This is too good.

[Ed Peters]

BJS: you'll like this. a flaming liberal friend of mine tells this joke: "Jimmy Carter sent a note to GWB last week, thanking him for taking on the title of Worst President in History."

Interesting admission in the premise of the joke, eh?

he he he.

[Brian]

I will use my real name now. I used the past pseudonym because it's my handle on a large artists' forum. I have considered staying away from public forums from now on. I truly do not want to insult or taunt you. I am not trying to condescend to anyone. I have a terribly difficult time forming arguments. I am simply trying to understand the Faith and understand nature so I can educate others.

Some time ago, Carl posted a thread on "the different kinds of atheism", which sensitively deals with the different reasons people become atheists instead of ridiculing those people. He mentions a French novelist who had to defend a Jew from antisemitic hysteria in the middle of a political affair. That was a moment of true charity and understanding. Unfortunately, I didn't see any such understanding in this entry. From social and religious conservatives, too often I see insults returned for serious charges and genuine confusion.

If you still think that I'm insulting you, then I apologize for one last time. I simply can't argue. I am now leaning more and more towards leaving this blog. If you want me to leave, then I will.

[Ed Peters]

Brian Whoever. You said you did not intend to denigrate me. Of course not, for I had not even posted anything when you posted your all-too familiar rhetorical question, (which I, for once, called you on), followed by your all too familiar wounded apology, etc.

I don't care what your intentions are. I only know how you constantly come across here, and that is: as terribly ill-informed, with a sophist argument style, and generally quite uselessly distracting of the conversations the rest of us are trying to have, we who have invested cosniderably more time learning about these things before opining about them.

It's not my blog, but fine with me if you leave (whatever that means). In any case, folks, I have posted three times in correction of CS/B, and I for one, will spend no more time on it.

[MenTaLguY]

Brian,

I've been away from the blog for a while, so I've missed a lot of what's going on, but it seems like a big part of the difficulty is that you're asking questions in ways which are too general to respond to effectively. It gives the appearance that they are being asked in bad faith (per the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?").

When asking questions in a conversation (or even an argument, assuming one is seeking understanding rather than a rhetorical win), the burden is on the questioner to separate and focus their questions so that it is easy for the questioned to respond to them.

Just this once, I'll do your homework for you. In this particular case, two general questions are being asked together:

Firstly, are abuses committed in the name of Christ? Sometimes, yes. The Church on Earth is a hospital for sinners, temporally administered by inmates. Like any hospital, one evaluates it not by looking for signs of sickness, but for signs of healing.

Secondly, are the specific charges that DeVille makes well-founded? No, generally not. I'd suggest focusing on the most substantive accusation which is also most central to his argument, sophomoric as it is (the remainder are simply ad hominem attacks): is his description of the Christian conception of Hell and the love of God accurate?

Briefly, no. Those in Hell are not there because they are unloved by God (God continues to love them), but because they refused to love God and have become incapable of it (and therefore could not bear Heaven). See CCC 1033:

We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

So, then what of the claim that Christ is the single and only way to salvation? Can we assume that Gandhi roasts in Hell? With respect to both these last two questions, I'd suggest having a look at CCC 845-848.

Ultimately, if one seeks understanding, one must do some of the work oneself. Hopefully this gives you a starting point.

(I'm mental2 on dA, btw.)

[Margaret]

To quote Professor Kirke, "What are they teaching at schools these days?" Good grief.

To me, the true God, if there is one, would let his creation use the brain given to them and allow them to choose whatever belief they think is right.

Now, let me think a moment, but didn't someone try to strike a bargain like that once, a long, long time ago??

[MenTaLguY]

Regarding the quality of college writing, part of the problem is also that higher education is mutating into the "education industry", which merely concerns itself with vocational training. I was fortunate in that I managed to graduate just before my own school came under new leadership and started that long downhill slide in earnest.

There were always students who managed to get through without learning anything of substance, but now it seems like most schools don't really care as long as the tuition money keeps flowing.

[caine]

Lucifer couldn't have written a better letter.

Well, he probably could've, but it was a real nice effort! I'm going to apply the same logic to the structure that restrict my freedom to breathe. "The true oxygen, if there is any, would let me use the lungs I've been given to freely choose what I think is good for my blood cells to fill up on."