timeimmortal

So why does Mary matter to Catholics? Indeed, why should Mary matter to Christians, of any kind, at all? There is actually a very good reason, and it has quite a lot to do with Jesus‘ instruction to the beloved apostle at the foot of the Cross: “behold your mother.” It also has a lot to do with Mary herself, and her role in God’s plan of salvation. Because Mary is not just another human being — she is, for Christians, a special example, and also a marker.

Because Mary, you see, always points us to Christ. Mary glorifies Christ. And Satan is well aware of this, because historically, those heresies and false teachings which have sought to undermine the full divinity of Christ have often begun by attacking some aspect of the theology concerning Mary.

Let’s begin, though, by considering an objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary advanced by some Christians.

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept Biblical? Before we get into looking at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as “the Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.” Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

The key thing here to which I wish to draw attention is the isolation of the belief in Mary as the Theotokos — the God-bearer, the Mother of God — as a solely Catholic belief. Note the implied rejection of the belief in Mary being the Mother of God on the grounds that it is apparently unbiblical.

We’ve addressed the matter of the above author’s lack of understanding of sex in the Bible already, and nothing further needs to be said on that matter. But let’s look at the rejection of the Catholic belief that Mary is the Theotokos, the Mother of God. This sounds like something fairly new, but it is actually a very old fallacy indeed.

As Mark Shea notes, “in the fifth century there arose (yet again) the question of just who Jesus is. It was a question repeated throughout antiquity and, in this case, an answer to the question was proposed by the Nestorians. They argued that the mortal man Jesus and the Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity, were more or less two persons occupying the same head. For this reason, they insisted that Mary could not be acclaimed (as she had been popularly acclaimed for a very long time) as Theotokos, or God bearer. Instead, she should only be called Christotokos, or Christ bearer. She was, they insisted, the Mother of Jesus, not of God.”

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? But consider, O Reader: Nestorianism was a heresy that the Church had to address fairly early on in its life (indeed, it happened not long after the formal canonization of Scripture!). Something goes awry when we reject Mary as the mother of God, as the concerned Christian above has done.

Shea continues: “The problem with this was that it threatened the very witness of the Church and could even lead logically to the notion that there were two Sons of God, the man Jesus and the Logos who was sharing a room with Him in His head. In short, it was a doorway to theological chaos over one of the most basic truths of the Faith: that the Word became flesh, died, and rose for our sins.”

John 1 makes it very clear: the Logos (the Word) is God. Jesus is God. Only the es make the mistake of separating God and the Word, incorrectly modifying John 1 to read “the Word was a god.” For all intents and purposes, all Christians today accept it as a basic article of faith that Jesus, the Word, is God, one in being with the Father and the Spirit in the blessed union that is the Holy Trinity, which God ultimately is.

And all the Gospels make it equally clear: Mary is the mother of Jesus, the Word (who is God) made flesh. It’s right there in the Bible: Mary is the mother of God (the Word) made flesh; she is the Mother of God. And to deny this actually begins to deny the very divinity of the human person of Christ. And to this heresy, notes Shea, “the Church formulated its response. First, Jesus Christ is not two persons occupying the same head. He is one person possessing two natures, human and divine, joined in a hypostatic union. Second, it was appropriate to therefore call Mary Theotokos because she’s the Mother of the God-Man. When the God-Man had His friends over for lunch, He didn’t introduce Mary saying, “This is the mother of my human nature.” He said, “This is my mother.”

Why did the Church do this? Because, once again, Mary points to Jesus. The dogma of the Theotokos is a commentary on Jesus, a sort of “hedge” around the truth about Jesus articulated by the Church. Just as Nestorianism had tried to attack the orthodox teaching of Christ through Mary (by forbidding the veneration of her as Theotokos), now the Church protected that teaching about Christ by making Theotokos a dogma. That is a vital key to understanding Marian dogmas: They’re always about some vital truth concerning Jesus, the nature of the Church, or the nature of the human person.”

Jesus was fully human, and yet fully divine, and these two aspects of Him were, and remain, inseparable. He was born in a very human birth. He lived a very human life. He suffered through and died a very human death. And He rose again as a human, at all times the Word and flesh perfectly united, for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of mankind.

It isn’t easy, at first, to see the machinations of the devil in the Nestorian heresy, but we can see the devil’s intent in looking at the implications of what seems, on the surface, to be a fairly innocuous teaching concerning a somewhat perplexing statement concerning Mary. For if we deny, as some Christians unfortunately continue to do (apparently in their zeal to condemn Catholicism), that Mary was the Mother of God, we must necessarily deny that she was not the mother of the Word, only of the flesh and blood in which the Word was clothed.

Which means that Jesus, the Logos, did not have a fully human birth.

Which means that Jesus, the Word, did not live a fully human life.

Which means that Jesus, the Christ who is God, did not suffer through and die a fully human death.

Which has, I submit to the Reader, disastrous implications for our salvation prospects as Christians. I believe Paul had something to say about us being most pitiable in just such a circumstance. And yet just such a circumstance arises out of what seems to be a straightforward rejection of a doctrine that doesn’t even directly concern Christ! But that is the devil’s cunning, for Satan knows that if the mother can be undermined, the Son can be undermined because of it.

Now, why is this important to Christians? Well, there’s two reasons. The first, of course, is that we are told we are to defend the faith against false teachings, and it behooves us to do so. Denial of Mary’s status as Theotokos is just one such false teaching, but it is a particularly vicious and odious one because of its far-reaching implications. But it is also important to us because we are commanded to honour our father and our mother. And that doesn’t just apply to our blood parents either, I might point out. We are to honour our Father in Heaven as well…and likewise, our Mother.

Possible Objection #7: wait, what? Our Mother in Heaven???!!

Response to Objection #7: yes indeed.

The author of the Gospel of John notes that he did not record everything that transpired in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ word-for-word, nor did he include every event in his account of Jesus. In John 20, he disclaims his work:

[30] Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

[31] but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

John is giving us a bit of a hint here: not everything about Jesus or His life was recorded in the Gospel, but enough of significance was recorded, that we might believe. The author is suggesting to us that everything within his account of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ has significance above and beyond simply being a relating of who Jesus was, and what He did — every event in John’s Gospel has significant theological meaning.

So when Christ tells the beloved disciple “behold your Mother,” John doesn’t record it, as Mark Shea notes, “because he thought his readers might be curious about domestic arrangements for childless Jewish widows…For the Beloved Disciple is you and not merely John. Mary is your mother and you are her child. And so we are to look to her as mother and imitate her as she imitates Christ.”

The whole of the Gospel of John is written in an odd perspective; though it has been long-held by almost all Christian theologians that the term “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is used, in John’s Gospel, in a self-referential capacity, John’s choice of phrasing has always been understood to mean that what is true for the beloved disciple is true for all whom Christ loves, and who follow Christ. When Jesus tells John, the beloved, “behold your mother,” He tells us that as well. He entrusts care of Mary to us, and presents her to us as our mother, and our example.

In the normal family model, the mother is the principal example that children have to draw upon, especially at younger ages. Mom is the teacher, the witness, and the person whom young children should first begin to imitate when they begin to strive to behave morally. This is God’s “very good” design in action, O Reader, and it comes as no surprise that Christ would, in His desire that humanity continue to learn of and draw near to Him, present His mother to us to be our mother, to be our example, and for us to imitate in her surrender to (and participation in) the will of God, and in God’s salvific grace.

Because there is one thing Christ cannot do directly: he cannot show us what a follower of Christ looks like. And as Shea notes, “the first and best model of the disciple of Jesus is the one who said and lived “Yes!” to God, spontaneously and without even the benefit of years of training or the necessity of being knocked off a horse and blinded. And she continues to do so right through the agony of watching her Son die and the ecstasy of knowing Him raised again.”

Joel writes in with some follow-up commentary to my previous reply to him. Once again, because it wanders a little bit over several topics, I’m going to break it up and respond in “interlinear” fashion.

So it took me a little while to figure out why and how our conversation had gone the way it had, and was very off-topic (as far as I was concerned). I believe that you and I have been having very different conversations.

I confess that this is possible, O Reader — very often, persons of opposite opinion wind up talking past each other, as opposed to addressing each other. In fairness, though, I think I have responded directly to everything that Joel has said, chiding him along the way for his refusal to engage — in any substantive way — the subject under discussion.

But if there has in fact been a digression (I confess that I do not detect it), let us see if we can perhaps get the discussion back on the topical “rails.”

A while back, Brian Flemming (a reasonably well known, on the web, atheist) took part in something of a debate on another guys website. The website in question was called something like “Ask a calvinist”.

The owner would have various people of different christian denomenations join him in asking each other 5 questions, and allowing each other to reply.

The guy certainly appeared to know his stuff.

Unfortunately, he was illequipped to debate Brian. Not because Brian was smarter or more informed or anything like that. Brian went in to, more or less, say that God doesn’t exist and Jesus almost certainly never existed (divine or otherwise).

The Calvinist went in to debate nuances of theology.

The two conversations just didn’t have a whole lot of contact in many ways, as you can imagine.

Brian: God doesn’t exist and there’s no reason to believe he does and…
Calvinist: I believe that God’s love is based on…

Anyhow, while our two conversations may not be THAT far apart, I do believe there’s a significant gap.

1. A number of times I’ve said I was speaking specifically about the situation in the U.S.. However, I’ve also said that my views on this extend globally. My only area of personal experience of is in the U.S.. Hence I focus on that.

Reciprocal to what Joel notes above, I have said that I consider the global picture preferentially to the more localized picture, and try to keep my “area of expertise” at a higher level than merely national, because there is no way to accurately comment on religion if one cannot consider the global picture (because Religion in America and religion outside of America are often very different things).

Perhaps this is not fair, and perhaps it is not conducive to a proper flow in conversation. But the fact of the matter remains that if one is going to comment on religion, one cannot simply comment on a local flavour only, and I will not stoop to doing so. I realize, then, that I am placing an expectation on those who write in, but equally I do not apologize for doing so — if we cannot respond to a call to challenge and better ourselves on a daily basis, we are not really living, are we?

2. While you see a distinction between various sects of christianity, as an atheist I simply don’t see those as significant. Honestly, the difference in theology between almost any two religions is virtually meaningless to me. I don’t see a massive difference, in many ways, between the basis for christianity and the basis for scientology (I see scientology as rather repugnant in that it is determined to scam as much money out of the pockets of its followers as possible. I can say many bad things about many christian churches etc., but credit where credit is due, they are all trying to give away salvation for free). All I care about is how those theologies then interact with the rest of the world. You may say that Islam is a much bigger problem, but any religion, it seems, can be easily twisted into violence. Islam is a problem with that today. The crusades and
inquisition used christianity. Oh, and at least in the U.S., it wasn’t that long ago that christianity was being used as a justification of violence against doctors.

One observes that while one or two rogue fools decided to take it upon themselves, ostensibly in the name of their Christian faith, to hunt down abortion doctors, the vast majority of Christians in America (and elsewhere) — even the ones who were themselves vocally pro-life — spoke out against the killings. Not that I expect this to matter to Joel, who seems interested only in painting with an extremely wide brush, but to any rational person it should come as a significant point. Yes, people have attempted to use religion as an excuse for their hatreds and particular evils in the past, and people likely will continue to do so. That doesn’t prove anything about the truth or validity of the religion as a whole; it merely demonstrates, in keeping with what the Bible observes in many places, that religious people are sinners too.

Not exactly the most shocking revelation, that.

But more importantly, Joel’s refusal to see a distinction between different Christian denominations — or, indeed, between Christian and non-Christian religions (!!) — is foolhardy, and I would even venture that it renders most of what else he has to say virtually meaningless. There is no logic or reason in the statement at all.

“While you see a distinction between various sports, as an non-sports fan I simply don’t see those as significant. Honestly, the difference in rules and methods between almost any two sports is virtually meaningless to me. I don’t see a massive difference, in many ways, between playing golf and playing football…”

Reasonable? No. Rational? No. Logical? No. Relevant? No. Indeed, were someone to come up to us and say that to our face, we’d laugh them out of the sports bar (and rightly so). Perhaps the Reader will think me heartless, but I am of no particular mind to let Joel slide simply because he is discussing religions instead of sports. The fact that he cannot engage the debate over religion in so basic a way as to acnknowledge the differences between religions and denominations thereof smacks of a kind a lazy arrogance. And yes, I realize that once again I am placing an expectation on those who write in, and again I do not apologize for doing so — again: if we cannot respond to a call to challenge and better ourselves on a daily basis, we are not really living, are we?

I submit to Joel that if he is not willing to engage the discussion at a sufficient level of academic honesty as to demonstrate even a basic ability to differentiate between different religions and denominations thereof (especially since I am willing to differentiate between “strains” of atheism — i.e. Richard Dawkins‘ atheism as compared to that of Sam Harris), he should not engage in the discussion at all.

Quite frankly, his refusal to engage steeps all his statements in a fundamental illogic and a willful falsehood.

3. While you may believe that the control christianity exerts in the U.S. is not, as I believe you put it, sinister, I beg to differ.

Every atheist does, don’t they, O Reader? And yet most atheists laugh it off when someone points to the rather disproportionate tendency of the ACLU to go after Christians. A curious double standard, no?

I have no idea what it is like in Canada, but the ‘christian right’ in the U.S. exerts a disproportionate amount of power and is very interested in breaking down walls between church and state. How do I
know this? Because their leaders come out and say it.

I observe, as I am sure the Reader has likewise done, that no supporting links accompany this assertion Joel has made. Curious.

That’s not to say that I’m giving the “Christian right” a pass; I too can think of a few glaring errors. But then, I can think of some rather shocking stuff that high-profile atheists have also said. And while Sam Harris is not a politician, and does not hold office in the U.S., his assertions that disagreeable elements in society (including believers, most likely) should be dealt with by way of deadly force, if that is what is necessary to bring about his desired “end of faith,” is far more concerning than any pronouncement I can think of that Bush et. al. have made in recent memory.

How do I know they have so much power? Because one of our two political parties panders to them endlessly. The other party just sucks up to them some.

I agree with this statement, O Reader. Mind you, pace Inigo Montoya, I do not think this statement means what Joel thinks it means. After all, if we examine the current contenders for the next presidential election in the U.S., we observe that it is the two Democratic Party candidates — Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton — who have been playing the faith card really heavily. On the Republican Party side, the only remaining candidate is the candidate who has discussed his faith the least, winning the party nomination over an ardent Mormon and a former Baptist minister!

Indeed, looking at the track record of recent Republican governments, I see no real evidence of pandering to religious sentiments, with the one notable exception being the opposition of the Bush government to embryonic stem cell research. But then, embryonic stem cell research has, after a decade, shown no real promise, while Shinya Yamanaka at Kyoto University has demonstrated that skin cells can be modified into any other type of cell, thus providing a technique to achieve what stem cell research supposedly promises to achieve, but without the need to destroy fertilized embryos.

On most other issues I can think of — torture of prisoners and abortion are easy examples — the American government hasn’t done anything in particular to pander to Christian sentiment (unless one counts the banning of the partial birth abortion method as a major concession to Christian demands, which would be foolish to say given that nothing was done to diminish the number of abortion providers or, indeed, the number of abortions performed). This blogger keeps a pretty comprehensive list of examples.

I swear, my maxim about Rome and Caesar gets a little bit more accurate every day. Muslims see Jewish conspiracies around every corner. Atheists obssess over the looming Christian theocracy that never seems to materialize, but is always So! Very! Close! And yet the examples always seem so…trivial.

It is an era that many of these groups come out and say is a time for christianity to take over the government and make gods kingdom here in the U.S..

All I can really say to this, O Reader, is…”meh.” “Meh,” because even if some nuts-for-brains Evangelical gets into office and takes it upon himself to try and build the New Jerusalem on American soil, he will fail, as surely as the Romans failed to rebuild the Temple. Every human scheme to prematurely usher in Paradise on Earth, whether headed up by evangelical Christians or secular utopian socialists will fail, as surely as such schemes have failed in the past.

And that’s assuming that such a person ever takes office in the first place. Ralph Nader has a better chance of winning a two-term presidency than does any sufficiently misguided Christian have of carrying out any sort of utopian enterprise. And to act in almost paranoid fashion in response to the misguided musings of a minority of American evangelical Christians is…well…paranoid. Irrational. Delusional, even…as surely as all the conspiracy theories surrounding Zionism or the Illuminati are delusional.

That, my friend, is the country I live in and the battle we fight.

Indeed, O Reader…open war has been declared in the streets of America.

These groups truly do try to subvert the will of the American people and they truly do not care what the Constitution says (not that our current administration seems to care much about that either…).

Nor do many atheists, O Reader.

I mentioned before the example of Cartese, which was the online handle of another atheist in the service of the American military, who openly advocated for the government to step in and declare all religious people mentally incompetent and unfit to own property/drive cars/vote. Whither the Constitution? Other atheists lobby for a complete removal of all Christian symbols from the public eye — not just on governmental buildings and the dollar bill, but on private property as well. Whither the Constitution then? A court in the U.S. just compelled a private business owner, a Christian photographer, to pay restitution to a client she refused to do business with (the client in question was a lesbian seeking a photographer for her “wedding”). Whither the Constitution? Sam Harris is on record as saying that unwelcome elements in a new, faithless society might have to be dealt with via the use of deadly force. Whither the Constitution?

More importantly, in all examples: whither the will of the individuals affected? Does will even matter to an atheist? Or is William Provine the more correct when he denies that free will even exists?

Coming briefly back to Cartese, I notice that as this conversation has progressed, Joel’s tone has begun what I should call a predictable shift away from tolerant discourse toward intolerant paranoia. To his credit, he at least began at the level of tolerant discourse, unlike some others that I have debated on this blog. But to his detriment, he is letting something darker and much uglier show through now.

Pity.

And yes, it is organized, and deliberate, and self-conscious, and yes, it IS sinister.

The regular Reader will remember Rehmat, who says much the same thing about Jews as Joel is saying about Christians in the above sentence. Not coincidentally at all, I consider Joel’s assertions to have about the same credibility as I do Rehmat’s. I trust the intelligent Reader will see why.

Honestly, I don’t think people in western countries realize what goes on here in the U.S.. If I recall some recent polls and studies, the U.S. is one of the most religious, industrialized nations. People don’t realize that, every day, there is an organized effort to get the book of Genesis taught in science classes.

Perhaps the Reader will think me callous, but I really can only look on this issue with a bit of a “so what?” attitude. Oh, that’s not to say that I’m a raving Young Earth Creationist; in plain point of fact, I think that particular school of thought is mostly bunk. But equally…so what? So people are trying to get the Genesis stories taught in science classes. It would hardly be the first time that metaphysics has intruded into the realm of scientific education — one recalls Eugenie Scott’s campaign to see removed from biology textbooks the assertion that evolution was a random, unguided process. Scott is herself an atheist, but at least she could recognize that it was beyond the scope of science to decide whether or not evolution was an “unguided” process, and that the inclusion of the statement in a widely-used textbook was careless, problematic, and unfair.

And frankly, atheists have to be willing to stand up and assume a goodly measure of the blame for enforcing the conflict model in the relationship between science and religion. My God, but do they have to assume a measure of the blame! After all, post-Enlightenment atheism latched on to things like the theory of evolution as proof — proof! — that religion was bunk and God a mere fiction. The likes of Thomas Henry Huxley did more damage than good when they latched on to Darwinian theory and established a conflict model as the dominant mode of the relationship between two fields of study that need not have ever been in conflict.

(Interestingly, the Church never really saw a problem with evolutionary theory, noting that a truth and another truth cannot contradict; Catholicism, in particular, has always left it up to individual Catholics to decide whether they accept the reality of biological evolution, and the tone of the Church’s official statements has always recognized the theory’s probable validity. Protestantism, on the other hand, went in two directions, with some Protestant denominations taking essentially the same view as the Catholic Church, while others decided to push back.)

Can we really blame some evangelical Christians for biting back at people who would abuse a scientific theory by drawing a metaphysical conclusion (i.e. the non-existence of God) out of it?

I am a Catholic first and foremost, but I see no fundamental conflict between my faith and my education in the sciences. I wholeheartedly accept that God is the creator of all the Universe, and I wholeheartedly accept various evolutionary theories, be they concerned with biological evolution or stellar evolution.

They don’t know that doctors hide medical options from their patients (not simply refuse to
give them these treatments, but actively hide the options) because of religion. They have no idea how thoroughly christian dogma has invaded our society.

I might point out to the good Reader that modern American society has not been “invaded” by Christians — this is but paranoid rambling on Joel’s part — any more than it has been “invaded” by white people. America — by which I mean the United States of America, the extant nation in its present form — was founded, colonized, and peopled by people who were, for the most part, Christians! They are not the invading cultural archetype; they are the prevailing cultural archetype. And it should come as no surprise, in a nation where over 70% of the population professes some manner of Christian belief, that the government of America should occasionally hint at Christian influence.

That’s called “representative government” O Reader, and I am led to believe that, by and large, it works very well. God forbid that a government which purports to represent the people of the land should in some way share the beliefs held by a significant majority of the populace!

As to whether doctors hide medical options from patients, I again observe that Joel has been lax in citing sources to corroborate his claim. Perhaps it does happen; if it happens in a manner which endangers the patient, that is immoral. I can understand a doctor refusing to perform a procedure he or she might consider immoral (i.e. sex-change operations, abortions) — refusing to discuss treatment options may well be a different ball of wax.

But sadly, I have no data to work from, and cannot speculate any further on the matter. Perhaps Joel will be good enough to furnish us with some additional information, although given the downward trend in the tone of this conversation, I find myself doubtful that this will prove to be the case.

(don’t even get me started on the fate of Madeline Kara Neumann)

The Reader may think me cold and heartless, but I fail to see what the death of a child of parents who were es has to do with a systemic conspiracy perpetrated by the religious in American society. This is why I keep stressing to Joel, and to others, the importance of being able to tell one’s apples from one’s kiwi fruits.

For example, here is a Catholic blogger decrying what happened to poor Madeline. Personally, as a Catholic and as a human being, I am disgusted at what happened to this young girl, whose parents forbade her from receiving life-saving treatment because of the peculiar tendency of the cult to which they belong to refuse different forms of medical treatment, including blood transfusions. I can’t abide that aspect of the JW movement, and consider it immoral when it jeapordizes the life of any person, young or old.

The Catholic Church has not promulgated any doctrine forbidding treatments of this nature to its members, and for good reason — Catholicism does not set itself in opposition to the sciences, including medical sciences; it understands science as an alternative vehicle for learning what God seeks to teach to the world (we term it “natural revelation”).

I am routinely derided when I (somewhat jokingly) point out that the nation-states which have been the most murderous throughout history have been those nations of the 19th and 20th centuries which have made atheism the explicit policy of the state (i.e. China, North Korea, the Soviet Union when it was still around). It is not fair, I am told, to tar and feather all of atheism based on a few rather glaringly large bad apples. Perhaps it is not…but then, it is even less justifiable for Joel to attempt to tar all Christians with the bad decisions of two members of a pseudo-Christian cult, is it not?

Seriously, what is it with atheists? It always begins so well…and it always goes downhill. Whether they verge into theodicy (a non-issue for Christians), Euthyphro (also a non-issue for Christians), guilt by association (a logical fallacy), or historical criticisms that have to look back more than 250 years in order to find something with meat on its bones (so to speak — and then the poor dears hate it when someone points out to them that the hands of atheism, by the same criteria, are even bloodier), the discussion always spirals downward.

And then the insults start.

Joel writes in again (twice!) to follow up on my previous response to him. I observe that the host for the communication was at atc.army.mil — the Aberdeen Test Center. Very interesting; the last atheist-in-uniform I tangled with was a fellow who went by the handle of Cartese. His arguments were that theists should, at best, be declared mentally unfit to vote/drive/own property…in his worst moments, he advocated for the open slaughter of the religious.

Joel seems substantially more moderate, which is good. Still, it has been my observation that debates with atheists can very quickly become ugly affairs; time will tell if this discussion goes down that all-too-familiar road.

At any rate, here is the first of two responses Joel sent in:

I appreciate your response to my email.

Apparently, given your reply, I didn’t make something clear.

I can only intelligently speak about atheism in the U.S.. Were I to speak about atheism in China or the Middle East, I would surely be a fool since I have never lived in eithr region, nor spoken with any atheists from those areas. Hence my points 1 & 2.

I suspect that atheists in various areas focus their efforts on the dominant Religion. But, again, I can only speak about atheism in the U.S.

Next, I consider Mormons and jehovah’s witnesses to be christian sects. They believe in Jesus and the Bible. Christian. I’m not sure there’s any meaningful distinctions here. God, Jesus, Bible.

Hence point #3.

I don’t know actual statistics, however if you know that Muslims proseletyze more than Christians, I’ll concede the point.

If I am myopic, I am at least honest about it. I believed, perhaps incorrectly, that my email made it clear I was only speaking about the U.S.. If that wasn’t clear, then I apologize.

Joel is quite welcome, of course, O Reader. And in turn, both for remaining reasonable into the second round and for the chance to discuss topics that I haven’t directly engaged in a while, I’d like to offer my thanks in turn to Joel. This is good…this is really good.

When religion is at issue, I think it is — or should be — necessary for any would-be commentator to keep firmly in mind the global picture, because religion transcends regional boundaries; Catholicism is represented on every continent and in almost every country on Earth, for example. So, for the most part, is Islam. So, for the most part, is atheism, and one would hope that it would be apparent that philosophical conjectures of every flavour are far larger things than the raw limits of a national boundary.

To put it another way, consider: if one based one’s opinions about American Christians solely on one’s observations of Christians in the state of…say…Utah, one would be left with an inaccurate picture of Christianity in America. Similarly, if one based one’s opinions about global Christianity solely on one’s experience of American Christians, one would be left with an inaccurate picture of Christ’s followers world-wide. For example, one would probably have a very inaccurate picture of the expanse and teachings of Catholicism, which is the majority Christian religion world-wide and yet a minority in the U.S.

I submit that the same is true of atheism. Therefore, limiting one’s consideration and disucssion to the peculiarities of a philosophical conjecture such as atheism to those found only in one small region of the globe is indeed rather myopic, and perhaps even borders on willful ignorance. The atheism of Sam Harris (an American) is related to, but still very different from, the atheism of Richard Dawkins (a Briton). And to be perfectly fair, the atheism of Richard Dawkins is related to, but still very different from, the atheism of Michael Onfray (a Frenchman).

However, what is most interesting about what Joel has said, O Reader, is his demonstrated ignorance where even American Christianity is concerned, for there is a great deal more to being Christian than simply “God, Jesus, Bible.” While the various Christian demoninations disagree sharply on different points of doctrine and the source of justification in Christ (i.e. faith vs. Grace), anyone who professes to be a Christian must, at minimum, acknowledge the following:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

That is the Nicene Creed, promulgated in 381 as a definitive articulation of what Christian faith is, at its very minimum. It is all well and good that Joel personally considers Jehovahs and Mormons to be “Christian sects,” but the truth is that they are not particularly Christian, despite the invocation of Christ. Specifically, Jehovahs deny the trinitarian unity of God and Jesus; they believe Jesus is a wholly separate entity from God. They further believe that Jesus also appeared, in the recorded text of the Bible, as the archangel Michael and as Abaddon (c.f Revelation 9:11).

Some might dismiss this as a minor difference, but since Jesus — in his own words — claimed “oneness” with God the Father, the fact that Jehovahs do not acknowledge the Trinity renders them effectively non-Christian, despite the fact that they recognize Christ*.

Mormons likewise dispute the Nicene Creed’s concept of the Trinity, and so render themselves non-Christian in the most honest and basic sense of the term. Obviously, there are a lot of disputes around this, and obviously most mainstream Christians recognize at least some kinship of faith between themselves and both Jehovahs and Mormons. At the end of the day, though, Jesus and his apostles both spoke plainly enough (c.f. John 10:30, 20:28) about the unity that existed between God the Father and God the Son.

As to who proselytizes the most, I don’t have concrete numbers. But then, I’m not sure that the raw numbers are the important factor for consideration; most Western (and some Eastern) religions, faiths, and philosophical conjectures have an evangelical aspect to them…even atheism. The question, then, is not simply about who proselytizes, but about what religion the one who proselytizes follows — i.e. what religion is being “sold” (to use a crude term for it).

When an atheist attempts to evangelize, he or she is obviously not “selling” the same “stuff” as a Christian would be during an evangelical enterprise. And neither of them are “selling” the same “stuff” as a Muslim would be during an act of evangelism. The act of evangelism is not the important consideration; the “stuff” being “sold” is. What is each person “selling” by their efforts? What are the tenets of their faith? These are the more important questions to ask, because not all faiths are the same. Atheism is not the same as Christianity, which in turn is not the same as Islam, which in turn is very different from Judaism or Hinduism.

It is not enough to simply consider that something is being preached, then; what must be considered is what is being preached. What is being preached by Christian evangelists? What is being preached by atheist evangelists? What is being preached by Muslim evangelists? Which denominations of each faith or philosophy are the most active in terms of their evangelical efforts?

Setting aside pseudo-Christian sects like Jehovahs and Mormons, I can’t put my finger on exactly which strain of American Christianity is most active in its evangelical efforts (my mind tends to drift toward thinking it’s either the Baptists or the non-denominational “free” Evangelicals, who are rooted primarily in Pentecostal teachings).

As a Catholic, I obviously have my disagreements with both Baptist and Pentecostal theology, and certainly I disagree with members of those churches who…say…oppose the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools. On the other hand, I agree strongly with them when they stand up in favour of the traditional definition of marriage, or when they oppose embryonic stem cell research.

And I have to say: though I disagree with them over the evolution issue, their proselytism is, on the whole, generally not a bad thing. Most of them are earnestly convinced, as I am, that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, who died and rose again for the salvation of all mankind from their sins. Take a look again at the Nicene Creed (above), O Reader: that’s what a Christian evangelist is attempting to bring into the lives of others. It’s not a bad thing to bring at all; it is not antithetical to reason, it is not dark or sinister — indeed, it is joyous news. A genuine Christian evangelist brings first and foremost this message to the unbeliever: “You are loved.”

Atheists the world over are, of course, welcome to dispute specific tenets of the various Christian faiths, and are encouraged to dispute the silly opposition some Christians have to the teaching of the theory of evolution in science classes. Indeed, atheists are even welcome to dispute the central thrust of the Christian evangelical message — they are welcome to deny that some transcendental divinity loves them, personally, as an individual.

But there is no inherent threat or danger in the Christian evangelical message; there is no subversion of reason, no need to abandon all other things that one knows, and no need to sacrifice one’s freedom (except perhaps in the sense that, if one’s conversion is true and motivates a change of heart, one might give up certain aspects of one’s lifestyle that one comes to realize are immoral — but even this is not a negative thing). And even when Christian evangelists focus on negatives — for example, the impending danger of eternal damnation — one cannot say that their hearts are not still in a good place; I wish Hell upon no man, nor on any woman, and no earnest Christian ever should. One can hardly fault Christians, then, for wanting to try and convince as many people as they can to turn away from something so horrible, even if it means that their evangelical rhetoric is not the most…palatable.

Now, I’ll grant that some Christian evangelists (a minority, thankfully) go astray from the above — Jack Chick fans are an easy example here. That is a pity, and such men and women do Christianity no credit. But it has to be observed, on the other hand, that most mainstream Christians look at such men and women and shake their heads; many also vocally denounce the errors such men and women make (I certainly do, as the long-time Reader will doubtless know).

What of Muslim evangelism? What is being “sold” therein? While moderate strains of Islam do exist, it has to be noted that the majority of Islamic schools, lobby groups, and evangelical ministries seem to be funded by either the Iranians (on the Shia side) or the Saudi Arabians (on the Sunni side). That in turn means that a goodly number of Muslim evangelical efforts are “selling” a more radicalized form of Islam that, while it may not be as vocal in opposing the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools, harbours substantially darker things beneath its surface — misogyny, violent rhetoric, the infidel/non-infidel hostile dichotomy, and the dar-al-Islam/dar-al-Harb conflict model view of the world. In many parts of the world, and America is not exempt, Muslim imams call for a new global caliphate and the subversion of all world governments under one Islamic order.

There is, then, something of an inherent threat in the main form of Muslim evangelism in the world today. And the peculiar myopia of atheism, as I have noted previously, is that atheists prefer to heap their opposition and condemnations upon benign Christianity while simultaneously ignoring (to the point of actively denying, as Joel did in his first letter, that other religions even engage in proseltyism to any meaningful extent) more malignant religions in their midst. I cannot be certain why this is; fear of seeming racist, perhaps? The only atheistic author I can think of who has devoted any meaningful amount of attention to the threat of Islam is Christopher Hitchens, and even then he goes somewhat astray by attempting to framework his objections to Christianity based on the transgressions and violence of Islam.

I got that Joel was speaking primarily about America in his first e-mail, and perhaps I was not clear enough in turn: that he limited himself thusly was one of problems. The other, of course, is that he seems to be sorely misinformed about both religious trends in America and in the world, and that he is woefully ignorant about what Christian faith constitutes.

I termed this “myopia,” and have pointed out why limiting one’s considerations to the extent that Joel has done is folly.

Speaking of myopia, I should post Joel’s second response:

OK, so here is actual myopia.

I simply assumed this blog was U.S. based. Which caused me to write my original email with that context in mind. ugh.

(note to self: try reading the FAQ before assuming facts not in evidence)

O Reader, this would hardly be the first time I’ve been mistaken for an American. I don’t know why American readers instinctively assume that this blog has a U.S. origin, but it does happen fairly often; curious indeed. At any rate, no harm done (and a good laugh was had).

I might suggest that the same principle — reading before assuming — would be a good habit for Joel to get in to regarding any further objections to religion he makes in which he attempts to argue from the principles of the religion being opposed. His dismissal of Christianity as being about “God, Jesus, Bible” demonstrates an unfortunate ignorance on his part. Fortunately, though, the remedy is easy enough.

* simply recognizing Christ’s divinity does not automatically make one Christian; just ask the Druze