Not just wrong, but bad

[Alien]

There seems to be a particular psychological view that some Christians appear to have of those who are of different or no faith. To be fair, I have only seen it explicitly stated by a handful of posters, but I sense it is a foundational belief of more. I wonder if it makes apologetics or even dialogue problematic.

We may have different views on social policy or education but we can still dialogue with good grace. I may think your views are wrong but I can accept you hold them with integrity and in a complex issue reached a different conclusion to me with integrity.

I am an ex-Christian. From the age of 25 to 45 I was a devout, active and convinced Christian. Now I'm not. (For some Christians, this is immediately impossible and I could not have been a 'real' Christian to begin with. I'm hoping we can put aside that conversation for the time being.) For one reason and another, I now think my heartfelt conviction was mistaken.

The difficulty for me comes in discussions with some people. Unlike other issues where they might think I was simply wrong, now I am not ONLY wrong but morally suspect. I am told I 'rejected' God. I am told that their particular view of God is so obvious that I must be deliberately, consciously denying it. I am told that I have nefarious motives for no longer thinking Christianity gives an accurate view of reality. I examine myself as thoroughly as I can but I cannot find a trace of these motives that are often ascribed to me.

If this is the way I am regarded, it is hardly surprising that I find many attempts at apologetics or evangelism to be patronising or insulting. How can we enter into true dialogue without respect for the honesty and integrity with which people who disagree with us hold their views?

Why can't we believe that people are just wrong, rather than intentionally, and with malice, rejecting our views?

Hi phaedrus,

I think what you are encountering is not limited to Christians (or a subset of them). It is my experience that some people tend to see the world in black and white terms. Everything is totally this or totally that. There is one right answer to every question and all other answers are wrong. There is one true religion, and one correct interpretation of its dogma and all other religions and interpretations are wrong. By some strange coincidence, of course, their own answers and interpretations are the correct ones in all cases. By virtue of this conviction, they feel justified in telling those that disagree with them that they are stupid, deluded, damned, sinners, swine, and so on.

This doesn't necessarily mean they are rude. The above epithets don't have to be used, the same meaning can be phrased politely. Equally, the motivation may be benevolent no matter what words are used, for example they may genuinely be trying to save someone from eternal damnation, rather than simply be trying to demonstrate their own superiority. Nevertheless, the conviction and refusal to allow any doubt to enter their minds is the same.

The rest of us think more in shades of gray, and admit that we might, just possibly, be wrong and the other guy might have a point. And when making statements about an entity that is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing, and created and sustains the universe and everything in it, one might think that no one has a corner on the truth.

Both kinds of people are found using varied labels for themselves. Christians, Muslims, Atheists, (maybe not agnostics!), and supporters of sports teams.

Basically, I have found that discussions with the first category are not worth having, even if they are conducted politely, and with the second category can be productive.

[rogue06]

mods, please get this guy.

we would but being a moron isn't against our rules. unfortunately.

Exhibit A:

Many people can beat Norris! Therefore,by your own standards, your list is not true!

[phaedrus]

Hi phaedrus,

I think what you are encountering is not limited to Christians (or a subset of them). It is my experience that some people tend to see the world in black and white terms. Everything is totally this or totally that. There is one right answer to every question and all other answers are wrong. There is one true religion, and one correct interpretation of its dogma and all other religions and interpretations are wrong. By some strange coincidence, of course, their own answers and interpretations are the correct ones in all cases. By virtue of this conviction, they feel justified in telling those that disagree with them that they are stupid, deluded, damned, sinners, swine, and so on.

This doesn't necessarily mean they are rude. The above epithets don't have to be used, the same meaning can be phrased politely. Equally, the motivation may be benevolent no matter what words are used, for example they may genuinely be trying to save someone from eternal damnation, rather than simply be trying to demonstrate their own superiority. Nevertheless, the conviction and refusal to allow any doubt to enter their minds is the same.

The rest of us think more in shades of gray, and admit that we might, just possibly, be wrong and the other guy might have a point. And when making statements about an entity that is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing, and created and sustains the universe and everything in it, one might think that no one has a corner on the truth.

Both kinds of people are found using varied labels for themselves. Christians, Muslims, Atheists, (maybe not agnostics!), and supporters of sports teams.

Basically, I have found that discussions with the first category are not worth having, even if they are conducted politely, and with the second category can be productive.

Yes, I would agree totally. It most certainly seems to be a feature of a particular personality type rather than an ideology.

[yo lunch]

Originally posted by Sparko

we would but being a moron isn't against our rules. unfortunately.

Originally posted by Rogue Idiot

Exhibit A:

Originally posted by yo lunch

Many people can beat Norris! Therefore,by your own standards, your list is not true!

There is a corny old western that i enjoyed as a boy entitled The Fastest Gun Alive, starring Glenn Ford and Broderick Crawford. Crawford said that he was the fastest. A wise old man told him that "there is always somebody faster." Ford proved him right!

[Darfius]

Right, so if we go by your logic then it's alright for us non-believers to follow after Hitchens's lead and call you Christians all manner of nasty epithets? Not that non-believers use Hitchens as a deific figure, but he is charismatic, just like your Jesus. So why not extend the courtesy, hey? Why not start calling Christians "perfidious dimwits"?

Ah, but you have divine revelation to back your warrant for calling non-Christians "swine". Your god said it, so because you follow his example, and want to be more like him, you feel entitled to rob human beings of their dignity by refusing to acknowledge the imago dei which your 66/73 manuscripts tell you is true of all people. Instead, you opt to call them "swine" because if it was alright for your god to do it (which is an interesting contradiction in itself) then it must be alright for you, a 2000-year removed perfidious dimwit to do the same.

Nice try.

The truth is not "my logic." Those who reject the Gospel choose instead to wallow in their own filth (sins) like swine. To call them what they are is not insulting, it's accurate. And I would not be robbing such a one of their dignity by calling them what they are, either. Indeed, they are robbing themselves of dignity by their choices. I of course acknowledge that they still bear God's image, and so deserve pity, but they do not deserve to have a blind eye turned towards what they have chosen to be.

By contrast, on what grounds do you call me a "dimwit?" You are obviously not attempting to be accurate, but to insult. So nice try, but do not compare what you are doing to what I am.

[Darfius]

Sorry. Life intervened.

I don't see any purpose in giving you my criteria of why I think I was a Christian. You don't think I was. I can live with that. I suspect that conversation will go along the lines of you trying to prove from anything I say that I wasn't a Christian. I just don't think it's profitable for either of us.

You offer as evidence of your sincerity the fact that you "were Christian" and when called on it refuse to provide evidence? Check.

I can't give you a yes or no answer to the question 'Do I believe in good and evil.' They are very loaded terms. I can say that my notion of good and evil and their origins and dimensions are probably quite different to yours.

A former Christian cannot answer whether or not he believes in good and evil? That does not bode well for the case that you were ever a Christian. At any rate, this answer of yours is contradictory. You say that you cannot give an answer and yet claim that your existent notion of good and evil are "probably quite different" to mine. Which is it? Do your notions exist or do they not?

re speaking the truth in love and your explanation about it only applying between believers, does God not love me even if I am yet a sinner? As a Christian, can you still love me even though I am yet a sinner? If so, and you want to communicate truth to me, isn't it necessary that it MUST be the truth in love according to your beliefs? If I've got this wrong feel free to correct me.

Christ loved the Pharisees, and communicated the truth in love to them, and such truth was given in the form of scathing indignation. The mode of conveyance is entirely dependant on the capacity of the recipient to acknowledge the truth.

As to why I rejected Christianity as the most accurate description of reality, the process I went through was quite drawn out . I think quick exchanges on the internet can't really do justice to that. I imagine you'll think I'm avoiding the issue, but it relates to something I've set myself as a goal: I have often been very easily pushed into a confrontational, less than enlightened approach in the past when discussing some of these issues. It is of course my fault that I can react this way. Part of my current practice is to try very hard to relate to people here with posts in which I try to deal with content in a respectful, mature way. I'm not that concerned with winning or losing debates, or proving anyone wrong. I just want to explore some issues that interest me. I guess if I don't answer questions as expansively as you'd like I hope you'll understand that it is my version of 'seeking after righteousness'.

I don't have to "imagine" that you are avoiding the issue. You factually are. So far we have to "take your word for it" that you were a stellar and unshakeable Christian until one day your noble and endless pursuit of the truth led you kicking and screaming to the abandonment of the doctrines you had once held dear, with your face set as a flint against the howling winds of fate.

Making grandiose claims and then being evasive is your version of "seeking after righteousness?" Then it is no wonder that you abandoned Christianity.

[phaedrus]

The truth is not "my logic." Those who reject the Gospel choose instead to wallow in their own filth (sins) like swine. To call them what they are is not insulting, it's accurate. And I would not be robbing such a one of their dignity by calling them what they are, either. Indeed, they are robbing themselves of dignity by their choices. I of course acknowledge that they still bear God's image, and so deserve pity, but they do not deserve to have a blind eye turned towards what they have chosen to be.

By contrast, on what grounds do you call me a "dimwit?" You are obviously not attempting to be accurate, but to insult. So nice try, but do not compare what you are doing to what I am.

It is certainly true that some of the gospel's have Jesus saying the thing about swine. Setting aside the issue of whether the Gospels are an accurate account of Jesus, there are numerous other passages where Jesus relates to 'non-believers'. I can think of the woman at the well and the centurion whose son was sick for example. In both cases Jesus seemed content to engage with them without feeling the need to call them swine, or speak with a superior tone on account of their 'lostness'. Is it possible to place too much emphasis on one scripture and in so doing miss some kind of balance?

[phaedrus]

You offer as evidence of your sincerity the fact that you "were Christian" and when called on it refuse to provide evidence? Check.



A former Christian cannot answer whether or not he believes in good and evil? That does not bode well for the case that you were ever a Christian. At any rate, this answer of yours is contradictory. You say that you cannot give an answer and yet claim that your existent notion of good and evil are "probably quite different" to mine. Which is it? Do your notions exist or do they not?



Christ loved the Pharisees, and communicated the truth in love to them, and such truth was given in the form of scathing indignation. The mode of conveyance is entirely dependant on the capacity of the recipient to acknowledge the truth.



I don't have to "imagine" that you are avoiding the issue. You factually are. So far we have to "take your word for it" that you were a stellar and unshakeable Christian until one day your noble and endless pursuit of the truth led you kicking and screaming to the abandonment of the doctrines you had once held dear, with your face set as a flint against the howling winds of fate.

Making grandiose claims and then being evasive is your version of "seeking after righteousness?" Then it is no wonder that you abandoned Christianity.

You win. I wasn't a real Christian. You win the debate. Congratulations.

[Darfius]

It is certainly true that some of the gospel's have Jesus saying the thing about swine. Setting aside the issue of whether the Gospels are an accurate account of Jesus, there are numerous other passages where Jesus relates to 'non-believers'. I can think of the woman at the well and the centurion whose son was sick for example. In both cases Jesus seemed content to engage with them without feeling the need to call them swine, or speak with a superior tone on account of their 'lostness'. Is it possible to place too much emphasis on one scripture and in so doing miss some kind of balance?

The woman at the well was a Samaritan (sort of a half-believer) and her interaction with Jesus made a full believer of her, showing that she was receptive to the Gospel and did not reject it. If she had denied having been with several men, for example, Christ's interaction with her would have been of a very different tone.

The centurion was praised by Christ as having more faith than anyone in Israel. Why would that lead you to believe that he was an 'unbeliever'?

You mistake my uncompromising tone for a superior one. I do not at all consider myself 'better' than you, though I do consider myself more honest.

To answer your question, it is indeed possible to overemphasize a certain portion of scripture to the detriment of the rest, but that it is possible does not mean that I am guilty of such, despite your best efforts at implication.

[Darfius]

You win. I wasn't a real Christian. You win the debate. Congratulations.

Don't waste posts throwing tantrums like a petulant child. Speak up like a man. Prove that you were a Christian or admit with humility and sincerity that you were not.

[phaedrus]

Don't waste posts throwing tantrums like a petulant child. Speak up like a man. Prove that you were a Christian or admit with humility and sincerity that you were not.

Um, I wasn't throwing a tantrum. I was agreeing with you. Honestly, you've won the debate.

[Kane]

The truth is not "my logic." Those who reject the Gospel choose instead to wallow in their own filth (sins) like swine. To call them what they are is not insulting, it's accurate. And I would not be robbing such a one of their dignity by calling them what they are, either. Indeed, they are robbing themselves of dignity by their choices. I of course acknowledge that they still bear God's image, and so deserve pity, but they do not deserve to have a blind eye turned towards what they have chosen to be.

By contrast, on what grounds do you call me a "dimwit?" You are obviously not attempting to be accurate, but to insult. So nice try, but do not compare what you are doing to what I am.

Okay. So if you're so beholden to doing what scripture tells you to do, and to follow the examples of Jesus to the letter, how many eyes do you have? How many hands do you have? Why haven't you launched a crusade to turn over tables at the local Catholic bingos, and whip the priests?

How far do you want to take your literalism?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Christopher

I've admired many of your posts here but I do wonder if you're wasting your time with Darfius. He wants to insult you (and others) and claim that it is not an insult. Maybe he'd like to have his cake and eat it too.

Perhaps you've read 'God is not Great'. You might recall Hitchens's short chapter on that noble and unfairly maligned species the swine.

I'd rather be a swine than a sheep.

[Kane]

Christopher

I've admired many of your posts here but I do wonder if you're wasting your time with Darfius. He wants to insult you (and others) and claim that it is not an insult. Maybe he'd like to have his cake and eat it too.

Perhaps you've read 'God is not Great'. You might recall Hitchens's short chapter on that noble and unfairly maligned species the swine.

I'd rather be a swine than a sheep.

Oolon Colluphid,

Thank you for your compliment. It comes at a time when I was feeling quite heavy, and eased some of my concerns.

I think you are right about Darfius: he wants his cake and eat it, too. I'm not going to bother with his inanity any further.

And, yes, I have read Christopher Hitchens's excellent work, god is not Great. Not only once, but twice! Thank you for reminding me about the nobility of swine: highly intelligent, not collectivist, incredibly enduring, powerfully resilient, and highly adaptable. It is indeed better to be a swine than a sheep, you're right!

Take care,
C31

[Doug Shaver]

As you can see, I am but following my Lord's example when I call those who reject the Gospel swine.

Your lord was presenting an analogy in order to make a point. Are you quite sure that you are getting his point correctly? Is it even possible that you have misunderstood what he was trying to tell his disciples?