In a post last week, I posed and then answered the question of why Christians are so rigidly consistent in their values and standards. For us there is a clear explanation – whether or not the atheist, progressive, etc. may like it. There is coherence and indeed an obligation placed upon the Christian to not stray from the tenets of our faith. In this case I will genuinely be asking a question for which there is no rational explanation. I am posing a question in need of an answer: Why is the unbeliever so dogmatic in their worldview?
A few decades ago, we saw the emergence of a cabal who earned the label of “the new atheists.” They were bold and provocative in their denunciation of God and their defense of naturalism. Superstars like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris were among the most preeminent. While these missionaries with their unabashed defense of a godless world have grown long in the tooth or have passed on, they have been replaced by the new, new atheists. These are “keyboard warriors” who eschew debate in favour waging a haranguing campaign against Christendom. They have rebranded atheism to the anodyne by insisting they merely “lack a belief in God” and in their stridency, use their platform as a launching point to put themselves perpetually on the offensive. Their identity is in their ignorance based on their own group designation. They maintain that they don’t have to disprove God because, since we can’t see him, naturalism can be assumed true and everything sprung into existence from nothing.
Setting aside the absurdity of this premise, which will certainly provide sustenance for several future posts, I want to address the inconsistency of the non-believer in terms of their inflexible imposition of moral values. While I primarily reference atheists and unbelievers, I am speaking of anyone who rest their worldview assumptions on a tacit or overt rejection of the existence of the God of the Bible. Other faiths are in much the same boat as the atheists as they too have no concrete moral duties guiding them. At issue is the legally and institutionally enforced rules for social interaction that have emerged since God has been chased out of the public sphere; a condition whereby increasingly whatever is not illegal is mandatory.
There is no uncertainty about what the culturally accepted views of sex and sexuality, gender identity, abortion, marriage, contraception, sex education, hiring standards, diversity, and ways to address race and women’s issues. We know that parting from these views can lead to people being fired, sued, flunked, denied certification and being branded as a racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobe, Islamophobe and/or xenophobe. In short, Christian and socially conservative views on issues that run contrary to social justice, critical theory, feminist theory, political correctness, and other tropes of the left are assumed to be wrong. Explanations of why we are censored, subjected to mandatory diversity trainings and duty-bound to not allow our faith to influence our public conduct or expressed opinions is that we are hateful and don’t warrant respect. No matter how winsome I have been, I have lost friends over not adopting socially prescribed standards. The assumption is that Christians are either hateful or ignorant of the issues. There is no diversity training to educate atheists on the belief system of the Christian. We are presumed to be in need of re-education which our “moral betters” are more than willing to impart to us – through whatever coercive measures are necessary.
I will address the problems with this mindset and then deal with the claims of their most frequently proffered explanation for their inexplicable certitude.
- It is impossible to have moral duties if there are no objective moral standards. This is the crux of the problem that no atheist will consistently present a defense of . When the atheist is challenged as to why they hold such firm convictions on these issues, the response is akin to their approach to defending naturalism. They maintain that the atheist does not have moral duties since a lack of belief in God carries no worldview convictions. When I then follow up by asking whether they are fine with the Christian following his firm convictions, they then defend the leftist stance and revert to attacking the Christian faith and me personally as intolerant.
- Secular morals are arbitrary and subject to social pressures, popular opinion and political and/or institutional sanctions for approved standards. This has largely become a case of “might makes right” whereby whoever can exert the most influence will win the day and their preferences become duties imposed upon all. They can change over the course of years, months or even weeks. For example, homosexuality until a few decades ago was listed in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). It was not removed because of new information, but changing social trends and effective advocacy. The DSM should not be subject to political pressure to either add or remove a “condition,” but that is precisely what happened here.
- Since not believing in God imposes no moral duties, where does the uniformity of enforced standards for moral behaviour come from? As mentioned, the closing down of counter-positions, trainings and educational curricula are mandated with a fervour that bespeaks absolute certainty of the rightness of the leftist views on justice, race, sex and all the aspects shaping our social interactions. How does rejecting God result in such a dogmatic stance not only for the unbeliever, but also with the expectation that the Christian throw off his immutable teachings for these fluctuating adjustments?
The most common defense offered is that man has evolved morally to this stage where – presumably having originated with pure animal survival instincts – he now considers the well-being of society. This is either the result of higher order moral standards which demand that the individual be less selfish; or is a pragmatic stance as not engaging in predatory behaviour with others aids one’s self-preservation. This merely opens up a whole new set of challenges:
- Just because you choose not to kill your neighbour does not mean he will return the favour. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and “dear leader” all are concerned about their own survival, but have no compunction about eradicating those they consider problematic based on their whims.
- Where exactly did man acquire any moral sense since there in no moral reasoning in any of their predecessors in the animal kingdom? If this moral sense emerged out of whole cloth through a random and entirely natural process, how can it be trusted?
- Why is this advanced morality oriented toward greater altruism and respect for others when it was so lacking in earlier societies but was integral to the Christian ethic that originated some 2,000 plus years ago? If you are affirming the higher virtue of adopting the value of the Christian, what does that say about the inherent morality located in Christianity? Furthermore, how does simultaneously cutting out any Christian influence aid in achieving these improved moral standards?
- Since many other societies do not adopt the values of the west (and there are even deviations within the west), are they not assuming that the west is morally more advanced than other parts of the world. Worse yet – since they are particularly critical of our national failures even when the perceived injustices in other parts of the world are profoundly worse based on their values; doesn’t this show that they hold low expectations of the rest of the world and therefore expect far more of themselves; thus deeming other cultures as less evolved and more primeval?
- In many cases, the issue is framed to favour their conclusions even when the matter under consideration violates their claim. For example, if the objective is to flourish as a society, why be intent on advocating for same sex marriage and transgenderism when both are anathema to propagating the species. Same with abortion. What is the merit in demanding abortion rights and easing access as much as possible when it impedes the spread of humanity? The argument is changed to considering only the comfort and convenience of the woman while ignoring altogether the worth of the child and what abortion actually entails.
No matter how you look at it, there is no basis for non-believers to hold to such mercurial standards of behaviour and demand that all fall in line or be punished for failing to trade in their values in favour of the prevailing zeitgeist. If Christians insisted that our values must be imposed on all of society, we would rightly be accused of trying to create a theocracy. When you have no core convictions, yet demand that everyone cede to your whimsical and subjective views of morality, what is that called?
Are your media sources covering this? What are your thoughts about BLM after watching this? What do you think about the Democrat and media response?
https://www.facebook.com/TuckerCarlsonTonight/videos/2648639418718131/?vh=e&extid=bFt8JiOaLoRFAQRm
I’d also note you denounced the notion that leftists are the ones adopting censorship and ideological conformity in its various guises, but you haven’t presented a case of coordinated censorship from evangelicals or even conservatives or disproven the censorship and coercion strategies of the left. Take your time as I’ve put a lot on you, but I don’t want this overlooked.
Socialized medicine in action.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-controlled-chicago-spent-66-million-on-a-coronavirus-facility-that-treated-38-patients-total?utm_campaign=dw_newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=93317328&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8Re5-9-KB7QiuO99s6KDfz58SnHAPWya1LWmrR7bpI0unsBCozISmDanMAKhIHtH2AxZvyuAABBpQSLgKgHssPZFduZQ&utm_content=non_insiders&utm_source=housefile
Sorry. I dealt with your insinuations about my racism but neglected to address your question about BLM despite the tone.
I already sent the link to BLM’s objectives. This entails promoting Marxism, dismantling the family unit and advocating gender dysphoria. These are destructive ideas.
Like you, BLM provides cover for or tacitly endorses violence. I know you claimed to not support it, but since BLM participants were actively involved in the rioting, then pretending the protests were are peaceful and ignoring the violence in their name is implicit endorsement of the violence. You have not shown me where the ORGANIZATION denounced the violence so it is as I said re: pro-lifers. When you tarnish us for acts committed with no relation to our organization and we still denounce it, it is hypocritical to not expect more from those acting under the BLM banner. It either is consistent with their agenda or they refuse to call it out. It comes to the same thing.
This isn’t a black initiative. As many or likely more of participants are white leftists. It is a political effort to cause chaos and undermine the American way of life. This is also obvious when statues put up by former slaves and abolitionists (including Frederick Douglass). You should judge a tree by its fruits and I do.
Furthermore, as I argued throughout, fixating on one’s victimhood to be perpetually angry is disempowering and denies the high virtue of forgiveness and acting with honour whatever your circumstance. Grievance peddles have no expiration date on when the debt is paid and the standard for determining what constitutes racism keeps shifting. They also hint at and use “racist” as an epithet to silence their enemies, much as you are doing with me – through insinuation.
Tom: “…leaves but one or 2 conclusions.”
This is a false dichotomy. Your description looks nothing like what I saw on the news sources I saw. You may wish to check out better sources.
This it yet another head-scratching quality of evangelicals, that they often tend to be cheerleaders someone like Trump – the complete opposite of their saviour. What they see in a clearly narcissistic grifter with tyrannic aspirations, (& openly racist to boot) is mind boggling considering their self proclaimed love of all things good & Christlike. (You can make this assessment by what comes out of Trumps own mouth & thumbs – so no, isn’t some ‘leftist media conspiracy’). If he has any positive or even Christ like traits, I’d like to hear what they are.
My advice is to try to avoid being a cheerleader for evil – not only is it hypocritical & morally reprehensible, but you’ll find yourself on the wrong side of history in the end.
As for Trump:
No evangelicals I knew and respected were “cheerleaders” for Trump. I myself got attacked online because I was very supportive of Ted Cruz and saw Trump as not only lacking in character, but untrustworthy as a conservative. My primary reason is HE SPENT ALMOST ALL HIS LIFE INCLUDING DURING HIS SERIAL ADULTERIES AS A DEMOCRAT. I said if I was in the U.S., I would have been Never Trump and I was attacked for being a proponent of Hillary – which was exactly what it came down to. I thought ideologically there would be a distinction without a difference. Since being in office, he has done far more conservative things and has been an advocate of religious freedoms in many places. There are many things that also concern me; but as you know, my vast concerns that the left has hijacked the institutions – notably the Democrats, I am convinced that the Democrats would usher in an unparalleled loss of freedoms (speech and Christianity). All the evangelicals I respect are justly critical of Trump when appropriate and voted begrudgingly for him. I don’t deny that there are those who sold their soul to go all in, but the Bible again reveals their folly, so Christianity is not the issue. Idol worship is.
Feel free to listen to those I most respect as evangelical voices that address political issues. My current favourite is Steve Deace. I also recommend Eric Metaxas.
That said, I would like your mountains of evidence of Trump’s racism as I don’t see it. I’ve heard the left insist it is true, but know that their claims consistently are unfounded. I therefore want your sources. I would also like to know why he got so many awards and accolades from blacks on the left when he was a Democrat. When did he undergo the transformation?
You have also referred to Trump as “evil.” What is your standard of evil based on? What are your examples of his evil actions? Tell me what you mean by “the wrong side of history.?” What is the right side and show your work.
Regarding the media; I have a few questions there:
Did Trump collude with the Russians to win the election as a 2 year investigation by the Democrats and pushed by mainstream media claimed?
Did Hillary get equal treatment for her deletion of 33,000 emails she claimed were about yoga and their daughter’s wedding?
Did you similarly condemn Clinton’s lack of character and Hillary for hiding the “bimbo eruptions” by treating the women Bill exploited like trash?
Did Jeffrey Epstein commit suicide?
Tom: “I will address your outrageous claim of Christians being racist,…”
I said evangelical Christians, & yes, in my experience this is true, though they may be oblivious to how they appear to others.
Tom: “but thought this was fully put to bed with my article on BLM, Smollett and Nascar.”
Only in your mind. I have have to admit I found the whole thread kind of creepy. I saw an old white man shaking his fist (or at least wagging his finger) at a world wide, well attended & mostly peaceful protest against racism. Instead of patting yourself on the back, I would ask myself what is it about BLM that gets you so worked up? What are you afraid of?
You are engaging in the very definition of strawmanning – of the worst kind. You have given your subjective opinion on an entire group of people while providing absolutely no evidence. What if I said in my experience, animators love to torture puppies. Would that be an indictment of animators or is it a specious strawman attack?
You furthermore ignore my repeated expectation that in order to assert some act you want to attribute to Christianity, you need to give scriptural support that Christians are directed to do it. This brings us back to the issue you will not touch for some reason. If I said the Beatles inspire serial murder, then you would justly say I am attributing something to them that was unjust – even though serial murder was carried out in their name. The fact that you are determined to establish this double standard and continue to use it without explaining how it doesn’t apply while your indictment against Christians for acting contrary to scripture is disingenuous and hypocritical.
I will tell you why evil is done falsely in the name of Christ and why the Manson murders happen. There is evil in the world because people are sinful. There is also mental illness. This is why we need a true north to show what is true or false – yet you deny his existence.
As for your indictment of me as a creepy old racist (yes, that is the obvious insinuation), I ask you to provide any of my comments IN CONTEXT that demonstrate my racism – and yes I am an evangelical as well so its a twofer. I also want you to have more ammunition so you can also draw from my article written for Faith Beyond Belief -which I linked to in the article and will do again. https://www.faithbeyondbelief.ca/blog/2020/6/23/race-to-the-bottom?fbclid=IwAR2jAx8X4mhIT5ifr-2hVSkqZ-h7o9k3hwdgwanDcAEjDAXeioeSj15Sb9o
Let’s go all in. Considering you’ve known me all your life, please share anything about me that you deem to be racist. You have now impugned my character and my faith. I’ll await your response.
One final point on this, you are undermining your point. For the media to go out of their way to sell the protests as mostly peaceful in these Democrat run cities is the opposite of a man bites dog story. They spent more time digging into the meaning of Trump typing “covfefe” in a tweet. Also, when you are selling panic over the Wuhan virus at a Trump gathering and downplaying it for protests leaves but one or 2 conclusions. They are so incredibly partisan that they are incapable of hiding it and/or they don’t care about the lives of blacks and protestors. Another option is they are massively blowing up a flu that kills seniors for their own nefarious reasons (I. e. Stick Trump with a flagging economy and control the population. Your thoughts on which apply?
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/27/fatalities-and-injuries-climb-as-riots-around-the-nation-grow-more-violent/
I just want to point out that you condemned Christians by claiming that terrorism against abortionists and clinics was done by Christians with no evidence and with the entire pro-life movement denouncing it. In almost 50 years the cumulative violence and killings don’t come anywhere close to what was carried out by BLM and antifa, but you have taken a more circumspect view of their actions.
Clearly these cops are just a bunch of racists, but just in case their perspective should be considered. There are plenty of videos which ought to give a clearer depiction than biased news accounts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMe2hou_sgE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhiycGWb0PM
Tell me if any of this looks like the mayors were handling it and whether Trump was the cause of exacerbating things by threatening to send in troops after two months of rioting and taking over a section of the city.
Note how recent these two top articles in particular are – well after claims the situation in Portland was well in hand.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2020/07/14/clueless-portland-mayor-blames-trump-for-escalating-antifa-and-blm-riots-n638767
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/08/11/portland-antifa-rioters-injure-police-after-returning-to-station-they-previously-tried-to-burn-down-n775036
https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/475500-384299-trump-to-portland-ill-send-in-national-guard-troops
https://100percentfedup.com/portland-devastated-aftermath-of-30-days-of-rioting-no-sign-of-slowing/
https://noqreport.com/2020/07/13/as-portland-burns-mayor-and-governor-do-nothing-but-point-fingers-at-the-president/
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2020/07/23/watch-portland-mayor-goes-to-riot-in-solidarity-as-rioters-set-fire-in-his-honor-n673323
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2020/07/27/dem-mayor-unconstitutional-and-unwise-for-dhs-to-defend-federal-property-from-rioters-n2573139
Tom: “If I misunderstood you, then I would be happy for you to clarify. I heard you saying that protest – even violent protest – was justifiable based on current and past maltreatment of blacks.”
Well you heard wrong. You simply have to read/listen more carefully, keep your emotions in check & stop jumping to conclusions. If you do this, you’ll get much further in winning friends and influencing people. Go back and try to find where I justify violence and you’ll see it’s all in your head.
Tom: “If this was not what you were arguing, then we agree that the police should have put down all the rioting and looting.”
Again, you miss nuance and jump to conclusions. No, I don’t justify violence on either side. The job of police is to protect the public. They’re trained to quell violence, such as arresting looters & violent protesters using reasonable force – A simple googling of official police practices gives info like: “Broadly speaking, the use of force by law enforcement officers becomes necessary and is permitted under specific circumstances, such as in self-defence or in defence of another individual or group.” Your wording of “put down all the rioting and looting” when used literally exacerbates situations, so police thankfully are trained to use caution. You’d think a self proclaimed Christian would get that.
Tom: “Also, the media were irresponsible to editorialize and try to frame it as “mostly peaceful protests” when their job is to report the news.”
What if they were mostly peaceful, then that is the news. It’s our civic duty to be responsible consumers of media. News sources have different levels of trustworthiness, and all skew to varying degrees as you know. If you’re truly interested in finding out what’s really happening, try watching news from different sources, see how different sources exaggerate or down play different piece of information. Recognize which sources have higher standards of reporting. Look for info from people with knowledge of a situation and ignore pundits.
All news tends to be more sensational that reality – called the ‘man bites dog’ principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog
In short it’s that ‘dog bites man’ is not news, but ‘man bites dog’ is. So only the news worthy one gets reported, distorting events – (leaving one to believe that men biting dogs is commoner situation). The news outlet gets better ratings showing one guy smashing a shop window in a loop than turning the camera and showing the large group of peaceful group of mothers, vets or lawyers off-screen. The crasser and more ratings hungry the news source, the more the distortion.
Tom: “Additionally, the Democrat mayors and governors were completely negligent in not taking action and vilifying Trump when he had to call in national forces to put a stop to it. Do we agree on this?”
No, I see the opposite. If you actually listened to the elected leaders of Portland, you’d get a better sense of the situation. They’re unanimous in that things were settling down, their police were handling it when federal troops were sent in, they never asked for assistance and repeatedly asked them to leave. They were alarmed that the troops showed up uninvited, lacking markings, ignoring peoples 4th amendment rights and exacerbated a situation that was coming under control. It appears it was all a cheap stunt to get news footage for purposes previously mentioned. That’s my view of what happened – please, jumping to conclusions and making assumptions.
Tell me if any of this looks like the mayors were handling it and whether Trump was the cause of exacerbating things by threatening to send in troops after two months of rioting and taking over a section of the city.
Note how recent these two top articles in particular are – well after claims the situation in Portland was well in hand.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2020/07/14/clueless-portland-mayor-blames-trump-for-escalating-antifa-and-blm-riots-n638767
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/08/11/portland-antifa-rioters-injure-police-after-returning-to-station-they-previously-tried-to-burn-down-n775036
https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/475500-384299-trump-to-portland-ill-send-in-national-guard-troops
https://100percentfedup.com/portland-devastated-aftermath-of-30-days-of-rioting-no-sign-of-slowing/
https://noqreport.com/2020/07/13/as-portland-burns-mayor-and-governor-do-nothing-but-point-fingers-at-the-president/
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2020/07/23/watch-portland-mayor-goes-to-riot-in-solidarity-as-rioters-set-fire-in-his-honor-n673323
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2020/07/27/dem-mayor-unconstitutional-and-unwise-for-dhs-to-defend-federal-property-from-rioters-n2573139
Tom: “– I am defending Christian principles based on Christ’s teaching and scripture”
& I’m trying to point out that scripture can be interpreted in different ways, can be translated in different ways, edited in different ways,… you can even often find scripture that conflicts one another.
For example, take your next line:
Tom: “– Christ and scripture clearly says one can claim to be a Christian and Christ will deny them before the father (which means they will face the same fate as a professing unbeliever”
This is at odds with:
Romans 10:13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
or
Acts 2:21 “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
However, this is like arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. It would be more useful to take a step back and question the wisdom of using one’s interpretation of 2,000 year old texts to dictate ones rules of living. Didn’t God gave us a brain to do our own thinking for ourselves? Can’t we just pick up whatever inspiration we get from different sources – scripture only being one of them. Can’t we just find advice and inspiration in the parts of scripture that resonate and guide our own outlook and experience, and ignore the archaic parts. Isn’t it sensible for adults discount the mythological aspects of scripture, (heaven, hell, angels, devils…), instead taking them for allegory instead of believing them literally?
Tom: “– I choose the labels of “left/ist,” “progressive,” “activist left,” to distinguish the radicals who are imposing their values from liberals and those who simply dissent”
Sounds like you’re committing the logical fallacy of ‘moving the goalposts’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
…I shouldn’t complain as you’re finally acknowledging there’s more flavours of ‘liberals’ – but are you “defending Christian principles based on Christ’s teaching and scripture”, or just doing so from the ‘radicals’ (whoever they are).
Tom: “You have chosen to defend violence based on assumed victimization of an entire demographic
You have condemned police collectively as being in a culture of “systematic racism”
You’re way off base. I’ve never ‘chosen to defend violence’, and haven’t ‘condemned police collectively’. I don’t. Again you jump to conclusions by not reading or listening carefully.
Also victimization of Blacks is a historical fact – especially in the US, & history keeps repeating itself, (or at least rhymes).
Tom: “Since I have set out that all the weapons of censorship and compulsion generate from the leftists,”
Complete nonsense.
Tom: “then it requires reasonable liberals (non-believers, secularists, atheists) to advocate for Christians and conservatives and against the activists.”
More nonsense. Only a fool would advocate for something they don’t agree with or believe in.
Tom: “You have taken common cause with several radical views,”
No, I haven’t.
Tom: “It is not my fault that you seem to identify with my indictment of leftists, but you are choosing to take up their gauntlet.”
I don’t even know who these ‘leftists’ are. Is it a blanket label for everyone who disagrees with you?
Tom: “This is my olive branch and I feel like you want to whip me with it.”
Hmmm… Put yourself in my shoes and read how your comments sound to me. I find them far more nasty and personal than anything I said to you (You have to get rid of the log in your own eye before you see the speck in someone else’s) – until now…
The rest of your comments are just more of what you said before. I’ll back off commenting here as much, as I can see us going in circles. At the root is a lack of agreement on what reality is. Whether you’re aware of it or not, you have a tendency to paint the world in black & white (the colours, not the races) – clear cut good guys and bad guys. Sorry, I can’t see the world that way, & believe it leads to erroneous conclusions to do so. Doubt is valuable in my view.
You say you’d like dialogue, but I sense you can’t actually listen to another’s point of view. You write as if you’ve found perfection, so have no need for more thinking or listening – just the need to convince those who disagree (lumped in vague categories – leftists, liberals, atheists, radicals…). My hope is that you’ll see the value in posting ideas not built on a foundation of faulty assumptions or hasty generalizations. Let your ideas & ideals defend themselves on their own merits.
We’ll see. Good luck. See you later.
Please read this verse in context – a point I have repeatedly made – and tell me whether calling Jesus’ name like an incantation saves people or what I’ve said. I also covered this in detail in my article “Missing Heaven, Choosing Hell.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2010&version=NIV
Cancel culture, shadow banning, banning speakers, trigger warnings, throwing milkshakes, chemicals, pies, etc., hate speech, safe spaces, politically correct speech, diversity trainings, critical theory, violent protests, compelled speech, forced compliances, book banning, blacklisting actors, attacking politicians in public, heckler’s veto, bubble zones, denying conservative groups on campuses, doxing, firing for not holding to ideological conformity, media bias, arresting preachers, no public displays or expressions of faith, shaming, systemic worldview indoctrination, Human Rights Commissions. This is a short list of techniques applied to censor the Christian worldview or impose a secular one. If you dispute any, please tell me which ones and I will be happy to furnish examples. I also welcome examples of any way that Christians effectively limit the rights of others or impose our beliefs on others.
If I misunderstood you, then I would be happy for you to clarify. I heard you saying that protest – even violent protest – was justifiable based on current and past maltreatment of blacks. If this was not what you were arguing, then we agree that the police should have put down all the rioting and looting. Also, the media were irresponsible to editorialize and try to frame it as “mostly peaceful protests” when their job is to report the news. Additionally, the Democrat mayors and governors were completely negligent in not taking action and vilifying Trump when he had to call in national forces to put a stop to it. Do we agree on this?
Yes, I used the language I did for very specific reasons. From the outset I have said:
– I am defending Christian principles based on Christ’s teaching and scripture
– Christ and scripture clearly says one can claim to be a Christian and Christ will deny them before the father (which means they will face the same fate as a professing unbeliever
– I’m not therefore defending every act a true or professing Christian does as Christians don’t perfectly follow his teachings (it’s called sin) but we acknowledge it while others use it as a label to borrow virtue, for cynical political motives, to try to justify what is wrong or evil
– It is those who seek to live by Christian teachings (refer to the dictionary definitions) that I defend and not those who violate it AND TRY TO DEFEND THEIR FALSE CLAIMS
– I choose the labels of “left/ist,” “progressive,” “activist left,” to distinguish the radicals who are imposing their values from liberals and those who simply dissent
– I made very clear I don’t place anyone in any category and allow them to affirm or deny the radicals I condemn; therefore I am not categorizing people, but attacking ideologies and efforts to impose them on others
You have chosen to defend violence based on assumed victimization of an entire demographic
You have condemned police collectively as being in a culture of “systematic racism”
You have brought up the actions of fringe actors to tarnish Christianity collectively by insisting it is what you want it to be in contradiction to my expressed argument and even the dictionary definition
I stated from the outset that I am seeking to establish shared values or at least grant that our competing worldviews can coexist and not demand compliance and endorsement (aka – agree to disagree). Since I have set out that all the weapons of censorship and compulsion generate from the leftists, then it requires reasonable liberals (non-believers, secularists, atheists) to advocate for Christians and conservatives and against the activists. You have taken common cause with several radical views, seem to cherry-pick my articles to highlight points of disagreement, and seek to paint Christians collectively in a negative light.
For some reason, it doesn’t matter how often I clarify my use of terms to attach the ideology with the proper people, you want to maintain I am lumping people together. It is not my fault that you seem to identify with my indictment of leftists, but you are choosing to take up their gauntlet. In each case I have addressed the ideology – not attacked you. For the reasons mentioned above, I did maintain you were being churlish. I do not get energized about picking fights with you. I regret that we cannot better relate to each other. This is my olive branch and I feel like you want to whip me with it. I would be delighted if you prove me wrong.
The inconsistency is perfectly illustrated in the example of The Beatles and Charles Manson. We both know there was no implicit and explicit call to violent uprising in Helter Skelter or the white album as a whole. It was a musical expression that was used either due to mental illness or malevolence to fit in a mental preset. You won’t grant the same thing under to Christianity where the teaching is unmistakable in all the key areas of life. Leftists don’t hate Christians because they depart from Christian teaching. They hate that Christianity doesn’t fold to their pressure campaigns to paint issues in black and white terms where you are either an ally or a racist, sexist, bigot, etc.
You are telling me that I am categorizing people while assuming that malefactors that bomb abortion clinics and shoot abortion doctors are both Christians and pro-life. The pro-life view is the protection of human life from conception to natural death. By very definition, anyone who would kill an abortion doctor may be anti-abortion, but they are not pro-life. Bob will also affirm this as I made his acquaintance through pro-life work. To bomb a clinic is irreconcilable with Christianity. You assume these few rogue actors as Christians, thus pigeonholing anyone who opposes abortion as being Christian and opponents as being pro-abortion. There are numerous exceptions (most notably Christopher Hitchens). You therefore are guilty of what you are accusing me of.
I plan to deal with your claim about communism being promoted in scripture because this is possibly the most respectful challenge you’ve made. I appreciate you fairly representing from scripture and my post on this will drop soon as it needs a thorough explanation. I hope we can better communicate on common terms going forward. I’d love to feel more connected with you. Take care Andy.
Tom: “I very much appreciate that you interact here, but I’m trying to understand your motivations.”
Be careful not to commit the logical fallacy of ‘appeal to motive’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive
Again, I’m simply trying to point out to you that you have a tendency to use simple & undefined labels for complex subjects. This leads you to jumped conclusions and faulty arguments, (it’s known as the logical fallacy of the faulty or hasty generalization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization )
I’ve read your posts, but find that instead of you making solid points, they’re usually based on preconceived premises in the form of nebulous labels – such as ‘liberal, ‘leftist’, ‘progressive’, ‘conservative’, or even ‘Christian’ or ‘follower of Christ’.
Tom: “Despite my making clear that Christianity is following Christ and his teachings as clearly set out in scripture and invited you to challenge me on anything you saw as me misrepresenting scripture, you are commenting as though Christianity is rootless.”
A follower of Christ’ can mean different things to a broad spectrum of believers all based on the same scriptures – (Jerry Falwell, Thomas More, Martin Luther, Mother Theresa, you…). I’m not saying Christianity is rootless, but that scripture can and is interpreted in different ways by different people. You refer to yourself as an evangelical Christian, (a label which in itself suggests that there’s other flavours of Christianity), which though narrowing down things, is still too broad a label to have meaning. You also appear to aline Christianity with (or use synonymously with) conservatism. To be honest, I never can understand this, as it seems to me that most of what Jesus says or does even slightly resembles what I’d call ‘conservative’ (it would also be nice to hear how you define ‘conservative’). The Chris of the scriptures seems pretty ‘leftist’ for the most part to me, and his disciples can be considered text book communists:
Acts 2:44-45 – All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.
Acts 4:32-35 – Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common… There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.”
Tom: “As far as your comments about blowing up abortion clinics, killing abortionists, and televangelists fleecing the flocks, I ask you where this is in scripture. This strikes me as being needlessly churlish,”
churlish definition – adjective rude in a mean-spirited and surly way.
No, you miss my point again, (& don’t be churlish). I don’t suggest all self proclaimed Christians do the above, but am pointing out that some do. I can’t argue for where they find justification for it in scripture, the same as I can’t find yours either. Using the blanket term ‘scripture’ is so broad that it becomes meaningless.
Tom: “Not a single pro-life group defends the actions of extremists who carry out these acts”
This statement is not true – a group of extremists who carry out such acts would be a pro-life group, but not all pro-life groups. (The no true scotsman fallacy).
Tom: “So I will ask a fourth time – did the Beatles inspire Manson to commit murder?”
I’ve ignored this comment as it doesn’t back up your point – I’ve never made a generalized statement such as ‘all Beatles fans are sane’. You on the other hand, often say things like ‘Christians believe’ or ‘leftists believe’…
In short, I challenge you to try posting a view on a subject without resorting to generalized labels, (or at least if you insist on using them, define what they mean). I’m sure you can. It’s easy if you try.
Tom: “Andy, what I am hearing is your opinion on how you sneak in essentially objective moral duties. You did not explain why this opinion is objectively relevant or counter my specific challenges to such a position.”
I’m on ‘sneaking in’ anything, just stating my opinion. I’ve read your second sentence several times, but still don’t know what you’re trying to say there.
Tom: “Also, you separate politics from questions of morality. How exactly does that work?”
You have to be careful to read what I actually write. I didn’t say ‘politics’, I said ‘political systems’, by which I mean you can’t judge a person by the political system they were born under, as they have no say in it (you can also add religious systems to some degree as well, as the one you’re born into is likely the one you follow). You should look instead how people act at a community level, which I would argue is pretty much the same much of the world over.
Tom: “Are you suggesting some governments merely impose their own values and do not do so based on the will of the public? How do you determine which countries have undermined shared moral values?”
Authoritarian governments do. Representative government tries to hit a balance of pleasing the most citizens, but can never please everybody.
Tom: “Are they the countries that reject progressive values? Are you suggesting that Canada has a common moral standard?”
You’re reading so much into my comments that aren’t there. I have no opinion on politics in my comments here, which is why I said discounting… but it seems to be a pet peeve with you so I’ll address your comments.
Canada, like every other functioning representative democracy, has a set of laws that are tweaked and updated constantly to reflect the reality of the desires and problems of society, (hence why we have a parliament – who we elect). If society at large doesn’t want rule by a certain religious group, you won’t have it under a representative democracy. You would have to then install an authoritarian government to get one that goes against the will of most people (ie: a dictatorship). The laws that we have are similar in most aspects to ones in the bible, (murder, stealing, bearing false witness under oath… universal laws similar to all other countries).
Tom: “If so, why are you so at odds with the Christian view? Which is correct and can you prove it?”
Who says I’m at odds with the Christian view? What is the ‘Christian view’? Again you are giving a simple label to an incredibly large, diverse, and complex set. I’m against some ‘Christian views’ such as priests who when given a power of authority over children molest them, blowing up abortion clinics or murdering doctors who work there, evangelists who cynically prey on the emotions of the vulnerable to line their pockets,… I’m more in agreement with certain other ‘Christian views’, but those would be universal views, so I don’t even think of them as ‘Christian’.
I can’t make sense of your last sentence.
I very much appreciate that you interact here, but I’m trying to understand your motivations. Your comments about Christianity are raised as though I haven’t already addressed it in an entire blog as well as detailed responses to your comments. Despite my making clear that Christianity is following Christ and his teachings as clearly set out in scripture and invited you to challenge me on anything you saw as me misrepresenting scripture, you are commenting as though Christianity is rootless. I’m happy to respond but do expect you don’t proceed as though I have not said anything. So I will ask a fourth time – did the Beatles inspire Manson to commit murder?
As far as your comments about blowing up abortion clinics, killing abortionists, and televangelists fleecing the flocks, I ask you where this is in scripture. This strikes me as being needlessly churlish, especially given the detailed responses I have. In fact this solidifies my point. Not a single pro-life group defends the actions of extremists who carry out these acts and we uniformly condemn it for the same reason we condemn abortion – the Christian command against killing. On the other hand, BLM and antifa have done far more violence and committed far more murders than these roundly condemned anti-abortion terrorists, but you have justified that violence has happened because you defend the justness of their cause. I am not the one who is being inconsistent here. I believe abortion to be an abhorrent evil, but I will not defend terrorist acts as an understandable rage response. I want the law to protect innocent pre-born life and see doctors charged for violating the law.
If it’s okay, Bob, I’d like to interject my thoughts On the response to you.
Andy, what I am hearing is your opinion on how you sneak in essentially objective moral duties. You did not explain why this opinion is objectively relevant or counter my specific challenges to such a position.
Also, you separate politics from questions of morality. How exactly does that work? Are you suggesting some governments merely impose their own values and do not do so based on the will of the public?
How do you determine which countries have undermined shared moral values? Are they the countries that reject progressive values? Are you suggesting that Canada has a common moral standard? If so, why are you so at odds with the Christian view? Which is correct and can you prove it?
Bob asks: “On what does an atheist base their determination of right and wrong?”
I would say everyone, irregardless of religious views, has an innate sense of what’s acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in society. We derive this from empathy, a desire to be accepted and not shunned in society – typical human nature & common sense. I would argue it’s also where Christians get their moral sense, finding Christian rules of ethics agreeable to their innate sense of morality. This has to be, for without it one couldn’t judge the value of Christian ethics – as well as the fact that Christians know to choose which principles to follow and which to ignore, (like the no longer relevant bronze age rules). All parts of the world at the society level, (ie: discounting political systems), appear to me to have about the same level of ethical behaviour (good and bad) irregardless of religious affiliation (or lack thereof) .
Bob says: “It should be noted that Atheism is itself a Religion,”
Sometimes (& I would say rarely) if one holds dogmatic views, but not necessarily. Atheism is as much a religion as as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Bob: “albeit free from any God or moral code.”
I don’t know why you assume there’s ‘no moral code’, (Christians don’t have a monopoly or invent ‘moral codes’. I would argue that everyone follows some kind of moral code, justifiable to ones’ own views. I also wouldn’t say Christians have a universal moral code or even a superior one to others.
Insisting on the absence of religion is in fact ‘religion’ albeit in a repackaged form. The writer is correct in asking on what the Atheistic premises are based and it is in this area that their argument generally fails.
No, the absence of religion isn’t religion. The problem is there’s as many variations of atheism or agnosticism as there are religions.
Bob: “To insist that something is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ suggests an objective standard against which issues and actions can be judged. To simultaneously argue against such an objective standard is both inconsistent and disingenuous.”
We weigh decisions all the time to determine what is the best outcome from our choices we make, so ‘good’ and ‘bad’ aren’t as consistent as you appear to make it.
Bob: “Hence the ultimate reaction of the left to speak louder (ie. shout) and bully others into accepting their ‘greater good’.”
Strange, you too appear to be using the term ‘left’ as an opposite to ‘Christian’, (& I see people of all sorts of belief shout/bully others.
On what does an atheist base their determination of right and wrong?
It should be noted that Atheism is itself a Religion, albeit free from any God or moral code. Insisting on the absence of religion is in fact ‘religion’ albeit in a repackaged form. The writer is correct in asking on what the Atheistic premises are based and it is in this area that their argument generally fails. To insist that something is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ suggests an objective standard against which issues and actions can be judged. To simultaneously argue against such an objective standard is both inconsistent and disingenuous. Hence the ultimate reaction of the left to speak louder (ie. shout) and bully others into accepting their ‘greater good’.
I fully agree, Bob. It’s certainly what is being demanded as a moral framework that all are assumed to support and anyone out of line is deemed to be hostile and hateful in their motives. Is is incomprehensible for an atheist to place moral obligations on anyone let alone assume a moral standard.
Toms says: “Why is the unbeliever so dogmatic in their worldview?”
Again with the assertions of opinions as facts. That’s the logical fallacy of the ‘hasty (or general) conclusion’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization. If you had said “Is the unbeliever dogmatic in their worldview?” or “Why are some unbelievers so dogmatic in their worldview?” we could have had a discussion, but it’s pointless when your original assertion is flawed, making your arguments stemming from that moot.
I have stated from the outset that the issue is that activists control the debate and have massive influence in dictating the rules they demand we all live under. I’ve also stressed that I am not assuming the stance of anyone reading the post.
Furthermore, I set it all up by stating this was my experience of atheist that push their agenda online (activists). It is not incumbent on you or anyone to defend these views and nothing would make me happier than hearing you denounce this authoritarian approach. Surely you don’t deny the stringent enforcement of rules of what people must say or do or face getting blocked, censored, cancelled, etc. That is where the problem lies. Not even in their extreme opinions. I am a full advocate of free speech. The issue is that it is one-sided.
Also, I made the argument with Christians based on the same premise that Christians are dogmatic in our beliefs, the reason for it, and that we have no right to impose it on society, however we deserve the right to not be forced to relinquish those values. They are also, I argue, reasonable. What of any of this do you disagree with?