C.H. Spurgeon

Sinners, let me address you with words of life; Jesus wants nothing from you, nothing whatsoever, nothing done, nothing felt; he gives both work and feeling. Ragged, penniless, just as you are, lost, forsaken, desolate, with no good feelings, and no good hopes, still Jesus comes to you, and in these words of pity he addresses you, "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out."

Comment Policy: No profanity or blasphemy will be posted. You do not have to agree, but if you would like your comment posted, you will have to adhere to the policy.


Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Possible Misunderstanding Concerning "Oh, the Bigotry of Bigotry"

I appreciate Austin Cline taking the time to read my blog post and posting his opinions concerning it at his blog. I do however believe there may have been a slight misunderstanding as to the thoughts he pulled forth from my posting though.

The title of my post was “Oh, the Bigotry of Bigotry” whereas Austin Cline entitled his reply/rebuttal of such “Anti-Atheist Bigot Denying Own Bigotry”. Though my original thoughts were in reference to another blog entry entitled “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate”.

At the very onset of the topic “Bigotry Should Disqualify a Presidential Candidate”, the writer begins their thought of bigotry as they see it from “many Republican campaigns” towards race, to sexual preference (called “anti-gay”, namely homosexuality), and atheism (called anti-atheist).

They make the notion that although bigotry of race is not tolerated whereas bigotry toward homosexuality and atheism is, for they state “I long for the day when anti-gay and anti-atheist bigotry will disqualify a candidate as quickly as racism.”

With that said, I simply made the obvious claim that, “First off, I would like to note the simple fact of the comparison made by the writer: Race (whether African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, etc.) is not the same type of issue as homosexuality and atheism. A person does not choose what race they are born into, whereas a person does make a spiritual decision to embrace atheism and a moral decision to embrace homosexuality.”

Austin Cline begins his post with “One of the more interesting tricks which bigots use to defend themselves is to admit that, yes, they are bigots — but so is everyone else, so why are you picking on me? Logically speaking this might be little more than the tu quoque fallacy: "you're doing it to, so you can't criticize me for it." Sometimes the bigot does go further, though, by arguing that bigotry is the natural human condition and shouldn't be condemned so forcefully.”

Whereas, if he would have continued to the end of my post he would have noted my words, “I just find it interesting that most of the time the one that uses the word bigot can be found to be one themselves if one would simply observe and listen to their message long enough.”

Since apparently Austin Cline seems to take my post (as he sites other comments) to mean, “Is it the case that bigotry isn't possible against choices, or that bigotry isn't possible against choices which a Christian deems to be sinful?” I thought I might elaborate a little here.

First, I would like to note that I never claim that [1] “bigotry isn’t possible against choice”, nor do I claim [2] “bigotry isn’t possible against choices which a Christian deems to be sinful” in my post. I indeed acknowledge there is indeed bigotry of such, for I said “I would agree that each of these groups can be dealt blows by hate speech and ungodly actions from without.”

As a Christian I am to hate sin (that of my own life, and that of another’s life) simply because Scripture teaches against such and the holy Almighty God is against such. Notice I said hate the sin, not the person from whom it flows. Therefore, concerning race, one is not to hate one simply because of their color nor should one simply hate the color itself therefore despising all of that particular race. Whereas hating the sin of homosexuality and/or unbelief is based in Scripture, from the very mind of God, which is not based on something one cannot change, but something they can. I cannot change my race, but I can decide whether to be hetero or homo sexual and whether a Christian or Atheist.

So, whereas a presidential candidate should not speak out against race (for no race is sinful within itself nor can it be changed), their stance against the blatant acts of rebellion of homosexuality and atheism in the very face of their Creator, which cut against the conscience of the presidential candidates should not disqualify them as candidates. For are they not free to exercise their First Amendment rights as much as the Atheists who speak often openly bigoted thoughts against Theism? Would an Atheist disqualify an Atheist’s candidate who spoke as much concerning their views which boast against the thoughts of Theistic Americans?

The denial of presidential candidates to support homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and atheism as a popular belief is not “mak[ing] [a] law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” but simply a moral standard of such candidates of which governs their life. To require such to lay their moral standards aside to govern the people of the United States as president is absurd. There may be many things I do not like concerning the ideals of some candidates, but to claim they should be disabled to run merely for reason of which I disagree with them, would not the list continuously grow as to there would be no one able to run at all?

I fail to see how Austin Cline read my entire article and came away with, “If it isn't possible to be bigoted against a choice, then it isn't possible to be bigoted against a Christian — don't Christians make a choice to be Christian?”

I note, “The hype of the article seems to be that of “anti-atheist bigotry” mostly, but I believe I have discussed the topic of bigotry concerning theist/atheist belief concerning homosexuality before where I note, “Do we not notice that both sides (Christian and Atheist) hold strict contradicting views, which are intolerant of the other? It all comes down to faith vs. unbelief, and that is where our security lies.””

Austin Cline claims, “Besides, I've never heard any atheists say that a Christian is being a bigot for simply observing that, under traditional Christian theology, atheism or homosexuality is sinful.” But, truth be known, the atheist does not mind the Christian having such views in the privacy of his own house or his little church, but as soon as he makes his voice heard aloud or as in running for president the same instantly becomes a bigot by the very bigots (one that is stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own) that demand America change its policy on marriage and to remove God from all walks of life.

So, whereas Austin Cline asks “Which atheists, exactly, say this? I notice that Timothy Waldrop doesn't actually offer any quotes and Vjack's post certainly doesn't make any such statement.” I reply, keep looking for their words and speech are spread throughout the news, books, and blogsphere.

At the end of Vjack’s article, he states, “It is time for Americans to ask ourselves whether bigotry is a characteristic we desire in our leaders.”

Which is why I note, “An atheist candidate could be no less a bigot than a theist one. For the atheist is “stubborn and complete intoler[ant of the] creed, belief, or opinion” of the theist. Just as the Christian tells the atheist they may not believe in God and the homosexual they may live in sin unto themselves, though calling on them to repent, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle, so does the atheist tell the Christian to keep their beliefs of God, against non-belief and immorality in their churches and homes, but do not try to have the world accept your lifestyle.”

I do appreciate the fact that Austin Cline writes, “Presidential candidates who say they are theists aren't being bigoted and they aren't doing anything wrong. Presidential candidates who want to use their office to promote their theism or other religious beliefs are not necessarily engaged in bigotry (it's theoretically possible, depending upon what exactly they do), but they are at the very least violating the spirit of the First Amendment because being elected president confers upon a person specific civil authority, not any religious authority.”

However I do disagree with his thought that “Presidential candidates who want to use their office to promote their theism or other religious beliefs” “are at the very least violating the spirit of the First Amendment because being elected president confers upon a person specific civil authority, not any religious authority.”

Again, for the President to speak out against homosexuality and atheism is not “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”; therefore, how can one be in violating the First Amendment? And for the record I did notice Austin Cline’s use of “the spirit of the First Amendment” which is usually based on the spirit within the one trying to make the words of the forefathers stand by their claim which most often it is not the case – which is why the letter of Jefferson is often quoted in conjunction with such, although letters are not U.S. documents such as the First Amendment is.

We see again the twisting of the tide of Austin Cline upon my post where he writes, “Here we have a more explicit statement of what appears to be Timothy Waldrop's position: everyone is a bigot, so what's the big deal if Christians are bigoted against atheists?”

My claim was never in favor of bigotry, of the Christian nor the Atheist, I merely noted the fact that bigotry (whether great or small) often lies within each of us.

Then Austin Cline continues down his slope of misunderstanding by stating, “If you pay attention, though, you'll find that Timothy Waldrop has contradicted himself. Waldrop originally admitted that bigotry against people because of their race is real and is wrong, but based on the definition he is using bigotry against race isn't possible — after all, race isn't a "creed, belief, or opinion."”

I did not say that bigotry against race was not possible, but that it was different than bigotry concerning homosexuality and atheism in the fact that one cannot change their skin but they can decide to change their lifestyle and beliefs.

As for Austin Cline’s question, “I'm not aware of any "judgment" which "Atheism" may be threatening against Christians — even if we accept as valid the treatment of atheism as an ideology or philosophy which should be capitalized, there are no atheist "judgments" against Christianity which Christians might in theory have to be worry about. The closest to this might be the assertion that Christianity is wrong, but I can't believe that's what Timothy Waldrop has in mind. ”

As concerning: “Atheists are scared of the judgment Christianity may bring upon them” Atheist are indeed scared that God (though they deny God, Christians know it is He who works through us) through Christianity could possible bring forth a spiritual revival within our nation thereby exposing all of the lies of Satan and ungodliness making it extremely difficult for one to live in open rebellion against the God of Heaven and the Scriptures. (**Not by force, but mere shame and conviction**)

As concerning: “Christians are scared of the judgment Atheism will bring upon them” Christians realize (or should) that if we continue to allow the god of this world to proceed as he has to rid the nation of God and that which is right, we will find ourselves sinking further into sin, and will soon been judged by the very wrath of God.

9 comments:

BEAST said...

"I did not say that bigotry against race was not possible, but that it was different than bigotry concerning homosexuality and atheism in the fact that one cannot change their skin but they can decide to change their lifestyle and beliefs."

So you are saying, bigotry against people professing certain creeds are justifiable because they can choose not to profess that creed?

Fine then. Then stop complaining about being abused if a bigot starts lampooning Christians.

Beast

Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

Beast,

1. "So you are saying, bigotry against people professing certain creeds are justifiable because they can choose not to profess that creed?"

Call it what you must, but what I am saying is that people should call sin what it is: SIN. There is no alternative to righteousness, and darkness and light cannot dwell together; therefore, each fights against the other.

2. "Fine then. Then stop complaining about being abused if a bigot starts lampooning Christians."

It wasn't me complaining. I was simply noting that most that use the word "bigot" (while complaining of bigotry against them) could also be called such if their views, words, and actions are looked upon long enough.

Tim

BEAST said...

"I was simply noting that most that use the word "bigot" (while complaining of bigotry against them) could also be called such if their views, words, and actions are looked upon long enough."

Austin Cline is right. You are simply trying to lump the rest of us who aren't bigots with the bigots tag just to justify your obnoxious beliefs.

As for the subject of sin, I shall maybe quote a Jebus quote for a change: "Let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone." Before you start lecturing people about sin, ask yourself the times when you have done the same things you accused others of doing.

Beast

Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

Beast,

1. "You are simply trying to lump the rest of us who aren't bigots with the bigots tag just to justify your obnoxious beliefs."

No, I state again, "I just find it interesting that most of the time the one that uses the word bigot can be found to be one themselves if one would simply observe and listen to their message long enough."

2. "Before you start lecturing people about sin, ask yourself the times when you have done the same things you accused others of doing."

a. Calling sin SIN is not the same as saying "you are a sinner and I am not," for "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." [1 John 1:10]

b. I shall quote Ezekiel 33:

8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Tim

BEAST said...

1. "I just find it interesting that most of the time the one that uses the word bigot can be found to be one themselves if one would simply observe and listen to their message long enough."

You are simply alluding that we are all bigots like you. If this is not what you mean, then maybe something is wrong with your command of English.

2. I remember you saying that the OT is not relevant because of the new covenant. So, is it the case that only Christians have the privilege of quoting the OT, whereas atheists who quote the OT are considered to be "taking biblical quotes out of context"?

Beast

BEAST said...

"Atheist are indeed scared that God (though they deny God, Christians know it is He who works through us) through Christianity could possible bring forth a spiritual revival within our nation thereby exposing all of the lies of Satan and ungodliness making it extremely difficult for one to live in open rebellion against the God of Heaven and the Scriptures. (**Not by force, but mere shame and conviction**)"

Terrible English aside, this is a statement of bigotry: We atheists have no reason to fear the wrath of your God than all the other Gods that have come and gone since antiquity.

As for the shame and conviction, you Christians should feel ashamed of yourselves: Instead of improving your country by propagating science and education, you morons choose to imbue the young with archaic, ancient nonsense from two millennial.

Beast

BEAST said...

Hey Mr Bigot:

Check out my latest post on the gay man who won the war in the Battle of Britain.....oh by the way.......you don't even know when the Battle of Britain took place do you?

Duh. American fundies. A bunch of stupid religious bigots. What more can I expect from you, Tim?

Beast

Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

Beast,

The Bible is full of stories of God using sinful men to accomplish His will. It still doesn't remove their responsibility and accountability to the Holy God, so what is your point here?

Tim

BEAST said...

My point has to do with the exact nature of your post.

Your abject ignorance as a result of reading too much perfidious nonsense and drivel from the holey babble is the sole reason why you behave like a stupid bigot towards gays.......

And this stupid ignorance is also highlighted by your extremely atrocious grasp of history, logic and common sense.

Beast

John Bunyan

To be saved is to be preserved in the faith to the end. 'He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.' (Mt. 24:13) Not that perseverance is an accident in Christianity, or a thing performed by human industry; they that are saved 'are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.' (1 Pet. 1: 3-6) But perseverance is absolutely necessary to the complete saving of the soul…. He that goeth to sea with a purpose to arrive at Spain, cannot arrive there if he be drowned by the way; wherefore perseverance is absolutely necessary to the saving of the soul.