Spreading The Love That Is God
In the few weeks since I created this blog, I have managed to accumulate a small volume of Christian 'Love Mail', not 'Hate Mail' mind you. I find it interesting that Christians go out of their way to appear nice and caring just before they tell you that you are going to go to Hell.
I thought I would take this opportunity to share a few snippets with you.
A reader (and I use that term with some doubt) Mike actually posted this comment in reply to an earlier post. Seems Mike must have gone a little 'ape shit' when he saw the word 'Atheist'. I give this to you with Mike's own spelling and grammar and his apparently stuck cap locks key.
MAN... WHAT A BORING LIFE YOU HAVE. TRYING WITH ALL OF YOU TO PROVE THAT SOMETHING DOES NOT EXIST. DON'T YOU FIND THAT PATHETIC? I MEAN, LIKE, ALL YOU DO IT'S ABOUT THAT THING THAT IS JUST NOT THERE LOL
NOT ONLY THAT, YOU ARE A SHITTY JERK WHO HAS A BRAIN TO WRITE CLEVER LINES, BUT LACKS ALL TYPE OF INTELLIGENCE.
I AM A CHRISTIAN, BUT MAN, WE ARE PEOPLE FIRST, AND WE GET SO SICK OF LISTENING THE SAME CRAP FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU ALL THE TIME, TOO.
I HOPE THAT BEFORE YOU DIE YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU'VE BEEN UP TO.
*BEFORE YOU DIE. LATER WILL BE JUST A LITTLE LATE.
MIKE
If you think that Mike is too easy a target for my sarcastic sharing of correspondence, then allow me to share a bit of an email from Shaun. Shaun is not an ignorant rube like Mike. He is evidently some sort of Christian rock star. But even he can't resist pointing out to me that 'one day' I will be up the proverbial 'shit creek' without a paddle and will have to find 'God'.
Life will kick you in the nads one day or something will happen to throw doubt
into your perspective on the world and you might find yourself then open to
another explanation of what holds the universe together and the for the
purpose of it all. Until then, I wish you the best.
I particularly like the fact that he wishes me the best until life kicks me in the nads. I guess that once my nads are kicked, he doesn't give a shit. Classy stuff Shaun. You can thank me that I didn't link this to your web site.
Until next time all, (Monday) play nice!
Tagged As:
christianreligion
atheist
14 Comments:
LOL
COOL.. I EARNED A WHOLE POST ABOUT MY COMMENT (I HAVE TO SHARE CREDITS WITH SEAN, THO). STILL, I WISH YOU'D HAVE KEPT IT AT THE ORIGINAL POST.
AND YES, I WAS WAITING TO SEE WHAT YOU WOULD SAY ABOUT ME.
MIKE
Congratulations on the christian "love mail"! It means you must be doing something right =)
Interesting that Christians never seem to act the way they claim WE should.
I feel sorry for them, really. They have no idea how goofy they appear to those who don't believe in fairy tales.
Regarding MIKE's comment:
WHAT A BORING LIFE YOU HAVE. TRYING WITH ALL OF YOU TO PROVE THAT SOMETHING DOES NOT EXIST. DON'T YOU FIND THAT PATHETIC? I MEAN, LIKE, ALL YOU DO IT'S ABOUT THAT THING THAT IS JUST NOT THERE LOL
Let me try to swim through the sea of upper case to try to arrive at the littoral (hah!) meaning... As far as I can tell, he's saying that it's pathetic to try to prove something exists when it's just not there.
I think we can all agree with him on that one, can't we?
Good point, MIKE!
awe come on now. by giving them the lime light your not making things better. I mean why delete the ones that have scripture and not the ones that are a tad rude. And, even though you posted mr. Grove's comment he did have the courtesy to email it to you and not post it. But like i said before it is good entertainment so what the heck.
Why not give a link to shaun's site? I am sure he wouldn't mind. Just in case you do its spelled shaun not sean.
peace.
Seth
MIKE SAID
I EARNED A WHOLE POST ABOUT MY COMMENT
can you hear me mike? I SAID CAN YOU HEAR ME MIKE? Don't get too excited, it was a slow news day.
Seth Said
I mean why delete the ones that have scripture ...
Aha, I wondered who posted the scripture. I would rather not crowd the reply pages more than necessary with direct quotes that could just as easily be linked off site or just referred by chapter and verse.
he did have the courtesy to email it to you and not post it.
Well, I am not so sure that is the only reason he emailed it to me and didn't post it. Take this excerpt:
Now, I'm serious about talking sometime (I mentioned this in my comment section after your last comment). I find atheists to be generally smarter than Christians and, therefore, better conversation. It's dull to only be around people who see life through the same set of goggles.
To be fair, I quoted the entire paragraph so that I wouldn't be accused of taking something out of context, although the line I found most interesting should be obvious.
Mr. Groves, as you refer to him, merely cut-and-paste a reply to my initial post as he did other sites that carried negative stories about the Waco incident. In fact, someone else posted to alibi for this and to inform me that he had written something on his blog. I guess he can't be bothered to actually type 'live' on a blog (not that I am complaining!)
While he did email, I would rather that he had just posted a reply and didn't particularly find anything interesting in what he had to say in the email (other than what I quoted). I would prefer to say what I have to say here and not waist time in personal replies by email. It's more interesting and keeps you honest in that way.
I hear ya,
not that i would be ashamed to post scripture, but that wasnt me for the record. If you look back on my posts I have pretty much tried to play by the rules you've set up here. although an occasional sliver from the good book may slip in unnoticed. ;)
Seth
Wow, Alan you've really under represented my e-mail to you and therefore purposefully misrepresented my view of you and my character.
Here, for anyone interested, is THE ENTIRE e-mail I sent Alan - to which I've received no response but his public out-of-context posting of one small excerpt:
"Thanks for posting on my site. I'm not writing to evangelize/convert you. I'm not going to lie, I'd love it if you wanted to pick my brain about my view of the world and God etc, but I don't think that's going to happen. You seem very certain of your worldview. You know mine is very different. I think your view is founded upon logic and you think mine is founded upon emotion. I could be wrong about you and you are certainly wrong about me (if that's what you think: the whole emotionally based theory that is). But I'm not open to your trying to convince me I'm wrong (not that you're trying): I've thought there was no God and now I'm convinced otherwise. And you're not open, I don't think, to the prospect that you're wrong either: you've decided you're right and now your goal is to disprove other views, not discover what the true view is. We're not going to convince each other of anything. I don't think converts to monotheism come from arguing and apologetics anyway. I don't think faith is formed from logic alone. Life will kick you in the nads one day or something will happen to throw doubt into your perspective on the world and you might find yourself then open to another explanation of what holds the universe together and the for the purpose of it all. Until then, I wish you the best.
I'm writing you now mostly to say thanks. I think your view is metaphorically dark. And the presence of darkness, metaphorically, makes light, metaphorically, more recognizable. Many of us over at SHLOG.COM felt low, felt sad, but not hopeless. Oddly what pulled me and others out of this funk of ours was your presence. You view of things is so hopeless and entropal and senseless that our beliefs came alive again by contrast. I recognized the logic of my faith against the backdrop of yours. (And you do have faith, just not in one God, but in something: yourself, science, logic, something.)
So thanks. In an odd way, in a way I can't describe well right now, you played a part in revitalizing my hope. Strange. Unexplainable really. You flashed me back to who I once was and made me remember all over again how I got from there to here in my understanding of the world: both material and spiritual. Thanks.
Now, I'm serious about talking sometime (I mentioned this in my comment section after your last comment). I find atheists to be generally smarter than Christians and, therefore, better conversation. It's dull to only be around people who see life through the same set of goggles.
I'm curious about how old you are and what you do for a living. You seem to be an evangelist for non-belief. Interesting to me. I mean, if you think I'm wrong about God what do you profit from proving your point, from spreading your gospel of disbelief? What's your motivation. Does converting people to your view help validate your belief system in your mind? Seriously, I'd like to understand this. Help me understand this. What's the pay off for you? Science tells us that humans generally do what "works" for them, what gets them some kind of benefit. What's yours in debunking faith, in calling a blog meetanatheist? Is this your job? That's what I'm wondering. Is this something you somehow have turned into a living?
Anyway, I hope we can dialogue. You've piqued my curiosity. Blog on.
SG"
NOW. I truly care about alan, and I see now how the nads statement could seem mean but it truly wasn't an attack of any kind. I don't wish a hard life or nad kicking of any kind on Alan. I'm simply trying to say, and I agree I did a bad job of it, that faith (whether in science or God) can be shaken and reexamined and even changed by a good nad kicking. I do not wish anything ill for Alan. I Do, honestly, wish his heart and mind would change in response to God. But I can't make that happen. We Christians are supposed to believe that God's Spirit literally pulls people towards understanding him. And God uses the bitter and sweet of life to do that. Alan does not currently understand and embrace the God I do. No sense in wishing him harm for that. I was where he is once. I'm glad I was loved and not hated back then. I AM hoping that God uses EVERYTHING in his power, the pleasant and unpleasant, nature and science and logic and emotion, to draw Alan to Himself - to love Him into submission to God's way of living, being and thinking. That's honestly my prayer for Alan, nothing more or less.
It is embarrassing to be taken out of context I admit. It's embarrassing and shameful to be thought of for even an instant by even an audience this small as someone who hates another human being for not sharing my faith. I apologize then if my words were laid in the wrong order and made you, Alan, feel attacked. That's my fault - bad communication on my part. I truly belief that both of us are living on faith right now and I know, because I once placed my faith in something other than God, that life's hard times change our perspective and the objects of our faith. Life has kicked me in the nads recently when Kyle died. I'm simply drawing the comparison, revealing to a stranger that I too think life can suck at times but that I see the good in that - God uses it to teach us both, you AND me.
The invitation still stands. If you'd like to talk with each other and not the whole world I'm game.
SG
ONe more thing to clarify...
The sentence "one day life will kick in the nads" makes more sense when you think of the YOU as plural and as us. IN other words just before the nads sentence I say that faith doesn't come from logic alone - it isn't argued into existence in my experience - but instead it comes often times when life kicks US in the nads. IN the painful times faith blooms. The CHURCH is largest in non free societies and more conversions happen among the sick than the well, the poor than the rich. Nad kicking breeds faith in US.
I should have used "us" I guess, but I was focussed on Alan's faith specifically and hurried and emotional so I screwed up. Sorry again for than.
Shaun,
I am glad that you chose to post your entire email. However, the point in posting the few excerpts of the email that I did was to juxtapose the comments of someone like MIKE with someone who is obviously a bit more moderate and mainstream. At the same time I also wanted to show the similarity of the comments "I HOPE YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN UP TO BEFORE YOU DIE" with your comment regarding the 'nad kicking'. To me, the two comments are basically the same sentiment: You'll be sorry later.
Also, considering the first paragraph of my post, my intent should have been clear. If your email had been shorter I would have had no problem with posting it in its entirety. As it is, I did post the entire paragraph and didn't just post the 'kick in the nads' sentence. I hardly think that the rest of your email changes the context of that paragraph or that reference.
Since you have posted the email I would now be happy to answer some of those questions that you posed in it. Considering that you had not, up until now, bothered to actually actively participate in this site, I had not been inclined to take the time to answer your email. If you take a look around the comments on the site, you will see that I spend a great deal of time, much more than I had anticipated when I started the site, on replying to comments. I just don't have the time to reply to personal email and the comments and actually have a life outside of this blog. My failure to reply was not intended as a slight.
Also, I prefer to keep correspondence on the site because I think it keeps all parties honest and it makes me fully think through what I am going to say since it is here for everyone to see. I am a bit of an extrovert when it comes to sharing my views, as I assume you are, so it doesn't bother me to have a personal conversation in front of the world.
Something else that you will find if you take the time to browse my responses on the site is that I also care a great deal about people. I have gone out of my way in some instances to try to develop a dialogue with readers who are more interested in shouting or making ridiculous Biblical proclamations. I have no problem with being labeled an 'evangelist for non-belief'; that is exactly what I am.
If there is a slow news day next week, I may devote an entry to some of your questions about my intentions in making this site and what I expect to get out of it. Actually, if you look at my first post in the archives I cover the major points.
Here is a link to my first post regarding my reasons for this blog.
Meet An Atheist: Why I Need To Do This (Blog)
That makes sense to me, Alan. All of it.
I do just want to clarify and disagree on one thing though. I was NOT saying "You'll be sorry." I was saying you'll be kicked in the nads (as will we all) and you WILL be changed by that, not to my position on God or away from your own, but changed. And it's POSSIBLE that such a kicking of the nads could result in a change towards a belief in God.
You grew up in church so you know the story of Saul, the Christian killer (not saying you're killing Christians or want us dead) who was kicked in the nads by God: blinded on a trip to kill Christians in Damascus. Or Pilate who had his kingdom and authority questioned by Jesus - that's a kick in the nads for sure. One kick resulted in "conversion" and the other simply gave pause. We'll all be made to pause in life and re-examine what we believe - that's what I hope for us all.
If you're going to answer questions from us Christian types publicly, I have one more:
You seem to be saying it was wrong for MIKE to attack you the way he did. I agree. But I come to that conclusion because I have a measure for human behavior, a standard. I recognize crooked because I have a Straight. I don't always measure correctly but I have the Ruler there to use if I'm wise and discerning enough to do so. I know you must have a ruler as well, some standard by which you determine what is good and bad, fair and unfair, mean and kind. You must because you SEEM to have used it to measure MIKE and ME. But what is it? What is your straight?
Sincerely curious and ready to learn,
SG
I know you must have a ruler as well, some standard by which you determine what is good and bad, fair and unfair, mean and kind.
It will probably be easier for me to begin to answer this by stating what is not my ruler. My ruler is not The Bible, it is not the Christian God, and it is not Mohammed or Moses or Jesus.
Of course, I have heard this argument many times; moral behavior must have some base - something to be measured by. In a sense, I agree. But it must be based in reality and not fantasy. You may well know that a form of this argument is being used to try to get Christianity, in one way or another, established in our secular government in a permanent way. In my opinion, that is why this kind of thinking is dangerous.
All people have some common moral behavior which is a result, in my opinion, of natural causes. People simply could not survive if we all killed each other constantly, stole from each other endlessly, and didn’t care for our children and those of others to a degree. The 'moral conscience' is firmly based on real world cause and effect and doesn't need supernatural intervention in order to exist.
One of the big problems I have with 'faith' and religious dogma is that I believe it can take otherwise good people and replaces their 'moral conscience' with it's own version. There is obviously no absolute 'ruler' for religious people. Islam has its own 'ruler', conservative Christianity its own, and Pat Robertson has a very unique 'ruler'. I would prefer a ruler that can be applied across cultures and religions.
I have run out of time but will continue this on Monday.
Ah, Christian love mails. I have had a fair share of them, long before blogs were the norm.
Regardless, all these hate mails are a great indicator of how irritating your blog has become to these fundies.
If they are sick and tired of hearing your diatribes, just imagine what we atheists have to go through, particularly those who have been indoctrinated at a very young age, such as myself.
Anyway, keep up the good work. May the Force be with you.
Sincerely
The Beast
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home