A reply to
3 Ways That Christians Can Approach Atheists Better. While I agree with much of what the author said, the post also made me notice a trend that has become rather rampant on Xanga and "ish" sites: it seems that Christians have become rather masochistic. Many Christian bloggers have gone out of their way to criticize the church and organized religion as a whole. I, too, have written about the hypocrisy of Christians and the silliness of some cardinal beliefs that seem irrelevant in the big picture (i.e. method of Creation).
While self-criticism and satire can be healthy and helpful, I think that there's something subliminal at work. I don't think most Christians even realize they are doing it. That subconscious "something" is this:
We are trying to appease non-Christians. We are intent on showing them that we're not all "like that." We don't all endorse murdering abortion doctors! We don't all hate Obama! Some of us even think that that Darwin fellow was a rather swell guy!
Now, this isn't all bad. It's good to get our personal beliefs out there, to start discussions that broaden horizons. Unfortunately, there's also the masochistic side. Some Christians have taken the full burden of this debate on their own shoulders. We make lists about "Why Everyone Hates Christians" and "How to Present Yourself to an Atheist." Yet, if I remember correctly, atheists share a part in this ongoing feud as well. Why should Christians be the only ones worried about making a good impression?
Therefore, without further ado:
3 Ways That Atheists Can Approach Christians Better
1. Don't assume Christians are all idiots
I can understand how certain Christian viewpoints may seem foolish or downright idiotic to non-Christians: 7-Day Creation and belief in a One True God being two examples. Well, allow me to let you in on a little secret: telling us we're idiots does not work. I'll give you a second to recover from the shock...
Seriously, do you like it when a Christian tells you you're going to hell for not believing in God? No? So, how do you think doing exactly the same thing with different terms will be effective for making us see your side?
2. Don't tell Christians they need to learn to laugh at themselves
Many Christians know how to laugh at themselves. I have yet to find a church youth group where a majority of the kids don't love
The Simpsons or
Family Guy. Personally, I believe that Ned Flanders is a pretty accurate stereotype of uber-conservative Christians. His character is (or at least was, at some point) satirical. His eccentricities were meant to show Christians how silly they can be sometimes and to motivate believers to tone themselves down a bit.
Satire is one thing. Blasphemy is another beast altogether. Watching Bobby Hill call everyone a fornicator and sinner only to learn he's going about saving souls the wrong way? Satire. Watching a womanizing God get drunk, accidentally kill a woman, and shout at Jesus to start the getaway car? Blasphemy.
If you are satirizing Christians to expose a flaw you wish to fix, then your target audience should laugh at the alleged flaw and seriously think about it. If you are just making fun of Christians just because you think they're morons, then they have every right to be angry. No right to sue you, but a right to be angry.
3. Don't generalize
Not all Christians are uber-rightist Republicans, anti-abortion, intolerant, 7-Day Creation believers. I don't believe all of that is necessarily bad (one exception), but it seems to be the stereotype nowadays. When you judge us the moment you learn we're Christians, you've immediately lost us. Expect an angry "crazy-person" tirade.
The main point I want to make is that this feud is a two-way street. Christians shouldn't be the only ones responsible for changing their tune. I've seen an equal amount of stupid rants, verbal/emotional persecution, and hypocrisy perpetrated by Christians AND atheists. The burden of debate falls equally on both opponents. To borrow a parable of Jesus (ironically), take the plank out of your own eye before removing the speck from your brother's eye.
Christianity and atheism both have some massive planks in their own eyes that they should inspect before criticizing one another.
Comments (133)
@Iluffyewstupidwhore@xanga - You don't get to determine what is or isn't a good action.
Each person must determine what is good, in freedom. God is good and his goodness is written about in the Bible. Just because you went a church full of maniacs doesn't change that fact.
If a person picks up the Bible of their own free will, reads it, and then makes a determination that it is good that action is made in freedom. You say that you are a good person. By what standard do you make that judgement? I'll bet that your standard comes from Judeo-Christian ethical standards.
It isn't my idea of Christianity that is detrimental, it is yours. Whoever taught you religion, taught you the more insane version of totalitarian facism.
@LoBornlite@xanga - No. There are many things that I do that are not virtuous by biblical standards. Just because I am not a christian does not mean I am not a good person; that is the point I was trying to make.
@Iluffyewstupidwhore@xanga - There are many things that I do that are not virtuous by biblical standards. Just because I am not a christian does not mean I am not a good person; that is the point I was trying to make.
Criminals, drunks and mass murderers all think they are good people. EVERYONE thinks they are a good person. But our thinking things does not make them true.
We must judge goodness based criteria on outside ourself. That is what is called being objective. The Bible is an excellent source of objective truth. What part of the Bible's faith and morals do you find so objectionable?
@LoBornlite@xanga - That it advocates male superiority, and says that divorce is wrong for any reason other than adultery. There are MANY other reasons to get a divorce. What about an abusive relationship? The bible casts out homosexuals,who do no one harm and just want to be left alone. It also makes rules for when you are allowed to do certain things, such as having sex.
I feel it is all very unnecessary. The only rules I think you should follow are to refrain from killing or stealing, and to overall just do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This does not mean picketing gay marriage in the streets, or preaching to others about how they will go to hell.
@Iluffyewstupidwhore@xanga - That it advocates male superiority...
Again I think you are reciting the maniac-facist view of things. Orthodox Christian teachings do not degrade women. Catholics, as a matter of fact, get into to trouble for revering Christ's mother. She was a very powerful woman. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus started his public ministry because of her.
Regulations on sexuality are historically present in every great culture. Why single out Christianity? Could it be that you live in a Christian culture?
Promiscuous sex tears a society apart. It spreads disease and misery. Those are only two reasons why out of wedlock sex are immoral. But you don't need a Bible to understand that.
The only rules I think you should follow are to refrain from killing or stealing
But other people have a different set of shoulds. So what makes your way of thinking more right or moral than the Bible or anyone else for that matter? You are imposing your view of things on everyone else and blaming the Christians because they are not like you.
You're doing the exact same thing as the people you criticize.
@LoBornlite@xanga - You asked me why I had a problem with Christianity, i.e. why I am not a Christian. I don't care what Christians believe, as long as they don't try to impose it upon me. Unfortunately that is where the problems always occur.
Of course I think my way of thinking is right; doesn't everyone? But I don't shove it down anyone's throat.
And just because sex is premarital or not heterosexual does not make it "promiscuous," in my opinion. But we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that point; again I'll stay out of everyone elses' sex lives, but in return I want them to stay out of mine.
The bible states that a woman was made for a man and that her husband shall rule over her. It also states that Eve was the one who ate the fruit and brought doom upon Adam because she "made" him try it.
@Iluffyewstupidwhore@xanga - The bible states that a woman was made for a man and that her husband shall rule over her. It also states that Eve was the one who ate the fruit and brought doom upon Adam because she "made" him try it.
The Bible says that the man shall love his wife like Christ loves his bride the Church. That's a whole lot of love. Mary, the mother of Jesus is called the New Eve because while Eve said yes to Satan, Mary said yes to God.
And to anyone who can read, it is clear that while Eve was being seduced by Satan, Adam was just standing there watching and pounding his pud. God had specifically given Adam the responsibility of tending the Garden. There is a lot of fault in pounding pud instead of doing your job.
It had only been Eve's fault than Adam would not have been punished too.
You can pick verses out of the Bible to prove just about anything. But the fact remains that the Bible is the story of God's Plan of Salvation. It is a story of love and mercy of God toward mankind.
I agree with your 3 points! Good Post! :D