The topic of decorum within the constraints of the "Blogosphere" is one that has been on my mind lately... If you've been reading the comments on my particular blog or those of any Christian on the Internet who is attempting to carry out Christ's Command to "seek and save that which is lost" you have no doubt, encountered the venom of the atheist.
a-the-ism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist.
DERIVATIVES
a-the-ist noun
a-the-is-tic |ˌāθēˈistik| adjective
a-the-is-ti-cal |-ˈistikəl| adjective
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god.’
Now you know what they believe, at least according to the Oxford English Dictionary. I would post their comments here, however, the language simply is not in good taste, nor is it constructive to the points they are attempting to make. I'm simply going to post my response, in part, to one post in particular which I concluded was particularly vile...
Here's one you'll all love - maybe I'm just some dumb Creationist, but I've learned how to form sentences without alienating certain members of my audience with words that shouldn't be used in a general audience...
You know, I've just had a thought (limited though you might think that could be) perhaps that's why Flinging Dust [another atheist] has removed herself from your presence...
I realize that what I'm writing right now, could be likened to any one of you mis-using the name of Christ - which, based upon the content of this very post, is not a far flung assertion... BUT...
I'm thinking that Ms. Dust simply didn't want to be associated with people so filled with hatred and rage toward another group of people - and rather than take the next year of her life to try to fight the powers that be, she simply chose to remove herself from the situation...
I know that some of you are truly worried that she's "crossed over" and while I can only speak for myself, I'm sure that I'm not the only person whose been praying that she would see / hear the truth with ears wide open to hearing the voice of God (found in His Word - not some televangelist) humbling herself, repenting of her sins and trusting in Christ for her salvation...
And while I hope and pray that she did just that, I'd be surprised if she did simply grow weary of all of the hate-filled, venomous campaigns against a man [Ray Comfort] who, whether he's as smart as any of you are - has a purpose that helps people, rather than steeps them in blind ignorance...
And while your ignorance is always changing - ours has stayed the same for almost 2,000 years... There's over 25,000 articles [Biblical manuscripts - The Dead Sea Scrolls, etc...] of evidence that attest to the fact that the Bible has not changed...
I know that I've allowed the topic to drift a bit within the bounds of my own comment, so I'll wrap up now...
Dirty Words - only make your point appear childish... Flinging Dust - probably just embarrassed by you all and took some time off to gather her thoughts, though I pray she is part of the Body of Christ and that all of your worst fears have been answered - that would just be fun, and God would get the glory, not Ray... And finally, the Bible - True to the Author... Many have tried to do away with it - perhaps you'd like to give it a try - though, it will be around long after you've died and are experiencing your own version of God's Judgment...
whew... Got through a whole comment without mentioning hell - whoops, there it is...
Now, I wasn't trying to be a rabble-rouser, just trying to request that the person writing the post would use less profanity, and inject something worth reading... Is that so wrong?
19 comments:
You know, for someone who follows our blog so closely, you seem to have missed some of our comments that wish her well even if she were to move over to your side. I made some of those comments myself.
You were so quick to pick up on what you call our "venomous" remarks. I wonder how you missed the supportive comments like the ones I made?
I'm sure it was an honest mistake. I'm just so sure.
I just wanted to tell you that I also found that post to be in poor taste.
I do not agree with the tactics of some, using profanity and hatred towards others.
I find that type of thing to be very ineffective. All it does is alienate and turn off a lot of people that we want to reach out to, including atheists such as myself.
I also hope that you do not associate these actions with all atheists.
As with any group of people, stereotypes are just that: stereotypes. I'm sure you do not share the views of every other believer out there with a blog.
And with atheism, the only thing binding us together is our common lack in belief in the supernatural. Beyond that, we have nothing else necessarily in common. It is not like Christianity, because we have no holy book. Calling atheism a religion is akin to calling not collecting stamps a hobby.
Anyways, I just wanted to express that, as I felt atheists were receiving a bad rap. I always try to be civil on my blog because I think that is the best way to appeal to people.
First off, I do not follow your blog all that closely - I've skimmed it a couple of times merely for curiosity's sake, and posted where I felt a voice of reason was necessary.
Second, I actually read the comments - one of them in particular mentioned that the person writing would not have a single harsh word toward her - or something to that effect... I didn't miss it... My post was concentrating strictly on the venomous remarks... Not a mistake - perhaps I'll choose to write about how kind one or two of your posts have been... However, do you praise your child when they make their bed in the morning? Or when they use their napkin rather than their shirt sleeve...
The same is with your comments... When you act humanely, no notice is necessary, when you act as though you do not know any better, someone should point it out...
And because none of your God-hating friends would obviously do it for whatever reason, I chose to... You don't have to take it personally, I wasn't trying to hurt anyone's feelings, I was merely making a suggestion...
That's all...
Your guess about FD is incorrect. Just saying.
I know - I was just kicking around an idea...
I don't mind being wrong in this instance - I appreciate your concern for my well-being, though, her lack of Christian conversion has not shattered my worldview...
Whew, with that kind of attitude, I could be an evolutionist, huh?
Not really. You'd have to be willing to change everything you think you know if new and contradictory evidence presented itself. But it does show that you're a good Creationist.
touché
But if there is anything "good" about me, it is only Christ's goodness that's been applied to my life by His sacrifice at the cross...
Outside of that, regardless of what I might claim to believe, even if I were to claim atheism, you wouldn't like me...
When the Bible speaks of those who were evil to the core - that was me... In fact, it still is, apart from the forgiveness of Christ.
Thanks for stopping by, Benjamin! I'll enjoy reading your blog and posts. But for now, it's waaaaay past my bedtime. Looking forward, F.G.
I too am evil to the core except for the forgiveness of Christ. You wouldn't want to know me if I were an atheist. I hold back a lot by the grace of God (if you can wrap your creationist mind around that! ugh, see what I mean?)
Nothing you could do (and definitely not turning away from God) could make me like you more or less, short of us getting to know each other. Well, maybe if you claimed to believe [insert sports-related small talk].
Yeah, I suck at interpersonal relationships!
You got me there Jason... I'm struck speechless - perhaps you could dumb it down for me a bit?
I don't understand.
Then that makes two of us... Should we move on?
Oh, I think I get it now. I was trying to make small talk...yeah, let's move on!
Benjamin, this is the site I referenced, and it explains why saying evolution is "just a theory" doesn't make sense: http://notjustatheory.com/
Alright then... I understand... I am a big proponent of the fact that words mean things... And I am aware that their meanings do change over time based upon what's going on in culture and setting...
And that's why I'm curious why you all get bent out of shape over the concept of slavery in the Bible...
I could get into the original definition and pronunciation and usage of the word - but let's just cut to the chase shall we? Slavery the way you are alleging is nothing like what was being portrayed in the Bible...
What you consider to be an approval of slavery is actually guidance and direction for penalties against those who abuse their hired hands - their servants, their attendants... And IF they beat their servants, and the servant dies, they should be punished... Therefore, no condoning the practice of slavery...
In fact... God established the following through one of His own "slaves" the Apostle Paul when He wrote, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
That is to say that contrary to the atheist perspective, God is NOT racist, He does NOT promote or condone slavery, and He is NOT sexist. God does hate all workers of iniquity, however, He judges every person without partiality - while at the same time, He judges each according to their deeds.
So do you see how words are very important - not to be used lightly? I appreciate the fact that you shared that link with me to clarify what otherwise might have been considered to be vague...
Feel free to read the WHOLE Bible, rather than JUST the verses that people have pulled out of context in order to make up an argument against their belief in God.
please note - by the term [you] I was referring to atheists, and the reason I went with the subject of slavery is because that is probably the most common objection I've heard while talking with atheists.
Just wanted to clear that up in case it was at all unclear...
Ben,
I have read most of the Bible. The only thing that I have not read straight through are the prophets.
The reason I get bent out of shape is that what the Bible says is important to me, and it's important that I understand it in the proper historical context. The old testament is pretty clear that as far as God is concerned, you can own people (foreigners, not fellow Israelites). Not hire servants, but own people. They are property, and you can will them to your children.
The only verses I know of in the OT that talk about treating your slaves well and treating them like hired servants are specifically about Hebrew slaves, not foreigners. That doesn't mean there aren't any verses that talk about being humane to foreign slaves, I just don't know any. And if you know any, please let me know.
Here is the passage I am most familiar with:
If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
It seems to me that a clear distinction is being made here: If a Hebrew finds himself a slave, treat him like an employee. BTW, feel free to treat foreigners however you want. They are property. It actually says "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." I don't see how that is anything other than God giving His approval.
So again, it does seem pretty clear to me that the Bible is condoning slavery here. If you can explain to me how it's not, please do.
Also, please don't say (not that you will, but I've heard this before) something like this, from comereason.org:
One of the great things about the God of the Bible is that He provides a realistic approach to the issues of the times. Slavery is definitely not the optimal form of relationship for individuals, but for most of the world’s history it is a reality. Therefore, the Bible addresses slavery and provides certain safeguards to make sure that slave are not mistreated and that their humanity will be respected.
…
Overall, all the admonitions are targeted toward the slave owners. In other words, slavery in this day was inevitable, so let’s make sure that there are specific protections in place to keep any abuse to a minimum.
If that's the case, why can't a similar exception be made for homosexuals in the 21st century? I'd rather be tolerant of gays than of people who think they can own another person.
So that's why I get bent out of shape. And to be clear, I am not accusing God of anything. I am accusing people who insist that the entire Bible must be taken as inerrant and literal of not really thinking it through (again, not saying you're doing that).
So please, tell me how I'm misinterpreting this. If I'm wrong, I need to know.
please note - by the term [you] I was referring to atheists, and the reason I went with the subject of slavery is because that is probably the most common objection I've heard while talking with atheists.
Just wanted to clear that up in case it was at all unclear...
Oh, I see. Well, I don't know how atheists feel about slavery in the Bible, but since this is an issue I've been dwelling on lately, I figured you knew. And everyone from Ray's assumes I'm an atheist so, I just figured.
No harm done.
Jason, with all due respect, I don't know how I could give you an answer that you would appreciate...
Owning a slave today over at any point within the last 300 years or so, say... is MUCH different than the Bible portrays slave ownership to be in the Old Testament...
Consider, if you will, that Jacob was Laban's "property." Because Jacob desired to marry Rachel... Regardless of their kinsmanship, Jacob was Laban's servant - his slave...
And, with most roles that people play in life, God, through His Word, defined how the role of slave-owner and slave should be carried out...
As with almost every instance of life that has been referenced in the Bible, people have placed their own sinful interpretations and meanings into the text, contrary to the intent God originally had...
Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States, claimed that what had transpired as modern-day slavery was actually sanctioned in the Bible. When it is clear that the oppression of any group of people for the sake of lording (pardon the expression) over them, never met with His approval...
While He did allow the Egyptians to take the nation of Israel as their slaves - because of the context of the Scripture that surrounds the situation, we can see that God was instituting His judgment over His people because they'd forgotten Him...
The Egyptians, as our 19th Century forefathers, took the matter into their own hands, despite any clear guidance upon the subject of owning slaves, and treated them treacherously - this is not God's fault... It is sinful man's fault... Though it IS part of God's plan for His people...
Genesis 15, he told Abraham that his people would be sojourners in a foreign land, and that they would be afflicted for 400 years...
You took a left turn I wasn't expecting and I really wasn't ready for, but I think I'll respond in this way...
you wrote:
If that's the case, why can't a similar exception be made for homosexuals in the 21st century? I'd rather be tolerant of gays than of people who think they can own another person.
And I've got to say that I cannot make the connection - you'll have to help me to bridge the gap... However, I will say that tolerance of "gay people" seems to be at a maximum in America, even though, tolerance of their lifestyle and desire to equate themselves to heterosexual couples who choose to get married, is not - though, it's on the rise, at least in political circles...
At the same time, I'll agree, tolerance for people who would oppress others through ownership - namely slavery, should be given no tolerance whatsoever...
Though, being a white guy in the military, the only slavery I am witness to is my own...
Post a Comment