The Whining Christian

As of late, I have been engaged in a debate cum discussion, more or less, with a Christian who has accused me, amongst a myriad of his misfortunes, of being abusive (kind of the abused housewife syndrome on his part), angry, morose, and worst of all, unsympathetic of his beliefs.

Indeed, those who know me well enough, online or otherwise, do know of my infamous temper; I am quite prone to anger, especially from those who commit the Sin of Stupidity (tis the only Sin in my vocabulary, the rest are imaginary), and yes, I have little patience for morons who act and behave like half-witted simpletons who have amoebas for brain cells.

With this in mind, Marcus Mok comes into the picture: I first came across one of his blog posts (link here), in which, amongst other things, he accuses atheists of untying the "good" work of his Christian brethren. Apparently, some atheists had tried to de-convert (if there is indeed such a word) a sheep whom had just joined the Christian fold, and he was crying wolf. Very vindictive stuff.

While my first reaction was to lampoon him with four-letter expletives, a short perusal of his blog seems to indicate the presence of brain cells in the Christian brain of his; maybe, just maybe, I thought, he might be intelligent enough for a decent debate. I thought wrong.

Whining Away.........

Now, folks, I have never been wishy-washy enough to deem myself as an angelic creature of sorts; after all, I am an ex-navy guy, and if anything else, I hate pusillanimous fellows who wish to peddle crap to me, or attempt to sneak in bullshit under my radar screen.

Right from the start, I have been quite cordial in handling this Marcus guy: No expletives (or kept to a minimum), no insulting of immediate relations, and the works. I have also invited him for a debate, which he neither accepted nor forcefully declined.

Subsequently, however, after my first blog post titled: "A Debate With a Christian, Part I", he over-reacted. First, it was that harmless little caricature which I had pasted on the post proper; it seemed a little bit too "extreme" to him. I had then assured him that the cartoon was nothing more than mere jest.

Things went down the proverbial hill after that: I was accused, amongst other things, of being a tyrannical bully and a shadowy character of the Hitleristic kind.

Excerpts from his latest blog post (His in Red, my rebuttal in Blue):

1. Oh Dear, I am so, so busy!!!

As many of my friends have already known, I am in a life phrase of massive changes and adjustments: our baby is coming in January next year. The mantle of fatherhood is something I am still readying myself for. My primary responsibility now is to my wife and baby, and we are looking forward to it.

As a teacher, I have lesson plans and materials to prepare. I am accountable to my students.

I am also accountable to my church youths whom I lead.

Sure Marcus, you are SO DAMN BUSY (Busy wanking yourself???). Indeed, teaching, baby-making, church, the works. Fair enough. I give it to you.

WHY MUST YOU REPEAT THIS EXCUSE EVERY TIME YOU SEEM TO RUN OUT OF THINGS TO SAY??? Are you alluding that I am a bloody loafer who depends on cash outs for a bloody living?

You are busy, so am I. I work ten hours a day, flat out. I understand how it feels to be industrious, believe you me, but don't make it sound as a sympathy vote or attention-grabbing ploy, because it doesn't work on me. Besides, I have never compelled you to debate with me on any time basis, or any other basis for that matter. So, quit whining.

2. I Hate Debates!!!

Marcus makes it clear, on this post, that he detests debates: His reasoning is somewhat pusillanimous: He thinks debates are anything but fruitful. I guess in Marcus's little fantasy work, Jebus features highly on his list; there are no debates in his little imagination. Just androgynous Christians believing in the same doctrines or a hippie-loving Jesus.

A summary of his points (The rest can be gleaned from his post):

1) Debates tend to entrench opposite parties in their own propositions.

2) Debates not well moderated ended up appealing to emotionalism and sentimentalism, with little clarity given for reason and reflection.

3) Outcomes of debates is not necessarily conclusive.

From here on Mr Marcus rants and rants about the mishaps of debating, and why he just ain't interested. Fair enough.

But why accuse me of skulduggery when I have not engaged in any?

Accusations

I have been accused of the following nefarious deeds:

1. Taunting: Amongst other things, I have also commented on his tagboard and his blog.

Now, as a blog owner myself, I understand the open nature of blogs: As long as you invite people to comment, it is quite akin to opening the door of your home and inviting all manner of strangers: People will read what you write, comment, or sometimes abuse you. One has to be a little thick-skinned to endure negative comments, take it in your stride, and move on. Such is the nature of writing on blogs.

But Marcus doesn't want that. He doesn't want me to comment "excessively" on his tag board; so I inquired: What exactly is the problem? Why is he so afraid of my comments?

He takes that as a taunt of sorts:

Marcus: wow, u flooded my tagboard. We can carry our discussion elsewhere, ya? Over email and gmail chat, as we're doing

Which he tauntingly and inaccurately interpreted as worry:

Beast FCD: Why are you so worried? Let your Christian brethrens know the truth. Nothing but the truth.

A taunt of this nature will be too mild for me: Anyone with half my wit and talent as a bad-ass wordsmith can only take this as a token of insult. I can definitely craft a taunt that can insult your family line till the 18th generation, but for the sake of decency I haven't done that.....yet.

2. Rude for Debunking his Arguments

This is a bit of a sidetrack, but in a Gmail chat, I had torn down Marcus's half-arsed attempts in the art of the Apologetics Argument (Which to me is a half-arsed idea: How does one sum up any form of cohesive arguments in support of the Scriptures???), and in a follow up, I had kindly advised him not to waste any more resources and time on such futile endeavors:

My advice on the tag board:

Beast FCD: Ok ok. Got your point. Anyway, your apologetics class sux. I don't think you should pay money to attend it. I can debunk your arguments as easily as swatting a fly.

His Rebuttal:

Wait a minute. This is going overboard. I had written off my personal reflections, and I shall reiterate it as such: these are just my reflections. You do not take personal reflections as the sum total of my apologetics training. It is very unfair to my teacher, to say the least. It is also very unfair to me, and I'll explain why:

(What can I say? A bad master begets a bad student. A friendly advice of this sort is not a personal insult: If the teacher is a moron, change a new one. Incompetency should never be tolerated!)

I remembered he once promised to be civil if I remained civil. To my mind, I do not think I have acted in an uncivilised manner, unless he interpretts my probing questions as uncivilized. Surely, a civil response should be to point out my error first?

(Which I had done, numerous times: The most glaring error was the part when he said ADAM WAS A BIOLOGIST!!!!!)

To be fair, Beast had acted civilly before. Once I made a point about why he's so religious about his atheism. He pointed out to me that this is an ad hominem argument, and threatened me with retaliation. I learnt my manners, and a new word.

(Religious about atheism? Well, I think Marcus is talking about the art of oxymoron, or the philosophy of square circles. Point of note: I did not threaten Marcus in any way, physically, verbally or both.)

Could he be slightly more consistent in his manners?

(Always been, plus and minus a few cheeky remarks here and there.)

To my mind, I do not think he addresses my points adequately. In a Gmail chat later, he said that my arguments are phony. Well, 1) most of the arguments I've put forth are fairly original, so I'm happy you point out what is phony about them, as I can then refine it. 2) For the arguments that others more abled than I have put forth, I do not see him engaging adequately enough with it. For example, I made a reference to the kalam cosmological argument, and he dismissed it with some sweeping misconceptions and later a mathematical argument to disprove it (which reminded me of Dawkins). I later questioned the validity of that mathematical argument, and he tried to explain. All's well and good, but I remained unconvinced. There're loads of unqualified assumptions behind his explanation, but I had no time to seek further clarification.

(The argument was simple. If the idea that God has to be the first Cause, the mathematical probability that God's existence came from nothing would have been more infinitesimal than the Universe evolving all by itself.)

3. Rude for Requesting Christian to Wait his Turn

Being a concerned creature, I was wondering if the stress of all that counter-rebuttals was getting into our dear Marcus's head; when another Christian attempted to rescue Marcus, I kindly ask the 3rd party to wait his turn.

Guess what? I was accused of being an uncouth, uncivilized barbarian:

My comments on the blog post:

Wei wu:If you want a debate with me, you gotta line up.Marcus is first on my list. Beast FCD(Friend of Charles Darwin)

Apparently, asking someone to wait is akin to asking someone to shut up (I wonder if Marcus ever queues up for his food in the school canteen? He's a teacher.......).

Marcus's Response? I am the Devil with a two-pronged fork and a masking tape:

(Note that the same 'courtesy' was not extended to me when I commented on his blog. Others are free to engage with my points--I don't have a problem with that really--but when weiwu spoke up, he shut him up and ask him to line up.)

I did not extend the same courtesy? Read my blog post again, Marcus. Oh, if you can't read, allow me to quote myself:

"At no point have I assumed that you are here for a quarrel. While I cannot assure you the kind of response you will be getting (After all, I can't control the thoughts and reactions of posters who visit my blog, even if they do have nefarious motives), what I can assure you is that as long as we stick to the same decorum as we have done in the past, I am sure we can take this debate to some kind of a meaningful level."

A Pusillanimous Ending

Like a damn weasel he has proven himself to be, Marcus devoted entire paragraphs to mask the exact nature of the going-ons, sort of like white-washing a dirty wall:

"I doubt that you will read my blog post without a hint of anger or arrogance, though I certainly hope you could prove me wrong. If your or your friends' responses are vindictive and rude, rest assured that I will not allow you to tag/comment anymore. I certainly hope our friendship do not end on such terms.

The manner in which we sought the truth should match the gravity of the matter sought for.

You might want to know, Beast, that I did not quote from an apologetics guidebook, believe it or not. I write from my personal reflections, whether here or at your blog. Don't jump to criticize my course nor my books, just as I had refrained from criticizing any of the New Atheist writers."

To hell with you, Marcus. Stabbing me behind my back, and telling me not to be furious!

Sure, Marcus, you mentioned nothing from your Apologetics class? Remember "Adam is a biologist" crap you bantered about in my face like some kind of a Christian bait? Lying is a sin in your bible, Marcus. Remember that.

Add to the whole list of my insidious deeds, I had caused him to lose sleep: Gee, I never thought I was so scary (I know I have a face of a mutt, but mutts are ugly in a cute way.....):

"No, it isn't. I couldn't sleep the night I wrote this, so I got up at 2.30am and wrote all the way to 6.30am.

This shows the extent that I am affected. Rem u said u won't laugh."

Ok. I promised not to laugh. But I didn't promise that my readers won't be guffawing away at your abject cowardice and ineptitude.

Marcus: A Typical Christian Weasel

In any case, I have had enough of this Christian weasel. It has been a complete waste of my time; if anything else, I would like to comment on the Mumbai bombings and the sadistic and murderous nature of religion.

Until then, adios, and good night.

Beast FCD

Debate With a Christian, Part I

With regards to my early post: " Religion & Child Abuse", a Christian by the name of Marcus Mok has sent me a rather verbose reply. Instead of replying on intensedebate, I thought it would be best that I write a separate post to explain and elucidate my point of view here.

(Just to keep things up to speed: I have been asking Marcus to debate with me for quite some time; due to his hectic schedule he was unable to find time for a proper debate with me. So maybe, this can be a nice platform to maybe exchange and discuss our stances in a hopefully amiable manner.)

Marcus's comments in red, mine in blue:

1. Beast,
This is the first time I’m commenting on your blog. I’m not here to pick up a quarrel; I come as a friend to share my 1 cent’s worth. I said this because I am not sure what kind of response you and your readers might heap on me. But I hope you can read this, as well as any future comments from me, in this friendly tone, because this is the tone I will be speaking in.
I have no intention to defend the abuses of some religions you have mentioned. But I do have a problem accepting the verdict you placed on the mother of the 4 year old:

"Unfortunately for her child, her childhood will be a period fraught with fear and undue anxiety. Not only does she have to contend with a half-brained mother who thinks she is a wretched sinner, she has to deal with the insecurities of dealing with an imagined deity who is no better than Hitler and Mussolini and all the rest of the tyrants and despots who have walked on this planet at some point of time."

Marcus:

At no point have I assumed that you are here for a quarrel. While I cannot assure you the kind of response you will be getting (After all, I can't control the thoughts and reactions of posters who visit my blog, even if they do have nefarious motives), what I can assure you is that as long as we stick to the same decorum as we have done in the past, I am sure we can take this debate to some kind of a meaningful level.

2.
Writing, in your opinion, as a “half-brained father-to-be who thinks he is a wretched sinner”, I don’t see why that will spell “fear and undue anxiety” for the daughter’s childhood. The fact that we have sinned is part of the story—the fact that God still love us despite our sinfulness, and made provision for us and this child through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is the greater part of the story. And, frankly, the assessment that God is no better than Hitler and Mussolini is really bias in its very extreme. You have overlooked all the truths about God as good and loving in His nature. It is myopic. But I’ll touch more on this next time.

I would remind you that the Christian Bible reveals to us that we are first created in the image of God—the highest definition of human dignity possible. There is no higher honour$ for man than to be made for a loving relationship with his Creator.

While one can speak of God in the context of the new testament (i.e Jesus), the truth is that both the livid, murderous and jealous God of the Old Testament and the long haired, hippie Son of God of the New Testaments are in essence deities that can only be described in extreme polemics.

When you flip through the annals of the Old Testament, you will no doubt find chapter upon chapter of erroneous Biblical laws, coupled with the "smite thy infidel" ethics of the Hebrew Yahweh: The Story of Job and how he was sent into the hands of the Devil to be tormented simply to prove the ego of Yahweh, the story of Judah and how his son, Onan was smite by God for "spilling the seed", and the ecological and total obliteration of Earth with a catastrophic flood in the Noah's Ark episode, God is, in more ways than one, a tyrant, a despot and a terror spawned from the worst depraved imaginations of the human mind.

While Jesus was slightly better in terms of his more humane quality, one can't help notice that he also did curse fig trees which did not bear fruit off-season, and for the animal abuse he committed by casting demons into pigs so that they did commit suicide.

In the minds of PETA, Jesus is a murderer many times over.

That said, Jesus did add one small chink into God's supposedly impervious armor (Of course, there was Jacob, who wrestled with God the whole day and prevailed): His all-too-human frailty and his subsequent Crucifixion meant that the idea of the omnipotent deity was all but extinguished by his rather ignominious death.

In that sense, my statement which compares God to the worst despots and tyrants in history is made by taking into account both the old and new testaments' visceral versions of Yahweh in terms of the Holy Trinity(Father, Son, Holy Ghost).

As for Man being created in the image of God, I claim the exact opposite: We created God in our own image: Jealous, cruel and very vindictive. A benevolent God can hardly be expected if all God ever lusts is the smell of blood sacrifices (In the OT, pious men and women were expected to offer sacrifices of lamb unto the Lord) and the cruel decimation and forced assimilation of other non-Yahweh worshiping tribes (Read Numbers Chapter 31).

3.
It is unfortunate if a mother is so preoccupied with the original sin/the fall of man (Genesis 3) and forgot that we are first made in His image for a relationship with Him (Genesis 1-2). But I don’t think that is what the mother meant in her blog. She is highlighting a biblical truth which she’s applying in the way she view the child. That does not suggest at all that she is going to mistreat her and abuse her and make her existence ‘wretched’. I don’t think you’re reading her rightly.

I myself am fully convinced that I am a wretched sinner, and my daughter to come is also born under the curse of sin. But that is not my preoccupation as I parent my child. On the contrary, the child is a precious gift from God. She is a child made in the image of God. I do not possess her, such that I have the right to abuse her, but I must nurture her, guide her and instruct her, and lovingly discipline her if need be, but not in an abusive manner.

Marcus, I am not suggesting that the mother is physically abusing her child. What I am worried about is that, as a matriarch, the mother is an important figure in terms of guiding the child to a successful life; instead of coaching a child to be positive, this mother chooses to teach that her daughter is a wretched sinner who bears the tainted blood of the Original Sin. Such an archaic form of abuse is counter-productive to her mental development in her formative years, and this was manifested by the way her child thinks.

As the mother wrote on her blog, her child told her one day that she was a bad sinner: "But mummy, everyday I try and I want to be a good girl, but I can't do it. I can't be a good girl".This only sums up the extent of mental abuse she has undergone at the hands of her deluded mom.

4.
If I lost my temper and disciplined her too severely, that is precisely because I am a wretched sinner, and I do well to repent and ask God to heal my wretched heart as I nurse her. It is the humanness in me (or the lack of it) that needs to be corrected. Not my theology.

To accept the biblical view that human babies are fallen in sin is not to paint an abusive picture of them. Rather, it is to acknowledge the reality of our fallenness and our need for restoration. If I see a fellow human being well and good, I do not bother myself much with him; but if I see him wounded, bruised, injured, battered and devastated, I run to him with water and tend his wounds.

Wretched sinner or no, you should not be abusing children, physically, mentally, or both. They are the progeny of adult humans and are necessary to carry forth the next generation of ourselves. I do not need to be a God-believing, bible touting follower to know this very simple fact.

The ability to perform charitable deeds comes inanely in all of us. No deities need to be invoked.

5.
And to recognize that I myself is equally broken and battered like him is to recognize that we both need the grace of the Healer. I gently lead the broken friend to the Friend who is broken for us all, for healing.

That is what it means to see others as God sees us. It is not a pessimistic picture. It is a realistic one.

If you disagree that human beings are sinful from birth, I could only say, well, I don’t share your optimism. Perhaps we might both change our minds when we have our first child. :)

I do not believe in the idea of Sin, other than the Sin of stupidity (In Darwinian terms, stupidity will get you killed in no time, sometimes too early for you to propagate your genes.).

The idea of the Original Sin is so bad that Christians and Catholics have to invent the ludicrous idea of the "limbo" (The idea that babies stay in some kind of suspended animation after they die) to justify it, without which, even babies will be tossed into the raging inferno of hell.

6.
Secondly, you lamented that she doesn’t believe in self-esteem. Frankly, that is not a big problem to me. Do you believe in self-esteem? Why do you believe in self-esteem? What is there worthy in the self to be esteemed? You mentioned Hitler and Mussolini. I am not sure what level of self-esteem they have, but my guess is that they are doing quite a lot to boost it! =P

My point is this: there is nothing much to esteem in a self that is a by product of chance and evolution—one self is not necessary higher than another self to serve any special esteem (nor, for that matter, the dog across the street, or the dirt under my toenail). But if we fully realize (ok, maybe partially realize) what it means, that we are created in the image of God, that though fallen, God has redeemed us through Jesus Christ—if we fully realize what that actually mean, than we are esteemed far higher than any form of esteem we can bestow upon ourselves.

It is not who we are. It is who we belong to.

Self-esteem belies self confidence; without a healthy dose of self-esteem, a child is not going to perform well in anything he or she performs.

A child who grows into adulthood without any sense of self-esteem is going to be a walking disaster: Would you, for example, utilize the services of a surgeon who has no confidence in performing the operation on you? Or, for the matter, would you trust a mechanic to fiddle with your car if he displays a complete lack of confidence in his stated profession?

I must say I am quite appalled by your general comparison of Hitler or Mussolini to self-esteem: If anything else, tyrants display a high level of narcissism, and self esteem has got nothing to do with their evil deeds.

You assume that if we own our existence to a game of chance or evolution, then self esteem becomes meaningless. I totally disagree with your point. The truth is, as homo sapiens, our intellectual faculties, which we owe to Mother Nature, has given us more reason than anything else to feel proud about. No doubt, human civilization has made mistakes, more than its fair share I feel sorry to say, but we are in general masters of our own destinies. The triumph and nobility of the human spirit should not be dissed off by some silly imaginary father figure in the sky.

That's all for this post. I shall await for the next response.