GREATER EVIL IS BEYOND THE IMAGINATION OF MAN
I have a friend, now long retired, who spent 45 years in the business of getting people in the mass market to buy, donate, subscribe, join or petition for a wide variety of clients who measured the cost-per-result down to the penny.
He has long argued that the atheist community is missing a bet by concentrating on such subjects as miracles, the resurrection and the virgin birth, where nothing definitive – especially to most believers -- is ever conceded, when there is a far easier and impossible-to-refute case to be made that the Christian God as defined by Christians is impossible. I'm going to leave this up on top for a few days. What do you think about it? He wants to know.
Recognizing the importance of brevity he has made that case in just 108 words. This is not meant to be poetry. The layout is designed to cause special attention to every word:
[Begin Quote]He has long argued that the atheist community is missing a bet by concentrating on such subjects as miracles, the resurrection and the virgin birth, where nothing definitive – especially to most believers -- is ever conceded, when there is a far easier and impossible-to-refute case to be made that the Christian God as defined by Christians is impossible. I'm going to leave this up on top for a few days. What do you think about it? He wants to know.
Recognizing the importance of brevity he has made that case in just 108 words. This is not meant to be poetry. The layout is designed to cause special attention to every word:
GREATER EVIL IS BEYOND THE IMAGINATION OF MAN
than that God,
perfect in every way,
all-powerful,
needing nothing,
knowing everything past, future
and even possible;
a loving, just, merciful and forgiving Father;
would summarily create,
from innocent nothingness,
creatures capable of suffering,
knowing in advance,
which ones he will consign
to suffer eternally --
as promised by Jesus!
No act of his 'creature-victim'
could justify this verdict of unsurpassable hate,
injustice and mercilessness;
all in all, the very definition of unforgiving.
Nothing more is needed,
though volumes provide it,
to prove that such a God
is not and never was,
except as the sick
creation of
man.
________________________________________________
THIS IS THE SOFT UNDERBELLY OF CHRISTIANITY
None of the more sophisticated and far more complex arguments against this God, indispensable as they are, has caused Christians to see that their story -- as they define it -- makes God the Unforgivable Sinner.
If one has a chance to ‘Debunk Christianity’, as in a debate before an assembly of mostly Christians, why choose a topic like miracles – with no moral content, and little or no emotional content, when the topic could be ‘Is the Christian God as Defined by Christians Possible?’
Is not the latter of transcendent emotional importance to all Christians everywhere? Does not a profound emotional need undergird all belief in a benign supreme being?
Are not the arguments for the possibility of their defined God far more provable with their authorities, far more understandable, and far more vital to the mass of mankind than the fine distinctions of erudite philosophic reasoning? (Since one cannot know what appeals most to the mass of mankind, do not the probabilities argue for it?]
Are not the arguments against a kind, loving, just, merciful, forgiving Father utterly irreconcilable with one who will consign most of his human creatures to an eternity of suffering?
Why not take the easy, and emotion-packed way?
[End Quote]
If one has a chance to ‘Debunk Christianity’, as in a debate before an assembly of mostly Christians, why choose a topic like miracles – with no moral content, and little or no emotional content, when the topic could be ‘Is the Christian God as Defined by Christians Possible?’
Is not the latter of transcendent emotional importance to all Christians everywhere? Does not a profound emotional need undergird all belief in a benign supreme being?
Are not the arguments for the possibility of their defined God far more provable with their authorities, far more understandable, and far more vital to the mass of mankind than the fine distinctions of erudite philosophic reasoning? (Since one cannot know what appeals most to the mass of mankind, do not the probabilities argue for it?]
Are not the arguments against a kind, loving, just, merciful, forgiving Father utterly irreconcilable with one who will consign most of his human creatures to an eternity of suffering?
Why not take the easy, and emotion-packed way?
[End Quote]
0 comments:
Post a Comment