Polemical on Christianity

I, O.M., a follower of the radiant Christ and devoted disciple of the prophet Mani, extend my heartfelt salutations to you. Might I begin by saying I humbly and respectfully wish to critique the Christian faith, as I believe there are errors of which I must commence to dispel.

I would first like to begin with my critique on monotheism and why the Manichean position is far superior.

If there was truly only one power in the beginning, then the implication is that God is responsible for evil. If evil originates with God, it has many profound implications, for certainly if evil indeed originates from the nature of God why would Christianity reject evil? If your God is all powerful, omnipresent, and omniscient, this seems to suggest that God is as a cruel man who, rather than intervening, actively allows evil! Surely if God is indeed a loving God and is also all powerful and omnipotent, he would surely intervene. Unless you dispute God is all powerful, omnipotent, and omniscient, then this presents a series of discrepancies. If God can prevent evil and chooses not to then certainly God himself is indeed responsible at least on some level to be responsible for evil. If God is unable to prevent evil, then by your own standards God is not all powerful.

As far as I can see there are three main explanations of which the Christian faith chooses as explanations for whence evil originates and why, which I will commence to dispel more specifically. The first I will dispel is Satan as your reason behind the existence of evil.

If Satan is indeed solely responsible for all of evil, and God is all powerful, this again implies one of two things. The first of which being that God simply chooses not to intervene in evil deeds, which is rather cruel. Alternatively, God cannot intervene and prevent evil, in which case the Christian faith is once more inconsistent.

The next explanation I see occasionally used for evil to exist is “to test us.” Again, I will commence to dissuade you from this position. Yet again there are inconsistencies among Christian doctrine, for, if God is all knowing, then why would he need to test us if he already knows all? Unless yet again you relent on this position and suggest God is not in fact all knowing.

Lastly, of your main reasons for why evil is propagated within the world, and perhaps one of your more compelling answers, is free will. Your doctrine suggests that evil is indeed the reason for which evil exists, however, as suggested by Jeremiah 29:11, “’For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for prosperity and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope.’” Yet another inconsistency! If God yet again knows all, and has a plan for us all, then the implication is that he knows the evil we will commit before we do so. If God has a plan for us all, and knows all, can we truly have free will? This seems to suggest a level of determinism. That we are destined for evil or good regardless.

I will now proceed to explain why the Manichean position is vastly superior. Firstly, because God is not capable of evil within Manichaeism there is another power which is co-eternal with the good Lord. The opposing force of evil is the originator of evil deeds, God is not all powerful, rather, good and evil are on equal footing in our world. Good deeds originate from the good lord as our soul, the light within us, is incapable of acting in an evil way. For a good tree cannot bear evil fruit as a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. As opposed, evil deeds originate from the realm of darkness and matter. Our bodies act as prisons for the light within us, it is in opposition to the soul’s good nature. The body as an extension of the realm of darkness causes evil deeds which our soul wishes not to partake in. I believe this to be a far superior and consistent explanation for the problem of evil.

I will now quote the Manichean bishop Faustus from the 4th century as to give even more for you all to respond to and for us to have a satisfactory interfaith conversation as I hope we shall have.

Faustus said: “Another reason for not receiving the Old Testament is, that both the Old and the New teach us not to covet what belongs to others. Everything in the Old Testament is of this kind. It promises riches, and plenty, and children, and children's children, and long life, and withal the land of Canaan; but only to the circumcised, the Sabbath observers, those offering sacrifices, and abstaining from swine's flesh. Now I, like every other Christian, pay no attention to these things, as being trifling and useless for the salvation of the soul. I conclude, therefore, that the promises do not belong to me.”

Faustus again says: “Do I believe the gospel? Certainly. Do I therefore believe that Christ was born? Certainly not. It does not follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born. This I do not believe; because Christ does not say that He was born of men, and the gospel, both in name and in fact, begins with Christ's preaching. As for genealogy, the author himself does not venture to call it the gospel. For what did he write? "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the Son of David.'' The book of the generation is not the book of the gospel. It is more like a birth-register, the star confirming the event. Mark, on the other hand, who recorded the preaching of the Son of God, without any genealogy, begins most suitably with the words, "The gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." It is plain that the genealogy is not the gospel.”

I hope to spark a respectful and intriguing interfaith conversation.

With respect,

O.M.