Skip to main content

Skeptical of accepting category of "Religion" as the problem

Richard Dawkins and others like to state that particularly after 9-11 they've come to see "religion" as a threat (/problem).

While the events of 9-11 were on one level done in the name of "religion" (or in the name of Islam); one could also say that the actions were done in "unbelief" as opposed to those who believe (even though they were done according to the individual's 'errant & destructive' beliefs) ... in the sense that it was not "religion" per se that was the problem, but actually the deviation from true religion that both founded and motivated the acts of terrorism and killing.

My point is that as believers, we should not allow atheists to select the categories without being challenged on it, for "an apple can be cut several ways", and simply letting atheists define the problem in terms of "religion" versus "non-religion" gives the appearance of a high-ground to secularist views while seemingly dirtying the name of "all" religion, without sufficient grounds.

In effect, they have tried to "combine" Christianity (and other religions) in "assigning" the blame of Islam to all. The blatant unreasonableness of such attacks deserves to be exposed and should not be left unchallenged.

The truth is that the attacks of 9-11 are perfectly consistent with the timeless truths of God's Word concerning the nature, motives and practices of those who are found to be and persist in unbelief. While in saying this I do not seek to put the blame of the Muslim terrorists upon Atheists, and yet it remains true that those who oppose Christ are often found to kill, steal, and to destroy.





......
Type rest of the post here
......

Comments

  1. Sword,
    Good post. Mr. Dawkins has wrongly assigned categories.

    Believers of false religions and false believers of Christianity are in the same boat with atheists. The real distinction is between true Christians (believers) and everyone else (unbelievers). The prince of this world holds sway in the unbeliever camp, while Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit controls those who are believers.

    We must bear in mind that many unbelievers will become believers in due time.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Eckhart Tolle Christianity (Understanding Eckhart Tolle - Comparison / Difference with Christianity)

I believe it important that both believers and unbelievers understand the difference between the teaching of Eckhart Tolle and Christianity. Here's a brief post to introduce you to a few of the significant differences. (Note, I've just been exposed to Tolle, but it doesn't seem to take long to discern the differences) Context (the problem)Taken from here .: Despite Oprah and Eckhart's reduction of Christianity to but one "way" amongst many other equally legitimate ways to God, and their calling Christ a "revolutionary" who has been misunderstood by the Church, and who simply came to manifest "Christ-consciousness", a quick search through the internet reveals that many Christians are following Oprah in attempting to fuse together the teachings of Eckhart, and the doctrines of the historical Christian church. Great website to gain quick summary of Eckhart's beliefs/teachings: Ripples on the Surface of Being Key Responses by Eckhart To...

Eckhart Tolle - Christian Response

Unbelievable! ...The extent man not founded upon Christ will go and follow in their quest and pursuit of self and attempts to explain away reality and sin. Here's Oprah's spiritual sage... Response: 1. He resurrects errors of the past which deny reality by seeking to replace it with forms. 2. By reducing the past to forms (or photo albums) he not only denies the reality of the past but the extent of it's connectedness and relationship to the present. This error he also translates in regard to the future. 3. He establishes a false premise that one can separate the reality of the present ("now") from reality itself, which he vests in onesself (though he inconsistently goes on to suggest that life is found in abandoning oneself) 4. He has no grounds or basis for assuming reality is found in self (and apart from everything else, or only what one want's to allow) 5. By denying the truth of God, he falsely asserts that the future is no longer problematic...

Global Blasphemy Laws

One of the interesting things about discussions surrounding blasphemy laws (whether by the UN or others)is they cannot be conducted without coming back to the central question: What is Truth? Seems this was the question in Jesus' day, it's the question which comes us today, and it's a question which cannot be avoided. ... suppose God intended it to be this way?

Search This Blog