Every month I put out a short video related to some of the practical implications of worldview beliefs. I create them to post on our ministry website (www.marketfaith.org), but they are hosted on YouTube and Rumble. From there, I put links up on several other social media platforms to allow as many people as possible to see them. Since I produce these videos as a resource for Christians, that is who mostly sees them; and occasionally someone will respond to me, mostly saying they appreciate the content.
Periodically, however, people who disagree with me will see one of these posted on the YouTube site and make a comment. Even this, though, doesn’t generally produce much discussion.
But occasionally, one that I put up will cause a firestorm. And when it does, I will jump in and use that as an opportunity to share my faith in Christ. That happened recently.
Not long ago, I posted a video called Now Christians are Haters? This one was about how the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, was pilloried by those on the political left because of his Christian beliefs. You can view the video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgFnMUnuMN0&lc=UgwUKe2E-JOpq_Qjf4B4AaABAg.A0emz0XzEG7A0jyM_FSviv.
The conversations that ensued covered a lot of ground, and were engaged along several threads. In fact, there was so much response that it is impossible to put it all into a single newsletter. So what I have decided to do is to break them down and share them over multiple posts – this one being the first. It is my hope and prayer that these conversations will benefit you in several ways. I hope through them:
1. You will come to grasp more deeply the way hardcore Atheists think about faith matters so you can better understand them when you engage.
2. You will gain insights about how to deal with people who oppose your faith,
3. You will gain increased confidence in your own Christian faith,
[Housekeeping Note: The names have been changed (except for my own) so that those I was interacting with cannot be personally identified. Also, these conversations are copied exactly as they were posted without making grammatical, spelling, punctuation, or any other changes except where it was absolutely necessary to make it clear.]
SW
Fighting to keep religion out of places that it is unconstitutional for it to be, is not “putting down Christians”. It is telling those Christians not to put down non-Christians.
Before flinging these borderline slanderous accusations, provide some examples of Dan Barker putting down Christians. Dan Barker is a kind and respectful man, and your depiction of him is questionable, to say the least. In general I have seen him being quite respectful in his interactions with Christians. If you’re going to sling accusations at him, bring your receipts.
I am unimpressed by you asking “who really is the hater?” shortly after you refer to atheists, with derision practically dripping from your voice.
Cloaking the promotion of discrimination against gay and trans people, as “advocating for Christian values”, doesn’t hide the bigotry, It just pollutes the Christian values.
And the claim that Christian nationalism is just an expression of Christian values, is quite dishonest. The attempts to push Christianity into government, is profoundly undemocratic, and against the values our country was founded on. It is not “just Christianity”. It entails efforts to fundamentally change our government, typically fueled with lies and propaganda.
Freedom of worship and religion, requires everyone to have those freedoms, not just the Christians.
Nobody is telling you to give up your beliefs. But don’t get on your high horse complaining about getting some push back, when you push your beliefs on others.
We don’t live in a theocracy, so what you define as your Christian values, are not the law of the land.
And no, I do not accuse or attack all Christians of bad behavior. Just the ones actually exhibiting bad behavior.
Feel free to shout from the rooftops, if you think homosexuality is a sin. Just don’t use your beliefs to promote discriminatory actions.
And finally, I don’t care if you call it love or hate. But calling for actions that will hurt gay and trans people, deserves being called out, regardless of motivations.
Did Jim Jones love his followers? Aside from academic curiosity, the answer is rather irrelevant.
Isn’t there a saying about a road to some bad place being paved with good intentions?
Freddy Davis
SW, You seem to have a rather limited understanding of the differences between advocating for a particular set of values and pushing to put religion in “places.” No one that I know of has ever advocated for a theocracy. You also seem to be advocating for an understanding of “separation of church and state” that is simply not true.
Of course Christians advocate for Christian values in the public square. But what do you think people like Barker (and you) are doing? Do you honestly believe that he is value neutral? He is advocating for his atheistic values as a means of pushing people who don’t agree with him out of the public square. He is doing exactly what you are accusing Christians of doing (and what you are advocating for here).
I am sure Barker is a kind individual. However, if you believe filing lawsuits against Christians for a living is respectful, you have a funny definition of respectful. I have actually heard him debate a Christian in person, and he was respectful until he started getting it handed to him, and he sort of “changed his tune.”
So, you’re saying it’s okay for me to not give up my beliefs, but in doing that I have to keep them as a private belief, is that it? I can’t advocate for them in the public square. But that same requirement does not apply to you, right? I mean, I guess it is okay for you to get on your high horse and complain about the push back you get when you promote immoral beliefs. It’s okay for you to discriminate against Christians. You can’t have it both ways.
Contrary to the stereotype you seem to have about Christians, I am not for discrimination. But I also believe I should not e forced to celebrate what I consider immoral sexual values – which is what you are advocating (whether you recognize it or not).
Spades
Thank you, SW. That was very well put! ✌ ♥
Spades
freddydavis, it seems like you’re misinterpreting the intent. We are not saying that Christianity is bad. We are saying that we need to keep it separate from government actions and decisions. This is a country for all types of religious and non-religious citizens, right?
Also, just an FYI, we are not “celebrating immoral sexual values”. We believe that people who our LGBTQ+ are allowed to be love and accepted by the community. They are more than their sexual preferences. They are kind, smart, and great peolpe. My cousin is gay, so any laws proposed that are anti-gay, should not become law, agreed? She should have the option to live her life in the same public space as you. Don’t confuse equality for all as discrimination for you.
Freddy Davis
spades, I hope you read my reply to SW. His response was not as good as you think.
SW
freddydavis, You seem to want to focus on the FFRF, so I’ll try and follow suit.
As I see it the foundation adheres to the principle of universal religious freedoms. This entails preventing the government form taking sides in endorsing or promoting any one religion.
You say that they are disrespectful of Christians when they file a lawsuit. I am confused as to how enforcing the law should be considered disrespectful. From the examples I have seen, when the FFRF steps in, their first action involves sending a letter enunciating the legal problems, and how they suggest correcting the issue. The lawsuits would happen after the relevant party declines to follow the law.
If a party at that point is wiling to deliberately break the law, I am wondering what you would consider appropriate, and “respectful” behavior.
Religious freedoms require all of us to have the same religious freedom. Christians should not be granted some special dispensation, so that their freedom is more important than a person of a different faith.
So, I think Dan barker is working to support a fundamental and important constitutional principle.
If he is pushing people out of the public square, it is explicitly because they crossed a legal line, and engaged in what can be described as religious discrimination.
So, attacking his goals and actions, is getting close to endorsing religious discrimination.
I have heard a some disparaging accusations against the FFRF from other sources, sometimes going so far as to cry religious persecution. Which is a tactic that might sell well to like minded Christians, that apparently don’t want anything impeding their Christianity. But I have yet to see any fair reporting, that supports such claims.
Freedom of speech (and religion) is wonderful, and important. But I would like you to remember that governmental employees, in positions of authority, have some limitations against promoting a religion. If you are not a governmental representative, you have very little impeding your promotion of your religion.
You accused me of having double standards, and that I am saying you can’t promote your religious views in public. Where did I ever say that? I explicitly said you can shout them from the rooftops. Disagreeing with you, is not discriminating against you.
If you are against discrimination, I will happily give you a virtual pat on the back.
However, I distinctly saw you refer to Christian nationalism positively, and that doesn’t mesh too well.
When I hear about the likes of David Barton, pushing revisionist, and frankly dishonest interpretations of our law and history, I am not inclined to be charitable.
I recognize there are wide variations in Christian views and values, and I am attempting to not make assumptions about yours. But supporting Christian Nationalism, would not put you on the right side, in a fight against discrimination.
You even claimed that I lacked understanding of the difference between advocation, and pushing something. I think even the language there is getting fuzzy, so I am unsure what exactly you are accusing me of there.
You then accused me of saying it is OK to discriminate against Christians. I have no idea what you have to support that outrageous claim.
I advocate for people thinking for themselves, and voting their own conscience. I also advocate for universal religious freedom. Some of this benefits from having public discourse over matters we may disagree on.
Just like you have the rights to say what you said. I have the rights to publicly disagree. And personally, I wish that as a culture we had more public back and forth on what we disagree on.
Freddy Davis
spades, You don’t seem to realize that there is no such thing as a neutral point of view. No Christian that I know wants a theocracy. Anyone who believes we do simply doesn’t know what they are talking about. At the same time, some set of values will be the basis for society. Right now the values that are dominating society have led to a massive increase in crime, huge inflation, disintegration of the rule of law, a celebration of sexual immorality in the entertainment industry, an acceptance of lying in the news media, and an opening to wars around the world. In other words, the non-biblical values that currently dominate society have led to chaos. You may not personally appreciate Christian values, but when they are the values used to order society, you simply don’t have those things. Obviously there has never been (and never will be this side of eternity) a time when we have utopia on earth, but Christian values do mitigate the evil.
Spades
freddydavis, so you don’t want a theocracy, but your statement suggests otherwise. lol ok I’m done. Good luck with your channel!
Freddy Davis
SW, Maybe you see it that way, but the way you see it is flawed. They want universal religious freedom as long as it the universal religion of naturalistic Atheism. As I have mentioned before, there is no such thing as a values neutral point of view. From the very founding of our nation, Christian values (not the Christian religion) have been the foundation of our nations laws and civic order. Barker’s goal is to sweep that aside and replace that with an entirely different set of values based on his naturalistic worldview beliefs. It is simply substituting the values of one belief system for the values of another.
No one is promoting the Christian religion in government. What they are promoting is Christian values. If you can’t make that distinction, you will never grasp what is really going on. The lack of making that distinction is causing you to make arguments and accusations that do not reflect reality. It is causing you use pejoratives like “Christian Nationalism,” look at our nation’s history as if it had a naturalistic belief foundation, and make statements about what Christians believe that they don’t actually believe. Your entire argument is full of inaccuracies that are expressed as the truth.
I do agree with you on one thing, though, I also wish that there was more civil back and forth about what we disagree on. Freedom of conscience is a real Christian value.
Freddy Davis
spades, Perhaps you should look up the definition of a theocracy.
This conversation continues and will pick up from this point in part 2.
© 2024 Freddy Davis