Not apologizing
It was brought to my attention that my religious beliefs have upset certain individual(s) to the point of severing ties with me. From here on I’ll refer to said individual(s) as Guy. Guy felt that I have such a haughty attitude regarding what I believe in that it made no sense for him to try to stay friends with me regardless of how I tried to contact him over periods of time. To provide background to this situation, I have no recollection of discussing religion with him, much less of getting angry or hostile to the point of snowballing the argument with, “That’s it! I don’t want to keep talking about this!” If my years at college have taught me nothing else, it’s that very few people agree on religious perspectives and, yet, differing views on religion are not reason enough to shut people out or to demean what they believe in. And demean he did by summing up what I believe in as “Jewish zombies and sky ghosts.”
I tried calling Guy over the phone to see if he was being serious or joking because, over the time I knew him and saw him, he was more of the joking type even with serious subjects. This is the person who wanted to name his research paper in English class, “Ebola: Friend or Foe?” the same person who made me laugh after saying the most ridiculous things that came to his mind. In truth, there was even a time when I thought we could go out because, as I later found out, he had a small crush on me and I felt similarly towards him. I share all this because I saw it as reason enough to want to continue a friendship over the years regardless of where life took each of us and where we were geographically. I was wrong. Although I should have taken the unreturned phone calls as a sign, I just saw it as, “He’s being his usual lazy self, not keeping in touch.” What I had to find out from a third party is that Guy really doesn’t want me in his life in any way, shape or form anymore. I don’t “add value.” Furthermore, my religious views are so contrary to what he believes that he sees no way that we could discuss anything else worth discussing.
I would like to know what he thinks my beliefs are. I really would because I’ve never shared with him what I believe in for him to make such a judgement.
So why write about this on my wedding blog? What does this have to do with my planning? Well, aside from finding all this out right as I was trying to invite him to my wedding, I write about it here in order to lay out how my (apparently) irrational beliefs will not be the focus on the wedding. If I was as close-minded as he claims I am, I would not have 90% of the guest list I have now. This isn’t to get defensive about my faith and be all, “Hey hey, I don’t really take that stuff so seriously anyway,” because the truth is I take it very seriously. My stance is that I will not apologize for what I believe in, likewise I don’t expect anyone to apologize for what they believe in. That Guy is a hardcore atheist is his choice and I at no point expected an apology. At the same time, I didn’t heckle or bash him for his faith or lack thereof. I didn’t tell him that he is going to hell or pester him with why he should believe what I believe.
This is the attitude my fiance and I have taken with our ceremony: Yes, it is a Christian ceremony with pastor or priest, but that is the only religious part of the whole event. Most people seem fine with that. To think that neither of us wanted to get married in a church or place of worship says enough. I’ve gone further and explained to my parents why I won’t do anything with rosaries or churches or long drawn out religious acts. In essence, we are planning a wedding that will not have many people who agree with our views on the world, but can be happy for us as our lives are united in a ceremony that means a lot to us.
There is so much more that I would like to say about this mess, but that I feel wouldn’t add value to the discussion regarding my wedding. The end of the story with Guy is I see now how very serious he is with his opinion regarding me and my “religious BS,” and, still, I let him know that if he ever wants to contact me again, I’ll be available. Unlike him, I don’t measure people’s worth with how much value they add to my life based on how much we agree on certain topics.
Hey, I know I got a little aggressive calling it “religious BS” but I take my views as seriously as you do. I’ve never had a conversation about religion with you, but I knew enough to know that you were serious about it. I’m going to assume you’ve read the bible and having read it, I honestly don’t see how you can expect me to be cool with someone who believes the word of a book that says atheists should be put to death and will burn in hell. How can we be mutually accepting of our points of view when yours is so vehemently opposed to mine?
Danny is calling attention to an important point: religion makes objective claims about the world - not only about what IS in the world (all-powerful God), but what humans SHOULD do (what’s right and wrong). And one thing that the bible says is that atheists SHOULD be put to death, among all manner of other moral atrocities. This is a matter of discussion that definitely enters the objective.
In light of that, asking an atheist to tolerate Christianity or Islam is like asking a black guy to tolerate the KKK. By tolerate, I don’t simply mean recognize the right of the other person to hold that view without violent interference - that’s easy and any sane person will do that. By tolerate, I’m talking the expectation that a person should recognize equal validity in the other person’s point of view.
Religious propositions, like any other, have to be tested for their validity with objective standards of proof. Otherwise, we are put in the bizarre scenario in which the black dude HAS to think that the KKK’s views on race are at least equally as valid as his are.
It’s unclear what you mean when you say that you won’t apologize for your views. Apology is a means of expressing remorse or regret to another person, as a means of bettering a relationship with someone. So technically, you don’t have to apologize for anything in your life - you just experience the consequences of other people’s reactions when you don’t apologize. You don’t have to apologize when you don’t return a phone call or stand someone up for a night out… but they’ll, perhaps, stop calling you, or stop making plans with you, or just stop being your friend altogether.
I’m not saying that your views in themselves merit apology, but that the reason we apologize is related to an important issue here. The reason we apologize is the same reason why we subject our own beliefs and values to rational discussion: if we don’t, then we reach a point at which our values and even actions are fundamentally opposed to those of our friends and there is no way of resolving it. We never HAVE TO have such rational discussion - we just experience the consequences that occur when we don’t.
If in any disagreement we hold on to our views, never budge, and never subject those views to analysis, those people with whom we disagree will not pursue relationships with us. This is not saying that you should compromise just for the sake of compromise, of course. Even if you’re absolutely sure that you have it all correct about everything in the world (and let’s say you are), someone who disagrees with you who is committed to a rational method of discussion will come to the same conclusion. That’s the beauty of objective methodology: the specific content of your beliefs entering a discussion with objective rules matter little.
What’s more, when beliefs are subjected to an objective method, the situation can be win-win. When both parties follow its guidelines, then they will both agree eventually (at least on a course of action they both find acceptable). It doesn’t have to just be about abstract intellectual discussions about metaphysics - it could be about where to eat, what movie to watch, whether it was wrong not to return a phone call, etc.
Anyway, I hope that gives you a better idea of what I feel the issues at hand are. Let me know what you think.
But… does the blogger actually think that “Danny” SHOULD be put to death for being an atheist? It doesn’t seem like it.
Sure Ed, but that’s not the issue at hand. If she perceives the bible as the word of God, i.e. the truth, then not actually having that point of view is a contradiction on her part. Either the bible is the word of God, or it isn’t. There’s no cherry picking - if you don’t follow something that it says, then you are rejecting the word of God.
So, if she followed her beliefs ideally, she would actually think that.
I understand that some people don’t take the bible as the word of God, but then that raises the question as to why you should believe anything in the biblical tradition.
Danny: I felt the aggression in your words and I’m glad you admitted it since I have not been hostile during any of these exchanges. You assume a lot while acknowledging that we never discussed religion, but you’re right that I take my views seriously. Without getting into details of what I hold sacred, I agree that your views are equally vehemently opposed to mine as mine are to yours. I have understood this and see that I can’t make you look past beliefs for the sake of a weak friendship. Instead, I will continue living my life as I see fit and drop any persistence on my part to reach out to you.
Chris: The more I hear your explanations, the more it seems that you and Danny are one and the same mind. It surprises me that you said you would still like to attend my wedding if you feel so strongly about my beliefs as well. To state it clearly, I do believe that the Bible IS the word of God. I can’t expect you to understand why I believe that when it’s a faith issue, not a mathematical equation. I’d appreciate you not making assumptions on my interpretation or practice of scripture since you do not know me well. I would not agree with killing someone due to their beliefs because a life is precious and it’s far more meaningful to reach out to that person for discussion instead of burning them at the stake if it gets to be such a problem. That’s not cherry picking, it’s reading beyond the one-sided point you choose to highlight.
To clarify what I mean by “not apologizing for my views,” I mean that I won’t compromise my beliefs. God’s word defines who I am and has proved itself to me throughout my life as the reason for continuing to live this way. Like I said, I don’t expect you to understand that, especially when you want to force things into an objective methodology discussion just because you see that as the best way for exchanging ideas. It’s almost like you can’t relate to people in any other way.
So yes, I’m not apologizing and I am gladly dealing with the consequences of that. My beliefs never encroached on someone else’s happiness. I never put someone down or spoke poorly of either of you for how you think or act. I’ve just held myself to certain ideas that I’ve analyzed and found true. If anyone has ever approached me to openly and calmly discuss what I believe in, I have calmly and openly stated my mind without expectations of converting anyone or of hearing responses I want to hear.
It’s just interesting to see that instead of this playing out like the usual TV show where the “religious nut” get aggressive and shuts people out, it’s the atheist individuals who are taking this route in this case.
“It’s just interesting to see that instead of this playing out like the usual TV show where the “religious nut” get aggressive and shuts people out, it’s the atheist individuals who are taking this route in this case.”
Well that’s certainly how you’re trying to portray it. The only problem is that when you choose how to interpret the word of an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect being, you’re being completely arrogant and going completely against what you claim to believe. Please spare me the “the bible isn’t literal, we have to interpret it” argument. I’m sure god saw that one coming (as well as any other mistranslation, misinterpretation arguments) WAY before you or anyone else tried to pull them and clarified what he meant when he dictated it. After all, he knows EVERYTHING, he created the world for his sake.
Danny, I *am* sparing you the arguments. You don’t have to come back and read what I have to say. After all, this is nothing but a blip on the vast number of opinionated blogs in existence and you’ve already made it clear to me that you don’t wish to have me in your life anymore.
How I portray this situation is more based on the facts that
1.) I did not initiate the attack on your belief system or your reasons for it, but you attacked mine by demeaning what I hold sacred.
2) I have been calm and patient trying to understand where your attack on my beliefs stems from.
3) I had to speak to Chris to understand why you wouldn’t speak to me and then further defend myself that I never had the superior attitude you think I have. Do you honestly think I have all the answers to life?
4) You *stated* you were aggressive by calling my beliefs BS when I have yet to utter similar sentiments towards yours.
As far as God knowing everything, you got that right. He does. My words, thoughts, actions and understanding of His word are held accountable to Him.
I feel like you’re making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about aggression and shutting people out. I haven’t shut you out—I could have easily handled this by saying “well, that’s danny, not me, sorry” and continued to speak with you as I normally have until I got bored of internet shenanigans and we never spoke again.
Instead, I tried to be as open as possible with you. I tried to explain to you what Danny values in a friendship, which is closeness and authenticity over internet shenanigans. I tried to explain what I value in a friendship, and what I understand – in fact – a strong friendship is made of.
I feel like I’ve been honest, and you’ve responded with exactly the kind of hostility I feared and we spoke about on the phone. I have given you my understanding of things - giving reasons along the way – but not a militant atheistic assault that can be found on a FOX News shouting match about evolution. You have not considered the fact that I have feelings too, and have not created a very welcoming environment for communication with your response.
For one, you’ve projected the insane and irrational war over religion in America, perpetrated by angry and emotionally invested people on both sides, on this discussion. This is possibly the most hurtful thing of all: that you’ve thrown me into the mix with all the other idiots, like what I’ve said is just me reading from the California Democrat-atheist playbook. Just some indoctrinated, crazy talk, right? Nothing I could be saying could be emitted from a reasonable source? The fact that you think that really undermines any genuine relation I thought we *ever* had.
I’ve gotten over the pain of my childhood, so I don’t need to shout to feel better about myself. I don’t need to shout what I believe at people. No one can do that and expect others to respond positively. It doesn’t make me feel bad enough that you believe something to be fact that I think is false, so that I’d come here and deploy naked aggression to bully you. I’m just not that insecure. The proof? I’ll disengage from this discussion on my own and continue living my life happily if my genuine concern is responded to with abuse or indifference.
So what kept me around long enough to write this post? The fact that I think there’s value in you as a friend, and this is my last attempt to test that hypothesis in light of your last and very hurtful post.
In light of that, why do I wish to use objective methodology? It’s not a personal preference, clearly. You’ve “held yourself to certain ideas that you’ve analyzed and found true.” How did you analyze it, exactly?
Your religious beliefs imply a claim about the external world. That is a claim of fact, and facts are to be evaluated by objective evidence. Either you’ve stepped into the arena of fact, in which what you say MUST be logically and empirically evaluated, or you’ve kept it in the realm of subjective opinion. Someone’s opinion tells us nothing about the world except the fact that he has it. But the moment he claims, “my opinion is true,” then he’s put out a claim as verifiable as “Hitler invaded Poland in 1939” or “gravity’s acceleration is 9.81 m/s^2.” The same would go for “A being named God with attribute x exists” or “what is written in the Bible is true.”
You can choose not to trust me, but I’ve stated what I consider to be statements made in a rational discussion. You can think that I’m trying to abuse you with my statements, I suppose, but if you think that, of course, then there’s no basis for any real friendship between you and me.
I understand that this has been a painful experience for you, and that Danny’s theological points are raising the aggression level here – but I tried to participate here in a non-aggressive manner in order to help you understand Danny’s actions. And just like you’re appealing to your analysis of your religious beliefs as a valid means of ascertaining whether beliefs are true or not, I’m trying to show you what standards I – and Danny, though he may be edgier about them – bring to the table when it comes to discussions about the nature of the world.
And always, remember that the feelings you experience during this discussion are important. If you do feel attacked or hurt, bring it to my attention, so we can find out why you feel that way. I will do the same.
Danny, you keep saying “someone who believes the word of a book that says atheists should be put to death.” You can run a word search on the KJV 1611 Bible here: blueletterbible.org, and see if this is true (it’s not). My only guess is that someone in college or elsewhere told you this was the case, and rather than finding out for yourself if it was true, you took it at face value and allowed it to shape your beliefs.
What the bible does say, however, and I will be the first to actually quote it, to bring some *facts* to this discussion, is that those of the house of Israel who do not believe in God cause themselves to perish:
“And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish.” Deuteronomy 8:19
However, the apostle Paul later said:
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:22
The misconception on your part revolves around the meaning of the word “death.” The Bible is not referring to the material definition; nowhere does it say that anyone would be killed / murdered for their beliefs. Jesus Christ insisted:
“And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:31
In the Bible, death refers to separation from God, and that is the death that is being referred to when one does not believe in God. That person is living a dead life. That person is causing themselves to perish.
“And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” John 11:26
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:22
The Bible does not translate perfectly to English; it’s important to understand that Hebrew has many words to explain different meanings where English only has one. What you *thought* the Bible says, it does not. It’s obvious that this is just a misunderstanding, so let’s just call it what it is and move on.
No, I didn’t just hear it from other people, I know how annoying it is when someone makes a mischaracterization of something and uses it to argue against someone. Here it is from Chronicles 2Ch 15:13 “That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.”
You have to realize that languages are limitations that god KNOWS we have, and in speaking the “truth” to his disciples, he must have anticipated this. It’s not a plausible explanation to say that mistranslation can lead to misinterpretation, god would’ve anticipated it.
Hey Christian,
While it’s not my intention to be here arguing scripture (this particular issue is overshadowed by many others, especially those relating to extra-scripture issues, like why we should accept scripture), this came to my attention.
This seems pretty unambiguous to me:
17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman,*** and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.***
What do you think?
Chris: I think you just posted a verse that refers to the Israelites living under the rule before Jesus Christ. It doesn’t apply to either of you at all.
Danny: The previous verse states:
“And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;”
This is referring to a group of people so dedicated to ensuring that their group was pure, that they decided they had to kill anyone who did not pursue God with them. This was *also* a group of Israelites.
Obviously neither of you have ever actually read the Bible. You are posting very terse verses that have been taken out of context, which I guess you found on a website or heard somewhere. You continue to misinterpret the Word. None of this follows the law that Jesus Christ set forth for the Jews and the Gentiles in the New Testament, which states, again:
“And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:31
It would be pedantic to explain why the Old Testament was full of such strict and callous laws, and why the *Israelites* followed them. We can get to that discussion later; in the meantime it’s important for you both to admit that you have been wrong from the very beginning and there isn’t an ounce of scripture that supports your prejudiced misconception.
You might be right, maybe I don’t understand. I grew up with the Bible repeatedly inflicted on me until I was 12, and I never understood then, and I’m having trouble understanding now.
It’s a bit unfair to characterize it as a “prejudiced misconception,” though. Are we supposed to believe the Bible to be virtuous just because? If the Old Testament has lots of violence, rape, slavery, etc. is it prejudicial to say “well gosh, the Bible sure is violent!”? If you’ve got an alternative interpretation of all of that, you can give it. There’s no need to be condescending or accuse us of prejudice when what we understood to be the word of God in Christianity says that atheists should be killed, and has lots of other scary stuff in it to boot.
Is the proper interpretation of scripture is that many of the vile and terrifying things that happen in the Old Testament are not important - even though they were acts or directives of God? Did God- eternal (or timeless), superpowerful creator decide that morality should be different for humans? Did Jesus save God in addition to humanity?
Is the bible the absolute word of God or not? Didn’t Jesus affirm the OT?
Why did God have to do something so cryptic as put out one set of rules in the Old Testament, then turn them around in the New Testament?
By the way, maybe I should clear something up: I don’t - and Danny doesn’t - reject Christianity because of what the scripture says, which is why I’m not so keen on this conversation.
We do, however, find it to be a not-so-neutral belief system - even if it’s possible to legitimately remove the whole of the teachings of the Old Testament, there are lots of things with which Christians and even the half-mutated inconsistent Christians will openly agree that we reject.
Chris: I took a while to respond to your comment because I want to say so much to you, but would prefer to say it as concisely as possible. That you think I’ve had hostility during any of this is just ridiculous– you can say that your feelings are hurt by my un-welcoming environment, but it’s how I feel, too. The more calm and honest I respond to you or Danny, the more my words sound hostile and angry to you, even though I would gladly speak them to you and show you I’m not at all shouting. Is it that you’re looking for me to shout? Or you want me to become emotional and irrational? I stated what I believe about my accountability because I keep feeling like you two are pushing me to accept something along the lines of “I’m wrong and you’re right.”
And yes, Danny is acting the bully since all I ever wanted was to continue a friendship without worrying about which one is going to hell or not. I am over that and furthermore, it has taught me that I shouldn’t put my beliefs aside to consider someone else’s so much more.
I appreciate that you did not shut me out and took my phone call the other night. I know you and Danny are great friends, so I wasn’t surprised to hear you defend him even down to the way that he demeaned my beliefs. What I hope stops happening though, is you speaking for Danny. He has a problem with me but he can’t muster up the explanation to calmly and coolly present me the reasons for his feelings (or lack thereof) towards me or my beliefs. So, in my calmest tone to date, I understand you know him better than I do, but if I can speak for myself, why can’t Danny? Before you think I’m just pushing you out of the conversation, I’ll repeat that I appreciate you were open to discussion on my questions. I don’t think you’re trying to bully me and still I see the basis of our friendship dwindling if you can see how Danny’s acted towards me as correct or virtuous. I’m not asking you to choose sides, I’m explaining how I’ve felt.
As far as the discussion on religion itself, I would have been more willing to discuss my beliefs with you two more than you gave me credit. I’m not so inclined to anymore after remembering that you find no value in the “agree to disagree” discussion or so that was my impression from our phone call. If that option doesn’t exist in a discussion, it makes me wonder how emotions can be kept under control, particularly in a topic that is so important to someone. (I’m not just talking about me, but also about Danny and how important his views are that he severed ties with me.)
Anyway, most of what I just wrote is addressing my perception of this whole mess. Clearly, you have your own take, which I would like to see if only to better understand where we stand.
Chris: It is weak to allow the experiences of your childhood to shape your beliefs as an adult, rather than seeking out the truth with the wisdom you have now.
As I said, it would be difficult to explain the ocurrences of the OT in full, especially since it requires a lot of understanding of the historical context in which events took place. That being said, any interpretation I offer is the most literal interpretation possible; I am not an apologetic reader of the OT and I do not attempt to gloss over anything that occured.
What I will say is that there are no atheists in the OT; everyone was worshipping some god or idol, if not the one true God. That’s the only point I wish to discuss as of right now, because the OT’s attitude toward atheists was and is the central point of this entire misunderstanding, and my only concern is in helping you on the process toward admitting that the initial prejudices inflicted on you during your childhood led you to make invalid assumptions about Claudia’s beliefs. We could go on further discussing the intricacies of what is said in the OT and what is said by Jesus Christ in the NT when you have made that first step.
As for, “Are we supposed to believe the Bible to be virtuous just because?”, that’s not the point. You are supposed to believe that Claudia is virtuous, because you’re not dead. That’s what friendship is about.
I feel like my posts are going into a black hole, then again I figured I’d be going up against some pretty strong defensiveness when bringing this up. This will be my last post, so let me make a few things clear.
1. Nothing about what I quoted from the bible says anything about worshipping false gods or idols, the line is self sufficient and the previous lines about Israelites and being pure does not change ANYTHING about the content of that line.
2. All of the arguments Christian and Claudia have made are COMPLETELY passive aggressive. If you guys don’t know what that means, look it up, because your posts are rife with it and you (at least Claudia) think that you’re being amazingly calm, open and understanding.
3. I reiterate, any aggressive tone or harsh or rude language on my part is totally mitigated by the fact that both of you truly believe in, and are committed to by your own admission, the words of an invisible, unknowable, all-powerful god that commands you to kill me and claims that people like me will suffer an eternity of damnation and suffering. I have trouble typing that without feeling silly, but I know somehow it’s not silly for you guys. It’s kind of how it’s hard to take something a racist says about other races seriously, but it’s very serious when he uses his prejudices to attack people.
4. I’ve made the argument several times and it hasn’t been addressed (obviously because you have no counter argument) that the interpretation of the bible is USELESS, we are mere mortals compared to almighty god and thinking that OUR judgement is better than his is LUDICROUS!!! His interpretation is by definition the best, and since the book is HIS word, then we should read it AS IT IS WRITTEN. The content of the bible should be the most simple to understand language if the goal is to spread the message and the writer is THE MOST INTELLIGENT BEING EVER. (I know it’s hard to accept this argument without realizing that god didn’t write it, a bunch of crazy people wrote it over two thousand years ago, otherwise there would’ve been a little more wisdom and predictions of the future in it.)
5. I realize that you guys are far too smart to really buy into all this crap without some underlying cause. It hasn’t been addressed but it’s made clear by the statement “It is weak to allow the experiences of your childhood to shape your beliefs as an adult, rather than seeking out the truth with the wisdom you have now.” Now let me take the opportunity to say that I feel sorry for you guys (oh, remember that line…that’s what it feels like to be condescended to) and I hope that one day you find the value of self analysis and being honest with your past, including your childhood and the things your family inflicted on you (like this terrible religious stuff).
“That you think I’ve had hostility during any of this is just ridiculous– you can say that your feelings are hurt by my un-welcoming environment, but it’s how I feel, too.”
Stating that it’s “ridiculous” that I felt hostility IS hostility. When you say things like, “especially when you want to force things into an objective methodology discussion just because you see that as the best way for exchanging ideas. It’s almost like you can’t relate to people in any other way.” - as though I’m doing that in service of my own personal preference, you are making the assumption that I’m the type of person to “force” things on the basis of personal preference.
“That’s not cherry picking, it’s reading beyond the one-sided point you choose to highlight” is hostility, because it assumes that I’ve never heard or thought about this kind of argument before, and further assumes that I’d ever brandish a one-sided point as a weapon against anyone with whom I’d ever care to engage in a discussion.
“It’s just interesting to see that instead of this playing out like the usual TV show where the “religious nut” get aggressive and shuts people out, it’s the atheist individuals who are taking this route in this case.” I don’t understand what about this was not hostile: you’ve suggested that this is somehow a representation of, like I explained in my other post, some partisan war over religion.
When you say, “I know you and Danny are great friends, so I wasn’t surprised to hear you defend him even down to the way that he demeaned my beliefs,” that’s insulting – whether you intended it or not. Why is it insulting? Because you’ve assumed, again, that I’m being partisan – that I’m defending Danny because he’s MY friend. I make and keep friends because they do good things. I don’t argue that things are good because my friends do them.
Suggesting that I’m committed to an arbitrarily chosen position (“atheism,” “Danny is my friend”) and I will defend it at all costs as opposed to being committed to a methodology is a straightforward assault on my integrity. I don’t believe things because they’re convenient for me, and I don’t argue for them either – that would be no better than deception for personal gain.
This is surely not about Danny anymore. This is about a fundamental issue not of religion, but of truth in general.
By no means am I saying that one person has to be acknowledged as right and the other person wrong at the end of a particular sitting – in that sense it’s ok to say, “let’s agree to disagree, for now.” What there has to be, though, is a genuine commitment by both people to acknowledge evidence given in a logical and empirical manner. That includes demonstrating to the other person the validity of the position being put forward. “Let’s agree to disagree, for now” is a far cry from saying “our viewpoints are equally valid.”
In such an exchange, you are always free to exercise the option of agreeing to disagree. You just can’t say, then, that you’re engaged in an honest discussion with truth as a goal. It’s just a superficial trading of “this is what I think, this is what you think” – I like trail mix, you like Doritos.
I’ve pointed out what I think are facts. If you would like to contest my facts, you are free to do so (like Christian has). However, just because what I think are facts are threatening to what you think is true, does NOT mean they are statements of my hostility. There is nothing demeaning about a fact. Is presenting a study that shows a 55% increase in the risk of lung cancer of smokers vs. non-smokers is demeaning to the smoker who believes that smoking is good for your health? If it is demeaning in some way in that it threatens the importance that smoker has placed on smoking, it is certainly not hostile or aggressive in itself. It’s just a FACT.
I don’t know why this has gone on in “public” so long, but it should probably stop. The fact that other people could be reading it - on your blog, no less - raises the stakes for you and I think that’s unnecessary, if not unfair. The medium of communication precludes curiosity about each other, and encourages important things being said to be overlooked.
If you want to give this discussion a shot in the future, not in public, and not in long message format, that can be tried. In the short-run, this just isn’t worth it to me. I feel unable to communicate effectively my tone and intention (as well as my ideas, even), whether that’s my fault or yours, and it’s doing me more harm than good. I’m going to exercise my personal freedom here and just bow out. I’m sorry you’ve felt bad about this situation, but I’ve done my best.
Christian, I didn’t see your response, but I think it’s quite clear that the OT’s attitude toward atheism is NOT the central point of this discussion. It’s the many other things we’ve addressed, like the many non-OT points Danny has made - #4, especially.
Chris: This entire discussion is based on a misunderstanding on the part of atheists such as yourself. I can’t even understand all the long winded posts here. This is the last time I’m going to say anything on this subject: we used to be friends, and now it comes out that apparently we can’t because of *this* misunderstanding. It doesn’t matter what we argue, it doesn’t matter how we argue, the truth is that nobody here believes, and nowhere does it say, that we must kill either of you. As for what we believe will happen to all of after death, that shouldn’t concern anyone who doesn’t believe in the afterlife.
Amen.
To support that I was passive aggressive and that certain people were right to assume things of my character and condescending attitude, I’m closing the comments here. Thanks for making a mess out of something that I had politely kept to myself.
Please feel free to keep up with my future posts as they relate to my wedding. It did surprise me that they were read by someone who does not view this event as a positive thing.