3.27.2008:
How To Actually Talk To Atheists (If You're Christian)
6:58 AMUpdate 3.31.08: A number of people have emailed and asked if they can print and distribute this article / email it to friends / tattoo it on their buttocks, etc. If you think there's value in it, feel free to print or email it :)
* * *
You know what's great?Unicorns.
In fact, unicorns are freakin' AWESOME. And you know why? Because once you accept one into your life, they provide you with a lifetime membership into the Beer, Massage, Chocolate and Steak club. Have you not heard about the beer, massage and steak club? Well, let me tell you all about it - it doesn't matter if you don't like beer, or steak, or chocolate, or massages - whichever one you like, you get 24 hours a day for the rest of your life. And if you like all four or any combination of them, well... You're in luck! Because That's what the rest of your eternity will be - massages (happy ending or not, your choice), steak cooked just the way you want it, chocolate of any sort coated in any topping (or as a topping on anything you want), and any beer ever made or ever conceptualized, always on tap and never flat. And to get all of this, all you have to do is accept a unicorn into your life.
What? You don't believe in unicorns? Well, I assure you that they are very real! And I know this because I've accepted a unicorn into my life, and I trust that it will one day gain me admittance into the BMCS Club. How could I have accepted it into my life? Well, I just believe in them. And I trust they exist, because there are texts available to me that discuss them, as well as people available to teach me all about them. I mean, after all, with such great eternal rewards, why wouldn't you believe?
Okay, fine, don't believe in them - you're going to end up in the Pushups For Eternity club. That's where you have to do knuckle pushups on mounds of broken glass with Rush Limbaugh sitting on your back for all eternity. All because you won't accept a unicorn into your life.
Pretty silly, right? Well, my dear Christian friends, that's exactly how you sound to an Atheist.
Now, I know that the message of Christ's death and resurrection sin so that humans can spend eternity in Heaven isn't being sold by (most) Christians as steak and chocolate and unicorns. That's not my point. I do not want or intend to discuss the actual merits (or lack thereof) of the Christian faith. My point is simply that you're asking a group of people to believe in something they do not believe exists, for a reward they cannot prove they'll ever obtain.
And I'm sure that the first reaction that you, as a Christian, felt toward my example was distinctly negative. I'm sure your feelings ranged anywhere from marginal discomfort to outright repulsion; given the notion that your chosen religion - the belief system that you've based everything you know and do around - could be compared to unicorns, steak clubs and push-ups in hell, well... I think I'd be offended myself. But I assure you, it is not my intention to offend you. I have but one goal, and that is to illustrate a single fact:
What you're currently doing - cold-call witnessing and talking to strangers at the mall about your faith and standing on street corners holding signs that read "REPENT"? Well...
It's not working.
This? Not working.It's at this point that you're probably ready to just write me off as yet another heretic. And that's your right, and I certainly can't stop you. However, you need to understand that I didn't intend to upset you. If I did, however, I will not apologize. Instead, I'd ask that you give me a chance to explain my case by pointing out that your reaction to my comparison actually proves my point:
Confronting a person by attempting to convince them that everything they believe and know is wrong and that you are right is quite possibly the worst way on Earth to persuade them.
But I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. Before I illustrate how your current arsenal of witnessing tactics are not only ineffective, but are actively harming your religion and its' stance in an ever-growing public consisting of non-believers, I need to give you a bit of background information. And it's very important that, no matter how much you THINK you know these points, you pay attention to what I'm about to say, because the rapid swelling of the ranks of the Neo-Atheist movement have proven that what you think you know about them is absolutely, unequivocally, 100% WRONG.
First (and most important):
Atheists do not believe there is a God.
Yep, I'm using the definition of Atheism as my first point. And I do this not because I think you don't know what the word means, but because I'm fairly certain you've not yet realized the concept. When you witness to an Atheist, the person whom you are addressing does not believe there is a God - therefore, any information about God, Jesus, the holy trinity, the parting of oceans, great floods, and the creation of man falls on deaf ears.
To put this in more universal terms, you're attempting to sell a concept for which there is no proof other than the beliefs of men who have spread the word before it.
Whether you like it or not; whether you accept it or not, the fact remains - you're attempting to convince someone that something they cannot see, feel, hear, or otherwise partake of any empirical evidence of its existence, exists. Regardless of how much you believe in the story and how much it has affected your life and the lives of those around you, they do not.
This is important to understand. Until you do, you're arguing with a stop sign.
Second, Atheists do not need to believe in a God.
We've established that you're communicating with a person who does not believe what you are sharing with them exists. You're asking them to buy on faith the fact that spending time in church, telling other people about this belief and living a life based on it may one day reward them. That's difficult enough. When you add to this the fact that you are not only selling them something you can't prove exists, but that they don't even want, things turn from difficult to impossible.
Atheists assert that the foundation for their actions and deeds lie in proven methods related to science and the establishment of undeniable fact. In this, they believe that they have everything they need to live a healthy, rewarding life.
They're not wrong - no more than you are in asserting that your faith in the tenets of Christianity are all you need to live your life. And that's the point. It's hard to convince a man with two working legs that he needs to buy a third, or worse, get rid of his and try the ones you have on. And when he looks for your version and cannot see, feel, touch or otherwise prove that they actually exist, he's going to completely dismiss you. It's not personal, it's just how we work as people.
You're no different. Think about the last time you heard about a confidence scheme on the news - twenty or thirty elderly couples were duped out of their life savings by a man promising investment returns or selling a product which did not exist. If you are honest with yourself, you'll admit that your very first reaction - the one you had before you caught yourself and realized that these poor people are victims - was "Holy cow, why didn't they research it before they invested?"
It's crazy to buy something you can't prove exists, isn't it?
Witnessing is interruption marketing.
It's unfortunate but true - just about every method of "witnessing" to non-believers equates to human spam. To start, I'll list just a few of the methods we all know about:
- Knocking on doors and talking to strangers about your new church / Christ / a church-related event designed to get new members
- Cold-calling people from the phone book / phone lists to invite them to your church / discuss Christ and his teachings
- Direct mail campaigns
- Holding up signs on street corners
- Walking up to strangers at Starbucks / the mall / anywhere besides your church
- Handing out literature (i.e. "Chick Tracts")
This = Human Spam.- Have you ever asked a co-worker to attend church with you?
- Have you ever asked a stranger to attend church with you?
- Have you ever asked either of the above about their faith in God or Jesus Christ?
- Have you ever shifted a conversation that had nothing to do with church, Christ, or God into a conversation about any of the above?
When you did any of those things, did you notice an eye roll? Did the person groan? Did they shift in their seat and, at the very least, say they would go (or research what you just said, or give the matter some thought) and then never got back to you?
These techniques probably feel natural to you. They feel like you're sharing the good news of your faith and the joy it brings to your life, and it probably feels great to share that joy with others.
There's another organization / concept that those involved are equally as glad to share, because it's changed their life and they can't wait to spread that good news. This organization thrives on new members. Each individual collection of people works diligently to get more folks into the stable, because the larger they grow, the more they thrive and the farther they can spread the word of this great, life-changing group.
Surely, you know who I'm talking about. It's called Amway.
Now, before you get up in arms, I did NOT just compare your belief in God and Jesus to selling cleaners and credit cards and pre-paid cellphones. But I did, however, compare your technique of spreading the word about your belief to the technique of spreading the word about Amway.
Again, try to put yourself outside of your own perspective and into the shoes of your intended audience. You're interrupting their time and space to bring them a message you feel is important. And sure, you have the right to choose your faith and the right to free speech, but as GK Chesteron said, to have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. And ultimately, "You need to hear this because I need to say it" is the ultimate in self-serving causes... And if you're serving yourself, you certainly aren't serving God.
So. You're dealing with an audience that doesn't believe that what you want to share with them even exists. They don't need it. They don't want to hear about it. Your attempts to share it with them are seen largely as annoying or, at the very least, an interruption in their day. And the result of these tactics is a massive swelling of the ranks of the "New Atheist Movement" (Neo-Atheism) in America and abroad; a movement that has been covered in great detail and has caused great concern within all denominations of the Christian church.
What to do, what to do...
Well, considering the facts, you've really only got two choices. The first is to just keep doing what you're doing. After all, it worked in the past. Your church regularly asks you to do it. It feels good to witness, and at the very end of the day, you can justify a few "lost sheep" if you gave it your best effort, right?
Well... If you're fine with that - if screaming your message through a megaphone and praying (literally) that someone hears you - is okay with you, well... Look forward to staying as frustrated as you are now (if not moreso). Stay persistent, right?
Well, to quote Seth Godin, quite possibly the most brilliant modern marketing guru alive today:
Persistence isn't using the same tactics over and over. That's just annoying.And the goal is to get people to follow the teachings of Christ and live a Christ-like life, right? Well, telling them to do so over and over again in ways that disrespect their time and personal space is nothing more than simple badgering. It might FEEL like you're doing the right thing, but as we all know, feeling like you're doing work, and actually getting work done are two different things. But there's something you can do that will bring you far closer to your goal than just talking and hoping:
Persistence is having the same goal over and over.
Become the prototype.
Live the example, and let your actions spread the message. Get people to see the merit in the life you live and adopt your practices.
Let's follow two scenarios - one for each path you can take.
Using the traditional, human-spam model of witnessing, you use interruption-marketing techniques to spread the word about your faith. Because you are Christian, and because you are employing techniques that are unwelcome and unwanted, you communicate the following through your actions:
- Christians would rather be correct than listen to differing opinion.
- Christians do not respect the personal space (mentally and physically) of non-believers.
- Christians feel they are superior to non-believers because they have salvation.
- Christians would rather rely on faith as evidence than rely on fact.
All of these are going to lose your audience. Period.
And as I said before, if you're fine with that - if you're okay with the notion that saying the words and annoying or inconveniencing people with your methods of spreading what is supposed to be a message of brotherhood, unity, respect and love... Well, let's just say that you might need to evaluate the motives behind your actions, for they couldn't possibly be borne of love, respect or brotherhood.
Did Jesus ever hand out a pamphlet about himself? Did he ever tap people on the shoulder and say "Hey, have you heard the good news about me?" No... Not according to any of the literature I've ever read... And I've read a lot of it.
No one pays attention to magazine ads and billboards. People use Tivo to skip commercials on television. There are any number of email spam filters available to prevent just that sort of communication from inflicting itself on you digitally. In every segment - including yours - interruption techniques fail.
Considering your audience's opinion that you are infringing on their freedom to choose not to follow your faith, and their personal space with selling tales of what they consider to be mythical tales and arguments based on belief, you've lost before you've begun... And to go ahead with that program anyway implies a selfishness that only further harms your cause.
Its time for a new tack.
If I am the target for your message, I'm going to be far more receptive to one that incorporates respect for my time and my belief (or lack thereof). I will probably dismiss, as you do, the one which interrupts my routine and infringes on my time to tell me you're right and that everything I have spent years figuring out and pondering and basing my life and views around is wrong.
The second scenario, using my proposed example of witnessing by example, you employ the exact methods that Christ himself used to bring people inline with a respect and love based lifestyle. Live the teachings of your faith and sway action by your deeds. It may not feel like it’s as effective as talking and handing out literature - but the rational being will concede that that stuff has already failed everywhere it's being employed. And ultimately, living the example may not SEEM like it's as much work as hitting the street to hold posters or cold-call people to invite them to your church... But it's far less intrusive and far more effective in the long run.
Make no mistake - this is NOT giving up on saving souls or witnessing. Its a changing of tactics, one which requires diligence in action, commitment to the lifestyle, and confidence that those around you are taking notice.
Spreading the 'good news' is fine... But its hardly news at this point, and there's nothing good about not respecting my right to be who I am. And I can't guarantee or even suggest you'll convert everyone you meet with this new tact. But obviously, judging by the level of concern within all denominations of the rapidly spreading New Atheism, what you're doing isn't working the way you think it should. In fact, its doing more to push people toward the movement you're fighting so hard against. That doesn't seem like a good plan to me.
Eventually, living the example will entice someone who is paying attention to ask you your motives, or at the very least, inquire about the specific actions you're undertaking (such as volunteering for community service, feeding the hungry at a shelter, working with Habitat for Humanity, etcetera). And when they do, you'll have to engage them in conversation about your faith.
When you do, you should know that electing to enter into conversation with an Atheist equipped with your faith and scripture as tools is akin to electing to explore the ocean with a torch. The equipment you've chosen simply will not work in that environment. You can't blame the environment - after all, it is what it is, and you chose to go there.
So, here's a few pointers:
- Don't bring it up first.
- If you do bring it up first, and the other person is disinterested or reacts negatively, just let it go.
- If the conversation does continue, remember that respect is paramount. You're not right, and I'm not wrong - you simply have faith in something I do not. That's not a weakness on my part, even when you consider it a strength on your part.
- The faith you have? It's belief in the absence of proof or fact. That's the definition of faith. So, don't offer belief as evidence. You can, however, offer it as motive. "I believe in God" does not prove that God exists. "I volunteer at hunger shelters because I believe in God" does prove that you have a motive for your actions.
- You will not sway an Atheist with promises of eternal reward or threat of eternal damnation. You can't point to heaven or hell on a map, so there's no evidence of their existence. Furthermore, bribery and intimidation are the tools of those who seek power, not those who seek redemption.
- The Bible is not regarded as the word of God to an Atheist. It's a book written by men. Using it as evidence or proof of anything more than your motives for doing what you do is going to be dismissed.
Even if the conversation never ensues, it's a universal truth that action speaks louder than words. People DO take notice of those who act in accordance with a respect and love based lifestyle. They feel good when they see a person helping another person - and in fact, it makes them want to help out themselves. One need only look at the total figures of collected donations for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center attacks to see this in action. Deed follows deed. Tell a person what to do, and you may get them to do it... Make them want to do it, and it'll get done, no matter what.
Ultimately, salvation has very little to do with saying the words "I believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for my sins." There are many, many people - some of whom hold the highest offices in the American government - who say this, and then go on to live lives that, by any account, are not at all Christ-like. How many people in your church have spent a week engaging in debauchery and other 'sinful' behaviors, only to appear in church on Sunday, ready to ask forgiveness for what they've done? And how many go right back out and do it again? How are these people better than those who live good lives and help their neighbor and further advance brotherhood and unity... But don't believe in God?
Which of these two types of people would you rather point to and say, "I taught them that?"
If you're more interested in lip service than in actually influencing people to live better lives, I'd say you need to revisit that book you proclaim to live by and, you know...
...Actually read it.
* * *
127 Comments:
Sadly, I know plenty of people to whom the words really are the most important thing. It doesn't matter how good a person someone may be, how Christ-like and charitable and humble, if he doesn't walk into that church every week or give enough money to it or have himself dipped in the sacred dunk-tank, he's on par with murderers and devil-worshippers. But if you do get baptised you've got a free pass for assholishness. Why? Because these people are Saved, and once you're Saved it doesn't matter what you do, you will be forgiven. So they can be hypocritical greedy adulterous jerks all week long because they pay their tithes and say their prayers and donate to causes that send bibles, not food or medicine, to undeveloped parts of the world.
Seems that even atheists understand the message of the bible better than the Christians. Be a good person is what I always thought it meant, but churches seem to teach that it means to be an annoying fuck who strives toward a convert-quota.
Christianity is an absolute stain on society. Take a good read-through of Proverbs or James and put a check-mark next to every command that is utterly ignored by "Christians".
I believe that the Bible is God-inspired, etc. etc. The hypocrisy just pisses me off.
You should print this out as a pamphlet to hand back to the human spam and leave on bathroom counters.
Great job on this one, Joe! It's very thorough and comprehensive, and it needed desperately to be said.
Insert "Some" in front of everyone's group attack on Christians here and I'll agree!
Also, mmm bacon.
The abridged version: "Practice what you preach while living and let live." How novel!
First off, I am an atheist. Now, onto my actual point. I very much respect the author of this article. Very much indeed. However, it is true that Christians and other religious people tend to become absorbed in the technical aspects of the religion because that is precisely what the people "running" the religion want, and therefore the incentives for the believers line up accordingly. Crippling the reasoning faculty directly produces passionately driven, weak-minded, hypocritical assholes who think they're Saved. I of course have no issue with people being truly good, but the "enlightened" religious people would have done that regardless, in their own way.
I have encountered Christians who knock on my door to just "have a little chat". I also have an ex-colleague who constantly requests me to just "drop in his church" for a Sunday.
And the irritating part to me is that these people know I'm a Muslim . I think that they just need to realise that not everyone can be Christians or agree with their doctrine.
To be fair, I've also met some Christians who are pretty nice and not pushy
Very nice article, very nice indeed. Should be required reading for all Christians.
I'm a Christian, and agree with this post. The Amway comparison says it all. I am happy to report, though, that I don't hang out with people who push their beliefs on others, even though I can relate to what you're saying. (In fact, I avoid conversations with people who do, because even as a Christian, I feel like I'm being "taken hostage".) Luckily, most people I know, regardless of their religion, seem to follow the advice given here.
Screw you, you aren't a christian, don't tell me how to live my life.
Awesome article! I agree with much, if not most of it, and it is very well put.
I am in fact a Christian - I am studying to enter into ministry one day and may in fact leave my 6 figure job to do so-(but I will likely wait a few more years until my kids are out of school-I don't expect to make much money where I think I will be going).
Anyways, I am currently taking a course on evangelism, so I have been giving a lot of thought to the topic as well.What you say makes a lot of sense to me, and I really appreciate your respectful approach that you bring to the conversation.
I used to be quite 'conservative'.Now I am much more modrate, and the irony of it is that my faith is stronger than ever, and my awareness of God's love in my day to day life is deeper than any day I might have felt 'on fire' for God after pushing tracts into peoples hands.
There is a new stream of thinking that is flowing in the church-it is called by some the 'emerging' church, and you hear a lot about the 'conversation'.It is all about sharing,relationship with others, and looking for common ground with people of all faiths (including good atheist folk like yourself!).Like you have said yourself,if there is any truth or merit to our(Christians) claims, why should it not be more evident by our very lives and prescence?
The holy lives of the saints have been portrayed by painters over the centuries by halos. When was the last time you met a person that exuded such a prescence that it was palpable?
I guess it's because many of them would rather help the orphaned babies of aids striken Africa than pass out tracts in Maconalds. Although you will find them with their sleeves rolled up at the shelters and soup lines too...
God Bless you,sir.
Rick
Agreed. I'm a Christian college student involved in a Christian organization on campus that, at least in my perspective, pushes "random evangelism." It very much frustrates me for the reasons you stated. I do think that in some cases, God makes it possible for this to work (I have seen it happen). However, just talking to a random person, they have no reason to believe you. Your best piece of evidence for God is your life, which is why living according to the Bible is so important.
At least, that is what I believe. I hope it helps someone to understand that not all evangelical Christians fit the stereotype.
Yeah, I'm a Christian. So many of the evangelicals...have no idea what the other side is like, so they have no frame of reference when dealing with anyone who doesn't agree with them. Like the supervisor I had who didn't think I was Christian enough because I belong to the wrong church. This lesson you wrote should be taught in missionary schools, swear to God. It's a lesson I learned, but also my temperment: I don't want to force you to believe anything you don't want. It worked for me, it makes me happy. Live and let live. Don't mock me, and I won't mock you. You know, to your face.
dude I'm totally with you.
you should join my club.
you should join my family.
you should join my life.
I love you.
fucking retard.
This post has been removed by the author.
I didn't read all the other comments - time constraints suck - but as a Christian who somehow comes in frequent contact with hardcore Atheists on a regular basis, I have to compliment you both on your content and your approach. Oh, and the writing style was clever. But that's just my desire for constant entertainment speaking.
It seems like both sides (that is, the religious and the non) forget that they speak primarily from personal experiences when they make most of their arguments. We forget that other people haven't seen, heard, and felt the same emotions as we have. We forget that we're different. I certainly do. Christians assume (and rightfully so, from their perspective) that any individual who doesn't worship Christ is going to Hell. Though unpleasant and perhaps delusional, the fact remains that Christians honestly desire to help those around them. In an eternal and temporal sense of the word "help." As irritating as he is, the Christian that keeps asking if you wanna hang out or check out his bible study ("because it's a great group of people") does so not out of some kind of churchy obligation, but because he cared. Whether Christians succeed in telling people about Christ or just piss people off depends on the methods they use. As evidenced by...well, every example I've ever witnessed, megaphones don't really work.
At the same time, Christians forget that "saving the damned" is far less about what they say than about what they do. I think you hit that point on the head. I think hypocrisy might just be, as the quote goes, the greatest single cause of atheism in the world today, in a very pitiable way. Yet it is an intrinsically unsolvable problem. I mean, even brief observation of the world leads to an easy conclusion: people suck. Though we have our bright moments, a good portion of each person's life is devoted to trying to take care of himself, not others. We kind of miss that whole self-sacrifice bit.
Unfortunately, being Christian doesn't make you perfect. And it certainly doesn't make you morally invincible. I think to most Christians, it means to have an unshakeable comfort in the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. I'm a Christian and I fail daily in more ways than I could possibly describe here. Christianity, if nothing else, gives me hope.
Maybe right now you're thinking "kid, you have no idea what you're saying. I don't need hope. I can accept life as it is, and I don't need any unicorns or back massages to make me feel better." That's fine. I understand. I try really hard to at least realize your position. Of course, because I am in my position, I certainly don't believe you. I would ask if you have actually considered the moral and eternal ramifications of that statement. And of course you would tell me that you have, and that I should back off and stop yelling into the megaphone. Fair enough.
I guess the point of this ramble is that miscommunication goes both ways. I, as a Christian, fully accept the responsibility to follow Christ both in my actions and my words, yet I also realize the monstrous impossibility of my fulfilling that responsibility.
I guess the point is that, where Christians should try to understand the perspective of the atheists, atheists should realize that Christians honestly believe what they say. I will speak from experience (it's all I have; I must sing a song of myself - thank you Walt Whitman) and say that I don't want to irritate you. I certainly don't want to condemn you. I do, out of the love given me, want to help you.
I hope I have made myself clear. My intentions are to insult no one. God Bless.
Feel free to e-mail me with hate/input/agreement/discussion - I probably won't come back to this page, but I always like to talk to people...thanks.
that was good tom.
and really good, not like I was making fun of the real douchebag.
go us.
Excellent and intelligent. You appeal to logic.
I'm a Christian Buddhist. My boyfriend is a Atheist Buddhist (he follows the practices for their benefits while not actually believing in the deities, etc). We differ opinions on the role and need of religion, and why it persists. Religions can have a huge and negative hold on people. Wars are fought over beliefs. Some doctrines contradict common sense. Why would people do this? They are vulnerable and need to make sense of their existence. In some parts of the world, people don't have their basic needs met and religion is their only comfort, as illusionary as it may seem to you or I. It may be the thing that keeps a community together and is the vehicle that provides them support, not just emotionally but on day-to-day needs.
Yes, you and I know better. So why can't they finally "get" it? Much more of a complicated answer that we like to acknowledge.
I realize you weren't stating "This is how you turn an Christian into an Atheist". But wanted to point out...there are so many reasons people refuse to give up religion. I won't go into what would be a very, very long comment post. But only ask atheists to remember the reasons people persist in their own beleifs are complicated and varied, and that religion serves a purpose in their lives. Just as them asking you to believe in unicorns will never convert you, appealing to their logical side will not convince them.
Wonderful post!
-Dave
marc and i just read this and we have determined that it is really insightful and deliciously written. what inspired you to write it? do tell!
m&g
Just a quick note:
By "go us," I'm going to assume that "Jacob" means Christians... Which would put him in league with Christians - fair assumption, right?
So, it would seem that a Christian with a viewpoint different from my own (which, I will gladly say, I took GREAT measure to ensure was fair, honest and uninsulting) found it necessary to call me both a fucking retard and a douche. And another "Anonymous" Christian decided to tell me "screw you" because I'm not one.
Now, unless I'm absolutely mistaken, this would be the first transgression toward Jacob (and almost all of you) I've made, since we've never met before. So, by Jesus's math, I've got 489 more forgivings to go before you're allowed to go insulting me (Matthew 18:22).
Way to win me over by following the teachings of your savior, guys. Glad to see you guys got so much from my article :)
** an atheist’s unapologetic apology **
“Theology is a subject without an object.”
Don’t forget belief is not only optional, it’s really unfit for human consumption.
There is no supernatural realm — from which it follows that there are not two worlds (the “spiritual” one superordinate to nature), eternity is a fiction, no god whatsoever exists.
Xianity, like its murderous near eastern brother islam, its idiot father judaism, and its hate-based grandfather zoroastrianism, arose late in recorded history and it has been decaying at an increasing rate since 1600.
Enough of this heresy born of Paul’s perverse twist on hellenistic judaism and overlaid with rites and symbols gleaned from the back alleys of slums in the eastern roman empire. Batman is more real than “Christ” ever was . . .
Enough xian intellectual nihilism and perversion of sexuality and hatred of woman and self-righteous revenge seeking. (1Cor1 1:end)
“God’s only excuse is that he does not exist.” — Stendahl
What a relief!
I feel better now, thanks.
celsus2
© 2008
I would rather die believing and find out I'm wrong than die not believing and find out I'm wrong.
Jeez Joe, can we please separate the 13-year-old forum flamers whose parents drag them to church and bible study every week from the Christians that actually live their lives trying to emulate their/our Savior. I'm really trying to figure out why this article was written in the first place, was it to get a bunch of Diggs for your site? Or were you just looking to provide a forum for Christian-bashing? Our religion is attacked daily, by the non-religious, or radical extremists, but I can see why you would want to pile on. Thanks
If you see what I wrote as "piling on", you've either misread it or have some obsession with being the martyr.
The entire point of the article was to help the whole of your faith from repelling folks, which it's doing. Christianity isn't being "attacked" - it's being reacted to negatively.
It's like that kid in the classroom who keeps talking to everyone while they're trying to do what they're doing and wonders why everyone avoids him at the playground.
And I run no ads on my site, and this is just my journal - a place for me to throw up what I think and feel. There's no real reason for this thing to be popular on digg or reddit or (insert social whatever site here). That stuff is for Mentally Incontinent :)
I'm going to put it out there for all of those who do not understand what it means to be a "Christian". It does not mean that we think we are perfect, holier than thou, or better than anyone. Christian means that the person is a believer in Christ and nothing more. Very well written post and you are right. There are some holy rollers out there that all they do is preach hellfire and damnation and that reaches noone. God is love and that's what they should be preaching. Love thy neighbour as thyself. Peace....One Love...
Marshall E. Smith II (A Believer)
Well, Written! Though, I think that for some reason those that are agnostic are lumped in with atheists. I believe that a good portion of people who are categorized this way Believe it is arrogant to believe you have the answer without empirical data. They are looking, but they also believe it to be foolhardy to pass judgment either way without tangible evidence. So most of what you are saying applies to this group also.
A post that unapologetically explains the divide without indulging in juvenile religion-bashing. I'm quite impressed.
Thanks Joe, except for causing me to piss my pants from laughter. I will send you the dry cleaning bill.
I will reply to the atheist/agnostic by anonymous:
From my experience all atheists that I have ever met are agnostic and most agnostics are also atheists. A lot of agnostic just don’t like to use the term or and some don’t understand it’s meaning. People are either believers in a god or they don’t think there is one. Even if you call yourself an agnostic (you don’t think there is evidence to KNOW if there is a god or not), you still either believe that there probably is or is not a god. If you think there probably is a god, you are a theist. If you don’t think there is, than you are an atheist. That is it, you are either one or the other.
The only way that you can be an agnostic without being an atheist, is to realize that there is no reasonable evidence for a god, but still choose to believe. That position makes little sense from my perspective. I am an agnostic atheist towards god for the same reason that I am an agnostic non-believer towards unicorns… there is no evidence to “prove” the existence of unicorns either way, so the logical stance is to remain an unbeliever until reasonable evidence comes forth.
When someone asks you about the existence of unicorns, do you tell them you are agnostic?
First off, I want to say I didn't read through all of this. BUT I did read through the main points.
Secondly, as a Christian, I must say that I fully and completely agree with everything you've pointed out.
Even in different church groups there's this "human spam"; if you're not part of MY division (i.e. Catholic, Baptist, etc.) then you're going to hell because you're not a true Christian.
I have many atheist friends, and many other friends who don't share my beliefs. And I think it's great. Religion/beliefs/faith whatever you want to call it is always a topic to talk about with us and I find other views absolutely intriguing.
Anyway, the reason I wanted to post a comment is to say how much respect I have for you for not attacking the Christian faith and simply stating your point without being offensive. The unicorn thing was brilliant. And it shows that even though you may not share the Christian beliefs you still respect a person's choice to that religion.
I have one atheist friend who does nothing but attack what I believe in and does it in a mean, spiteful way. He calls me ignorant for believing in what I believe and I call him ignorant for not respecting my faith when I fully respect his beliefs.
Ah. I wish more people could be like you.
Cudos.
I'm a Christian from the UCC, Barak's church. I would just like to say that all those proselytizing fucks annoy the hell out of me even. I just think jesus said to love thats all. No political bullshit, just love everyone. I just wish more people viewed the Bible as a good source for metaphors for life rather than hard fucking fact. Well, I think people need to believe, or not believe what makes them happy. Diversity makes this world what it is. We need to love each other.
I swear that I had read this post before some place, and even commented such someplace else. Nearly everything stated has been something pointed out by moderates, used as examples (unicorn arguments are common some places as examples of why, "let me tell you about X", just annoys people, etc.
The only flaw in the whole thing, as someone pointed out already, is that such witness won't help in what is presumably the underlying goal of suggesting to people that god is worth believing in. We, i.e. those who mostly don't, or completely don't, believe already know people can do good deeds and that many things can drive them to do so. That your source of such is in some qualitative fashion better, and therefor should be considered is a) built of premises already rejected, in at least 70-80% of the cases of atheists I know of, by people that rejected religion, having started from *your* perspective in the first place and b) not supportable by the evidence of history, again, both from the perspective of outsiders *and* those that rejected the inside perspective.
You will get respect for your *personal* actions, possible respect for the group you belong to breaking the usual mold, and a lot more friends, all around, but.. you are not going to get respect for the underlying ideology. Not from those who have never experienced it, and absolutely not from the those that finally took the leap from your side, and instead of finding cause, found relief, amazement and freedom to question things that they never previously had.
Still, I commend the ideas, if not the expected outcome. The other sort are making themselves extinct, even among other believers, by being pests, predators and parasites to everyone, including other faithful.
"finding cause,"
should have been: "finding chaos,"
Long day at work, not enough sleep, and a bad habit of not proof reading. lol
Absolutely spot on!
Napalm Evangelism has completely destroyed Christianities credibility in most of the world, especially here in the west.
As a Christian who grew up in a form of Napalm Christianity, I can state that it not only negatively affects those you're supposed to come in contact with, it also negatively affects you, and shrinks your horizons dramatically.
This is a breath of fresh air in a society that seems to be Christians VS. Atheists when it doesn't need to be that way.
Great, great article.
Joe, I believe you have now missed my point. While I have some quarrel with your original post content-wise, I have no problem with your act of posting it. I wish I could turn my thoughts into words that I myself could understand, not to mention a segment of the outside population. But you must know that by allowing comments to be made on such a post you allow others to bash both my religion and those of us that follow it. We've been called hypocritical greedy adulterous jerks and proselytizing fucks, and with these comments being on your website you are alloted a sort of ownership over them all.
What I don't get is that most Christians of the missionary kind don't preach or attempt to convert out of some sort of superiority complex, they do it because they truly want you to be happy, not only physically, but eternally. No one yells at people who work at soup kitchens for shoving food down homeless people's throats. No one berates doctor's for taking the hypocratic oath. We all as Christians have taken a spiritual hypocratic oath so to speak, and I don't believe that's such a bad thing.
The people who really need to digest your message are, unfortunately, the people saying "screw you" and "f-ing retard", and the people not bothering to read these types of messages at all.
Christians are not necessarily offensive, it's the jingoistic way some of them assume that everyone else needs Jesus shoved down their throats.
The pendulum is starting to swing in the other direction.
No one yells at people who work at soup kitchens for shoving food down homeless people's throats. No one berates doctor's for taking the hypocratic oath. We all as Christians have taken a spiritual hypocratic oath so to speak, and I don't believe that's such a bad thing.
Some people *might* get a bit annoyed about the people feeding the homeless, if all evidence tends to suggest that a great many of those people choose to be, and that building such a place will just attract more of them (having that argument in my own city, and its just as stupid imho as giving out needles to prevent drug addicts from passing diseases to each other, which lacking the higher morals that would *require* curing the problem, instead of just fixing a symptom. And yet, all we do is fix the symptoms, by jailing the ones we catch, without treatment on one hand, while helping them stay vaguely healthy on the other. Its just too "expensive" and, the one I really don't get is, "somehow *wrong* to help them quit using medical means..." Huh?!? Guess who makes that argument the most often..
As for doctors, sure, but part of their oath isn't just "do good", its "harm no one while doing it". The Hippocratic oath of religion (and ironically your spelling may be more accurate) for religion is *usually*, do what I think will be good, and damn the real consequences. Doctors that tried that would be fired and their licenses revoked.
Its not enough to think you are doing what will benefit society, you need to be right too. Otherwise, the unintended consequences will almost always make the cure worse than the disease. And the one thing generally common to "all" missionaries is that they start with the premise that what they bring is "always" best, and ignore all evidence they may be wrong. Its hasn't exactly produced great successes in foreign countries, and its created a mess in the US too, often with two *missionary* groups siting on opposite sides of the same street, both convinced without one shred of reason to be such, that they are right, and the other people over there are screwing up the world. The only time they do agree is if someone that thinks they are both wrong comes along, and then all differences, temporarily, dissolve, so they can challenge their common enemies.
As one website that specializes in denialism and its examples, this is one of the traits of cranks, not clear thinkers. And some of the examples can be positively absurd. Like the two bozos, one insisting on Biblical literalism, and the other on theistic evolution, who also can't agree on how old the world is, but both of which are just happy as clams to help each other attack some completely made up version of the real theory, which bares the same resemblance to the real thing as Lego Star Wars does to Star Trek.
Again, thinking you are right is not the same as being right, and if you are wrong, the effect may be either immediate, or long term, and the worst problems arise when the advocates are long dead when the chickens finally come to roost. Better to be at *somewhat* skeptical of your own certainties, instead of just taking oaths to uphold things, which most of those which do so will never examine.
Xaviermuskie, I believe that Kagehi said pretty well what I intended to say in reply.
Christianity does have it's own oath of sorts. Witnessing is ingrained into the practice of the religion (for the most part).
The problem with your analogy is that your decision to undertake that responsibility is your decision - not mine. Who knows - maybe I've been a Christian before and now I no longer choose to be. Maybe I have no knowledge of Christianity as a faith, but things are working just fine for me. Maybe I just plain don't feel like talking to strangers today... In any case, I repeat my point from my article:
Just because YOU need to say it does not mean that I want or need to hear it. Knowing that I might not, if you choose to go forward with talking to me about it, you've just shown a rather immodest concern for my feelings on the subject.
Whether or not being disrespectful is "right" or "wrong" on a grand spiritual scale is a topic for another discussion. THIS discussion pertains directly to the result of doing that, and how it's hurting the adoption rates of the tenets of your faith.
Your actions are driving people away. If that's alright with you / your minister / your church / the faith as a whole because "hey, we tried," then I must not understand the intended purpose of witnessing.
(aka Robert) Joe and Kagehi, I'm obviously overmatched here intellectually, and I applaud your cleverness in taking my misspelling and turning it around to suit your own argument. But lets cut the bull here and understand that your comments go deeper than just "if Christians were a little less forward with their message, perhaps we would receive it better." We both know that's not the case. I think the root of this argument is the feeling that Christians are stupid for believing in something they can't see or prove, and atheists don't want to listen to that stupidity. Fine, don't.
What I have a problem with is the lumping of Christians together as if we're not a collection of individual parts. If I get robbed by a black man, am I correct in calling all black people niggars? Then why if you witness people who call themselves Christians acting not-so Christ-like, do you have the right to say that all Chrisians are hypocrits who sin all week and are forgiven on Sunday. I would venture that Atheists have as many sinners as we do, even if you call them something else. Our religion never claims perfection, either as a whole or individually. Being Catholic, I get to see first-hand the fallacies and failings of our leaders. That being said, Christ has given us a template with which to mold our lives, as impossible as that may be. Would you tell me that if everyone in the world tried to live more like Jesus (without taking into account religion, but just actions) that the world wouldn't be a better place?
Someone said they would prefer being a good person over a Christian who gets weekly forgiveness and acts like an asshole. I'm sorry, but we believe that neither of these are good enough. If heaven is our ultimate goal (it is) then we must strive not only to be a good person, but to do so in a manner that emulates Jesus. Since Joe, you claim to have read the bible, you will know that Jesus was not only our savior, but a prophet as well. Our religion and beliefs require us to walk in His footsteps, and be a prophet for Him.
I don't really know what else to say, I know that this is an argument that has endured for 2000 years, and won't likely be solved on a blog such as this. What I feel can be fixed is the misrepresentation of Christians as a group of hypocrits, when really what we are is a group of peaceful people who strive for Heaven, and want to see as many people there with us as possible.
@ The Jen *everyone else needs Jesus shoved down their throats.*
i don't know much about Christianity but wouldn't that be some kind of sin ... ;)
immature humor aside, on the point of the 'Christian Hippocratic oath' being at its heart a good intention i can't help but be reminded of a quote from a book i once read 'the greatest harm comes from the kindest intentions...' then going on to describe a person who broke his leg and slowly because his friends did so much to help him let his leg rest to speed recovery he permanently lost use of both due to atrophy.
which is kind of what you have described with over prosterisation (sp?) causing a drop in conversions to Christianity and a rapid increase in smaller faiths such as paganism and Atheism (though i think that the large number ale, cake and nudity may have something to do with paganism's popularity...*joke*).
keep up the good posts
Umm. Ok. First off, living like Jesus presents a number of odd positions. It could mean, "allowing destiny to happen, because you think the long term result of allowing harm to yourself will help others.", it may mean the goofy, "render unto Caesar what is his", but then you have to work how *who* that is, and what precisely is theirs, instead of yours. Does it mean casting out demons? Umm, yeah, that has worked.. How about making things happen by *believing* strongly enough that you can heal, walk on water, etc. The only people even claiming to do that stuff in the last 2,000 years have all been frauds and charlatans. It has to either be considered a lie, an exaggeration, or something make up later, then inserted into the story to make the whole thing sound more plausible.
The point being, you can't talk about Jesus without dragging all the baggage along for the ride, much of which is questionable, absurd, or obviously fabricated. But, here is the odd thing. You can divorce the principles themselves from the supposed stories they come from, and then you find that they are shared by a vast number of faiths, all of whom have their own silly claims as to what "produces" them and how its somehow impossible for them to be derived without knowledge of that set of fables. You also find that even people that reject the fables, or never heard of them, manage to derive the same ideals and moral frameworks. There are any number of answers to this, but its **pure** hubris to presume that because you think your answer is the right one, when you can't even effectively provide evidence of the myth and fable behind it, never mind provide a solid and irrefutable connection between the belief system and the moral frame works.
Frankly, if you really want an answer to if the world would be better if everyone was like Jesus, I would say no. Rational people don't curse out of season fruit trees for refusing to bear fruit for them, for just one example. And anyone that thinks Caesar should get to tell you what *is* Caesars, without any challenge to that declaration, isn't democratic. And those are just two interpretations that could be applied to what "being like Jesus" could mean. Who gets to say those are "wrong" interpretations, and having made such a proclamation, how are they any different than the sort of "preach first and do good works second" people we are talking about?
I also wish you would stop doing two things - 1. Presuming, while arguing that we shouldn't, that atheists are some uniform group. Ever hear the phrase "herding cats"? Its commonly used to describe precisely why, until recently, atheists have have *no* organized effort to speak of, while trying to defend their general views (which are not always even agreed on). 2. Putting words in our mouths by automatically presuming that we are a) talking about *all* Christians when we point out some behavior we dislike, or b) that because we comprehend satire and irony, any use of it means we are calling Christians stupid.
You are hardly stupid. There is however a term that is sometimes applicable to believers, "willfully ignorant". This is the opposite of stupid. It implies a concerted effort by a very smart and intelligent person to invent justifications, apologetics and explanations for what they believe in, which *they* find reasonable, in the face if things that the *choose* not to see, recognize, accept or acknowledge. Einstein had fits when we realized that quantum physics was a consequence of *his* ideas, and despite being genius, spent much of his remaining life trying to come up with reasons why it *couldn't* be what his own theories suggested. He didn't however have 2.85 billion people all going, "Gosh! Our faith also says that's impossible, so you're right, God really doesn't place dice with the universe!" That is the reality with faith. There are 2.85 billion people in the US, convinced that some form of theology "must" be correct. Its kind of hard to escape that, just as it was damn near impossible to escape every other "belief" that 95% of the people in the known world agreed with, at one point or another.
As, to the last Anon post.. I would love to here what supernatural ideas and or presumptions atheists cling to as a whole that makes it a faith... The very definition of the word implies *belief* in things that atheists reject, either based on there being no point in believing in them, or the odds being so small that there isn't much chance of them existing. Worse, the fact that you can actually get some atheists that believe in things like ghosts, but reject gods... also kind of undermines the idea that it qualifies as a "faith". The only reason its legally considered one is because it would be perverse to suggest, for example, that one should protect someone's right to free speech, but not their right to shut up, or their right to wear bow ties, but not their right to dislike, and not choose to wear one, etc. If you are going to lend any sort of special protection to someone's *right* to a thing, the default position is to *also* protect their right to "not" have it.
As for your contention about paganism.. You are wrong, there are Christian nudist/naturist groups that make a good case for the Bible not being against nudity, so long as its done in humility, and not to show off. You may be right about the beer and cake, and since the nudity often involved sex... lol
You know, part of me wishes that I could go back and fix my original post to read...
TL.. DR
lol
I gotta say that I appreciate the original posting. It was insightful. I think it also indicates, possibly, a lack of understanding of Christian motives. I, as a Christian, only broach the subject of my faith when it is obvious that I am welcome to do so. This being said, all Christians have a responsibility (the Great Commission, ie, Mt 28:18-20) to tell of the faith that we have. We are not directed to exactly how to do so, so I choose to use methods that have shown to be reasonable, such as getting to know a person before discussing the subject, unless specifically invited to do so.
I think another thing that seems to have been missed by many who posted comments is this. I have the faith that I claim for real, valid reasons. Others, Atheists included, often have reasons as well. That's a good thing. Simply because God cannot be "whirred up" in a test tube does not mean that there is no evidence. Imperical evidence is not the only form of evidence. Our western culture puts way too much emphasis on measurable data. There are many things that cannot be measured, but are very real despite that fact. (emotions, for instance)
A point that many Christians seem to miss is that it isn't the man that causes anyone to be "saved" anyway. God (through action of the Holy Spirit) convicts, enlightens and draws people to God. Man has the right of free will to accept the offer of relationship or not. God respects the free will of man, so why shouldn't I? The ultimate point is this...no matter what I say to a person who isn't a believer, that person has free will and God is the one who actually does the work anyway. My part is to simply be a part of the process, which can be very humbling and rewarding. Finally, not everyone will accept Christ's offer of a relationship. That's just the way it is.
Finally, there are many, many good people in the world who do great things, and they aren't Christians. There are many Christians who do reprehensible things. God does not request me to judge anyone, but to love people and serve people as I believe Christ did on the cross of Calvary. If I stick to Loving God, and loving others, I'll be doing what God asks of me. I don't believe that loving someone means trying to force them to believe me (which can't actually be done), but I also do believe that part of loving people is to find a way to tell them that I truly believe that without a relationship with Christ, they are in great danger.
No insults to people of any faith (or lack of faith in God) is intended. I only wish to try and share my thoughts on a subject that happens to be very important to me, and should be important to Christians in general.
Thanks for reading my ramblings.
TT
I would just like to address the one comment made in which it was stated that "being an agnostic theist is irrational." This statement is completely false.
Being a gnostic is always completely irrational, since there is no evidence for either side. Most atheists are gnostic, saying that they think that they do know whether or not a god exists, and that the answer to that fundamental question is no. Most Christians too are gnostic, citing things like the bible as evidence for the existence of God. However, these are both irrational stances.
The only viable ones are those of agnosticism. Whichever way you then choose to lean is completely alright. Now, agnostic theism is the only rational defensible form of faith. At the point where you honestly acknowledge the lack of evidence for God, but emphasize rather the effect that your faith has had/has on your life, your belief in the existence of God is justifiable.
A belief in a factual basis for God is dangerous, because it undermines faith. I have to paraphrase Douglas Adam here, and mention his story about God disappearing in a poof of logic when he proves his own existence. Faith is what really does the trick, not knowledge.
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."
1 Corinthians 1:18-21
Thanks Joe for a well thought out post. As a Christian, it does give me food for thought. I do have a message that I believe in and that is that "Jesus Christ died to save sinners of whom I am chief"
However, I cannot believe that no commentor pointed this out. If you are a Bible believing Christian (which would imply that you are a reading one too) you would know that the unicorn is/was an extinct species that was difficult or impossible to domesticate.
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=unicorn&qs_version=9
This is an excellent post, and I couldn't agree more.
Well, Sir Padfoot. You are correct, one could be a gnostic, and faithful. I find it slightly absurd thought, since you have to reach that conclusion without *any* data, or with a lot of *bad* data. I.e., you have to, on some level, ignore the fact that *every* case that has been tested, by every person that has "allowed" themselves to be tested, as well as pretty much all phenomena, have either been debunked, or explained without the supernatural. That kind of just leaves you with what is called goal post moving, i.e., "Yes, well, all 'those' cases where debunked or explained, but what about --this one--? Huh, huh... Answer that one!" Its also the same goofy method ID tries to use to suggest irreducible complexity, when they are not a) busy using already shredded examples, or b) ignoring all evidence that irreducibility "can" develop randomly. Or, alternatively, the other "source" for belief becomes entirely personal, and no honest person would call that credible, not even the believer.
Beyond that, one atheist on PZ's site, during a discussion of just what the terms really mean, stated, "I am agnostic about the existence of god, since its not possible for me to prove such a thing *can't* exist, but I am also 100% agnostic about every goody made up description of what god is that man ever came up with." As near as I can tell, the only difference between gnostics and atheists is that the former figure that, maybe, sort of possibly, *one* of the descriptions we have *might* describe the real thing, while atheist take the view that there is jack in any of them that isn't solely human, and usually by the religions own rules on the subject, also logically inconsistent with the faith, since almost all of them that insist on some definition being "right" also babble about god being unknowable, indescribable, and a whole list of other things he/she/it can't be *if* any of the existing descriptions for god come even vaguely close to being accurate.
A theists is an atheist with one god they don't reject. A gnostic is a theist that hopes one of them is real, or actually hasn't seen Homer Simpson's glorious rebuttal to Pascal's Wager. An agnostic is a gnostic that just isn't sure which god might be the right one, or there is one, or how close to true that description is. An atheist is someone whose view ranges from, "None of them can be the right one, even of there *is* one", to, "And besides, if you want to claim there is one, you need **some sort** of evidence for it, or otherwise, its not necessary to explain anything. Claims that it doesn't explain stuff like love, which are just as 100% human derived concepts, which describe behaviors, and which 'can' differ in expression by a fair margin, don't count as evidence, especially when there *are* emotionally unsatisfying, but which do describe why they exist, and what they are."
So, to put it simply, until/unless someone digs up the note books of Moses, or some writings from an ancient priest, or, in modern terms, someone forgets to burn the notes and papers of the current pope, then accidentally lets them into the hands of the public, and one of those documents provides a clear description of the "invention" of religion... Once you have something that people believe as a reasonable answer, the only way it gets abandoned is if its replaced. And, since everyone, including atheists, are stuck with a world where a lot of people believe, and someone invented the whole mess, *everyone* is agnostic, just with varying degrees of how much disbelief they are willing to suspend to fit in to the group (or how much understanding they have to help them suspend it).
Oh, and Annon... Corinthians 1:18-21 speaks to a time where the "knowledgable" would be considered special ed students in our time. Religion had no problem confounding such people, because such people had almost no understanding of *anything*. They where scholars because they wrote more, read more, and knew a bit more of the prevailing wisdom of the time. But, they knew almost nothing compared to today, or 200 years ago, or even 2,000. We are talking about the equivalent of if the professor from Gillagin's Island where frozen in time, then rescued from the island in Futurama's year 3,000. Most of the stuff they *knew*, all but the brain damaged, would consider foolish, absurd, or just plain wrong, today.
In modern times, its **far** more common for the faithful to be confounded by things the knowledgeable and wise manage to come up with. Its precisely with Luddite sects, literalists and others like them are panicked, paranoid and desperate at this point.
so let me get this straight.
you're saying the crazy right wing evangelical people don't know how to convert people... so you give them pointers...
how about this as a pointer... "stop trying to convert people... ever"
i actually am offended about your comments on the unicorn, you've trivialized it and left out important details... first. it's invisible... and second: it's pink.
I think the Bible should come with a bonus book: "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. To oversimplify the book we can say that it is all centered around one ideal that we've all been taught our whole lives and that Christ himself said to follow over all other commandments. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The essence of this "golden rule" is present in, and in my opinion, the nucleus of every religion.
In Judaism - "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a
In Islam - "Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself." Mohammed, Hadith
In Buddhism - "Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5.18
The list goes on, they're all the same.
So what happens when we force our beliefs on others? We are met with circumstances in which others force their opinion on us. I won't speak for everyone but I know I'm much more eager to listen to someone who has genuinely listened to me. To be respected we must respect. My first roommate in college used to play the victim and say, "Why do people always complain about Christians being intolerant? Christianity is an intolerant religion! That's just the way things are."
He was 100% right.
Anyone who pays attention to the magnitude of wonderfully informative bumper stickers that we are so lucky to have in such abundance knows that Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ but your Christians are so unlike him." I'm paraphrasing of course.
Jesus wouldn't have been a very big deal if he had run around condemning everyone he felt wasn't living his or her life correctly. He walked the walk and he got peoples attention.
This is probably really long and so in closing. EXCELLENT article. And correct me if I'm wrong, the point of Atheism was never intended to be an opposition to Christianity, right? And at the same time, those who fight and seek to stamp-out groups of people and ways of thinking must be met with like forces. None of this is new. :)
awelsh@utk.edu
Another poster suggested copying this and printing it out to hand to people on occasion. I intend to do just that. (unless you contact me and ask me not to) This is probably the best written, most to-the point article on the subject I've ever read. Bravo, man, just bravo. Intelligent and witty, inforative without being condescending or insulting.
Hey, if you think there's value in it, feel free to print and distribute this all you want :)
Sadly, I can't join Christianity - my testicles were ripped off in a bizarre boating accident, and I can't get into the kingdom of heaven (Deuteronomy 23:1).
I guess my point is that you had it so right with the unicorn analogy, why doesn't that carry through to Christianity?
While we're being honest, another question: Suppose you are to live with love and integrity, and that life of love and integrity was intriguing to an atheist. How much of what is appealing is a bi-product of faith, and how much is the work of the Holy Spirit?
A Christian will SAY, "Every good thing you see in me is God." But there are people of all faiths (and no faith) who live optimistic lives of loving service. Is this really God, or is this the power of living for others and the winsomeness of being happy, content and focused?
Excellent diatribe.
The unicorn sounds more likely than a Christian following their own example. I am sure there is one in this world (Christian with jesus like qualities, not unicorn) however I have yet to meet one.
A large part of the anger and resentment that gets portrayed to Christians from atheists is from the very real repercussions of our l