A thoughtful and informed reader wrote a public response to my latest Not Done Yet post. You can read their full thoughts (and other posts on their blog!) here.
(I hate that in today’s culture this disclaimer has to be said but you shouldn’t dox/comment/be mean to/etc. this person who is expressing their opinion. They get to think differently than me and are more than welcome to say whatever they want about me. I promise this is mild to some of the things I’ve received.)
I offer their original thoughts in italics followed by my response. Within the original italics, there is non-italic text in parentheticals if I thought extra context was needed since I chopped their thoughts up. As noted below, I won’t be making a main post of any further conversations, but I felt like this one warranted a main feed post. If further responses are made, I will come back here and provide a link to a publicly accessible page where you can read any further conversations between us. I’m also happy to discuss in the comments.
As I’ve stated many times on this page and in my social media ministry, you are not just welcome to disagree with me but ENCOURAGED. I really appreciate dialogue, particularly in the tense sociopolitical context we find ourselves in. All thoughts and perspectives are welcome! And I’ve literally always stood ten toes down on that.
As is often the case, I get banned from Christian blogs since they can’t answer my points.
I don’t think I’ve ever been banned from a blog but I have been banned from many churches, Facebook profiles, and Instagram pages. It’s definitely a shitty feeling (and also sometimes a satisfying one). I’m sorry that’s happened to you! I’ll say that it’s refreshing to have a non-believer yell at me instead of the normal Christian pastor 😊
I rarely block people and only do so when they become threatening or demonstrate that they’re unable to have a good faith conversation. I will and have shut conversations down when they a) run out of new ground and we’re just rehashing the same conversation b) one of us is unable to emotionally continue or c) the other person devolves into personal attacks that you can’t really rebute. (For example, I recently stopped talking to someone who accused me of being a trans athlete. I’m not one and I’m not going to argue with a stranger over whether I am one or not.)
They desperately need to pretend that no one ever counters them.
At the bottom of (almost) every post, I provide an opportunity for someone to provide their disagreement with me. You can also find me alllllll over the internet having discussions with people so I don’t think this is directed at me. But I agree that many Christian spaces present this ideology. I’ve written about this quite extensively but here’s a recent post for of my thoughts on this particular phenomenon.
So, below is a response to Bryce Van Vleet (linked to my post above), who is yet another christian who has the “right” way to bother people about his imaginary friend.
I try really hard to never bother people. I try to just present one viewpoint (my own) and encourage dialogue. I clearly missed the mark with you. I’m sorry for that.
I find it amusing that he claims he is the #1 selling author of his books. Any author is pretty much that. (memes at the bottom for your delectation) (I’m dumb and don’t know how to copy over pictures but you can see them in all their hilarious glory here).
I had never read it this way but now can’t unread it. This cracked me up 😊
“I am glad you see that many Christians weaponize their religion to get privilege. The problem with your claims is that there is no one Christianity, but dozens if not thousands.
Yes! Thank you for bringing this up! On the cutting floor of this post was me discussing this very concept, particularly discussing an interaction I witnessed between a Catholic and a Mormon in which neither saw the other as a sibling of faith.
You claim your religion is the only right one, just like those Christians do.
Could you please define who “those” Christians are? Thank you!
You cannot show one path to heaven, and christians can’t agree on which version of their god is the right one or which version of the religion is the right one. You disagree on the most basic things, and you have killed each other over that.
I completely agree with this. And we’ve not just killed each other but also people outside of the faith. The majority of the world has experienced genocide (in bodies or culture) at the hands of Christian ministers. The death and trauma is already a tragedy, but when you zoom out and acknowledge that they didn’t even agree with themselves, the whole thing becomes beyond words.
All of you want obedience to your particular flavor.
Including me? I don’t think I’ve ever advocated for this and, to be clear, don’t believe it. I identify as a Nomadic Christian which means I sample from many different flavors, sometimes even including non-Christian religions and worldviews. I agree with your claim that many Christians want to convert other Christians to their particular brand.
I was a Christian, and I have read the bible and many apologetic books. That means I know how christians don’t agree and try to spin what the bible says.
100% we do. I’ve also written about this at length over the last 10 years or so.
Your jesus says to bring those who don’t want him as king before him and slaughter them.
This is referencing Luke 19 I believe? I don’t doubt that someone preached this parable in a violent, unhelpful way. This parable is saying (in my view) that if you don’t believe in Jesus to save you, Jesus won’t save you. That language seems to make sense to me. If it doesn’t to you, you shouldn’t believe in it. I don’t think I’ve ever told someone they have to believe what I believe (which I think is true even in the classroom. As long as a student can defend their view, I don’t much care what it is).
You have made up your own version of Christianity that isn’t as vile as what comes from the bible itself.
Correct! I think this is how we all interact with ideologies though. I’d be curious if there’s an example of pure allegiance to an ideology you can think of? When I think about my political beliefs, they are interpretations made up by me about what I think about the world. The same is true about my religion. The same is true about the scientific theories I ascribe to and ignore in my professorial work. I guess I’m not sure how to practice something without personalizing it.
Universalism, escapism, etc all simply deny what they want out of the bible.
Again, I think this is correct. That’s why we have many different denominations and many people within the same denomination don’t agree with one another. I agree with you here as well.
That being said, I would still deny your jesus since there is no evidence for the claims of any version of Christianity.
Sounds great! I would say a solid 90% of the people I hang out and do life with also deny Jesus. Some don’t believe in anything (or might describe their beliefs as “spiritual,” like referring to astrology) and some believe in other faiths like Judaism or Islam.
There is no love or hospitality that includes the nonsense about about slaughtering non-believers, or a jesus that calls a woman a dog.
I agree that these things don’t sound very loving or hospitable. The tension with a lot of this lies in God being perfectly just and perfectly loving. Those things often feel opposed. I would name navigating how (and if) both of those can be true has been a central point of tension in my faith.
Your god fails even the half-decent definition of love in 1 Corinthians. Eternal torture isn’t love.
Just to be transparent, I don’t believe in eternal torture. Escapism is the belief that people can always choose to move to heaven. They can also choose to stay in hell. To me, love is offering someone a choice. If we disagree on the definition of love, that’s completely okay.
Approving slavery isn’t love.
I agree. Slavery discussed in the Bible and present during Biblical times was more analogous to working to pay off debt today. Chattel slavery that was widely practiced in the United States (and continues to be practiced both in the US and globally) is not discussed in the Bible. My view is that God is against this. Do other Christians disagree with me? Yes. As we both know, Christian preachers were one of the most prominent forces working against the abolishment of slavery in the United States.
Killing people, including children, for things they didn’t do or have control over isn’t love.
I agree. I think about and wrestle with this a lot with the death of David’s son after he (most likely) rapes Bathsheba.
That your religion has children worried about being damned and their friends being damned isn’t love and that’s exactly what your bible teaches.
I agree that religion which teaches children (or anyone) to be worried about themselves (or their friends) being damned isn’t love. Hence why I mentioned cringing at this in my post. I disagree that that is what my Bible teaches. I also would be surprised if children at the church I currently attend said they learned that.
The threats of your religion are no different than those from any other cult.
I agree with this as well as a social scientist. The only difference between what we call a “cult” and a “religion” throughout the literature and our culture is often the popularity of their beliefs. We might even think of something like the Church of Later Day Saints who began being thought of as a cult but is now (mostly?) accepted as a religion. Or, we might think of the Church of Scientology as something that was regarded as a cult, became accepted as a religion, and is now more often discussed as a cult.
Your jesus/god is quite like Abbott. This god says no one but his chosen should live.
You can, and people (Calvinists, among others), would interpret scripture this way. I don’t. If you’d like to hear a defense of predestination, here’s a Reddit thread of people discussing it. I don’t agree with your statement so am unfortunately unable to provide a defense for it.
This god says that if anyone should try to convert you to another religion, they should be killed.
Again, you can definitely find Christians who support this notion. I’ll let them defend their views. I believe one of my headings on the post you’re critiquing mentions supporting people’s right to not choose. In case it wasn’t clear in my last post, I absolutely support people’s right to choose not to be Christians. I don’t think they should be penalized with death, unemployment, loss of insurance, or anything else. As someone whose doctrinal home is in the Mennonite tradition, I hope no one would ever think of me as someone who supports religious persecution generally, or by violence specifically.
This god says that obedience to it is everthing, and if you do not obey it, you are damned.
Again, the god you’re describing isn’t one I worship so I can’t defend that god. I think mercy and grace are what makes Christianity an offensive religion because it is available even to the disobedient. You can read more of my thoughts on that here.
One of the problems with this is Christians can’t agree on what this god considers moral or considers to be a sin.
Completely agree. This is why I think Christians should be really cautious damning other people or their behavior and why I think we as Christians should hold all of our ideas loosely. I think when we get to heaven, there’s a lot I and everyone else is going to be wrong about. One (kind of easy?) way I think about this is the idea of God as “Alpha and Omega” or “the beginning and the end.” Particularly through my Westernized lens, a beginning is diametrically opposed to an ending. Because I don’t understand how that is possible, I’m assuming other things I think may not be correct or fully comprehendible to me.
Christians can’t even agree on how they are supposedly “saved”, so again, no reason to accept your jesus at all.
Completely agree. This is where I’ll bring in my Anabaptist leanings again to highlight that the term Ana-Baptist was created because Catholics thought Anabaptists were baptizing themselves again. Very clearly an issue of two groups supposedly of the same group saying vastly different things.
It’s bemusing, as a atheist, to watch Christians all claim that only their version is the “truth”. You’ve all ended up in a circular firing squad.
I also think this is funny (although also sad) when I hear Christians discussing this. I don’t agree with them. If I didn’t believe my own ideas were true, I wouldn’t believe in them. My understanding of beliefs is that they have to be true for the belief holder, otherwise I don’t think they could rightly be called a belief. What other people believe is up to them.
Is it faith in this god that saves one? How does one get this faith?
To your first question, yes, I think it is our faith that saves us. Other Christians might not agree. To your second question, I think faith is obtained when you decide to obtain it. Other Christians might say Baptism is what grants you faith, completing a certain class, or something else entirely. To your point, theology within Christianity is quite diverse.
Romans 9 and Matthew 13 has that the only ones who can get faith are those who are already chosen by this god, who allows them to believe. The rest are damned for no choice of their own. Is that just or fair?
Again, I can’t argue for a point of predestination I don’t believe in. I would argue that this choice can be made at any time, even after death.
Paul claims only childbirth will save women. Is that a “work”?
As the child of a woman pastor, I’m well versed in arguments surrounding 1 Timothy. I don’t think this is what Paul argues in verse 15. From my understanding, this verse is referencing that people are saved through Mary’s birth of Jesus. Would every Christian agree with me? Certainly not. The Southern Baptists (and others) would lean heavily into this chapter to overall support their claims that women are less than men. You’ll note in my faith beliefs that I don’t support that notion.
Jesus claims that belief is enough in other verses, and he claims belief and works are needed in the bit about goats and sheep. The author of james claims that it is both belief and works.
Yes, the Bible is full of contradictions. The Bible is not one book in conversation with itself but a collection of books (and exactly which collection of books will vary by denomination) in conversation with its context, other books, events, and popular thoughts of the time. This is why it requires active study and thought, not passive engagement. I think this is also why people arrive at different conclusions.
You’re right that throughout the Bible faith and works are emphasized in different ways. This is why denominations (and individuals) disagree with one another. My view is that faith is what saves you but works are what demonstrate your faith. For example, if I claim to believe that all people are made in the image of God, but don’t live that way, then I probably don’t actually believe that. Our faith and our works are separate in theory but flow out of one another in practice (in my view). So, works don’t matter in the fact that sinning can’t make me lose my salvation, for example, but ideally, I should be acting more or less consistently with what I believe. Am I good at this? No. I think like all beliefs (religious or not) it’s much easier to be a hypocrite.
Then, you show a typical excuse that Christian often invent for themselves.
Again, I personally think this is how all beliefs operate. We justify our beliefs because cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable. Whether this is about something esoteric like religion or why I think I don’t like eating black licorice, we typically invent our beliefs to justify them.
When a Christian fails in his attempts to convert others, they claim that it wasn’t them, but their holy spirit that failed.
I don’t view this as a failure of the Holy Spirit. I view this as someone not deciding right now to be converted. Which, again, is a decision I support their right to do.
Why would your jesus say to go out and convert and then allow you to blame someone else if you failed?
This is a great question. Why does Jesus allow us the choice to follow at all? Why not just program everyone for allegiance? I think this is because he wants to give us autonomy to follow him or not. It’s hard work following Jesus. It’s hard work following secular morals. It’s hard to think through things and wrestle with the questions that don’t have easy answers. Other Christians would say something different.
That verse from Matthew is a curious one since it shows how much your god fails its followers.
There’s a few verses I referenced from Matthew. Are you talking about Matthew 10:28-33? I’m not exactly sure what you’re critiquing so it’s difficult for me to formulate a response. I’m sorry!
You claim we can choose, and then you claim we cannot. Which is it?
My position is that you can choose. I’m not sure where I said you can’t but I apologize for that.
You claim only you know how this god wants you to act, and curiously other Christians don’t agree with you and also claim to have the only right answer.
It’s clear to me that’s how I came off to you but that isn’t what I meant. To be clear again, I don’t think I speak for all Christians and I don’t think I have all the right answers. This blog is a space for me to work out ideas. You’ll find many contradictions within my own thoughts.
Paul is quite a problem for Christians.
Agreed. Many Christians don’t like him or don’t read him. One issue with Paul is that his letters are about very specific contexts but are often applied without context.
He (Paul) assumes the “unknown god” is his in his arrogance. Modern Christian try that too when they insist that everyone “really” agrees with them, when they try to claim morality is only from their imaginary friend.
This is a great interpretation! I can totally see that perspective. I think many of the Greeks present in Paul’s conversation would agree with you and that’s why (among other reasons) they weren’t convinced by him! By point in brining him up is to say that Christians should try to understand other people’s views, not just barrel into their lives with assumptions.
You have no evidence for your god just like the Greeks had no evidence for theirs. Every theist makes very much the same claims.
I completely agree. This is what makes faith, faith, and science, science. As a scientist, I don’t think I can prove the existence of God. I’ve had experiences which have led me to believe in the reality of God and been unable to deny it. This is why I’m a Christian. I’ll also name that I’m often curious about other people’s religious experiences that are facilitated by a non-Christian god. As a psychologist, there is a TON of interesting neuroscience on how religious experiences are processed in the brain and can even be induced with stimulus. I’m okay living in that uncertainty. If you’re not, I don’t think you should have to! I also don’t think I should have to base my beliefs on your rationales. I think we can both be separate people with separate ideas and that’s okay.
I, having been a christian, knows just how ridiculous those claims are.
It’s very clear to me that you’re a person who has genuinely wrestled with scripture and Christian belief. You’ve come up differently than I have. That’s okay.
I know how Christians act if someone would dare to use the same silly patronizing nonsense in an attempt to “correct the object of their worship”.
Completely agree. You should see how Christians react to me when I tell them worshiping a political figure or system is not God.
I think it’s also important to understand that the verbiage I use with Christians is different than the verbiage I would use with an atheist. In the post you’re critiquing, I’m talking to Christians, and trying to get them to not be assholes when evangelizing. If I was writing an apologetic to an atheist (which isn’t generally my niche), I would use different words.
And Paul simply claims that people are damned, another baseless claim, if someone dares not to “choose” to follow his claims. He even attacks other Christians, insisting they are cursed if they don’t obey him.
Again, we have to understand Paul’s lens as a direct letter to a direct church in a direct context. He’s not saying, in my opinion, that people who don’t obey him are damned, he’s illustrating a very specific point to a very specific audience. I don’t think we should use Paul as someone who is writing to us today.
Those threats show just how your religion depends on fear and ignorance.
I fully agree that a lot of Christians base their faith on fear and ignorance, which is extra ironic given repeated calls throughout Scripture to NOT be afraid and TO worship God with wisdom and intellect. Again, I unfortunately can’t debate a point I don’t subscribe to.
That only some people followed Paul should tell you something, that this holy spirit is indistinguishable from personal choice.
I think you and I read Paul differently and that’s okay. Again, though, I can’t argue a point projected onto me that I don’t believe.
There is no good news from a religion that cannot agree on the most basic things, and that cannot fulfill its claims.
I agree which is why I think Christians should be loose with their ideals. I also think Christianity (and any belief, religious or otherwise) cannot be proved. Even scientific facts can disagree with themselves. These disagreements, theories, alternatives, etc. are what make up the scientific literature and what makes science fun to me. I don’t apply an empirical lens to Christianity or religion generally. If you do, that’s completely okay. I don’t personally feel the need to though.
Chrisitans do no more “good” than anyone else, and like everyone else, they each make up their own morality.
Agreed. Like I mentioned earlier, I think faith is, to use your words, “made up,” in some sense. I think it’s often a subjective experience. I think beliefs are not real in the way that other tangible things are but I don’t think this means beliefs are not real in a different way.
Each claims that this morality is agreed to by their god, and not one can support that claim.
Agreed. Hence why Christians should be slow (if ever) to police someone else’s behaviors. Living into our own convictions is the way to practice our faith and much more effective than trying to police others. That was a point I (apparently poorly) tried to make in my post.
The most effective gospel is one that can be shown true. Not a single essential claim from the bible can be shown as true. Not one Christian can do what jesus promises to his true followers. Not one can show their god caring for his chosen as it promises.
Again, I think we view faith differently. I’m not seeking an empiricized religion. If you are, great!
No one needs a Christian nation, since, again, there is no agreement on what Christianity even means.
LOUDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You still want to force your religion on others.
To clarify, I don’t. Like I mentioned, the majority of people in my life are not Christian. That’s okay with me. I still hang out with them. And I invite them to comment below if they’ve ever felt like I’ve forced my religion on them. I definitely will share worship songs or quotes or whatever on my personal social media. My friends know I go to church and ask me about it. In my view, those things aren’t forcing anything on anybody, it’s just sharing my experience in the world.
You have cherry picked your bible.
Again, I think all people emphasize and deemphasize parts of their belief. I generally disagree with the term “cherry picking” because I think interpretation plays a huge role in this.
BTW, your bible supports abortion. Numbers 5 shows that this god has no problem about ending a pregnancy either by magic or “bitter water” a herbal extraction that causes abortion just because a man is jealous. Add that to the repeated murdering of children, David’s son, the Egyptian children, the Midianite children and pregnant women, the children and pregnant women during the flood, etc, and I can see that this god doesn’t care about children at all. And I can see that anyone who worships such a god also doesn’t care about children.
Could I send you the number of a pastor who yelled at me in December for being pro-choice? I’d love for him to hear from someone who thinks I’m pro-life. I’ll share I said to him which is that I don’t think anyone’s interested (and I definitely don’t think they should be interested) in a gay person who will never impregnant someone’s opinion on pregnancy, abortion, parenting, etc. I don’t discuss my ideas around abortion publicly for that reason but if I did, I think you (and the December pastor) would have a hard time pinning me down into an easy category.
Your bible preaches a gospel of obedience and control. Revelation shows this in spades.
I do agree with this to an extent. I think practicing my religion means obeying God to the best of my ability and believing that God is in control. To me, that gives my life meaning and helps me. If it doesn’t for you, I don’t think you should try it.
Your attempt to whitewash Christianity doesn’t work very well with someone familiar with it.
You definitely have done your homework on Christian beliefs and interpretation. I think you have a great understanding of how a lot of people practice and understand Christianity in a Western context. I’m not sure when you wrote your original dissent that you understand my perspective well. That’s probably my fault for not explaining things well enough. I also again want to emphasize that was a post written for Christians, not an apologetic written for non-believers.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and am absolutely open to hearing more of them! I don’t think I love the format of posting further replies in this way, but I can compiled a public page of responses elsewhere on this blog.
Hope you have a great rest of your day/night/etc.! Thanks again for thoughtfully and meaningfully reflecting on my piece. I really enjoyed and appreciated hearing your thoughts.
Living Beyond 
Leave a comment