Sadly, Allonehhob's last contribution

Submitted by iasius (India), Dec 3, 2005 at 09:49

Allonehhob, you said: "I can't understand why all of this hatred to Christianity" If you are unable even now to identify a reason for "all of this hatred to Christianity", you sure have wasted your time!

You write: "…if you had bad experience with few Christian people, it doesn't give you the right to accuse the religion and accuse those who risk their lives for the needy in the world." There is a distinct and qualitative difference between missionaries and laity. Constituents of laity, by themselves, are as good or bad as any non-Christian because they need to co-exist and earn honest livelihoods in the real, multi-faceted world. The former, on the other hand, are professional swindlers actually paid to spread lies and illogic – something that dramatically changes the complexion of their existence and exertions. No one in his right mind would blame Christianity for the misdemeanor of one who is incidentally a lay Christian. By the same token, it would be foolish to give credit to Christianity for some notable contribution a lay Christian makes to society, but that is beside the point. The same logic cannot apply to the missionary because wholesale deception in the name of Christianity is his primary job. The courage evinced by missionaries in risking their lives is remarkable. So is that of a suicide bomber. But while the latter blows up just a few bystanders along with himself for his faith, the former annihilate entire civilizations as their record amply proves, or at least subvert them for lucrative ends. One wonders who is more deleterious to humanity!

You write further: "Two Canadians Christian relief workers were abducted few days ago in Iraq, their life is in real danger, I am sure they will be killed by insurgents like many others who were burned, tortured and killed all over the world." One cannot but feel both indignant and distressed that people are being abducted with impunity in certain parts of the world. They are at once both dastardly and cowardly acts. Nevertheless, it appears from what Dr. Pipes writes on the home page of his site [http://www.danielpipes.org/], that the detainees belong to the ‘Christian Peacemaker Team'. See Dr.Pipes comment: "A reader informs me, with authenticating details I am not at liberty to divulge here, that CPT provided cover in Iraq for International Solidarity Movement members. Some "peace activists"! More accurately, they are described as apologists for and abettors of terrorism." I rather feel no further comment is needed.

You also state: "you have no lack for imagination." Your compliments are beginning to embarrass me now, and I am worried they might also create a feeling of complacency that could slacken me in my quest for getting at the truth of things.

Your comment: "Thank you for saying that I am either a lawyer or evangelist, but my analysis based on your writing is that you don't have anything useful to do other than insulting people who you can't reach their level of humanity." I had never imagined calling someone an evangelist was tantamount to an insult in Western Christian parlance, and I tender unqualified apologies. Now that you have vouched for the prevailing usage, I will take serious note and desist from using ‘evangelist' as an expletive. Incidentally, it makes no difference whether or not I have "anything useful to do", does it, to what we are discussing?

I was amused, but only mildly, at: "….he and people like him will always find ways to provide false accusation that matches their agenda. Even when we apologize, they will think that we are doing this to backup our "Agenda"". Quite correct, only that such accusation would be fully justified. Haven't we seen the late Pope's masterful histrionic performances when he lumbered all over the world apologizing and shedding crocodile tears in profusion for grievous acts against humanity his Church had committed in the name of a so-called ‘Savior' and his ‘Father' all through its gory history? We have also seen that the agenda of the Church changed not a whit, which only proves the apologies were not sincere. Far from mending its ways, the Church has redoubled its efforts in prosecution of the same old subversion game. Forced gifts of ‘Christian Love' in third world countries have assumed epidemic proportions. So, why blame people like me for possibly looking askance at feigned sincerity in any apology from staunch (even if patently deluded) supporters of the very same self-serving ideology? It may have worked in the past. But it won't any longer. Not to speak of Christianity's home countries, populations even in third world countries are showing signs now that they possess nails and hammers in profusion for the Church's coffin. The embalming is over; some nails are already in place. The only thing preventing them from actually going ahead with burial proper is their own intellectual, political and economic limitations, which, in any case, were unscrupulously inflicted upon them by exclusivist mercantile enterprises like Christianity.

About your statement: "What would you expect from someone who accuses Jesus of having political agenda, and accusing Mother Teresa of being a terrorist, however at the same time he says that Jesus didn't exist." Wrong again, Allonehhob! As I have said often before, ‘our' Jesus (of the Gospels) could not have existed. There may have been ‘other real' Jesus (though not strictly with that name) who most probably provided the role model for ‘our' fictitious one, that's all. And, I am not "accusing" Jesus Christ (IESAPL) for espousing a purely political agenda. I am "firmly stating" Jesus Christ (IESAPL) HAD a political agenda and nothing else. The conviction is based squarely on Christian sources themselves as juxtaposed with non-synoptic sources, which just HAVE to be accorded equal (if not more) authenticity. Likewise, I am not merely "accusing" the step-mother for terrorism, which in her case as I stated earlier, was of a qualitatively more subtle variety than the one we presently experience at the pious hands of votaries of Christianity's younger and more energetic sister, Islam. No, Allonehhob, I am actually HOLDING HER FULLY RESPONSIBLE for it. (Please note that these views are based upon my reading of what we currently know. Nevertheless, since I am not even remotely anything like a blinded-by-faith inveterate Christian, I am blessed with the liberty, mentality and ability to unhesitatingly and necessarily change my convictions in the light of new evidence that may falsify them at any later date.)

Alas! Your final statement: "This is my last contribution, I know Iasius will laugh and reply with all of his sarcastic comments, but who cares, until I hear something rational and makes sense then I will reply, otherwise it is a waste of time." On the contrary, I am very sorry this is going to be your "last contribution", and far from emitting a "laugh", I would much rather shed a tear of sadness. Debate is an excellent method of gaining awareness not only about a different opinion but also of reality itself. And debating with someone as erudite as you or Don and several others is indeed a privilege. By withdrawing yourself from further exchanges on the forum, you are unwittingly depriving others and me of that rare privilege.

I only hope, however, that my "irrationality" is the sole reason for your withdrawal.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".