Monday, November 01, 2010

When you lose a loved one to atheism

There are Christians who lose a friend, father, mother, brother, or sister, husband or wife to atheism. This is a shattering experience. They were hoping to spend eternity with their loved one. Now they have to face the future without that prospect.

Yet if a Christian comments on the death of an atheist in terms of what death meant to a human biological unit from the viewpoint of atheism, that’s grossly insensitive to the feelings of the survivors.

But somehow this sensitivity is irrelevant when militant infidels poach on vulnerable Christian. They show no concern for the feelings of his Christian friends and family, who must deal with the emotional loss as best they can.

18 comments:

  1. "When you lose a loved one to atheism"

    That's so much worse than losing a Christian to physical death.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why is it worrisome? Are you saying that you would be unhappy in Heaven without your atheist loved one? Could it still BE Heaven if you are unhappy there? Or does God wipe out your memory of your life on Earth to keep you from feeling bad?

    This is the illogical conclusion one reaches when assuming an omnibenevolent god who demands worship as payment for eternal life. Either conclusion reflects pretty poorly on the deity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. rrlane said...

    "Why is it worrisome? Are you saying that you would be unhappy in Heaven without your atheist loved one?"

    i) First of all, you're trying to deflect the thrust of the post, which is a backdoor admission that the post was right. Infidels are very one-sided about sensitivity to the feelings of others.

    ii) I've already dealt with your type of objection before, so you're lagging behind the actual state of the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  4. an omnibenevolent god who demands worship as payment for eternal life.

    People who don't understand the most basic, foundational doctrines of Christianity (ie, the gospel) should probably refrain from posting smug comments on Christian blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To be honest, I don't quite get the point of your post. Are you saying that atheists aren't taking into consideration YOUR feelings when they come out as atheists?

    ReplyDelete
  6. People who don't understand the most basic, foundational doctrines of Christianity (ie, the gospel) should probably refrain from posting smug comments on Christian blogs.

    So you're saying that your god isn't omnibenevolent or that people don't go to hell (something an omnipotent god could prevent and an omnibenevolent god would want to prevent)?

    Being condescending doesn't make you right, Dominic. It just makes your rude.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @rrlane

    Dominic was simply pointing out that your caricature of Christian doctrine was fundamentally inaccurate.

    We do not believe God demands worship as payment for eternal life.

    We believe God, who created the universe and everything in it, demands that we obey the commandments He instituted through Moses.

    All men are guilty of breaking those laws, therefore, all men deserve due punishment as justice demands.

    Yet, Jesus Christ, who was God in the flesh, came and fulfilled the obligations of the Law by living a perfect and sinless life. He also gave up His life into the hands of wicked men and was crucified on a cross. He died and was buried in a borrowed tomb. Three days later, he rose from the grave, having conquered death once and for all, in order to redeem all those who came to Him by faith.

    Jesus took the sins of many people upon himself and bore the punishment they deserved, as well as lived a perfect life so that his righteousness would be given to them.

    So no, God does not demand worship as a payment for eternal life. He demands much, much more. He demands prideful, arrogant, wicked sinners to be broken on the rocks of His Law and realize their utterly helpless estate and need for His mercy. And He gives to all who ask.

    ReplyDelete
  8. RRLANE SAID:

    "To be honest, I don't quite get the point of your post. Are you saying that atheists aren't taking into consideration YOUR feelings when they come out as atheists?"

    Not must "coming out," but trying to deconvert others.

    They justify this on the grounds that atheism is true, and if that hurts somebody's feelings, tough luck.

    However, if a Christian does that to one of their own, they suddenly invoke the feelings of the wife and kids.

    ReplyDelete
  9. How can someone lose a loved one to atheism?

    If you're going to be a good little Calvinist then you should recognize that any loved one who de-converts was obviously not one of God's elect.


    Maybe you should be mad at God for ordaining them to be unregenerate. Or maybe you should praise God for atheists for helping Him reveal who the unregenerate are.


    That way you won't have to put up with a bunch of people who only think that they are one of God's elect.

    ReplyDelete
  10. LIZA SAID:

    "How can someone lose a loved one to atheism?"

    They commit apostasy.

    "If you're going to be a good little Calvinist then you should recognize that any loved one who de-converts was obviously not one of God's elect."

    You act as if that's at odds with what I wrote. So what?

    "Maybe you should be mad at God for ordaining them to be unregenerate. Or maybe you should praise God for atheists for helping Him reveal who the unregenerate are."

    Which is irrelevant to the point of the post? Are you just too dim to keep up?

    We have infidels who feign outrage when Christians are allegedly insensitive to friends and family of the deceased.

    Yet the same infidels don't hesitate to be equally insensitive (or more so) as long as that's in the interests of the truth (as they see it).

    That's the point. Try to pay attention.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not must "coming out," but trying to deconvert others.

    They justify this on the grounds that atheism is true, and if that hurts somebody's feelings, tough luck.

    However, if a Christian does that to one of their own, they suddenly invoke the feelings of the wife and kids.


    If you mean by "deconvert" pointing out the logical fallacies of theistic belief, guilty as charged. If someone wishes to talk about religion, I'm happy to do so, and I really don't care if their feelings get hurt.

    If you want to sway me me with theistic beliefs, you're welcome to try. Trust me when I say you won't hurt my feelings. You're free to believe whatever you wish, and you're free to preach it to whomever will listen. I only draw the line at bringing it into schools or government. And I feel the same about atheism.

    Government's position on all things religious should be as perfectly neutral as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  12. We do not believe God demands worship as payment for eternal life.


    but then

    We believe God, who created the universe and everything in it, demands that we obey the commandments He instituted through Moses.

    All men are guilty of breaking those laws, therefore, all men deserve due punishment as justice demands.


    Are you truly saying you don't see the mind-spinning logical disconnect between those two statements?

    ReplyDelete
  13. you just too dim to keep up?

    Boy, some folks here sure are quick with the ad hominem attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steve.."But somehow this sensitivity is irrelevant when militant infidels poach on vulnerable Christian"

    Steve no babies are born Christians.Of course im sure you will also have great concern for all the vulnerable babies poached by militant Christian parents with threats of hell playing havoc with the psychology of the young minds.Its grossly insensitive im sure you will agree.Dawkins also agrees with your thoughts on these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Perhaps even more curious would be that this subject comes up on a primarily, if not wholly, Calvinist blog! I believe the atheists have a point in asking, "How can one lose a loved one to atheism?" The Calvinist, in another context, would simply say that person never was TRULY "saved" in the first place. So in reality, they cannot "lose" that which never was possessed to begin with. So when we see this statement posed, "When you lose a loved one to atheism..." what we're seeing is the inconsistency of the Calvinist position - or at least that of the Calvinist who posed the statement to begin with.

    AMDG,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  16. TANIWHA SAID:

    "Steve no babies are born Christians.Of course im sure you will also have great concern for all the vulnerable babies poached by militant Christian parents with threats of hell playing havoc with the psychology of the young minds."

    That does no more damage than warning children not to pick up a rattlesnake. To the contrary, the warning is salutary.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks for illustrating your polemical stupidity, Scott. Apostasy is quite consistent with Calvinism.

    I didn't say they lost their salvation, did I? Rather, I said the apostate is lost to his loved ones.

    If you're so dense that you can't draw rudimentary distinctions, find a new hobby.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rich Lane said:

    You're free to believe whatever you wish, and you're free to preach it to whomever will listen. I only draw the line at bringing it into schools or government. And I feel the same about atheism.

    Government's position on all things religious should be as perfectly neutral as possible.


    1. I'll quickly note it's interesting you include atheism. This is a backdoor admission that atheism itself isn't neutral, but in fact "religious." Not that you'd necessarily dispute the point. But I mention it as an observation for other people to keep in mind when interacting with you in the future.

    2. More to the point, why do you say one should be "neutral"?

    Are you appealing to what's legal (e.g. the Constitution) or ethics and morality?

    If you're appealing to legality alone, then it only pushes the question back a step. Eventually you'd still have to morally and ethically ground what's legal if you're going to compel others with a "should." Otherwise it'd be easy enough to respond with something like, what's legal isn't necessarily what's moral or ethical and vice versa.

    If you're appealing to ethics and morality, then, given your atheistic beliefs and values (judging by Blogger profile), what moral or ethical duty requires us to be neutral in the first place? Sure, on the face of it, neutrality in government and education may seem to be fair-minded, unbiased, and so on. But on what is this based? After all, neutrality entails its own pre-commitments - e.g. religious tolerance, pluralism. Such values themselves need to be grounded, which you don't do here. Rather you're just asserting without benefit of argument that one should be neutral. Why, given your atheism, do you say so?

    We do not believe God demands worship as payment for eternal life.

    but then

    We believe God, who created the universe and everything in it, demands that we obey the commandments He instituted through Moses.

    All men are guilty of breaking those laws, therefore, all men deserve due punishment as justice demands.


    Are you truly saying you don't see the mind-spinning logical disconnect between those two statements?


    1. When you respond with stuff like this, it's painfully obvious you don't actually understand Biblical Christianity. Your ignorance is on public display. If you're going to criticize something, then you ought to at least take the time to understand it.

    2. BTW, this is especially ironic in light of the fact that you're supposed to be an educator. But it seems the teacher has to go back to school to relearn the basics.

    ReplyDelete