I’ve been frequenting the Digg.com topic threads a lot lately, and have noticed that many of the religious oriented topics are filled with the usual atheism vs. religion (Christianity in particular) debates and trolling. However, I must say that I am very surprised at the poor quality of some of these arguments, especially considering the very savvy demographic that Diggers tend to be.

To go ahead and get this out of the way, I am a Christian, but frankly, if this revelation immediately colors the comments I’m about to make, then I’ve proved my point already.

1. The Bible is a historical tome, not an ancient era version of National Enquirer. A lot of amateur theologians like to apply their less than veritable “mad-skilz” to critiquing a text they barely can comprehend. It takes some serious study into Koine Greek, several dialects of Hebrew, and a base understanding of Aramaic to make a qualified statement on what every passage in the Bible “truly” says. This is not to say that its too complex for the average person to study and understand, but that a solid foundation in its history and context help unravel the more debated passages.
Furthermore, attacking the Bible because it doesn’t shy away from describing everything about the human condition (murder, rape, genocide, etc.) is an exercise in post-modern censorship. Again, this is not a kiddie mag, and only a person who has never read it would be shocked at the worst segments. However, don’t get the silly idea that its all Grindhouse-on-vellum either. Like any document that describes every aspect of humanity, the Bible ranges from the depths of depravity to the heights of beauty.

2. Modern Christianity hardly resembles the Christian faith as it was originally established. This really shouldn’t be as shocking to most people as it seems, but there are those who still think that all TV evangelists represent mainstream Christianity. Frankly, I can’t stand any of them, and have even had the pleasure of letting one prominent “televangelist” know in person how much I despised his crackpot theology. I can assure you that if any apostle was alive today, he would be having a conniption fit over all the crap that gets passed off as “faith” today. First, he would slam all of these posers who use their “religion” as free passes for votes in public office. The Christian Coalition would be a non-factor in politics, as any real Christian voting with their morals wouldn’t vote for any of the schmucks that run in either party. Secondly, the church would get back to its original business of growing small autonomous congregations that worked extensively in their local community for everyone’s good rather than multinational conglomo-churches that push their brand of theology on national television. Third, and most importantly, Christians would again be mission minded, not with the modern angry “I’m almost glad you’re going to hell” smugness, but with literal broken-hearted compassion and love for their fellow man, convert or not.
This is perhaps the most controversial thing that turns most people off about Christianity, in that it commands proselytizing, and modern sensibilities refuse to accept that anything can tell them that they’re wrong so dogmatically. Frankly, all I can say about this is that this is a new phenomenon, and people should keep in mind that their forefathers exercised a lot more wisdom than today’s generation. If it’s good for me to read all the latest books on atheism (which I do, most of them bore me, but I run across a gem every now and again) then its good for someone else to know why they don’t believe the way I do. Simple ignorance on either side is inexcusable.

3. Arguments based on half-logic are not logically conclusive. This should be obvious, but the simple fact is you can argue anything logically. Proving it is an entirely different matter. As such, all the debating and fighting going on over Creationism vs. Evolution, or Big Bang vs. God Sneeze, or any other non-verifiable conundrum is just pointless banter. After all, it’s all arguing the “how” when the real question is, and will always be, “why.” Science leaves off at one question and a thousand million things attempt to answer the other. The question for the individual is which one answers the question best.

4. Human morality is meaningless, in the grand scheme of things. The simple reality is that if God exists, as defined in the parochial religions, He dictates, without any form of democratic representation from us, what is Right or Wrong (if He even frames the question in that manner). If God as defined above does not exist, then morality is again meaningless, because the only arbiters of morality left are the same creatures under whom morality holds its sway, and we all know how great humans are at moral decisions. Where this really comes into play is when someone makes the completely misguided argument of “good God allowing Evil equals bad God.” The assumption made is that what humanity considers “bad” should be the same as what God considers “bad.” I’m not going to even try to make a case that “good things can from evil” when the simple, plain fact is that God makes the rules, and it’s the height of human arrogance to demand that they match our obviously flawed perceptions. As an easy example, the act of murder is universally condemned by humanity, right? Well, except in some countries that practice the death penalty. . .and unless you consider abortion murder. . .and unless you are defending yourself in a war. . .and unless you’re a psychopathic serial killer who views are other humans as villainous scum . . .By the time you get through the pantheon of “exceptions” it becomes very clear that we as humanity are false arbiters at best and hypocrites at worst.

5. Christianity has only one inviolable tenet: believe, trust, and follow Jesus Christ. Several factions of Christianity would have some addendum of their own to add here, but from all of the studying that I’ve done, there’s a single central figure upon which everything rests: Jesus Christ. There’s vast amounts of room for additional “good works” to augment the act of following Him, but everything one could ever do is moot without the act of salvation. This will sound really dogmatic and “preachy” to a lot of you I’m sure, but I’m shocked at how little people who argue against Christianity understand this. I get tired of having to explain to people that just because I am a Christian does not mean that I’m out to suck all the fun from their lives/bury them in guilt/condemn them to hell/etc. Furthermore, this also means that I am wide open to my own human frailties and failures, and that any Christian who claims he is perfect is probably a suspect one at best and a blatant liar at worst. The spectrum of Christians is as varied as there are people on the planet. Some people treat Christ as an intangible “get-out-of-hell-free” card, whereas some spend they’re lives squeezing every last bit of righteousness out of themselves in hope of “earning salvation.” You’re find the sanest in the middle, just like most things in life.
As a total aside, this also means that the whole shenanigans with the “Blaspheme the Holy Spirit” YouTube videos to be little more than a overblown exercise in futility.

6. Hell, who goes there, and why? This is the last topic I’ll tackle for now, but it’s a doozy for most people. Every time I get a question asking whether “Grandma, Baby Bob, Hitler, etc.” is in hell I shrug and answer the only way I know I can safely: God’s got the Sorting Hat, not me. Most people find it hard to discuss the possibility of a hell without resorting to some form of moral outrage already discussed above. Again, we are not the arbiter, and we are also not the jury. Other arguments tend to fall along the “what if some ‘good’ person did a ‘bad’ thing and went to hell. . .that’s not fair” kind of non-sequiters that seem to suggest that God’s too incompetent to determine anyone’s final destination. I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis’ thoughts, anyways, that nobody goes to hell, who did not want to go there, and nobody stays there, who does not want to stay. Overall, this argument is purely a speculative and emotional one, and therefore far too conspicuous to make an informed decision over.

Overall, I felt that several common misconceptions and false arguments needed to be addressed, if for no reason more than so we can move on to some real debates, rather than rehashing the same tired arguments ad nauseum. Atheism vs. Christianity will always stir up a good level of controversy (how can it not?) but I fully believe that both sides can show mutual respect for the other, and do so by taking the time to actually understand and properly refute the other’s views.