Monday, June 25, 2012

A Letter to My Christian Friends

This is a sincere letter to all of the people I know who are Christian.  I'm not going to be rude.  I'm not going to try and convince you that your faith is wrong.  I'm going to genuinely thank you for certain things, but I understand that every person thinks differently, and, by extension, every Christian thinks differently.  With that in mind, I'm going to have this letter in sections.  Each section will target a particular group, and some of you may find yourself in multiple groups or even no group at all.

To the first group:  You're the group who values women.  You're the group that takes the time to listen to what women think, how they think, and why they think what they think.  You're the person who doesn't think a woman is filthy while menstruating.  You understand that a simple act of nature doesn't mean a woman should be separated from men.  You don't think that if a man comes into contact with her, then he is also contaminated, and they should be banished.  You may think it's weird if a man has sex with a girl and later her mother.  Maybe you even think it's wrong, but you don't think the women should be set on fire.  We've all heard the stereotype about how preachers' daughters turn out.  I'm sure even some of you have first-hand knowledge, but, none of you would burn a to death a prostitute with a priest for a father.  You also don't view women as objects to the point that they should be considered spoils of war.  You might not approve of premarital sex, but I sincerely doubt you'd hold a public stoning of your daughter for doing it.  Men, if your wife interferes with an argument between you and another man by grabbing you by the nads, you might be a little put off, maybe even downright confused, but I doubt you'd lop of her hand for it.  You probably think that marriage should be between two people, and I doubt you'd be in favor of a ruler having seven hundred wives.  I'd argue that within the boundaries of that marriage, most of you think the husband and wife have equal say.  In your church, you let women teach, even if it's just a Sunday school class.  If your husband is mistreating you, or if you disagree, you probably evoke your right to tell him no, and if he continues, you'll take action.  You are modern people who understand that women are not property to be valued solely for their vaginas.

To the second group:  You are the group who doesn't condemn the gays.  You don't think two major cities should be destroyed because they allowed gay festivities.  In the same way a menstruating women isn't abominable, you likely don't think being gay is.  For these same reasons, you don't think a gay male should be killed.  If your son turned out to be gay, you wouldn't kill him or his lover.  In a similar vein, you don't think a woman wearing "manly" clothing, whatever that might be, is a horrendous crime.  You wouldn't condone the removal of all gay people from a society, and of course, this includes lesbian women.  You may not approve of gay people getting married, and while that still bothers me, you at least don't wish death upon them.  It's a step in the right direction.

To the third group:  You are the group who doesn't think slavery is OK.  You don't think people should be able to buy and sell other people like livestock.  A man is not a cow, a woman is not a sheep, and a child is not a goat.  Or any variation thereof.  You have grown past this belief and understand that people are people, and you should never pierce one's ear to mark them as property.  You might be OK with the idea of indentured servitude.  The notion that one might be a servant for a set amount of time before being freed would be a good bargaining chip if you're willing to partake.  It's a gray area of slavery, to be sure, but, I'd sincerely doubt you would hold your servant's child ransom in order to persuade the child's parent to remain your slave for life.  On the same not as child slavery, you're the group of people who would never sell your daughter as a slave.  You would be appalled to learn that, unless she "pleased" her master to his liking, she couldn't be resold to foreigners, since he picked her and should have picked better.  But, let's say that you see no problem with free labor, you'd have a problem with beating your laborers.  You see that it's wrong to beat people to death, but you also see it's wrong to nearly kill them, provided they live a day or two after your beating.  You likely would tell a slave to stand up to his captor, rather than treat the captor like a god.  You are the group who understands that slavery is wrong, regardless of the reason behind it.

To any Christian who finds that this letter is directed toward you:  I sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, thank you.  You have done what so many other Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. have said were impossible.  You've shown that you can be a good person without following God.  You've demonstrated to everyone around you that your bible got many moral questions wrong.  You don't kill your daughters for having premarital sex.  You don't kill you son for being gay.  You don't own slaves, least of all sex slaves.  You don't sell your daughter as a slave.

These are grounds that you, Christians, and I, an atheist, have in common.  I also don't think any of this stuff is morally acceptable.  Neither you nor I think killing is morally acceptable.  The bible does.  Neither you nor I think a rape victim should be forced to marry her rapist, providing he pays her father for it.  The bible does.  Neither of us think murder is morally acceptable.  Neither is rape.  Neither is theft.  Neither is torture and genocide.  While I understand that not all of these things are specifically in the bible, we both probably agree with them.  We have both demonstrated that our sense of morality transcends the bible's sense of morality, and, by extension, the morality of the one you claim to have inspired it: God.  Christians, neither you nor I need the bible to teach us how to live.

10 comments:

  1. there are a lot of things that cross my mind as i read this blog, so many things i feel we could have a healthy and lively debate about...but allow me to briefly respond to a theme i find in your post.

    first i must say that any time the scriptures are quoted out of context to prove a point (whether as a believer or not), drives me wild. I point that out because every one of your points are out of context, also they don't consider the theme/point of the story/law. I, however have always thought the Old Testament law about a wife interfering with a fight by grabbing the you know whats of her husband was hilarious.

    secondly, if there is an argument against Christians (which is another topic I think we could speak for a long time about...who is a Christian), there must be sufficient reference to the New Testament. Christians hold both Old and New as holy scripture, so referencing only Old Testament law doesn’t seem fair.

    One scripture I just have to throw out there for your consideration or anyone who reads this post is Romans 11:33-35. Summary is "who are we that we can say we know the mind of God?" by you questioning all of these issues, you are saying that you know better than God...and that my friend is a scary place to be.

    The biggest thing, and as a believer I see this, is that you are striving hard to prove that you can be good without God...and I just don't know why you want to fight it. Let’s say one thinks you shouldn't rape someone, or kill them, or steal, or fill in the blank. Just because you don't do that action, does that really make you good? the ten commandments are a good and fair set of moral standards (don't kill, cheat, steal, etc)..but even if you made up your own set of laws...can't you see within yourself that no one can be good, truly good, on their own? There’s a theme of “I can be and am good enough on my own” throughout your writing. And I say this with compassion, but also with a truth that must be declared, you’re not.

    now it can be a fight for your whole life trying to disprove God and feel satisfied at times that you presented an argument that you're proud of; or you can receive grace that is freely given to all; because we all, believer or not, are jacked up and need a savior.

    i'm not trying to convert you, but just respond to what i see. and respond with truth. because there is only one Truth, its not relative.

    I hope the tone of my writing comes through as I intended, with no anger or any frustration at your views, just presenting my own as well.

    lets dialogue more if you'd like!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello, I appreciate your feedback, and I'll happily discuss my post with you. I'll be responding by first quoting you directly, and I'll comment on what section I quote. That should minimize any confusion about what part of your comment I'm discussing. Also, to save a little time, I'll refer to the New Testament and Old Testament as the NT and OT, respectively.

    " i must say that any time the scriptures are quoted out of context to prove a point (whether as a believer or not), drives me wild. I point that out because every one of your points are out of context, also they don't consider the theme/point of the story/law."

    I agree, context matters, but what does not matter is that rules have no context. If I broke one of the rules in my handbook for work, I couldn't say "Well, you have to take that rule in context!" Rules are rules whether they're in school, work, or an ancient book.

    "secondly, if there is an argument against Christians (which is another topic I think we could speak for a long time about...who is a Christian), there must be sufficient reference to the New Testament. Christians hold both Old and New as holy scripture, so referencing only Old Testament law doesn’t seem fair."

    This wasn't a direct argument against Christianity. This is a letter that helps clear the air about morality. I referenced mostly the OT but, I don't see how it matters, because the Christian god is the one who commanded and/or condoned the actions discussed.

    "One scripture I just have to throw out there for your consideration or anyone who reads this post is Romans 11:33-35. Summary is "who are we that we can say we know the mind of God?" by you questioning all of these issues, you are saying that you know better than God...and that my friend is a scary place to be."

    I don't claim to know the mind of any god. I don't believe any god exists. What I do claim to know is that the bible was written by people, not the Christian god. The oldest account of Matthew we have was written roughly eighty years after Christ supposedly died. I'll also point out that the bible's translations become increasingly different as they get older. Additionally, it's been shown that the bible fails as a historical document and, as I've pointed out here, a moral guide. So no, I don't claim to know the mind of your god. I make the claim that this book wasn't written or inspired by him.

    The remainder of my comment will be in a new comment. There's a character limit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This paragraph I'll break into sections so I can be clear.

      "The biggest thing, and as a believer I see this, is that you are striving hard to prove that you can be good without God."

      I don't have to strive to prove it. I am generally good without your god along with plenty of other people. Are you claiming that before the bible was written people had no morality? Do you realize that as levels of Christianity increase, our rape, imprisonment, murder, and teen pregnancy rates all increase? As a country's level of atheism increases, all those things decrease. Societies are, empirically, more moral without your god.

      "...and I just don't know why you want to fight it."

      I fight it, because faith is a cop-out. It's a way to pretend you know something. Prayer isn't effective, as shown by the Templeton Prayer Study. Relying on faith is the problem. Faith isn't content to stay where it belongs: church. No, instead, faith tries to sneak into our schools to lie to children about how the world really works. I fight it because faith teaches us to be content with ignorance.

      "Let’s say one thinks you shouldn't rape someone, or kill them, or steal, or fill in the blank. Just because you don't do that action, does that really make you good?"

      I'd have to say that would make a person good, yes. To not do something that society frowns upon is generally what we consider good.

      "the ten commandments are a good and fair set of moral standards (don't kill, cheat, steal, etc)"

      No, the first few are commandments that show how very egotistical your god is. The rest are things that societies believe in without your god. I also have to note that rape, child abuse, and slavery don't appear in the Decalogue, but are condoned by the bible. Rape didn't make the top ten? One final note on this: "Thou shalt not kill." That's a universal order. It doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill unless: I, God, do it, you do it in my name, etc." Your god ordered the killings of more people than Satan.

      "but even if you made up your own set of laws...can't you see within yourself that no one can be good, truly good, on their own?"

      Evidence, please? Societies managed for at least 100,000 years without Christianity.

      "There’s a theme of “I can be and am good enough on my own” throughout your writing."

      The theme, in this post, is that WE can be good and are good enough on OUR own. Christians and atheists both are generally good people. We both have the same general values.

      Delete
    2. "And I say this with compassion, but also with a truth that must be declared, you’re not."

      First off, prove it. I paraphrase Adam Savage: While not everyone is good, most are trying. And I do not need your god to do it. You're probably talking about my original sin, but I put it to you that no one is born with original sin. I'm not guilty, nor do I deserve punishment, for my racist grandparents, yet you're telling me I'm guilty of some crime (I'm referring to the fruit in the Garden of Eden) that didn't even happen!? How dare you tell me that I'm not a good person?

      "now it can be a fight for your whole life trying to disprove God and feel satisfied at times that you presented an argument that you're proud of;"

      I don't have to disprove your god. You have to prove it.

      "or you can receive grace that is freely given to all; because we all, believer or not, are jacked up and need a savior."

      Grace that is freely given to all. You forgot the ending. Grace that is freely given to all, provided you turn off your brain and ignore contradictory things within the bible. I put it on you that if you make the claim that I need a savior, you need to prove it.

      "i'm not trying to convert you, but just respond to what i see. and respond with truth. because there is only one Truth, its not relative. "

      The same as Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, Norse, etc. do.

      "I hope the tone of my writing comes through as I intended, with no anger or any frustration at your views, just presenting my own as well."

      I didn't think you were angry sounding at all. Arrogant and condescending, maybe, but that comes with the territory of believing you have a personal relationship with the being who created the earth specifically for humans.

      Now, if you want me to consider your views more, you have to follow the steps of logic. You have to first prove that any god exists. You then have to prove that the god you proved is YOUR god. Lastly, you have to prove that your holy book was inspired by that god. Note, you can't start with step three to show that step one is true. That's circular reasoning and no more true than using Lord of the Rings to prove Gandalf exists.

      Thank you for your time.

      Delete
  3. Hey man, I appreciate the response. I'll do my best, as you did, to respond clearly and continue our conversation. As much as I do want you to consider my views more, if I attempted to follow your steps as you requested and prove God, etc, we are going to find our sources and throw them at each other, and as much as I enjoy these topics, and hope we continue onto them, I think it could be a waste of time if we don’t first discuss the initial issues at hand…and for the sake of not being terribly long-winded, I will stay within a couple of topics and main themes instead of address all the things you brought up in your response to me.

    The issue of morality and goodness. I will agree with you that someone like yourself, an atheist, can do good things and have good morals. I also believe that a person who believes in God (of the bible or not), can do bad things and live an immoral life. My issue lies in that doing good doesn't make you good.

    I hate coming up with examples, but for arguments sake, take Hitler. I think all would agree he's not a good guy. I'd go out on a limb and say he did more bad in his life than any good, but to say he never did a good thing would probably be false. We can take the flip of this and support the point by showing a person that is good and does good, who has done bad. I guess the question is: who decides that a person is either good or bad by the number of actions they have taken? What if a person has done the exact amount of good and bad? We know that society is not a good source of deciding morality because even the issues that one would feel is clearly black and white, right or wrong, can be fought over. To support that argument look at our politicians and political parties. There isn’t one issue that can be agreed upon; and on each side supporters are willing to die for their cause because they believe that it is right.

    The end is, no one, whether a believer or non-believer, can prove goodness or lack thereof. Actions of good, or omitting certain behaviors/actions has nothing to do with goodness. Of course, as the Bible says, the intent of a persons heart will be revealed in the fruit of their life...and so a "bad person" will likely do "bad things,” but the argument doesn't hold its weight enough to attempt to justify goodness.

    If I read your letter as you meant it, and I think I did, you are showing that the bible has its flaws, and as you point them out you praise "Christians" who don't believe the fullness of the bible. Then you find a point to connect yourself to the "moral Christian who doesn't need God nor the bible to be good," or them to you. And I don't get it. You wrote to me that you did not intend it to be a direct argument against Christianity, and yet it is a clear attack on its foundation.

    I only mention that because if you wanted to write about morality, you could have written your letter many other ways; and not ever mention Christianity...and as an atheist why ever mention the name of God? I hardly ever talk about something I don’t believe, let alone ever think of it (unicorns, big foot, etc). And I'm not criticizing your writing, because you have every freedom to write whatever you believe, as does anyone. But as I spend time discussing these issues with you, it seems like it may be a waste of effort if there is an underlying harshness/anger/prejudice towards any and all professing Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A tangent if I may. What I alluded to in my first response is that there are many people who claim to be Christians, and sadly may even believe they are Christians, when they’re not. When you write to “Christians” who don’t believe in the bible as the inspired Word of God, which is one of the most basic and fundamental beliefs of a Christian; that person is not a Christian, I don’t care what they call themselves. So to say “well done Christian for not believing in God’s word and for doing a better job than God,” you are not speaking to a true Christian. You are speaking to someone who was likely to be raised in a family that has went to church regularly, and probably believes in some God out there, and that if you do enough good, or even as long as you believe in something, you go to heaven. That is not Christianity; that is a sort of universalist new-ageism that has crept into the church.

    It’s an area that I am ashamed of, and can unfortunately only expect it to continue; that “Christians” are going to misrepresent Christ. Even myself, who believes fully in the virgin birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, infallibility of Scripture, sovereignty of a Triune God, will fail time and time again and misrepresent Christ.

    As I ramble (forgive me for that), I think its not fair on your part to clearly attack God and Christians alike, and invite me into a discussion where you say you are not doing so. Again, you’re very much allowed to, and it doesn’t upset me; but as this seemed to be a key theme in your writing I couldn’t help but mention it…if our discussion should continue to deeper topics.

    And so I ask: why do you feel like you need to attack Christians? How is it that someone can be good on his or her own? Why the need to compose an argument about a book that you don’t regard as holy and a God you don’t believe in to support your own goodness? Lastly, as I’ve re-read your words many times, I just noticed that you wrote, “The theme, in this post, is that WE can be good and are good enough on OUR own.” What do you mean by good enough? Good enough for what?

    I look forward to your response. And as you respond, I ask that you do it similarly to me (at least what I attempted), and addressing the main one-two topics and themes. Because I am sure as you read my response you are going to have a lot to say, but as I read yours I could have responded to 10 different things also (effectiveness of prayer, society, bible authority and historical accuracy, etc); but wouldn’t you agree that we aren’t going to move forward on any topic if we discuss too many at once?

    Thanks for your time man. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

    Ps. Luke 18, specifically verses 18-23 is a good story about the goodness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You said, "As much as I do want you to consider my views more, if I attempted to follow your steps as you requested and prove God, etc, we are going to find our sources and throw them at each other, and as much as I enjoy these topics, and hope we continue onto them, I think it could be a waste of time if we don’t first discuss the initial issues at hand"

    "I hate coming up with examples, but for arguments sake, take Hitler. I think all would agree he's not a good guy. I'd go out on a limb and say he did more bad in his life than any good, but to say he never did a good thing would probably be false."

    I agree that Hitler wasn't a good person, but I don't see how it's relevant. Hitler was a
    I don't follow this. We are going to find our sources? I'm not sure what sources you mean.

    "The issue of morality and goodness. I will agree with you that someone like yourself, an atheist, can do good things and have good morals. I also believe that a person who believes in God (of the bible or not), can do bad things and live an immoral life. My issue lies in that doing good doesn't make you good."

    Then, what does make a person good? Intentions? Actions? There really are only two things we can judge morality on: thoughts and actions. A person can do horrible things with the best of intentions, and I'd argue that it doesn't make them a bad person. For example, Christians do bad things, (indoctrinating children, telling them falsehoods, and using blackmail) but I don't think all Christians are bad.

    "I hate coming up with examples, but for arguments sake, take Hitler. I think all would agree he's not a good guy. I'd go out on a limb and say he did more bad in his life than any good, but to say he never did a good thing would probably be false. We can take the flip of this and support the point by showing a person that is good and does good, who has done bad. I guess the question is: who decides that a person is either good or bad by the number of actions they have taken?"

    People do. We always have, and probably always will, even before and after Christianity.


    "What if a person has done the exact amount of good and bad? We know that society is not a good source of deciding morality because even the issues that one would feel is clearly black and white, right or wrong, can be fought over."

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't see how it matters. Society is the only way of deciding what is right and wrong. Individuals have differing beliefs, but ultimately it's up to society. Norms and mores are always changing alongside morality. Issues that are black and white aren't usually fought over, from what I've seen. That's why they're black and white.

    "To support that argument look at our politicians and political parties. There isn’t one issue that can be agreed upon; and on each side supporters are willing to die for their cause because they believe that it is right."

    This doesn't support your argument, because the issues that are being fought over aren't black and white issues. For example, marriage equality is being fought over because one side doesn't see it as being moral. The other does. That makes it a non-black-and-white situation. Now consider murder. We aren't arguing over whether murder is moral or not, because for a minimum of 100,000 years, we've taken the time to figure out that murder is wrong. It has become universally accepted that murder is not good, with the exception of those with psychopathic tendencies.

    "The end is, no one, whether a believer or non-believer, can prove goodness or lack thereof. Actions of good, or omitting certain behaviors/actions has nothing to do with goodness."

    I think I've already shown this to be false, so I won't comment further.

    "Of course, as the Bible says, the intent of a persons heart will be revealed in the fruit of their life...and so a "bad person" will likely do "bad things,” but the argument doesn't hold its weight enough to attempt to justify goodness."

    The bible is already demonstrably morally bankrupt, so I agree that it wouldn't have a strong moral argument.

    "If I read your letter as you meant it, and I think I did, you are showing that the bible has its flaws, and as you point them out you praise "Christians" who don't believe the fullness of the bible."

    Yes. I praise them for being more moral than the god they worship.

    "Then you find a point to connect yourself to the "moral Christian who doesn't need God nor the bible to be good," or them to you. And I don't get it. You wrote to me that you did not intend it to be a direct argument against Christianity, and yet it is a clear attack on its foundation."

    The foundation of Christianity? What do you consider to be its foundation?

    "I only mention that because if you wanted to write about morality, you could have written your letter many other ways; and not ever mention Christianity"

    I wanted to show that Christians are more moral than their god. Mentioning Christianity was necessary.

    "and as an atheist why ever mention the name of God? I hardly ever talk about something I don’t believe, let alone ever think of it (unicorns, big foot, etc)."

    I could answer this here, but I'm not. I'm actually working on a new post about this very question. I should be finished soon, so hang tight. :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. "And I'm not criticizing your writing, because you have every freedom to write whatever you believe, as does anyone. But as I spend time discussing these issues with you, it seems like it may be a waste of effort if there is an underlying harshness/anger/prejudice towards any and all professing Christians."

    I'm not sure if by "professing" you mean evangelical (the ones who go out and try to convert) or those who just profess that they're Christian. I absolutely am angry at the evangelical group, but not the ones who are content to keep their faith out of schools, laws, etc.

    "A tangent if I may. What I alluded to in my first response is that there are many people who claim to be Christians, and sadly may even believe they are Christians, when they’re not. When you write to “Christians” who don’t believe in the bible as the inspired Word of God, which is one of the most basic and fundamental beliefs of a Christian; that person is not a Christian, I don’t care what they call themselves. So to say “well done Christian for not believing in God’s word and for doing a better job than God,” you are not speaking to a true Christian."

    From the understanding I grew up with, a Christian is one who believes that Christ was the son of God, died for our sins, and rose in three days. In fact, John 3:16 is the most popular way to say that. Whoever believes in him, not whoever believes everything in the bible. There absolutely are things in the bible that are false. For example, Leviticus 14:6 states that the hare chews its cud. It doesn't. Do you mean to tell me that a person who does not believes a hare does that isn't a Christian?

    "You are speaking to someone who was likely to be raised in a family that has went to church regularly, and probably believes in some God out there, and that if you do enough good, or even as long as you believe in something, you go to heaven. "

    No. I'm speaking directly to people who believe in the god of Abraham, that Christ died and rose again for our sins.

    "That is not Christianity; that is a sort of universalist new-ageism that has crept into the church."

    It's a sign that people are growing out of an archaic faith.

    "It’s an area that I am ashamed of, and can unfortunately only expect it to continue; that “Christians” are going to misrepresent Christ. Even myself, who believes fully in the virgin birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, infallibility of Scripture, sovereignty of a Triune God, will fail time and time again and misrepresent Christ."

    People aren't perfect. There's no need to be ashamed of being human.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "As I ramble (forgive me for that), I think its not fair on your part to clearly attack God and Christians alike, and invite me into a discussion where you say you are not doing so."

    If you feel it's a personal attack, I'm sorry, but to be fair, you started the conversation. I am equally disturbed by Islam as I am by Christianity. I never attacked Christians, but I fight the belief. You seem to have confused me attacking an idea for attacking the people, so let me be perfectly clear: I am fighting against faith. We try to talk people out of things all the time, and religion doesn't deserve to be put on a pedestal where it can't be criticized.

    "And so I ask: why do you feel like you need to attack Christians?"

    I don't, but the belief needs to be seriously examined.

    "How is it that someone can be good on his or her own?"

    Because, for at least 100,000 years, people have been good on their own.

    "Why the need to compose an argument about a book that you don’t regard as holy and a God you don’t believe in to support your own goodness?"

    My next blog will take care of this question, but to summarize: The book is immoral. If it was divinely inspired, the divine is not omniscient. Christianity is inherently immoral.

    "Lastly, as I’ve re-read your words many times, I just noticed that you wrote, “The theme, in this post, is that WE can be good and are good enough on OUR own.” What do you mean by good enough? Good enough for what?"

    Good enough to live cooperatively and share space together, I suppose, but why do we have to be good enough for anything? There isn't a standard to live up to, is there?

    I think I focused on the themes you requested, but if not, I apologize. I still make the argument that people are generally good without the Christian god, because we have grown passed following the disgusting commands the bible claims he ordered.

    As to Luke 18, I don't see how that's relevant. According to it, Jesus says that the only one who was ever truly good was God. I was under the impression that Jesus was only able to wash away the sins because he was perfect. Jesus admits to imperfection, nullifying the idea that he is both God and his son.

    ReplyDelete