Dh, a new atheist, wrote this post on FB today - opinions?

[Lady Florida.]

I didn't read it as posting that on his page. She said he was "challenging" and I took that to mean that he was taking it to other's pages. I don't care what someone posts on their own page.

 

That would be different, and I would not agree with him posting what he did on someone else's wall. 

 

I took it as he's both challenging others and posting stuff on his wall. I thought, mostly based on the length of his post, that what the OP put here is something he posted on his own wall.

 

OP, would you clarify?

[Truscifi]

I'll be in the minority (is anyone else with me besides hornbower?) and say it's fine. His page, his opinions. I wouldn't condone going on others' pages and posting that, or replying to "Thank God for..." type of posts with "No it wasn't God", but on his own wall? Meh. 

 

I don't unfriend people who go on rants or post things I disagree with. I see many posts on a daily basis on the evils of GMOs or vaccines, why being vegetarian (or vegan) is the only decent choice, how "natural" is better than "chemical" and more. Why should religion be different? I just scroll by those posts I don't want to read. I remain friends with those people both on facebook and IRL. 

 

As an atheist, I don't post like that on my facebook wall, but that's because I'm not out to all of our family (mine or dh's). I have atheist friends who often post either pro atheist or anti theist stuff. I have religious friends who thank God for everything from helping them find their keys to curing a disease. They also post how they feel about atheism. So what? 

 

I personally prefer facebook to be my happy place. I post about fun things we're doing, photos, occasional first world problem rants (which I try to make obviously tongue in cheek) and I share upbeat videos and other light hearted stuff. I prefer my deeper conversations to happen either in person, in an email exchange, on a blog dedicated to such conversations, or on this type of forum. Others like facebook to be a place where they can express strong opinions about issues. There's room for both.

 

If your husband loses friends over such posts I would have to ask why they can't take the tough questions about their faith (though I agree with those who say what he posted doesn't amount to tough questions).

 

I'll be in the minority with you. It might annoy me after a while if it were a constant theme, but I wouldn't unfriend him over it, just scroll on past. If I unfriended everyone who annoyed me with rants on FB I wouldn't have any friends on FB, lol.

[Bluegoat]

Dh was a devoted Christian for decades but no longer "believes". Over 90% of his "friends" on FB are Christians, and he's been challenging their beliefs for awhile with different posts. He posted this one today, and I'd love to hear your opinions:

 

Suppose I did some magic tricks in class and convinced some of my students that I was really magic. Would you feel that I treated those kids rightly if I gave candy to the ones who wondered in awe and believed while I gave detention to those who didn't?

What if I REALLY WAS magic? Would it be ok then? Could I rightly scold a kid for being skeptical of unrealistically amazing claims and punish them for it? The child can hardly be blamed for being familiar with the concept of illusion and manipulation.

The idea of punishing a child for not believing in magic is simply barbaric, and you wouldn't stand for it.

Would it matter if they were my own children? No. Their lack of trust in me would not deserve punishment. It would mean that I needed to be more convincing by providing more evidence. It doesn't mean that I should threaten them. If I seriously and openly threatened my own children with burning, disfiguring torture in my basement if they didn't believe me, would you support the system when they took my kids away, (or me away)? I hope so.

This is how it is with God.

Except you don't get to see the magic tricks for yourself. You have to trust some anonymous person who wrote a story about the magic tricks 40 years afterwards. How do you know that you can trust them with claims of mythological proportions?

(I'm telling you here that it is not God who I don't trust, it's ordinary men who claim that they talked to somebody magic who might have been God.)

Instead of evidence, I get the kind of persuasion one would expect to receive from a fraud who was incapable of producing evidence. I get warnings of very bad consequence if I don't believe and promises of very pleasant things if I do. The clincher is that nobody can affirm the reality of these punishments and rewards, because, conveniently, they are only applied after you die. This has all the markings of an elaborate con.

How could such an elaborate con evolve to fool so many people? You already know of a few. Look at Islam. Look at Hinduism. Look at Mormonism. Why is it so difficult to imagine that your particular faith evolved similarly?

 

I would not post anthing like this on Facebook - it is not a place where it is easy to have a conversation in any kind of depth, even if it is sound and well put.

 

Essentially, what people are going to hear is, if you are religious, you hare stupid and have been conned. Now, it may be that your husband is only looking to make people think about the less intelligent aspects of religious belief, but I susect many people will see this as if it is meant to address serious arguments about religion and see it as a blatant straw man approach.  That doesn't tend to go over well either and also makes people see the argument as manipulative rather than reall honest.

 

[Word Nerd]

tl;dr I avoid preachy rants on Facebook no matter what the topic. He has the right to share whatever he wants on his wall, and others have the right to hide him from their newsfeed—and I'm guessing some of his friends will do just that.

[catz]

He comes off a as a new atheist.  People on their latest kick can get preachy no matter what it is.  I don't really like that tone (whether I agree or not) and will eventually hide someone like that if that is all they post

[albeto.]

I don't want to read posts from religious people telling me I'm an idiot. I can't imagine wanting to tell the vast majority of my friends that they're idiots.  It's mean, insulting, and pointless.  Unless the intent is to alienate friends.

 

Or wake them up. ;)

 

As a general statement, and not directed to Carrie specifically, I think the idea of being called out as an idiot, or worse, a supporter of an immoral,

 [in love] is the real thorn in the side. I think it distracts people from the content of his argument, (including those who have offered answers). The thing is, there are no logical answers, as evidence by the very fact one must have faith to believe this. There's no way around that. The entire faith relies on, well, believing a thing to be true despite a lack of evidence, and evidence to the contrary. In other words, faith. One either believes certain faith claims to be true, or one doesn't. He doesn't, and he's offering reasons why, and he's inviting others to join a theological discussion. I don't find that problematic in any other context. It's like Lady FL says, issues pertaining to vegetarian, vaccinations, immigration reform, lgbtq concerns, etc are often similarly "announced" on social media, sometimes opening up opportunity for discussion (like OP's dh), sometimes not. Not too long ago Jill Duggar got attention in the media for letting people know how sad it is most of us are going to Hell. That's not just her personal twitter account, that's nearly every grocery store check-out line, newspaper stand, online and off that carries this kind of "news," and I don't recall anyone saying how gauche she was for sharing such controversial, mean-spirited beliefs that imply people who are not like her are idiots (and worse, deserve torture). Faith usually has a long history of conditioning behaviors in the mind of the adult, and so arguments for it are often accepted without awareness, while the argument against it is readily dismissed. In this case, the argument against is dismissed by virtue of his seemingly uncouth behavior. How shameful. He ought to be embarrassed. Not Jill Duggar though. She's cute as a button, and as a sweet, harmless Christian, she's what's right with this country, eh? 

 

I think the idea of waking people up from ignorantly supporting tyranny is generally a good one, even though it doesn't seem to have a directly positive effect when approached like this. Indirectly, I think it does. I think over time, scathing challenges to injustice does have the effect of waking people up from an otherwise convenient sleep, especially when they see how the injustice affects them personally. Defying tyranny inspired the philosophers and thinkers of the 17th century in Europe to strive for "Enlightenment," values that could be held accountable to reason and rational thought as opposed to accepted by virtue of blind obedience and fear of insubordination. It inspired the American Revolution. It inspired protests against the Vietnam War. It inspired Arab Spring. None of these things were supported by only one person, and surely in these events there were countless people who refused to toe the social line, not unlike the OP's dh. He's a small example of how movements are made, how they work. What tyrant has ever willingly abdicated control without massive protest? And how does protest become massive except by one person at a time?

 

Tyranny itself goes against our values and modern moral code, in general. To suggest one supports a tyrant, an unjust, sadistic tyrant to boot, is to suggest one supports tyranny, injustice, and sadism. I think that's the OP's dh's real point, and that's what I suspect he's protesting against. Being an open non-believer in this country has various results. In my community, it's common and so no big deal. I have friends in other parts of the country who fear losing their spouses, their children, there family if they knew. If one discloses their lack of faith in the wrong country, one might very literally lose their head on their way to work. Angry mobs defending the honor of invisible beings whose existence is only accepted by personal faith shows the extent to which vengeance in the name of invisible gods is wreaked. The difference is the vengeance here in this example is public shaming. Public shaming supports tyranny, indirectly, but generally effectively. It supports it by silencing dissent.

 

People "come out" as atheists for different reasons. Some do it to have the opportunity to be open and honest to people they love, to stop pretending for the sake of avoiding awkwardness. Some do it to explain a moral decision they've made. And some do it for political / social reasons. Part of that reason is to reduce the impact of subsequent vengeance. The OP's dh's facebook post will chip away a bit more at the traditionally respected walls that protect religious belief, like the idea that one ought to respect the belief system even if they don't personally hold it, and certainly, one must never publicly compare it to magic, snake oils, sadism, or tyranny. His views reflect opinions about faith that are gaining popularity, whether or not people like it. While it may feel good to shush the insubordinate person into silence, to work to preserve the integrity of the community from doubt, one problem with this solution is that eventually the rude dismissal irks the next person who's just starting to make these connections him or herself. 

[ErinE]

If a teen had posted it, I would give more leeway.

 

If an adult posted it, I would skim the first few sentences, realize it's preaching, and skip the post. If it became a daily series, I would unfollow the person. I've done this to evangelicals of all types, believers and non believers.

 

I strongly dislike long, preachy posts that start from the assumption that if the other person really thought about the issue, he or she would come to the same conclusion as the original poster. I have friends who hold a wide variety of worldviews, and I trust them to make up their own minds.

[Slartibartfast]

Or wake them up. ;)

 

As a general statement, and not directed to Carrie specifically, I think the idea of being called out as an idiot, or worse, a supporter of an immoral,

[in love] is the real thorn in the side. I think it distracts people from the content of his argument, (including those who have offered answers). The thing is, there are no logical answers, as evidence by the very fact one must have faith to believe this. There's no way around that. The entire faith relies on, well, believing a thing to be true despite a lack of evidence, and evidence to the contrary. In other words, faith. One either believes certain faith claims to be true, or one doesn't. He doesn't, and he's offering reasons why, and he's inviting others to join a theological discussion. I don't find that problematic in any other context. It's like Lady FL says, issues pertaining to vegetarian, vaccinations, immigration reform, lgbtq concerns, etc are often similarly "announced" on social media, sometimes opening up opportunity for discussion (like OP's dh), sometimes not. Not too long ago Jill Duggar got attention in the media for letting people know how sad it is most of us are going to Hell. That's not just her personal twitter account, that's nearly every grocery store check-out line, newspaper stand, online and off that carries this kind of "news," and I don't recall anyone saying how gauche she was for sharing such controversial, mean-spirited beliefs that imply people who are not like her are idiots (and worse, deserve torture). Faith usually has a long history of conditioning behaviors in the mind of the adult, and so arguments for it are often accepted without awareness, while the argument against it is readily dismissed. In this case, the argument against is dismissed by virtue of his seemingly uncouth behavior. How shameful. He ought to be embarrassed. Not Jill Duggar though. She's cute as a button, and as a sweet, harmless Christian, she's what's right with this country, eh?

 

I think the idea of waking people up from ignorantly supporting tyranny is generally a good one, even though it doesn't seem to have a directly positive effect when approached like this. Indirectly, I think it does. I think over time, scathing challenges to injustice does have the effect of waking people up from an otherwise convenient sleep, especially when they see how the injustice affects them personally. Defying tyranny inspired the philosophers and thinkers of the 17th century in Europe to strive for "Enlightenment," values that could be held accountable to reason and rational thought as opposed to accepted by virtue of blind obedience and fear of insubordination. It inspired the American Revolution. It inspired protests against the Vietnam War. It inspired Arab Spring. None of these things were supported by only one person, and surely in these events there were countless people who refused to toe the social line, not unlike the OP's dh. He's a small example of how movements are made, how they work. What tyrant has ever willingly abdicated control without massive protest? And how does protest become massive except by one person at a time?

 

Tyranny itself goes against our values and modern moral code, in general. To suggest one supports a tyrant, an unjust, sadistic tyrant to boot, is to suggest one supports tyranny, injustice, and sadism. I think that's the OP's dh's real point, and that's what I suspect he's protesting against. Being an open non-believer in this country has various results. In my community, it's common and so no big deal. I have friends in other parts of the country who fear losing their spouses, their children, there family if they knew. If one discloses their lack of faith in the wrong country, one might very literally lose their head on their way to work. Angry mobs defending the honor of invisible beings whose existence is only accepted by personal faith shows the extent to which vengeance in the name of invisible gods is wreaked. The difference is the vengeance here in this example is public shaming. Public shaming supports tyranny, indirectly, but generally effectively. It supports it by silencing dissent.

 

People "come out" as atheists for different reasons. Some do it to have the opportunity to be open and honest to people they love, to stop pretending for the sake of avoiding awkwardness. Some do it to explain a moral decision they've made. And some do it for political / social reasons. Part of that reason is to reduce the impact of subsequent vengeance. The OP's dh's facebook post will chip away a bit more at the traditionally respected walls that protect religious belief, like the idea that one ought to respect the belief system even if they don't personally hold it, and certainly, one must never publicly compare it to magic, snake oils, sadism, or tyranny. His views reflect opinions about faith that are gaining popularity, whether or not people like it. While it may feel good to shush the insubordinate person into silence, to work to preserve the integrity of the community from doubt, one problem with this solution is that eventually the rude dismissal irks the next person who's just starting to make these connections him or herself.

I speak out against tyranny and oppression. I didn't speak out against Jill Duggar because I don't pay attention to those people but if she said something offensive I would speak against that. I don't want to be chided for not speaking out because I do not want to give them attention and don't think they warrant a TV show. I find their sect to be cultish and insane.

 

I am not a sheep and I am not asleep.

[TranquilMind]

Dh was a devoted Christian for decades but no longer "believes". Over 90% of his "friends" on FB are Christians, and he's been challenging their beliefs for awhile with different posts. He posted this one today, and I'd love to hear your opinions:

 

Suppose I did some magic tricks in class and convinced some of my students that I was really magic. Would you feel that I treated those kids rightly if I gave candy to the ones who wondered in awe and believed while I gave detention to those who didn't?

What if I REALLY WAS magic? Would it be ok then? Could I rightly scold a kid for being skeptical of unrealistically amazing claims and punish them for it? The child can hardly be blamed for being familiar with the concept of illusion and manipulation.

The idea of punishing a child for not believing in magic is simply barbaric, and you wouldn't stand for it.

Would it matter if they were my own children? No. Their lack of trust in me would not deserve punishment. It would mean that I needed to be more convincing by providing more evidence. It doesn't mean that I should threaten them. If I seriously and openly threatened my own children with burning, disfiguring torture in my basement if they didn't believe me, would you support the system when they took my kids away, (or me away)? I hope so.

This is how it is with God.

Except you don't get to see the magic tricks for yourself. You have to trust some anonymous person who wrote a story about the magic tricks 40 years afterwards. How do you know that you can trust them with claims of mythological proportions?

(I'm telling you here that it is not God who I don't trust, it's ordinary men who claim that they talked to somebody magic who might have been God.)

Instead of evidence, I get the kind of persuasion one would expect to receive from a fraud who was incapable of producing evidence. I get warnings of very bad consequence if I don't believe and promises of very pleasant things if I do. The clincher is that nobody can affirm the reality of these punishments and rewards, because, conveniently, they are only applied after you die. This has all the markings of an elaborate con.

How could such an elaborate con evolve to fool so many people? You already know of a few. Look at Islam. Look at Hinduism. Look at Mormonism. Why is it so difficult to imagine that your particular faith evolved similarly?

Well, except that God is not equivalent to "magic" in any way, and he is not God.

God doesn't threaten.  God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to salvation and a knowledge of the truth (scripture he should know).  People do what they want.  Free will.

 

 

This is like asking if he threatened his kids that they might hit by a speeding car if they go play on the highway, would that be barbaric?  It's not really "threatening" them, properly understood.  It is telling them what an end result could be of disobeying his instructions meant for their safety, not just meant to deprive them of all the fun of playing on the highway. 

 

He should be skeptical of claims of others about what God wants.  If God wants to tell him something, it will happen, if he is open to listening. 

What is the point of the elaborate con, in his mind?  Who "wins" if he doesn't commit adultery, kill anyone, steal, covet, live in rage, etc.?

[TranquilMind]

He comes off a as a new atheist.  People on their latest kick can get preachy no matter what it is.  I don't really like that tone (whether I agree or not) and will eventually hide someone like that if that is all they post

Ha ha.  THIS!

 

It doesn't even matter what subject!  New preachers on 1) organic food, 2) parenting, 3) education, 4) exercise, 5) weed, 6) Dave Ramsey "gazelle intensity" 7) New agey thing  8) diet...whatever it is,  are equally annoying and obnoxious in their views at first.   

 

I especially enjoy all of the advice by new parents of one child...they know it all!   I'm sure I knew it all too, when I had just one baby. 

[albeto.]

I speak out against tyranny and oppression. I didn't speak out against Jill Duggar because I don't pay attention to those people but if she said something offensive I would speak against that. I don't want to be chided for not speaking out because I do not want to give them attention and don't think they warrant a TV show. I find their sect to be cultish and insane.

 

Surely everyone who didn't find it offensive had a reason. The thing is, offense is not a privilege reserved for the faithful, and the offended won't always be shamed into silence by those whose egos get bruised. 

 

I am not a sheep and I am not asleep.

 

Arguably, we are all asleep to tyranny and oppression in one way or another. One can find many examples of that comforting sleep. We ignore or dismiss evidence of our indirect sanctioning of slave labor, prison-for-profit, torture, subjugation of women in both the public and private sphere, unequal access to resources like water and food and medical care, hiding pedophiles rather than sparing the next generation of children from rape, genocide, homophobia, antisemitism, islamaphobia. The list goes on. The scary thing is we all, each one of us, benefit from these in one way or another. We can't escape that reality, and yet we do little more than lip service to condemning it when confronted with it specifically. Most of us probably feel genuine grief, horror, sympathy when we hear real life applications of tyranny, then find pleasant distractions in our computers, music, entertainment. We enjoy our relatively cheap food, free, generally clean water, and enjoy the greater privileges of living in a society where we don't fear our own police. In the face of tyranny, we amount to not much more than armchair warriors, indignant against tyranny, and then supporting it as it benefits us personally, tuning our minds out of those pieces of information we've come across before that dare break through our quaint constructs of reality. All of us are guilty of being asleep in one way or another. I think it's unavoidable. I think it's a shame to not realize it. I think it's a tragedy to ignore it. Nevertheless, I think it's inevitable that we avoid and ignore it. 

 

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

The Call of Cthulhu

H. P. Lovecraft

 

In any case, the sentiment of not being a sheep might have more credibility if the focal point of the faith were not identified specifically as a "my shepherd." 

[Slartibartfast]

Don't put words in my mouth, I did not state that offense is a privilege reserved to the faithful. If you are going to lecture the faithful for not finding something offensive or speaking against tyranny do not then turn around and make a second attack when some say they do. That is shenanigans.

 

I also am aware of what allegory means and have never signed a SoF that I believe in a "literal" translation. That was rather nasty and unworthy of a serious discussion.

[kristi26]

Honestly, I'm with the others who said they aren't on FB for drama. That post would likely earn him an "unfollow" just for being a drama king on my newsfeed. ;) I didn't see anything in the post that is particularly new (and I'm Christian too) or super upsetting, but I don't engage in drama there if I can help it.

[albeto.]

Don't put words in my mouth, I did not state that offense is a privilege reserved to the faithful. If you are going to lecture the faithful for not finding something offensive or speaking against tyranny do not then turn around and make a second attack when some say they do. That is shenanigans.

 

I also am aware of what allegory means and have never signed a SoF that I believe in a "literal" translation. That was rather nasty and unworthy of a serious discussion.

 

One doesn't have to make a statement for one to bring a concept into a discussion. You don't have to state that offense is not a privilege reserved for the faithful for me to bring it up. 

 

No doubt the faithful don't find the faith offensive. That's not the problem. The problem is the concerted, albeit spontaneous and uncoordinated effort to shut people up who do, even through [not so] subtle public shaming. If you don't contribute to that, then my comments are irrelevant. 

 

My comments are inspired only to offer personal opinions to other comments made, not teach or correct. 

 

I mean no disrespect, just as I assume you meant no disrespect. I mean that sincerely. I won't reply to you directly again so as not to confuse my comments with personal attacks. 

[Tsuga]

I sometimes wonder if the "ideal" was in the day of small communities. Yeah, people discussed things and offended each other. But, absent other choices, they were more prone to forgive and the person another chance another day. 

 

Do you think so?

 

I've lived in many a small town. You'd be surprised. People can be vindictive even with their cousins, siblings, strangers... it's amazing.

[hornblower]

I'm beginning to realize I don't understand how some of you use fb. :laugh:

[Guest]

I got rid of FB after Occupy, other than reactivating once in a blue moon to pay my last respects to old high school friends when they pass away and to find out where Park Day is if nobody posts on the Yahoo group, so I really don't know what I'm talking about other than to recommend a supportive community for the OP's dh and reassure her that he's going through a temporary stage of big, big feelings and that I've seen many marriages and friendships survive things like this.

 

 

 

 

[Slartibartfast]

One doesn't have to make a statement for one to bring a concept into a discussion. You don't have to state that offense is not a privilege reserved for the faithful for me to bring it up.

 

No doubt the faithful don't find the faith offensive. That's not the problem. The problem is the concerted, albeit spontaneous and uncoordinated effort to shut people up who do, even through [not so] subtle public shaming. If you don't contribute to that, then my comments are irrelevant.

 

My comments are inspired only to offer personal opinions to other comments made, not teach or correct.

 

I mean no disrespect, just as I assume you meant no disrespect. I mean that sincerely. I won't reply to you directly again so as not to confuse my comments with personal attacks.

So just the fact that someone has faith is offensive? The existence of the faith is offensive? Let's pretend that Jill Duggar doesn't speak for me (because...nuts) and neither does Jerry Falwell (because...nuts) and nor does Bob Jones (because....nuts) I was never taught patriarchy. If my sisters or I brought some AIG boy home my parents would LOSE THEIR MINDS.

 

How exactly is *my* faith offensive, who am I offending? I get along perfectly well with everyone but extremists on both sides. Many Christians are perfectly normal and can function in society without needing to subjugate someone.

 

I am not trying to be disrespectful, I am in earnest and trying to see where you are coming from.

[gardenmom5]

I'm approaching done with the cat videos. It's starting to look like the same half dozen cats.

They're clones.

[Slartibartfast]

They're clones.

I am starting to rethink my "no animals that poop inside" stance. There seems to be a lot of money in cat videos.

[creekland]

I am starting to rethink my "no animals that poop inside" stance. There seems to be a lot of money in cat videos.

 

Who cares about the money in videos?  (Good) cats are worth their weight in gold for their comedy and companionship.  They're quite the stress relief.

 

Of course, it helps that we live on a farm and they go out when they need to so we've no litter box to clean.  ;)

 

But even when we didn't, I still needed cats to complete my life.  Hubby had to agree to having cats before I'd even think about marrying him.  (Now he's a converted ex non-cat person, but I don't know that he has put any sort of diatribe about it on FB.)

[Slartibartfast]

Who cares about the money in videos? (Good) cats are worth their weight in gold for their comedy and companionship. They're quite the stress relief.

 

Of course, it helps that we live on a farm and they go out when they need to so we've no litter box to clean. ;)

 

But even when we didn't, I still needed cats to complete my life. Hubby had to agree to having cats before I'd even think about marrying him. (Now he's a converted ex non-cat person, but I don't know that he has put any sort of diatribe about it on FB.)

I was joking I am allergic to cats, rodents. and much of the earth. We have a dog, he is the sort of dog one is supposed to get for allergies but I can't let him lick me all that much. :lol:

 

I had a cat when dh and I met, she was a great cat but my allergies have gotten worse over the years and I am not getting another cat.

[Bluegoat]

This is a man who was 100% sold on Christianity and spent a large amount of his time witnessing to people. He, at the time, believed it was truth and wanted other people to know the truth as well. I think he feels just as strongly that it's a lie now, but he wants to give Christians an opportunity to convince him otherwise. So far, the only responses he receives from Christians are comments like, "You just have to have faith" and, "God's ways are higher than our ways" etc. I think he's definitely ruffled some feathers and lost some friends - not that they were truly friends to begin with. I don't think his post is offensive, but it does ask some tough questions I'm sure many people don't want to think about.

 

I think maybe, if he really want to engage with better answers, he should probabl look elsewhere than the people who gave him the poor answers in the first place.  How many people like that are in his social circle on Facebook?

 

As a few people have mentioned - his thoughts aren't all that original, or his questions tough, and they seem to suggest that the version of Christianity he has learned is pretty thin.  This angry God torturing people business is a pretty narrow vision of Christianity. And to replace it, he is picking up a really thin kind of atheism - this "religion is like magic or gnomes" stuff is pretty intellectually degraded atheism.  Even the fact that a person, rejecting his Christianity, would then be an atheist suggests to me that there is something missiing - there are all kinds of mataphysical systems that aren't Christian and also aren't atheistic.  There are religions that are nor really theistic, there are theistic systems that aren't really religious.  Stopping being a Christian, or even believing in a God with some of the characteristics many expect, does not make one an atheist by default.

 

Anyway, I am not suggesting his problems aren't genuine, but I don't think he is looking in the right places to get any kind of answers.  A good place to start might be forms of Christianity with a little more intellectual heft - and he might find that in some cases rather than directly answeing his questions, some of the problems simply don't exist because the don't believe the things he has a problem with.

[albeto.]

I am not trying to be disrespectful, I am in earnest and trying to see where you are coming from.

 

Okay, in that spirit I'll do my best to explain. I think it would be good to start by saying I'm not focusing any of this at you personally, or even in your general direction. I'm going by the argument put forth in the OP's dh's facebook page, and the subsequent reaction here as a general tone that essentially voiced a common desire for him and people like him to just keep their opinions to themselves, or sequester them safely among those who already agree. I find that response is not offered in the same measure when people "rant" about other things like about vegan/animal rights, vaccines, LGBTQ issues, and the like. Politics a bit more so, but still, it seems to me the reaction reflects a collective rolling of the eye and a lamentation of how shameful it is to speak up about such uncouth things when no one asked. I find that interesting for a variety of reasons.

 

ETA: "The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

 

So just the fact that someone has faith is offensive? The existence of the faith is offensive? Let's pretend that Jill Duggar doesn't speak for me (because...nuts) and neither does Jerry Falwell (because...nuts) and nor does Bob Jones (because....nuts) I was never taught patriarchy. If my sisters or I brought some AIG boy home my parents would LOSE THEIR MINDS.

 

How exactly is *my* faith offensive, who am I offending? I get along perfectly well with everyone but extremists on both sides. Many Christians are perfectly normal and can function in society without needing to subjugate someone.

 

If I understand the OP's dh's argument correctly, it's not the person who holds the faith that is offensive, but the moral claims made by the Christian faith in general [cue no true scotsman defense]. He offers his reasons by way of illustration, "The idea of punishing a child for not believing in magic is simply barbaric, and you wouldn't stand for it.... Their lack of trust in me would not deserve punishment. It would mean that I needed to be more convincing by providing more evidence. It doesn't mean that I should threaten them. If I seriously and openly threatened my own children with burning, disfiguring torture in my basement if they didn't believe me, would you support the system when they took my kids away, (or me away)?" He argues it is an immoral act to punish people for a lack of belief (a thought crime, really), especially when that belief must be accepted on faith; this argument would not be defended in any other context outside theology. I suspect part of his point, and the reason he's proposing this theological challenge to his fb friends, resides in the idea that one doesn't have to be an extremist to lend credibility and support to an immoral belief, or the greater infrastructure that supports that belief. Further, one ought to be aware of supporting the very things they morally oppose for the opportunity to act on behalf of their genuine intentions. That's why I think he thinks his intent is to offer a wake-up call rather than a contentious post just for the sake of upsetting people. 

[Joanne]

So just the fact that someone has faith is offensive? The existence of the faith is offensive? Let's pretend that Jill Duggar doesn't speak for me (because...nuts) and neither does Jerry Falwell (because...nuts) and nor does Bob Jones (because....nuts) I was never taught patriarchy. If my sisters or I brought some AIG boy home my parents would LOSE THEIR MINDS.

 

How exactly is *my* faith offensive, who am I offending? I get along perfectly well with everyone but extremists on both sides. Many Christians are perfectly normal and can function in society without needing to subjugate someone.

 

I am not trying to be disrespectful, I am in earnest and trying to see where you are coming from.

 

Personally, I find any exclusive faith offensive. Any faith that stakes a claim to TRUTH, exclusive truth, "the way", etc is by my definition offensive.

[JadeOrchidSong]

nM

[hornblower]

oh nM back ;)

[elfgivas]

hugs to you.

 

maybe if he finds a different outlet?  its a bit like reformed smokers; they have a real need to share their new insights.

 

here's one: http://www.pandasthumb.org/

 

they have forums, and lots of discussion.  some of it is around new atheists.

 

he may also want to read the research that shows if you confront people about their beliefs, they become more entrenched, not more enlightened.  

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

 

another avenue to explore is where morality comes from, and how he will now root his.  many atheists are deeply moral people.  it may help him to explore some of their writings.  sam harris has some deeply thoughtful writings.  

 

but this posting on facebook path is unlikely to end well.

 

fwiw,

ann

 

 

[albeto.]

It's not the person who holds the faith that is offensive, but the moral claims made by the Christian faith in general [cue no true scotsman defense]....

 

Further, one ought to be aware of supporting the very things they morally oppose for the opportunity to act on behalf of their genuine intentions. That's why I think he thinks his intent is to offer a wake-up call rather than a contentious post just for the sake of upsetting people. 

 

An interesting example of just such a thing. Bachmann: Rapture Imminent Thanks To Gay Marriage & Obama

 

 

In an interview with End Times broadcaster Jan Markell that was aired this weekend, former Rep. Michele Bachmann said that people should “not despair but rejoice†that the world has reached the “midnight hour†and that “we in our lifetimes potentially could see Jesus Christ returning to earth and the Rapture of the church.â€

 

The former Republican congresswoman from Minnesota said that President Obama’s policies, including support for marriage equality and nuclear negotiations with Iran, are to blame for the world’s imminent demise. “We need to realize how close this clock is to getting towards the midnight hour,†Bachmann said. “Barack Obama is intent, it is his number one goal, to ensure that Iran has a nuclear weapon.â€

 

Bachmann made similar comments in the first half of her interview with Markell, which aired last week, insisting that Obama’s presidency will bring about natural and economic disasters along with the arrival of the Last Days.

 

After Bachmann said that Obama intends to “lift up the agenda of radical Islam,†Markell added that legal abortion and marriage equality for gays and lesbians are bringing about divine punishment on America.

 

“You are right,†Bachmann responded, lamenting that God will soon lift His “hedge of protection†over “pagan†America “and we will suffer the consequences as a result.â€

 

“That’s why so many Christians I think are sad and despairing because we know what the word of God says,†she said. “But it is also a chastening as individual believers for our good and that, to me, is extremely exciting.â€

 

Perhaps one can see the offensive nature of publicly posing the belief that equal marriage will bring about the world's imminent demise, and the natural conclusion of such a thought - we've got to stop 'em. This ignores the awkward incongruity between stopping the demise of the world and rejoicing in its imminence.

 

Perhaps one might consider the idea that the president is nothing more than a lackey for the embodiment of evil itself an offensive idea. Let's leave aside the bizarre logic that if Obama's number one goal is to unleash nuclear weapons to the control of the Iranians, that all he need do is hand over a small percentage of the US's vast arsenal. After all, who will compel him to stand trial when the world is burning and suffering and the rivers have turned to blood and a third of the life in the oceans have died? Surely he'll be reunited with his lord Satan, sitting on top of the world. At least that would be his expectation, it would guide his motivation, if Bachmann's beliefs are correct.

 

Perhaps one can understand the offensive nature of encouraging the public to continue to deny autonomy with regards to medical health (for women only, no offense), and instead spreading lies in order to rationalize an agenda, ignoring the bizarre idea that abortion will bring about the world's demise even though it never has before. One cannot deny the positive correlation between access to health care and the liberty to chose one's reproductive experiences and health, wealth, and general satisfaction of having made the right choice in a difficult circumstance. Well, one can deny these things, but one would not have the benefit of reality to confirm one's opinions. 

 

And that's just one thing that's offensive. Whether or not one has the benefit of reality to support their claims (confirmed through such measures as objective data), when one demands a claim made in faith is every bit if not more important than a claim made in knowledge and rational thought, one demands to be held to no accountability, one demands to see their imagination is held in higher value than reality. Whether one agrees with these ideas or not, one cannot ignore the fact that these ideas inspire behavior. One cannot ignore the fact that these beliefs are founded on nothing more than faith claims, ancient moral codes interpreted against today's backdrop of social political reality. Whether or not one personally ever voted for Bachmann, or never believed God had indeed told her to run for president (of the United States, oy vey, what have we come to?), one cannot deny she was freely chosen to represent her state in legislating public policy. More than once. Whether or not one considers Bachmann to be a Real Christian or just another bible-thumping embarrassment to the church community, one cannot deny her beliefs are identical to a great number of people who vote for legislation on public matters. Whether one agrees with Bachmann's version of Christianity or not, contributing to a social and political infrastructure that supports Christianity lends credibility to the possibilities of these beliefs at best, and supports them financially and politically at worst. I don't care if one believes in a kindly god who loves all people and doesn't see abortion or Islam as a threat to society or not.

 

I care that my society supports this kind of infrastructure to the tune of billions of dollars every year, and it's only increasing. 

 

Imagine what that money could be used for instead.

• School supplies
• Subsidize costs for higher education
• Job training
• Urban renewal programs
• Crime prevention
• Cancer research
• Alternative energy 

 

And if faith-based claims being held to a higher value than reality based claims doesn't bother a person today, surely the numbers that suggest Islam will become the most populous religion in the world by 2100  should come as no concern either. But if a Christian is concerned that "the wrong religion" will be pulling the strings on society, influencing public policy and threatening a person's liberty and security, then perhaps they can understand my concern about Christianity doing the same today, even if each and every individual Christian does not actively take part. 

[Slartibartfast]

Personally, I find any exclusive faith offensive. Any faith that stakes a claim to TRUTH, exclusive truth, "the way", etc is by my definition offensive.

 

More than one does that or if the writings behind a religion don't specify that their followers do by persecuting others. Christianity is not unique in that way.

[Slartibartfast]

 

Okay, in that spirit I'll do my best to explain. I think it would be good to start by saying I'm not focusing any of this at you personally, or even in your general direction. I'm going by the argument put forth in the OP's dh's facebook page, and the subsequent reaction here as a general tone that essentially voiced a common desire for him and people like him to just keep their opinions to themselves, or sequester them safely among those who already agree. I find that response is not offered in the same measure when people "rant" about other things like about vegan/animal rights, vaccines, LGBTQ issues, and the like. Politics a bit more so, but still, it seems to me the reaction reflects a collective rolling of the eye and a lamentation of how shameful it is to speak up about such uncouth things when no one asked. I find that interesting for a variety of reasons.

 

ETA: "The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

 

If I understand the OP's dh's argument correctly, it's not the person who holds the faith that is offensive, but the moral claims made by the Christian faith in general [cue no true scotsman defense]. He offers his reasons by way of illustration, "The idea of punishing a child for not believing in magic is simply barbaric, and you wouldn't stand for it.... Their lack of trust in me would not deserve punishment. It would mean that I needed to be more convincing by providing more evidence. It doesn't mean that I should threaten them. If I seriously and openly threatened my own children with burning, disfiguring torture in my basement if they didn't believe me, would you support the system when they took my kids away, (or me away)?" He argues it is an immoral act to punish people for a lack of belief (a thought crime, really), especially when that belief must be accepted on faith; this argument would not be defended in any other context outside theology. I suspect part of his point, and the reason he's proposing this theological challenge to his fb friends, resides in the idea that one doesn't have to be an extremist to lend credibility and support to an immoral belief, or the greater infrastructure that supports that belief. Further, one ought to be aware of supporting the very things they morally oppose for the opportunity to act on behalf of their genuine intentions. That's why I think he thinks his intent is to offer a wake-up call rather than a contentious post just for the sake of upsetting people. 

 

 

I wasn't certain as to whether or not his posts were on his own board or on threads on others and IMO that would be the distinction, to me anyways. I don't mind  rants of vegans, atheists,  and LGBT people on their boards if a vegan is going to flame every post where I mention cooking meat we might start having a problem which would be the same if someone who disagreed with my faith commented on a thread where I mentioned it in a negative manner. I unfriend people ranting against LGBT.  I still have many conservatives who are my friends on FB but they are the ones who are either more tolerant or don't mention that on FB.

 

 

 

As to the second issue, I don't dissent this argument. This is why I would want to speak to them personally rather than publicly.  I am from a culture that never experienced Christianity and when they did it was often subject to violent and immoral examples. People may tell me that my ancestors went to hell for rejecting a violent and intolerant Christ who stole their children, raped their women, and stole their land and it is troubling to me. It is hard to imagine that some could be converted. Even the ones who were Christian were not spared.

 

"You recall the time when the Jesus Indians of the Delawares lived near the Americans, and had confidence in their promises of friendship, and thought they were secure, yet the Americans murdered all the men, women, and children, even as they prayed to Jesus?" ~Tecumseh

 

What sort of example are we making? What sort of example have we made? Is it the right one? Is it righteous? It isn't always, sometimes it is flat out evil.  I don't agree that non-Christians should go to hell. It says they do in the Bible but I don't care for that idea. Some might think I am less of a Christian or less of a good person due to my issues with the idea of the concept of hell and faith but I like to think that hell is of one's own making and the hell in which one resides is the hell of the unrepentant person who committed evil acts. Some might find that a blasphemous concept but I cannot reconcile the issues I have with it.

[Bluegoat]

 

 

  I don't agree that non-Christians should go to hell. It says they do in the Bible but I don't care for that idea. Some might think I am less of a Christian or less of a good person due to my issues with the idea of the concept of hell and faith but I like to think that hell is of one's own making and the hell in which one resides is the hell of the unrepentant person who committed evil acts. Some might find that a blasphemous concept but I cannot reconcile the issues I have with it.

 

 

That idea has a pretty long history in Christianity.  In the East in particular the often say that Heaven and Hell are not seperate places, but different was of experiencing raw Love, depending on ones orientation to it.  The idea that all non-Christians necessarily experience Hell isn't particularly promoted in that view either.

 

Which is wh i find statements like the OPs a little odd - and it isn't one person in particular, it is a pretty common experience I think.  While obviously it comes from a particular religious tradition, it does not seem to me like it would be that difficult to discover that there are other ways Christians have historically thought about such things.

 

[albeto.]

 

I wasn't certain as to whether or not his posts were on his own board or on threads on others and IMO that would be the distinction, to me anyways. I don't mind  rants of vegans, atheists,  and LGBT people on their boards if a vegan is going to flame every post where I mention cooking meat we might start having a problem which would be the same if someone who disagreed with my faith commented on a thread where I mentioned it in a negative manner. I unfriend people ranting against LGBT.  I still have many conservatives who are my friends on FB but they are the ones who are either more tolerant or don't mention that on FB.

 

I do recognize that your reaction was not in conformity with the reaction here that suggested, in my opinion, a common desire for him and people like him to just keep their opinions to themselves, or sequester them safely among those who already agree. I was replying to the general tone, and didn't want it to be confused with my having directed towards you specifically. I don't expect everyone agrees with those who wish the OP's dh would just keep his opinions to himself, but I do see a trend that suggests that sentiment is by far the most common, even if every poster didn't contribute to it. 

 

As to the second issue, I don't dissent this argument. This is why I would want to speak to them personally rather than publicly.  I am from a culture that never experienced Christianity and when they did it was often subject to violent and immoral examples. People may tell me that my ancestors went to hell for rejecting a violent and intolerant Christ who stole their children, raped their women, and stole their land and it is troubling to me. It is hard to imagine that some could be converted. Even the ones who were Christian were not spared.

 

"You recall the time when the Jesus Indians of the Delawares lived near the Americans, and had confidence in their promises of friendship, and thought they were secure, yet the Americans murdered all the men, women, and children, even as they prayed to Jesus?" ~Tecumseh

 

It must have some very high value for you to support it today. 

 

What sort of example are we making? What sort of example have we made? Is it the right one? Is it righteous? It isn't always, sometimes it is flat out evil.  I don't agree that non-Christians should go to hell. It says they do in the Bible but I don't care for that idea. Some might think I am less of a Christian or less of a good person due to my issues with the idea of the concept of hell and faith but I like to think that hell is of one's own making and the hell in which one resides is the hell of the unrepentant person who committed evil acts. Some might find that a blasphemous concept but I cannot reconcile the issues I have with it.

 

Your beliefs reflect your own personal conscience, just as Bachmann's beliefs reflect hers. One might think of the bible as a kind of literary Rorschach test - one interprets in the pages the ideas and thoughts that one has already formulated in their minds. The bible just articulates them in a religious context. It explains why you can comfortably dismiss the very things Bachmann embraces, and vice versa, and both of you can find scriptural support for your beliefs. It also explains why people think the OP's dh understood the faith incorrectly. And really, I can't think of a single instance where a person has ever expressed the idea that they find their faith to be immoral, and yet they genuinely believe it to be true anyway. Every Christian rationalizes the discrepancies between their moral code and that of the bible. It's possible in part because the bible contains opposing doctrines, so really there's something for everyone. 

 

But this explanation doesn't address anything the OP's dh or I said about the nature or moral value of the faith. It only suggests you ought to be left off the hook because you don't think what you think is bad. I don't think what you think is bad either, as I understand it fwiw, but I do think if you drop any money into the silver collection plate on Sunday, if you teach your kids Jesus loves them or simply "God" and "sin" are real things, if you support private behavior or public policies assumed to be good because of the claims of truth and knowledge based on faith, then you're contributing to practical applications of the arguably immoral ideology referenced in the facebook post. 

[Slartibartfast]

 

 

But this explanation doesn't address anything the OP's dh or I said about the nature or moral value of the faith. It only suggests you ought to be left off the hook because you don't think what you think is bad. I don't think what you think is bad either, as I understand it fwiw, but I do think if you drop any money into the silver collection plate on Sunday, if you teach your kids Jesus loves them or simply "God" and "sin" are real things, if you support private behavior or public policies assumed to be good because of the claims of truth and knowledge based on faith, then you're contributing to practical applications of the arguably immoral ideology referenced in the facebook post. 

 

I believe sin is a real thing but I don't believe the concept is exclusive to religion. There are things that are bad for us, there are things that are immoral. We shouldn't do those things. Just because a person doesn't believe in religion doesn't mean they are not moral. A friend of mine is an atheist but she is MORE conservative as far as morality goes than some Christians I know. There are many things that are listed as sins that I don't think make sense to be sins and there are things that many say are sins but are not actually clarified to my satisfaction.

 

I don't claim I am right, I don't claim that to anyone. The Bible says it is the truth and it is my truth but there are many concepts in it where the translations can be ambiguous and the translators may have certain agendas.

 

I don't know that I can comment on politicians without breaking the rules because I have only bad things to say about Michelle Bachman.

 

We moved across the country and are not currently attending a church but we do donate to charitable causes such as United Way.

[Jean in Newcastle]

In the United States, it is "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion".  I have no problem with some being atheist or anything else.  It doesn't mean that I'm going to listen to rants though.  It's sort of like telemarketers, "not interested".  

[Carol in Cal.]

In the United States, it is "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion".  I have no problem with some being atheist or anything else.  It doesn't mean that I'm going to listen to rants though.  It's sort of like telemarketers, "not interested".  

And it's 'freedom of religious expression' not 'freedom of religious assembly in private while being careful never to talk about it anywhere else or live by it in society.'  As Americans, that's important to sustain.

 

[hornblower]

And it's 'freedom of religious expression'

 

 

And that brings us back nicely round to the OP's dh's post on his own fb page :)

[Jean in Newcastle]

And that brings us back nicely round to the OP's dh's post on his own fb page :)

Of course.  I have no problem with him writing it and posting it.  But my opinion of it was a "not interested" eye roll.  Now if I were on FB (which I'm not) and if he was my friend, he may never know about the eye roll, but if he were to ask me straight out like the OP asked us, then he would get the verbal version of "not interested".  

[Tanaqui]

In the United States, it is "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion".

 

In truth, it's both. You can't have freedom of your own religion unless you can trust that the government won't promote or give special privileges to somebody else's religion.

 

However, it most definitely IS "freedom of speech" and yet not "guaranteed audience".

[Catwoman]

I think he can post whatever he wants on his own FB page, and people can choose whether or not to read or react to the post.

 

I didn't get the impression that he was trying to intentionally offend or upset anyone, but that he was trying to explain his personal feelings. I do think at least some people may have been offended or upset by some of his phrasing, though, and I'm not exactly sure why he felt the need to put it all out there on FB. (I would have felt the same way if he had been newly converted to religion, as well -- I don't feel the need to know the details of my friends' personal beliefs.)

 

But again, it's his page and he clearly felt it was important to share his feelings, so I think it's fine that he did it, as long as he is prepared for potentially negative comments about it.

[albeto.]

I believe sin is a real thing but I don't believe the concept is exclusive to religion. There are things that are bad for us, there are things that are immoral. We shouldn't do those things. Just because a person doesn't believe in religion doesn't mean they are not moral. A friend of mine is an atheist but she is MORE conservative as far as morality goes than some Christians I know. There are many things that are listed as sins that I don't think make sense to be sins and there are things that many say are sins but are not actually clarified to my satisfaction.

 

Whether or not the concept of sin is exclusive to religion is irrelevant. It is assumed to be true despite the lack of evidence, and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, and that's why it's problematic. To imagine a thing is an accurate representation of reality shouldn't be enough reason to proceed as if that's true. To support behavior, private or public, to enforce things and criminalize things based on unwarranted assumptions is an example of one's imagination/faith being held to a standard outside accountability. There will be no "perfect answer" to many of life's problems, but surely we can insist no solution gets immunity from reality checks. 

 

Bad consequences and even immoral concepts can be, and in my opinion, ought to be explored outside the construct of any superstitious or faith-based assumptions. Indeed, it is only when they are explored outside the construct of any superstitious or faith-based assumptions do we progress as a society [example]. Human behavior and concepts of morality can be, and should be explored in the context of information and knowledge, and speculation and ideas that are based on information and knowledge. Faith isn't a reliable source, and has been shown time and time again to have provided inaccurate, unreliable explanations. I can think of no example in which a faith based explanation has reliably replaced a scientifically based explanation. 

 

I don't claim I am right, I don't claim that to anyone. 

 

But you claim you are closer to "right" than others. What I find interesting is that your claims are based on secular notions of morality. Notions like genocide and kidnapping and conversion by coercion, while historically rationalized by the Christian faith, are notions one no longer supports in today's society - not because they're not Christian ideas, as clearly they have been very comfortably correlated with the Christian faith - but because they don't pass modern moral standards. I maintain these standards are now standard precisely because they are secular, they are based on observations and reason, they can be questioned, criticized, and corrected as warranted. And that contradicts religion and theology; it contradicts them absolutely. One need not appeal to faith to recognize skinning people alive, or burning them at the stake, or kidnapping children in order to effectively indoctrinate them (or witnesses) into religion is unjustified by reasonable, rational arguments. 

 

The Bible says it is the truth and it is my truth but there are many concepts in it where the translations can be ambiguous and the translators may have certain agendas.

 

I'd be curious to know what "truths" the bible has to offer, and how one knows which of the many claims of truth are to be understood as the right ones. 

[Tsuga]

I'll be in the minority with you. It might annoy me after a while if it were a constant theme, but I wouldn't unfriend him over it, just scroll on past. If I unfriended everyone who annoyed me with rants on FB I wouldn't have any friends on FB, lol.

 

I don't think he was wrong. I just think it's an ineffective way of getting a message across and will lose him some friends. That doesn't mean he's wrong. It just means he will face negative consequences.

[Slartibartfast]

Dbl post 

 

[Slartibartfast]

Whether or not the concept of sin is exclusive to religion is irrelevant. It is assumed to be true despite the lack of evidence, and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, and that's why it's problematic. To imagine a thing is an accurate representation of reality shouldn't be enough reason to proceed as if that's true. To support behavior, private or public, to enforce things and criminalize things based on unwarranted assumptions is an example of one's imagination/faith being held to a standard outside accountability. There will be no "perfect answer" to many of life's problems, but surely we can insist no solution gets immunity from reality checks. 

 

Bad consequences and even immoral concepts can be, and in my opinion, ought to be explored outside the construct of any superstitious or faith-based assumptions. Indeed, it is only when they are explored outside the construct of any superstitious or faith-based assumptions do we progress as a society [example]. Human behavior and concepts of morality can be, and should be explored in the context of information and knowledge, and speculation and ideas that are based on information and knowledge. Faith isn't a reliable source, and has been shown time and time again to have provided inaccurate, unreliable explanations. I can think of no example in which a faith based explanation has reliably replaced a scientifically based explanation. 

 

 

But you claim you are closer to "right" than others. What I find interesting is that your claims are based on secular notions of morality. Notions like genocide and kidnapping and conversion by coercion, while historically rationalized by the Christian faith, are notions one no longer supports in today's society - not because they're not Christian ideas, as clearly they have been very comfortably correlated with the Christian faith - but because they don't pass modern moral standards. I maintain these standards are now standard precisely because they are secular, they are based on observations and reason, they can be questioned, criticized, and corrected as warranted. And that contradicts religion and theology; it contradicts them absolutely. One need not appeal to faith to recognize skinning people alive, or burning them at the stake, or kidnapping children in order to effectively indoctrinate them (or witnesses) into religion is unjustified by reasonable, rational arguments. 

 

 

I'd be curious to know what "truths" the bible has to offer, and how one knows which of the many claims of truth are to be understood as the right ones. 

 

Whoa! I don't think I am "more right" than others. Please don't say that, I don't believe that at all. I think I am probably "more wrong" :lol:

 

 I am not going to argue about historical concepts of what people thought should be ok in Christianity. There is no defense in that. 

 

[Joanne]

More than one does that or if the writings behind a religion don't specify that their followers do by persecuting others. Christianity is not unique in that way.

I do not understand your second sentence. In terms of the first, I believe I said any exclusive religion.

[Slartibartfast]

I do not understand your second sentence. In terms of the first, I believe I said any exclusive religion.

 

I  said that Christianity is not unique in that it is exclusive, most religions are exclusive.

[Joanne]

I said that Christianity is not unique in that it is exclusive, most religions are exclusive.

I am not sure about "most" but I have a broad definition of "religion." I find ANY exclusive religion offensive by definition. As it happens, many of the well known exclusive religions are also patriarchical and homogeneous.

[LisaKinVA]

Most of my friends don't "rant" constantly on FB...with a possible exception of my uncle, who I struggle with unfollowing from time-to-time, because I do enjoy readig a good deal of what he does (he works in Thailand half the year...missions) -- but he's on the extreme other side politically (although he thinks himself a moderate...but he most certainly is NOT).  Mostly I just look away, but it does get tiring.  I have one relative who I have blocked, because she preaches atheism daily, and is downright rude and nasty in her rantings.  I do not worry about something coming across my feed once in awhile -- but if it became an every-day thing, constantly challenging me/my beliefs -- yeah, I'd probably unfollow them.

 

As for what your husband wrote, I wouldn't be offended, but I also wouldn't engage.  It didn't read like an invitation to discuss -- but more an indictment.  I have no desire to engage with someone who has clearly stated he thinks I'm a fool on their page.  NOW, if he posted a question, or a series of questions, without the ranting, judgemental indictment, I'd see it as an opportunity for thoughtful discussion.

[albeto.]

Whoa! I don't think I am "more right" than others. Please don't say that, I don't believe that at all. I think I am probably "more wrong" :lol:

 

You implied you are, that is, your understanding and application of the faith is "more right" when you said your ancestors' exposure to Christianity included "a violent and intolerant Christ who stole their children, raped their women, and stole their land," and you offered that like it was a bad thing. You implied your faith was "more right" when you said you don't agree that non-christians should go to hell. Even though it says so in the bible, you don't care for that idea. That implies you've rejected these practices and ideas on moral grounds. That was the implication I took away from your post anyway. Unless you don't believe your understanding and application of the faith is "more right" than one that advocates physical torture, rape, and kidnapping people to coerce them into conversion, I can only assume you think it is. I would also expect you'd argue that torture, rape, and kidnapping are morally wrong, even in the context of sharing Christ's love. 

 

 I am not going to argue about historical concepts of what people thought should be ok in Christianity. There is no defense in that. 

 

This is the OP's dh's whole point. There is no defense in that historically, or currently. There is no defense because the whole thing is predicated on assumptions of truth based on claims made by others, and accepted by shoddy reasoning (confirmation bias, no true scotsman defense, appeal to tradition, appeal to masses, and all kinds of cognitive biases and logical fallacies, all of which are easily shown to be problematic through information and reason, all of which are dismissed in favor of faith). There is no defense because the whole thing is unjustifiable morally and ethically, and just like you see it plainly in the direction of time, the OP's dh sees it plainly in the direction of theology in general. The argument offered is that the theology itself is morally corrupt. 

[Slartibartfast]

You implied you are, that is, your understanding and application of the faith is "more right" when you said your ancestors' exposure to Christianity included "a violent and intolerant Christ who stole their children, raped their women, and stole their land," and you offered that like it was a bad thing. You implied your faith was "more right" when you said you don't agree that non-christians should go to hell. Even though it says so in the bible, you don't care for that idea. That implies you've rejected these practices and ideas on moral grounds. That was the implication I took away from your post anyway. Unless you don't believe your understanding and application of the faith is "more right" than one that advocates physical torture, rape, and kidnapping people to coerce them into conversion, I can only assume you think it is. I would also expect you'd argue that torture, rape, and kidnapping are morally wrong, even in the context of sharing Christ's love. 

 

 

This is the OP's dh's whole point. There is no defense in that historically, or currently. There is no defense because the whole thing is predicated on assumptions of truth based on claims made by others, and accepted by shoddy reasoning (confirmation bias, no true scotsman defense, appeal to tradition, appeal to masses, and all kinds of cognitive biases and logical fallacies, all of which are easily shown to be problematic through information and reason, all of which are dismissed in favor of faith). There is no defense because the whole thing is unjustifiable morally and ethically, and just like you see it plainly in the direction of time, the OP's dh sees it plainly in the direction of theology in general. The argument offered is that the theology itself is morally corrupt. 

 

I see, I never implied any such thing, I stated several times that I don't know that I am right and do not feel I am more right but you want to grab onto that and run with it but it is actually offending me.  I don't know how many times I can say the same thing until I get bored with you saying the opposite.  I am not interested in discussing it anymore. There's no point.