Christians v Atheists?

There are no atheists in foxholes.

(And my silent response to such boasting?)And there are plenty of dead believers littering the landscape.

The latest “Inlander” had a feature story about “Life without God.” It had to do with a growing group of people who became “unchurched” so to speak and no longer have faith in religious doctrine, or how that doctrine depicts God. It was quite the interesting article, and yes, “The Inlander” also put into the same article the “Christian” point of view. As though, in the face of unbelief—a new adversary being born—it becomes most necessary for “Christians” to begin justifying who they are and the right to think what they wish. Well, I am going to advise the “Christians” of this little fact in life, atheists (how ever they wish to label themselves) are not adversaries of the Christian faith, Christians are simply their own worst enemy.

You take into consideration former Senator Rick Santorum who goes to great lengths disclosing just where he stands on religious dogma and absolutely wouldn’t hear putting a lid on it and recognizing that not everyone is going to believe as he does. And if he wishes to govern a nation there is quite a long list of religious diversity (which “The Inlander” supplied) a good percentage of whom are not “Christian” at all. And of the remainder, those who do not believe, period. Around 15% according to the article. Maybe Santorum wants to appeal to a specific minority interest among religious voters. But he ends up turning everyone else off.

Atheism began in the 17th century, from the age of enlightenment. Again, according to “The Inlander” article… It is at this point that I am going to stop here and present a matter that “The Inlander” of course, isn’t going to address at all. Why atheism? The atheists, agnostics, deists of today supplied their own answer, they didn’t like how religious doctrine handled controversial issues, and how believers treated their fellow human beings. Which, I think, says a lot about the failures within the church, the failures of the church to follow what Christ taught. What Christ taught was that of a dogmatic people (zealots) who were so narrow focused, as to literally turn away people from God who sought to be true seekers of the faith. Christ chided these dogmatic people for creating “atheism” in their time. Today, that section of the New Testament seems to have been tossed in the dustbin of history as dogmatic people again turn away from faith and of course, God; those who would seek the true faith. That is a decided problem.

So “The Inlander” featured one priest Cook, by name who went into quite an oratory about being with God meant happiness… Again, I’ll have to digress from this and actually ask this question: when are “Christians” happy?

If “Christians” are so “happy” in their “oneness with God,” why is it that they need government to justify their right to the dogma, sect, doctrine of their choice? Especially when they abruptly find themselves confronting people who hold far different beliefs, or unbeliefs? If “Christians” are so “happy,” why the perpetual whining over “the war on Christmas?” I think this priest needs to take a look outside his rectory door once in a while.

And then you get into the precise words of those dogmas or church doctrines in which pastors, priests, and laity (of which Santorum is one) who proclaim what “God” wants. Actually, they could be a bit more honest about it, and state very specifically, that this is what they want in pursuit of specific ambitions and political agendas. God is only useful for one purpose, to justify that agenda or political ambition. Nothing more. So, should it come as a surprise if atheism is becoming the fastest growing political voting block here in the U.S.? I don’t think so. From the perspective of a non Christian, this is what I have to say: In the New Testament, Christ told his followers of those who were only “ignorant” of the instructions of the master (God). Meaning that they were of (un) belief or not yet converted. That people who were merely ignorant were far better off than those who possessed the knowledge of the teachings, but refused to follow them. That today, would seem to be true of most churches, as they turn to government (but not God) to justify their very existence. Why atheism?

Why did the church schism repeatedly throughout history over points of conflict over literally, what various scriptures meant? And just as literally going to war because one side is some (protestant) denomination and the other is some form (of Catholicism)? Believers caused tremendous suffering. It is as a consequence, that atheism could indeed take root for truly gentle and caring souls could not endure the suffering that was inflicted upon man through his belief in God. If this is what “God” is, as fervent believers describe him, then the atheist will have nothing to do with it. Religious activists need to look to their own house to get it into order long before they get hostile toward neighbors who don’t have to think as “Christians” do.

One final thought: Santorum is absolutely adamant that under no circumstances should he be forbidden from bringing his religious faith into the public sphere. By that he means, to be a religious zealot for president. And as president, to present every public domestic and foreign policy from a strictly religious standpoint. We already had that from George W. Bush. End result of religion in the White House during the Bush tenure: a country that went into economic collapse. Santorum can not say that he can ever do it any differently, when he basically wants to be George Bush on steroids. The whole idea that religion must be dependent upon government to justify its very existence isn’t exactly what the founders had in mind. And further, if the founders truly wanted a “Christian” nation, then the first amendment would have as its biblical basis: Love thy neighbor as thyself. People standing around complaining that they are “losing their rights” if the wrong party is in the White House and only stand to gain their “rights” if they elect the right party to power; suggests that “rights” and “liberty” no longer have anything to do with churches wanting to advance themselves on the material plane. The only argument I see here, is that government must serve to justify the existence of religious faith. As though the “believer” is no longer capable of that himself/herself. That’s why, atheism.


3 Responses to “Christians v Atheists?”

  1. Human Ape Says:

    It’s unfortunate that god-soaked idiots like Santorum infest the Republican Party.

  2. Jerry Says:

    I am a very happily married Christian. Married for 35 years to the same woman. Christianity is a choice, for me and my house we will serve the Lord. You have so much to loose if your views are wrong. If mine are wrong (which I know they are not) I have nothing to loose and live a moral fulfilling life because of my faith.

  3. jeh15 Says:

    @Jerry, LOL! I always love the arrogance of people who say “they are not wrong.” I “approved” of your comment because I thought that it was the most hilarious thing I have read. Kudos, that you are happily married and even further, that you are happy in your faith. Now how about being happy enough in your faith to leave people alone to decide what they wish to believe or not believe “right or wrong.” It is not up to you or me to decide.

    Bottom line: how about learning some of that love thy neighbor as thyself if you truly wish to be “right” in your faith.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: