My Journal

In 1967, the political scientists Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantrill wrote that Americans were “ideological conservatives” but “operational liberals.”

Of course, I refer this basically to the mostly republican, Southern Bible-belters, Midwestern segregators, etc.

Lately there's been this fake story about how Einstein debated his professor on issues of faith, circulating around on Facebook.

I believe I had read different variations of the spam, all concluded with the student being identified as young Einstein.

Certainly, I need not discredit any Christian value in it. But the fact that the story is fictitious should cause alarm. It is alright to write fables and fictional novels and such, but it is wrong to claim an untrue as true.

This time the story goes with the challenge from the professor:

Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?

Having gained some new perspective, I cannot ignore such hoax any longer.

Thus my analysis:

Hoaxes like these claiming Christian support are plentiful. Since they are hoax, therefore their "good" intention is bound to find flaws in the very intention itself.

First, it seems that the unknown author wishes to make the professor long-winded while the student gave simple answers, showing wisdom. But at the end, we can see it is unavoidable for the author to start preaching a lengthy sermon, through the mouth of the student, whose supposedly simplistic wise answers had drawn the attentions of many readers.

Secondly, even if the first was not the case, this very article went off topic with the conversation beginning with the professor defining a "good" God to the question of blind faith (trusting the professor's teaching?), hence the confusion exploded.

The fact that many Christians seem to love the article is because there are too many similar atheistic attacks on Christians and that many have no good defense against these attacks. So, I supposed this is a sort of punching dummy bag for them.

Thirdly, I can easily end the debate above by answering:

Yes, we would certainly love to help the sick. It is in our good nature instilled by God. But what I do not understand is, if your brother could pray to God, why did he only ask for a more worthy life? If he's cured of cancer? Is he not still going to die? What then, pray again? He could have asked for eternal life! Or perhaps he wasn't praying to an all powerful God.

Fourthly, if the debate does not end, I can guarantee a more fruitful followup discussion, instead of turning everything there is to know about God into blind faith.

Fifthly, since this article has plenty off topics, I shall just tackle the following one:

Q: Who created evil (viz. hatred, immorality, imperfection, etc.)?

A: Some creatures of God.

Q: Then God created evil! Since creatures are creation of God.

A: Nay, if that premise is valid, then we would be safe to say all criminals are criminals because their fathers want them to be criminals.

Often times I see and comment on a group's or fellowship's inefficiency in maturity, the response I get is: They are just baby Christians.

This excuse, attempts to justify any responsibility or need for improvement criticized.

For that I can respond: I don't deal with baby christians, I fellowship with Christians.

Or a more gracious tone: Don't babies grow?

The second part of the problem is to attack on "They". Hmmm...they? My reply: Yes, there are baby Christians in the midst, I am certain of it after hearing this, but I don't think "they" are the baby Christians.