A “‘kinder, gentler’ Christian Nationalist” makes a Response

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.

25 responses to “A “‘kinder, gentler’ Christian Nationalist” makes a Response”

  1. brycevanvleet Avatar
    brycevanvleet

    Thinking about my last 30 in 30 post, I’m also just going to admit on the internet (because I am a lot of things in this life but I am also REAL) that I have fully dated men who have said less about me during our entire relationship than this person did in one post. So, a good goal for my thirties might be to not date people who have nothing to say about me.

    Like

    Reply
    1. clubschadenfreude Avatar
      clubschadenfreude

      ROFL. I always love how christians think that writing a lot is a bad thing. Complex claims require complex answers.

      Like

      Reply
      1. brycevanvleet Avatar
        brycevanvleet

        Could you explain more on why or how I think writing a lot is a bad thing? Thank you!

        Like

      2. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        you find it necessary to mention and whine about it:

        “Thinking about my last 30 in 30 post, I’m also just going to admit on the internet (because I am a lot of things in this life but I am also REAL) that I have fully dated men who have said less about me during our entire relationship than this person did in one post. So, a good goal for my thirties might be to not date people who have nothing to say about me.”

        No one mentions something like this without it being a complaint.

        Like

      3. brycevanvleet Avatar
        brycevanvleet

        Thanks for sharing that! Like I’ve mentioned, I’m not interested in a faith that’s provable but I totally understand that perspective. I feel like we’re at an impasse as we both want different things out of our beliefs so I’m not sure I have much more to add to the conversation unfortunately.

        Like

      4. brycevanvleet Avatar
        brycevanvleet

        Bryce, you keep insisting that you can’t answer questions since you don’t believe in the Christian god and bible I’m describing. I know that and it only underlines how you, and every other Christians do not agree on the most basic things. I am asking you to explain why I should think your claims any better than those people who also make the claim that they are the only TrueChristians™.

        I feel this line of the conversation has run its course. You continue to ask me why I think you should think my claims are better. I’ve repeatedly and consistently said I’m not interested in persuading you or anyone. I can’t explain why you should think my claims any better than others because I don’t think you should.

        Your mentioning how I post more than your boyfriends talk about you is a complaint and a comparison.

        I can tell this was really offensive to you and I’ve apologized. If you would like something else from me, please state it.

        You claim you agree when I point out how christians act, but you seem oblivious that you do what they do. You don’t agree with other Christians. You insist you are right. You take words out of context.

        I don’t agree with other Christians and I do think my beliefs are right for myself. That doesn’t mean they are objectively infallible.

        And you don’t allow my comment about this blog post here: https://brycevanvleet.com/2026/08/17/how-do-we-live-in-a-religiously-plural-society/ where you altered my post. Do tell why you didn’t allow the comment to appear where others can look at it and your blog post together.

        When I look at the “comments” section on my WordPress account, everything I see is approved. Can you help me understand where I should look to approve what I haven’t approved? I’m not willfully trying to censor you. I just don’t understand what I’m doing wrong and would love to fix it if I can.

        You either are oblivious or are pretending to be.

        You’re the second person who has said this exact sentence to me in the past two weeks so I am genuinely feeling like I might be an idiot lol

        Again, no one is accusing you of doing something “terrible”, only of what you have actually done. You evangelize just like the other Christians. You claim to have the one and only truth. That’s what happens when you claim others are wrong; that automatically claims you are right.

        Again, I don’t think I view the world as either right or wrong. I think there’s shades to reality.

        I am curious, Bryce, what makes a Christian a Christian?

        I would say calling oneself a Christian makes them a Christian. From a more objective stance, I guess I would say following Jesus makes you a Christian.

        You claim that catholics and Mormons are Christians, and yet they contradict each other.

        If truth is black and white, yes, the contradict each other. If truth operates in a postformal thought process as I think it does, then contradictions can both be correct, which is what I’ve argued.

        Here you are quite sure you are right: “Following Jesus’ is a choice people have to make for themselves. The work of the cross is difficult and sacrificial. If the only gospel we preach is one of force and control, if the only works of the gospel we produce are restrictions, than I am not convinced we are preaching the Gospel of Jesus. Rather, we are preaching a gospel of Greg Abbott and Bryce Van Vleet. These men, as good as they might be, are not worthy of carrying the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

        I’m confused again, though, because you’ve claimed I’m forcing people to believe what I believe. Now you’re saying that I’m saying that following Jesus is a person choice?

        even though you try to be self-effacing. The only gospel anyone preaches is their very own, and they all try to cloak it in the claims that Jesus really said it.

        Correct. I believe I’ve said that my subjective interpretations are what my beliefs are built upon.

        You are a Christian in spite of your doubts? That would imply you don’t actually doubt Christianity. There is either a perceived reward you think you’ll get or a punishment you will avoid being Christian, correct? Believing in case seems rather silly, as if this god couldn’t tell your motivation.

        You can doubt and believe at the same time. Again, I don’t think reality is black or white. It’s shades between, where doubt and belief – contradictions, in your words – can coexist. I think faith is about more than rewards and punishments, especially when we know that good things happen to bad people and bad things to good people. I do think God can tell our motivations, which is why I don’t subscribe to the same all or nothing theology that others do.

        When you provide your perspective as the one and only truth like all chrisians, it is wanting people to agree with you. Why else mention something that is a personal opinion? You could reman silent and nothing would change.

        Again, I can see how these premises are true if I believed that everything was either true or not true. As I’ve said, that’s not how I see the world. Why mention a personal opinion? Because I live in a society. As a writer, I share how I see the world. That’s what writing and art are. I could also say something and nothing could change.

        Religions beliefs are beliefs and claims about religion which depend on being correct. So, yes, if you have a belief you believe it is the one and only right one.

        Yes! I totally agree. It felt like this was something we disagreed on (or I thought we did) so I’m glad that’s been squared away.

        If you don’t think your religious claims are objective truth, then what do you think them to be?

        Subjective perceptions of objective truth. Or, you could think of this as the truth that’s gray that exists with other gray truths.

        People do think differently. Does that mean there is no objective truth?

        Correct. This is what I meant when I said you and I don’t see objective truth the same. You posit there is objective truth which necessitates there being an opposite that is objective falsehood. I think there are shades of truth or, in other words, no objective truth.

        And why do you claim to have that one and only truth: “Our responsibility is to acknowledge the truth of Christ and not deny him when we’re asked.”

        Except I don’t say “Our responsibility is to acknowledge the one and only truth of Christ and not deny him when we’re asked.” I think we should share what we think even when other people disagree. Again, I think this is the point of being a writer and artist. I’m not trying to convince people; I’m sharing my truth and not denying my truth when asked. That doesn’t mean that’s the one and only truth, though.

        Notably you can’t show “commentary” that shows that the parable of the minas says anything like you claim. There is nothing in the rest of the bible that changes what those words literally say.

        And if I believed the Bible was a deity or a part of the trinity, then I would have to take what the words say for what they literally say. But I’ve already mentioned I’m not a literalist. I think you have to study and pray and read exterior sources and think beyond the text. You want me to read the Bible in a way I don’t and then critique the way you want me to read it.

        We can compare what is said in that parable to what your god demands here:

        “ If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
        And here:

        “17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in mid-heaven, ‘Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of the mighty, the flesh of horses and their riders—flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great.’” Revelation 19

        and here “‘Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

        The context is that this god kills those it wants, which include those who don’t worship it.

        And, again, that’s a legitimate interpretation. When I lean on my Anabaptist interpretations, though, nonviolence is the only lens through which to see the world. Again, I don’t read the Bible literally although you and others certainly can. Here’s a quote from Hans Denck: “Whoever thinks he can keep the Law by following the good Book ascribes to the dead letter what belongs to the living spirit.” There are other ways of interacting with the Bible (and I would argue, all written word) besides just reading exactly what it says.

        My intent here isn’t to show you wrong as upposed to other Christians, but to show all Christians wrong since they all make up this nonsense.

        I think that comes through. I’m sorry if I made you feel otherwise!

        Their claims cause harm, including yours.

        I’d be curious to hear more. Are there any morally neutral beliefs?

        You don’t prefer the term cherry picking, but yet you do it.

        Which I’ve said.

        “I’m not convinced that me saying what I think is true means I think everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.”

        That’s literally what it does.

        When someone claims that everyone has their own truth, that makes truth worthless.

        I didn’t invent post formal thought or the idea that all of reality is subjective. This is a philosophy held by people who are religious and people who are not. The idea that everything either is or is not is not an idea universally held.

        Happily, there are objective truths,

        I disagree.

        and not a single religion can show that their claims are those.

        I agree. But let’s extrapolate further into all beliefs. No one can prove that their political beliefs or moral beliefs or anything of the sort are true. This doesn’t mean we don’t have them.

        People who contradict each other can’t be both right.

        Ah, but they can.

        Unsurprisingly, you have nothing to support “everything is subjective” since we know that sticking your bare hand in molten steel will quickly show you that belief won’t save you.

        Again, I didn’t wake up one morning and invent post formal thought or the idea that reality is subjective.

        The claim of solipsism is generally where theists end up in my experience.

        So we know I didn’t invent these philosophies overnight. You don’t have to believe in solipsism, Christianity, or anything else. But deciding that everyone who doesn’t think the exact same way you do, defining reality by your perspective, and then denying the reality of other people’s autonomy to conceptualize the world in a different way, doesn’t mean you are inherently, objectively right.

        They who win arguments have facts that support their side.

        And what happens to people who aren’t interested in winning? What happens to people who are interested in sharing their perspectives to share them, and to hear others perspectives just to hear them? There are more outcomes to participating in human society than either winning or losing. Some of us are interested in things beyond just winning or losing.

        Reality doesn’t change its mind.

        Whose reality? If I don’t believe in one objective reality, this argument wouldn’t be convincing.

        What does change is what humans discover which may or may not support a hypothesis.

        True

        Christians have had 2000+ years to produce their god and they have yet to do so. When does “right now” end for you?

        Again, not everyone is interested in concrete proof. I have proved to myself that God exists. Why do I need to convince you of it?

        As for the social sciences being true, that is indeed up for debate since they are not the same as the sciences that can use the scientific method.

        Yes, most natural scientists I meet think everything that’s not them is fake and made up. The social sciences do use the scientific method.

        Truth is truth.

        And this statement, again, is why we won’t be able to truly see and appreciate the other’s point of view.

        Science has ways to determine that. Religion has no way to show that one religion is better than any other. I can show how acid and base react and can predict it. Religion has nothing.

        Yet science is not the only epistemology available to us. If you want or need everything to fit into that lens, that’s fine. Other people, religious and secular, do not.

        No, everything you believe is not unbelievable to me. It is just when you stumble on trops like “most of my friends are…..” is when I disbelieve something. As for you not believing that your friends are damned just means you ignore the bible when convenient.

        Or it means that I don’t read the Bible like you want me to through the worldview that you want me to. And then you judge and argue all of my beliefs through a lens I don’t look through and triumphantly declare that you’re right when we’ve started at two completely different places and thus naturally arrived at two different conclusions. But because you only see one starting point, everyone else’s journey from different starting places by the nature of your conception of one objective reality doesn’t exist. In your mind, we’re falling through the sky aimlessly while we’re trying to tell you there’s a way to walk on clouds. None of my claims will ever be true because none of them start at a place that you’re willing to see.

        This is why I’m bemused by your insistence that you should evangelize. If there is no damnation, why should anyone want to join your cult? Why should you want them to? Non-chrisians are just as good, humane, compassionate, merciful, etc as chrisians are, so evangelisim does literally nothing for anyone. You claim how perfect your jesus is, and yet, it isn’t, so why bother? By ignoring your bible, we don’t have to believe in a god that murders children for things they didn’t do.

        I’ve never claimed non-Christians are evil. That’s a point you’re arguing with an archetype that isn’t me. To your first point, I don’t believe the only point in talking is to get others to see my view. There’s more to life and interactions with others to some people than winning arguments. As I’ve mentioned, you’re free to believe what you want.

        and that you say “I agree that God and I have different ideas of justice” makes me wonder why you think evangelizing is good for anyone at all? Expecially when you think love would have a hell. You blame the victim, not the abuser. And if the bible is up to interpretation, it is simply a human invention.

        And again we’re caught in the tension of one of us thinking everything either is or is not and another of us thinking it’s more nuanced than that.

        Why do you cling to the term “Christian”? Do you find it gets you more validation?

        I cling to all sorts of labels. They help me make sense of myself and the world around me. I suppose there is a certain validation in feeling a part of a group. We’re a tribal species after all.

        It also doesn’t surprise me to see your excuses for slavery, and your continued attempts to lie about what the bible says. Again, Leviticus 25 says everyone but Israelites are to be enslaved forever. Is this acceptable to you? Jesus did not abolish this at all. Your jesus says that *all* of the laws that jews follow are to be obeyed until the earth and heavens end. Both are still here.

        Again, I can’t defend a view I don’t believe through a lens I can’t see through.

        Jesus says to not stand against evil and jesus has no problem with slavery. That certainly seems to ignore the idea of not repaying evil for evil. That you seem to think that standing idly by while people are taken as slaves is acceptable is rather notable.

        Ope, again, not what I said. The slave doesn’t fight back. Other people do. You can’t repay evil with evil but you can attempt to destroy the system of evil.

        Yes, that is the way I see it and it is what you do. Wrestling with problesm like genocide shows that you find something more important than standing against such things.

        I think you’re confusing me being against self-defense with me being against justice for others which I’m not.

        Why “wrestle” and not dispose of this ignorant religion?

        Again, some people value more than just winning.

        And if I have trauma, do tell why that is something you find acceptable when it comes to your religion.

        I don’t find it acceptable. I have my own trauma, which I’ve written about quite extensively. Let’s zoom out. I think the world has hurt me. I think being alive has traumatized me. I think friends of mine have been mean to me and said things they can’t take back. I’ve had family members traumatize me. I choose to continue on anyway. My commitment to stay alive, to be a part of society, to continue relationships with people that are flawed, is not an open endorsement that none of that trauma existed or was hurtful. The same is true of my religion. If I am to flee from everything that has hurt, I will be left with nothing. That’s absolutely a worldview people can have, but it’s not one I choose for myself.

        Your god, if the bible is in anyway true, is the vicious failure who kills children: “Plenty of people see God that way. That includes you. You also claim that people shouldn’t agree with you and yet you say you should evangelize. How does that work? If they don’t need ot agree with you, why are you bothering them?

        I’m bothering people by posting on my personal site anyone is free to block or exit out of at any time? Again, it’s possible to share subjective opinions without needing everyone to agree with it, at least to me. Like I’ve said, sometimes you can have a conversation with someone who disagrees with you and not need to walk away a winner or a loser.

        Reality is reality. Beliefs must be perceived to be true to accept them. Objective truths always have to be true, no matter what one believes. Beliefs can align with truth and also diverge from it. Something being objectively true dos not make beliefs unable to be true.

        Again, I think we just see this differently, unfortunately.

        If your god is “unknowable”, then all of your evangelization is based on ignorant arrogance.

        Sure, but I’d again have to accept the worldview that something either is or is not.

        Ah, and here you are citing verses, that you are sure are right. How, again, does that work with your claim your god is unknowable?

        Everyone is unknowable. Should I just never pursue knowing them to some degree because I’ll never know them in full?

        “ 6 For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does.
        7 The end of all things is near; therefore be serious and discipline yourselves for the sake of your prayers.” 1 Peter 4

        This set of verses does a great job of showing hos bibles do not agree. Some insert “now” before the word “dead” which entirely changes the verses meaning. It’s also contradicted elsewhere in the bible “27 And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgement, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” Hebrews 9

        I’m not sure why we’re continuing to agree with one another that Christians, and Scripture, do not agree.

        here’s what another Christian has said about these verses “Second, this is an unclear passage, subject to many interpretations, and no doctrine should be based on an ambiguous passage like this. The difficult texts should be interpreted in the light of the clear ones and not the reverse.

        That’s another great interpretation.

        I know I don’t have much more to respond to but my eyes are getting heavy haha. I’ll try my best to finish up tomorrow but then school starts and I’m pretty much either working or sleeping but I’ll do my best to keep keeping up with the conversation. Just didn’t want you to think I was ghosting you!

        Like

      5. brycevanvleet Avatar
        brycevanvleet

        Okay never mind I just needed a shower. Also, I’m clearly not responding and threading this right so I apologize for that. I can’t quite figure out where to reply to and this is the only option I’m seeing. But I feel like my other replies threaded better?

        Anyway, one other brief thing I thought of regarding abuser/abused relationships and slavery as an example. Getting true justice for something does involving taking both the abuser and the abused perspectives in mind. In the case of slavery, we obviously need to free the slaves and give them some kind of reparation that removes the inequality caused by slavery. But we also need to create an economy that can’t survive on unpaid labor and also doesn’t need to. We need to create a society in which one person cannot think themselves better than another. That involves getting justice for the abused, but also taking into empathetic consideration how the abuser got into their position.

        Okay, enough of me rambling. Back to you.

        Third, there are other possible interpretations of this passage that do not conflict with the teaching of the rest of Scripture. (1) For example, it is possible that it refers to those who are now dead who heard the Gospel while they were alive. In favor of this is cited the fact that the Gospel “was preached” (in the past) to those who “are dead” (now, in the present). (2) Or, some believe this might not be a reference to human beings, but to the “spirits in prison” (angels) of 1 Peter 3:19 (cf. 2 Peter 2:4 and Gen. 6:2). (3) Still others claim that, although the dead suffer the destruction of their flesh (1 Peter 4:6), yet they still live with God by virtue of what Christ did through the Gospel (namely, His death and resurrection). This victorious message was announced by Christ Himself to the spirit world after His resurrection (cf. 1 Peter 3:18). – Defending Inerrancy

        Thanks for sharing this! Yeah, there are a ton of other, valid interpretations to this passage.

        And as expected, you can’t support your claims about Mary supposedly being in 1 Timothy and have to claim it is “subtext” which again has no support.

        It does not have any support when you ignore the studying of scripture that I’m advocating for, which relies not on empiricism but on spirituality, correct.

        You pick and choose what you want to take literally.

        Which I’ve claimed.

        Shall we just take the resurrection as metaphor?

        Some people definitely do! I don’t.

        The nature of reality is that you can’t have your own version. Unless you want to show I’m wrong and place your hand in that molten steel.

        First of all, great call back and excellently written. I don’t find myself particularly wanting to place my hand in molten steel. Others might. Masochists, for example, might seek out that experience, wanting or even needing pain in order to experience pleasure. Apotemnophiliacs enjoy sexual gratification from cutting off their body parts. I can’t say for sure that burning it off would be as appealing, but I can’t not either. There’s also self-immolators who might very well place their hand in that molten steel in search of a greater good. It doesn’t have to make sense to us to make sense to someone else. The nature of reality is inherently subjective. This doesn’t mean it’s entirely subjective. For example, when you vent to a friend and they see the same thing you did. Or, when two people want to avoid putting their hand in molten steel. The existence of multiple shared perspectives on one task does not void the entire premise (at least, in my view).

        Like

    2. clubschadenfreude Avatar
      clubschadenfreude

      right here: “Thinking about my last 30 in 30 post, I’m also just going to admit on the internet (because I am a lot of things in this life but I am also REAL) that I have fully dated men who have said less about me during our entire relationship than this person did in one post. So, a good goal for my thirties might be to not date people who have nothing to say about me.”

      why mention it?

      Like

      Reply
      1. brycevanvleet Avatar
        brycevanvleet

        I thought it was funny and self-deprecating. It wasn’t meant as an attack on you. If anything, it was attack on the men I’ve dated.

        Like

      2. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        It wasn’t, and it is typical for a christian to try to lie their way out of “humor” like this. You, like so many christians, whine about the length of posts and it is nothing new to see a christian claim I’m obsessed with them just like you have here.

        Like

      3. brycevanvleet Avatar
        brycevanvleet

        I guess I’m confused (like you are) why I whined about your length and then responded to each of your points? I was making a reference to the post directly before this one. I understand why you think it was a dig at you and I’m sorry that you felt I was attacking you. To be clear, I don’t think you’re obsessed with me. I think you’re very well versed in theology and scripture and you are defending your viewpoint which I not only support but also elicit. You come across as someone very hurt by and jaded towards Christianity. I can imagine how that happened and I’m sorry for it. I think that lived history is making everything feel like an attack when it isn’t meant that way.

        Like

      4. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        that excuse makes little sense, Bryce. The old claims of “hurt” and “jaded” don’t work since I’m neither. Christians do love to claim that to discount any words against their religion.

        Like

      5. brycevanvleet Avatar
        brycevanvleet

        And for what it’s worth, my latest bio does reference you (and two others). I’ll tell you when I’m making a reference to you.

        Like

      6. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        your latest “bio”? does that mean your about page?

        Like

      7. brycevanvleet Avatar
        brycevanvleet

        No one mentions something like this without it being a complaint.

        I’m not sure how effective continuing to debate my own motivations is going to be. I appreciate you sharing your perspective but I’m not sure I’m going to change your mind. However you think of me is how you think of me. I’m okay with that.

        Like

      8. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        Your motivations are easy to see. You have invented another version of christianity. You are no diffeent from the billions you disagree with.

        I am asking for evidence your version is true. If you cannot provide that, it may be something you want to consider.

        Like

      9. brycevanvleet Avatar
        brycevanvleet

        your latest “bio”? does that mean your about page?

        Sorry I missed this! The little blurb at the end of my latest post. I took out the #1 selling reference we realized was silly!

        Like

  2. clubschadenfreude Avatar
    clubschadenfreude

    This was quite a response from someone who complained I wrote too much.  

    I’m not sure about the mention of doxxing, which seems to be no more than  reverse psychology to get a Christian audience to do just that.  And if we are encouraged, why not allow my comments through? 

    That Christians ban each other is telling.  They really don’t agree on the most basic things, and again, not one can show that their claims are true.   It’s also typical for a Christian to try to excuse their actions, by accusing others of personal attacks, rehashing, emotion, etc. 

    You might be “allll over the internet”.  So? It is notable how you didn’t just allow my comment to be on the same page as your blog post.  Why not, Bryce? Why take it out context?

    I am glad you did post it at least here.   I wonder if I’ll be able to comment now. BTW, the link to your “recent post” on Christian spaces presenting this ideology”  is broken. 

    Every Christian claims they aren’t out to bother people with their evangelizing and every Christian bothers people with their evangelizing.  You present your religion as the one and only truth, and the one and only cure for a sickness you invent.  As is noted, you aren’t terribly interested in dialogue if you won’t post a response under the blog post that inspired it.  

    (I’m also curious what other way to read “#1 selling author” is)

    Indeed, Christians do not agree in the most basic things, so I’m wondering why you think you are any different. 

    You ask me to define who “those Christians” are.  Well, we can start with the Catholics and Mormons, Bryce.  From your “tut-tuting”, it seems that you don’t consider them to be Christian.

    So, if you agree, then I’m curious why you are a Christian at all.  You also have the problem your god does nothing, and considering how often it interferes per the bible, I’m wondering why you would still believe it exists.

    Yes, Bryce, including you when it comes to wanting everyone to agree with your flavor.  Why else evangelize?  You are a common type of Christian, one mentioned by Screwtape himself, a Christian who is sure that only their version is the right one.  Repeatedly throughout your original post, you make claims that only your version of Christianity is the right one.  You are sure that only “grace” is the way one is saved, and I know other Christians do not agree with you.

    Yes, I am referencing Luke 19.  And yes, that is a parable, and Christians can’t address what, if any “other meaning” it supposedly has.  That you must say “In my view…” shows just how chrstians do not agree and as such, cannot show any version to be true.  Unsurspingly, nothing about that parable corresponds to “if you don’t believe in Jesus to save you, Jesus won’t save you”  I’m curious how you draw that from “26 “I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.”’

    It’s amusing how you say “if you don’t like it, don’t believe in it”.  That’s quite the advocation of cherry picking the bible. You have already shown where you say others should believe as you: “Salvation can only come through faith in God – not through works. This is good news for sinners (which are all of us) as no matter how hard we try, we will always fall short of righteous behavior. If salvation is awarded through faith, than no good deed, whether it is of our own volition or something our political leaders forces upon us, will ever get us into heaven. “ 

    There is no pure allegiance to ideology, since humans can’t agree on what these things mean.  Your problem is that every Christian claims to have the one and only truth, and that truth should be forced on everyone.  Just look at your own words above.  How can truth have “interpretations”?   You also soft pedal the chritian claim that “but but scientists differ, so it’s okay for Christians to do so too” when with science the one with the facts wins.  In religion, it is never so cut and dried. 

    I find your claims that “most of my friends are…..” is rather unbelievable, and comes across like a white guy trying to claim that most of his friends are of color.  I have to ask you: do you think they are all damned, Bryce? 

    Those verses don’t only sound very loving or hospital, they aren’t.  Your claims that your god is “perfectly just and perfectly loving” doesn’t excuse the lies told by your jesus.  This god/jesus is neither since there is no justice in killing someone for the actions of another.  I ask this of Christians and strangely they rarely answer:  Is it just for someone to kill you for what I’ve done?  If it isn’t, then your god fails.  What is loving about calling someone derogatory names if they don’t agree with your claims?  As I noted, this god fails 1 Corinthians 13 badly. 

    I know you don’t believe in eternal torture.  You, like many christians, just ignore what you don’t like. Love is not having a hell in the first place.  You seem ascribe to the one of the Christians beliefs somewhat like Lewis provides when he blames humans for putting themselves in hell, which his bible never supported. 

    You also try the typical excuses for slavery.   Per the bible, there are two types of slavery, one like indentured servitude and one that is literally chattel slavery.  Israelites were the only ones afforded the first, and everyone else had the second:

    “39 If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves. 40 They shall remain with you as hired or bound labourers. They shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then they and their children with them shall be free from your authority; they shall go back to their own family and return to their ancestral property. 42 For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold. 43 You shall not rule over them with harshness, but shall fear your God. 44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.”  Leviticus 25

    And in case you want to claim Exodus 21 says no slavery, that entire chapter is meant only for Israelites. Other Christians do not agree with you since we known that plenty of Christians held slaves and cited the bible to do so. 

    As for abolitionists, they literally had to ignore their bible to do their work:  “18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19 For it is to your credit if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, where is the credit in that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.” 1 Peter 2

    When you claim you “wrestle” with these horrific verses, I find that false.  What you do is anything you can to excuse your god, no matter what it does.   Why isn’t it a easy decision to not support something that murders a child for its father being a rapist?  You also forget all of the children of the Egyptians, the Midianites (which were taken for sex slaves and your go demanded his share), and the children during the flood, along with the pregnant mothers in all of those situations. 

    You are in a religion and your bible says that children are damned if they aren’t the “right” religion.  It would surprise me to since, Christians lie to their children repeatedly, and it takes them reading the bible for themselves to find that out.  That’s what happened to me.

    This is pretty clear: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3

    “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” John 6

    Your jesus doesn’t say “except for children”. 

    You are right, there is no difference between a “cult” and a “religion”.  The LDS is no less a cult than your version of Christianity.  As for scientology, well, Xenu is no less fictional than your god. 

    As you admit, not all christians agree with you in your “interpretations”.  You can’t show your interpretation any better than theirs, and yet you all claim to have the single truth.  Predestination is as well supported in your bible as free will, if not more so.  It is also notable how you can’t show I’m wrong with stating your god says no one but his chosen should live.

    Yes, I can find Christians who all claim to have the one and only truth, and I can find no Christians who can actually support that claim.  You defend a baseless opinion, just like them.  In none of you religions can some one choose not to go to “hell”, if your god is intent on sending them there as Jesus and Paul both claim happens, Matthew 13 and Romans 9.  You claim you support the rights of people to not become chrisians but also claim that this god is perfect justice, which in your mind it seems. allows this god to do any harmful thing.  And since Mennonites persecuted their own, I’m not sure you have any moral high ground to stand on. 

    You have made up your own god, Bryce.   You ignore the parts of the bible you don’t like and then claim that this is the “right” way to worship jesus/god.  Your god shows no mercy to children, to women, and to those who believe differently.   The disobedient are killed by your god, when it isn’t killing innocents. Why should I believe your cherry picking over any one elses, remembering that you all claim the one and only “truth”? 

    I know you agree that you chrisians don’t agree.  Christians still damn people and neither they nor you “hold their ideas loosely”.  I find it hard to believe you doubt what you believe, since you believe it.  You then plead ignorance, when in everything else you claim to be sure you are right.  That is also common with Christians.  The hard questions are swept under the rug of ignorance and the christian just proceeds on their merry way.

    Catholics and anabaptist do indeed disagree and, again, both are ever so sure they are right.  Beliefs have to be true per reality, no one gets their own version of that.  And when those beliefs cause real harm, they don’t get a pass.

    Your bible says faith is given, not taken (Matthew 13 and Romans 9 again). Theology isn’t quite diverse, it is completely contradictory.   You can’t argue for any points, Bryce.  You just try to claim that your god is “mysterious” as so many do.  You can’t show that predestination is false or that your claims of free will claims are true.   Why do you claim the choice to believe can be done anytime, when your jesus says exactly the opposite?  There is no second chance after death per the bible.  Where do you get your version?

    Unsurspingly, the verses in 1 Timothy also literally says nothing about Mary.  You’ve made that up, intentionally taking it out of context.  “13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” 1 Timothy 2

    ROFL.  Oh dear.  Yes, the bible is full of contradictions, and here you are insisting that only your version is the right one.  Every Christian claims to know which parts their god “really didn’t mean”.  Every Christian claims they figured out their version from “active study and thought, not passive engagement”. 

    You then make your own method of salvation, just like all Christians.  Chrisians can’t agree on what the “image of god” even means, and again, each of you is sure that only you have the right way to “live”.   You also believe in once saved always saved, which again, other Christians don’t believe in.

    Beliefs that aren’t based on facts fail.   Beliefs that are based on facts don’t, so no, not all beliefs are the same.   You claim to have some objective truth, not an opinion like ice cream.

    How convenient for you not to think the holy spirit fails when someone doesn’t accept your claims. If this holy spirit is the same as this omnipotent god, it’s quite notable that it should never fail.   Again, bible says  no free will, so you are in trouble.

    No need to program anyone at all, per the bible.  Angels aren’t programed are they?  If people go to heaven and want to sin no more, no programming needed, just a nice place.  Again, this god forces people to do things, so no autonomy per your bible.   And yes, you all say something different. 

    These are the verses I’m referring to:  “‘Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. And even the hairs of your head are all counted. So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows. “Everyone, therefore, who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven, but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven. ‘”

    This god allows people to starve to death, when “once upon a time” it made food fall from the sky. 

    If someone can supposedly choose and that choice ends up with a bullet to the head, there is no choice. 

    Shall I show you where you claim to be the only correct Christian?  As soon as you say someone else is wrong, you also claim to be right. 

    I agree about Paul.  Christians can’t quite decide what to do with him.   I’ve found a rather nice website with a lit of all the times Paul contradicts Jesus.   I also have noted that Christians also can’t decide whether Paul is speaking to all Christians or not, and they always insist the inconvenient and vile bits are “really” just for those receiving the letter 2000+ years ago.

    As a scientist, you should think you can show that your god exists.  It should leave evidence by the events it supposedly caused.  There is no evidence for any of the essential events in the bible.  What we have is an absence of evidence *and* evidence of absence which should tell a scientist that there is nothing to be found.  

    What I have noticed is that good people, who happen to be christians, find they must chance their god and ignore their bible constantly.  Their god becomes more vague as they go.  They attempt to claim mundane experiences as evidence, which all religions do.  Yep, there is a ton of interesting science that shows what is claimed as divine contact is just a neurochemistry glitch. 

    I would not care about your happiness with uncertainty if Christians didn’t tend to force their religion on others.  That you may not, though your own words seem to show you want to, does not alleviate that fear.  Your belief affects those other than you, and as you know, all Christians aren’t the same.  What we can’t be is separate people who have their own reality since that isn’t true.  That’s why the wall between church and state is so important and that’s why Christian nationalists should be decried on every front.

    you do know you are the one who wants to correct others just like Paul, right?  “On the contrary, he commends their religious fervor and simply works to correct the object of their worship.”   And I do note that you used “atheists” in your keywords for that blog post. 

    So, can Romans 1:18-32 be ignored since it is evidently only for the Romans?  Most Christians are sure it’s for everyone.  I also note that you can’t tell me what the audience is and what the specific point is when Paul is off on his rant: “”6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!” Galatians 1

    He’d even curse an angel.  If you don’t think that Paul is writing to us today, why should I think that Paul, or Jesus himself, is worth following, if they aren’t writing to us today? 

    As for fear, your bible repeatedly says to fear this god. It should not surprise me that you ignore that too. 

    I’m sure we do read Paul’s claims differently, as do many Christians.  That’s is part of my point, how is this god so incompetent to allow that to happen *when* your bible says it will do anything to save the lost sheep?

    As I noted before, Christianity should be able to be proved.  Your jesus says that those who are his true followers will be able to do miracles like him and get *any* prayer answered, no excuses no exceptions. 

    Scientific facts do not disagree.  We may not know the entire story but magic has never been the answer and the scientific method is what we used to see which side of a hypothesis the truth.  Science is fun but it is not analogous to what theists claim about their gods. 

    I know that neither you nor any theist uses logic or empirical evidence.  It does only take ignorance and faith to accept.  I can say I trust evolutionary theory because of evidence but I do not have faith in it.  One cannot say that about religion.  As for me, real is real.  There is no magical way to know something otherwise. 

    And being good isn’t limited to your religion, no matter what it claims: “ For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we may walk in them.”  As opposed to this nonsense:  Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’
    They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is no one who does good.”

    And yet, here we are with you claiming that people need to be told your religion but you claim that Christians shouldn’t police behavior.  If you actually believed that, we would not see or hear any Christian claims.  This god would take care of everything, like it promises.   And for all chrsitians claim that they will only imitate their god, I can’t tell them from any other human being. 

    You should be looking for a religion with evidence, if you don’t have that, I can just be amused and know you are just believing in an adult santa claus. 

    If you evangelize, you do think we should be like you.  That’s hard to get around.  No one asks you to “share”. 

    “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.”

    Yep, interpretation does, and not a single chrisian can show that hteir claims are true.  Why is it that *you* can’t do what jesus promises?

    I find it hard to believe you are pro-choice when you make comments like this “Let’s ensure all people have a right to life that cannot be taken away by guns, surgeons, or the death penalty.”   Unless by abortion, how do surgeons take away the “right to life”?  My apologies if I misunderstood. 

    Most Christians are hard to pin down when asked direct questions.  They are like a buttered ferret. 

    And finally, you admit that obedience and control are at least part of your religion.  In that no Christian can agree on what obeying your god entails nor what it controls, I again see a cult that simply has nothing to back it up.  

    I do undersetand your perspective.  You are a good decent person and you know your bible does not support that.  So you do your best to invent a religion for yourself that is what you want. 

    Like

    Reply
    1. brycevanvleet Avatar
      brycevanvleet

      Here’s the first part of my responses. I’m not able to reply to everything right now but I will come back. I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you by not responding.

      This was quite a response from someone who complained I wrote too much.
      I didn’t complain that you wrote too much. You misconstrued me insulting myself and the men I’ve dated as an insult to you.

      I’m not sure about the mention of doxxing, which seems to be no more than reverse psychology to get a Christian audience to do just that. And if we are encouraged, why not allow my comments through?
      Your comments are allowed through. Where are you seeing them blocked? Including disclaimers to treat others kindly is a very standard practice on the internet today.

      That Christians ban each other is telling. They really don’t agree on the most basic things, and again, not one can show that their claims are true. It’s also typical for a Christian to try to excuse their actions, by accusing others of personal attacks, rehashing, emotion, etc.
      Once again, I agree.

      You might be “allll over the internet”. So? It is notable how you didn’t just allow my comment to be on the same page as your blog post. Why not, Bryce? Why take it out context?
      I’m not blocking your comments. And I’m responding to your comments “out of context” so that you (and everyone) can see what I’m responding to.

      I am glad you did post it at least here. I wonder if I’ll be able to comment now. BTW, the link to your “recent post” on Christian spaces presenting this ideology” is broken.
      I hope you can comment! I’m not seeing anything to block you. And thank you! I fixed that link. Also here.

      Every Christian claims they aren’t out to bother people with their evangelizing and every Christian bothers people with their evangelizing. You present your religion as the one and only truth, and the one and only cure for a sickness you invent. As is noted, you aren’t terribly interested in dialogue if you won’t post a response under the blog post that inspired it.
      I literally don’t know what this is continually in reference to but I clearly did something terrible. I’m sorry for that. You’re the first person to comment on here that I remember. I promise I’m not intentionally blocking you or doing something evil.

      Indeed, Christians do not agree in the most basic things, so I’m wondering why you think you are any different.
      I don’t?

      You ask me to define who “those Christians” are. Well, we can start with the Catholics and Mormons, Bryce. From your “tut-tuting”, it seems that you don’t consider them to be Christian.
      I do agree that Catholics and Mormons are Christian. I’m “tut-tuting” them saying the other is not Christian.

      So, if you agree, then I’m curious why you are a Christian at all. You also have the problem your god does nothing, and considering how often it interferes per the bible, I’m wondering why you would still believe it exists.
      That’s a good question. I’m a Christian because of my doubts, not in spite of them.

      Yes, Bryce, including you when it comes to wanting everyone to agree with your flavor. Why else evangelize?
      I don’t agree that providing my perspective is asking everyone to agree. I can see why you do, but I think we don’t conceptualize religious beliefs the same.

      You are a common type of Christian, one mentioned by Screwtape himself, a Christian who is sure that only their version is the right one.
      Again, I think if you have a belief, you should believe it’s the right one. It doesn’t feel like a belief to me otherwise.

      Repeatedly throughout your original post, you make claims that only your version of Christianity is the right one. You are sure that only “grace” is the way one is saved, and I know other Christians do not agree with you.
      I make claims on what I believe, not on what is objective truth. I’ve also admitted upteenth times that people think differently.

      Yes, I am referencing Luke 19. And yes, that is a parable, and Christians can’t address what, if any “other meaning” it supposedly has. That you must say “In my view…” shows just how chrstians do not agree and as such, cannot show any version to be true.
      Again, I don’t disagree that Christians disagree or that many aspects of faith or lack thereof are objectively true.

      Unsurspingly, nothing about that parable corresponds to “if you don’t believe in Jesus to save you, Jesus won’t save you” I’m curious how you draw that from “26 “I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.”’
      I draw it from commentary and my understanding of the verses in context with the rest of the Bible. As you say, I “made it up,” right?

      It’s amusing how you say “if you don’t like it, don’t believe in it”. That’s quite the advocation of cherry picking the bible.
      Again, I don’t personally prefer the term “cherry picking” but I agree that everyone chooses what to and what not to believe.

      You have already shown where you say others should believe as you: “Salvation can only come through faith in God – not through works. This is good news for sinners (which are all of us) as no matter how hard we try, we will always fall short of righteous behavior. If salvation is awarded through faith, than no good deed, whether it is of our own volition or something our political leaders forces upon us, will ever get us into heaven.
      Again, you’re more than entitled to think that stating my opinion is forcing others to believe as me. I’m not convinced that me saying what I think is true means I think everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

      There is no pure allegiance to ideology, since humans can’t agree on what these things mean. Your problem is that every Christian claims to have the one and only truth, and that truth should be forced on everyone.
      Again, I think that people disagreeing doesn’t imply force in changing someone’s opinion. That’s okay if you do, but I can’t defend something I don’t believe in. I’m sharing what I believe in. If you or someone else doesn’t believe in it, that’s okay with me.

      Just look at your own words above. How can truth have “interpretations”?
      Our subjective experiences are true for ourselves but not objectively true. For example, you thinking I was insulting you for writing too much was true for you. That doesn’t mean that my interpretation of writing that was the same. We’re both right despite both of our truths being opposite. Everything is subjective in my view. What is true depends on who’s speaking.

      You also soft pedal the chritian claim that “but but scientists differ, so it’s okay for Christians to do so too” when with science the one with the facts wins.
      The one with the bulk of the facts right now wins. Science does change its mind and facts change, particularly in social science.

      In religion, it is never so cut and dried.
      Agreed, though. I think science and religion treat truth differently.

      I find your claims that “most of my friends are…..” is rather unbelievable, and comes across like a white guy trying to claim that most of his friends are of color.
      That’s completely fair. In my defense though, everything I believe is unbelievable to you.

      I have to ask you: do you think they are all damned, Bryce?
      No I don’t. Do you know why might that be, given what you know about my beliefs on eternity?

      Those verses don’t only sound very loving or hospital, they aren’t. Your claims that your god is “perfectly just and perfectly loving” doesn’t excuse the lies told by your jesus. This god/jesus is neither since there is no justice in killing someone for the actions of another.
      That’s a fair interpretation.

      I ask this of Christians and strangely they rarely answer: Is it just for someone to kill you for what I’ve done?
      No, I don’t think that’s just.

      If it isn’t, then your god fails.
      I agree that God and I have different ideas of justice.

      What is loving about calling someone derogatory names if they don’t agree with your claims? As I noted, this god fails 1 Corinthians 13 badly.
      That’s a fair interpretation.

      I know you don’t believe in eternal torture.
      Asking me if I think my non-believer friends are damned doesn’t come across that way to me.

      You, like many christians, just ignore what you don’t like.
      I agree.

      Love is not having a hell in the first place.
      A lot of people would agree with you.

      You seem ascribe to the one of the Christians beliefs somewhat like Lewis provides when he blames humans for putting themselves in hell, which his bible never supported.
      Yes, I do think Lewis and I see hell and escapism similarly. Again, what the bible says is up to interpretation. You could absolutely make the argument that the Bible doesn’t support escapism.

      You also try the typical excuses for slavery. Per the bible, there are two types of slavery, one like indentured servitude and one that is literally chattel slavery. Israelites were the only ones afforded the first, and everyone else had the second:
      “39 If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves. 40 They shall remain with you as hired or bound labourers. They shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then they and their children with them shall be free from your authority; they shall go back to their own family and return to their ancestral property. 42 For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold. 43 You shall not rule over them with harshness, but shall fear your God. 44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.” Leviticus 25
      God is providing instructions for how to interact with the slaves around them and that they own. This still doesn’t defend slavery that was used in the US and elsewhere. Also, Jesus abolished this law. Why it existed in the first place is a good question.

      And in case you want to claim Exodus 21 says no slavery, that entire chapter is meant only for Israelites. Other Christians do not agree with you since we known that plenty of Christians held slaves and cited the bible to do so.
      I agree.

      As for abolitionists, they literally had to ignore their bible to do their work: “18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. 19 For it is to your credit if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, where is the credit in that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.” 1 Peter 2
      You could make that argument. Abolitionists and others might argue that this extends Jesus’ argument not to repay evil for evil. Saying you shouldn’t fight back against evil doesn’t mean that the evil isn’t evil.

      When you claim you “wrestle” with these horrific verses, I find that false. What you do is anything you can to excuse your god, no matter what it does.
      I agree that’s the way you see it.

      Why isn’t it a easy decision to not support something that murders a child for its father being a rapist? You also forget all of the children of the Egyptians, the Midianites (which were taken for sex slaves and your go demanded his share), and the children during the flood, along with the pregnant mothers in all of those situations.
      Yes, there are lots of terrible things in the Bible that God condones or does Godself. I perceive myself to wrestle with that.

      You are in a religion and your bible says that children are damned if they aren’t the “right” religion. It would surprise me to since, Christians lie to their children repeatedly, and it takes them reading the bible for themselves to find that out. That’s what happened to me.
      I’m sorry. I can tell you have a lot of anger about Christianity and its effects. I’m sorry for that. I hope you’re able to get support for religious trauma.

      This is pretty clear: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3
      “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” John 6
      Your jesus doesn’t say “except for children”.
      Other Christians and people would definitely agree with you.

      You are right, there is no difference between a “cult” and a “religion”. The LDS is no less a cult than your version of Christianity. As for scientology, well, Xenu is no less fictional than your god.
      Sounds great!

      As you admit, not all christians agree with you in your “interpretations”. You can’t show your interpretation any better than theirs, and yet you all claim to have the single truth.
      Yes. I think this is true about all beliefs though as I’ve said.

      Predestination is as well supported in your bible as free will, if not more so.
      A lot of people would agree with you!

      It is also notable how you can’t show I’m wrong with stating your god says no one but his chosen should live.
      I think a lot of people would agree with that. I don’t.

      Yes, I can find Christians who all claim to have the one and only truth, and I can find no Christians who can actually support that claim.
      Agreed. I think faith, and many of our beliefs on morality in generally, can’t be proven.

      You defend a baseless opinion, just like them.
      Yes. I think all opinions are inherently baseless because they are opinions and therefore subjective.

      In none of you religions can some one choose not to go to “hell”, if your god is intent on sending them there as Jesus and Paul both claim happens, Matthew 13 and Romans 9.
      That is definitely one way of looking at it.

      You claim you support the rights of people to not become chrisians but also claim that this god is perfect justice, which in your mind it seems. allows this god to do any harmful thing.
      I’m not sure how to respond to your perceptions of my thoughts. You’re allowed to perceive my thoughts however you want.

      And since Mennonites persecuted their own, I’m not sure you have any moral high ground to stand on.
      I wasn’t trying to stand on moral high ground.

      You have made up your own god, Bryce. You ignore the parts of the bible you don’t like and then claim that this is the “right” way to worship jesus/god.
      Correct. I do think I subjectively define my own perceptions and then think my perceptions are correct. I’ve admitted to this.

      Your god shows no mercy to children, to women, and to those who believe differently. The disobedient are killed by your god, when it isn’t killing innocents.
      Plenty of people see God that way.

      Why should I believe your cherry picking over any one elses, remembering that you all claim the one and only “truth”?
      I’m not asking you to. In fact, I think I said multiple times that you shouldn’t.

      I know you agree that you chrisians don’t agree.
      I’m not convinced you know that I agree with that based on multiple times throughout your reply where you’re still trying to teach me that.

      Christians still damn people and neither they nor you “hold their ideas loosely”. I find it hard to believe you doubt what you believe, since you believe it.
      Again, if all of my beliefs are subjectively interpreted through you and then held up to me to defend their subjection, I’m not sure what you want me to say.

      You then plead ignorance, when in everything else you claim to be sure you are right. That is also common with Christians. The hard questions are swept under the rug of ignorance and the hristian just proceeds on their merry way.
      Isn’t this just cognitive dissonance though? I think we all do this.

      Catholics and anabaptist do indeed disagree and, again, both are ever so sure they are right. Beliefs have to be true per reality, no one gets their own version of that.
      I think you and I have a different philosophical understanding of reality. I disagree that beliefs have to be true. I would actually argue that beliefs can never be true if we’re defining truth as perfectly objective. I think this is maybe the crux of why we won’t agree.

      And when those beliefs cause real harm, they don’t get a pass.
      I agree.

      Your bible says faith is given, not taken (Matthew 13 and Romans 9 again). Theology isn’t quite diverse, it is completely contradictory. You can’t argue for any points, Bryce.
      I can argue them. You just disagree with my arguments when I do. And that’s okay.

      You just try to claim that your god is “mysterious” as so many do.
      I do think God is unknowable in my humanness. If you only want to believe in things you fully understand, you should.

      You can’t show that predestination is false or that your claims of free will claims are true.
      I agree. Again, I don’t need an empiricized faith. I’m never going to be able to prove what I can’t prove.

      Why do you claim the choice to believe can be done anytime, when your jesus says exactly the opposite? There is no second chance after death per the bible. Where do you get your version?
      1 Peter 4:6 and Ephesians 4:9 support the idea that the dead can and are preached to.

      Unsurspingly, the verses in 1 Timothy also literally says nothing about Mary. You’ve made that up, intentionally taking it out of context. “13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” 1 Timothy 2
      Mary is in the subtext of this verse. I don’t believe in literalism so I’m not going to read literally.

      ROFL. Oh dear. Yes, the bible is full of contradictions, and here you are insisting that only your version is the right one. Every Christian claims to know which parts their god “really didn’t mean”. Every Christian claims they figured out their version from “active study and thought, not passive engagement”.
      I don’t know what other words you want to use to tell you that I believe faith is subjective.

      You then make your own method of salvation, just like all Christians. Chrisians can’t agree on what the “image of god” even means, and again, each of you is sure that only you have the right way to “live”. You also believe in once saved always saved, which again, other Christians don’t believe in.
      We keep rehashing the same point which is ultimately that we construe beliefs differently.

      Beliefs that aren’t based on facts fail.
      That’s your belief about the nature of beliefs. I don’t subscribe to that. That’s okay but, again, we’re going to have trouble coming to agreement when we disagree on the nature of reality.

      Beliefs that are based on facts don’t, so no, not all beliefs are the same. You claim to have some objective truth, not an opinion like ice cream.
      Not exactly. You claim that I claim that I have objective truth. You also claim that beliefs are true. I don’t believe I have objective truth and I don’t believe beliefs are true. I can’t defend your claims about myself that I don’t believe.

      Like

      Reply
      1. brycevanvleet Avatar
        brycevanvleet

        How convenient for you not to think the holy spirit fails when someone doesn’t accept your claims.

        That’s fine if you think that.

        If this holy spirit is the same as this omnipotent god, it’s quite notable that it should never fail. 

        I agree.

        Again, bible says  no free will, so you are in trouble.

        Can you please provide the verse if you’d like me to comment on it?

        No need to program anyone at all, per the bible.  Angels aren’t programed are they?  If people go to heaven and want to sin no more, no programming needed, just a nice place.  Again, this god forces people to do things, so no autonomy per your bible.  

        I’m sorry but I’m not understanding your argument here. I feel like we’re saying the same thing but then I’m reading your comment like we disagree.

        And yes, you all say something different. 

        One of many things we agree on! 😊

        These are the verses I’m referring to:  “‘Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. And even the hairs of your head are all counted. So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows. “Everyone, therefore, who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven, but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven. ‘”

        Thank you! I don’t see these verses as evidence of God’s failing. Can you explain more?

        This god allows people to starve to death, when “once upon a time” it made food fall from the sky. 

        Another contradiction and mystery!

        If someone can supposedly choose and that choice ends up with a bullet to the head, there is no choice. 

        I agree.

        Shall I show you where you claim to be the only correct Christian?  As soon as you say someone else is wrong, you also claim to be right. 

        I agree with you if there’s an issue with only two sides, but I’m not convinced saying one thing is wrong is the same as saying the opposite is right. Again, I believe that my beliefs are right for myself, but that doesn’t mean everyone else who has ever thought differently than me is wrong. Multiple contrasting truths exist simultaneously all the time.

        I agree about Paul.  Christians can’t quite decide what to do with him.   I’ve found a rather nice website with a lit of all the times Paul contradicts Jesus.   I also have noted that Christians also can’t decide whether Paul is speaking to all Christians or not, and they always insist the inconvenient and vile bits are “really” just for those receiving the letter 2000+ years ago.

        Definitely!

        As a scientist, you should think you can show that your god exists. 

        I should also probably exercise more. Unfortunately, I am who I am.

         It should leave evidence by the events it supposedly caused.  There is no evidence for any of the essential events in the bible.  What we have is an absence of evidence *and* evidence of absence which should tell a scientist that there is nothing to be found.  

        I do see evidence of the Bible, particularly when you acknowledge that much of the Old Testament is Jewish myth in which stories are not historically true but true nevertheless. Again, I think we’re thinking about the nature of reality and truth differently which probably makes it hard for us to see one another’s perspective.  

        What I have noticed is that good people, who happen to be christians, find they must chance their god and ignore their bible constantly.  Their god becomes more vague as they go. 

        This is a really interesting observation!

        They attempt to claim mundane experiences as evidence, which all religions do.  Yep, there is a ton of interesting science that shows what is claimed as divine contact is just a neurochemistry glitch. 

        See! Another thing we agree on 😊

        I would not care about your happiness with uncertainty if Christians didn’t tend to force their religion on others.  That you may not, though your own words seem to show you want to, does not alleviate that fear. 

        I completely understand being afraid of Christians forcing their beliefs on you. As a gay person, I’m sure you can imagine me sharing some of those fears. You don’t have to believe me when I tell you that I don’t need anyone else to believe what I believe.

        Your belief affects those other than you, and as you know, all Christians aren’t the same.  What we can’t be is separate people who have their own reality since that isn’t true. 

        I feel like I’ve addressed our differences on the subjective versus objective nature of reality enough, but if you’d like me to keep going, I can! Just let me know.

        That’s why the wall between church and state is so important and that’s why Christian nationalists should be decried on every front.

        I agree from my perspective. It sounds like I don’t from your perspective so this feels like a moot point.

        you do know you are the one who wants to correct others just like Paul, right?  “On the contrary, he commends their religious fervor and simply works to correct the object of their worship.”  

        Thanks for allowing me to clarify! “Correct” here refers to the definition of adjusting something, not correct/incorrect. You’ve already rightly pointed out what a bad writer I am. I think this is another example.  

        And I do note that you used “atheists” in your keywords for that blog post. 

        WordPress is who hosts my site and assigns keywords.

        So, can Romans 1:18-32 be ignored since it is evidently only for the Romans?  Most Christians are sure it’s for everyone. 

        I don’t think that we can paint in broad strokes of how to apply Scripture across the entire work, even within books.  

        I also note that you can’t tell me what the audience is and what the specific point is when Paul is off on his rant: “”6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!” Galatians 1

        Do you want me to respond what I think, what every Christian has ever thought, and/or what the objective truth is? I don’t want to comment and not actually answer your question.

        He’d even curse an angel.  If you don’t think that Paul is writing to us today, why should I think that Paul, or Jesus himself, is worth following, if they aren’t writing to us today? 

        Every time you ask this, I respond that I don’t think you should believe if you don’t or can’t believe. Then you say I’m forcing you to believe. I’m not sure how to answer in a way that reflects to you what I mean.

        As for fear, your bible repeatedly says to fear this god. It should not surprise me that you ignore that too. 

        Fear in those verses refers to reverence not being scared.

        I’m sure we do read Paul’s claims differently, as do many Christians.  That’s is part of my point, how is this god so incompetent to allow that to happen *when* your bible says it will do anything to save the lost sheep?

        Unfortunately, I can’t speak for every interpretation you’ve ever heard.

        As I noted before, Christianity should be able to be proved.  Your jesus says that those who are his true followers will be able to do miracles like him and get *any* prayer answered, no excuses no exceptions. 

        Again, we disagree here. That’s okay.

        Scientific facts do not disagree. 

        This is not true.

        We may not know the entire story but magic has never been the answer and the scientific method is what we used to see which side of a hypothesis the truth. 

        Correct. But the scientific method also has error in it. This is why we have to continually test and retest and why science can never “prove” something. We can only use science to say we currently have evidence for a particular claim.

        Science is fun but it is not analogous to what theists claim about their gods. I know that neither you nor any theist uses logic or empirical evidence.  It does only take ignorance and faith to accept. 

        Correct. Faith and science are different things. I cannot use science to prove faith like you want me to.

        I can say I trust evolutionary theory because of evidence but I do not have faith in it.  One cannot say that about religion. 

        But you and I both have faith in the evidence that evolutionary theory is real. Science is for sure more objective than religious faith, but neither are immune to needing humans to believe in something they don’t have direct evidence of. For example, when I cite someone’s article, I can’t go and actually look and collect and manipulate their data for myself. I’m trusting that what they told me is true.

        As for me, real is real.  There is no magical way to know something otherwise. 

        Which is great. I on the other hand cannot think of anything I objectively believe to be perfectly real.

        And being good isn’t limited to your religion, no matter what it claims: “ For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we may walk in them.”  As opposed to this nonsense:  Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is no one who does good.”

        Can you help me understand your point here?

        And yet, here we are with you claiming that people need to be told your religion but you claim that Christians shouldn’t police behavior.  If you actually believed that, we would not see or hear any Christian claims.  This god would take care of everything, like it promises.   And for all chrsitians claim that they will only imitate their god, I can’t tell them from any other human being. 

        That’s a perfectly valid opinion and not one that I believe. I can’t defend an argument you project onto me.

        You should be looking for a religion with evidence, if you don’t have that, I can just be amused and know you are just believing in an adult santa claus. 

        You are allowed to believe whatever you would like.

        If you evangelize, you do think we should be like you.  That’s hard to get around.  No one asks you to “share”. 

        No one asks anyone to share anything. From my perspective, that’s a sad way to regard living in a society.

        “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.” Yep, interpretation does, and not a single chrisian can show that hteir claims are true.  Why is it that *you* can’t do what jesus promises?

        I can’t do what you interpret Jesus promises I can do.

        I find it hard to believe you are pro-choice when you make comments like this “Let’s ensure all people have a right to life that cannot be taken away by guns, surgeons, or the death penalty.”   Unless by abortion, how do surgeons take away the “right to life”?  My apologies if I misunderstood. 

        As I explicitly said, I’m not pro-life or pro-choice. I’ve literally walked with friends through abortions. It’s not an easy, black and white issue. I would argue that nothing is binary in being for or against.

        It’s okay that you misunderstood. We’re having a human conversation and that’s going to happen.

        I was referring to medical procedures in general in this line in which a medical professional decides if and how to save someone’s life. That includes abortions I suppose. That’s not saying that I don’t think abortions should or shouldn’t happen; it’s a question of who gets to make the decision.

        Most Christians are hard to pin down when asked direct questions.  They are like a buttered ferret. 

        In my experience, most people are like this. I also love the phrase buttered ferret.

        And finally, you admit that obedience and control are at least part of your religion.  In that no Christian can agree on what obeying your god entails nor what it controls, I again see a cult that simply has nothing to back it up.  

        I feel like I’ve admitted to this multiple times.

        I do understand your perspective.  You are a good decent person and you know your bible does not support that.  So you do your best to invent a religion for yourself that is what you want. 

        I’m a good and decent person who you also allege blocked your comments and maliciously slandered you and took you out of context, tried to encourage people to dox you, invented atheist friends at best and at worst tries to control and mock them, and is trying to overtake the government with Christian ideals. What do bad and indecent people do in your perspective?

        Like

      2. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        I’ll be back to reply more. You have claimed that you have objective truth and the right version of Christianity.

        “Salvation can only come through faith in God – not through works. This is good news for sinners (which are all of us) as no matter how hard we try, we will always fall short of righteous behavior.”

        and

        “If the only gospel we preach is one of force and control, if the only works of the gospel we produce are restrictions, than I am not convinced we are preaching the Gospel of Jesus. ”

        you repeated claim other christians are wrong, whcih means you think you have the one right version. If you think you are right, you think you have an objective truth, something that is not opinion, but reflects the reality as it is.

        Like

      3. brycevanvleet Avatar
        brycevanvleet

        Looking forward to more of your thoughts! Correct. I do believe my beliefs are correct (just like most people do). This also means I think other people are incorrect. However, we’re not looking at objective truth the same way. I don’t think objective truth exists. If all truth is subjective, I can be right at the same time as the people I think are incorrect are also right. I do not think I have objective truth because I do not think objective truth exists.

        Like

      4. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        so, is there objective truth or not? You seem unclear about what you claim?

        “However, we’re not looking at objective truth the same way”

        or

        “I don’t think objective truth exists.”

        Like

      5. clubschadenfreude Avatar
        clubschadenfreude

        Bryce, you keep insisting that you can’t answer questions since you don’t believe in the Christian god and bible I’m describing. I know that and it only underlines how you, and every other Christians do not agree on the most basic things. I am asking you to explain why I should think your claims any better than those people who also make the claim that they are the only TrueChristians™.

        Your mentioning how I post more than your boyfriends talk about you is a complaint and a comparison.
        You claim you agree when I point out how christians act, but you seem oblivious that you do what they do. You don’t agree with other Christians. You insist you are right. You take words out of context. And you don’t allow my comment about this blog post here: https://brycevanvleet.com/2026/08/17/how-do-we-live-in-a-religiously-plural-society/ where you altered my post. Do tell why you didn’t allow the comment to appear where others can look at it and your blog post together.

        You either are oblivious or are pretending to be. Again, no one is accusing you of doing something “terrible”, only of what you have actually done. You evangelize just like the other Christians. You claim to have the one and only truth. That’s what happens when you claim others are wrong; that automatically claims you are right.
        I am curious, Bryce, what makes a Christian a Christian? You claim that catholics and Mormons are Christians, and yet they contradict each other. Here you are quite sure you are right: “Following Jesus’ is a choice people have to make for themselves. The work of the cross is difficult and sacrificial. If the only gospel we preach is one of force and control, if the only works of the gospel we produce are restrictions, than I am not convinced we are preaching the Gospel of Jesus. Rather, we are preaching a gospel of Greg Abbott and Bryce Van Vleet. These men, as good as they might be, are not worthy of carrying the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

        even though you try to be self-effacing. The only gospel anyone preaches is their very own, and they all try to cloak it in the claims that Jesus really said it.

        You are a Christian in spite of your doubts? That would imply you don’t actually doubt Christianity. There is either a perceived reward you think you’ll get or a punishment you will avoid being Christian, correct? Believing in case seems rather silly, as if this god couldn’t tell your motivation.
        When you provide your perspective as the one and only truth like all chrisians, it is wanting people to agree with you. Why else mention something that is a personal opinion? You could reman silent and nothing would change. Religions beliefs are beliefs and claims about religion which depend on being correct. So, yes, if you have a belief you believe it is the one and only right one.
        If you don’t think your religious claims are objective truth, then what do you think them to be? People do think differently. Does that mean there is no objective truth? And why do you claim to have that one and only truth: “Our responsibility is to acknowledge the truth of Christ and not deny him when we’re asked.”
        Notably you can’t show “commentary” that shows that the parable of the minas says anything like you claim. There is nothing in the rest of the bible that changes what those words literally say. We can compare what is said in that parable to what your god demands here:

        “ If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
        And here:

        “17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in mid-heaven, ‘Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of the mighty, the flesh of horses and their riders—flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great.’” Revelation 19

        and here “‘Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

        The context is that this god kills those it wants, which include those who don’t worship it.

        My intent here isn’t to show you wrong as upposed to other Christians, but to show all Christians wrong since they all make up this nonsense. Their claims cause harm, including yours.

        You don’t prefer the term cherry picking, but yet you do it.

        “I’m not convinced that me saying what I think is true means I think everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.”

        That’s literally what it does.
        When someone claims that everyone has their own truth, that makes truth worthless. Happily, there are objective truths, and not a single religion can show that their claims are those. People who contradict each other can’t be both right. Unsurprisingly, you have nothing to support “everything is subjective” since we know that sticking your bare hand in molten steel will quickly show you that belief won’t save you. The claim of solipsism is generally where theists end up in my experience.
        They who win arguments have facts that support their side. Reality doesn’t change its mind. What does change is what humans discover which may or may not support a hypothesis. Christians have had 2000+ years to produce their god and they have yet to do so. When does “right now” end for you?

        As for the social sciences being true, that is indeed up for debate since they are not the same as the sciences that can use the scientific method.

        Truth is truth. Science has ways to determine that. Religion has no way to show that one religion is better than any other. I can show how acid and base react and can predict it. Religion has nothing.

        No, everything you believe is not unbelievable to me. It is just when you stumble on trops like “most of my friends are…..” is when I disbelieve something. As for you not believing that your friends are damned just means you ignore the bible when convenient.

        This is why I’m bemused by your insistence that you should evangelize. If there is no damnation, why should anyone want to join your cult? Why should you want them to? Non-chrisians are just as good, humane, compassionate, merciful, etc as chrisians are, so evangelisim does literally nothing for anyone. You claim how perfect your jesus is, and yet, it isn’t, so why bother? By ignoring your bible, we don’t have to believe in a god that murders children for things they didn’t do.

        and that you say “I agree that God and I have different ideas of justice” makes me wonder why you think evangelizing is good for anyone at all? Expecially when you think love would have a hell. You blame the victim, not the abuser. And if the bible is up to interpretation, it is simply a human invention. Why do you cling to the term “Christian”? Do you find it gets you more validation?

        It also doesn’t surprise me to see your excuses for slavery, and your continued attempts to lie about what the bible says. Again, Leviticus 25 says everyone but Israelites are to be enslaved forever. Is this acceptable to you? Jesus did not abolish this at all. Your jesus says that *all* of the laws that jews follow are to be obeyed until the earth and heavens end. Both are still here.

        Jesus says to not stand against evil and jesus has no problem with slavery. That certainly seems to ignore the idea of not repaying evil for evil. That you seem to think that standing idly by while people are taken as slaves is acceptable is rather notable. Yes, that is the way I see it and it is what you do. Wrestling with problesm like genocide shows that you find something more important than standing against such things.
        Why “wrestle” and not dispose of this ignorant religion? And if I have trauma, do tell why that is something you find acceptable when it comes to your religion.
        Your god, if the bible is in anyway true, is the vicious failure who kills children: “Plenty of people see God that way. That includes you. You also claim that people shouldn’t agree with you and yet you say you should evangelize. How does that work? If they don’t need ot agree with you, why are you bothering them?
        Reality is reality. Beliefs must be perceived to be true to accept them. Objective truths always have to be true, no matter what one believes. Beliefs can align with truth and also diverge from it. Something being objectively true dos not make beliefs unable to be true.
        If your god is “unknowable”, then all of your evangelization is based on ignorant arrogance.
        Ah, and here you are citing verses, that you are sure are right. How, again, does that work with your claim your god is unknowable?

        “ 6 For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does.
        7 The end of all things is near; therefore be serious and discipline yourselves for the sake of your prayers.” 1 Peter 4

        This set of verses does a great job of showing hos bibles do not agree. Some insert “now” before the word “dead” which entirely changes the verses meaning. It’s also contradicted elsewhere in the bible “27 And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgement, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” Hebrews 9

        here’s what another Christian has said about these verses “Second, this is an unclear passage, subject to many interpretations, and no doctrine should be based on an ambiguous passage like this. The difficult texts should be interpreted in the light of the clear ones and not the reverse.
        Third, there are other possible interpretations of this passage that do not conflict with the teaching of the rest of Scripture. (1) For example, it is possible that it refers to those who are now dead who heard the Gospel while they were alive. In favor of this is cited the fact that the Gospel “was preached” (in the past) to those who “are dead” (now, in the present). (2) Or, some believe this might not be a reference to human beings, but to the “spirits in prison” (angels) of 1 Peter 3:19 (cf. 2 Peter 2:4 and Gen. 6:2). (3) Still others claim that, although the dead suffer the destruction of their flesh (1 Peter 4:6), yet they still live with God by virtue of what Christ did through the Gospel (namely, His death and resurrection). This victorious message was announced by Christ Himself to the spirit world after His resurrection (cf. 1 Peter 3:18). – Defending Inerrancy
        And as expected, you can’t support your claims about Mary supposedly being in 1 Timothy and have to claim it is “subtext” which again has no support. You pick and choose what you want to take literally. Shall we just take the resurrection as metaphor?

        The nature of reality is that you can’t have your own version. Unless you want to show I’m wrong and place your hand in that molten steel.

        Like

  3. brycevanvleet Avatar
    brycevanvleet

    I know you’re responding more and I’m not trying to inundate you but I’m working on my next Not Done Yet post and I’d love your insight (if you’re willing to share it) on how to respond to these critiques better this time. I hear the crux of the critique being that I’m too preachy and pushy. Writing “from my perspective” after every sentence feels clunky. Historically, I thought that making a blog communicated that everything I thought was subjective in addition to having a disclaimer but it’s clear to me now that isn’t a good enough strategy. Do you have ideas on how I can come off as less preachy and more subjective, while also being concise and still being able to form my ideas as my own beliefs?

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment