Grr!

Last night I watched Nightline on ABC. It was a debate on the existence of God. Not a new debate by any stretch of the imagination. On one side were two people who represented what they called Rational Response Squad, Brian Sapient and Kelly. On the other side were Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. The people from the Rational Response Squad were attempting to prove that God doesn't logically exist whereas Comfort and Cameron were supposed to prove that God exists but they weren't allowed to use the Bible as a resource. As soon as Comfort and Cameron made the foundational claim that God existed because of the 10 Commandments they were in a jam because they used the Bible. For those who don't know it, the 10 Commandments are in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

The biggest problem with this debate, to me, is that there truly was no winner and the people on the show were annoying.

Here are some of the things that bothered me. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron spoke for a segment of Christianity but completely misrepresented many Christians. They decided to prove that God exists through the creation model. There needs to be a creator. Fine. The problem was, their creator image was a literal reading of Genesis. They argued that there was no such thing as evolution and that Creationism is scientifically valid. This argues a premise that the universe and our world are 6000 years old and not the millions of years scientists claim. Frankly, this argument is a war on reality and actually makes most Christians look like fools. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century stated that the Creation accounts of Genesis were symbolic accounts that offered a theological explanation for Creation. In the 13th Century they didn't accept it as science but since 1890 many have. 1890. Creationism, as taught now, is not a part of traditional Christian teaching----it's actually very modern and very revisionist.

Most long term scholars and people who taught me, who were not radical or even pariticularly liberal as many people believe, said that a rational perception is that God is a Creator who created the universe with the potentiality of evolving. Did God create? Yes! But God created a creation that could change and grow and, yes, even evolve. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who lived from 1881 - 1955 believed that if we don't believe in God's creative and evolving power, we diminish God.

Sapient and Kelly looked a lot smarter than Cameron and Comfort during these exchanges and, frankly, made more sense. Had a more reasonable argument been made about Creation, they would have had to approach their debate from a very different perspective because they would have realized and perhaps learned that there are Christians who are incredibly rational. I was annoyed because the perspective of Christians was greatly diminished not by those who argued with them, but by the very presenters of Christianity. I'm annoyed that ABC even remotely believes that they had a show that even touched the surface.

But Sapient and Kelly, to me, were not very plausible either. Sapient thought that personal name calling, such as calling Cameron a real 'numbnuts' was good debating. Kelly went on a rant that she would prefer to be in hell than to be in a heaven that is ruled by a ego maniacal tyrant such as God. It would have been very nice of them to be able to debate on the grounds of what Christianity actually does teach as opposed to their perceptions of what Christianity teaches.

But life is bizarre. The show ended and I changed the channel and found myself watching Letterman interview Lindsey Lohan. Made me long for Sapient, Kelly, Cameron, and Comfort.