Religious "Friends"

[Laurens]

I have a friend whom I've known for many years, and we always got along fine, I have nothing against him. In recent years though he has objected to certain statements against Christianity that I have made on facebook. I have always defended these honestly and without being disrespectful, and also making it clear that I still regard him as a friend, despite his religious beliefs.

Recently however he blocked me without any explanation. I can only speculate that it was because I posted the following as a note on facebook:

You could be forgiven for thinking that the killing of unborn children is actively condemned in the Bible - Most of the opposition to abortion comes from Christian groups. The following verses are unlikely to have been taught in your Church or Sunday School, but they are there in your Bible nonetheless, and you might be shocked to notice that such instances of horrific violence are to be found throughout the Old Testament.

Samaria is held guilty, for she has rebelled against her God. They shall fall by the sword, their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child ripped open.

Hosea 13:16

The punishment for rebelling against God according to Hosea is killing innocent children, and rather gruesomely ripping open pregnant women. This is the height of injustice and cruelty; to punish children and unborn babies for crimes that they have absolutely no responsibility for.

The language is especially brutal, and makes me convinced that the Bible really is not a book to read to children (there's also a lot of sex in there too). Just to be sure, the killing of unborn babies is not unique to this passage, the following is from a previous chapter of the same book:

"Ephraim is stricken, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit. Yes, were they to bear children, I would kill the darlings of their womb."

Hosea 9:16

So you might be thinking that it is limited to the book of Hosea, but the same punishment is stated again in 2 Kings:

Then from Tirzah, Menahem attacked Tiphsah, all who were there, and its territory. Because they did not surrender, therefore he attacked it. All the women there who were with child he ripped open.

2 Kings 15:16

And although the slaughter of unborn babies is not included in the following verses, the slaughter of infants and babies is:

Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

1 Samuel 15:3

Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!

Psalm 137:9

The Psalms also praise God for his killing of babies:

He destroyed the firstborn of Egypt. Both of man and beast

Psalm 135:8

To Him who struck Egypt in their firstborn, for His mercy endures forever.

Psalm 136:10

For further reference consult the following verses:
Leviticus 20:9, Judges 11:30-40, 2 Kings 6:28-29, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Exodus 12:29, Exodus 20:9-10, 2 Kings 2:23-24, Leviticus 26:30, I Kings 16:34, Isaiah 13:15-18, Jeremiah 11:22-23, Jeremiah 19:7-9, Lamentations 2:20-22

The problem of such atrocities caused a divide in early Christianity. How could the loving God of Christ command such evil acts? It's important to note that what we now call the New Testament was not canonized until some 3 centuries after the death of Jesus, and there were many, many texts that didn't make the cut. Some of these texts posed radical ideas about the problem of evil in the Old Testament, the God of the Old Testament was sometimes posed as a completely different entity to the God of the Christians - a violent monster who created the world, and is the God of the Jews, but is not the true God. These ideas seem radical, but they were held by some early schools of Christianity.

It was eventually decided that such ideas were heretical and that the God of the Christians was the God of the Old Testament. This is mainly because Jesus' claim to be Messiah was interwoven with Old Testament prophecy.

The problem of violent atrocities in the Old Testament has existed since the very early days of Christianity, and with the decision that the 'official' version of Christianity has made, that the very same God who killed babies is their God also, the problem has been left absolutely unresolved. How do you justify these verses?

I don't think I was being offensive, and the idea behind my posting of the note was to generate interesting discussion with people like my friend.

Although we were not extremely close friends, I am saddened by the fact that someone I have known for years blocked me, and presumably wants nothing more to do with me because of a difference in belief. I always made it clear that I respected his beliefs, and that it did not make me think any less of him as a person.

I know I will get replies saying he wasn't really a friend then, and I am aware of this...

It's just a shame that religion can cause people to abandon friendships with such apparent ease...

Sorry I just had to vent.

 

[Memeticemetic]

It's an unfortunate by-product of stating your opinion that some people will be offended. It's not surprising, however, that a devout bible believer would be offended, even irrevocably so, by your post. I recommend against such an approach in an open forum like Facebook. If you wish to engage in a discussion about biblical morality with an individual or a group, I think it would be advisable to address them directly and not quite so aggressively. For instance, I posted the following note which was spawned by an email exchange I was having which was intended as a clarification of my own position, not as an indictment of anyone else's.

I decided to make public this response to our erstwhile private dialogue since I have other friends, some who agree with me, some not, who may appreciate it. Worry not, I'll make no identifying remarks here or elsewhere unless you expressly consent. No, I was not raised as an atheist. Therefore, I was was not indoctrinated into atheism as a belief system. There is no such system. There is no doctrine, core beliefs, dogma, proscriptions, or necessary common thoughts or beliefs required. I have found, generally, that atheists tend to value science, reasoned argument, and verifiable facts as the best means of understanding the world we live in. But even those commonalities are by no means required. Just as the blanket term theism doesn't really say anything about your beliefs in your god, so is atheism as a word devoid of explanatory power about what any of us actually believe.

To answer your question more fully, the question of religion just never came up in my household. There were a few times, for curiosity's sake that I asked for and received unqualified permission to attend religious services with friends. These were not particularly formative experiences in my opinion. Honestly, I found the whole endeavor rather silly even as a child. I simply didn't see the point and my questions of why they were behaving in such a fashion were greeted with looks of incredulity, amusement at my precociousness, or thinly veiled hostility. My parents seemed fairly indifferent to the whole idea so I ended up just not bothering them with it and I went ahead and formed my own opinions. I knew that, technically, they were Catholic though they never went to church but for the occasional wedding or funeral. I was in my late teens before I was finally able to engage them in meaningful conversation to discover that my father had rejected religion entirely to become an atheist and that my mother had rejected Catholicism but maintained a personal belief in something akin to the Christian god. I will always be grateful to them for granting me the freedom to determine my own worldview and it causes my hackles to raise a bit when they are accused of somehow brainwashing me into non-belief. Don't worry, I know you meant no offense.

Ok, your claim that I've formed a false perception of your god and that is what I'm rejecting. No, I have no perception of a god at all. What I do have is an extraordinary number of god claims that I've been exposed to, many of them intrinsically contradictory and often contradictory of the god claims made by members of other faiths. Hell, even within the framework of an ostensibly singular faith, the number of different claims as to the nature of god is staggering. But the one common feature of all these various claims is that I find them utterly unconvincing. And entirely unnecessary. The real universe is full of exceptional beauty and horror and I need no fictional source to provide an arbitrary accounting of it. I prefer the incremental advancement of science and reason which actually answers the questions instead of merely claiming that we had all the essential answers handed to us sometime in antiquity. I find the implied mental emasculation appalling.

Now, because I like and respect you, I'm going to suggest that you don't try to proselytize to me further. You are perfectly welcome to do so, but my responses may insult you since I will, as I promised earlier, give you as honest a response that I can. I have read your holy book cover to cover and if that didn't have the power, being the irrefutable word of the almighty, to convince me I wouldn't get your hopes up. In fact, if you really want to understand why I reject your particular religion, you may want to follow suit. Fair warning, you may be very surprised at the atrocities it contains that don't get mentioned by your religious leaders. Or maybe they do if they're of the bellicose persuasion.

With respect,
John

This note spawned some interesting discussions with friends of mine of various faiths. As usual, the most interesting were with fellow non-believers. And, as a bonus, the god-bother who was getting on my nerves never got back to me. Win/win in my book.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Ok, that was really not a "for instance" at all, since it was public and not directly addressing anyone. That was an example of a non-aggressive way of broaching the topic.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Ok, that was really not a "for instance" at all, since it was public and not directly addressing anyone. That was an example of a non-aggressive way of broaching the topic.

Err... wasn't your post directly addressing the person you were having the email exchange with, even if you didn't use his name? And the end result was that this person never spoke to you again? I think that's the opposite of what the OP wanted...

To the OP, I think that's just a great problem with things as public as facebook. It's unfortunately far too easy to offend people and there's really nothing you can do about it. I keep most of that stuff to a minimum when my face is on it and save the "interesting discussion" for here and youtube, which I strive to keep separate from my face and the rest of my life. My family and friends do not know about my youtube account and I hope it stays that way.

 

[lrkun]

Religious persons who are not open minded tend to close themselves from those who question their faith. So your friend in this case chose to disassociate himself from you because you are criticizing Christianity and Christianity's Holy Book.

 

[televator]

I've been friends with someone for 7 years. A couple years back, he converted to Catholicism. He's pretty liberal about his beliefs though. I'd hate for religion get in between, but I honestly think he only uses it a mental crutch and is well aware of it too.

 

[Prolescum]

To take a small tangent, I offend people all the time. Sometimes with a motive, sometimes with my manner, sometimes with a mirror, and often with my sense of humour. Of course, I care on occasion because either it wasn't my intent or because of details I'm not privy to or something, but all of my friends (the genuine ones, which does include some from the internet) accept it whether it's seen as a virtue or a flaw. My best mate hates being called Mr Malaprop (once I told him what it meant because it shines a light on a flaw of his - I'll be honest, it's a virtue in my eyes; comedy gold) and I accept being called Cunta Kinte the smart-arsed cunt (even in public) for the very same reasons.

Friendships outlast casual offence, if not, they're not friendships but mere acquaintances.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Err... wasn't your post directly addressing the person you were having the email exchange with, even if you didn't use his name? And the end result was that this person never spoke to you again? I think that's the opposite of what the OP wanted...

True enough. I did send it to the person I was corresponding with and it did turn him off. If you glean from my response the caliber of questions/accusations I was responding to, it should come as no surprise that I was not particularly interested in keeping up the discussion. When I posted it as a note on Facebook, however, it had the effect of spawning interesting discussion of the type the OP may have desired. That was what I intended it to be an example of, however awkwardly I worded the introduction to it.

 

[australopithecus]

I had a friend block me too because of, I assume, religious differences (I assume because there was no other point of contention). Not surprising as he now spends his time praying outside abortion clinics.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Religious "friends" usually tend to be worried about your 'salvation'. And sorry to use the word, but it fucking annoys me to hell!

Thankfully the people I'm friends with, regardless of being religious, don't bother about my atheism.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Although we were not extremely close friends, I am saddened by the fact that someone I have known for years blocked me, and presumably wants nothing more to do with me because of a difference in belief. I always made it clear that I respected his beliefs, and that it did not make me think any less of him as a person.

You didn't respect his beliefs. You DON'T respect his beliefs. That's fine, but don't pretend otherwise. You posted negative things about the Bible and Christians, because you don't respect the things said in the Bible or people's belief in those things... things you described as "horrific".

 

[BrainBlow]

I USED to be the religious friend.
Now I'm the most outspoken non-religious friend.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Although we were not extremely close friends, I am saddened by the fact that someone I have known for years blocked me, and presumably wants nothing more to do with me because of a difference in belief. I always made it clear that I respected his beliefs, and that it did not make me think any less of him as a person.

You didn't respect his beliefs. You DON'T respect his beliefs. That's fine, but don't pretend otherwise. You posted negative things about the Bible and Christians, because you don't respect the things said in the Bible or people's belief in those things... things you described as "horrific".

Yea, you (Laurens) respects his right to believe, but no you don't respect the content of his beliefs. Which is why you attack them with your critical thinking on facebook (and that's great!)

But as you already said, perhaps he really is not meant to be your friend. Take comfort in the fact that you are someone who practices critical thinking. Think about it: wouldn't you appreciate having friendships with those who do the same (unlike this guy who clearly depends on faith)?

 

[quantumfireball2099]

My opinion from experience is; if they are friends, they will continue to be so, if they are not, they will either ignore you, delete posts to cover up your logic, or just straight out block you.

Like people have mentioned, religion is a crutch. If you go and kick it out from underneath them, they will fall and smash their face on the floor and will only end up being pissed off at you. On the other hand you will seem like the asshole to everyone else. You have to try and ween them off of the crutch, slowly...

Especially for people like I mentioned, the more of their life that they have invested in religion, the less likely they are to take kindly to you obliterating their beliefs (and trust me, I know it's hard to hold back sometimes, especially if they are biblical literalists).

 

[lrkun]

Atleast you know that you can find new or better friends, unlike family, you can choose your friends. Perk up.

 

[Laurens]

I just can't imagine holding any kind of belief that would require me to disassociate with people who think differently to me. I think differences in opinion can prompt interesting discussions among friends. It's not like I posted something that said 'All Christians are jerks and they are all stupid retards', everything I posted there is found within the Bible, and the texts I referred to that are not in the New Testament also are real and not something I conjured up to cause offence or be controversial.

I think its a shame that Christians like my "friend" would rather distance themselves from such critiques than face up to them and address them. Perhaps it was because my points were valid and the violence in the Old Testament is unjustifiable, and my friend would rather blot them out and not have to face the reality of what is written in the Bible than to confront the problems of scripture.

 

[lrkun]

I just can't imagine holding any kind of belief that would require me to disassociate with people who think differently to me. I think differences in opinion can prompt interesting discussions among friends. It's not like I posted something that said 'All Christians are jerks and they are all stupid retards', everything I posted there is found within the Bible, and the texts I referred to that are not in the New Testament also are real and not something I conjured up to cause offence or be controversial.

I think its a shame that Christians like my "friend" would rather distance themselves from such critiques than face up to them and address them. Perhaps it was because my points were valid and the violence in the Old Testament is unjustifiable, and my friend would rather blot them out and not have to face the reality of what is written in the Bible than to confront the problems of scripture.

I can relate. More often than not, I play the devils advocate in order to see if the discussion will go somewhere. I mean if everyone agrees, we won't really know if there is another side to the story. But, if your friend has already made his mind, he might see your contradiction as an insult, and he can use that as an excuse to distance himself from you. He might say to himself and maybe, eventually, to you, 'we've got nothing in common'.

 

[Squawk]

When a post that presents reasoned argument results in a blocking I would suggest it's a fair conclusion that some of it found its target. The issue is whether or not the person is big enough to question beliefs that they may have cherished for decades.

On the subject of respect, I don't pretend that religious belief doesn't influence my opinion of people. If someone is stupid enough to buy into that bullshit despite ample exposure to reasoned argument then something, somewhere, is wrong. That does not mean I have no respect for them, half my family is religious, but my respect is certainly diminished if they still believe in imaginary friends.

 

[Laurens]

I was reminded of something Daniel Dennett wrote:

If anybody ever raises questions or objections about our religion that you cannot answer, that person is almost certainly Satan. In fact, the more reasonable the person is, the more eager to engage you in open-minded and congenial discussion, the more sure you can be that you're talking to Satan in disguise! Turn away! Do not listen! It's a trap!

It was probably time for him to play the 'wild card' and dismiss me as working for Satan in some way :twisted:

Muahahahahahaha

 

[lrkun]

I was reminded of something Daniel Dennett wrote:

If anybody ever raises questions or objections about our religion that you cannot answer, that person is almost certainly Satan. In fact, the more reasonable the person is, the more eager to engage you in open-minded and congenial discussion, the more sure you can be that you're talking to Satan in disguise! Turn away! Do not listen! It's a trap!

It was probably time for him to play the 'wild card' and dismiss me as working for Satan in some way :twisted:

Muahahahahahaha

If a person is smart, most skeptics are, then they are Satan? Sweet.

That quote implies that their faith requires them to remain closeminded. Not in all things; but in the topic of their religion/faith/belief.