DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
30 Oct 2013, 4:19 pm
30 Oct 2013, 5:20 pm
30 Oct 2013, 9:27 pm
30 Oct 2013, 9:37 pm
30 Oct 2013, 11:53 pm
31 Oct 2013, 12:52 am
31 Oct 2013, 1:47 am
31 Oct 2013, 6:17 am
31 Oct 2013, 6:24 am
31 Oct 2013, 6:25 am
31 Oct 2013, 6:30 am
31 Oct 2013, 8:16 am
31 Oct 2013, 10:30 am
31 Oct 2013, 6:23 pm
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
31 Oct 2013, 10:48 pm
You've completely misunderstood me. I'm going to assume that this is all unintentional and respond.
Schneekugel wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Religious people, myself included, are secure in knowing at face value that we're right.
Yop, you are right about that helping people is a good thing. So other people, haveing the same opinion are as weel a good thing? There are two sides to this: On the one hand, it is a good thing in that it is a Godly thing--people who don't even believe in God doing what God commanded. Naturally, I take no issue with that, though I find it a little bit ironic. On the other hand, it doesn't take intent into account. A secular humanist/atheist does good things for personal, self-centered reasons. A Christian (should) do good things because a) he loves God, b) he wishes to show his love for God by following in obedience, c) has experienced reconciliation with God and as a consequence inherited God's love for all mankind, and d) desires, as God does, that all mankind be reconciled with God in a likewise manner as he has. Anyone who acts motivated by anything other than a desire to do what is pleasing to God is inherently doing something for their own, self-seeking purpose. Not that a desire to please God isn't itself self-seeking, but those actions go beyond self-seeking into seeking after God.
After all, "good works" can never be good enough to earn God's grace, not even for someone who believes. Grace has to be given. In the end, it isn't the level of our goodness that counts, but rather in whom or in what we place our faith. We choose to love others because God first loved us while we were still sinners. Our desire is to lead others to Christ, not simply to do good for good's own sake.
Schneekugel wrote:
Quote:
We're just not always secure beyond that. Someone who isn't used to being challenged should avoid the challenges. Someone who wants to build faith, however, should strengthen themselves by studying the tenets of their faith to the point that responses to challenges are automatic.
What about "Hello, I would like to offer my help. 
" is challenging?I don't want to risk straw man argumentation, so I'll admit I don't know enough about this particular situation to say that this IS what's happening. But I can tell you about the psychology of evangelical Christians. We aren't used to friendly exchanges with anti-theists. In fact, we're used to anti-theists being jerks to us. It doesn't take much for any action to seem provocative or for us to second-guess anti-believers. I don't know exactly what happened, but I'm guessing that the atheist group, whether intentionally or unintentionally, appeared (to the Christians) to have impure motives and the Christian group did not wish to be associated with a secularist group. It would have undermined their mission (to give charity and open a religious dialog). If a religious discussion had opened up between a Christian volunteer and an atheist volunteer, it would have risked giving the appearance of infighting between the people working the soup kitchen, which is not a message Christians want to send to others. We're already divided enough as it is, as we've been since the days of Martin Luther. Also, we'd rather NOT look like a bunch of jerks, and trying to pull together with those who oppose our beliefs might have risked the appearance of us behaving badly when all we're doing is responding to something said in opposition to our beliefs.
If that's the kind of help being offered, then no, thanks.
Mixing two groups with diametrically opposed beliefs, even if things had gone amicably with no incident, would not have sent the message we want to send as effectively as going it alone. Working in tandem with an opposing group is tacit approval of that group's beliefs. It's like saying, "Hey, we think you need Christ, but these guys don't even think there's a God, so it really doesn't matter all that much." That's not what we're trying to say.
I get the impression that this incident should have been handled with a little more tact on the part of the Christians. However, it is difficult for Christians to divorce themselves from the idea that all atheists have evil intentions towards Christians. Atheists do have a history of trying to undermine the gospel message and the Bible as a whole. It shouldn't surprise anyone that small groups of Christians would be highly suspect of why an atheist group would even WANT to work with a group of theists. Quite frankly, I'm wondering that myself.
Just speculating here, but I wonder if the atheists actually got the response they were hoping for. They got yet another opportunity to make theists look bad. They won. Congrats.
Schneekugel wrote:
Quote:
As a Christian, I prefer a personal defensive stance rather than an offensive one.
I dont understand what about: "Hello, my name is ... and I like to help." - "Hi, mine is ... and I like to help to." can be about defensive or offensive? [quoet]I'm more secure in my knowledge of my own position than I am of others, so it's pretty rare for me to actively attack the atheist position.
I think that's WONDERFUL. I take no issue with that. But, like I said, I have to wonder why a group of atheists, primarily motivated by spreading the message that God is dead/irrelevant, or at least being open that they are atheists, really WANT to work next to evangelicals interested in sharing the gospel. Would the atheists expect equal time in sharing that they believe there is no God? Or would they be content to remain silent about their (dis)belief?
If I'm attacking a straw man, which is NOT what I'm trying to do here, then OK. I'm just saying that's how it looks to me. I just find it odd that a group who seems to deny what we firmly believe even WANTS to work with (I'm assuming) evangelicals. If I encountered a situation, not necessarily THIS situation, but one like I think is going on, I'd have to be skeptical in regards to the opposing group's true motives.
Schneekugel wrote:
Do you think if someone came to Jesus and asked "Hi Jesus, I have some time to offer that I would like to use to help other people." then Jesus would have rather cared about attacking him if he was atheist or about what that person could do, to help others most? O_o
I don't mean "attacking atheists." I mean attacking atheist beliefs. I don't recall Jesus advising His followers regarding atheists specifically, but He did address those who didn't believe in Him in his role as Messiah. The Pharisees, for instance, were often a bunch of do-gooders who made public spectacles of themselves when they gave money, food, or clothes to the poor. Jesus wouldn't have condemned WHAT they did. He'd have slammed them because they didn't really care about the poor people they purportedly helped. So I don't think Jesus would have condemned atheists for feeding the hungry. I think Jesus would have asked atheists if they had any idea WHY they fed the poor, and I think Jesus would have shared the good news with them and let them know that God loves them, too, and desires their salvation.
Any time someone did something good in the gospels, it was for the express purpose of sharing the good news of salvation. Those who were physically starving learned that they were spiritually starved. And while feeding the body keeps one physically alive, we will all still die eventually, and no amount of food can stop that. Spiritual food, however, is eternal and brings eternal life. Feeding the poor was an outward sign of the change God desires for us inwardly.
Schneekugel wrote:
Quote:
I personally find that the atheist position is often NOT that well thought-out--same as what we're accused of--and that atheists are just as guilty if not more so of going on the attack as Christians are.
What about the thought of "Oh, I´d like to help others." is not well thought out?Irrelevant. And you're not understanding me. Look, it doesn't matter whether a desire to help others is well thought out. It doesn't NEED to be thought out. If you want to help others, help others. It's not my place to get in your way, and I have no reason to disrupt your act of charity. Logistics of helping people on a grand scale needs to be carefully planned in detail, but beyond that there is no need for a deep level of rationality before doing something nice for others. In fact, doing good is often irrational. Absent divinely-centered motives for doing good, I think doing good is almost always irrational UNLESS it means getting something good in return.
But that's not what I'm talking about.
I find "God does not exist" to be an irrational statement. That's all I meant by that. I find that statements regarding the PROBABILITY of God existing to be more rational, but that isn't the same as challenging God's existence at all. Of course, the same evidence that challenges the likelihood of God's existence also suggests the opposite given an opposite interpretation. But that's not the same as saying "There is no God." That would be a statement of absolute certainty, and since gathering ALL the evidence to state that as a certainty isn't humanly possible, at least at this time, saying "There is no God" is absurd. Saying "I do not believe there is a God" avoids one problem, but presents another: Not believing does not make something "not so." That would be wishful thinking, which is also absurd.
Schneekugel wrote:
Thats what this topic is about. Nothing else.
This topic is REALLY about "Oh, look! More Christians acting like jerks!! !" It's a setup, and I find it offensive.
Schneekugel wrote:
Thats the only thing you need to care for, if someone offers you help.
That all depends on if someone really is offering help. Undermining the message Christians wish to send is not the kind of help a Christian group wants.
Like I said before, the Christians should have handled it in a different way, as in "Thanks, but we view this as a ministry. We respect you for wanting to help, but this isn't really the right place or time. Perhaps we can get together and work out something ELSE at a different place/time we can do as a joint effort, but for the time being, we respectfully decline. By the way, the space right across the street isn't being used, and we looked at that before we set up here. Why don't you see about opening up your own charitable project there? We think it's a great idea, and we look forward to seeing you!" I think the Christians missed out on an opportunity to witness to atheists and share Christ with them, and that makes me sad, not to mention they represented themselves in a poor light. But it doesn't help that Christians have a history of dealing with persecution and confrontation. If perhaps the atheists truly desired to build those kinds of bridges with Christians in charitable work, perhaps they could have shown the kind of understanding they would have liked the Christians to show. Nobody likes trolls, and sometimes it is difficult to engage with people without looking like trolls. It takes a little thankless effort, but it can be done. I could be wrong here, but I get the impression that the atheists could have done a better job in their approach.
Schneekugel wrote:
Quote:
I mean, think about it: The atheists in this particular situation tried to insert themselves, deliberately, in something they likely knew would be provocative towards a Christian group.
In my country 50% of the people are atheists, and no christian group ever cared if people helped them because Jesus said, that you shall help other people, or because social habbits told them do so. So no its not in general automatic against christians. Its only certain people and their private personality and opinions, that let them thought, that as christians they must feel provocated. Tons of other christians, dont waste their time on that and their private problems, but instead use their time wisely to think about, how the offered help can be best used for helping others.I honestly agree here. But I don't think that's really the root of the problem. You have to understand that you're dealing with a group that has been made to feel persecuted and actually expects persecution. If you really WANT to work with a group like that--and, again, WHY would you want to?--then you really have to make an effort at getting those doors open. You'll have to work hard to show that your intentions are honest and that you can be trusted. I think the Christians should have stolen the initiative and led a joint effort at charity. But all the atheist group did was try to show them up by starting their own thing. So the atheists don't appear to really have made any effort to bridge the gap between themselves and theist groups. No one won here, except perhaps the starving poor who have not one but two soup kitchens offering to feed them.
It's also possible that the Christian group is only interested in their own soup kitchen for their own agenda and unwilling to expend any more effort in working with other groups. That's fine as well, but there are better ways of expressing that without being nasty about it.
Schneekugel wrote:
Quote:
Christians, not expecting a challenge, responded rashly (I'm giving the Christian group the benefit of the doubt here, fyi, and I'm not taking it for granted that they're NOT a mean-spirited group). Christians and atheists are both guilty of this.
What about "Hi, I´d like to help you, I think its a good thing you do here." is a challenge? According to you our scout troups regularly challenge our poor priests, by offering them help for their organisations, street markets, funding, easter and christmas traditions, church markets.... Until now, no priest ever feeled challenged by the scouts offering regularly help?Yeah...you don't understand what I'm getting at at all. "There is no God" is a direct challenge to Christian beliefs. Doing good deeds is not a challenge in the same way. Doing good things would actually be in accordance with the Bible and Jesus' teachings. And doing good deeds per se have nothing to do with opposing faith. The Christians in THIS situation don't feel challenged by atheists wanting to help them do good things. They WOULD, however, feel that a dialogue for the purpose of OPPOSING their beliefs would be a challenge, and using a charitable event for the purpose of such dialogue is not what they want. They want to share the gospel, not risk their chance to be Christian witnesses to the poor be undermined by a group of people who have made up their minds that Christians are wrong.
Schneekugel wrote:
I simply dont get it. Our priest never ever would have the idea to talk about defensive, aggressive, challenges or whatever, when being asked if people can help him. Normally he simply thinks about, what task he wants you to do.
Well, that's fine. And he probably doesn't have to worry about atheists being involved in his organization undermining the message he's trying to send. And it COULD be (I don't know, just sayin') that your priest is not particularly evangelical in his focus or in his mission. However, some of us have encountered more hostility than others have.
I've encountered a TON of hostility just by being active on this forum, which I think has more to do with the fact that certain Christians have a tendency to behave with hostility towards unbelievers and perhaps unbelievers often have personal histories involving unfriendly encounters with Christians. The hostility I've been shown, in my opinion, is undeserved PERSONALLY, but not totally undeserved in regards to varying groups of Christians as a whole. So I try not to be ugly in my responses, but I don't hesitate to point out the ugliness of others in how they respond to me.
To that end, I seem to have more friends than enemies on this forum, with perhaps one or two bullies that I simply ignore, while I'm able to have civil discussions with most others--and those "others" include vehement atheists. My modeling the behavior I expect, I get respectful behavior in return, which is why I keep coming back to this site in spite of the multitude of those who disagree with me.
NOT every Christian is fortunate enough to see things the way I do, and not every Christian has the kind of patience to dig below the surface enough to understand why atheists feel and act the way they do. I understand that not every atheist harbors the same amount of contempt towards Christians. And for those who are contemptuous towards us, I can understand why.
If I can be shown why I'm wrong about something, I can learn from that. Not all Christians care to. The challenge is not "an unbeliever wants to help" but rather an intellectual affront. Probably most Christians aren't prepared for that, and so it is often difficult for us to defend ourselves when our beliefs are challenged by those who seemingly construct apparently logical challenges to those beliefs. It can be confusing for us, and it is easy for us to confuse an attack on beliefs as attacks on the intellect and the person. Many of us DO overreact.
When I say I prefer to stay on the defensive, what I mean is I'd rather spend time defending my conclusions than tearing down those of others I disagree with. I only attack the opinions of atheists when those positions directly challenge tenets of my faith, and I think it's only fair to call those kinds of bold statements into question. If you say "verse X in the Bible contradicts verse Y," I'm going to investigate whether it is true (it never is) and show why that statement is false. The person who makes the offending statement MUST defend that position, concede, or simply shut up. Defending my own beliefs often puts the opponent on the defensive, and more often than not I've gotten people trying to shift the burden of proof on me.
All that to say that when I talk about attacking opinions or taking offensive/defensive positions, I'm talking about intellectual discourse rather than some imaginary problem that secular humanist or atheist charities pose to Christian charities. We're actually in agreement that atheists helping Christians prima facie poses no threat. My point is that a secular humanist group who WANTS to work side-by-side with evangelical Christians appears suspect, and evangelical Christians want no part in advancing anyone's agenda save their own. While rudeness is uncalled for, and while their behavior is inexcusable, it is also entirely understandable that they feel and act the way they did. Show them a different side, and depending on what their goals are in running a charity, they might actually start to come around to the idea of working with non-believers. Their distrust of others isn't entirely unwarranted.
01 Nov 2013, 1:27 am
