Sunday, November 20, 2011
Three Sermons On Sunday
None of the above, of course, would ever be persuasive to believers. Some points are the very ones I've made here and elsewhere. They are, after all, pretty obvious. (I'd not have made all of the above arguments, because some are a little circular in their own right. Which in no way diminishes the rest.) Most importantly, you simply can't reconcile the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and loving god with what we observe of the world. The claims made can only be rejoined by repeating the faith that's being questioned. So the circle remains unbroken, beliefs unquestioned.
Still, it's challenging -- or it ought to be -- to hear such things said eloquently and to realize that to the central arguments -- the suffering, the immorality of eternal punishment and the associated world-views, the fact that Jesus didn't die for our sins and he knew it -- there is no logical disproof. I get that belief is not about logic; it is, in fact, an antidote to it. But you'd think that after all this time, people would have found a way at least to be internally consistent in their beliefs. When immorality is central to the appeal of a particular religion, why does it continue to exist? When what you believe is overtly at odds with everything we can see with our eyes, what's the point?
That the same is the case with teabaggerism is not at all coincidental, by the bye.