Hi everybody ,
Please debate the following. It's long. And I am not here to
create any mess and I'm not a clone , just an old Sgforummer that
had lost his account.
Found this post on the internet.
Anyone to comment about it ?
At something like after 10p.m., an old friend asked me for my
world view on Facebook. My friend is a very staunch Christian. I
popped by his blog and saw that he would be one of those qualified
to be an apologetic anytime (he has read Ravi Zacharias -- maybe I
spelled the name incorrectly -- and a whole lot of other Christian
literature...I singled Ravi out because he is among the more
well-known ones, with his well-known 'Can Man Live Without
God')
I could type another 17-page or 170-page essay to explain why I do
not believe in God or any religion, but I have given up on these
debates unless it's really called for.
To cut the long story short, anyone who wants to know why I do not
believe in the Christian religion should read the following in
their entirety, because to summarise them takes time and I do not
have the time :
1) Dan Barker: Losing Faith in Faith
2) Thomas Paine: The Age of Reason
3) Joseph Wheless:Is It God's Word
4) Farrell Till: The Skeptical Review (online magazine)
All of the above are available on the Internet, you do not have to
go anywhere else to look for them. However, you would probably take
about six months (three if you are fast) to finish all of it and to
check the stuff with your Bible.
***
Before this post ends up being a 'Why I Am Not A Christian' post, I
shall talk about my world view.
1) On the supernatural and death/afterlife
I do NOT believe in any form of supernatural things/beings ranging
from black magic to gods to ghosts to demons/devils and
what-have-you.
I do NOT believe in afterlife. I believe that when I die, I will
return to nature. I will rot and decompose. Full stop.
2) On morality and values
I believe that morality is relative and it is a human construct.
There are things that are immoral, moral and amoral. To each his
own as long as one does not exploit,harm, or negatively affect
others (or oneself) in the process of achieving one's own
happiness.
To elaborate on this topic in specific detail would be to write a
book. Email me at [email protected] if you are really keen on
answers to specific questions/issues.
3) On the meaning of life
(I've answered this so many times until I'm sick and tired of
it...but let me go to Yahoo Answers to dig out my model
answer...)
There you go; copied and pasted it with some minor editing:
What is the meaning of life?
a) Life has some sort of an ultimate meaning. This usually applies
to religious people who seek either Enlightenment (in Buddhism) or
the Kingdom of Heaven (Christianity, Islam amongst other
religions)...
b) There is no such thing as the meaning of life. If there were, we
would know it, just like we know we have basic needs like food and
shelter. You might want to read Lin Yutang and Tom Hodgkinson
(basically, embrace a fatalistic philosophy that everything is
meaningless, and simply be happy)
c) According to Viktor Frankl's 'Man's Search for Meaning' and 'The
Unheard Cry for Meaning', everyone must find his/her own meaning of
life. The analogy used is chess. Everyone has a different game of
chess to play, so it is absurd to ask the master 'What is the next
best move?', because it varies for different games. However, we can
find or create meaning in all circumstances, even as a prisoner in
a concentration camp.
d) Meaning is something which evolves and changes over time.
Perhaps, at sixteen, a teenager's greatest meaning is to find out
more about the world. At thirty, it is settling down with a family.
At fifty or seventy, it is self-actualisation.
e) According to Erich Fromm, if I remember correctly, he says that
this question is absurd because it assumes that life has a meaning.
But I do think he agrees with Frankl that life is a unique
challenge presented to us.
Finally, after giving all the examples, what is MY OWN take? Well,
I believe in being compassionate (Thanks to books on Buddhist
philosophy and Mitch Albom's 'Tuesdays with Morrie'). I also
embrace a fatalistic philosophy (I believe that everything is
predestined and everything is meaningless -- look at the book of
Ecclesiates in the Bible) I find my meaning in simple joys such as
drawing, painting, writing, reading, singing, and having coffee
with friends, as well as taking long walks in nature.
Currently, I just want to keep working at my art, and hope to print
my own art books one day. :)
Friend wrote:
The title sounds big, but it's not strictly original. I'm currently
listening to Dr. Ravi Zacharias' series on "Unplugging Truth in a
Morally Suicidal Culture", the "Culture" in his talk referring to
America. But I do sense that our country—Singapore's culture is
equally suicidal, if not more dangerously so. Why do I say
that?
One of Ravi's laments about American culture is its
secularization—there's a deliberate attempt to keep what is
religious private. In a secular society, you're entitled to your
own private religious beliefs, as long as you keep those beliefs
private. Ravi argues that it basically eradicate any moral point of
reference, when a moral point of reference is being called for. It
is rejected on the premise that any moral point of reference is
based on a larger, religious worldview, and that worldview has no
place in the public arena of a secular society.
I say:
A moral point of reference is being called for when there is
injustice and crime, although of course, every society needs to
have their definition of crime. For example, kissing in public is a
crime in some conservative societies/countries, while incest is not
a crime in some communities that our modern world might consider
primitive.
The moral point of reference, however, obviously CANNOT be based on
a religious view if that society is NOT religious. I understand
that the Christians and Muslims are very upset by the gay issue in
Singapore, but to declare homosexuality as immoral based on
religious reasons is simply being irrational.
Furthermore, the Bible does not have a SINGULAR moral point of
reference. Thou shall not kill? Then why were the Israelites
allowed to kill the Amorites and Hittites and a whole host of other
tribes just because the Lord commanded thus? The Israelites were
also immoral and sinful people, were they not? But they were just
privileged to be God's chosen people, so what sort of morality are
we talking about here? Before the books of Deutronomy and
Leviticus, I'm pretty sure incest wasn't a sin when there were only
Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. How else did the people come about?
Friend wrote:
As I reflect on the Singapore scene, I thought I saw a similar
trend of thought developing. It might not have happened in the same
way in our law courts, but you can smell it coming.
I'm referring to the decision to build the casino (what political
correctness rendered, 'integrated resorts') in Singapore, despite
the degree of protest. I'm referring to the gay debate in Oct 07.
I'm referring to the apparent trend to undo laws, legislations and
once-commonly-held values and beliefs in what constitute right and
wrong, propriety and impropriety. I'm referring to the growing
populace that supports (or is indifferent to, which is commonly
interpreted as supportive anyway) such a trend.
I'm referring to the emerging Singapore culture.
And there's something that worries me more as I ponder this on the
bus.
It is the unthinking, unreflective acceptance, even embracement, of
anything Western. Anything American. A walk through the stores of
bestsellers in Borders, the streets of flashing adverts along
Orchard Road, a glance through the iTunes library of any youth on
the street, and you have empirical evidence. Our thinking, our
likes, our values, are so easily shaped by what Americans think, by
what they like and what they wear.
What troubles me is the unreflective part. Singaporeans are, by and
large, unreflective. Where the abuses of secularization fought
their way into the American system of thought, the amoral values of
the West simply walked unabashedly into our minds.
We are not prepared, because we are not mentally prepared. We have
not thought through the issues. We have not thought through the
implications, of a worldview that rejects any other worldviews
founded on higher values as irrelevant, even irreverent.
If Ravi is right about American culture being suicidal, it is not
alone. Many among the younger generations will be pulled along by
it.And Singapore will likely be the first. I'm open to any
discussion, any debate on this topic. I'm also open to any
suggestion as to what can be done.
I say:
I am saying that the solution to these issues (if we perceive this
to be a problem) is education and dialogue/discussion, NOT
religion.
Ultimately, values have to be chosen, not enforced or
indoctrinated.
Hello,
There is nothing wrong of people having personal views they
stand by, but sometimes facts cannot be ignored.
Some points i cannot argue with is that Religion shouldnt be the
sole motivator in law-making. But what do you think if people
'write' laws based on a cold heart. Would victims of rape,
incest, crime be served the true justice? Some of the laws now have
evolved through time and require that conscience/moral influence to
make it justifiable.
If you don't believe in eternity, then what's your view on where
you come from? Just some natural effect where you spurn out of
nowhere? So have you ever wondered how humans can develop such
intellect as opposed to animals? We have been designed by something
that we cannot fathom. An analogy is, how do you get a car?
it doesnt just came out of a huge explosion in a car factory, it
needs workers to build, engineers to design!
and i can see that alot of your arguments are based on
'declaration' in that you speak as thought Christians 'declare'
that so and so is 'immoral' etc. I believe that the majority
do not talk/act like that, because i believe in the freedom of
thoughts and beliefs. We as Christians do not condemn
homosexuals, but respect their choice of sexuality. But
again, that has gone wayward from the 'natural'. Don't you
think so? Sexual intercourse is to be enjoyed by a husband and wife
of opposite sex.
yes, there were wars in the Old Testament, and the 'Chosen
People' were not perfect. That is because through Adam, sin
came into the world; and it's through Jesus Christ that forgiveness
came into the world. So, whosoever believes in Him shall not
perish, but have eternal life! In the Old Testament, theres
alot of practices that are arguably 'immoral', but God has punished
His own people with floods and Babylonian occupation etc.
Life not should not be literally related to life 4000 years
ago.
Lastly, why do you think theres an escalating negative culture?
Do you think it 'naturally' happens? If you are so quick to
blame Christianity for what has happened, don't you already believe
that theres a viable way out of it through Christianity?