Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)
Entry 227, on 2005-09-21 at 19:28:05 (Rating 4, Comments)
Our prime minister (or should I say previous prime minister, and now caretaker prime minister), Helen Clark, was asked during the election campaign whether she believed Jesus Christ is the son of God. In America, and many other countries, it would be political suicide to say no*, but in the more sensible environment we have in new Zealand she could answer "I have no religious convictions. I respect those who do. I have no opinion to offer. I'm an agnostic."
A commentator in our local paper claims agnosticism is often used as a coward's way out to avoid thinking about the big issues relating to theology. I'm not sure if he was implying that was the case for the prime minister, but I think he's wrong anyway (although I'm sure it is used as an excuse to avoid debate with religious zealots who, in their pathetic way, like to try to convince anyone who admits to being an atheists that they're wrong).
In my experience most people who say they believe the traditional Christian dogma do so because they just haven't gone to the trouble to really look at the subject in any detail. Anyone who does so should have trouble answering the question I mentioned above in the affirmative.
The question "do you believe Jesus Christ is the son of God" is problematic in many ways. I would have to answer "no" because of the following: First, there is no reason to believe a god exists, and even if we do accept one does, which one is it? Second, there isn't even very good reason to believe Jesus Christ existed, so the question loses it meaning. And third, what do we mean by "son of" in this case. Clearly Jesus isn't biologically related. So what does it mean?
I wouldn't go along with Helen and say "I respect those who do [have religious convictions]" because I don't think they deserve a lot of respect. They should do some real research (and I don't mean in the Bible or with their church) and look at the facts. Then they might be more likely to agree with Helen, or even me. I would answer the question something like "Absolutely not. Its ridiculous that in our modern age people still believe primitive myths. They should face the facts and accept the truth that Christianity is just a myth."
*Here's some quotes from American political leaders on the subject.
I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. George Bush Sr. (President of the United States)
God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. George W. Bush (President of the United States)
We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand. James Watt (Secretary of the Interior)
Civilized people - Muslims, Christians, and Jews - all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator. John Ashcroft (Attorney General).
Link at: http://www.reandev.com/taliban/
Comment 1 (124) by Anonymous on 2005-10-11 at 13:03:15:
What are your "facts" and "truth" that prove "Christianity is just a myth"?
Comment 2 (125) by OJB on 2005-10-11 at 13:42:41:
None of the important stories of the Bible are backed up by scientific observation. Genesis is not true. I have an analysis of why on my web site here. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is very weak. I have information on that here.
Other stories, such as the flood, etc, also don't stand up to scrutiny. Experiment shows prayer doesn't work, miracles don't happen, faith healing is fake. Religion is superstition, pure and simple.
Comment 3 (370) by Anonymous on 2007-03-02 at 12:33:36:
I would just like to say to you that you are wrong and very hard-hearted, OJB. Just to "clue you in" your so called Darwin stopped putting his faith in evolution because he thought it was STUPID and could never happen. Have fun believing in something that won't get you anywhere!
Comment 4 (373) by OJB on 2007-03-02 at 17:22:38:
The popular myth that Darwin rejected evolution just before he died is untrue. Look up some serious history on the subject and you will see I'm right. But even if it was true, it would make no difference because practically every biologist today supports evolution as the best theory to explain life on Earth.
Do you actually have any real evidence to refute evolution? Because making vacuous statements like that just makes it look like you have nothing valid to say on the subject. Please go to the two pages above and add a comment to them explaining where you think my reasoning is wrong.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.