Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

The Anti-Christian Movement

▼

The Anti-Christian Movement

from JoeUser Forums

In an earlier article, I defined the difference between an atheist and an antitheist. I am noticing a lot of antitheists trending towards being specifically antiCHRISTIAN.

For example, I notice outrage lacking when California schools teach units on Islam, requiring students to take Muslim names and recite Muslim prayers. Yet, they take offense with the name of Christ. I notice further that Michael Newdow hasn't filed an injunction against the use of Roman and Norse gods in the names of five of the seven days of the week. These gods apparently are nonoffensive enough to fly below his radar.

The question I feel must be asked of those who are so virulently anti-Christian is, why does the name of Christ offend you so? In former days, even hardened atheists would cede the mantle of being a "good man" to Christ as a person; now they are inclined to question his existence despite the very obvious fact that, had Christ not existed, Christianity could have been stomped out once and for all by simply disproving His existence in the first century AD.

I have my own answers as to why I feel the name of Christ is so offensive; I will not state them here. My intent is not to inflame others but simply to assert who I am and the fact that my faith is as valid as that of any others (and we ALL believe in something; faith, not religion, is common to all). I do ask those who feel it their duty to ridicule and demean every blogger who makes a profession of faith to self evaluate and ask yourself if your hateful hurtful comments aren't counterproductive to your advancement of atheistic thought. I believe they are, and I would encourage a little self editing in certain replies rather than dogpiling on the believer. Frankly, my blacklist is developing a hair trigger, and I hate to head in that direction.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish

religion
8,803 views 56 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
Christianity, like any religion worth the name, makes demands on its followers that are almost humanly impossible to live up to (that's why it's a religion, and not a course in ethics ). How many of us would really sell all we have and give it to the poor [Mark 10:21]; who's actually going to pluck out their right eye if it "offend thee".[Matthew 5:29]. Who could be perfect "even as your Father in heaven is perfect" [Matthew 5:48].

But of all those near impossible demands, probably the easiest to live up to (of a really hard bunch) is "Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not" [Romans 12:14]. Or, to put it another way, "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you; pray for them that persecute you" [Matthew 5:44]

It should be simple - and that should be an end to the matter.

Alas, life is never that simple. As with politics, when you attack someone's religious beliefs it's hard for that person not to feel that you're attacking them personally - and at that spot in which they are most vulnerable. Christians, it seems, are people like anyone else, with fragile egos and thin skins. When the attack comes in the form of ridicule that sense of offence is magnified many times over. When people use mockery, they certainly intend to hurt and I have real sympathy with how that must feel for sincere Christians. However, I would also say, "This ain't Montgomery and you ain't Rosa Parks". There are actually a lot worse things in this sorry world than someone poo-pooing your most treasured beliefs.

I'd like to tell you about Thomas Aikenhead. He was an 18 year old student who lived (and died) in Scotland in the late 17th century. He made a lot of slighting whimsical, disrespectful and partly humurous references to the Christian religion that were considered blasphemous at the time. Truth to tell, he was a very young man, full of intellectual curiosity who was trying out new ideas as young men (and women) do. He was tried by the civil authorities and sentenced to hang.

He appealed the sentence on the reasonable grounds that he was young, foolish and (not surprisingly) very sorry. The Privy Council ruled that he could only be reprieved if the church interceded for him. Instead the Church of Scotland's General Assembly urged "vigorous execution" to curb "the abounding of impiety and profanity in this land".

So, on January 8th, 1697 the noose was put around his neck and the life was choked out of him, while those ministers of the church who had urged his death said prayers at the foot of the scaffold that were surely more obscenely blasphemous than anything the poor young man had ever said.

I do ask those who feel it their duty to ridicule and demean every blogger who makes a profession of faith to self evaluate and ask yourself if your hateful hurtful comments aren't counterproductive to your advancement of atheistic thought.


A good suggestion and a wise one. Hateful hurtful comments are counter-productive to the advancement of any kind of thought. But, in this imperfect world they will always abound, so each of us has to decide how we will live with that.