Hume out of line

An interesting response in some ways, Susan.

If Hume is arrogant for saying what he believes without justification — that a Christian world (which sect?) is the best possible world — in what way are you not also arrogant for saying that you believe without justification that "the point is to get to God, right?"

Who really cares if Hume is guilty of arrogance? Is it arrogant to claim you know no more than 5,000 angels can dance on the head of a pin? Who cares?

Hume's folly, and by extension your own, is to assert anything about a god concept at all. What Woods needs is a good therapist, a strong dose of honesty, and to quit living a double life. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and any other ity or ism you care to suggest are superfluous.

"As I understand it, Jesus is but one mediator, one "go-between," between humans and God. I cannot believe that God would throw everyone in hell who does not adhere to the Christian faith. God knows all of the people he/she created. The point is to get to God, right?"

You say poe-tay-toe, Hume says poe-tar-toe, which of you is correct? The talking head on Fox or the talking head on On Faith?

But in the quotation above there is crystallization of a Christian meme. "I cannot believe that God would throw everyone in hell..." If you build truth claims solely around what you find plausible, you will end up believing many false things.

You believe God is a loving parent, therefore God is a loving parent; but from where does this belief spring?

Is God willing, but unable? Then he is impotent.
Is God able, but unwilling? Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing?
Whence then, suffering?

"I keep remembering that Gandhi, who studied Christianity but never became a Christian, was disappointed with the disconnect between what the Christ taught and what followers of the Christ do. If Christians were to follow the Christ, he said, the world would be revolutionized. I agree with Gandhi."

If everybody were to follow the law, the world would be revolutionized. Don't you agree?

"At the end of the day, there is not one single soul, evangelicals included, who knows who is going to hell and who is not."

This is the first sensible thing you've said. Now, substitute "who is going to hell and who is not," "for there is a God," and we will be making progress.

An excellent essay, Susan. The claim of media bias against Christians is, alas, an old one, although it has always been hilarious.

In the case of Hume, it has been summoned to deflect attention from the wildly inappropriate context for his remarks, as well as their mind-boggling arrogance.

If anything, the media is to be chastised for its pro-Christian bias, its failure to take faithiness in government to task, to interrogate Sen. Ben Nelson's successful Catholic religionist move to deprive poor women choice under the current health care bill. In fairness to Sen. Nelson, he was also motivated by the support he recieves from Big Pharma and Big Insurance. Moreover, he was very much supported by the right-wing Christians in Congress and his co-right wing Catholic colleagues.

Rather than take him to task, Catholic columnist E.J. Dionne, for one, supported him, even attempting to somehow mutate Nelson's bribe for his non-cooperation into a step toward reform. (I'm not kidding.)

Another glaring example of the Christian owned media's pro-Christian bias lies in scant attention it has paid to the gang of bishops and Christian conservatives attempting to deny gays their Constitutional rights.

Most interesting to me of late is the media's silence on the recent Appellate Court ruling denying Jewish, Serbian Orthodox, and Roma victims of 200 Utase Nazi Priests the right to sue Vatican bank, which pocketed the loot these Priest Nazis stole from their prey. Neither the victims nor survivors can sue, it was ruled, because the VAtican is a Foreign nation. Setting aside the fact that the Priest Nazis tore the babies from pregnant women's bellies, impaled them in the river and watched them drown, one wonders how if the Vatican is a Foreign Nation, the RCC can claim non-profit status in this country.

No, Susan, you are correct. There is no bias against Christians in the media. None in the government. How could their be? They are the media. They are the government.

This is a wonderful essay by Susan Smith as also the comment posted by JUSTILLTHENNOW.
It will be great if more people to read the writings of Mahatma Gandhi.

This is a brilliant and impressive opinion, and one that is and should be common knowledge. Certainly common sense. What Susan Smith writes, paragraph to paragraph, hits the target and makes the point.

"The world is not against evangelicals. People just do not like to be judged, as so many evangelicals do, as being "less than" those who believe a certain way."

"Brit, wake up. Had you suggested that Buddhism was more capable than Christianity of bringing Woods peace and salvation, the sparks would still be flying. Christians would not have stood for it."

In fact the world is for Christianity, when it lives to the principles demonstrated by the life of Christ.

It seems that fundamentalist Christians don't stand for much. They are very active politically as well as socially, for the purpose of changing the world and the culture into what they deem 'correct'. They are active in the realm of Caesar far more than seems congruent for a belief system that proposes that it is all about the spiritual life. They seem unable to be content with living a peaceful life, but are embroiled in changing life to their specifications.

It is the same for fundamentalist Islamists. Tactics may vary, and in some cases the tactics are the same. Certainly the aim is the same. To shape the world, through application of some type of force, to change into their own image of what it "should be".

"The God I learned about loves everyone, as does a parent."

"But Christian dogma and doctrine has set its jaws and made redemption feel like it is impossible for some...and the "some" are always determined by mere mortals."

Yes, fundamentalist mortals with their own interpretations of Scripture to fulfill. Christian, Muslim, Jew it is the same. It is not a huge leap to go from there and on to Khmer Rouge, Nazi Fascism and the like. The call for Exclusivity is Evil.