"Despite its brash, vehemently polemical, and perhaps, yes, UNCHRISTIAN LANGUAGE, the editorial sought out to remind educators and planners that they have certain duties and obligations to fulfill in the interest of the Christian communion." (emphasis mine). Taken from here
Well...there at it again. Those guys at the Varsitarian. Oh I am not going to react to their article. I wouldn't want to dignify their "writing" with a response. But one thing struck me, as I scrolled down my mini-Facebook rant: this passage that I particularly highlighted. You see, rather than acting all stressed and murderous, I have Thomasian-Lukan colleagues and I wouldn't want my interactions with them to be spoiled by those guys at the Varsitarian; I treated their article as a puzzle game of "Name That Fallacy!".
I highlighted this passage not because it is a fallacy but because it was so true. Don't you find it weird that conservative Christians espousing love and charity in their hearts would stoop down to name-calling? I can imagine the 15th century Filipino version:
Spaniard: (first time encountering Filipinos) You heathens!!!! You do not believe in Christ! Convert or die!!! We must purge you of your un-godly influences
True enough, that was what actually happened to our country.
But let's explore this tendency of religion to fall into hypocrisy. In my view, it's the ambiguity of the teaching themselves. Let's examine one teaching:
So, initially sounds good enough. Love is a positive emotion so we, being human, would naturally be inclined to love. And it calls for us to love fellow human beings. But let us dig deeper. What is exactly meant by "love one another"? Do I give him/her food or only when he/she is hungry? Do I permanently invite him/her to my house and be responsible for his/her welfare?
But, wait, some may object. The basis is a god. Sure but what god? I mean, it's not like a god descended upon our reality and left verifiable and immutable evidence of his/her/its existence and left a very convincing and very complete set of ethical guidelines to follow. Notice the many religions that exist in the world and with each religion having various sects, sub-sects, cults and sub-cults etc etc etc. So I say, which god?
See, it's not exact. Even if you say that there is god behind it; the word "god" only becomes a concept to be used as sort of a basis for actions or guidelines which may or may not have (but mostly doesn't have) a basis in reality. Try it. You can use the "god" in a sentence to justify just about any atrocity; just don't expect it to work on rational people.
I can see why some would use this as a basis for keeping my former professors in line. They, meaning the Varsitarian writer/writers are doing their brash name-calling out of a sense of love and duty to a deity. They wish to spread the message of love and understanding emanating from their deity through their use of harsh words and fallacies.
I know, my neurons just got injured by just typing that sentence but it sort of makes sense. Remember, I used to be a Catholic so I know how they think. See, that's exactly the reason why I abandoned religion. I'm required to make sense of such view points and, heavens forbid, be forced to do atrocious actions out of a misplaced belief that an out-worldly deity compels me. I really wonder about the assumption that without a god, people are compelled to crimes and unethical actions when, clearly, the reality is against them. Heck, I don't feel compelled to take a chainsaw and murder my 90 classmates.
I highlighted this passage not because it is a fallacy but because it was so true. Don't you find it weird that conservative Christians espousing love and charity in their hearts would stoop down to name-calling? I can imagine the 15th century Filipino version:
Spaniard: (first time encountering Filipinos) You heathens!!!! You do not believe in Christ! Convert or die!!! We must purge you of your un-godly influences
True enough, that was what actually happened to our country.
But let's explore this tendency of religion to fall into hypocrisy. In my view, it's the ambiguity of the teaching themselves. Let's examine one teaching:
"Love one another as I have loved you"
So, initially sounds good enough. Love is a positive emotion so we, being human, would naturally be inclined to love. And it calls for us to love fellow human beings. But let us dig deeper. What is exactly meant by "love one another"? Do I give him/her food or only when he/she is hungry? Do I permanently invite him/her to my house and be responsible for his/her welfare?
But, wait, some may object. The basis is a god. Sure but what god? I mean, it's not like a god descended upon our reality and left verifiable and immutable evidence of his/her/its existence and left a very convincing and very complete set of ethical guidelines to follow. Notice the many religions that exist in the world and with each religion having various sects, sub-sects, cults and sub-cults etc etc etc. So I say, which god?
See, it's not exact. Even if you say that there is god behind it; the word "god" only becomes a concept to be used as sort of a basis for actions or guidelines which may or may not have (but mostly doesn't have) a basis in reality. Try it. You can use the "god" in a sentence to justify just about any atrocity; just don't expect it to work on rational people.
I can see why some would use this as a basis for keeping my former professors in line. They, meaning the Varsitarian writer/writers are doing their brash name-calling out of a sense of love and duty to a deity. They wish to spread the message of love and understanding emanating from their deity through their use of harsh words and fallacies.
I know, my neurons just got injured by just typing that sentence but it sort of makes sense. Remember, I used to be a Catholic so I know how they think. See, that's exactly the reason why I abandoned religion. I'm required to make sense of such view points and, heavens forbid, be forced to do atrocious actions out of a misplaced belief that an out-worldly deity compels me. I really wonder about the assumption that without a god, people are compelled to crimes and unethical actions when, clearly, the reality is against them. Heck, I don't feel compelled to take a chainsaw and murder my 90 classmates.
So if I hear, "YOU'RE GODLESS!!!". I'll say, "Thanks!"
No comments:
Post a Comment