There is a right way and a wrong way for Christians to discuss with and even attempt to convert atheist. This is the wrong way for so many reasons.
Cineaste sent me this story about a teenage girl raised in an atheist home outside a small town in Oklahoma. Nicole is a beautiful, athletic, smart young lady who struggled fitting in because of the predominant cultural Christianity of her high school.
I have no idea all the facts of the situation. The school district refused to comment, so the 20/20 story is a one-sided telling of the events. But I have no reason to doubt the Nicole’s story. (As an aside – I trusted her more than her father, who also appeared in the story. He seemed more angry and more likely to push the truth for an agenda, but he may also be angry because his daughter has been harassed.)
The girl’s basketball team that Nicole played on said “The Lord’s Prayer” after games. She, being an atheist, did not want to participate in the prayer. Once word got out in the school that she was an atheist, she says that other students taunted her as a “devil worshipper” and even teachers began harassing her, saying they “hated” her.
She faced numerous issues on the team and at school. She was kicked off the team and in trouble at school for things that she said she didn’t do.
Regardless of whether she is telling the whole truth, the school district is being totally honest, or a little bit of both (probably the case), many self-professing Christians acted in the wrong in this situation.
If the girl’s on the team were actually followers of Christ, they should have befriend Nicole and reached out to her. They should have helped her and made her feel welcome as much as possible. Even if they didn’t actively persecute her, it seems they did not actively help her either, which would be the Christlike action to take.
The way her school responded to her is wrong for a Christian on numerous levels. Besides it being morally wrong and contrary to the commands of Jesus, it is a totally ineffective way to talk to someone of a different faith and is detrimental to the faith to which they claim they belong.
But what they did to Nicole is not representative of Christianity because it does run contrary to what Jesus taught and it probably had more to do with the culture of high school than Christianity.
Anyone who has not spent significant time in the rural South do not fully understand what I mean by “culturally Christianity.” Everyone is a Christian, whether they have been to church in 10 years, sling crack on the corner or beat their wife. Somewhere, somehow somebody in their family is a pastor, a deacon, a Sunday School teacher and most likely they are personally a member of a church somewhere. Of course, none of this means they follow Jesus any more (probably less) than Nicole does, but they claim Him.
In the South, it is “cool” to be a Christian. Everyone goes to church and youth group. In my high school the largest club was FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes), but some of the leaders spent Friday night getting drunk, Saturday morning smoking pot and Saturday night sleeping with their girlfriend.
When I was in high school, people joined tons of clubs just to put them on their college application. It looked good to say you were part of the French Club (even if you only knew Bonjour) and the Future Farmers of America (even if you didn’t know the difference between a hoe and a rake). The same was true for Christianity. It looked good to parents, teachers and the culture as a whole to say you were a Christian and a member at First Baptist Church. It didn’t mean you actually knew what being a Christian was or had any intention of actually following the teachings of Jesus. You were a Christian because everyone else was.
None of this excuses the behavior of those who persecuted Nicole, but it may explain it somewhat. Regardless of what the whole story is, the actual Christians in that town should rally to help and support Nicole and her family. They should do whatever it takes to make them feel welcomed and loved – you know to actually treat her like Jesus would. I know it’s a novel approach, but it just might work.
The chances are that Nicole and her family will never come to Christ, but at least they would know that there are people who claim to be Christians who do follow the teachings of Christ. There are Christians who can love someone different than them. There are Christians who understand that thousands of Christians are being killed for their faith around the world today, the answer to that is not to turn it around toward atheists. Persecution is not a good thing, it’s even worse to be the one doing the persecuting.
The South sounds like an absolute nightmare.
However, I think it's deeper than a mere "cultural Christianity" lapse, or a few "xians" not following the tenets of their faith. The history of xianity is replete with the situation you are describing (just one example: centuries of the vicious and murderous persecution of Jews and Queers in the name of Jesus). In fact, one could make an argument that, at its heart, xianity is a brutal and cruel religion (sort of like its cousin, islam), and that it seldom follows the tenets it mouths (as I told seeker, its Eleventh Commandment should read "Do as I say, not as I do."). Yes, there are individuals who ignore the viciousness contained in the bible and adhere to the good bits (mercy, justice, good faith, humility, etc.). However, xianity is not alone in fostering these types of individuals: I daresay even islam has them. One doesn't need the unbelievable supernatural foofaraw to be the kind of individual who values goodness. It may be that Jesus was a good teacher (as was Socrates, Siddharta Gautama,and others), but the religion organized around him, the one described in the bible and known as "Christianity," is full of evil.
One doesn't need the unbelievable supernatural foofaraw to be the kind of individual who values goodness.
Nor does one need faith to be the kind of exclusivist persecutor of those who are different. Group think of this type always evolves from the predominant ideology, be it atheistic, secular, or religious, UNLESS tolerance is a value of the predominant ideology.
And of course, I mean the kind of tolerance that is able to make moral distinctions without becoming unjust. Today's moral tolerance is missing the ability to discern right from wrong. Hence the Islamification of Europe.
That was my part of my point. I believe this is more a case of "group think," which is ever present in high school, than an active persecution of an atheist by Christians. Doesn't change the ugly nature of it or the bad reflection it gives to Christianity and Christ, but it may explain it a little more accurately.
Oh, the other reaction I had when I thought about this story was the fact that the family took Nicole out of the school and decided to homeschool all their children. Should they face the same derision as Christian parents who do the same because they feel the same way as Nicole's family – the school system is attacking their belief system?
Take for instance a Chicago area elementary school substitute teacher showing Brokeback Mountain to 12-year-olds. I do not want the school showing movies period (they get tax money to educate, not entertain), much less R-rated movies with sexual content to children too young to see them without parental permission.
Way to go guys! Ignore centuries of christian evil-doing and castigate secularists or "high school" shenanigans. I really think an ideology which purports to value mercy, love, justice and reconciliation over revenge, persecution and injustice should be held to a higher standard – especially when it claims to speak for God.
And it isn't just a few "bad apples" who are at fault. The evils I mention above are enshrined in the bible and theology of xianism, the scripture commanding death for gays being just one example. I am finding it more and more impossible to overlook the evils of monotheism (and xianity in particular), especially the continuing persecution of queers. My best allies are secularists, who value my humanity over my sexual identity.
I agree with seeker on one thing: the growing threat of radical islam in Europe. It's time to stamp that unnerving trend flat.
I don't want to ignore any wrong-doings be they by Christians or by others, but I do want a fuller explanation of why the wrong-doing happened. Can there be a direct link from someone's self-professed ideology (be it Christianity, Islam or secularist) to their actions (be they positive or negative)?
I think human behavior tends to be "claim the good, throw out the rest" when it comes to the group to which we belong. But I do agree with Louis that Christians should be held (and hold themselves) to a higher standard.
But, of course, I disagree with Louis that the teachings of Christianity are to blame for many of the failures of those who claim to be followers. Louis is fond of using OT verses about the death penalty for homosexuals and others to illustrate the "evils" of Christianity. Much of what is missing in this analysis is the context and the differences between OT law/God dealing with a nation versus NT grace/God dealing with individuals.
Much of the history of the church is littered with violence only when the church = the state, when political power is the real issue not theological concerns. And much of the violence is toward dissenting Christians. Again, not to whitewash the problems of the past (they are present and of utmost concern to me that we do not repeat them), but to understand them in their entirety. But on the flip-side their is nothing that I can do about those in my faith family who in the past defended slavery in the 1800's. They were wrong and they perverted Scripture to defend it.
I also enjoyed part of Wilson's response to Hitch's similar reasoning. He argued that when judging a professor or school it is not fair or logical to give the same weight to the partying drop-out and the honors graduate. One excelled in the course of study, the other did not. The same can be said for Christianity. Some excel. Others do not and can (and should) have their faith questioned.
On the rise of radical Islam in Europe: Do you find it odd that as the cultural influence of Christianity has fallen in Europe, the cultural influence of Islam has risen? Does that indicate that a society cannot essentially be "secular"? Countries that claim to be secular are almost always nations that have religion at their founding and still use the vestiges of that founding religion. Now for some even those vestiges of Christianity have gone and instead of being increasingly secular, Islam is filling the vacuum. Should that give secularist pause? After all, atheist and secularist have much more freedom and influence in "Christian nations" than they do in Islamic states.
Islamism is growing in Europe because of the heavy influx of people from islamic cultures and not because white Europeans are suddenly converting en masse. The only problem with the secular Europeans is that they are too civilized for their own good: too humanitarian, too tolerant, too open and democratic. Islamic immigrants share none of these values, seeing them as the enemy of religion.
And it's not just the OT which makes it possible for the historic and on-going persecution of queers. St. Paul is the patron saint of homophobes with his unblushing condemnation of gay people: according to him, not only are we unnatural, we also deserve whatever we get (Romans), and we are excluded from the "Kingdom of God" (Corinthians). I have pondered this oddity: why is theism so insane with hatred of queers? We are a tiny minority of humanity, incapable of the type of damage we are accused of doing. And, xianity claims that we are all God's children, encompassed by his love – with the exception of queers (as described expressly in the bible). It's rather obvious however: monotheism is patriarchal to its very core, from its holy texts to its ideology to its practice. God is male, and his followers must bow to the male principle in all its forms. This means men must not lie with other men as they do with a woman; men must not be sexually submissive because that makes them into women and destroys the male prerogative. All this stuff about love and mercy (etc) must be read in that context. The queer is the most dangerous enemy of the patriarchy. Xianism has accommodated itself (somewhat grudgingly) to feminism and even the Jew, but it implacably opposes homosexuality. I'm not sure which came first in the patriarchal hegemony – culture or theistic religion – but religion is now the most vocal and vehement in its hatred of queers and its defense of the heterosexual dictatorship.
As Hitchens puts it, religion poisons everything.
The evils I mention above are enshrined in the bible and theology of xianism, the scripture commanding death for gays being just one example. I am finding it more and more impossible to overlook the evils of monotheism (and xianity in particular), especially the continuing persecution of queers.
Though I am not in favor or capitol punishment for queers, truth demands that we call it what it is – an unnatural perversion of the personality, and a sin. What we do about that is a secondary question, but if you disagree with that sentiment as some sort of evil, then I am afraid we are at an impasse.
Can there be a direct link from someone's self-professed ideology (be it Christianity, Islam or secularist) to their actions (be they positive or negative)?
In fact, there must be. If there is a disconnect, then they are hypocrites and you can not blame the ideology. However, if a direct link between the ideology and the heinous practice can be established (as can be easily done for Islam but not so much for xianity), then I'd say you have a case. Hypocrisy of followers does not of itself besmear an ideology they claim to follow.
I also enjoyed part of Wilson's response to Hitch's similar reasoning. He argued that when judging a professor or school it is not fair or logical to give the same weight to the partying drop-out and the honors graduate.
Yes, that was an excellent allegory.
Islamism is growing in Europe because of the heavy influx of people from islamic cultures and not because white Europeans are suddenly converting en masse.
True, though the multicultural tolerance of Islam's wickedness and the spiritual vacuum of secularism is what enables the process.
If we make radical islam expressly unwelcome through legislation, restricted immigration, and prosecution of sedition, we could limit the affect of this cancer.
St. Paul is the patron saint of homophobes with his unblushing condemnation of gay people: according to him, not only are we unnatural, we also deserve whatever we get (Romans), and we are excluded from the "Kingdom of God" (Corinthians).
Again, he is not advocating violence towards gays any more than towards other sexual sinners, including the promiscuous heteros and adulterers. Declaring immorality as such is not hate. It is only a childish misunderstanding of moral declarations.
I have pondered this oddity: why is theism so insane with hatred of queers?
Actually, my reading of Romans 1 is thus – while Christianity condemns all forms of sexual sin, homosexuality represents a combination of the the most perverted and unnatural (this side of bestiality) form of immorality combined with the the most common form (more likely than bestiality).
It's kind of like risk assessment on a project, where you multiply impact X likelihood. The risks with the greatest products may have either number very large or both of moderate size. For sexual perversion, you might change these factors to (level of perversion) X (commonality). So let's use 5 point scales and run the numbers (perversion x commonality)
Adultery (3 x 4) = 12
Promiscuity (2 x 5) = 10
Homosexuality (4 x 3) = 12
Bestiality (5 x 1) = 5
By my account then, adultery and homosexuality are the "worst" sexual sins. However, since homosexuality falls higher on the perversion scale (4), Paul chose it as representative of the pinnacle of the perversion that results from abandoning God.
You hear that, Louis? If you kiss a man, it makes God 240% as angry as if you raped a goat. Think twice about that the next time you go on a date. Make a trip to the petting zoo instead, and save baby Jesus some tears.
Gee, thanks seeker for proving my point – virulent hatred of queers, indeed.
Religion poisons everything.
As I said, if you confuse moral condemnation with hatred, that's your bad.
Religion poisons everything.
Actually, sin does. Yours. Mine. Stewart's.
SMALKOWSKI FOUND NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS
"That was my part of my point. I believe this is more a case of "group think," which is ever present in high school, than an active persecution of an atheist by Christians."
I wish that were the case Aaron. It wouldn't be a big deal if that were so. But clearly Nicole was persecuted because of her atheism, not just by students but by teachers, school officials and community leaders. "After school officials learned that she and her family were Atheists, lies were created about her as grounds to take her off of the team." These are documented in the 20/20 program and Nicole responds to them directly. After watching this program, despite the dimwitted John Stossel, seeing such a bright young woman crying like that struck a nerve with me. Those Christians persecuted Nicole just because she didn't believe what they did and wouldn't go along with them.
Aaron, I'm glad you were able to speak out and condemn the behavior of the Christians involved as unchristian. By sending Aaron this, I wanted to show him a little of what it feels like to be an atheist and if he learned from it, maybe he could pass that understanding to other Christians and promote tolerance in his community. I say this because that piece really made Christians look like a bigoted majority, at least in Oklahoma. Do real Christians want to change that perception? Are Christians able to accept Nicole as she is; not as a potential convert or someone whose soul needs saving but as an atheist who is also a good girl?
<i.Are Christians able to accept Nicole as she is; not as a potential convert or someone whose soul needs saving but as an atheist who is also a good girl?</i>
Accept and agree are two different things. She should be accepted, even if her world view is disagreed with.
Her treatment was awful. It is too bad, also, that many people have experienced Christianity this way. Of course, those who have experienced the opposite are not heard from much, possibly because after the convert, secularists ignore their stories.
And, not to change the subject, but to put her abuse into perspective without lessening it, the abuse of pro-choice teachers that tell her it is ok to have sex outside of marriage, and the abuse of the abortion industry, is much more criminal. Let's remember that she is still alive, unlike the 4000 children KILLED by liberal permissiveness every day, not to mention the injury done to the souls of the poor women who now have the awful experience of abortion (post-traumatic stress and often the guilt of murder) to deal with.
Such actions by Christians is lamentable, and perhaps even criminal. But the actions of abortionists and their enablers is murderous. Let's keep them "on the hook."
"And, not to change the subject…"
Then don't.
As I said, if you confuse moral condemnation with hatred, that's your bad.
When you, seeker, compare hx unfavorably with bestiality you have gone over to a species of evil so monstrous that "hate" is a mild word. The most charitable position I can take is that you have been poisoned by xianism. Thanks for confirming my growing contempt for your religion…
Religion poisons everything (especially you).
When you, seeker, compare hx unfavorably with bestiality you have gone over to a species of evil so monstrous that "hate" is a mild word.
Actually, I find your condemnation of bestiality to be equally offensive and judgmental. How dare you say that it is so much "worse" than homosexuality, or any kind of sexuality. What gives you THAT right?
You are an idiot and not worthy to be answered. Why don't you go fuck yourself?
Because that would be sexually immoral ;) But I am serious – your condemnation of bestialists smacks of the same intolerance you accuse me of. It's hypocritical and judgmental.
Jesus Christ! What an asshole!
Louis, your vision of Christianity and scripture are clouded if you believe that Paul was advocating violence or hatred of gay people or that they deserved any more condemnation from God than other sinners, as if homosexual behavior was the unforgiveable sin.
You like to quote Paul a good bit, so let's do that. You probably even like to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which says that "homosexual offenders … will [not] inherit the kingdom of God." While you may cut the quote off there, Paul continues on to say, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (Here's the whole passage)
You also probably ignore that Paul basically includes everyone in that list. Unless there is someone here who has never lied, stolen anything or coveted what someone else had – you're on the list.
Cineaste, I think they persecuted Nicole because she was different. She could have been Muslim or Buddhist and they would have done the same. Again, I go back to the cultural Christianity. The overwhelming majority of the people in that town (maybe all but Nicole's family) probably call themselves Christian, but if I was a gambler, I would bet everything I had that maybe half of the town attends church regularly and less than half of those actually practice Christianity on a daily basis.
In the South, Protestant Christianity has become like Catholicism in the major metropolitan areas of the North. You may not practice it, know what it teaches, or believe most of what it says, but because of where you were born and who your family is you are a ____________.
That doesn't excuse the behavior in anyway whatsoever, but it goes to my point that I think this is more a case of going after someone who is different than the norm than Christians decided to persecute atheists.
I think Christians should be "tolerate" of atheists, but I think we also have to define our terms. I think Christians should do more than simply tolerate atheists. They should befriend them, help them, make them feel welcome and love them. But I also think that Christians have a responsibility to our beliefs to share those – in a respectful, loving way.
What the people in Oklahoma did was not sharing their beliefs, but rather attacking someone who is different. Christians should have relationships and friendships with people of other belief systems. They should express their beliefs in a positive manner and respect someone who disagrees.
I'm not offended when xians try to convert me. I rejoice! as it gives me an opportunity to convert them to the truth.
As to your defense of Paul: the offensive thing is that he even lists hx at all. He lumps us in with all those nasty offenders whom he excludes from his "Kingdom." We need to be "washed" simply because of our sexuality. We are filthy simply because of that (not because we are "sinners" like everyone else). Thus, even were I to "accept" Jesus and was "washed," if I continued in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship I would still be excluded from your precious "Kingdom." Further, in Romans he argues that our sexuality arises from an explicit rejection of God, as if we had any control over it, and we are "depraved," committing indecent acts and "perversion" – and we receive the "due penalty" therefore. No wonder seeker is so vitriolic in his hatred for us. No wonder xians have historically inflicted the "due penalty" on us, just as you have done to the Jews.
When will you xians admit that, though you don't explicitly advocate violence and persecution, your beliefs result in violence and persecution, and have done so throughout the history of your church? It's not just that queers are "sinners" like everyone else, it's that by our very "God-given" nature we are picked out for the unforgivable sin. It's unjust! Your religion is unjust! It's your understanding of xianity that is clouded.
He lumps us in with all those nasty offenders whom he excludes from his "Kingdom."
So how can you call those other people nasty offenders? Perhaps they would say the same about the others in the list, including you.
<i.Further, in Romans he argues that our sexuality arises from an explicit rejection of God, as if we had any control over it, and we are "depraved," committing indecent acts and "perversion" – and we receive the "due penalty" therefore.
I don't read it that way. I think he is using hx as an example of the depths of depravity that befall those who deny God. I don't read it as a direct cause/effect. He mentions many other characteristics of those who have denied God, none of which are solely caused by denying God.
As for control and choice, I just want to repeat that though such coping mechanisms are not consciously chosen, they can be healed through choosing to do the inner work of healing.
if I continued in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship I would still be excluded from your precious "Kingdom."
This can be misread. Admission to the Kingdom of God is not based on performance or even the ceasing of sinning – it's based on faith in Christ's finished work. No one becomes sinless after becoming a Christian.
But if we continue in sin after "conversion", and fail to acknowledge it, we may not be Christian after all. When God comes into a life, He inspires us towards holiness, truth, and purity. You could continue in your "loving, monogamous" relationship, but you could not be a mature, healthy Christian without eventually dealing with the roots of your sinful relationship, any more than I could be healthy if I continued in sexual sin like porno addiction, promiscuity, or bestiality.
though you don't explicitly advocate violence and persecution, your beliefs result in violence and persecution
While moral disapproval may lead to persecution, what shall we do? Stop condeming sin? Should we stop saying that promiscuity or porno addiction is sinful because the adult bookstore is afraid someone will torch their store in response?
I understand the connection between moral social disapproval and violence, but we're not talking about inspiring people to burn witches, heretics, or gays. But perhaps we should also model how we ought to treat such people rather than leaving it up to the ignorant masses to figure it out.
It's not just that queers are "sinners" like everyone else, it's that by our very "God-given" nature we are picked out for the unforgivable sin.
It's not any kind of unforgivable sin. It's just "more heinous" than others because it is so obviously against nature (perversion of nature) (and bestiality is gross for the same reason), while hetero promiscuity, for instance, at least is in line with the physical design of the body. However, it is still harmful.
And it's not your god given nature any more than those who blame biology for their promiscuity or adultery. We all have a sinful, fallen nature, and accumulate such sinful coping mechanisms and addictions. We have to choose to let truth and God in to change us, and to do the painful work of healing.
God doesn't make gays. Bad or missing parents, molesting uncles, social rejection, inflexible or perverted gender norms in society, and the like make gays. Sexual brokenness, not god-given nature.
"I think they persecuted Nicole because she was different. She could have been Muslim or Buddhist and they would have done the same."
It said in the story that Nicole was specifically persecuted because she was an atheist. And, you make my point with references to Hinduism and Buddhism, Nicole was religiously persecuted. Religious persecution is against the law and it's why that town got sued. When you say "different" you pointed to examples of different beliefs. You didn't point to anything physically different about Nicole. It really is just her beliefs which happen to be atheist.
Aaron, can you answer this for me? "Are Christians able to accept Nicole as she is; not as a potential convert or someone whose soul needs saving but as an atheist who is also a good girl?"
"They (Christians) should befriend them (Atheists), help them, make them feel welcome and love them. But I also think that Christians have a responsibility to our beliefs to share those – in a respectful, loving way."
I'm sure the Christians started off trying to convert Nicole in a friendly way. When she would have none of it, that's when the Christians turned ugly toward her. If Nicole does not want to hear your beliefs, you should still accept her as an atheist, not just "tolerate" her. I hope that when you prayed for Nicole, I hope it wasn't so that she could "Find Jesus." You know that goes against her personal beliefs.
I used "tolerate" because of the continued use of "tolerance."
I know what the story said and I am agreeing with you, but I am telling you that you could substitute atheist for something else and get the same reaction from ignorant people. It has less to do with being atheist (she just happened to be that) and more to do with being different than the cultural norm.
Yes, she was singled out because of her beliefs because that is what made her vastly different from the self-professed beliefs of the overwhelming majority of the town. She stuck out and they attacked. It is reprehensible that people do that, especially people that claim Christ, but it happens to every group of people on a daily basis depending on the prevailing culture of the area.
I don't think they tried to share their beliefs with Nicole in a friendly way, at least she doesn't say they did and all we have to go off of is her word in this. She said that once it became know that she was an atheist was when they started to attack her. You quoted that yourself. "After school officials learned that she and her family were Atheists, lies were created about her as grounds to take her off of the team."
It doesn't seem like they all wanted to befriend her and make her welcome when they found out she was an atheist. It seems like they began to attack her, hence my point about being nice and sharing their faith.
Christians hope everyone can "find Jesus" because we believe that is where true peace and happiness comes from. We believe that you cannot experience joy on this life and heaven in the next apart from Him. So of course we want to share that with others.
Do you not try to convince seeker and I of our errors in thinking about evolution, etc. even though that "goes against [our] personal belief?" I don't find that offensive. I understand you believe that to be the truth and you want to share that and convince us of that.
I can be friends with an atheist even after they have rejected Christ. Sam and I tried to meet for lunch when he was near my area. I would do the same with you, Stewart and Louis. I can clearly see that none of you are likely to become a Christian soon, if ever, yet that wouldn't stop me from carrying on conversations with you here and enjoying your company in the "real world." That doesn't mean I ever stop trying to point people to Christ, but I attempt to do so with civility, respect and a concern for the relationship.
If I met Nicole, I would apologize for the ignorant behavior of those that persecuted her, hope that she understands that such behavior is not indicative of Christianity and especially not Christ and help her if I could. Over time if I built a friendship/relationship with her, I would tell about why I believe in Christ, what He has done for me and why I tell her and others about Him.
As I said in the post, there are ways to share your faith and ways not to. What happened to Nicole is clearly a way not to.
My charged colloquy with seeker, and milder one with Aaron, has only convinced me that we live in two, wholly incompatible, mental worlds. It's strange, really, that we all, American citizens and products of Western civilization, can have world-views which are totally opposed – so opposed, indeed, that communication is virtually impossible. We talk past each other, to no effect. No matter what arguments I marshal, what facts I present, seeker just repeats the same old, discredited tripe. Aaron, though milder in tone, essentially believes the same thing. When I echo Hitchens' assertion, religion poisons everything, I mean that it poisons relations between people as well as the minds of individuals. It inoculates the minds of its victims against reason and simple humanity, fostering a dangerous fanaticism. Any possibility of sympathy I may have harbored has been poisoned by the anti-gay bias inherent in christian belief. Above all, christianity is supposed to offer hope to humanity. The above exchange (and others) reveals how dismally it has failed. You cannot possibly imagine how your religion (indeed, monotheism in general) has poisoned the lives of queers throughout history, up to and including today. It is a force for oppression and despair. Only the advance of secularism and reason, at the cost of religious power, has liberated queers. And the current assault xianity has perpetrated on the secular culture is directly threatening to me and my life. Violence is only one aspect of religion's campaign. How would you like to have your most intimate relationship, you inner-most being, attacked as perversion, sin, an abomination to God, and then be relegated to second-class citizenship? This, to me, reveals it is only for straights, leaving me to look elsewhere for spiritual sustenance.
Only the advance of secularism and reason, at the cost of religious power, has liberated queers.
What happens when secularism and reason turn on you? What happens when it teaches that it is okay to kill unborn babies that have gay tendencies? Where do you turn then?
What happens when and if secularism is successful in "dethroning" Christianity in America and then radical Islam takes it's place? People long for, as you call it, "spiritual sustenance." They will find it somewhere and it will not be in secularism – it can't fill that role. The most free nations in the world are culturally Christian – that is no coincidence. Even those nations that claim to be secular now trace their founding and their principles back to Christianity. Those that have drifted farthest away, like France, are finding radical Islam taking root and growing – with much more restrictions and threats than Christianity ever could have given.
Is Christianity perfect? Well, the only measuring stick we can see are the adherents and if that is the case – no because we screw up and don't live up to the perfect example of Christ. But despite the imperfections of its followers, I do believe that Christianity, because of the person of Jesus, offers hope, healing, peace and love to anyone that seeks it.
I am not inoculated against reason. I have been reasoned with on some issues here and attempt to use reason and logic in all our discussions. Reason played a huge role in my complete acceptance of Christianity as a college student when I began to question the faith of my parents.
I hope that you continue your quest to find "spiritual sustenance" and that you do not let anyone else hinder you through their actions from searching for and finding ultimate Truth.
No matter what arguments I marshal, what facts I present, seeker just repeats the same old, discredited tripe.
Discredited? Only in your wishes. The fact is, the roots of homosexuality are contested and debated, and imho, the best minds consider it less than 50% genetic, and largely behavioral/environmental. And it's reversibility is also being explored.
Sure, reparative therapy has not been stellar, but it has had some significant success – that is, if you view hx as a deep emotional disorder, reparative therapy may have normal rates of recovery compared to similar maladies.
I mean that it poisons relations between people as well as the minds of individuals.
That's what sin does. Healthy religion brings grace and truth – but the truth of God's ability to cleanse and change gays is often rejected.
It inoculates the minds of its victims against reason and simple humanity, fostering a dangerous fanaticism.
And softening of moral standards leads to the spread of disease, social chaos, emotional trauma, relational and family disintegration, and eventually, can lead to the downfall of a nation. You got risks and extremes either way. Abandon truth for grace, you get sin and death. Abandon grace for truth, you get brutal oppression rather than transformational change and freedoms.
Any possibility of sympathy I may have harbored has been poisoned by the anti-gay bias inherent in christian belief.
Christianity is anti-sin and pro human. Your real enemy is the hx identity/addiction you use to nurse your wounded spirit instead of seeking freedom.
As I said, seeker just keeps repeating the same ol' discredited tripe.
It's revealing that he can say something like Abandon grace for truth, you get brutal oppression rather than transformational change and freedoms. I'll take truth over your assertions any day.
I'll take truth over your assertions any day.
Jesus said I am the TRUTH, the life, and the way. That's a truth you should invest in.
Ha-ha, seeker, very funny. According to you, following truth instead of religion gets you brutal oppression. Since Jesus claims to be the truth, it's entirely understandable that his religion inevitably brings brutal oppression.
What happens when secularism and reason turn on you?
I'll take my chances, thank you very much. The history of christianity is one of unquestioning persecution of gay people. Right here, in this blog, neither you nor stinker have repudiated this history, nor have you done so with modern-day xianity. Any culture can turn on any of us, but one based on reason rather than faith is far preferable.
What happens when and if secularism is successful in "dethroning" Christianity in America and then radical Islam takes it's place?
Oh, come off it! As if that could ever happen. What you and your ally stinker represent is only slightly better than islam. What I want is a post-xian society where the various faiths are kept apolitical and all ideas are subject to rational scrutiny.
I hope that you continue your quest to find "spiritual sustenance" and that you do not let anyone else hinder you through their actions from searching for and finding ultimate Truth.
Thanks, I intend to. As long as xianity is kept at bay in this country, I have a chance.
"There is a right way and a wrong way for Christians to discuss with and even attempt to convert atheist."
In all seriousness, what do you guys think about this young woman?
my coming out story
All one has to do is read seeker for many fine reasons to be an atheist.
The OP's point is a valid one. Christians are the worst enemy of Christianity. I believe I am correct in rejecting the supernatural foundation of Christianity, but if my experience with Christians was that they were in any way more loving and compassionate due to their religion, it might not have been so easy to turn away. 'By their fruits ye shall know them'. And I mean real love and compassion, not an act so you have a better chance of winning someone's soul…open dislike can be preferable to that kind of insincerity.
Christianity seems to be stuck when it comes to reaching out to homosexuals. Even Seeker admits there is a strong genetic component to sexual orientation (and that ignores the influence of fetal development). I don't know how valid the mental illness model is if the therapy to 'turn someone straight' would probably be as effective at 'turning someone queer' if reversed. In any case, if one person has to take heroic measures to meet the minimum requirements for being Christian and someone else gets to pretty much free ride in comparison, how is that just? Isn't this another area where the Christian should show love and compassion-and acceptance-I'm not saying they have to say it's okay, but agree to disagree, maybe?
>> DEAN: Christianity seems to be stuck when it comes to reaching out to homosexuals. Even Seeker admits there is a strong genetic component to sexual orientation (and that ignores the influence of fetal development).
I agree that xianity is 'stuck' wrt homosexuality, but because it must both care about homosexuals, while rejecting homosexuality. Since hx is seated so deeply in the psyche/egos of gays, they experience rejection of hx as rejection of them as people. How DO you accept someone yet reject something that feels so intrinsic to them?
But I did not 'admit' that there is a 'strong' biological component, only that science indicates a MAXIMUM of between 10 and 40%, which means NO MORE than that can be genetic, and quite probably, it is less.
But as I've said, all sorts of diseases and dysfunctions are partly genetic, so the proposed genetic predisposition to homosexuality does not make it 'natural' or 'healthy.' We may need to treat it with medicine and psychotherapy, like we do other genetic abnormalities.
And also, predisposition does not mean predestination – just because I have a predisposition to alcoholism doesn't mean I am doomed to be an alcoholic. Same with the possible genetic roots of hx. It may be that, for example, some men are more personally predisposed to being more feminine or gentle, but that does not mean they must be gay, any more than tomboy women are closer to being lesbian.
>> DEAN: I don't know how valid the mental illness model is if the therapy to 'turn someone straight' would probably be as effective at 'turning someone queer' if reversed.
By definition, 'healing' homos to become heteros is a model that makes 'sick' people 'well.' Reversing it would be making them 'sick,' and as we all know, making people sick is easier than making them well.
I would argue that, since hx is a dysfunction, almost anyone could become a bisexual or homosexual – all it takes is getting them to engage in addictive sexual behaviors, and pretty soon, they feel at home there.
The reason that this WON'T work to turn to turn gays straight is because addictive dysfunctional behaviors do not support health, but they do easily push people away from it.
>> DEAN: In any case, if one person has to take heroic measures to meet the minimum requirements for being Christian and someone else gets to pretty much free ride in comparison, how is that just?
The minimum requirement for being a Christian is to believe that Christ died for you, to receive him into your heart, thereby becoming 'born-again.' If one has genuinely done this, a real inward regeneration occurs, and all kinds of positive changes happen.
From that point on, it's a matter of growth, not acceptance into heaven. We all have deep sins, emotional dysfunctions, self-concept issues, and addictions to overcome. While working on one's same sex attraction may be difficult, who's to say that it's more difficult than the 'requirement' that we stop abusing sex, alcohol, or engaging in self-hatred or hatred of others, etc?
The only barrier to faith is to admit that we are a thorough sinner who needs God to change us. Gays aren't any worse than the rest of us, but just like those engaged in premarital sex, porn addiction, or adultery, they need to stop AND work on the inner things in their souls that keep them wanting those things.
I understand that the hetero doesn't have to give up his attraction to the other sex, but he DOES have to give up his lust, his objectifying of the other sex, and other dysfunctions. And at it's root, gays are not having to give up sexual attraction, only unhealthy sexual attraction. They too have a natural, inborn attraction for the opposite sex which can be resurrected as they become healthy. At least, that's the idea. So they aren't being asked to become eunuchs.
>>DEAN: Isn't this another area where the Christian should show love and compassion-and acceptance-I'm not saying they have to say it's okay, but agree to disagree, maybe?
Depends on what you mean by acceptance – acceptance of adultery, homosexuality and premarital sex as OK? I can accept a gay person as a broken person, just like myself. But neither of us should make excuses for sexual sin.
Hi Dean,
Above you see evidence of the dysfunction that is orthodox, conservative, evangelical/fundamentalist christianism. I can't decide whether this sickness is genetic or chosen, but the reality demands that we treat these poor sickies with compassion (no matter how tempting it is to condemn them out of hand). I pray that medical science can investigate this mental dysfunction and construct a course of treatment to liberate these unfortunate creatures from their illness
>> LOUIS: I can't decide whether this sickness is genetic or chosen
Straw man. Because *science* has not determined the full source of homosexuality, I don't claim that it is or isn't. What I do claim is that my position is that REGARDLESS of whether or not it is genetic, IT IS A SICKNESS, or more well said, a dysfunction or developmental disorder.
"Chosen" is a red herring – my position is that most of us do NOT choose our dysfunctions, esp. those instinctively resorted to in times of stress and negative events in our formative years. But we CAN choose to examine our dysfunctions and choose to abandon them for healthy self concepts and responses.
>> LOUIS: but the reality demands that we treat these poor sickies with compassion (no matter how tempting it is to condemn them out of hand).
This question exists in general for spirituality – how to you treat people who are in process, acknowledging and abandoning sin as Christians, vs. those who are unrepentant.
For sexual sins, the process is made clear, by both Paul and Jesus.
>> LOUIS: I pray that medical science can investigate this mental dysfunction and construct a course of treatment to liberate these unfortunate creatures from their illness
I certainly do. Despite the failures of reparative therapy, there is enough success to be hopeful (as per the Spitzer report), and the testimony of those ex-gays who have successfully shed homosexuality also gives me hope. Shedding deep dysfunction is not easy.
Shedding deep dysfunction is not easy.
Don't despair, seeker! There's hope for you yet.
Hey, seeker! There's a nutjob convention going on in Oklahoma (of course) – sounds right up your alley. Are you attending?
What? Is the IPCC meeting again?
JBS
Hi Daniel:
You said:
For sexual sins [emphasis added], the process is made clear, by both Paul and Jesus.
Matthew 18:15-17 (Jesus)
Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
This passage isn't referring to sexual sin, but sin in general committed against someone in the church.
your picky friend
Keith
>> KEITH: This passage isn't referring to sexual sin,
Correct, but I think it covers all sin, including sexual. Coupled with Paul's admonition, I'd say that this method would apply to sexual sin in the church, don't you? Sexual sin IS sinning against someone.
True, it says "you" so I guess that the party being transgressed against would have to be the one following up like this. Interestingly, Paul does not indicate that the transgressed against has to initiate the process when sexual sin is involved – the church leadership can do it.