JCnot4me.com  

“Am I therefore become your enemy for telling you the truth?”

The Apostle Paul   Galatians 4:16

Damn The Truth! Full Speed Ahead!!!

Mark Smith    JCnot4me.com

Christians oft times hypocritically pretend to be objective seekers of truth. In contradiction to this they are usually nothing more than maintainers of the status quo, defenders of the old faith, people who circle their theological wagons every time science launches a new arrow of truth in their direction. Their guiding motto has been, is, and always will be: 

Whatever promotes Christianity shall be promoted.

Whatever hinders Christianity shall itself be hindered.

In science classes we were all taught that there is no such thing as a "wrong" outcome to an experiment. If you predicted "X" and instead "Y" happened, that was yet another piece of valuable evidence to help you fine-tune (or even scrap) your theory. Scientists often welcome negative evidence even more than positive, as it helps guide them to what is really true, rather than what just seemed to be true at first. Older theories are discarded as newer theories arise which better explain the data, which better "connect the dots". 

 

Christians, unlike scientists, hate any and all evidence that goes against their theories. Theologians have a very  hostile and oft times irrational attitude towards any evidence that would even suggest their theories need to be changed to fit the facts. To a Christian, a faulty theory is like an old member of the family whose mind has seen better days- something to warmly embrace and shield from all criticism. Christians,  rather than being disinterested seekers of truth as they oft times pretend to be, are thus shown instead to be preachers of established dogma, opinions firmly set in concrete, with their minds already made up for them two thousand years ago by a Jewish rabbi. To a fundy Christian, there is no "new truth" to seek out or be discovered. So rather than seeking out new truth, they instead only seek out new ways to defend their old "truths". This is the reason you'll never see a "Research and Development" department within a school of theology. It is also the reason why, in defense of Christianity, no argument is too circular, no appeal to emotion avoided, and no straw men are left unconstructed.

This is also the reason why the prominent theologian Dr. William Lane Craig answered a question of mine the way he did back on January 11, 1999, in Hope Chapel, Hermosa Beach, California. I asked Craig the following question: If a new gospel were dug up that proved to be 100% authentic, would it be added to the New Testament? He answered that while a new gospel would certainly be interesting from an historical perspective, it would in no way be added to the New Testament. Thus Craig confirmed what us skeptics have known for years: to a good Christian there is no "new truth" or new evidence to seek out; only "old truth" that needs defending. New truth or new evidence might just not fit the approved theological cookie cutter by which modern theologians are stamped out at the factory. New truth, new evidence, and new ways of thinking, if it DARE go against the status quo,  may just need to be hunted down and if not destroyed outright (aka book and heretic burning), at least discredited (Craig's full time job) or hidden away (what the Catholics and Mormons have done).

Tampering With The Evidence  So how should we picture Christianity, when it comes to handling evidence? Picture Christianity on trial, like the proverbial rich man who has bought off the local court system. Christians have it set up from the beginning within their religion so that evidence which supports their religion (be it real or manufactured) is allowed; evidence that doesn't, isn't.  The jury equals the church members, and the court system is the church, and this trial goes on every Sunday morning. At the end of the day, it is never a surprise which verdict the jury reaches. After all, they've only been allowed to see the evidence that shows the defendant to be innocent. Any and all evidence that would show the defendant to be guilty never makes it into the light of day in their "courtrooms". Imagine a criminal defendant on trial, with the power to bar all negative evidence out of the trial- this is modern Christianity. This issue of tampering with the evidence alone should be enough evidence for a thinking man to warn him away from the religion. Any religion that has to lie and deceive people in order to make converts is NOT a religion that anyone should want to join!

The following two rules are what guides a Christian's reaction when presented with new evidence, arguments, facts, fictions, news stories, or scientific discoveries. Memorize these two rules, and you will be on your way to understanding what makes a Christian tick.

Rule #1}  Whatever promotes Christianity is promoted.
Rule #2}  Whatever hinders Christianity is hindered.

Keep these two simple rules in mind and you'll be able to understand and thus predict how Christians will react. It matters not whether the arguments and evidence are true or false; in fact, damn the truth! Christianity- Full Speed Ahead!!! All that matters to the fundies is: do these things promote Christianity? If they do, Christians overwhelmingly will be for them. If they don't, Christians will do their best to discredit, hide, or even destroy them. They take the following maxim of Mark Twain to new low levels: Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story. For proof of this, all one has to do is look at the way they've run with the Cassie Bernall  story, embellishing the massacre at Columbine High School  of April 1999  with her “martyrdom”.  (See   https://richmerritt.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/myths-from-columbine-part-two-what-did-she-really-say/)

This dishonest attitude towards the truth didn't start with the tragedy at Columbine. Being selective about what parts of the truth get exposure, and what parts get buried, has a long tradition in their religion. Historian Edward Gibbon notes how the first church historian Eusebius, who lived around 300 CE, put this into practice:

The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has SUPPRESSED all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion...(he has thus) so openly VIOLATED one of the fundamental laws of history.  (On Christianity, Edward Gibbon, Prometheus, Buffalo, New York, 1991 pp. 131, 132)

Thus we see that evidence, rather than being objectively welcomed into the court of human opinion by Christians (as they PRETEND to do), must first instead pass thru their ecclesiastical filters to remove anything harmful to their established theories. Had scientists been playing by these same rules, we'd still be doing our nighttime reading by candlelight. Fundy Christians hypocritically pretend to be objective seekers of truth; in contradiction to that they are nothing but defenders of the old faith.