Over at CAEI, a commenter named Claude remarks:
As a cradle Catholic who has been atheist/agnostic for most of my life, I would agree that atheism is boring.
You, a Christian, are commanded to be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect so that you may win eternal life. I, an atheist, am just trying to pay off my mortgage and not screw up too badly before I’m good and dead forever.
To be sure the Christians have a grander vision on their side.
Later, a commenter named Darien adds:
Atheists, or at least non-Christians, have the entire breadth and sweep of Science Fiction to enliven our future. We have SETI, we have vast cosmic adventures (assuming we do not somehow annihilate ourselves first (or have it done for us)) in an unbounded future until the heat death of the Cosmos.
If you are a Christian you have Jesus returning and the judgment of the world and the final battle then God hitting the Delete button on all of creation followed by an eternity of either cloud-sitting and harp-playing or roasting in the pit. No galactic civilizations, no star sagas, no alien civilizations, the best we might manage is a moon colony or two.
I remember being a geeky Christian teen and feeling absolutely heartbroken about this, until I concluded that God would probably allow me to spend some of my Heavenly time building space-ships…
My comment:
As a science fiction writing Christian, I object most strongly to this slander.
Of course there will be galactic empires after the world is renewed and remade, and larger than that. What do you think the crowns and the thrones promised the faithful are for?
The speed of light prevents mortals from ever visiting another star, much less entering into a conversation or a hymn or a dance with one. Those limitations do not apply to the glorified and risen saints, who can step to Alpha Centauri or to Andromeda or to the Corona Borealis Supercluster in a moment, and converse with the angels and artisans who designed these stars and galaxies and superclusters of galaxies.
And we will be able to hear the music of the spheres.
ADDED: Mother Wit provides a link to a poem well worth reading:
Christ in the Universe
By Alice Meynell (b. 1847)
WITH this ambiguous earth
His dealings have been told us. These abide:
The signal to a maid, the human birth,
The lesson, and the young Man crucified.
But not a star of all
The innumerable host of stars has heard
How He administered this terrestrial ball.
Our race have kept their Lord’s entrusted Word.
Of His earth-visiting feet
None knows the secret, cherished, perilous,
The terrible, shamefast, frightened, whispered, sweet,
Heart-shattering secret of His way with us.
No planet knows that this
Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave,
Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss,
Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave.
Nor, in our little day,
May His devices with the heavens be guessed,
His pilgrimage to thread the Milky Way
Or His bestowals there be manifest.
But in the eternities,
Doubtless we shall compare together, hear
A million alien Gospels, in what guise
He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear.
O, be prepared, my soul!
To read the inconceivable, to scan
The myriad forms of God those stars unroll
When, in our turn, we show to them a Man.
Habemus Papam! The white smoke is up and the Reptillian Battlesphere is descending upon St. Peter’s Square!
How delighted my teenage self was to stumble across Alice Meynell’s Christ in the Universe.
Rom 8:28, “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?”
I’m pretty sure “all things” includes stars and galaxies.
That is indeed a lovely poem. The next time I am locked in discussion with some fundamentalist who insists that the entire universe is there just to provide pretty twinkling lights for Terra’s night sky, I shall assuredly quote it.
Such fundamentalists, if they exist anywhere outside your imagination, should be reminded that Christians believe in angels and demons as a matter of dogma. In other words, it is a matter one cannot hold to be a matter of opinion. If you don’t believe in other rational beings aside from man, you are not a Christian properly so called. And such fundamentalists should be reminded again that the purpose of God, aside from what He has specifically revealed to man, are unknown. No one knows why He put rings around Saturn. Or why he made the stars.
For that matter, you don’t know. To conclude from the fact that you or I cannot deduce the purpose from an examination of the scientific evidence (which never even attempts to discuss such purposes) would be an error of logic should someone ever make that deduction.
Because you don’t know whether the stars were made for a purpose or evolved blindly, you therefore can have no logical viewpoint from which to judge the soundness or unsoundness of the pronouncement of your hypothetical fundamentalist.
What you have is an emotional preference, that is, a prejudice, in favor of a non-geocentric model. It is no more nor less irrational than the emotional preference of your hypothetical fundamentalist for a geocentric model. That you have an emotional preference is not something which necessarily redounds to your credit. It is not a sign of an admirable rigor in thought.
I could, if I wished, invent a hypothetical atheist who insisted as a matter of dogma that there were other intelligent life forms in the universe, and I could sneer at him for his hypothetical expression of unscientific dogma. What do you think would be going on in my mind when I did that?
Well, that is what I think is going on in your mind. I think you are trying to count coup on a strawman. Pardon me if my suspicion is unfair. I will retract the comment if you assure me that we not the point of your pointed comment.
We’ve been here before, haven’t we.
Here’s a quote for you, and a link to where it can be found.
“The reasons stars were made are given to us in several places in the Bible, not only in the well-known Psalm 19 but especially in the Creation account. In Genesis 1:14 we read: ‘And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.’…
We see from this that stars are there for mankind on earth. Add to this the sequence of creation (on the first day the earth, and only on the fourth day all of the stars), and it is easy to see the thrust of the biblical testimony, that the purpose of creation is uniquely centred on this earth.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v19/n4/god-and-et
Now, you are certainly entitled to say, “That’s not Christianity as I believe it”, and I don’t doubt that for a second. In fact, it’s because the quote above is not characteristic of your Christianity that I read, and respond to, your articles.
However…….unless you intend to maintain that the entire “Answers in Genesis” website is an electronic joke put together by atheists and agnostics in order to parody Christian belief, I’m going to request that you stand down on the “in your imagination” and “straw man” comments.
It’s the easiest thing in the world to point out to your Fundamentalist at Answers in Genesis that he’s committing a logical error. That the stars serve”for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years” does not indicate that this is their only purpose. Besides that, I think he may be misrepresenting the passage; it refers explicitly to the sun and moon, but the stars are mentioned almost as an afterthought, “He also created the stars.” Their purpose is not discussed.
It may also be worth pointing out to him that speculation about extraterrestrials, historically, began as a [i]theological[/i] speculation; just as your writer thinks that God would not create life elsewhere in the universe, others have thought that he must have. Both opinions rest on some big assumptions.
At any rate, it should be apparent that the fellow is presenting a theological opinion, not stating matters of dogma.
Even so, you do not seem to be representing his view quite fairly when you say that he thinks “the entire universe is there just to provide pretty twinkling lights for Terra’s night sky.” In fact, the purpose he gives to the stars is much more important than that, “for signs, and for seasons,” etc.
Here is another interesting quote from the same page:
God has given us rather specific details of the future—for example, the return of Jesus, and some details about the end of the world. The universe will, at some future point, be rolled up like a scroll (Isaiah 34:4, Revelation 6:14). If God had created living beings elsewhere, this would automatically destroy their dwelling place as well. Adam’s sin caused all of creation to be affected by the curse, so why would a race of beings, not of Adam’s (sinful) seed, have their part of creation affected by the Curse, and then be part of the restoration brought about by Christ, the last Adam?
Clearly Alice Meynell, when she wrote this stunning phrase,
Doubtless we shall compare together, hear
A million alien Gospels, in what guise
He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear.
had a far better grasp of what the universe’s creator could be than do the narrow-minded zealots I linked to in my previous post.
I cite “Answers in Genesis” not because I promote their views, in fact I could scarcely disagree more. Rather, I cite it to show our host on this page that such people do exist, that they believe themselves to be fully and correctly grounded in Christian doctrine, and above all that they are not creatures of my fevered imagination.
a theological opinion, not stating matters of dogma
I’ve visited the “creation museum” and talked with these people. They will tell you without a hint of uncertainty that if God did not create the stars sometime between 72 and 120 hours after the creation of the Earth, then Christ is a liar, and the entire Bible a futile exercise in guesswork. I would suggest that “dogma” is being approached at that point.
I will agree that you have a fair cop on the “twinkling lights” comment. I freelanced that before I took the effort to re-confirm what I had previously read in the creationist literature.
If the universe will one day be “rolled up like a scroll,” then it has hitherto been unrolling like a scroll. And the Latin for unrolling a scroll is evolare, a quo our word “evolution.” Cute.
+ + +
The opinion of do-it-yourselfers in theology does not outweigh the considerations of 2000 years of the Church Fathers, Greek and Latin alike. You see to what absurdities we fall when we cut loose from the standards department: we get atheists and fundamentalists, two groups whose understanding stems from precisely the same personalistic point of view. Pfui.
+ + +
Consider Michelangelo’s workshop after the David has been completed. It is full of marble chips, dust, tools, dirty cloths, etc. And a statue.
Consider how many dandelion seeds are scattered to the winds to produce a single dandelion; or how many sperm are expended for every fertilization.
Is it so unreasonable to suppose a universe would be left over after producing a World?
Sir, if you want to come on my blog, and complain about amateur heretic theology to a Roman Catholic, you are wasting your time and mine. You do not know why the stars were created. You have sought out Christians who happen to fulfill your hateful little mental picture of them. I can assure you that Mormons and Muslims and Christian Scientists have ideas about Christ and Mary that are even farther from what reality is and what the one, truth, catholic and apostolic Church teaches.
You are here to spread slander, not to have an intelligent discussion. It is a straw man argument.
My original post was one of thanks for the posting of a lovely poem which I intend to quote to those whose doctrines, I assure you, I find as loathsome as you do.
I am pleased that we agree, but I do not actually loathe my brother Christians. I do not know myself why the stars were made, any more than any man.
I admit I will be surprised if Earth turns out to be the most important of the worlds God has made rather than the least, only because, in the Bible, it is always the younger brother who gets the blessing, and when Christ is born, it is in a stable in Palestine, not a palace in Rome.
As for whether there is other intelligent life in the universe, Christians are required by dogma to believe in angels and devils, and these are nonhuman intelligent life not of this earth. To discover that there are Elfs in elfland or Martians on Mars is small potatoes compared with that.
I’ve now had a chance to look at some of your previous postings on sola scriptura and bibliolatry. Had you linked to them in our earlier exchanges, some discomfort on both our parts may have been spared.
Bear in mind that until a few years ago, my impression of Catholicism and Orthodoxy was “Not really different from the anti-science I get from the fundamentalists. Much better music, though.”
I now have come to see that the various types of Christian belief in fact differ significantly in the number of credulity-stretching things I am required to believe in before breakfast……
The most incredible thing you are required to believe before breakfast is that you will never die, and that you are the son of that same incomprehensible and infinite power that created the universe out of nothing, out of pure love. Endless joy awaits you, if only you accept it.
Compared with that, minor disputes about the age of the universe are as nothing. To believe that one will not ever die defies the most fundamental and ubiquitous fears in the very bones of mortal man.
If Christianity does not seem like madness to worldly men, we Christians have not explained our position clearly enough.
that you will never die, and that you are the son of that same incomprehensible and infinite power that created the universe out of nothing, out of pure love
Ah, if indeed that were all one was required to believe, how different would have been the history of the last two thousand years, and how many fewer unbelievers!!
Quite possibly I would not be among their number.
It is logically impermissible both to use the lack of uniformity of belief among Christian as an argument that the beliefs are untrue, and to use to the uniformity as an argument that the beliefs are untrue.
If you say that the number of impossible things one must believe to be a Catholic as opposed to a fundamentalist Evangelical is less, you are criticizing Christianity for its failure to suppress heresy, that is, for its failure to prevent distortions and accretions to the deposit of the faith.
If you then say that the history of Christianity is filled with debate and dissension, up to and including inquisitions and wars, then you are criticizing Christianity for its attempt to prevent distortions and accretions to the deposit of the faith. Nor can you claim to be merely criticizing the means used to suppress heresy, that is, you are not just leveling the criticism that no one should use violence to compel the conscience, since you (with comments like “do you know how it sounds to me when Christians disagree?”) criticize Christians for having even verbal and peaceful disagreements.
Obviously, the solution to maintain uniformity without violence would be a legal process, such as a General Church Council, such as the council of Nicaea, which determined in a lawful manner in keeping with the constitution of the Church, what the Church teachings in disputed areas should be. And here you level another criticism also, that there was (and is) any debate about Trinitarianism.
So, when you say that the Catholic have less outrageous beliefs than the Fundamentalists, you are wrong. It is more outrageous to believe that a man came back from the dead and cured the world of sin than to believe in literal six-day Creation in the first week of May in 6006 BC. But instead of admitting the point, you then turn to the attack, and say that believing in the fundamentals of the Christian faith would have lead to a very different course of history, by which you mean a more peaceful course of history. Again you are wrong, because the fundamentals were attacked and disputed and surrounded, as all Christian thought is surrounded, with acrimonious debate.
We are telling the truth. The reaction of liars to the truth is to attack and attack and attack it. Your reaction, no matter what is said one way or the other about Christianity, is to attack it. So much so that you are willing to abandon your logical integrity in your zeal to insult an institution which has done you incalculable good — the Church is responsible for Western civilization, including such things as hospitals, the university system, and the scientific world view — and no harm at all — unless you are the Wandering Jew, and you have personal memories of having been expelled from England, perhaps? Or someone in your family was executed by Queen Elizabeth the First for nonconformity?
Vicq Ruiz,
I am not sure how familiar you are with some debates that have occurred in Christianity.
Consider the Nicene Creed, which at first reading no one that is Christian can possibly object to.
However when it was written there was quite a long debate focused on a singular word determining whether the Son is the exact same substance as the Father, or like substance, or similar, or different, or dissimilar, or are completely same being with no differentiation at all. Then there is debate over “and the son” that is on going.
Then, once you get into the meaning of the words, especially as intended and traditionally, there are at least 60 million Christians that object to it entirely plus some unspecified additional amount that do so in part. Some of whom have resurrected the old debate over substance, and others (like me) who operate with such a different understanding of things that the debates (and reasons for them) are unintelligible from within our world views.
In the statement you quoted, for example, my faith holds that creation was not out of nothing.
As in you totally underestimate the ability to have different understandings of core concepts of Christianity. (This is leaving out Islam, which would have no problems with the statement quoted, fall into the different camp in the question of substance, and object to the crucifixion and resurrection but not ascension or second coming)
for example, my faith holds that creation was not
out of nothing.
Then it was not “creation” but “transformation.”
“Creation” is the joining of an essence to an act of existence. “Transformation” is changing the form of something that already exists into a different form (e.g., fusing two hydrogen atoms into a helium atom).
The OFloinn,
Seriously? I don’t know whether to defend my self based on scripture, defend myself based on philosophy, or point out that you both missed my point entirely and proved it at the same time.
Mr. Hutchins,
I have a (non-scholar’s) familiarity with the debates over the existence/nature of the triune God during the fourth and fifth century. Particularly due to having participated in a number of discussions between trinitarian Christians and Mormons (who as you know reject most if not all of those debates as they were concluded).
And I know enough about history to be well aware of the many times that Christians were put to death by other Christians for differences over these concepts. Which accounts for my post above “….if indeed that were all..!!”
It is fortunate that we live in an age in which the uplifting influence of the Christian religion has been leavened by a touch of the Enlightenment, so we may discuss these things without fear of being imprisoned, exiled or worse.
Wait, are you claiming that the debates between the Arians and Orthodox, Monophysites and Duophysites in the Fourth and Fifth Century led to capital punishments? Last I heard, the worse penalty that could be leveled was anathema or excommunication. Someone more knowledgeable about history please correct me.
Anyone involved in Imperial politics, to be sure, ran the risk of exile or death, or being blinded, or other grisly punishments. The politicians in those days played for keeps, and we still use the word ‘Byzantine’ to refer to intrigues for that reason. I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that the practice of killing people for nonconformity was an invention of a thousand years later, when to dispute points of theology was regarded as treason against the prince.
Woah, that’s some messed up html. Sorry, but at least the link goes to the right place.
Reminds me a great deal of Chesterton, when he spoke of materialism in Orthodoxy:
“A Christian is only restricted in the same sense that an atheist is restricted. He cannot think Christianity false and continue to be a Christian; and the atheist cannot think atheism false and continue to be an atheist. But as it happens, there is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel.”
I, an atheist, am just trying to pay off my mortgage and not screw up too badly before I’m good and dead forever.
But why try to pay off his mortgage if he’s going to be good and dead forever? So just try to pay enough and scam your way through. What does it mean to “screw up too badly”? By whose account? The Christian, called upon to perfect himself, might try to feed the hungry, found universities, study the universe, and stuff like that.
Atheists, or at least non-Christians, have the entire breadth and sweep of Science Fiction to enliven our future.
People always want to believe in fairy tales. Not sure why he thinks the likes of Gene Wolfe don’t have this scope. Maybe I should write a space opera series set on a far future interstellar scale. Oh, wait…. OK. Maybe John could write a reealy-far future epic of epoch-spanning adventure transforming humanity. Oh, wait….
Why again does he suppose this? Does he know how the idea of progressive time overcame the old non-Christian idea of endlessly-repeating cyclic time?
Rick Cook’s Limbo System has an interesting take on aliens and evangelization for those who are interested in such things.
That second blockquote is not Claude, but Darren, who appears to be rather joyful and possessed of a sense of humor, and admits that the Christianity he rails against is (in his words) the ‘Standard Protestant Model’, and not Catholic doctrine – to which he replies “Ah, you Catholics and your “it’s only a metaphor”.
” [emoticon in original quote]
He also is a fan of ‘The Golden Age’, just so you know…
While we’re on the subject of said trilogy, I’ve just finished reading the second book to my younger two, James and Gabriel. They’re delighted by it.
Dear Mr. Wright:
Very nice poem, “Christ in the Universe,” by Alice Meynell. And I was interested to know that more than a century ago there were Christians who wondered how non human rational beings were saved–or even that Christ might have become incarnate on other worlds.
And I too reject with indignation the false notion that only atheists can read, write, or enjoy science fiction. My views is that some of the very best of all SF was written either by believers in God or by writers who respected Christianity and Judaism. The late Poul Anderson being an example of the latter.
I even wrote an essay touching on topics like the salvation of non human rational beings. I urge interested readers to visit Dr. Paul Shackley’s “Poul Anderson Appreciation” blog and look up my essay called “God and Alien in Anderson’s Technic Civilization.”
Sean M. Brooks
Mr. Wright,
This isn’t really on topic but I found this quotation by Archbishop Fulton Sheen and I was wondering if you could comment.
“Those who hate Truth and fear Goodness are not far from the kingdom of God. They are fighting against it, and yet they know theirs is a losing battle. The more violently men hate truth, the more they think about it; the more they fear the goodness that demands perfection, the more they know it is what they really seek.”
From your knowledge of atheism, I was wondering if you think his statement is accurate? My hope is that it is true of all atheists but my cynicism whispers in my ear saying that it’s probably not.
I can only speak of my experience with atheists and with fundamentalist evangelicals; So it is coming at it from perhaps the wrong direction? Also, obviously, fundamentalist evangelicals that become atheists are certainly not the best representatives of what it is to be an evangelical any more then ex-Mormons are representative of Mormons or lapsed Catholics of what it is to be Catholic.
That said, it seems that many of them are closer to truth and goodness by being atheist then they were as fundamentalists. That is, they actually seem to think about their actions more then before. They also seem to actually think about God and Jesus more then what they did as fundamentalists. That seems odd and explaining it might be hard to explain: by actively attempting to figure out morality and their own actions without the assumption that their is a dictatorial deity commanding their every action some of them gain a better understanding of what it is to be good, and by actively arguing against the existence of God they are confronted by various claims of what God is and what it means to have God exist or not exist. Which means they are spending a lot more time trying to understand God then they may have when incessantly praising God; Both of these things to me seem to say they are closer to knowing God then previously, and so may actually be closer to God, His Kingdom, and eternal life.
“No galactic civilizations, no star sagas, no alien civilizations, the best we might manage is a moon colony or two.”
I am pretty sure a religion would be the best way to get galactic civilization or a star saga.
To travel between the stars while mortal requires generations of people most of whom must continue to follow visions and dreams of those long dead and it requires generations of people to make great sacrifices for payouts they will never live to see. That means to have a galactic civilization requires strong families who both honor their ancestors and feel an obligation to the unborn as well as a sense of history, already something as religious as Confucianism.
To have it be anything like an actual unified civilization would require a belief in a destiny and an over arching vision; and having it be somewhat centralized would require a belief that the central authority has some authority in making decisions; Waiting years (decades, centuries, etc.) for a decision from a distant authority who is not able to project direct power is something I am only familiar with happening in centralized religions, on a smaller scale then a galactic civilization to be sure.
Outside of fundamental shifts in our understanding of the way the universe works (and assuming a lack of end of the world events, religious or otherwise) then humanity may spread to the solar system by pure economic reasons, but going to the stars would require religion; and it might be more likely that any aliens that we ever encounter would be deeply religious then not.
Pingback: Into Deep Heaven | N U M I N I S T
Voting for Reptillian Space Pope
Hm… My initial instinct is that it’s improbable, looking at either the Gorn or the Cardassians, but then reason kicks back in and asks if they are somehow more tainted than Germany in the last century! I must admit, a heavy focus on the intellectual, rational and loyal aspects of the Faith might be as lovely a lure for their attention as they would be for Vulcans.
I think a learned Narn would make a very credible candidate.
I’m a little peeved that John W. once more dismisses Mormons as obviously wrong, because we differ from the Holy Catholic Faith. We know we differ. But we do not differ in the manner of the fundamentalists, certainly not on the life-on-other-worlds point. In fact, it is a matter of dogma with us that there MUST be intelligent life on other worlds, that it probably is quite common.
Whereas there existed at least one Catholic bishop as late as the 1960s who held that scripture demonstrated the impossibility of alien life. Of course, one of the strengths of Catholicism is its ability to contain contradictory opinions within its body, and not worry that much about it. (I mean this as a compliment.)
What are you talking about? Am I the John W referred to in this sentence? What did I say that provoked this reply?
Which bishop was that?
+ + +
The Catholic Church as far back at least as Augustine took the logical view that the existence of alien creatures was not a matter of dogmatic theology, but of natural philosophy and exploration. Augustine in City of God (16.8) held that one need neither believe nor disbelieve in such beings. It would suffice to wait until they were found.
It is logically impermissible both to use the lack of uniformity of belief among Christian as an argument that the beliefs are untrue, and to use to the uniformity as an argument that the beliefs are untrue.
What I’m probably more likely to argue is that all the things that differentiate the spectra of Christian belief are irrelevant.
Time and again, I have been told by Christians that I need to understand that we have a heavenly father who loves us, and desires earnestly that we love him in return so that we may spend eternity together. Or to put it another way, “you will never die, and that you are the son of that same incomprehensible and infinite power that created the universe out of nothing, out of pure love. Endless joy awaits you, if only you accept it. ”
If that were really the whole story, we might as well all be Unitarians, with whom I might well feel a good deal of collegiality were it not for their tiresome left-wing politics.
But of course it’s not the whole story, either with Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. There’s a lot more in the way of “believe this, don’t believe that” and that’s where I find myself politely demurring.
in your zeal to insult an institution which has done you incalculable good — the Church is responsible for Western civilization, including such things as hospitals, the university system, and the scientific world view
All those things are quite true, and you are correct to cite them. I certainly respect the contributions to civilization of the Christian and the Jewish faiths, and have not hesitated to say that non-believers fare better where those faiths are in the majority than in almost any other environment. In fact, I may already have said that here.
Argue with them, not with me. If you want to ask me about the Catechism, quote the Catechism. We Catholics have everything we believe written down and footnoted, including, as it so happens, what we hold are the minimum requirements for salvation.
When I say “A is B” you reply by saying “You said A is and only is B and nothing but B, which implies No A is not B, whereas there is more to the story than that…”
You’ve done this twice now. It is a formal logical error: I say that if it rains, I shall get wet, it is no argument to say that if I fall in a pond on a sunny day with no rain, I shall also get wet.
Nor did you answer, or even address, the argument I gave you. If I say that you contradicted yourself, this calls upon you to make a distinction between the cases. Instead you said you were “more like to argue that the spectra blah blah blah irrelevant (sic)” This does not refute or even answer the charge.
Now you seem to complain that Christians have specific beliefs rather than a vague cloud of non-belief. This is disagreeing with someone on the grounds, NOT of what he said, but only that he said something specific; and yet, logically, if he said nothing specific, there would be no grounds for disagreement.
Your objection to Christianity seems to be that Christ taught certain specific things that his followers are obligated to believe and others which logically therefore we must disbelieve. Your objection is that there is disagreements some of which end, not in peaceful reconciliation, but in schism and heresy.
This is not a sound, or even a sober, objection. There is no other human institution, real or imaginary, which would pass that standard. Your standard seems to be that any specific group of beliefs where dissent is logically possible cannot possibly be true.
Forgive me for being brusque, but if you want to revisit arguments you had with other Christians at other times, and score points against them, you cannot do that here, with me, until and unless I say the selfsame thing, whatever it is, that they said that you still want to argue against.