There has been a slow but steady move in our country to blame and ridicule Christians for their theological beliefs. Being raised an Atheist and believing as such for my entire life I have my own set of beliefs that ultimately could be proven to be very wrong. Obviously, my belief is so strong that I don't leave myself on the fence but this recent influx in Christian slander is really leaving me sitting uneasy. The world is clearly a crazy place when a non believer feels the need to step up and defend the people that do believe.
Christians are being denounced in many places of the most left leaning parts of our nation and it amazes me that the ammunition of those nay sayers could be used as the same argument against their own progressive beliefs. "Because Science proves it". When all is said and done, the final straw that breaks the proverbial cow's back is that any non believer proves their stance by quoting the "scripture" of Science books. Christians are then rebutted into their losing corners as their proof is only in their hearts in the form of the morals they were taught in the bible. They can say that life is proof of God's existence but again, a non believer will show the science of how that life was created through the Earth's evolution.
Anyone that has debated me knows they never get to the core debate because I ask too many questions before hand. Perhaps we should all ask these questions because frankly I'm not sure Science is always right.
Christians believe that Homosexuality is a sin but what do Scientists believe? A Scientist essentially agree wouldn't they? They would say that humans can be born this way because of some malfunction in their chromosome structure or some miscalculation in their DNA. They would say that these people are not destined to survive the evolution cycle for the simple reason that they're mentally not designed to procreate.
Now me as an Atheist can jump all over Christians and remind them that people are people. That homosexuals have every right as I do to live in a world happy and carefree. They're contributions to the world thus far have been immeasurable and forcing their misery through restrictions and ill will is immoral and just plain wrong. Science however doesn't support me on this.
This same argument could be used for many principles and ideologies that face our nation today in the "questioning" arena. Skin color, body shapes, ethnicities, intelligence, health etc. Hell, Science even says people with Dimples are "deformed". So what gives? In my most humble of opinions I have to say "Science isn't always right". And surely "Science is never really Right"
My morals tell me this and nothing else. Some peoples morals are based on their religion and why is that such a bad thing? This is what they believe and if it gives them solace so be it. As long as what they preach doesn't physically bring harm to another it's not my place to question them or make fun of them. Other peoples morals are founded like mine, passed down from generation to generation and tweaked to be appropriate for the times and how they chose to live. My grandfather's generation had us being respectful to everyone but everyone was generally a the heterosexual WASP or heterosexual western European. Throughout the years morals have changed and we get to my generation. The someone I am is one who accepts anyone and everyone and only have a limit drawn to say don't hurt me in your process of liberty. My morals tell me that I don't give a crap if a woman marries a horse and adopts a guppy, if it doesn't hurt me directly it's none of my business. My morals also tell me not to judge her for what she believes or how her body is physically and chemically composed. Christians would call this person a sinner, but Science freaks would call this preposterous but would hope that natural selection would rid people like her from the planet.
Science proves a lot of things but using it as ammunition against the hate on Christianity is flat out wrong. I may not believe in all of what the Bible preaches nor do I believe it for historical content but I don't necessarily believe in Science either. Both of them assault my morals in many instances and I'd rather just go by my gut when it comes to judging people and their beliefs. We all need to approach our arguments differently and start asking the right questions before trying to come to an agreeable answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
When it boils down to it I feel there should be a clear seperation between church and state. If people want to believe in magic spirits and fairy tales, thats fine with me. Whe they use this belief to influence laws and government, that is when I start the offensive.
You mention that according to science that homosexuality would be considered wrong ...I can definitely see where that would make sense to a scientist who believes the purpose of our existence is to procreate. I would argue, though, that homosexuals come from heterosexual relationships (obviously) so they exist for a reason. Maybe its the early stages of the next evolutionary step or maybe its existed as it does now for years but modern society is allowing more homosexuals to come out of the closet. There are amphibians that are asexual until they meet a mate and can change gender to accommodate their partner. So gender changes and preferences exist in other species as well.
Your first point Jim, we're opposite. For me the Government shouldn't influence anything so when they make laws that we don't vote on, or make huge spending expenditures we have no say in thats when I'm on the offensive.
Honestly, I could care less that the Church has a role in society to influence. One I think the people of the world need to have a leader and group follower structure as we're bred to be that way and two, as long as they're not buying votes illegally they're within their legal rights. Anyone should have the lectern to stand at to try to influence the vote and as long as they don't buy the vote I'll always remain quiet.
Your counterpoint of homosexuality is well put and I've thought the same as well. Those damned sea horses are always the first thing I think of and ask myself if this is an evolutionary thing. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't...unfortunately neither of our life expectancies will be long enough to find that out. I believe it to be a flaw in the human system which sounds so cruel to say but I do believe it. Whether or not it's a product of heterosexuality doesn't sway my idea because there are many products. A homosexual is no better or no worse than I am and should have every right I do. Sometimes our flaws are what make us most beautiful and that for me is a good enough explanation for something I don't have or don't understand but accept as a viable healthy part of my society equal in every way to me.
But, and I think you'd agree; the way I'd like to see the government's limited involvement in the issue would handle that. Whether it's an evolutionary thing or a personal preference thing or even an experimental phase it's still the right of any human to have- be financially tied to another or others. The Government worrying about sexual preference is akin to them treating brunettes better than blonds or short people better than tall. The Government should have no right in forcing those mandates and they should always treat us as the lowest common denominator, a human being.
Let's do healthcare!
Post a Comment