In Hardesty, OK, a "Christianized" town, a young girl by the name of Nicole Smalkowski has undergone persecution. She is a self-pronounced athiest as is her family. She states that the local school children have ridiculed her for her non-belief in God and call her such names as devil-worshiper or point and laugh. She further states that even a teacher has gone so far as to tell her that this is a Christian nation and if she doesn't like it she can leave. The school administration has accused her of threatening another's life as well as stealing shoes and bringing down morale. She denies all these statements and says it is an attack against her and her beliefs. She no longer attends that school and is now homeschooled due to the ridicule.
You can read more here.
Some questions:
-What does this say about Christianity; more specifically, about those wear the name of Christ?
-Should we always think that those who claim to be Christians really are Christians?
-Do you think this accurately defines what Christianity is about?
-Should we seperate those who wear the name of Christ from Christianity itself?
-Should this tarnish the reputation of Christians? Christianity? Christ Himself?
-How should true Christians respond to this girl and their family?
-
74 comments:
Clearly Nicole was persecuted because of her atheism, not just by students but by teachers, school officials and community leaders. "After school officials learned that she and her family were Atheists, lies were created about her as grounds to take her off of the team." These are documented in the 20/20 program and Nicole responds to them directly. After watching this program, despite the dimwitted John Stossel, seeing such a bright young woman crying like that struck a nerve with me. Those Christians persecuted Nicole just because she didn't believe what they did and wouldn't go along with them.
This interview really made Christians look like a bigoted majority, at least in Hardesy, Oklahoma. Do real Christians want to change that perception? Are Christians able to accept Nicole as she is; not as a potential convert or someone whose soul needs saving but as an atheist who is also a good girl?
I'm sure the Christians started off trying to convert Nicole in a friendly way. When she would have none of it, that's when the Christians turned ugly toward her. If Nicole does not want to hear your beliefs, you should still accept her as an atheist, not just "tolerate" her. I hope that Christians don't pray for Nicole to "Find Jesus." That's what's causing her such misery. Christians, if you need to pray, pray that other Christians accept Nicole as an atheist who is also a good girl.
I hope this story gets attention from Christians but judging from the number of comments, it looks like Christians couldn't care less.
Here is the video interview with the Smalkowski's. (I couldn't find the video interview on the 20/20 site)
Thanks for the comment cineaste.
Do real Christians want to change that perception? Are Christians able to accept Nicole as she is; not as a potential convert or someone whose soul needs saving but as an atheist who is also a good girl?
I think you bring up a tricky coupled-question. The first question you ask as it relates to "Christians look[ing] like a bigoted majority at least in Hardesy, OK" is two-edged. 1. It assumes that you are referencing the Hardesy "Christian" population only, but applying the effects of this incident to Christians all over. To answer your question, it would be wise and good for those wearing the name of Christ in Hardesy, OK who allegedly took part in the persecution to change their perception. What would be even more wise and good is if they changed their heart by way of understanding scripture. If they acted on what scripture teaches, this would not be an issue, but instead it appears they acted on their emotional ties to what they think scripture teaches.
As for the second question about accepting Nicole, this can and should be done. Christians are not able to convert anyone either by their nicest actions or by force. According to scripture, God alone holds the keys to salvation. Christians would do well to learn this tenet of their faith. You cannot scare someone into Heaven, nor can you have them recite a prayer that will get them there. Only God has the ability to save. Now, with that being said, Christians do have a responsibility in this. He tells us to share that gospel as that is the means by which God appointed unto salvation. This in no way negates God's role in salvation as without Him and His Son's atoning work on the cross, the gospel would be void.
As for looking at her as a "good" girl who happens to be athiestic in belief, Christians are right in accepting that, but it goes against scripture not to share the gospel with her and to set before her what it is to be in right standing with God. This in no way means Christians should force their beliefs down her throat, but this does mean that Christians should be a light where there is darkness and that Christians should look for opportunities to share their faith and listen when she shares hers.
j razz
I read your post j razz. It sounds as if you, and Christians like you, are just as ignorant as those Christians in Hardesty. Please don't think I using "ignorant" pejoratively. It's just obvious you are completely clueless about atheists. I really feel for Nicole because she had to but up with similar stuff.
cineaste,
Would you care to flesh out your last comment? Did you have a similar experience at some point in your life? I fail to see what you are hinting at.
Please do expound on what you said as I am curious as to how I am ignorant and to what I am ignorant of (as well as those Christians like me).
j razz
"I fail to see what you are hinting at."
Okay, do you genuinely want to explore this? Are you capable of putting yourself in Nicole's shoes? Doubtful but here it goes...
It shouldn't be difficult to picture yourself as an atheist because all Christians are atheists in a way. Christians are atheists to Zeus, Allah, Thor, etc. Now put yourself in Nicole's shoes and take it just one God further, if you're capable. As Nicole (that's you), Christians may as well be rambling on about Poseidon or the tooth fairy. Then, when Christian tooth fairy advocates say something like, "Christians should be a light where there is darkness and that Christians should look for opportunities to share their faith and listen when she shares hers" it sounds absolutely ridiculous to you, as an atheist, and just shows the complete ignorance Christians for your perspective. First Christians imply they have "light" and you have "darkness" and second they imply that you have religious faith. Nicole (you) just wish that you could get on with your life, without having to deal with religious ignorance and bigotry (not meant pejoratively, rather by definition) being heaped upon you by well meaning but deluded Muslims, Christians, [insert indigenous religion here].
I can already anticipate the inevitable special pleading fallacy of how your God, Jesus, is the one true God and Protestantism, or Southern Baptist, or whatever is the one true denomination while all other Gods and religions are false... Blah, blah, blah. Mormons, Muslims, etc. say the exact same thing.
I know this is difficult if not impossible for you to comprehend so I have mitigated any hopes I have for this conversation accordingly. I have the feeling you still won't get it, what I'm "Hinting at."
Actually cineaste, I think I get it all too well.
Let's flip the coin here. Change Athiest to Christian in your previous monologue and voila, you have the exact same thing but coming from the perception that you are correct (atheist) and I am wrong (Christian).
To help you see this more clearly, I have bolded the changed parts and left the rest of your monologue in italics.
Atheists may as well be rambling on about Neitze or Baron d'Holbach. Then, when atheistic advocates say something like, "Atheists should be enlightening where there is superstition and that atheists should look for opportunities to share their beliefs and call superstitious mumbo jumbo for what it is" it sounds absolutely ridiculous to you, as a Christian, and just shows the complete ignorance Atheists for your perspective. First atheists imply they have "enlightenment" and you have "superstition" and second they imply that you have reason. Joe Christian just wishes that he could get on with his life, without having to deal with philosophical ignorance and bigotry (not meant pejoratively, rather by definition) being heaped upon him by well meaning but deluded intellectuals, philosophers, [insert your brand of atheism here].
What makes you think atheists are the poor beratted little whipping boys you proclaim them to be? What would make you think that Christians do not endure persecution? Any belief holder whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist... any belief holder endures criticism for their beliefs.
j razz
Why are you changing the subject? Nicole, wasn't mentioned in your last post even once. You've essentially insinuated that it's the atheists who are persecuting Christians. You had me chuckling to myself when I read this...
"Let's flip the coin here."
...because it was I who "flipped the coin" in the first place by asking you to see things from Nicole's perspective. Imitation is a form of flattery, I guess. Anyway, your scenario is ridiculous. Here is why.
"What would make you think that Christians do not endure persecution?"
This is what you sound like to me.
Is it really about Nicole for you?
Nicole, wasn't mentioned in your last post even once.
I did not know that I had to mention "Nicole" for me to answer your question. I will attempt to be more plain in my statements henceforth.
"Let's flip the coin here."
...because it was I who "flipped the coin" in the first place
You can take credit for being first. I have no issue with pride concerning this matter.
Cineaste,
I would hope that this discussion would be fruitful, but you have not addressed any of my questions with any form of sincerity (that I can tell) but instead stated that you are doubtful I am capable of empathizing as well as questioned my ability to comprehend the scenario you set forth. (Do you really think that a personal attack will aide you in your argument in some way? It merely detracts from what you are attempting to say and puts atheists in a bad light. In a sense, you are doing the same thing that the "Christians" did to Nicole; how ironic.)
Now, I ask you (yes you asked it first; I acknowledge that) "do you genuinely want to explore this" or do you just want to play games? If the former read on, if the latter stop here.
_________________________
Now, if you chose to read on, let's get back to the topic. You say I changed it? As stated in my previous post, I just substituted your key words with mine; same topic.
Again, I ask you, what would make you think that Christians do not endure persecution? If your answer to this is that they do, then I can very well empathize with Nicole. If your answer is that they do not, then I ask you to prove to me that Christians have not endured persecution.
You might say the above is off-topic, but it feeds very well into the topic as it answers your question about being able to put my feet in Nicole's shoes.
Cineaste, I hope you understand that by me being a Christian in no way keeps me from empathizing with an atheist. Persecution is persecution. From the citing of your cartoon, it would seem that to you persecution is only persecution when it is not happening to the Christians. Is that not bigoted and biased?
I hope you choose to think a little harder about how you choose to construct your argument; the way your argument is construed now, one would think you are the persecutor.
Have a good night cineaste.
j razz
"Is it really about Nicole for you? "
Yes.
"Do you really think that a personal attack will aide you in your argument in some way?"
You qualify my skepticism that a fundamentalist Christian can comprehend a world without Jesus as a personal attack? Ya...
Thanks for the conversation j razz. It's been a waste of time as expected.
Good night.
It's been a waste of time as expected.
Let me ask you this then: Why did you even bother with the ensuing conversation if you expected it to do nothing more than waste your time?
I could be wrong on this and if I am, please do correct me.
I think you are either A) Really fighting an internal struggle with your atheistic world view and for some "strange" reason you are grappling with insecurity in your beliefs or B) You wanted to see if Christians were the stereotypical doormats you caricaturize them to be.
I gather these two possibilities from this conversation and from these two blogs as well as the cartoon caricatures you provided:
TimEllsworth.com
Sword & Trowel
You qualify my skepticism that a fundamentalist Christian can comprehend a world without Jesus as a personal attack?
Just to be clear, I never qualified your skepticism. And, if you are calling me a fundamentalist in the true sense of the word, then I agree, but if not, then I would much prefer you used Reformed Christian if you insist on labeling me.
Really, have a good night cineaste. I will be praying for you (and as a "fundamentalist" you know I have to).
j razz
"Let me ask you this then: Why did you even bother with the ensuing conversation if you expected it to do nothing more than waste your time?"
It was against my better judgment, but I thought I would give it a try. If you don't believe me here is what I said to Tim in an email.
He (you) didn't show the video. Without the video, people won't be able to hear the story from Nicole's lips. To me, she is the story. Watching her, one can't help but notice her sincerity. Without the video, Jeremy and neo-conservatives will just take the Christian side and denounce Nicole because she is an atheist. This is fine because it is his blog and he is a right winger. I was hoping to see Christians stand up for an atheist against what, to my mind, is certainly unchristian behavior. Is it only me who will support Nicole on these blogs? Call me sentimental, but I really hated seeing her cry. Maybe Christians wouldn't like it either, if they saw it.
This conversation occurred prior to ours. These are my words and they do concern you, so I feel comfortable repeating them to you, j razz. And as I predicted, you fulfilled my expectation with flying colors; you only see Nicole as a potential convert, just like the Hardesty Christians, not as a good atheist girl. As an atheist, she needs what Christians offer like a hole in the head. She wouldn't have any of it and that's what made the Christians turn ugly.
"I could be wrong on this and if I am, please do correct me."
I'm correcting you then. Yes, you are wrong. It's been all about Nicole's story from the beginning. Reference the first part of my blockquote to confirm. You however, seem to be trying really hard to make this about me instead of Nicole.
"And, if you are calling me a fundamentalist in the true sense of the word, then I agree..."
Oh, I am. "Fundamentalist" is a term coined by orthodox Protestant Christians to describe themselves. It's based on "The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth" essays. Today, this term can be applied to Muslims as well since they too adhere to the "fundamentals" of their holy book, the Qu'ran.
"I will be praying for you (and as a "fundamentalist" you know I have to)."
Now, this interesting and sad. Christian fundamentalists HAVE to pray for others. It's not because they WANT to pray for others. Does this apply to good deeds as well? Why bother praying for me j razz since you are insincere about it? It's a chore. You're probably praying for my conversion anyway, not so much for my wellbeing. Not that I care. From my perspective, you may as well be praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
For brevity's sake, I was only able to skim the preceding posts, but your discussion turned in a bad direction for unknown reasons.
jrazz acknowledged the wrongness of such persecution and provided words of correction to the Christian community. Why was it necessary to then characterize him as "ignorant" etc. Again, Cineaste, it looks like your were "itching" for a fight.
No Christian is "ignorant" of persecution. The scripture says:
"Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." (2 Timothy 3:12)
I've faced personal persecution and I know how it feels - to be mocked and scorned by those who once were your friends. Such behavior is unjustified regardless of who is wearing which shoe.
But my or Nicole's experiences of persecution are indeed shallow compared to the Jews under the Nazi regime, or even today's Christians in China, etc. A little perspective never hurts.
Cineaste, would a stink-weed by any other name smell any better? (to reverse Juliet's line) No. It still stinks!
Bullying and bigotry can try to fly under any banner - and have under all banners at one time or another.
However, the behavior described in OK is not Christian behavior.
Read 1 JOHN to see the tests for authentic Christianity. If the charges are accurate, then the people involved were "sociological Christians" rather than genuine converts to Christ.
Pastor Klay, I recommend reading my posts instead of skimming before referencing stink weeds, Nazis, and scripture. I eschew all three. :)
He (you) didn't show the video. Without the video, people won't be able to hear the story from Nicole's lips.
cineaste, I cannot just copy the video and put on my blog. There is no embed code. It is in a quicktime wrapper, not flash like on Youtube. I did not censor your link to the video. The video is freely available to whoever reads these comments as long as they have the appropriate quicktime codec. In addition, this post is a couple of months old so what good would it do to post the link to the video you already provided the link for on the main post?
Without the video, Jeremy and neo-conservatives will just take the Christian side and denounce Nicole because she is an atheist.
Show me where I have done this. Have I ever defended those who persecuted her? Have I ever taken the side of the persecutors in Hardesty, OK?
Here are the questions I posed after posting on this story. I believe anyone would find it hard to believe that I am siding with anyone other than Nicole.
-What does this say about Christianity; more specifically, about those wear the name of Christ?
-Should we always think that those who claim to be Christians really are Christians?
-Do you think this accurately defines what Christianity is about?
-Should we seperate those who wear the name of Christ from Christianity itself?
-Should this tarnish the reputation of Christians? Christianity? Christ Himself?
-How should true Christians respond to this girl and their family?
Before ever seeing the video, I was already on Nicole's side.
Your statements reminds me of a quote I once read: People often really do see what they expect rather than what is there…
And as I predicted, you fulfilled my expectation with flying colors; you only see Nicole as a potential convert, just like the Hardesty Christians, not as a good atheist girl.
1. See above. 2. Seeing Nicole as a potential convert is not the only way that I see her. I would say quiet the contrary. I do not see her as a potential convert at all. I see her as a fellow human who needs God's grace just as much as you and I both do.
On the second issue you bring up: "just like the Hardesty Christians", how is it that what you know of me lines up with what you know of them? Do you really think the Hardesty crew really saw Nicole as a potential convert? If they did, explain to me then how their actions confirmed such a statement by you.
As an atheist, she needs what Christians offer like a hole in the head.
You are entitled to your opinion and for your sake, I hope you are right. What is more, I pray that God will allow her to see His grace and her need for it inspite of the events she has endured by the hands of those who wear the name of Christ.
I often find that Christianity is judged by the actions of those who proclaim to be Christians rather than by the one who's name it is derived from. If you want to see true Christianity, look to Jesus by way of the scriptures. If you want to look at the effects of a fallen world, tangled in sin, look to actions of Christianity, Atheists, Muslims, Wiccans, Hindu's, human beings, etc.
You however, seem to be trying really hard to make this about me instead of Nicole.
Oh really? I would encourage you to go back and reread your posts... it appears to be more about you and your atheistic agenda than about a young girl named Nicole. Now before you respond to this, really, go back and read your posts. After I reread them, it appears that you are using this girl to advance your agenda more so than concern yourself with her experience. If that is true, it is shameful (I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this).
Now, this interesting and sad. Christian fundamentalists HAVE to pray for others.
Cineaste, you only see what you want to see. You conveniently "overlooked" the first portion of what I said: "I will be praying for you..."
Again, "People often really do see what they expect rather than what is there…
Now, if this was really about Nicole for you, why are you focusing on the above? Why not talk about Nicole. Why don't we discuss ways that both of our groups can prevent things like this from happening in the future? Why can't we talk practical? I am and have been willing since even before you first happened on this post- are you?
I think your next response will be very telling as to whether this is really about Nicole for you or not. If it is, let's move on to Nicole.
j razz
"cineaste, I cannot just copy the video and put on my blog."
I know j razz. That is why I provided the link to the video for you in my first post and proceeded with the conversation. I took care of the objections I cited to Tim myself, beforehand. Chill out; regarding the video it's all good. I posted that so you could see my references to Nicole's plight.
"Have I ever defended those who persecuted her?"
Yes. You said it's a Christian's duty to convert atheists like Nicole; be a "light" to the "darkness." Like I said, you are only interested in converting Nicole, not accepting her as a good girl who also happens to be an atheist. That's typical. This is what the Hardesty Christians were thinking but when Nicole wouldn't have any of it, things got ugly. Why defend this "Borg" like mentality, "We are Christians. You will be assimilated. Your technological and biological distinctiveness will be added to our own, Resistance Is Futile" You are the same. The problem is a world without Jesus is beyond your understanding, as well as Christians like you. So, you will remain ignorant of what it's like for atheists like Nicole. You and other Christians are atheists to all the Gods Nicole is an atheist to, she just takes it one God further. Yet, you still try to convert Nicole even though she wants nothing to do with religion. It took a lot of courage for her to stand up to the religious torment of the Hardesty Christians as they tried to assimilate her.
"I believe anyone would find it hard to believe that I am siding with anyone other than Nicole."
You sided with Hardesty assimilation attempt, not with Nicole. You justify their unwelcome attempts thusly, "but it goes against scripture not to share the gospel with her and to set before her what it is to be in right standing with God." Nicole does not believe in God. She does not want Christians to "share" their superstitions. Why are Christians so dense about that? It's causing her a lot of misery. Just live and let live. She's a good girl.
"I see her as a fellow human who needs God's grace just as much as you and I both do."
Give me a break. You may as well say that we all need Allah's grace.
"Do you really think the Hardesty crew really saw Nicole as a potential convert?"
They wanted Nicole in their prayer circle. Nicole, turned them down.
"If you want to see true Christianity, look to Jesus by way of the scriptures."
I've read scripture and I can say that it's horrible, especially the old testament. I think God kills about 2 million people in the bible and Satan kills 10. I wouldn't let my daughter read scripture because there is a lot that's not appropriate for young children.
"...it appears to be more about you and your atheistic agenda than about a young girl named Nicole."
Do you realize that Nicole is an atheist? Why don't you talk about Nicole instead of me? I know I'm interesting but sheesh! :)
"...let's move on to Nicole."
Yap Yap Yap j razz. Only now do you get to Nicole? So, from now on, let's speak only about Nicole, not me.
So, do you accept Nicole as an atheist?
You misquote me, assign false motives to me, take what I say out of context, twist my words, grossly misunderstand basic Christian doctrines... You only see what you want to see rather than what is there... but I digress.
So, do you accept Nicole as an atheist?
Why do you want to make this about me cineaste? Let's stay focused on Nicole like you said.
A more appropriate question: What does it mean to love Nicole?
j razz
Do you accept Nicole as an atheist?
...from now on, let's speak only about Nicole, not me.
I thought we were going to talk about Nicole, not you or me.
j razz
Wow, quite the dialogue going on here. Let me upfront admit that I won’t sound as intelligent in my arguments as Cineaste and j razz I’m sure. First, I have read all the posts, not just skimmed them. That should be some points, right? Plus, stinkweeds quite frankly, stink. That’s my take on them. It should be good to find some common ground to work from. I’m sure the stench of a stinkweed should be generally accepted by all. However, if you like the smell of it, then more power to you.
Secondly, I haven’t seen the video, but have read the story of Nicole. So, I might be missing some parts, and if I am, feel free to update me on what is wrong with what I am interpreting to have happened in Oklahoma. Regardless, and without seeing the video, I can certainly agree that the persecution that Nicole suffered in her hometown was wrong. (And I’m not sure, maybe I need to re-read, it has been a few days since I first read the original story, but did those persecuting her openly admit and profess to be Christians or persecute Nicole with the tenets of Christianity?) Anyway, I would amount this as the same as “Christians” who protest outside of military funerals, or spew hate about homosexuals, or hate about race, whatever it might be. Christians that truly live what they say they believe should stand up against these types of actions that are held under the guise of Christ. A huge issue I think that most have with Christianity (OK, I can’t speak for everyone, but I think this is a major issue that those who don’t profess Christianity would say they have) is those that speak and say one thing and live another. Christ’s teachings had a basis in a love for others. (Yes j razz His life on earth as well was a model of submission to the will of the Father, don’t let me leave that out and be misunderstood in where I am coming from, I just want to follow the train of thought that I have begun). He commanded to love the Lord you God…, and secondly to love your neighbor as yourself. I think that we can all agree, Nicole included, that she felt very little love from what she endured. Obviously these persecuters talked about Christ, but as they say, "actions speak louder than words."
As a Christian, I can understand what you, j razz, mean in some of your responses, but I can also see some areas where you might take offense to what he says, Cineaste. In general, regardless of whether you believe it is right or wrong, a Christian is commanded to share the Gospel of Christ. (For now I hope we can focus on the Oklahoma situation and not get into a side bar at the moment about whether or not the Bible is true, etc. We could go round and round on that one for another tangent). But this command doesn’t come from a “have to” as j razz was accused of in an earlier post. From a Christian’s belief, faith in Jesus Christ leads to eternal life. The most meaningful act of love, this being the case, would be to share with others about what this faith means, thereby giving others the opportunity to accept or reject this as true. Now, there may be other points to consider here if you were to go deeper into aspects of Christianity, such as what j razz said about God working on the heart, etc. But, hopefully, again, I’d like to focus on this train of thought. However, for a person to reject the message and say, “I won’t no part of that” in no way gives the right or make ok for a “Christian” to turn on them with the display that Nicole endured. Regardless if someone shared with accepts Christ or not, the mandate is to show the person love. This does not mean accepting everything they do or showing unhealthy tolerance (such as watching them make bad choices without calling them out on it, like drugs, etc.) It means you still care about them as a person, not because you have a mandate to do it, or you have some unhealthy “Borg” thing going on. (That did make me laugh by the way), but simply because God has placed in you a desire to care about that person. I know this can be debated Cineaste, the existence of God and Him placing a desire in you to care about this person, etc. But I’m speaking to you from my beliefs and I hope that we can at least agree on the point that we may not necessarily agree with what each other thinks, but we can accept it and dialogue from it. And obviously, part of being able to call someone on areas where they might be making a mistake is a tricky subject, and has to be approached with love, friendship, an inspection of your own life to avoid hypocrisy, and a desire to see what's best for that person, not the idea of pressing an agenda. Unfortunately, with protests and what not, we often see the ugly side of "Christianity" and not examples akin to Jesus having dinner with thieves and crooks. Sadly, most "Christians" wouldn't be seen talking with someone of ill repute let alone hang out with them and care about them on the basis of friendship.
But I guess that’s what I’d share about Nicole. I agree she should not have had to endure the persecution she faced. But I would also say that those persecuting her do not reflect the Christ that I placed my faith in. I would not see Jesus standing alongside those mocking and scorning someone who does not believe. I think those that claim to be “Christians” and hurl insults at others based on their lack of belief fail to remember at one time or another, anyone who claims the name of Christ, did not believe either. Really, I think the whole issue comes down to a lack of empathy.
Hi Tony,
"So, I might be missing some parts, and if I am, feel free to update me on what is wrong with what I am interpreting to have happened in Oklahoma."
Please check out the video of Nicole I linked to in my first post. The article doesn't do Nicole justice. You get a much better idea of the person, who she is, by hearing her story from her lips.
"But this command doesn’t come from a “have to” as j razz was accused of in an earlier post."
I didn't accuse j razz, I simply quoted him and took him at his word. J razz himself said he "had to." Maybe he misinterpreted scripture? Does he "have to" or not? Which is it?
"I will be praying for you (and as a "fundamentalist" you know I have to)." - j razz
Tony, may I put the same question about Nicole to you, as I put to j razz? Do you accept Nicole as an atheist? I think j razz is afraid to answer that because the answer is, NO. This is the third time I've asked!
It is clear that you really don't want to talk about Nicole; you just want to put forth your atheistic agenda. That is fine, I just wish you would be forthcoming about it. This never really was about Nicole for you; at least that is what your comments show.
Maybe he misinterpreted scripture? Does he "have to" or not? Which is it?
Scripture commands us to pray (I am responsible to do it) and it is my choice to pray. So, in one since I do and in once since I do not. I think you are trying to make something out of nothing (i.e. be divisive)
I think j razz is afraid to answer that because the answer is, NO. This is the third time I've asked!
I don't know what you think I would be afraid of. I have been very forthcoming with you about my beliefs concerning God, Scripture and the gospel. I tell you what Cineaste, once you answer the questions I posed above, I will answer your question. I did not answer it as I thought we were going to talk about Nicole.
So again I ask you, what does it mean to love Nicole?
"Have I ever defended those who persecuted her?"
Yes. You said it's a Christian's duty to convert atheists like Nicole
-Did I? Show me where I said this.
Like I said, you are only interested in converting Nicole...
-Show me how you can draw this conclusion from what I have typed.
You sided with Hardesty assimilation attempt, not with Nicole. You justify their unwelcome attempts thusly, "but it goes against scripture not to share the gospel with her and to set before her what it is to be in right standing with God."
-Really? You call that siding with the Hardesty "Christians"? Do you really believe that? Again, you see what you want to see and not what is really before your eyes.
Show me how they shared the gospel through what they did.
She does not want Christians to "share" their superstitions. Why are Christians so dense about that?
-So are you saying that b/c she does not want others to "share" that they then have no right to share? Whatever happened to freedom? She (you) have the freedom to listen or not to listen. Just like you have the freedom to tout your atheistic agenda, I have the freedom to share the gospel. I could very easily ask you the polar opposite: why are you so dense about Christians obeying scripture?
"Do you really think the Hardesty crew really saw Nicole as a potential convert?"
They wanted Nicole in their prayer circle. Nicole, turned them down.
I am starting to understand more of why you are so confused on this matter. You think that conversion consists of joining a prayer circle.
Just by asking someone to pray before a game does not make them a potential convert. Do you think that when at a high school football game and the announcer asks for everyone to bow their heads for a word of prayer that he considers everyone there in the stands, on the field and within hearing range potential converts? Sure you don't.
"...it appears to be more about you and your atheistic agenda than about a young girl named Nicole."
Do you realize that Nicole is an atheist? Why don't you talk about Nicole instead of me? I know I'm interesting but sheesh! :)
Seriously, you have done nothing but spouted your agenda since starting this conversation. It appears that you are using Nicole as an instrument in furthering your agenda as opposed to really caring about Nicole and her well-being. If that is not the case, then why so much talk about atheism and how Christians are dense? Why not talk about Nicole?
So, from now on, let's speak only about Nicole, not me.
What happened to that? It appears that if you truly cared about Nicole, you would have swallowed your pride and left your agenda behind and engaged in conversation about Nicole. Instead you have kept with your agenda.
(Just to keep you up-to-date, I will be out of town tomorrow and out of pocket until Monday. This should give you plenty of time to formulate your argument... or swallow your pride and write about what you say you are here for; Nicole.)
j razz
I skipped your post, j razz. At this point, I'm much more interested in Tony's answer, if he is still following this.
No worries. Have a good weekend cineaste.
j razz
Wow Cineaste, you really have twisted and distorted j razz's comments, and have been uncharacteristically cranky about it in the process. I'm disappointed.
Sorry Tim, I'm only calling a spade a spade.
Twisting someone's words and accusing them of saying something they didn't say = calling a spade a spade? I've not heard that before.
"Twisting someone's words and accusing them of saying something they didn't say..."
Examples?
He's already given you the examples, Cineaste. Maybe you ought to take the time to read his comments.
I did, my quotes are accurate. J razz is mistaken.
Christians, do you accept Nicole Smalkowski as an atheist who is also a good girl?
You're going to have to clarify your question, because there are so many levels here I don't know where to begin.
Do I acknowledge that she's an atheist? Yes.
Do I accept that atheism is a correct belief system? Of course not.
Do I think she's a good girl? I have no idea. It's pretty silly to try to make that judgment on the limited information we have available. Besides, a lot of it depends upon your definition of "good." Jesus said there are none good except one, and that is God.
The question I have is, how does someone who claims no objective standard of right and wrong determine what "good" is?
Maybe I can simplify it for you. Is it possible for Nicole to be an atheist AND a good person simultaneously?
"Good" in this context, refers to a morally excellent; virtuous person. I believe Nicole is a morally excellent, virtuous girl. If Nicole were a Christian, I'd believe the same thing. So, do you accept Nicole as a good (morally excellent, virtuous) girl even though she is an atheist?
"...how does someone who claims no objective standard of right and wrong determine what "good" is?"
To me, this question indicates that you believe atheists are amoral. Is this correct?
Yes, I'd say it's possible for an atheist to be a moral, virtuous person, as far as human standards of morality and virtue go.
As I've said in another setting, I’d much rather live next door to an atheist who is faithful to his wife, respects the laws of the land, works hard and is socially responsible than to live next door to a professing Christian who steals my stuff, hits on my wife and cusses in front of my kids.
Again, I can't speak to whether Nicole fits this description because I don't know anything about her.
To me, this question indicates that you believe atheists are amoral. Is this correct?
Not necessarily. I'm asking how you determine what "good" is when you don't believe in any objective standard of good. What's good to you may not be good to someone else.
"Again, I can't speak to whether Nicole fits this description because I don't know anything about her."
What was your impression of Nicole from the video?
"Yes, I'd say it's possible for an atheist to be a moral, virtuous person, as far as human standards of morality and virtue go."
I noticed you removed the word "excellent" from "morally excellent." Why? Can't atheists be "morally excellent?" How about non-Christians in general?
"I'm asking how you determine what "good" is when you don't believe in any objective standard of good. What's good to you may not be good to someone else."
I don't know, but I have a definite opinion about this. Before I answer, may I ask how you would answer this? Will you reply that Bible scripture, as God's word, is THE objective standard of right and wrong (morality)? How then how do Christians pick and choose scripture from the Bible? They don't follow everything the Bible says like stoning people who work on the sabbath. (Exodus 31:15, Numbers 15:32,36) It seems to me, human beings get morality from somewhere other than scripture.
On another note, I've noticed many Christians have the same sentiment as jrazz, "it goes against scripture not to share the gospel with her and to set before her what it is to be in right standing with God." Once Nicole says "Thank you for sharing your religion with me but no thank you, I'm Atheist." When can she expect the Christians to stop? There's a fine line between "sharing" and "harassment." The Hardesty Christians obviously crossed it.
Hey guys, sorry I haven't commented this weekend. I don't have internet access at home. Behind the times I guess. I saw your question Cineaste about do I accept Nicole? What do you mean? And I apologize again, but I'm not able to see the video from my computer. I'll have to take your word for it that it was worse than the article made it out to be.
"What do you mean?"
Hi Tony, go four posts up. It's marked July 21, 2007 6:23 PM.
Hey Cineaste, good to see the conversation hasn't ended about this over the weekend. Its an interesting discussion. I'm sorry to still be a little dense, (I'll admit that) but what exactly are you asking? Am I ok with Nicole being an atheist? Or would I be friends with her? I just want to make sure to address what you are curious about.
cineaste - when I said "skimmed" I did not mean to imply that I ignored large blocks of your interchange. For me, skimming is mere reading without a lot of reflection. Sorry for the confusion.
I still say you guys are off track. There really is no need for contention, unless you are willing to strip away the "Nicole" veneer at get right to the point: Are attempts at evangelism forms of persecution in their own right?
jrazz has not been discussing that question. He has tried to discuss the Hardesy situation. There's your disconnect.
Here's my read:
jrazz "Those guys were wrong. We need to remember that loving Christian witness certainly does not look like this."
cineaste "Aha! So, you do believe in Christian witnessing! You are just like those guys and are now justifying what they did."
jrazz "No. Not at all. I was just trying to to point out that either these people are not Christians at all, or else they were really misguided. IF these guys starting with good motives, then they really have some misunderstandings."
cineaste "Just admit it! You can't accept someone who believes differently than you do. Isn't that the same bigotry as evidenced in Hardesy?"
jrazz "I can accept that a person believes differently, but must I stop caring what she believes? Since I really do believe that Christ is the only way of salvation, I'll still care about her soul. And, with love and respect, I'll do my best to show her what real Christianity is all about."
cineaste "See? All you people are the same! Ignorant. Bigoted. You only see people are targets for conversions."
Pastor Klay "Now boys, quit your rough-housing."
1-10 How does my summary rate?
Klay,
I would say you have me pegged pretty well for a cursory read. Well done. 10.
Cineaste, what would you say?
j razz
Hi Tony,
"Am I ok with Nicole being an atheist?"
Yes, that's part of it. Can you do more than simply tolerate Nicole. Can you accept her as a morally excellent, virtuous person? For example, once Nicole says "Thank you for sharing your religion with me but no thank you, I'm Atheist" at what point to you accept her wishes? Do Christians respect it when Nicole says, "no."
"I would say you have me pegged pretty well for a cursory read. Well done. 10. Cineaste, what would you say?"
I'd say, "surprise, surprise!"
Well, you certainly don't hound the girl!
Have you ever been hounded, Cineaste? Perhaps this is a root influence - some wacked out street preacher who wouldn't listen to your "no thanks"?
"Have you ever been hounded, Cineaste?"
Mostly by ex-girlfriends. It sounds as if you want to talk about me. I am flattered by your interest in my personal background.
"Perhaps this is a root influence - some wacked out street preacher who wouldn't listen to your "no thanks"?"
Psychoanalysis? Will you ask me to lie down on the couch and talk about my mother next? Please!
Listen, I'm just looking for a straight answer to a question I asked in post #1 and have been asking till now, post #44.
Yes, I realize you don't want to hound the girl. Yes, I realize you want to save her soul. Yes, I realize you don't think the Hardesty Christians went about "witnessing" properly. Yes, I realize you "love" Nicole.
But Jiminey Crickets, these don't address my questions!
(No better epithet came to mind that I could safely use for emphasis on a Christian blog, suggestions?)
Can you do more than simply tolerate Nicole and her atheism? Can you accept her as a morally excellent, virtuous person, who is also an atheist? For example, once Nicole says "Thank you for sharing your religion with me but no thank you, I'm Atheist" at what point to you accept her wishes? Do Christians respect it when Nicole says, "no?"
Three of these questions can be answered by "yes" or "no," and then you can elaborate. It's not hard. For example, if Nicole were a Christian: Yes, I could do more than tolerate a Nicole, and I can totally respect her even though she believes differently than I. Yes, I can accept Nicole as a morally excellent, virtuous person, who is also a Christian. As soon as Nicole says "Thank you for sharing your atheism with me but no thank you, I'm Christian" I'd reply, "fair enough, but if you want to talk more, let me know." Yes, atheists do respect Nicole when she says "no."
Now it's your turn.
P.S. Klay, how are you doing with my second premise on Sword & Trowel?
I have already answered your question back on Tim's blog... well before you ever asked it here. If I would "accept" you as an atheist as evidenced in the quote below, why would I single out Nicole and treat her any other way?
Contextual Link
#
j razz says:
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
...Seriously though, if you ever come to a point in your life where these things lie heavy on you and by the grace of God you are open to understanding the bible, I will be more than happy to invest time into dialoguing with you concerning these things. Have a good night Cineaste.
j razz
________________________
#
Cineaste says:
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Thank you for that, j razz. I’d still have to decide which religion, let alone which Christian denomination is true, if any. I am a philosophical guy so I’ve been reading a lot of Greek, Enlightenment, and especially, Existentialist literature. In the meantime, I’d like to extend the same courtesy to you. If you ever become skeptical and have questions, I’d be happy to discuss it with you.
Cheers!
j razz
Man, talk about being behind. Sad I can't check as often. By the time I answer a question, everyone has moved on to the next thing. But anyway, Cineaste, I'm finally getting back to you. Hopefully I worded this to make sense the way I mean it. I am sort of having to be quick about writing my responses.
Thanks for clarifying, again. I gather now what you are asking about “accepting” Nicole. A couple scenarios: 1) Would be if I were a close friend of Nicole’s, and the 2) Other would be if she was merely an acquaintance or someone I didn’t know really at all. Personally, I have found through examples that evangelism is much more effective when you have a relationship with someone. Please don’t misunderstand that to hear me say that I form relationships for the sole purpose of evangelism. That is not the case at all. I live my life and go to work and make friends just like anybody would. However, if/when the opportunity arose to speak about my faith, I would. Most of the time it comes up just in conversation. I don’t know the picture that a lot of people have about the average Christian, that they sit around and plot the best strategy to “assimilate” (to borrow a word, that still make me laugh) the world around them. Your faith should be part of who you are, not something you have to work at to present to someone. Your life should line up with what you believe, in your actions, attitude, and words to others. So then they know that what you say you believe has made a difference in your life. Over the course of a conversation, I’ve found often that simply by letting others see how you live makes them ask you questions. And I share with them. If they don’t accept it, I’m still going to be their friend. If they go through trouble, I’ll still pray for them and help them as best I can. Too often the picture of a Christian that is presented in the mainstream are the ones that are out there, as I said in an earlier post, protesting funerals and mocking those going into abortion clinics, etc. Now obviously, as a Christian, for example I don’t support abortion. But also as a Christian, how does it further the true cause of Christ to stand outside a clinic and yell at a teenager how they are going to hell for what they are doing? Wouldn’t it be more effective to come alongside of them and truly care about them for who they are and show them the love and grace that God has shown in my life? If they don’t accept it, I can’t control that. My calling (again, not from a have to, but a want to) is to share with someone. For the second option, where they might be simply an acquaintance, if they don’t accept it, you can acknowledge that and move on. You might share again if it comes up again, but in the meantime you live your life as an example of what it means to be a Christian. You might not be perfect, but you admit your mistakes and show care to others around you. I guess I hate to use this line, but I’ve heard it said, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” That has to be the attitude. You can’t condemn the actions AND the person. What hope is there offered in that? So to answer your question, can I accept Nicole as an atheist, yes. If I were her friend and shared with her and she said no thanks, I would still be her friend and continue to pray for opportunities that she might have questions about the faith; or ways to integrate some faith into the conversation without causing friction in our friendship. If I didn’t know her, shared with her, and she said no thanks, what advantage would it be to then condemn her on the spot? I would again, be friendly and courteous to her as I would expect the same from her if the situation were reversed. I believe only God can change a heart, and He has given me the role of sharing the forgiveness and grace that I have experienced. I cannot brow beat someone into submission to change their life, nor should I.
"...can I accept Nicole as an atheist, yes."
Thanks Tony, that's the answer I was looking for. If Christians can accept Nicole as an atheist, surely God can.
What's that mean?
Absolutely. If Nicole were to change her heart and turn to God, He would absolutely accept her. Scripture (again Cineaste, I understand you may not agree that Scripture is true, but I am sharing with you from my belief that it is) is very clear in its message that God is forgiving and wants to have a relationship with us. Especially in the story of the Prodigal Son, God shows his incredible mercy and love to us. As a Christian, our belief is that Jesus Christ died to pay for our wrongs and give us a way to approach God. Now additionally, that is also not to say that since Nicole is an atheist, that God is ready to nail her with a cosmic lightning bolt or something either. God still shows His grace and mercy to us everyday. The fact that we wake up each morning is a gift from Him. And the picture that was given in Oklahoma is not one of a Christian. To me, that was simply bigots hiding their attitudes under the guise of Christianity. I have and can plainly have conversations with people in sharing my faith that do not believe in the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ, but we still walk away acknowledging that at this point we disagree, and with our relationship still intact. And to that person, what is going to show them that what I am sharing with them about is true? For me to harass them afterwards as Devil worshiper or whatever Nicole was called? Or continue to lovingly share with them and to continue to be their friend in spite of our differences? I guess its a lot like what I said briefly in another post, that no matter what I say to someone, I can't manipulate them into truly making a decision for Christ. I can live a life in front of them that makes them want to ask questions, and I can pray for them that God would reveal Himself to them, but in the end, ultimately, for them to make a decision for God is out of my hands. I don't want to close a conversation between us Cineaste, but I do not believe that God is happy that Nicole is an atheist, as in He wants to have a relationship with her. And Christian doctrine says that our situation as humans was so bad that the only way to open up that channel and communication line with God again was for Christ to die. So if God can simply now just be like, "ok, whatever is cool," would make the beating and the death of His Son meaningless. And ultimately, as a Christian, we do believe in separation from God at death if you haven't accepted Jesus Christ's sacrifice on your behalf. But, that's the hope we have as humans, that everyday that God gives us, there's the opportunity/possibility that we can turn from our lives of selfishness and hard-hearts and accept Christ. One of the areas I know you mentioned was that Nicole can be a good person, and morally excellent. Do I think she can be? Absolutely she can be a good person in terms of our perspective. But, the difference is that God looks at our hearts, and who we ultimately are at the core. We still have the tendencies of bitterness, selfishness, jealousy, etc. All those things that we can control at times, but not in our innermost parts. A big difference in Christianity and not believing is that most people think that all people are inherently good. But Scripture points out that from the beginning we have a nature that isn’t. We want what we can’t or don’t have. We make up stories about ourselves or others. We hate those that aren’t like us (Oklahoma was a great example of this). Christ is the only way to truly address these issues.
"If Nicole were to change her heart and turn to God, He would absolutely accept her."
But, then Nicole wouldn't be an atheist anymore. Didn't you say, "I accept Nicole as an atheist, yes." Do you want to change your answer to, no? Or, is the case that you accept Nicole as an atheist but God does not?
Give me a break, Cineaste. Tony explained all too clearly the first time what he meant when he answered your question. You chose to take his statement out of context, to paint him as saying something he didn't say -- much like you did with j razz earlier on this topic.
It says a lot about the validity of your position when you have to twist people's words and take them out of context in order to make your case.
I misquoted?
"It says a lot about the validity of your position"
What is Nicole's position?
I'm ok with you questioning what I post Cineaste. I know sometimes my thoughts don't come out as clearly as I want them to. I take it as you are just chatting back and forth and not as an attach against me or anything. So by all means, if you don't understand something, ask me. I guess I'd have to ask what you mean by the word "accept?" If it is sorta what we are talking about earlier, like being a good person and stuff, then yes, she could be in the context of a human perspective views good. But from the perspective of God, she'd have to experience the forgiveness of Christ to be considered good, or what you've probably heard from a Christian perspective, righteous. It goes back to what I said about how we look at things, people view the outside or how things appear, but God views the heart, and how things truly are. Like you can be nice to people, but still have a problem with pride. You know, stuff like that. Is that what you meant by "accept?"
What is Nicole's position?
That is a good question cineaste. I will see what I can do about contacting her to see if she would be willing to share her position.
j razz
"I take it as you are just chatting back and forth and not as an attach against me or anything."
You are correct. And may I say, thank you for understanding.
"I guess I'd have to ask what you mean by the word "accept?"
By all means, Tim asked what I meant by "Good" earlier. "Good" meaning "morally excellent, virtuous." "Accept" means "receive with approval or favor." (from dictionary)
"...she could be in the context of a human perspective views good."
By this, everyone "Could be" good. My question in post #1, "Are Christians able to accept Nicole as she IS; not as a potential convert or someone whose soul needs saving but as an atheist who IS also a good girl? I hope that Christians don't pray for Nicole to "Find Jesus." That's what's causing her such misery. Christians, if you need to pray, pray that other Christians accept Nicole as an atheist who IS also a good girl." Also, you intimate that humans view "good" differently than God does. By definition, this is a double standard.
I think the the gulf that separates Atheists and Christians is, atheists believe Nicole is a morally excellent, virtuous girl. If Nicole were a Christian, they'd believe the same thing. The difference being, Christians don't believe Nicole is a "morally excellent, virtuous" girl because she is also an atheist. As Tim asked earlier, "how you determine what "good" is when you don't believe in any objective standard of good?" See? Atheists don't even know what "good" means. If they don't know the difference between "good" and "bad" how can they be moral at all?
So, do you accept (receive with approval or favor) Nicole as a good (morally excellent, virtuous) girl even though she is an atheist?
I'm not asking can you accept her once Nicole becomes a Christian, I am asking you if you can accept her as she is now, as an atheist? You answered "yes" before. There is no shame if "no" is what you meant. If your God does not accept atheism, why should you?
-----------------------------------
j razz, allow me to spare you the trouble. Nicole's position is atheism.
j razz, allow me to spare you the trouble. Nicole's position is atheism.
Atheism is not an all-encompassing answer. You can't fit a round peg through a square hole per se. She is a person. She has feelings. She has an opinion- a first person opinion. We may disagree, but hopefully we can talk with Nicole and not just about her.
And don't worry, it's no trouble.
j razz
J razz, Nicole expresses her position in the video. It's atheism. Try to understand that.
I do understand that she is atheist. She is very clear and upfront about that. But I also understand that there is more to the story than, "she is an atheist".
Now, I could say I am religous and a Mormon could say they are religous and both of us have two different views of God. In the same way, your views concerning atheism could be different than her views.
Would it not be beneficial to see how Nicole would like to be accepted as an atheist by the religous, especially Christians? Would it not be beneficial to see what she thinks of the Hardesty "Christians" and what they could have done differently that would have made her feel accepted?
j razz
As Tim asked earlier, "how you determine what "good" is when you don't believe in any objective standard of good?" See? Atheists don't even know what "good" means.
Cineaste, the misrepresentation by you on this topic is reaching epic proportions. Nowhere did I say that you (or atheists in general) don't know what "good" means. Nowhere. Everyone has a framework by which they judge what is good and what is not. I asked how someone who has no objective standard makes those determinations (a question which you still haven't answered). I even clarified when you mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that I was suggesting atheists are amoral.
At this point, I'm done here. I'm not going to continue taking the time and effort to converse when it seems that your only intention is to twist and misrepresent what everyone is saying (since you've now done it multiple times).
Good night, all. Carry on.
Definitions are the sticking point in this continuing discussion. Accept her? Yes. Approve (or accept) of her atheism which is in itself sin? No. Accept her right to be an atheist? Absolutely!
We are not quick to jump through the hoops you have provided because of nuances of intended/perceived meaning.
Should a Christian stop viewing anyone with a hope to their eternal salvation? No. You might define this as a lack of acceptance - by your own definition. But we would differ on what personal acceptance entails.
You seem to require complete approval for acceptance - that's why everyone is slow to answer.
Also, the "morally excellent" label is confusing. Since we see all humans as sinful creature (including ourselves) there is no one who measures up to God's standard of righteousness. Thus the slowness on our part. Can I see her as every bit as moral as any other sinner (including myself)? Yes. If you want to call that moral excellence than be my guest.
You're reading too much into the comments, and in turn, we are weary of your intentions by selecting certain terms.
Hope it helps.
PS - I'm working on a website redesign right now, but I'll respond on Sword & Trowel tomorrow.
"...misrepresentation by you on this topic is reaching epic proportions."
Since you are leaving the conversation I'll just reply that you're full of it. In no way have I misrepresented what you have said. I call it like I see it. Statements like "...you don't believe in any objective standard of good" deserve contempt, for it is in itself a perversion of what I believe. I answered, but you didn't get the message. At this point, the only person here who is even trying to understand is Tony. You and j razz have spent 60 posts dodging my question and only Tony answered honestly. That speaks well of his Christianity in my eyes.
"Since we see all humans as sinful creature."
What? Why in the world do you think this?
You and j razz have spent 60 posts dodging my question...
Are you implying you haven't? There are more than your fair share of questions in the preceeding posts that you have left unanswered; one being Tim's question to you concerning morality.
cineaste, the very fact that you say you "call it like you see it" when in reality you call it with a bent bias to connect the dots that are not even there to support your argument further gives proof to the need for a savior. You are not exempt from sin regardless of whether you believe in God or not. (Just so you know, I am not the only one who can see you are doing this.)
"Since we see all humans as sinful creature."
What? Why in the world do you think this?
Differing world views. We derive a world view from scripture and you do not.
During a conversation in another blog, I recommended to you that you should read some Christian Doctrine books as you were wanting to learn. Have you picked up any? This is a very basic Christian concept and it is explained quiet well in this book.
cineaste, would you care to restate your point and main contention again and maybe that will get us back on track as the past several posts have strayed from the original point of the discussion. I have stated mine below:
Here was my question: What does it mean to love Nicole?
Here is my stance: I do not support nor condone the Hardesty "Christians" in what took place as it concerns Nicole.
j razz
Hey what about me?
Whew, it sounds ridiculously heated in here. Anyway, good to see Cineaste that you are on the same page of just discussing and neither of us are taking things as rude or disrespectful.
I wanted to comment on a couple things you mentioned in your posts since yesterday. One was that "you hoped that Christians wouldn't pray for Nicole to find Jesus, and that was what was causing her such misery." I wouldn't agree with this. (Surprise, surprise, huh?) I don't think its the fact that Christians are praying for her or sharing their faith that is causing her pain. What was going on in OK wasn't sharing their faith or praying for her. No one that had any common sense or truly understood the sacrifice of Christ would ever consider what was done to Nicole "witnessing." Again, I'd have to reiterate yesterday that if someone truly wanted to show Nicole Christianity, they would treat her with respect and dignity, and share with her as their common experiences allowed through a genuine, mutual friendship. And also, again, many Christians share with others that they aren't close to, but if they reject what you are sharing, you don't act the way the Oklahoma people did. I can't judge others, but I would be very surprised if those that were persecuting Nicole even were true Christians. If they were, they really didn't understand much of anything about their faith.
Another point I wanted to speak to was, "If Nicole were a Christian, they'd believe the same thing. The difference being, Christians don't believe Nicole is a "morally excellent, virtuous" girl because she is also an atheist." I know many people that aren't Christians that are great people. They are great friends, good fathers to their kids, good neighbors, I could go on. They are virtuous people. But the difference is, maybe what you said about God seeing things differently did have some truth in it. Scripture states that our attempts at righteousness, good deeds, are like filthy rags before God. The meaning of the filthy rags part (I think) was like the rags that lepers use to wrap their decomposing body parts. So pretty much, when we try to do good on our own, its still really gross to God. The reason being is that our hearts are "dirty." For lack of a better way to describe it. A Christian believes we are born with a slant to do the wrong thing. So when we talk about the death of Christ, we are talking about it in the context of God sacrificing so that we are able to approach Him. There's a whole discussion we could get into about the holiness of God, etc., but I'm just trying to lay out a couple things for my points. So I guess when you said earlier, that a Christian could accept her, but God couldn't, in a way that is right I suppose. God still loves her, and desires to have a relationship with her, but if she continues to denounce Him, one day when she dies, there will be separation from Him. That's one of the things though, that when I spoke about God's grace, that He continues to give us life that everyday might be a chance to acknowledge Him.
Hopefully that doesn't come across differently than I mean it, I do again want to emphasize that when I say that God does not accept her , I mean it in terms of eventually after death, there will be separation from Him unless we admit that we have screwed things up and do need the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf.
But I wanted to ask you though, Cineaste, if you were in Nicole's place, you wouldn't have an issue if one of your close friends talked to you about Christ one day (and I mean a close friend, not an acquaintance) and you said, "No, that's not for me." They said ok, and continued to live a life in front of you that backed up what they said they believed. Wouldn't you be more likely to take a second look and say, "Well, maybe there is something to that." That's the problem in Oklahoma and what happened to Nicole. I again want to restate that Christians aren't (or shouldn't) just be going out to make friends for the sake of sharing with them. Its just part of your life and it should show. If I knew Nicole, and she was an atheist, I'd still be her friend (accept her).
I'm sure that there are a couple other points I'd like to address, but at the moment, I'm pressed for time. I'll try to check again later today. Have a good day all!
"...one being Tim's question to you concerning morality."
This is a topic unto itself. If you like, make a separate post with Tim's question. I can eviscerate his position. Notice that he didn't reply to my counter? I actually had to restrain myself from typing a page about this, completely off topic. Understand that I am the only free thinker in this conversation. When I pose a question there are four people to respond. When four people pose questions to me, I have to respond four different times. Do you recognize the disparity?
"...the very fact that you say you "call it like you see it" when in reality you call it with a bent bias..."
I'm being objective, you and others have a Christian bias. If you expect me to adopt a Christian bias, you'll be sorely disappointed.
"You are not exempt from sin regardless of whether you believe in God or not."
Everyone is exempt from sin if there is no God. They are not exempt from morality.
"During a conversation in another blog, I recommended to you that you should read some Christian Doctrine books as you were wanting to learn. Have you picked up any?"
I have learned so much about Christianity from the replies you and others provide, especially their tone. I haven't picked up any Christian doctrine books. Why would I want to learn your superstitions. I am more interested in learning why you believe these superstitions even though you are now adults. This fundamentalism Christians, Muslims, and Jews have to their religious doctrine is fascinating to me.
"cineaste, would you care to restate your point and main contention again and maybe that will get us back on track as the past several posts have strayed from the original point of the discussion."
"Those Christians persecuted Nicole just because she didn't believe what they did and wouldn't go along with them. This interview really made Christians look like a bigoted majority, at least in Hardesy, Oklahoma. Do real Christians want to change that perception? Are Christians able to accept Nicole as she is; not as a potential convert or someone whose soul needs saving but as an atheist who is also a good girl? I'm sure the Christians started off trying to convert Nicole in a friendly way. When she would have none of it, that's when the Christians turned ugly toward her. If Nicole does not want to hear your beliefs, you should still accept her as an atheist, not just "tolerate" her. I hope that Christians don't pray for Nicole to "Find Jesus." That's what's causing her such misery. Christians, if you need to pray, pray that other Christians accept Nicole as an atheist who is also a good girl."
"What does it mean to love Nicole?"
It means accepting her for the good person she is, an atheist. It means respecting Nicole's decision when she says, "Thanks for sharing your religion with me but no thank you, I'm atheist." Love has nothing to do with Christianity. Atheist parents love their children as much as Christians love theirs.
"Here is my stance: I do not support nor condone the Hardesty "Christians" in what took place as it concerns Nicole."
I understand that you believe the Hardesty Christians botched their "witnessing." The issue is, when Nicole refuses to go along with the Christian majority, when she rejects your "witnessing," will you respect her wishes, as she would respect yours?
"Hey what about me?"
Klay, did you think about this before you said it...
"Approve (or accept) of her atheism which is in itself sin? No. Accept her right to be an atheist? Absolutely!"
Atheism, not believing in a God is a sin? Believing in different Gods; being a Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, Pagan, Wiccan etc. is a sin? Basically, not being a Christian is a sin. That's outright bigotry (1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.). Klay, do I accept your right to be completely ignorant of non Christians and be self righteous. Absolutely!
"Should a Christian stop viewing anyone with a hope to their eternal salvation? No."
Should a Christian learn to take no for an answer? Yes.
Tony,
You're the only one who is talking with me, not preaching to me. I appreciate it very much. You said a lot. Please give me some time to think about what you said.
- Cineaste
I'm being objective, you and others have a Christian bias.
You are not objective. You are subjective; as is everyone. You have an atheistic world view and therefore the way you see the world and interact with it must first pass through that filter. Your statements here give evidence of that.
Everyone is exempt from sin if there is no God. They are not exempt from morality.
That is a big "if". As for the second portion, how are they not exempt from morality?
Why would I want to learn your superstitions.
I’m trying to understand the big picture of what it means to be a Christian... -Your statement from Tim's Blog
Those two statements are not parallel. Either you do want to understand the big picture of what it means to be a Christian or you don't. It can't be both.
Love has nothing to do with Christianity.
Care to prove that? Do you mean that it is not exclusively Christian? If so I agree, it is a form of common grace (an idea developed by Abraham Kuyper).
When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment is, He replied, "To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and the second is the same: Love your neighbor as your self".
Just to get it out there, I think the Hardesty "Christians" failed in this if what was stated happened. Love was not displayed to Nicole. Nicole was not loved how they loved themselves. If she was, we would not be having this discussion as the incident would never have taken place.
I have a question for you cineaste. I would like for you to really answer this without feeling you have to be defensive or offensive. I just want your opinion. If you had something that you held dear to you, would you not pass it along to your daughter? Let me take it a step further. If you believed something and you knew that, according to your belief, it was true, would you keep it from your daughter? Now one more step further, if you believed in something so much and that something affected all of mankind, would you not want to make it known to all? What is more loving, to keep those things you hold dear to yourself or to share them?
Here is where I am coming from. I believe the Bible (you already know that). I believe that the situation is something similar to this analogy:
Let's say we are at war with another country who has invaded our capitol. We utterly and swiftly defeat the regime in their home country. The tanks and troops are on their way to our capital to lay claim to that victory and administer justice to any that oppose them. Now envision this: I am one of the men who was apart of the defeated army. Word gets to me that my army has been defeated and that unless I throw down my weapons and join them, I will face the same fate. I believe this message of warning and go off to tell all my fellow brothers-in-arms the same message: The tanks are rolling in and the troops are comming. I don't know how long it will be- today, tomorrow, next week, but they are coming and we have been defeated. Come with me to avoid the same fate as those who opposed them.
Now, if I truly believe this, would I not share it with everyone I see? Would that not be love? (I am really asking your opinion here- emotions aside)
Just so you understand, that is kind of how we, as Christians, see the world. (all analogies break down so don't read too much into it) Christ has already defeated Satan, Sin, and Death and He is coming back to take that which is His and to judge.
If I did not share this message with my family, friends and others what I would really be saying to them is that I don't love them enough to share one of the most important things in my life with them.
I think you would tell your daughter about the errors you see in believing religions because you love her enough to tell her what you think is important to you. Further, I believe that is why you are still posting on this thread, because you want to pass on to us and all who read this what is important to you.
I hope that made sense.
...when Nicole refuses to go along with the Christian majority, when she rejects your "witnessing," will you respect her wishes, as she would respect yours?
Yes if that means to not share the gospel with her anymore- I will not change my life-style for someone else; I will continue to live out my beliefs just like I am sure she would continue doing the same if I asked her to stop trying to turn me into a "free thinker". (I don't think that is what you meant but I wanted to make it clear). Let me ask you this: when I responded to you on Tim's blog with the following, did that not show you that I would respect her wishes as I was respecting yours?
...Seriously though, if you ever come to a point in your life where these things lie heavy on you and by the grace of God you are open to understanding the bible, I will be more than happy to invest time into dialoguing with you concerning these things. Have a good night Cineaste.
Atheism, not believing in a God is a sin?
Rejecting God is a sin.
Believing in different Gods; being a Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, Pagan, Wiccan etc. is a sin?
Rejecting the God of Scripture is a sin. Scripture states that "No man comes to the Father, except through Me." This involves the Gospel and placing your faith in what Christ did for something we could never do for ourselves.
That's outright bigotry (1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.)
Would you not say that atheism falls under that same definition?
Now, I am asking you to respect the people who are dialoguing here. The name calling and trying to provoke someone to anger is not something that adds to the conversation... so in regards to your comments towards Klay as a person, stop. In regards to your comments towards Tim as a person, stop. I don't believe that they or myself have said anything to personally attack your character. On the other hand, it appears that you have. Let's dialogue and let's be civil. By the way, anytime you have to qualify your remarks with, "I mean that in the literal sense of the word" or something similar, why not just reword what you are saying so that it does not come across as being offensive? Thanks for understanding.
j razz
Don't worry j razz, I'm out of here. Tony, maybe we can talk somewhere else?
Sorry to see you go Cineaste. Maybe we could continue the discussion here since it looks like the others have moved on to the next topic anyway? I don't have access to a lot of sites or email from my computer here.
cineaste,
Feel free to continue. I will stay out of it if you prefer.
j razz
Did you have somewhere else you wanted to continue the discussion Cineaste? I could try and see if it would pull up on my computer here.
Cineaste, sorry if my classification of unbelief as sin was so offensive to you. I assure you that this is certainly the universal Christian position.
God has spoken through general (creation) and specific (scriptures) revelation. To reject that witness is to reject the one true and living God Himself - which indeed is a sin. Specifically, it is a violation of the first commandment.
I'm also sorry you interpret this biblical position to be:
complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own
I would say that I am very tolerant. Tolerance of diversity does not equal validation. I can tolerate positions with which I disagree. Does that make sense? Can you be tolerant is this same way?
Post a Comment