ambiguity

March 16, 2010

WWJD? Absolutely Nothing.

Filed under: Uncategorized — theinkhorn @ 10:55 am

Reverend Tan Cheng Huat, senior pastor of True way Presbyterian Church, wrote an article as a guest columnist for the Christian Post yesterday. Tan, and I refuse to refer to him by his title because unlike him and his flock, and also most of the christian population, I don’t see how adding the word “reverend” in front of his name bequeaths him additional respect and dignity.

Tan’s article is one drenched with sorrow. The sentiments detected run along the lines of despair, despondence, and dejection. Of course, that is in addition to the usual contemptuous, vainglorious and supercilious inclination. He begins by declaring the presence of a crisis in the church. The catastrophe is that more and more churches are participating in activity that he clearly does not approve of. Right away, without even attempting to hide it, the man’s arrogance is displayed. His belief and disapproval of churches conforming more and more to society in a bid to attract the “unsaved” borders on fundamental. Not to mention the usage of the word “unsaved.” I take offense to the way christians refer to those who refuse to succumb to their advances as “unsaved”, or “souls”. It speaks volumes of their tendency to patronise. It is as if we are not fit to be referred to as people, as if we aren’t of similar social status. If anyone is attracted to this religion, it is only because of their desire to belong to what they perceive as the elites, the ones who know the truth and will save us all. It is a desire to be powerful.

In my previous post, I attacked Islam for being a dangerous religion. Christianity, despite ranking slightly lower on the danger scale, cannot claim itself to be a religion of peace either. Not when the entire bible speaks of war, killing and punishment. The old testament tells the story of a god who, if sufficiently provoked with human emotions such as jealousy, will wipe you off the face of the earth. But at least that’s where it ends. All is forgiven once you’re dead. The new testament speaks of a different deity. One who will allow you to provoke him during your time on earth, but as soon as you pass, will sentence you to eternity in a working microwave oven. I simply cannot agree with those who decide to worship such a cruel and unjust deity, not to mention dishonest(he claims to love you).

Tan’s entire attack on conformist churches can simply be disproven with one logic: He’s not necessarily correct. Who is he to tell them what and what not to do? It is ridiculous. This statement makes my point even further.

“In our present time, being inclusive takes on a very different meaning – it is acceptable to many believers that one must gain the respect of the unsaved, indulge in the interests of the unsaved and even live like the unsaved in order to win them to Christ.”

And all of a sudden, the absurdity kicks into high gear. What a preposterous statement. All of a sudden, it is not important for one human to gain the respect of another fellow human. All of a sudden, the general definition of inclusivity does not correspond with his. Again, who made him the boss? Could it be… this particular verse from his holy book?

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14 NKJV)

Similar to Islam, this verse gives authority to anyone who decides to alienate society, or in extreme cases, to commit murder. A christian could very well claim self-defense in court by employing this verse. But that’s not the point. The point is, if believers are in disagreement over messages the bible is attempting to propagate, then how much credibility is there? Why should people believe in something you can’t even agree on?

“People today talk about embracing “tolerance, diversity and unity” for The New World Order. It’s no longer a question of what is right or wrong, good or bad, lawful or unlawful, but rather how we all FEEL ABOUT IT… no absolutes, no conscience, no convictions, no laws, no Constitution, no Bible and NO GOD!!!…”

This last part, this quasi-exclamation echoing pseudo-despair, is absolutely laughable. I’m afraid Tan has confused the rights and wrongs of a secular society with the rights and wrongs of a religious one. In a secular nation, the rights and wrongs are clearly defined. However, in the event that logic prevails, verdicts can be altered at the eleventh-hour. It has never been about how people feel, but about whether something makes sense. And there is absolutely no room for false concepts such as consciences, and certainly not for bibles and gods. In a religious society, however, punishment is mercilessly dealt out. Logic and science is belittled and labelled as false. All this is clearly demonstrated in countless scenarios, such as the use of torture and torture devices in medieval christian societies, and especially during the Spanish Inquisition.

“Many professing Christians today grossly misapply and misunderstand these texts.”

All in all, Tan’s article has only one intention: To exclaim to the entire christian community that they are wrong, and he is right. That he is far superior than they are in terms of interpreting the bible. He goes on to remind christians that the right way to do it is by “speaking the truth in love as Jesus would”. It is utter bollocks. Tan makes his claims and refers to the bible as evidence.

I’m so very sorry if no one’s ever told you this, but the existence of the bible proves nothing of a god’s existence. What it does prove, is that decades after Jesus’ passing, a bunch of people found some ink and paper, and decided to write a book. Employing the bible as proof of Jesus’ character is, for the lack of a better term, dense. It is so unbelievably dense, I cannot help but wonder if it’s intentional.

If society is ever going to move forward, then the stifling conducted by religion must end. People like Tan must open up their minds and embrace the fact that one day, they will no longer walk this earth. They won’t be in any sort of spiritual realm either, and their time currently being spent propagating myths and fairy tales could be put to much better use. If they truly wish to serve society well, the abandonment of their religion, followed by the dedication to good causes, would be very much welcomed.

Tan Cheng Huat’s article can be read here.

Advertisements

2 Comments »

  1. Your opinions are highly provocative, but not without substance. In fact, you spoke my mind on several points and you have garnered yourself an audience.

    Comment by cryhavok — May 6, 2010 @ 11:05 am

  2. Someone’s got to do it. Appreciate it, cryhavok.

    Comment by theinkhorn — May 7, 2010 @ 12:17 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: