It's a "victim mentality" they say. It's a feeling of being persecuted, a paranoia. It's not real, of course. It's just a perception, and it's false. The argument is strengthened when some decide to use the "victim mentality" as "proof" -- "See? I'm right because you are victimizing me!" But here's the rub. Just because someone is paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get him.
The Bible promises Christians that, just as the world hated Christ, the world will hate His followers. One of the consistent promises in Scripture is the promise of suffering for being a Christian. Had I been a religious skeptic in the last 100 years or so, I might point to that one and use it as "evidence" that the Bible is false because it has not seemed in America that Christians were being hated for their beliefs. Sure, it wouldn't be a good argument and, sure, it couldn't ultimately be supported, but it sure looked that way, didn't it?
Well, no more. The cat is out of the bag and more and more voices are rising against Christianity. Arguments are actually being made to ban or criminalize religion in general and Christianity in particular. And that should come as no surprise, nor should it come with any sense of moral outrage, since it is a given according to Scripture. It just ... is. I don't say any of this from a "victim mentality" because I don't feel like a victim. It's just the way it is. It is the way, in fact, that it is expected to be.
What bothers me is this whole matter of consistency. I try, from my side, to be consistent. Starting with the Bible as my sole source in matters of faith and practice, I try to view the world from that perspective. If I someone offers me the view that the Bible is bunk, I'll disagree with them ... equally. That is, if an atheist tells me that or a "Christian" tells me that, I'll be disagreeing on that point. I try to maintain a consistent viewpoint. If I believed that it's wrong to judge, I would try not to judge. Not like so many others who are judgmental about people they believe are judgmental and intolerant of people they believe are intolerant. If they don't want to allow people to have views with which they disagree, on what basis would they be allowed to have views with which others disagree?
I was talking to someone the other day about conversations we've had with unbelievers. I explained to him the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. An atheist says "There is no god" and an agnostic says "I don't know if there is a god". He was baffled. "But ... they argue the same way. They argue against Christianity." And he was right.
Everybody, me included, will have inconsistencies at times. Their arguments will be out of line with their stated beliefs. Hopefully it's out of ignorance. So I raise here some questions just as a public service in case there are some who are not being consistent, don't know it, and would like to be. Do atheists go to Islamic or Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist or other religions to debate their beliefs with them? Or is it only Christians they debate? And do they try to clear up the "don't know" question for agnostics? And shat about agnostics? Agnostics claim to "not know". Why, then, would an agnostic debate any religious beliefs? They don't know. And if there is reason for an agnostic to debate the beliefs of, say, Christianity, wouldn't there be equal reason to debate with atheists? Atheism makes a truth claim ("no god"). Why wouldn't agnostics give them equal debate time? "Hey, you claim there is no god. On what logical basis can you make such a claim? Where's your evidence?" How about that conversation?
1 comment:
I have had some interaction on the Net with a really smart fellow up in Oregon, who gives this brief description of where he stands regarding religion:
“Atheist - strong about Christian God, weak about deist god.”
I take that to mean that he cannot rule out totally some sort of deity with the role of creating the universe, but he has studied the Christian conception of God enough to feel certain he can rule that deity out.
I have had precisely one debate on the Net with a Muslim. Being Muslim correlates with speaking a language other than English, so my opportunities to debate in English against Muslims are relatively rare as compared to Christians. Hindus who speak English seem to be rarer still.
I have had no debates with Jews. But keep in mind, most (all?) Jews believe you are Jewish by birth, and they do not try to proselytize Gentiles. At least, that has been my experience with them.
On the other hand, I can get two TV stations that tout Christianity, and two radio stations that tout Christianity. I have had Christian literature left on my door handle and on my car’s windshield. I have had my doorbell rung by people witnessing Christ. I was handed literature by a Christian stranger at a Frys grocery store earlier this year. Some years back a man standing on the sidewalk next to the Target store on Cactus Road was preaching the gospel through a megaphone. I remember a couple of occasions of Christians preaching outdoors on my college campus. So Christianity is much more in-your-face (and I don’t mean that as a put-down) than the other religions, at least within this part of the United States. All of this serves to keep me thinking about Christian theology.
Your point about agnostics not taking on atheists is well taken. I will probably give that a try one of these days. That said, I can’t remember any incidents of atheists preaching to passers-by on the street, or knocking on doors.
--Lee
Post a Comment