Challenged directly by tutor

Hi all, thought I should share that recently I was directly challenged from my tutor not in a merely dismissive, indifferent manner... but a full frontal assault. A blessing in disguise? A gift of the opportunity to evangelise to him(the tutor)?

Here is a message from him (followed by my reply and one other Christian's reply so far) - please evaluate.

Re http://godisimaginary.com/

I suggested the group try these 50 Questions. Jacky Lam, kindly and courteously, replied to me, inter alia, that they were 'not new'. Well sorry Jacky (and your friends) since you persist in airing your views on FB you can have no objecton this bull having finally lost patience with the red rag you keep waving in his face!

Of course my objections are not ‘new’ Jacky, to my certain knowledge, I have been arguing them since before you were born (yes I am that old). I think you’ll find that intelligent people have been arguing against the mind numbing stupidity of all religious ‘belief’ at least since the time of Lucretius. Oh yes, and then there is the little matter of The Enlightenment for you to deal with and, in no particular order, Hobbes, Spinoza, David Hume, Marx, John Stuart-Mill, George Elliot, Percy Bysshe Shelly, Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Hardy, George Orwell, Philip Larkin, Freud, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, John Updike, A.J Ayre, Salman Rushdie, Ian McEwan … not to mention Darwin and Einstein, before you even begin to take on Stephen Hawking, astro-physics and the origin of the universe (and our obscure insignificant de-centred place in it) string theory, qantum mechanics, and then Richard Dawkins and the origin of DNA, just for starters!

I think my main objection to all religious ‘believers’ is that they just will not leave people alone. If you want to ‘believe’ and put your ‘faith’ (as you clearly do) in fairy stories that have no basis in historical fact, never mind operating outside every single scientific one, that is your, and in my view, sad destiny. It is the need to proselatise such dangerous clap-trap on FB and elsewhere, particularly to children in HK schools, that I seriously and vehemently object to. (See your blog 'Easter Club'. Children 4 -11. 5 'talks' 9 Bibles! There is no such thing as a 'Christian child' Jacky, only Children who are indoctrinated by adults, however well meaning. If it was political or economic theory or Nazism or Communism in China, you would say it was tantamount to child abuse. Why is Christian 'doctine' any different when instilled into a 'captive' 4-year old?)

It is bad enough in European culture, where there is at least a semblance of a chance that the history of the Christian Church (that is, to all intents and purposes, the Catholic Church and its ‘Orthadox’ and Protestant schisms and off-shoots over the past 2000 years) might be ‘recognized’ and taught as history. In HK many of the local ‘innocents’ are so utterly devoid of any Judeao-Christian, historical anchoring, that they constantly say things to me like ‘No I am not a Catholic I’m a Christian’. Sometimes I want to pat them on the head other times I want to slap some sense into them, depending on my mood. Western missionaries have a lot to answer for in replacing an historically Chinese belief in the supernatural with and equally nonsensical Western one. In the case of the many protestant 'sects' here in HK they ones which are historically, often falsely and dishonestly portrayed, in terms of their origins in Catholic teaching.

Perhaps it is no co-incidence that the Abrahamic ‘God’ of the Judeao-Christian-Isalmic religions are based on ‘revelations’ to semi-stupefied peasants in desert regions ‘long, long ago’. Of course, not everyone is taken in by ‘spiritual experiences’ ‘ghost stories’ and ‘babblings from beyond’. I have met many intelligent ‘believers’ (and one time believers, one of my best friends is a Greek & Roman scholar and former Precentor of Canterbury Cathedral … now an atheist public school Latin teacher) but there is not one in human history remotely qualified to say that they ‘understood’ the mind of God. Yet that is precisely what you (as you describe yourself, a 'fundamentalist Christian bible-basher) and those that profess to be mono-theistic Christians, Jews or Muslims must claim. So however modestly and humbly you think you express your views (and you always do) I can have no respect for them.

I would never, personally, describe myself as an atheist because this puts me on the back-foot in having to give too much away to ‘believers’. As Sam Harris has argued, I do not feel the need to describe myself as an ‘anti-racist’ why would I even begin to feel the need to describe myself as an anti-theist? The idea itself is just too stupid in the first place, tout court. The existence of a deity cannot ever be dis-proved but at least an intelligent theist can opt to be a mere deist (i.e. that the sheer magnificence of the known universe and everything in it strongly implies an ‘ordering force’) as much as I regard that idea with equal contempt. By contrast, those besotted by religion, have to go one further and say, as Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, ‘that this creative force is also an intervening one: one that cares for our human affairs and is interested in what we eat and with whom we have sexual relations, as well as the outcomes of battles and wars’. For you and others to even begin to assert such nonsense is quite simply to assert more than any human being can or will ever know, and why it makes me so cross when you attempt to do so, particularly to the young and the ignorant, the vulnerable and the infinitely gullible.

Homo-sapiens have been on earth for at least 150,000 years and if you want to ‘believe’ in one of the tens of thousands of shamans offering ‘miracles’ that just happens to have become (through violence, bloodshed, corruption and the naked armed power of Catholic Popes) a popular fairy story for the past 2000 of those 150,000 years, that is your choice. If, despite your expensive education, you feel the need to persist in a belief in the ‘virgin birth', and people rising from the dead, I suppose you are only deluding yourself. But even if you could ‘prove’ it categorically, this still would not come close to ‘proving’ Jesus was the ‘son of god’, would say absolutely nothing about truth and morality let alone an afterlife (ha ha), or ‘last judgement’. It is just proof of the stubbornness with which otherwise intelligent people can cling to opinions without a shred of evidence to support them.

Again, to quote Hitchens directly, my simple position on all religion (and on the rule of law for that matter) is this: ‘ … the original form of tyranny of man over man, and of man over the mind of man (sometimes called totalitarianism) was certainly theocratic, and no overcoming of the absolutist or of the arbitrary is complete unless it includes a clear-eyed rejection of any dictator whose rule is founded on the supernatural … who [in their right mind except fundamentalist religious epigones like you and your PCLL Christian group, apparently!] wishes that there was a permanent, unalterable, celestial despotism that subjected us to continual surveillance and could convict us of thought-crime, and who regarded us as its private property even after we died? How happy we ought to be that there is not a shred of respectable evidence to support such a horrible hypothesis. And how grateful we should be to those of our predecessors who repudiated this utter negation of human freedom'.

He goes on … 'If anything proves that religion is not just man-made but masculine made, it is the incessant repetition of rules and taboos governing the sexual life. The disease is pervasive, from the weird obsession with virginity and the one-way birth canal through which prophets are ‘delivered’ through the horror of menstrual blood all the way to the fascinated disgust with homosexuality [where do you stand on this Jacky? Do you support the legal right for 16-year-olds to bugger each other in private in HK?] and the pretend concern with children (who suffer worse at the hands of the faithful than any other group) [Cathoic Priests in the US, we know the vile suffering you inflicted on thousands of children]. Male and Female genital mutilation; the terrifying of infants with hideous fictions about guilt and hell; the wild prohibition of masturbation [I won’t ask you where you stand on this, though personally I am in favour!]: religion will never be able to live down the shame with which it has stained itself for generations in this regard, any more than it can purge its own guilt for the ruining of formative periods of precious life’ (‘The Portable Atheist’, Christopher Hitchens, 2007).

----

Hi Keith, Given the word limit, forgive me for doing it comment after comment after comment... for I have some things to say just in response to this note (and to make sure that people are aware of what I think as well)... Firstly, your concerns are something which I do consider everytime I speak the gospel to someone. When you lay yourself up for a discussion on the generic topic of God, before moving on to Christianity (to which you often used the historical/academic term 'Judeo-Christian'), I tend more than often to grab such opportunities to share my faith in God. Why? Not because I am a self-righteous despotic person trying to spread my self-righteousness onto others.. (and I think you can see that :) ) rather, I am telling people about this object of faith which - frankly - is pretty amazing in my eyes.

Jacky Lam wrote at 11:48pm Now, like Tim says on his facebook profile, I don't want to spoon feed anyone. I am here as a witness that God did indeed change my life and no-one can take that truth away from me -- and everytime I proselytise, I am telling people about this amazing truth which changed my life and that this living truth can change theirs too. Surely, I am not prevented from sharing this good news to others? Of course, we then come to the T-junction... and you have of course responded negatively to my personal expressions (such as my prayers for you or people in general) to which I am not surprised actually. I used to persecute Christians and laugh at them on some level, without necessarily using intellect to browbeat them, but on a very simple 'common-sensical' level. Yet, now, I don't rely on common sense... I don't think there ever was such thing as an objective common sense, esp. having been blessed with the opportunity to travel to many places and meet many people in my short 22 yrs.

And rather bewildered at my change, and having seen and met at least over a thousand Christians by now being changed so drastically for God, it is almost like I am meeting a bunch of people who have returned from an AA meeting, fully reformed. A fellowship of humble, honest people who - rather than relying on themselves, decide to rely on a completely irrational concept. God. Yes, you have the odd people like Pascal, Augustine, Aquinas, Lane Craig, Piper, Warren, Locke, Hegel who try to bring religion into the secular sphere and make God understandable... and yet, at the same time, they make God even less understandable than ever, mixing in personal opinions and Scriptural views. So whilst I would rely little on historical views on God, the Enlightenment to which I am vaguely familiar, especially with the whole pseudo Christian Socinian debacle which essentially kick-started the Enlightenment, I'm not surprised that the huge anti-God backlash is not as a result of discontent

against God (and even if that is the case, that is not surprising since I believe that we are all born with the tendency to rebel against a higher being), but more so (the Enlightenment anyway) a discontent against self-contradicting Christians. Indeed, such internal struggle will never end, with the huge scandals of all religious people (Muslim extremists; Catholic fathers taking advantage of young children to which the Pope apologised; Inquisition against Catholics and Protestants alike; Jewish persecution... you name it, I'm ashamed of it), any non-Christian will respond in disgust. Yet, Christianity (and by no means do I represent all Christians in the fellowship at PCLL) is joy in this atheistically defined delusion. Because to us, it IS the truth - it is more true than some aspects of science (I think you were speaking with some authority concerning Homo-sapiens being around for 150,000 years, but I'm positive that among my friends who studied/study evolutionary psychology

/biology for PhD or whatnot, with their more learned and paid time spent to think all day long how to debunk religious nonsense, would still respectfully concur that there are still some disputed truths about evolution and origin of species which, though it still debunks their interpretation of Genesis, is by no means united in its method of debunking). Surely, just because scientists working at Answers-in-Genesis in USA/UK; the marginalised intelligent design scientists (who are not religious by any means), are not recognised in the scientific community, that is not a standard through which we immediately dismiss creationism and certain aspects of Christian miracles as so anomalous that it must be eradicated completely?

Ultimately, there is so much more to be said, and while I can continue on (and of course continually learn more over the course of my life - since I am indeed so young and can only rely on God to impart more wisdom to me over time!) - I feel that this discussion can go on for a little while, subject to changes in our lives which will also alter our worldviews and convictions. And of course, though my comments are long(-winded!), I trust you note is intentionally for all people to see and for all people to comment. I thank you for your honesty, and I hope to match it with mine.

So just in response to two things which you mentioned (which I think you wanted me to respond to specifically): Hitchens' view on on religion (and the rule of law for the matter) - is the despotism that is God. Please don't be offended when I say that... I don't actually understand what kind of God he is referring to. And yet, this is a similar sentiment that the majority of atheists worldwide have about God... repression, despotism, authoritarian, domineering etc etc... and somehow, as a Christian (again, I cannot speak for other religions... since there's a reason I'm not a liberal multi-religionist, but a Christian!), the God described in Scripture is nothing like the despotic theocratic God which you described. If there is such a disagreement... then perhaps we ARE talking past one another, as I've said, like jurisprudential lawyers of the modern day.

Now you can try to compare me with Muslims and Jews who also believe in this Judeo-Christian God, but again... I'm saying that I disagree with them (and I am positive they also disagree with me on who/what God is!). So if there are disagreements as such, then I would urge all non-religious people, when addressing religious issues, would try to address these issues more specifically rather than create a generalised post-modern version of God as is so common in modern culture. Now.. as Hitchens continues, he says that men (who created God.. a la Nietzsche and Freud) had created this anti-homosexual, sexually repressive social taboo, virginity pre-marriage and so forth. If I may clarify... I know many homosexual Christians, Christians who have sex before marriage, Christians who shout at their mummies and daddies without a shred of regret and etc...yet, at the end of the day, Christ makes them aware of what they now consider as their objective law - God's law...

... yet, they don't say to themselves, "I will force myself to be ascetic, to impose this asceticism on everyone else regardless of their belief". No. I pray (and by no means is this happening yet) that Christians will say, "I'm sorry God, and I am sorry to the person whom I was rude to (or whatever he/she did); I pray for your forgiveness and for the forgiveness of ____... and that I can even have the privilege to know you because of Jesus Christ and what he did when he was a social outcast while he was here on earth". Judgmental Christians are the bane of the faith, and God detests that. But God's law (for us) still stands. So when a homosexual wishes to believe in God, we sensitively tell them that God wishes for all men and women to be heterosexual, not to 'repress' them sexually, but to 'release' them from what God calls a bondage. And of course, everyone can say its God's word against yours, etc etc... and what is the point of obeying God's law if you aren't even..

a Christian. And YES!! I AGREE! I think that if you're a non-Christian, there is absolutely no reason for a Christian to persecute homosexuals/etc just because they're doing something which we view as sinful in God's eyes. Why? Because they don't even believe in God! Why then would it make any difference if we were to theocratically impose on them this 'law' if they are unwilling to do it, since they feel there is no God (let alone any respect for Him). Do my answers provide any particular insight? As a Christian, every act of mine is to show one or two different personalities of God as proclaimed in Scripture. The Christian view of non-pre-marital sex, of heterosexuality, of complementarianism of male/female roles etc... are all meant to show a facet of the personality of a holy family, the Trinity, the relationship between what we call the Father who commands the Son, the Son who relies on the Father, the Son and Father who can't do anything without the Spirit.

Now.. the implication therefore is that everyone in the world, whatever we do, is an offshoot of our world-view belief anyway. Your respect for science and certain interpretations of it led you to witness to a type of evolution that denies any possibility for the Trinity. My respect for God led me to witness to a truth that denies everything else. When viewed as such... any attempt to unite society through naive ideas of globalism/tolerance etc is thrown out the window - because disagreements will stay until one comes to either side (so either Christians renounce their faith or non-Christians renounce theirs). Like many of my homosexual friends, they don't wished to be merely tolerated, but to be completely accepted. Can we, as a people, completely accept every else's view? Absolutely not, for we will lose what philosophy entitles individualism (something increasingly popular in the last 50 years). So, I have come to the point to say that Keith, we have to agree that for now

... we have to agree to disagree. My adamant nature for God (which is by no means closed to all extra-biblical views mind you!) in contrast to your adamant nature against Him (which is also, by no means, closed to all intra-biblical views as I respectfully understand) will stay in opposition. The last thing I want to say is thank you. We need more honest people with strong convictions like you, rather than people indifferent to these issues. And it is because of these discussions that we can truly air our views, however preliminary or amateur-ish they sound, so that we become stronger in our convictions, or able to humble ourselves to change them. I believe that is one of the reasons why you train the moot teams, so that you don't indoctrinate them but let them come to these decisions themselves. And so I, like other Christians, come to know God by our personal choice. So I trust you can do the same with my views, and of course do the same with self-evaluating yours.

Hilarie Lam wrote at 12:48am Keith, u do have a free choice whether or not to believe. Choice, from the very beginning of the world, is given to u by God. Don't u ever wonder why the all-powerful God doesn't convert everyone to Christians? well that's because he doesn't want to, not because he can't. As Jacky and other brothers and sisters contend, we are not forcing ppl into the christian "gang", rather our spreading of his Word is a response to his love. His love is so amazing that those who have experienced it have no choice but to share with others. I will not venture on Keith but since u know that we are doing this out of altruism - one cannot but wonder, why is Christianity able to command such response?