Quote:
Didymos Thomas,
So who or what is one to address, I do not wish to blame any individuals, however if a deed is done in the name of Christianity, how is it wrong to address that entity calling itself Christianity? What's the alternative boys?
|
Fair question, boagie. It is misguided because the supposed entity, Christianity, did not act - the individual claiming to represent Christianity acted, and it is that individual who is responsible.
Someone claiming to act in the name of Christianity makes the same mistake found in your arguments - they assume Christianity to be a unified whole. They assume one person can speak or act for all. In reality, Christianity is no more a unified whole than coffee drinkers; no surprise that even coffee drinkers prefer different blends. If I take my coffee black, others might still prefer cream - and I certainly have no authority to claim that black coffee is best, much less the authority to make such a claim on behalf of all coffee drinkers.
The alternative is to actually address those responsible, instead of wasting time pointing fingers at abstract labels. We can take them head on instead of getting bogged down in senseless ideological battles.
Take, for example, the guy who wrote 'Darwin's Black Box'. Scientists criticized his work; they did not make protracted accusations against an entire faith tradition. In this way we do not alienate those in the faith tradition who are innocent (in the case of science, people like myself who promote scientific inquiry over
any religious doctrine, including those doctrines I subscribe to), and we also educate by addressing the real problems, the specific erroneous claims of the author.