Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The impossibility of atheism II

By Peter Sellick - posted Friday, 27 February 2009


In the face of such criticism I do not defend religion. Indeed, the gospel contains its own criticism of religion from which it would set us free. Karl Barth reminds us that it was the Church that crucified Jesus, it was the good and religious people that nailed him to the cross. The crucifixion of Jesus is also the crucifixion of religion and properly the end of all religion. It is only out of the zone of destruction produced by the cross of Christ that a new thing could arise that would stand as an accusation against religious violence.

There is a crucial distinction that must be made here between the gentle Galilean and violence committed in his name. While Mahomet was a warrior, Jesus submitted himself to evil men to enable them to do their worst. It is nonsense to say that Christianity is inherently violent, if anything it is passivist. Certainly we all abhor violence perpetrated in the name of religion but let us think a bit more deeply before we label all religions as inherently responsible for the violence done in their name.

Properly understood, Christianity is deeply humanist, it is directed towards the well being of humanity. It understands that the human heart often chooses the wrong things, things that make them less than human. The heart, as Luther said, is a factory of idols. Christianity is iconoclast, it would destroy all of the idols that we would trust in to secure our lives. This is why it is essentially antireligious. The controversies of the early Pauline churches were to do with being set free from crippling religious affiliations. The truly free Christian could eat meat offered to idols, did not have to be circumcised in order to be a member of Christ, were free of the self justifying aspects of the law. They were the ones who were freed from religion, which was their offence both to the Judaism of the day and to the Roman authorities.

Advertisement

While the humanists cherry pick the events that appall us all they ignore the social triumphs brought about by Christianity: the abolition of slavery, the care of the poor and the sick, the establishment of centres of learning in the great monasteries, the social justice movement in the 20th century. The list goes on and on. Are we to damn Christianity because cruel things were perpetrated in its name of which Christ would have been ashamed?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

94 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Peter Sellick an Anglican deacon working in Perth with a background in the biological sciences.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Peter Sellick

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Peter Sellick
Article Tools
Comment 94 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy