I’ve been challenged to blog on the Gospel more frequently: warning, more religious posts up ahead, dear readers!:)

Dear readers,

 I’ve been recently challenged by a fellow Christian to blog more on the Gospel and proclaim it more…and I think he’s right.  So.:)  Just a warning, dear readers…you’re going to see more religious posts from me quite soon about my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.:)


a number of my readers are atheists and agnostics–and I want them to feel comfortable and happy reading this blog, TOO!  I believe in fostering a secular as *well as* a religious ethos for everyday living, and so this is what I’m going to do:

 1) All posts I write on the Gospel in terms of witnessing will be carefully logged under “Christianity:  My Journey”:  thus, if you don’t want to read about religious belief, you can just skip my posts under that title.

2) In the next day or two, I’ll provide a post and a comment thread where readers will have the opportunity to debate and offer different viewpoints about atheism, agnosticism, Christianity, and other religions.  I think this is only fair, because if I’m trying to make an anti-manipulation blog **for all* to benefit from, anti-religious and non-religious voices should have the opportunity to be heard.:)

I look forward to this thread, and it *will* have rules for civilized debate and dialogue–so, if you’ve got a hankering, come on over and check it out.:)

Yours truly in love,

Scarred the Feminist Pit Bull



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “I’ve been challenged to blog on the Gospel more frequently: warning, more religious posts up ahead, dear readers!:)

  1. stixzz

    anti-religious and non-religious voices should have the opportunity to be heard.:)

    and likewise in the ‘left wing scene’ religious voices have as much right to be heard. All to often, in the left wing scene dominated by secular fundamentalism people who have a relgious viewpoint can only put accross thier viewpoint in a context of being apologetic. Fuck that. Be religious and don’t apologise for that.

    Scarred:MMM–WAH!–(sound of loud kiss on cheek)–THANK YOU!

  2. Doug S.

    In some contexts, it can be a bit more challenging to be anti-religious than to be religious… apparently, there are more people in the United States that would refuse to vote for an atheist than would refuse to vote for a homosexual (which probably says more about changing attitudes about homosexuality than it does about atheism, but the point stands). Anyway, although there are often pragmatic reasons to stay silent about your beliefs (telling the local dictator he’s a murdering bastard usually doesn’t do much for one’s life expectancy) if you do believe something, it’s a bit weird to be ashamed of it.

    One problem with bringing religion into political debate is that religious claims are hard to refute politely. If someone says “My religion says X, therefore X”, then, if you hope to convince that person of not-X, you have to convince that person of one of the following:

    1) That person’s religion is wrong
    2) That person’s religion does not say X

    Asserting #1 is considered rude and is unlikely to persuade anyone, as “my religion” often means “something I will believe no matter what evidence or arguments I am presented with.” Asserting #2 is accepting that the religion in question is a legitimate authority.

    For example:

    Believer: “Odin says that only people who die in battle go to Valhalla. If we invade Canada, more people will die in battle than will die of other causes. Therefore, we should invade Canada.”

    Non-believer objection of type #1: “Odin and Valhalla don’t exist, so using them to justify an otherwise completely pointless invasion is stupid. Dying in battle is not inherently better than other deaths, so invading Canada would be a colossal mistake.”

    Non-believer objection of type #2: “Odin also says that he wants warriors in Valhalla to be proud, capable, and just. Canada does not deserve to be invaded, so invading it is not the act of a warrior that is proud, capable, and just. Therefore, we should not invade Canada; it would be better to wait until there is a country that deserves to be invaded.”

    The second objection is more likely to convince a believer in Odin that Canada should not be invaded, but making it forces one to accept the premise that Odin and Valhalla exist, going to Valhalla after death is desirable, and that only those that die in battle can go to Valhalla.

    Thus lies the danger of mixing religion and politics.

    Scarred: No argument here. Actually, I agree with the complete concept of the separation of church and state. When I blog on the Gospel, I’m *very* careful to make certain of the following:

    Point 1: Atheists, agnostics, and other people who are not of my religion have equal intellectual rights to me…and they DON’T HAVE TO share my beliefs or my basis premise. How can they–they haven’t experienced what *I’ve* seen!! By defintion to *me*, faith is an experiential thing…it can only be experienced, not forced. BIG chunks of my blog are related to things such as resisting manipulation and critical thinking…skills that atheists and agnostics should be *applauded* for, and I think we the religious can *learn* a lot from this thinking! It sure is an improvement over the Jerry Falwell/Torquemada B.S. that has been propagated through the centuries…

    Just a little personal history…I *used* to be a neopagan Asatruar and magician, so I’ve had experiences which I’ve considered to be *heavy* paranormal/supernatural phenomena…some stuff that was literally quite unbelievable. BUT. I don’t expect or demand that people *believe* what I’ve been through…because there was and is no way to prove it scientifically in a lab. Well…I’ve had several experiences with Jesus, which brought me over to Christianity…BUT…again, I had to *experience it* to believe it. So while I’ll *witness* for the Gospel, I’ll never demand that someone become a Christian. I believe in *persuasion,* not *coercion.* And actually, it angers me quite greatly that rightwingnuts are busy attacking the characters and even citizenship of atheists and agnostics. It’s RIDICULOUS, and damn unfair!

    And the entire idea behind representational democracy is that we are supposed to have the rule of law and policymaking *by consensus*–the consent of the governed. How can legitimate policymaking be conducted in an atmosphere where one group’s religion is forced down the gullets of others?? We have a nation of Christians, yes, BUT ALSO atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, New Agers, Jains, etc.

    Point 2: To me, the very essence of Christianity is free will…the free will of Christ Jesus to sacrifice His life on the cross for all of humanity, the free will of people to accept or reject this sacrifice. FREE WILL. This is something that religious Christofascists forget. IMHO, God *honors* free will…and to even contemplate *monkeying around* with the free will of someone *just because* they don’t have the same religion–or don’t believe in religion!–as me is sickening, IMHO.

    I’m *NOT* ashamed to be Christian, but I am trying to be–how shall I say?–non-obnoxious and gentle about it. I have seen and watched supposed Christians *harass* the living daylights out of atheists and agnostics from a political and social standpoint, and I think it’s WRONG. I’m going to witness for what I’ve seen and experienced as the Truth…the Living Water that can heal all…but the LAST thing I will ever do is try to pressure, shame, or browbeat people into accepting this. It’s not what my Lord and Savior would want…and it’s not what I’m going to do. That’s why I’m interested in creating a safe space for atheists, agnostics, and members of other religions while also blogging *for* the Gospel. This *sounds* like I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth, but not really, IMHO…it’s called *tolerance* and *liberty,* something that used to be practiced a lot more in this country, unfortunately. Also, the following:

    Point 3: when people bring religion into politics, you shouldn’t have to wear kid gloves to refute them! I agree with attacking ideas (but not people). For example, you should have the *perfect right* to talk about Christobigotry against atheists! Also, you should have the right to be *as vehement as you want to be* in attacking the use of religion in politics!! While you are right that “rudeness” is unpersuasive, I think some hard-hitting factuality is in order, i.e., “Look, buddy, you can believe what you want…but if you can’t replicate it in a lab, don’t even think about forcing it on me!” Also, I think that it’s RIGHT AND JUST to attack bigotry and discrimination against atheists and agnostics. There’s also this: if I assert Jesus exists, you have the perfect constitutional right to assert Jesus doesn’t exist. Furthermore, you shouldn’t be subjected to discrimination because of it! If someone gets in your face and says, “Repent, sinner, you’re dragging the nation to hell,” you have the perfect MORAL as well as legal right to say, “Is this your pet rock talking to you this week, or that plastic statue of St. Christopher on your dashboard?? And when was your last Thorazine tablet??”

    And Hades, why NOT a thread for the debate about religions versus science versus spirituality? If I get to blog on the Gospel, seems to me that you should have the right to comment on it! I’m not ashamed of the Christ, but neither am I threatened by challenges. I think it’s a mark of religious insecurity to be threatened by atheist and agnostic challenges…and I think atheists and agnostics do all religious and non-religious people a *valuable* service by challenging “stinking thinking” and coercion-based rationalizations. There was a period of my life when *I* was agnostic…I think almost all thinking, intelligent people either *have* agnostic/atheist periods…or they *become* atheist or agnostic. ANYONE who doesn’t question religion at one point in life has got some issues, IMHO. I came to Christianity because of *very* powerful and life-changing experiences, quite mystical, in fact…but I’m smart enough to know that mystical experiences are subjective and cannot *demand* belief. Nonetheless, I’ve got plans to blog about them…and I would not interfere with people’s right to question, not believe, or believe, as they will…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s