Atheist Recommends God
(Thanks goes to Rusty Wright and Meg Korpi for this article)
The headline in The Times of London grabs your attention:
“As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God”
The tagline is even more pointed: “Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa’s biggest problem – the crushing passivity of the people’s mindset.”
What kind of atheist is this? Matthew Parris, Times writer, award-winning author, and former Member of Parliament, is not your typical atheist.
Recent projects promoting atheism or agnosticism include bestselling books: Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Sam Harris’ The End of Faith, and Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great. Bill Maher’s film Religulous calls “anti-religionists” to unite against religion’s dangers and “enshrine … rationality.”
In Illinois and Washington state capitols, the Freedom From Religion Foundation countered government-sanctioned Christmas nativity displays with signs declaring religion false, heart-hardening and mind-enslaving.
It is unusual for an atheist to write favorably about faith. What led Parris to his surprising conclusion?
Parris grew up in Africa, and returned recently to cover a nongovernmental development organization for The Times. The NGO, Pump Aid, helps provide clean water to rural communities. The organization is secular, but several of its “most impressive” African representatives are devoted followers of Jesus. Their character evoked memories for Parris:
“Travelling in Malawi refreshed [a] belief … I’ve been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I’ve been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.”
“Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.”
Interestingly, Parris’ carefully considered conclusion, based on empirical observations across Africa, resonates with biblical statements: Jesus told a first-century leader, “You must be born again … of the Spirit.” Paul, an early skeptic-turned-believer, affirmed “Anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!”
Parris emphasizes Christianity’s impact on the individual, beyond the good works it spawns. Living in Africa, he observed “the Christians were always different.” Their faith seemed to have “liberated and relaxed them.” They exhibited a liveliness, curiosity, engagement and directness that seemed absent in traditional African life. The Christian Pump Aid workers he met stood out for their honesty, diligence and optimism.
Parris bemoans tribalism for fostering an attitude of fear and “exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader.” He credits Christianity’s emphasis on a direct, personal relationship with God for encouraging an individuality that can help “cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.”
Whoa! Christianity engenders individuality and frees the mind? Is this the same Christianity that some criticize for breeding a herd mentality among undiscerning followers—something like “a crushing groupthink”?
Actually, it isn’t. Parris specifies Christianity based on a personal relationship with God. He observes that such Christianity “smashes … through” the traditional collective mindset. No surprise. Jesus overturned Temple tables and blasted religious leaders for supplanting God’s ways with their own. Criticisms of Christianity/religion as mind-enslaving and heart-hardening likely respond to devotees—and there are many—tainted by misguided thinking or misplaced devotion, not led by the biblical God.
Though atheists and Christians might debate the mechanism, atheist Parris finds the fact undeniable: when God is personal, Christianity changes African hearts, lives and communities for the better.
Related reading:
Questions about God – Philosopher Michael Horner explores some of the most commonly asked questions in this 7-part series
The Uniqueness of Jesus – What’s so special or great about him anyways?
Contact us – Have questions about life? Struggling with circumstances? People are here to listen.
Rusty Wright is an author and lecturer who has spoken on six continents. He holds Bachelor of Science and Master of Theology degrees from Duke and Oxford universities, respectively. His work is distributed through Rusty Wright Communications.
Meg Korpi is senior research scientist with the Character Research Institute. She holds a PhD from Stanford University, and has lived on four continents—including Africa.
Actually CabareteDorothy, the pastor would be more righteous if he indeed did repent and ask for forgiveness. Not because he is a pastor but because of what God has promised to do for any of us who repent of the wrong things we do. God’s promise to us is that if we confess our wrong actions and attitudes to Him, He will indeed forgive and cleanse us from all our wrong doings (1John 1:9).
You are right, of course, that it would be better not to do the crime in the first place, but the wonderful gift that God offers to all who put their trust in the forgiveness that comes through the sacrifice of Jesus is a heart and life washed clean from all the wrongs we have done. God made Jesus, the one who lived without any wrong doing ever, to become sin so that we who are full of sin can become the righteousness of God, pure in ever way (2Corithians 5:21)
I guess in the end all of us need to take responsibility for our actions past and present. Does asking for forgiveness often make one a better person? Perhaps not doing a crime is the better path from the start?
I have seen moral and criminal atheists as well as men of the cloth. If a pastor cheats on his wife and lies about finances, is he more righteous because he calls God at the end of the day for forgiveness?
I think not.
Allow me to attempt to answer this one. I believe that it means that when you hold a grudge toward somebody, you let them take control over your life by constantly thinking about the wrong they have done to you. That is probably why God wants us to forgive them instead. Forgiveness is a good start about loving yourself…and your neighbor. Forgiveness is not only a Christian thing but it is a beneficial habit for our sake as well and the benefit of society even.
William, what does the phrase “live rent free in your head” actually mean? Not sure I grasp the religious significance of that one. Does it mean the devil taking up residence in your mind or something along those lines?
good article and good comments coming from this article, things to think about thanks for sharing.
Hey CWF: “Holding A Grudge Is Letting Someone Live Rent-Free In Your Head.” LOL, poor chap.
“They”? Who’s they? NAMBLA? They represent LBGTQ culture about as well as Fred Phelps represents Christians.
“not according to ATHEISIM – the basic premises”
The basic premise of atheism is that there are no deities. It does not follow that atheists are free to ignore ethics; as a matter of fact, atheists have made great leaps in the field, in their efforts to establish ethics that do not rely on appeals to the supernatural. I’ve read a lot of atheist thinkers, and all of them use pedophilia as an example of harm, and therefore wrong.
“They are there – love your neighbor as your self cover all of the above – animal sex is specifically forbidden”
All right, I believe you about animals, but how does “love your neighbour” specifically prohibit pedophilia? It looks to me like it’s our own culture that imposes that meaning on it.
“It harms them – terrible health problems – they beat each other – much is not reported but enough is”
My LGBT friends are just as healthy as my other friends, and a few of them have some of the best, most loving relationships I’ve ever seen. I’m certain that not all relationships are like that, but when you correct for socioeconomic status and systemic oppression, I have a feeling that the figures will be right in line with straight relationships.
“No – Bible says ‘Nature itself teaches these are wrong’ and in all civilize society homosexuality has been viewed as NOT NORMAL even when it was accepted. That is true even TODAY!”
Well, the Bible is wrong about nature. Many dozens of animal species engage in homosexual behaviour. And even if nature did somehow punish homosexuality, nature also punishes paraplegia, while it rewards rape. Yet we wouldn’t be prepared to call paraplegia wrong and rape right.
As for whether LGBT people are regarded as normal, that’s not a good argument either. Petroleum use is maladaptive, and yet we consider it to be perfectly normal. Acts of heroism are not normal, and yet no one would call them wrong.
“Homosexuals are often very violent among themselves and against others! That is a proven – and coverted up – fact”
Really? You’re telling me that a dozen of my good friends, and four of my best friends, are somehow covering up secret lives of crime and brutality? Seeing as I spend a lot more time with them than you do, I’m going to need to see more before I believe this “fact.”
“We follow the New Testament only – no Sabbath there”
Both books have been handed down together for a couple of millennia, and I know Christians today who place quite a high value on Old Testament ideas. Why are you right, and all the rest of them wrong?
Sodomy was illegal. Now it is not. It is still wrong and forbidden by God in His Eternal Word. So society changed it’s mind. Lying and stealing used to be sinful and wrong. Now most people do it and jusitify it. Check the recent mobs of THIEVES in England and the USA. Justifying stealling and lying about it. As of today sexually abusing children is illegal. A group of ATHEISTS NAMBLA in the USA is trying (and will eventually suceed with the help of the ACLU) to have that made legal. According to ATHEISTISM it is logical and right. Why not? If it feels good it must be right! And it is to them as they have no moral absolute outside of themselves. What was illegal and morally reprehensible 30 years ago (sodomy and killing babies) is now acceptable and JUSTIFIED but never moral or right!
I’m not an atheist, but almost all secular definitions of wrong involve harm. Pedophilia harms the child; zoophilia harms the animal. Even if we accept these as legitimate, if rare, sexual orientations, the object of desire is incapable of consent, and has the capacity to suffer, so acting on that desire is unethical.
(I’d actually be curious to know what the Christian basis is for calling these behaviours unethical. I don’t remember any prohibitions against them in the Bible.)
Anyway, homosexuality is between consenting adults, and harms no one. The only basis for prohibitions against it is religious law. And, well, occasionally someone will bring up the fact that gay people could face bullying, bashing, and general community disapproval, all of which are most certainly harm…but using that to restrict their rights would be like arguing that women shouldn’t have the right to go out in public, because someone might rape them.
And the Irish texts about the sabbath predate the English Puritans by at least six hundred years. But I’m not sure how that’s relevant. What makes ancient Irish Christianity, or for that matter Puritanism, inferior to the Christianity that you espouse today?
“Am I different in being able to set my own internal guidance system in a way that both coincides with the legal system as well as what is writ in your bible? I do not fear the law as I have always been on the good side of the accepted standards” I say to those who have posted as atheists: Having your own internal guidance system is moral anarchy. Do you support man – child (boy or girl) sex? There are atheists in the USA and around the world who do believe, based on their “own internal guidance system” it is OK. How about sex with animals? A few years ago sodomy was illegal (it remains very unhealthy with many long term problems) but now it is “acceptable”. Atheists can NEVER say no to pedophilia as it is up to them and their “own internal guidance system” Who are YOU to judge THEM??????? By your own statement and claims you must not interfere with their “own internal guidance system”. And yes, there are groups in the USA fighting to make man-boy sex (pedophilia) legal! Stick to God’s WORD and this will never happen. As for your Irish SABBATH – it never existed. That was Puritan England and they were wrong – the NT never endorses the Sabbath at all. (CW- not worth resonding to LOL)
Christianity is just a religion. People who live for God and love God will do exploits. Jesus Christ came and made a great impact on this world (depending on our opinions, for the positive or the negative but from the Gospels point of view all positive, namely dying for all of our sins that we may receive forgiveness and eternal life and live with Him. God loves the whole world but he wants the world to come to Him for help. He alone has the solution. Christians are not perfect just forgiven.
William says, “However, since the legal system changes, the morals in a society can still change, and their morals along with it. At best, these codified morals are ‘temporary absolutes.’ In one century abortion is wrong; in another, it is right. So if we ask if it is or isn’t right, the atheist can only tell us his opinion.”
Actually, most of the atheists I know are likely to have very well reasoned arguments for their positions on ethical issues. They have their reasons; God just isn’t one of them.
Moreover, Christianity is no proof against changing morality. Until the late sixteenth century, the Catholic church was pretty all right with abortion until fetal movement was detectable. People argued against the abolition of slavery on biblical grounds (as did those arguing for it). And I have translations of a tenth-century Irish text that depicts the suffering of sinners who are punished for eternity for riding a horse on a Sunday, chopping wood on a Sunday, or paddling a boat on a Sunday. In the nineteenth century, architects wrote treatises on which kinds of church design were morally correct. I could give a bunch more examples, but just from these I think it’s pretty clear that morality changes with the times, regardless of a person’s religion or lack thereof.
Crime isn’t on the rise, either–not violent crime, anyway. And even if it were, as of 1997 nearly 80% of the U.S. prison population identified as Christian, while 0.2% identified as atheist. I think this is more a function of living in a largely Christian culture than any flaw in Christianity itself, but it’s also hard, under those circumstances, to make the claim that Christianity necessarily entails moral superiority.
“There are potential dangers in this kind of self-established/experimental ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings?”
An atheist is perfectly capable of believing in human rights, compassion, justice, and the dignity of all human beings, none of which are subject to the whims of the majority.
I should ad the Bible teaches love, pateince, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian. In contrast, the atheists’ presuppositions must be constantly changing and subjective, and do not demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution, is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self-serving.
Basically, the atheist cannot claim any moral absolutes at all. To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad, but with human nature being what it is, I’ll opt for the moral absolutes — based on God’s word — and not on the subjective and changing morals that atheism offers.
Atheists’ morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do live in societies that have legal systems with a codified set of laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes, the morals in a society can still change, and their morals along with it. At best, these codified morals are “temporary absolutes.” In one century abortion is wrong; in another, it is right. So if we ask if it is or isn’t right, the atheist can only tell us his opinion.
If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. This can be likened to something I call, “experimental ethics.” In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it. Hopefully, these experiments lead to better and better moral behavior. But, as we see by looking into society, this isn’t the case: crime is on the rise.
There are potential dangers in this kind of self-established/experimental ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings? It serves his self-interests, so why not? Morality becomes a standard of convenience, not absolutes.
Many of the more complex social animals can be observed caring for the sick, injured, or elderly among them, and there are a few examples of this care extending across species lines. But even if we were the only ones who acted this way, that wouldn’t change the rightness of it. Humans can see the big picture, understand complex interrelationships, and–at least in the West–access an abundance of resources. We have the choice, and I would argue the duty, to cast our nets of moral responsibility as wide as possible.
Without rules or certainty, I think the best any of us can do is…well, the best we can do, taking into account as much information as we can. There are always going to be areas of disagreement, but I think it will be far less harmful in the long run to respectfully negotiate those differences, instead of trying to pick one scheme that is best, and condemning everyone else as bad.
So the idea that nature confers an advantage on those who take care of each other, is that limited to the human species or does it apply to all of nature? It seems that other members of our planet show little care for each other. Perhaps within their own species or at least within their own family there maybe kindness, but in most other interactions there is a fight for survival.
If it is a system that yields no rules and certainties who determines what is kindness and what is not? What one culture identifies as moral acceptable is often seen as weakness in another culture. Can both be right and still maintain our moral balance? What/who determines what that moral balance is?
Jamie, I think there’s a bit more to the universe than random chance: certain configurations of matter work better than others, for example, and certain traits are more conducive to survival than others.
People who claim that the strong and ruthless are best adapted to survival aren’t talking about natural selection; they’re making culture-based judgments on what they think we need, and what they think we ought to turn into. But nature doesn’t have a goal in mind; it just does a bit of everything, and keeps what works.
One of the traits that works–that has helped us survive as a species–has been kindness. Nature confers an advantage on those who take care of each other, and when the group prospers, we all prosper. That used to be limited to small tribes and clans, but now we can see that it’s true of the entire world, for humans and nonhumans alike. When we treat each other badly, there are repercussions. When we abuse nature, there are repercussions. We can’t afford not to factor that into our decision-making.
The foundation of my beliefs is that US includes everyone and everything; that nothing lacks moral status; that injustice half a world away, or the death of an ecosystem, or the extinction of a species diminishes all of us. In a moral scheme that includes both cows and carrots, we can’t absolutely do away with harm, but I think we have an obligation to minimize it to the best of our abilities.
It’s a system that yields no rules and no certainties. And if you ask me one of the tough questions today, I can’t guarantee that I would answer the same way that I did yesterday, or would tomorrow. But I never did well with rules and certainties anyway, and it’s worked well for me, better than the other alternatives I tried.
Of course you are right Cat. It is not productive to compare belief systems based on the worst examples of those who claimed connection to those groups. However, there is use in looking at a belief system and taking it to its logical conclusion and making judgements on that. For a belief system that says there is no God but rather that the universe came into being through random chance and that humanity has evolved through a process of natural selection, what ethical standard is there that would keep someone from committing the atrocities that some of the more influential, power-hungry representatives have done? Who can say that what they did was not just a process of removing the weaker members of the species which over-all strengthens the entire human race?
For Christianity, Jesus Christ Himself set the standard of the value of human life by allowing Himself to be sacrificed in order to save all of humanity from a path to destruction. There is an ethical standard that is set by God and is based on His goodness and His wisdom. When someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus but shows no value for human life there is a standard that says that they have missed the mark of what God wants.
I have to confess, I don’t know enough about your belief system and what standard its practitioners would live by. How does it stand up to the logical progression of its beliefs? What is the basis for your ethics?
Sigh.
If we’re tallying body counts here, then I could give some history lessons of my own. But that’s kind of ridiculous. I’m a witch on a solitary path. No one from my religion has ever killed anyone. One hundred percent of the practitioners give time and money to non-profit causes. Does that mean I win, and everyone has to convert to my clearly superior religion? Of course not. A belief system should have more going for it than that.
It’s simply untrue that atheists as a whole don’t believe in personal choice. SOME of them don’t. For that matter, there are Christians who don’t believe in personal choice. But the vast majority of atheists behave ethically–as do the vast majority of human beings in general. They simply have different reasons for doing so, and the fine points of those ethics may differ. “Viewing pornography, using profanity in public, gossiping, and drunkenness” are sins according to some kinds of Christianity, but not every belief system sees these things as wrong. And before you reply that that makes other belief systems less moral than Christianity, consider that in some kinds of Islam, visual representations of human beings are wrong. In some kinds of Judaism, writing the full name of God is wrong. In some kinds of Buddhism, eating garlic is wrong. Adherents of any of these other religions could claim that the rest of us are less moral because we don’t obey their rules.
me says: August 30, 2011 at 8:35 am RE : William Oosterman
Yes william atheists are terrible…they have only doubled your lifespan out of the love for mankind, so you can enjoy more of life, that you otherwise would never know….
Me: Prisons reforms in the 1700′s (John Howard Society, Elizebetyh Fry Society) abolishing slavery ( Wilberforce) changing the way the mentally ill were handled (ALL CHRITSIANS) the Early LABOR movement (ALL CHRITSIANS) the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals AND CHILDREN (ALL CHRITSIANS) Red Cross (ALL CHRITSIANS) Now what have your atheists f doen to improve life on this earth: Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro – to name a few – have together KILLED MURDERED and STARVED 160,000,000 yes ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY MILLION people in the last 100 years. Hmm…I think you really need to become better educated about history! Blessings!
Although, in theory, atheists can lead moral lives, the absence of an absolute moral foundation probably leads to moral drifting over time. This phenomenon also occurs in Christians who abandon church and Christian fellowship. As a result, the differences in morality between atheists and evangelicals is striking, with atheists being much more prone to viewing pornography, using profanity in public, gossiping, and drunkenness. For the 8 sins surveyed in the Barna study, atheists were nearly 5 times more likely to commit those sins than evangelical Christians. In addition, atheists are much less likely to donate to charities (even secular ones) and perform volunteer services in their communities compared with religious people. So, even though atheists can lead a moral life, on average, they don’t measure up.
Jamie: I stated truth, proven facts. Truth is what people need to hear. Evangelicals vs. atheistsA a random sample of 1003 adults were surveyed in May, 2008 by The Barna Group for their participation in a number of negative behaviors within the previous week. The results showed that there were vast differences in the behaviors of evangelicals compared to agnostics/atheists.These results show that atheists/agnostics participate in morally questionable behaviors to a much greater degree than evangelical Christians – an average of nearly five times the frequency! The data calls into question the atheists’ claim that moral choices are deterministic and the people do not have the ability to exercise free will. If human behavior were merely a combination of genes and biochemistry, then beliefs would have no effect on moral choices. Obviously, this is a failed hypothesis, since beliefs do influence behavior. Another study, published in 2008, showed that increasing belief in determinism negatively impacted moral behavior (cheating).The Barna study is not the only one reporting difference between theists and atheists. The Hoover Institution (part of Stanford University) has studied philanthropic giving and volunteerism among populations.10 Making 30,000 observations over 50 different communities, they found that religious people are much more likely to donate money to charities (91 percent to 66 percent) more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). The amount they give is also quite different with religious people averaging $2,210, compared to only $642 among the secular, even though incomes and education levels are virtually the same. Religious people’s giving is not just to religious causes either, since they also out give secular people when donating to secular causes.
William, I don’t think it is helpful to vilify someone because of their beliefs. To describe atheists using the terms you have is a rash generalization that does not match reality. I know many atheists who do are not promiscuous and are wonderful caring fathers and mothers. This site is intended to provide a safe place for discussion and sharing view points, not for name calling and character bashing. That does nothing to advance your position.
Atheists do have an agenda. It is to try to live guilt free while living lives of selfishness – fornicating like animals – abandoning their own children like so many dead beat fathers do….if they were to admit what they know to be true – that there is a God – they would have to change their lifestyle. In fact most famous atheists have said as much. http://www.thesamaritanfoundationdr.com/villages/ is one example of the great good and life transaforming work being done by evangelical Christians. The atheists for the most part stay home and attack us for what we do and believe. They are busy alright, taking us to court to prevent prayer before football games!God help this world if only atheists were there to help the poor!
is that how easy it is ?
i am wondering the reason for not keeping my comment on this thread..
in the process of trying to understand better Christianity, i indirectly directed myself to this site after so many links..find a way to the light without affronting such practices that show disdain or judgment as when expressing Christian faith..
as my parents were practising members of their churches, i was indoctrinated into a religious faith..and though some practices antithetical to the actual Word started the questioning, it did not diminish the want still for truth of understanding spirituality better..
that obviously, (by my posting) religiousity still is sensitive a subject to prick at..it seems that interpretation critical of the matter may be not worth time or maybe frightening[?] for anyone to hear, read, or acknowledge..
but the reason to seek is to find maybe solace\truth in the place where there are those who profess to know it, faith..if a belief is strong then it should be not a problem for it’s defense, especially to the ones that question not to mock but to understand why the feeling one gets is a lot of general and specific hate instead of love as the path that could give or lead to enlightenment..and a faith should be able to accept the fact that there are also fallicious practices, hence a major reason to turn away, but the desire for truth is not abated, and the faithful must make efforts to dispell\denounce fallicies, rather than ignore them..such exclusion makes mockery of your own selves as declaring a belief in your faith..
disappointing and yet not always expected when the faithful seem more as faithless for it is true that from God’s command t’is better to be one to lead or be led into the faith than to be one who does lead one away from it..
still i will seek to remember not, the doors from which a knock is tapped, those who can, may not always open..but to tap again
don’t sweat\judge the ‘atheist’ so much CaT…..
and as Parris did admit with no small amount of irony, his struggle with-in regarding ideological confoundment..
still, while his own personal ideology he believes as good for him, his humility allowed for something different that he has seen, in the ‘practicing’ of Christianity, is good for others..
but also, confirmed atheist he is may be because the semantics of this religion Christianity, of which some contexts have been proven to be taken as not literal and with no devaluing the morality for the bible as Christianity’s guiding tome; and yet these figurative contexts are of the basic beliefs to ‘be’ Christian.. maybe confirmed atheist Parris is is because the judgmentality some x-tians express at others that comes when one is not completely in faith or form as these x-tians subjectively deem as fitting even as themselves and many Christians also struggle in being..to be Christian not in name only is a trial, so rather than the test, some x-tians subvert and dilute in many ways their responsibility as one; [and] the degradation of others an excuse for this folly..
it is not Christianity itself that is the problem..it is the MAN who dons the cloak of Christianity and antithetically uses (too many to example) it’s principles in abuse..(you’ve basically said this yourself)–he is the snake-oil salesman in reverse; the product works but his sales pitch doesn’t..
regardless of Parris being atheist, ‘if’ one believes and follows the teachings particularly of Christianity, t’is better to be one who can lead or be led into this faith than to be one who does lead others against or out of it..for much better to be practitioners of their own faith then to behoove it upon themselves to judge and denegrate any for not..
so CaT, could your passion not be more helpful if it was directed at the deserving ‘x-tian’ hypocrites who have steered so many to an ‘atheist’ conclusion ?
Hey, yeah, I’m thrilled about the good being done over there, and I don’t care who is doing it. And if that was all he was saying, I wouldn’t have a problem, but it’s not.
Yet no one can deny the great good being done by evangelical Christianity. Not justthe millions of wells dug, schools built, lives saved, medical clnics, clothing, micro loans etc etc. but as the man points out – the age old tribalism and KILLING is done away with when these men and women become Christians, followers of Christ. The New Testament is the FIRST book in history to damn racism and state that IN CHRIST – that is in the church – there is no male or female, slave or free, greek or Jew, etc etc.
It bugs you that a man who himself is not a Christian admits and admires the good being done by them in Africa? Makes the rest of us very happy!
Yes, it does bug me. That’s what I’ve been saying. You don’t recommend something you think is false just because it would be good for people.
And believe me, if he were saying Africa needed my own religion, I would be even more upset. Africa needs honesty and respect from the rest of the world, and this guy is showing it neither.
“an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of gods”
Really? Wow. And here we have one who recommends evangelical Christianity BECAUSE he witnessed first hand the great and blessed effects upon his Africa! Must really bug you!
I’m not putting words in his mouth; an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of gods. It’s inherent in the definition. Now, he might believe that theists have good reasons for believing what they believe, but perpetuating belief in something you yourself don’t believe, because you think it will be good for people, is patronizing and intellectually dishonest. What he’s doing would be like you recommending that I practice Judaism or Islam, because even though you don’t believe in either of those yourself, you think they would make me a better person.
He never says our God is a lie. DO not put words in his mouth!!!!! He just does not believe – but it seems he is reconsidering. YOu just can’t stand it that an Atheist sees first hand the blessings and advantages a specific religion – EVANGELICAL Christianity – brings to his Africa! Get over it already. He spoke the truth!
My problem is that what is lacking in Africa, at many levels, is basic human respect. If Parris were an agnostic, or someone from some other religion that’s comfortable with multiplicity, then I wouldn’t be quite so upset. But this guy is an atheist, meaning that he thinks God isn’t real. It’s not that he’s unsure; it’s not that he has respect for a multiplicity of religions and thinks that Christianity is the one that would best suit the African people; he thinks that your God is a lie. You don’t ask people you respect to believe something you think is a lie just because you think it would be good for them. That’s how you treat criminals and children.
I don’t recall having said anything about my own faith in this thread, though. And if your faith gives you as much joy as mine gives me, by all means, enjoy it and share it. But Parris isn’t sharing joy; he’s just being patronizing.
Also, to equte the deep, wise, uplifting and powerful life changing teachings of Christ and the Bible to the too fairy reveals your utter ignorance and bias. Yes I have spent time in Africa and I have seen the horrors. I have seen also the tremendous good done by evangelical Christians and their Afrian brothers and sisters, I have seen the transformed lives. YOu remain an arm chair critic until you die, which date has been pre determined by God who daily allows you to live. Then you will also bow in submission to the God you deny! Submit now and experience the joy that has transformed so many in Africa and around the world – some 2 BILLION people!
You are really too simple. It is not only possible, but in this case it happened, that a very intelligent and educated man can recommend for a country something – in this case evangelical Christianity – that he does not feel a need for himself. Right? That is what he is saying. So what is your problem? It really bugs you that he speaks so highly of the effects of evangelical Christianity upon a whole continent, while you like so many would prefer to denigrate from a distance that about which you know nothing firsthand: the blessing of a personal realtionship with Jesus Christ to Africans.
What made the West GREAT, powerful, wealthy, was the Christian foundation and work ethic. What is making it morally and financially bankrupt is abandoning that for self centered greed and amoralism. God is going to give to Africa and Asia what he is taking from us! The next 50 years will continue to prove that.
Yes, I read the article. Several times, in fact. Doesn’t change the fact that Christianity doesn’t work for HIM. If it did, if he thought that Christianity was the only viable source of values, he wouldn’t be an atheist, would he? Would you really ask other people to believe something that you thought was a lie, just because you thought it would be good for them? Maybe if they’re little kids and you’re telling them about the Tooth Fairy, but these are adult people faced with horrors you and I can’t imagine.
CAT: did you even read the article? This chap is mmore honest than most, for admitting what HE OBSERVED.
Parris emphasizes Christianity’s impact on the individual, beyond the good works it spawns. Living in Africa, he observed “the Christians were always different.” Their faith seemed to have “liberated and relaxed them.” They exhibited a liveliness, curiosity, engagement and directness that seemed absent in traditional African life. The Christian Pump Aid workers he met stood out for their honesty, diligence and optimism.
Parris bemoans tribalism for fostering an attitude of fear and “exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader.” He credits Christianity’s emphasis on a direct, personal relationship with God for encouraging an individuality that can help “cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.”
Now 1. He recommends Christianity -evangleical – as ESSENTIAL 2. He observes how it is a blessing to Africa. He DOES THINK Christianity is RIGHT for AFRICA!
Here’s how I can disagree with it: dude’s an atheist. He doesn’t think Christianity is right; just that it’s a means to a desirable end. To ask people to believe in something you don’t believe yourself, just so they’ll do what you want to, is at best patronizing, and at worst a wee bit predatory.
For an avowed Atheist to say “I was there. I saw benefits….” READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN! How can anyone disagree with the Atheist applauding the effects of Christianity upon his onw fellow Africans.
The WARS are basedon tribalism. True Christianity eliminates tribalism and all racisim – filling hearts with humility and love.
What a great article!
Despite your interesting article I have to put a clear comment: Is Africa a dead continent? The nightmare of hungry people, killing machines and war seems to be endless. I?s hard to listen to the news without having the impression that Africa is the worst area in the world. So good you talk about it. But will it eventually change? We can only leave our hopes for the moment, as long as african tribal war lords are more important for the people there than the new cars from Detroit.
I am an African, and live in Africa. Christianity is not a cure-all for all of Africa’s problems, or for any society for that matter. In my experience, true christianity embraced by A fricans at different levels has made some of the greatest contributions to our social,economic and political development.Notwithstanding its seeming flaws,the positive dividends of christianity in Africa, will by far outweigh any imagineable benefits to an Africa without Christianity.
In my experience, though, people are very good at using religion to justify things that would otherwise be considered wrong.
I know secular ideologies have been used in that way too, but my point is that Christianity is not proof against that sort of thing, and can in some cases be a facilitator.
Cat is right but those things were done by men and mayy things have been perpetrated all over the world. But if you look at the result–you see it was what men wanted to. A real Heart change is controlled by love– and evil and vicious deed do not come froma heart of love and a real and personal relationship with Jesus.
I don’t know; I think that religion is useful in a lot of ways, but I’ve also heard of a lot of horrific stuff coming out of Africa that’s been perpetrated in the name of Christianity: the abuse and exile of children believed to be witches, the destruction of tribal artifacts, Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army…