It seems that recently these debates are becoming much more common than I anticipated. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because I believe that many of these discussions can be good opportunities to teach and learn. But at the same time I don’t want this blog to be nothing more than discussions with christians, as that will grow tiring for the readers as well as me.
So with that introduction out of the way, I’d like to get into the specifics of this latest discussion. As with many of my previous debates, this one started on the facebook page of a friend. On a post from this friend, another person, Patty Boland Monheim Doyle, and I began a small back and forth, which seemed to have some real potential to go somewhere interesting. While the discussion so far is short, Patty seemed quite willing to take it further, so I felt it would be useful to do it here instead of facebook.
This discussion started because of my facebook friend who posted the following:
Look, if you’re going to quote the Koran as evidence that Islam is a violent religion, read your own holy book. http://bit.ly/czYV5Q
The link in question is a passage from the bible which says to kill your family members if they worship a “false” god.
It was this simple statement that lead to both Patty and I chiming in with our differing views. (again the believer, Patty, will be in black, the person who’s page this was is in green, my thoughts are in blue, and another person who was involved in the beginning of the conversation will be in purple)
True. But then along came Jesus who said, “well….. our first approach didn’t work with you guys as well as we hoped so heres the New Testament, while we must certainly acknowledge the old ways as existing our new course will be peace and .understanding”.
Wheres Islam’s savior coming back and putting them on a course to peace and understanding?
Gotta read the WHOLE book Brock 🙂I’ve read the whole book and I find it difficult to take lessons on morality from a book that attempts to condone slavery, sexism, racism, murder, etc (even in the new testament)…
nobody I know interprets it that way. Did you miss the 10 Commandments, the Beatitudes, the parables, etc? Could be in the way you chose to interpret what you read…
The point was just that people cite the violent passages in the Koran to make Islam out to be a violent religion, while anyone could do the same with Christianity or Judaism.
ok, but what religion in 2010 condones women being stoned to death
Slavery: http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
Sexism: http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Bbl/Sexism/Sexism.html
Racism: http://www.thegrio.com/opinion/racisms-roots-in-the-bible.php
Murder: http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
The reason people you know don’t “interprets it that way” is that they ignore those passages that don’t confirm to their preconceived notion of what god is and is not.There are many beautiful passages in the bible (the 10 commandments are NOT among those which I would find to be worthy of praise, I can go into detail on why if you’d like), but there are just as many horrific passages in the bible.
As Brock said the same thing people say to disparage islam apply equally to christianity and other religions…
As for “what religion in 2010 condones women being stoned to death”
George Tiller’s MURDERER did it because he said christ told him to. Countless people in Africa have been killed for being witches because the bible condemns which-craft.I am trying to make you understand something that most of you don’t seem to…the bible was written by many people–much of it does not apply to how we’re supposed to live today. For example. an “eye for an eye”. The NT flat out says that’s wrong. But, the critics pick out stuff that’s obviously no longer valid–if some of it ever was–remember we dealing with flawed humans here.
No Christian religion condones what Tiller did. Why bring that up? But, there are Muslims who follow the Islam rules that require stoning for certain offenses. Or are the reports I read a lie?
At this point it was made clear that some people would prefer this discussion not take place on this particular facebook page, so Patty and I discussed moving the conversation elsewhere:
Given this is not my page, and [somebody] has expressed a preference to not go into this here, I’d be willing to go over the negative aspects of the new testament (so you won’t have to defend those things outdated by jesus’s coming) and christian denominations today (i.e. ignoring the history of abuses of the catholic church and protestant atrocities of the past) with you, if you’re interested…
I would like to hear more of your thoughts. I am especially curious about your take on the 10 commandments. I just got home so tomorrow AM I’ll read up on the references you listed above so we’re both on the same page.
Right now I’m in desperate need for some cookies so we’ll talk tomorrow then…
So with that in mind, I thought I’d use this forum to continue the discussion with Patty, and see where it leads.
As I mentioned to Patty, I will only use examples from the new testament, and not the old testament, and I will stick to those actions done in the name of christianity recently (i.e. excluding things such as the Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Crusades, etc).
The first few things I would like to tackle are related to things Patty and I have already touched on, including:
- The new testament condoning slavery, sexism, racism, murder, and more
- My “issues” with the 10 commandments (even though it’s old testament,, it’s something Patty brought up and wanted my take on)
- Patty’s question of “what religion in 2010 condones women being stoned to death”
- How could an omnipotent god change the rules that mankind is supposed to live by?
- Does any christian denomination today condone shooting a doctor because of his profession (i.e. the murder of George Tiller)?
I guess I’ll begin with slavery in the new testament, as that is almost universally understood as one of the most vile things mankind has ever engaged in. According to Ephesians 6:5: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” Now many apologists will claim that the slavery described in the bible is not the same type of slavery that we think of today. They argue that biblical slavery was more like a job is today, and that slaves were protected and not abused. Not only do we know this to be a misunderstanding of history from multiple other sources, even looking at the new testament we can see this is not the case. Even a cursory glance into the bible shows that jesus condones beating slaves in Luke 12:47: “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” Now if one is going to claim that slavery in those times was more like having a job is today, you would have to explain away the fact that slaves could not leave to find a new position elsewhere and why it was ok to beat your slaves then (and the bible claims it was ok even according to jesus himself) yet it is not seen as ok today.
Next I would like to skip ahead a bit, but don’t worry I will cover all of these points, just some I will probably do in the comments instead of being part of this initial post. Patty asked “what religion in 2010 condones women being stoned to death“. You have to go all the way back to May of this year to find the American Family Association, a group who tout themselves as “a Christian organization promoting the biblical ethic of decency in American society with primary emphasis on TV and other media” released a statement calling for a killer whale to be stoned to death and it’s trainer to also be killed. They later attempted to backtrack on their statements, claiming they did not mean to follow what the bible says but instead to do something entirely different than their original statement.
The recent Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill that has been in the news, has been supported at various times by many prominent American evangelical christians including Rick Warren the founder and senior pastor of Saddleback Church, currently the eighth-largest church in the United States; Scott Lively, an author who has written several books opposing homosexuality; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-professed former gay man who conducts sessions to heal homosexuality; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, an organisation devoted to promoting “freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ”. Part of this bill calls for life in prison and/or the death penalty for gay people having a history of consensual sex.
Yes these examples are not stoning women, but the method of execution is largely irrelevant to the fact that many prominent christian groups are okay with the death penalty, and seemingly want it expanded.
The next point I want to focus on is actually a question for Patty. If the christian understanding of god is correct, then god is omniscient. This means that before god created man god knew that man would disobey the commands from the garden of eden and live a “sinful” life. This also means that when god gave rules to mankind at any point in history, god would have already known that at a later point in history those rules would be viewed in a much different light. So when in the old testament god condoned things that you today would call immoral, god knew this and condoned them anyways. How is it possible that an omniscient and omnipotent being is capable of changing it’s mind and altering the rules that mankind is supposed to live by?
The last issue I’ll tackle in this opening post is that of the murder of George Tiller. Tiller was one of the few doctors who performed “late term” abortions. He was killed by Scott Roeder an anti-abortion activist and terrorist. There are some VERY horrific examples of people who have condoned this heinous act including:
-
“I support the shooting of George Tiller as justifiable homicide. I only wish that it would have happened in 1973, before he was able to murder his first child.” ~ Anthony Leake
- “I almost thought I saw a whole cloud of babies clapping, like a standing ovation.” ~ Shelley Shannon
- Rev. Donald Spitz, leader of Pro-Life Virginia and sponsor of the Army of God Web site created a tribute to those who have committed violence against abortion clinics and doctors which featured a picture of Tiller being taken out of his church in a body bag with flames superimposed underneath and the words that Tiller “is now in eternal hell.”
- “George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder. Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God.” ~ Randall Terry, the original founder of Operation Rescue
- “Would you have rejoiced when Adolf Hitler died during the war? … I would have said, ‘Amen! Praise the Lord! Hallelujah! I’m glad he’s dead.’ This man, George Tiller, was far greater in his atrocities than Adolf Hitler, so I am happy; I am glad that he is dead.” ~ Wiley Drake, vice-presidential candidate for the America’s Independent Party ticket in 2008 and the second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2006-2007
- “if you honestly believe abortion is the murder of helpless children, it’s hard to see why using deadly force against those who carry it out is immoral, especially since the government refuses to act.” ~ Reason columnist Jacob Sullum
- Anti-abortion militants The Army of God, a group that promotes “leaderless resistance” as its organizing principle, issued a statement calling Tiller’s presumed killer an “American hero“.
- Not to mention there was an appalling amount of cheering on Fox News, christian and right wing blogs, etc.
Now clearly I am not saying all christians condoned his murder, but it sure isn’t difficult to find many individuals and groups who did.
I think this should be enough to start a conversation with Patty, so I’ll leave it here for now and give Patty a chance to respond and pose any questions/comments to me which she wishes to. This does leave me with the issues of sexism, racism, and murder in the new testament as well as why I believe the 10 commandments are not worthy of praise, but I’ll handle those a bit later.
Matthieu Guibert
Sarah Hippolitus
Rodibidably
Luis Reinoso
Brian Gregory
Thinking Critically 
Jeff,
You bring up the fact of an omniscient God. One of the things Christians believe is that we have been given free will. An onniscient God could be compared to an observer at a second story window seeing a speeding car coming down the road and a small child running after a ball in the road. The observer knows what is about to happen given the circumstances. God may know what might happen, but People have the free will to change the circumstances. Just like the driver may hit the brakes in the nick of time, I believe God eventually expected people to use their free will, education, and common sense to understand that not everything in the Bible was to be taken literally, and to act accordingly.
Regarding the passages you cite from Luke and Ephesians–I was taught that, in studying the bible you need to understand first of all, who the writers were, what kind of audience they wrote for, and the circumstances people lived in at the time. Jesus often used parables to teach, using subjects and circumstances that were common enough for people to understand. For this reason shepherds, masters, tax collectors, weddings. etc are often used in the Bible stories.
The passage from Luke is part of a parable. The example used was the relationship of servant to master, and what would happen if a servant partied and carried on while the master was away. The beating was the consequence that resulted from the wrongdoing. That was common in the times, but it was NOT the point of the parable. The point was to do the right thing whether or not someone was standing over you making sure you did it. It had Nothing to do with condoning slavery or beatings. It had Everything to do with being something the readers could identify with: a form of punishment.
In the Ephesians passage I think Paul is referring to workers and bosses, but the word slave is being used. In either case, his point is for the slave to do God’s will toward the master, and, when you read a few sentences further, he tells the masters to do the same to the slaves. I feel Paul is using examples to say whether you’re the boss or the employee, you have the obligation to be decent to each other. And, I think the slave/master relationship would have been understood at the time. I often disagree with some of Paul’s thoughts on the role of women, but 2000 years ago he was typical of male thinking in most places.
Now, the point I am most anxious to make is this: My religion and most mainstream Christian religions do NOT advocate murders, beatings, discrimination, etc that some people point to as being the fault of the religion. You bring up Dr Tiller’s murder as if was advocated by mainstream Christian priests and ministers in Sunday sermons. By your very examples you show that this type of action was condoned by people with no concept of what real Christianity is all about. They may call themselves Christians, but their actions speak louder than their words. In regard to gays, I am positive that a loving God would not be punishing them for the sexual orientation they were born with.
So, with all due respect Jeff, you’re doing to Christianity what others are criticized for regarding Islamic terriorists: painting the whole religion with the same brush. My complaint is that the Taliban and others demand stoning and beating women for non-offenses, and even when it is reported by the media, it is rarely condemned by Islamic leaders. I find the silence deafening.
Which is why I made sure to mention the omnipotence as well.
To use your scenario, it would more accurately be described as: an observer holding the hand of the child and seeing a speeding car coming down the road and a small child running after a ball in the road
In your original example you made god impotent to change the results. However christian dogma says that god it all powerful and CAN do anything.
If in the modified version of your example the observer was holding the hand of the child, and saw the car and failed to stop the child from running in front of the car, that person would be called a sociopath and certainly NEVER be held up as the ideal of morality. And yet christians call their god a moral being despite them claiming god has the knowledge and ability to save children from being raped and killed, and yet failing to do so.
Since you bring up the issue of free will, I’d like to take a moment on that.
Free will means that we can do anything we want, even if it’s not what god would want us to do, correct?
According to christian dogma it is because of free will that we have pain, suffering, etc in this world.
Would it be possible in your view for god to give mankind free will and yet mankind still not do things that god would not want us to do?
Is heaven a “perfect” paradise with no pain, suffering, etc?
Once in heaven do people still have free will?
Are they still able to do things god would not want them to do?
See the contradiction yet?
Either heaven is not perfect OR god could have created the earth in the same way heaven was created and yet god failed to do so KNOWING that this failure to do so would lead to immeasurable pain and suffering. It’s a catch 22. Based on the christian dogma that you subscribe to, there is no way to reconcile free will on earth and heaven, with a god who’s not a total asshole.
So do you believe that the bible comes from god in some way (written by, dictated by, inspired by, etc) or men?
If it was written by god, shouldn’t it apply equally to all people no matter when or where they come from? Isn’t an omnipotent being able to create a book that can be read by anybody and understood? It doesn’t take a team of scholars to read and understand the themes and morals from Harry Potter, nor does one have to know anything about J.K Rowling to “get” the messages being conveyed.
Yes this is often said. How is one to know which passages are parables and which are to be taken literally? Many people claim adam and eve were two real people who lived within days of the beginning of the universe 6000 to 10000 years ago. Others claim that genesis is an allegory not mean to be taken literally. How is somebody supposed to objectively know which way to take any given passage. While some passages may be clear, the fact that there are 38,000 christian denominations shows that there is much disagreement.
Ok, so let’s say I’m an all powerful, all knowing deity. I’m hanging out on earth for a few years and because I know everything, I know that 1800+ years in the future a country on a continent that is not even known to the people of my area is going to have a Civil War. This war is going to be at least partially about slavery; and both sides are going to use my words to condone their opinion (either pro slavery or anti-slavery). Would I not have the moral obligation to at least once in my book make a clear unambiguous statement along the lines of “owning other human being is one of the worst most vile despicable things done in the history of mankind; don’t fucking do it”? And failing that, shouldn’t any reasonable person know that including a parable about it being ok to beat your slaves in some situations know that this could be misunderstood somewhere down the road? I don’t claim to be perfect or to be infallible, but I’m smart enough to know that certain practices should be universally condemned, slavery being pretty damn high up on that list.
ACTUALLY I was very careful to say: “Now clearly I am not saying all christians condoned his murder, but it sure isn’t difficult to find many individuals and groups who did.”
But as for condoning murder and mainstream christians, it doesn’t get a hell of a lot more mainstream than the pastor from the 8th largest church in the country, Rick Warren. As I mentioned, he has said many thing in favor of the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill (or at least he had before he was called out on it and then attempted to distance himself).
This is what’s known as the No True Scotsman Logical Fallacy (When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of assertion to tautologically exclude the specific case or others like it).
If any time somebody you say “christians don’t believe X” and you are provided with an example (or in this case many examples) of christians who DO believe X, you dismiss them as “not true christians”, you are committing a logical fallacy. Perhaps YOU don’t consider them “true christians” but many of them also would not consider YOU to be a “true chrsitian”.
In this respect you differ from Pat Robertson (certainly his millions of followers and close association with multiple previous Presidents of the US would list him as “mainstream”) and countless other christians who view homosexuality as a choice and an abomination.
Actually, the original point of the post where we first met said: “Look, if you’re going to quote the Koran as evidence that Islam is a violent religion, read your own holy book”.
The point being that those christians who are attacking islam need to understand that those SAME attacks can easily be used against christianity.
I’ve never claimed that ALL christians are homophobic or racist or sexist or whatever. What I do claim, is that the book that christians use does NOT teach morality and has at least as many horrific examples in it as the koran or any other text. And that this book is no more divine than a roll of used toilet paper.
Many christians do not believe all of those things I pointed out, but their holy book SURE AS HELL has been interpreted by millions (if not billions) of people to say those things and many other horrific things.
I agree that islam has many problems, and that they should do a MUCH better job of reigning in their extremists. But just because they are bad too, does not give christians a free pass. If you shoot 20 people and I shoot 21 people, it doesn’t mean that what you did is not bad. It means we’re BOTH psychopaths and should be locked up for the rest of our lives.
Patty responded on facebook as well, so I thought I’d include my response to her facebook message here.
Well I can be quite nasty and sarcastic, but there is a time for that type of attitude, and it’s typically after somebody has consistently “brought it upon them-self”.
I’ve found the same can often be said of many people on the right wing or christian or other type of believer side of an argument.
I’m glad you enjoyed that conversation. I find it very interesting to have conversations with people of different beliefs than my own. Sometimes I learn something new, sometimes I am able to teach somebody else something, and sometimes it’s just good because it helps me better understand my own views from a perspective I don’t normally view them from.
Many people in the US come from a middle class christian divorced household. It’s not really all that rare. It’s interesting that you can’t understand how somebody doesn’t believe. As somebody who’s never believed in a god, I’ve also never understood how somebody can believe in a god, despite the evidence that contradicts this idea.
I tried to take many passages literally and allegorically. I found that no matter how you look at certain things, many of the tales are still horrifically immoral.
So do you believe the bible is god’s word (either written by god, inspired by god, dictated by god, etc)?
Do you believe it’s possible for an all knowing being to ever change it’s mind?
If you answered yes to both of those, how do you reconcile god saying homosexuality is an abomination in Leviticus?
Because some people take a single passage from the old testament about it being a sin to “spill your seed” to mean that all sex should be for procreation, and condoms stop that. They would claim that you not believing as they do makes you not a “true christian”.
You and I will probably disagree on when human life begins, but I can understand your stance.
But what are your views on end of life suicide? Somebody who is in pain, it can’t be cured, and they want it to end?
I’m actually impressed that you can see the flaws in your own religion. Far too many people ignore or attempt to minimize the flaws in their own beliefs.
One difference being that everybody has to eat food. For many people religion is nothing but a waste of time, money, and other resources, and one step down the road of belief without evidence.
I can go into it in more detail if you’d like, but FYI, many people find it offensive when christians say “I’ll pray for you”.
I can say for me that atheism is nothing more or less than lack of belief in a god or gods. Nothing I say, do, or believe beyond this is affected by my atheism.
However I also consider myself to be a Secular Humanist, and Secular Humanism DOES inform much of how I live my life. I don’t know that much has changed in how I live my life since I learned about it, but now my beliefs have a name. So in that case, since I already lived by those ideals BEFORE I knew about it, I’d say it’s unlikely that even my Secular Humanism makes me a better or worse person.
As for you and your beliefs, I can’t say. I’ve heard people say before that if they did not believe in a god they’d go around raping and killing people. For those people, if they are being honest it seems that their faith does help them live a better life. For other people their faith leads them to flay planes into buildings or shoot doctors or refuse medical treatment for their sick children and instead allow those children to die. In those cases I’d say their religious faith most likely makes them worse people. You’d have to be the judge of your own faith and it’s affect on your actions.
One thing about having a public blog is that anybody can comment. Not everybody who reads and comments on my blog is somebody I know. You’d have to point out which comments were nasty before I could tell you if they are my friend or not.
I had a co-worker in a previous job who was a fundamentalist christian (although there aren’t many in this country, there are some). I used to look forward to going to work when we were rostered together as the conversations were always stimulating.
But at the end of every shift he would say, “Matthew, I’m concerned for your soul. I will pray for you.”
I was never particularly offended by it as , knowing him, it was intended in a benign – albeit somewhat patronising – manner. But I did wonder: At what point would he determine that his prayers on my behalf were not being answered?
I enjoy good debates with people of different views than my own. Patty seems willing to have a conversation on these topics, and so far seems willing to listen (and not just talk), so I’m hopeful that we can discuss these topics in a reasonable manner, and if not agree, at least understand each other’s positions better.
The “I’ll pray for you” thing depends, IMO. It’s been said to me many times in all sincerity, and while I find it useless I understand the intent was good. However it’s also been said to me in very condescending ways in the past, which of course I found insulting. I’ve actually begun a post on prayer and when it’s offensive and when it’s not. Hopefully I’ll get around to completing that soon to explain in details my view on the topic.
The issue of does prayer work is another post I’ll do in the future, but I have to read the old studies again (and read the new ones for the first time), so that may take me some time to get around to.
Hi Jeff
Only have a few minutes tonight, but I did want to clarify one thing. I noticed that both you and Occam99 commented on “I’ll pray for you.” He used the word patronizing, and you mentioned that condescending and offensive apply in some situations.
I never say it to anyone unless I really mean it. I see it as one of the kindest, most thoughtful things I can do for another human being.
I’m guessing if you’re a “1/2 full” kind of person you acknowledge the sincerity/motive of the person saying it. I assume the reverse is true if you’re “1/2 empty”. (Or maybe if the person snarls as they say it!)
Then I got to thinking about the kind of people who get bent out of shape when someone says “Have a good one”, or grump at a clerk who says “How’re you doing?” Does that fall in the same category?
Even if atheists don’t believe in prayer, can’t they just accept someone’s prayers in the spirit they were intended. From a believer’s point of view, I have found consolation knowing that I’m not alone at a terminally-ill loved one’s bedside, or when I’m in some other difficult situation, someone is praying for me. But even if you don’t believe in prayer, can’t you just be happy that someone would think enough of you to include you in their prayers?
There is so much negativity in this world, I think it would help if more people assumed the best of each other until proven otherwise instead of the opposite.
Now, a question for you, and I really want to know…what do atheists say to each other when there’s been a death? Or when someone is near death? Or when someone is suffering from inconsolable grief? I only know a few atheists, and they’ve never faced a death of someone close. I often wonder how they’ll handle it. How do you console them?
I’m probably ponder on these kinds of things, not just because I am a believer, but, my background is in social science, education, etc.
I’ll get to the “prayer” issue later today (I’ve been meaning to do that as a separate post anyways). Once it’s posted, I’ll link to it so you can see why prayer is sometimes (not always) offensive. I think (hope) it will answer all your questions (and a few issues that you didn’t bring up but are important to the issue)…
I agree. However there are times when believing the best of somebody goes beyond “nice” to naive. For example when somebody today from the political “right” says “socialism”, I don’t believe it’s being unfair to label them, in my mind, as an anti-Obama, ignorant, ideologue who has no real understanding of what socialism really is. When somebody refers to allowing gays to marry as “special treatment”, I believe it’s fair to label them as a homophobic bigot who does not understand the constitution. When somebody mentions a “war on christmas”, I believe it’s fair to label them as a ignorant christian fundie, who does not understand, not care to understand, that the founders wanted a separation of church and state and that we as non-christians could care less what you do in your homes, it’s what in done with public funds and in government controlled locations we care about.
I offer my condolences. If the person suffered before death I am thankful that their suffering has ended. If appropriate, I offer to do anything I can to help.
When my father died, I tried to console my youngest brother (he was around 12 at the time I believe). My brother was looking in the casket and I went up to him, put my arm around him and told him it would all be ok. In a scene that seemed to me to come out of the exorcist or something my brother turned to me and said in one of the creepiest possible ways “it’s ok; it’s only his earth suit”. He then went back to petting (for lack of a better word) his father’s head. While I understand his reaction was not typical of all christians, and his reaction was largely based upon the extremist version of christianity he grew up with, it seems to me that if you truly believe in life after death, his reaction is not far off from what would be expected. If you believe that your loved one is going ot heaven, why would a christian cry? Wouldn’t every death be a reason for celebration?
When my father-in-law was very sick and when he passed, his wife and two daughters felt a good deal of comfort in their faith in god. While I did not share this faith I certainly was not going to use such a situation to question their beliefs. When they prayed for him I sat silently and allowed them their moment of silence. When they made references to heaven or a “better place” I remained silent, because at that time it seemed as if it was helpful for them to deal with the situation. However there was a group from some church that came by their house a few times when I was there. While friends and family would come over and bring food and ask what they could do to help, this group came by to get information about prayer requests. They asked each member of the family who we would like them to pray for. When they got to me, I respectfully said “no thank you”. They then insisted that I give them my parents names so that they could pray for my parents, again I declined “thank you, but there really is no need”. They continued to insist despite my repeated attempts to make it clear I was not interested. Finally my ex (wife at the time) called me out of the room to them away from me, and told them that I did not have any names for them to add to their prayer list and that the family needed some time alone. As with my brother, I understand this is not indicative of all christians, but it does seem to be far too common among many different groups of christians I have met. They ASSUME that everybody is a christian and that everybody would believe in their same ideas (in this case they assumed that of course I would want my family prayed for despite my many attempts to nicely tell them no.
In both cases, my father and my father-in-law, I did what I could to console family and friends without challenging their beliefs. My family and my ex’s family all know that I am an atheist and they did what they could to respect that (i.e. not insisting I lead any prayers, etc) and i respected their beliefs (not scoffing when they prayed, etc). I did what I could to make this time easier for those around me, and made sure if somebody needed a “shoulder to cry on” or whatever, that I was there for them. These are the same types of things I would expect (hope) that somebody would do for me if I was in need.
Understanding views different than your own is very important.
I want to put this on a t-shirt:
It’s a tad wordy, but generally a good idea…
Pingback: The Believer’s Brain – Russ Schaade | Thinking Critically
Pingback: Is Prayer Offensive? Well, It All Depends… | Thinking Critically