I am somewhat amazed at the continuous rants by Mr Michael Dingwall and Mr Hilaire Sobers against anything that bears any semblance of God or the church.
The assertions by Mr Dingwall in his recent letter decrying the strength of the church's resistance to pressure over the debate surrounding the acceptance of homosexuality, is quite absurd and pointless. He should bear in mind that whilst the church over the years has not been without faults, or in this case, sin, in many areas, it has been the single most powerful institution standing in the way of dictators and totalitarians. It has been the voice of morality and good family values which contribute to a healthy society. No state or agency anywhere in the world, with the exceptions of some Islamic countries, can deny this claim. The church has been vital in ensuring most of the freedoms we enjoy today, such as our privilege to be able to openly criticise them.
So to juxtapose the church as being weak and bowing to pressure in an instance is flawed thinking.
Both gentlemen over time have eloquently put forth arguments denouncing Christianity and its values, yet they fail to promulgate their own philosophy of what would be considered good moral principles and/or healthy lifestyles. Both gentlemen seem to be confused or downright idiotic in their own belief system, due to the fact that they spend a lot of time trying to denounce the existence of God, whether by reference to scientific research, which to date cannot be substantiated, or by way of so-called intellectual reasoning.
One of the problems with humanity is that it is very quick to dispel whatever it is ignorant of. Not knowing the facts does not mean they are not true. We cannot see the breath that we breathe, but yet it is the very life that we live. We cannot see our thoughts but we know they exist.
The greatest of inventions were merely beliefs at one stage. Alberto Santos-Dumont believed before actualising the aeroplane. Karl Benz conceptualised the motor car before inventing it. If either gentleman would have had a conversation with you about the possibilities of such inventions beforehand, you would have probably disregarded their ambitions and labelled them as delusional.
Now, I am not sure of how your thought processes work, but if I knew something not to be real, it would be futile of me to continue to try and prove that it isn't. Einstein would probably attribute insanity to my very existence.
I challenge both Mr Dingwall and Mr Sobers to honestly say who is the fool in this picture: The one who says something is real and tries to prove it, or the one who knows that something is not real and tries to prove it.
After all "the fool does say in his heart there is no God" — Psalm 14:1.
Melvin Pennant (MAP)