Tough I did receive positive emails; I also received one negative comment from someone who described himself as an atheist. And his comments I felt should be shared along with my replied.
Your comments are welcome.
His opening comment was:
“Since the previous commenter has seen fit to discuss the content, rather than the mechanics of this article in the main, I happily find myself feeling empowered to do the same.
I should begin by stating my position as an atheist - that no empiracle (sic) evidence exists to prove the existence of god. With this starting point in mind, I find it amazing that you first link righteousness to godliness and then suggest that a non-believer's objection to the christian denouncement of homosexuality may be the result of their perceived unrighteousness and an inability to hold a morally sound position.”
[Note, I did not suggest their inability to hold a moral position, atheist have a habit of misrepresenting Christians and falsely accusing them of things. It is a tactic that is very effective in wasting time and avoiding the issue being discussed]
Since I was not clear on what point he was making, I replied:
"I am not sure of your reference point in my article, it would help if you quote a section of the area you are referring to so that I can more accurately reply."
“You refer to the ‘unrighteous’ in your article, and since I think it’s reasonable to assume that you are not referring to those who do follow christian doctrine, you are surely referring to those who do not; thus there is an implied link between righteousness and godliness in this article.
[That is correct]
Having reread your article, I find no direct link between this and the morality of a non-believer, however I think it is reasonable to assume that by ‘unrighteous’ you do not mean ‘those of good morals’. In any case, since you have later questioned where my morals could come from if not god, I think I am justified in making the original assumption despite its absence from the article itself.”
[In other words he did not see any connection between my view of Christian righteousness and holiness and the morality of atheists. Meaning my view does not affect the reality their true morality. Naturally I disagreed since I argued that his world view has no place for morality of any kind].
"Why would you when your standards are based on atheism? But your inability to find a link does not mandate an absence of a link. That is unless you are omniscient of course."
[My point was that his inability to see was due to his ignorance and not my error. Since Morality does not come in a Variety of concepts and cannot be molded and shaped into any form humans want to present it in, his point was moot. I knew that he could well see but claimed not to see to avoid the accountability of his false perspective on morality]. He did not respond to this comment.
He then stated:
“As an atheist, I find no need for scripture to inform my morals; I find myself perfectly capable of taking a moral stance without it. Within this umbrella lies the ability to judge - whatever that judgement may conclude - the extent to which homosexuality may, in my opinion, be considered 'right'.”
I replied with a statement and a question:
"As one who spends much of my time in dialogue with atheists, I have come to expect your kind of reply, I understand your argument and I will try to get you to explain its logic. As an atheist, please tell me what your foundation for morality is? You seem to be a self assured atheist who has no doubt that there is no God and that therefore the Bible and Christianity are false, so perhaps you will be able to enlighten me as to what you base your morality on?"
“I base my morality on the ‘independent spectator’ that we all have, and maintain that there is no reason to suggest that this independent moral judgement (sic) comes from god. I say this for two reasons.
1. Different cultures have different opinions on what can be considered to be morally sound. Morals are therefore clearly a product, in part, of where you live and the moral judgements (sic) that you have seen around you.
2. There seems to be good evidence to suggest that social cohesion is of evolutionary benefit to a species in many cases – the pooling of resources, safety in numbers & an increase in opportunities to procreate are just three such examples. This requires basic morality as a means of determining what is right or wrong for that group, and is therefore likely to be an innate genetic trait as well as a social construct.
"I am not clear on what you are referring to here. If you are referring to our ability as humans to perceive morality and form some form of moral code within a community, that is hardly a foundation upon which to base your morality since as you have pointed out below, such a morality differs from culture to culture and thus provides no reliable standard upon which to live by.
It appears that you are grasping at straws here since your example supports my argument rather than yours. The fact that “Different cultures have different opinions on what can be considered to be morally sound” is evidence that the type of moral standard you are referring to is insufficient. I am writing about a higher standard of morality that transcends human origin, not the cultural tendencies to pick and choose or create their own brand of morality. While your world view requires that you attribute the concept of morality to human invention, you have no logical bases for doing so, if we are only evolved animals as your world view must demand; then there is no real moral law or requirement to follow the variety made up by human collaboration. In your world view, anything can be established as a moral code."
“2. There seems to be good evidence to suggest that social cohesion is of evolutionary benefit to a species in many cases – the pooling of resources, safety in numbers & an increase in opportunities to procreate are just three such examples. This requires basic morality as a means of determining what is right or wrong for that group, and is therefore likely to be an innate genetic trait as well as a social construct.”
"It seems that you are willing to settle for an illogical explanation for the existence of morality in order to avoid the necessity of God.
Acknowledging that society requires morality to be sustained and then attributing that morality to genetics with no scientific evidence of a moral gene, is not being logical. In fact, you have to borrow from the Judeo-Christian world view to sustain your concept of morality since atheism really has no use for or real explanation for morality.
Without a universal code of morality and accountability, and an authority to enforce that accountability, you are left with the obvious problem of “whose morality gets to be THE morality”, and for how long, since it can change depending on who is in charge.
Granted, the so called “Christianity” that seems to come in hundreds of flavors, can be a formidable obstacle to overcome on the way to getting at the truth, but there is sufficient information available to help any serious person get past the noise to the truth. And that truth does indeed stand out from all other world religions, and contains both a logical explanation for the origin of moral law as well as an accountability system to enforce it, and one’s personal belief does not change it."
“I need no divine supervision to act within this moral framework. Without god, there are still consequences to behaving immorally – social exclusion & retribution for example. This sets moral behaviour (sic) as a direct evolutionary benefit – mystery explained, I think.”
"You seem to be too intelligent to really think that having consequences for violating a fabricated system of morality, establishes that morality as true morality. But it seems that you must to avoid the God factor. You still are stuck with an internal moral system with no true origin or logical bases. Morality, like love, thought, and life itself make no since without God. I think you know this but you must deny it to protect you atheist worldview. You know that science is not the answer and evolution is extremely limited and cannot account for life. So while you are well within your rights to deny and reject God and Christianity, and protest my article, you really have no intelligent or moral ground to do so."
He had also said:
“In case you are interested, I take the stance that since homosexuality can be observed throughout the animal kingdom from chimps to dolphins, it's probably not going to result in the downfall of human society.”
To which I replied:
"I take it that you are suggesting that we as humans should get our morals from the animal kingdom? Many eat their young and kill for food, take what they want as the stronger, are you suggesting that we take our instructions from other animals?"
And he responded:
“Of course not. Morality is one evolutionary trait amongst many. Dolphins have evolved to live in water and attack sharks by butting tem with their noses – I wouldn’t recommend taking that as good advice on how to behave. What I meant by my comparison was that homosexual practices do not seem to have resulted in the demise of social groups anywhere – humans included.
To address your counter-argument – are you under the impression that humans do not rape or commit infanticide? History begs to differ. I think you will find well documented evidence that humans – including those claiming to hold some of the highest orders of ‘godliness’ have been found to commit rape. As for infanticide, I really hope that it is not necessary for me to point out the proliferation of this, both historically and presently, amongst those that consider that they have god’s permission (and indeed, indictment) to do so. Just open a newspaper or switch on the news. Happily, most humans seem to have evolved the sound moral judgement (sic) to avoid such things, many without the help of any deity.”
"But that is an assumption based on a false idea that humans evolved from lower animals. While it is a popular idea propped up by savvy tactics, it has no historical or scientific evidence to substantiate it."
“What I meant by my comparison was that homosexual practices do not seem to have resulted in the demise of social groups anywhere – humans included.”
"But you are smart enough to understand that homosexual relationships do not naturally result in procreation and is thus contrary to the perpetuation of human civilization. It requires social confusion to operate and is an established medical hazard both physically and psychologically. And it is a sin because it is against the natural function of the sexes as defined by our creator. As an atheist, none of this concerns you because it is to your advantage to undermine any such thing that supports the existence of God."
“To address your counter-argument – are you under the impression that humans do not rape or commit infanticide? History begs to differ...”
"My argument is for Godliness, righteousness etc. I have not argued for false representations of Christianity and human depravity so I see no reason for your point."
“..Happily, most humans seem to have evolved the sound moral judgement to avoid such things, many without the help of any deity.”
"But how do you know they did not borrow their morality from those who did follow a deity? I am amazed at how much faith atheists have in assumptions, often more than we Christians have in God."
He had also stated:
“Furthermore, the vile dogma preached for years surrounding this has led to innocent people being lynched, beaten and kicked to death by it's believers.”
To which I replied:
"By this, you are suggesting that anyone openly objecting to an idea is at once responsible for any other person’s use of that objection to do physical harm to others. Is that logical?"
“Again, of course I’m not, but then you’re not simply expressing your opinion; you are encouraging an action too.”
I then asked:
"What action am I encouraging other than getting the truth to homosexuals and others about their sexual practices and activist agenda of misinformation and the divine and natural consequences?
None of which encourage any hostile activity against homosexuals. If you view such exposure as encouraging hostility, or hate, then you are not thinking logically. That view would also apply to you and your objections to my message. Is there a double standard?"
"Preachment of this sort has been proven historically to be very dangerous if you happen to be gay. There may well be few people nowadays that will commit violence as a result of this preachment, however there are far more that will happily shun or verbally abuse others in the name of it."
To which I replied:
"You are still arguing illogically, telling someone that they are doing something wrong and harmful or exposing their deceptive agenda does not force anyone to do them harm. Nor does it force someone who is psychologically stable to harm themselves. People have a right to shun that which they have good reason to object to and to state their reasons and concerns is not verbal abuse. Additionally, because there are people who are unstable enough to be abusive about their objection to homosexuality, does not make their objections wrong."
He also asked:
“Why preach this to others knowing that in some cases it may lead to violence, emotional hurt against; or indeed the patronisation (sic) of, an innocent person
And I replied:
"Again, you are attempting to blame me for the foolish actions of others supposedly based on what I say. That is a crafty tactic; albeit illogical, that has long been used to silence my kind of message and it is intellectually dishonest. Are you aware that you kind of accusations have lead to homosexuals committing hostile acts against non-homosexuals? Are you to blame for their unstable conduct?"
[This kind of logical questioning disturbs them because they know that it addresses the illogic of their argument and exposes their game].
"particularly since one individual’s sexuality is none of your business, or that of your church?”
"It is my business when they flaunt their homosexuality in my face in public and on TV and force it into my children’s school curriculum, and when they use craft and deceptions to get laws passed to force acceptance of their sexual “orientation”. Enough has been published to fully expose what is going on, so I cannot accept that you are ignorant of the issues unless you have intentionally avoided such material. But then, as an atheist, addressing that fairly would not necessarily be of interest to you."
“My defence (sic) of homosexuality is based on a number of principles – the law made through debate and the combined moral judgement (sic) of humans; the lack of empirical evidence to suggest that it is wrong, much less dangerous; and my own morality.”
"A law cannot be passed legally to require acceptance of homosexuality. That is not the governments function, nor is it constitutional.
Humans cannot make an immoral act moral, only through ignorance and clever manipulation of easily influenced people via media and schools can such twisted idea be made to seem good and right.
You have clearly not bothered to research this matter carefully, there are many evidences not only proving the wrongness and danger of homosexuality, but also documented evidence as to how they forced the APA and other manor psychological organizations to take them off the disorder lists not by scientific investigation but by hostile actions. Homosexuals themselves have boasted about this.
Your morality is not the standard for humanity and thus is not of much help in determining which of us is right in this matter.
Your defense of homosexuality neglects a wealth of details that incriminates it while your indictment of Christianity by use of presumably what “so called Christians” do in violation of the rightly divided Biblical mandate requires, is interesting."
"For this; the religious should, in my opinion, be offering far more by way of apology, rather than seeking to resurrect such a divisive and frankly dangerous doctrine”
"You will first have to explain the logic of your argument before suggesting our apology.
To which he shot back:
“Not ‘our’ apology, rather, ‘your’ apology; for the reasons stated above. If your unnecessary preachment as outlined in this article leads to such persecution”
To which I shot back:
"Again, your reasoning is illogical; persecution has its own definition and does not need to be redefined. Objecting to someone’s flaunting of their sexual preference can hardly be called leading to persecution. Neither can exposing crafty tactics, deceptions, depravity and dishonesty be called leading to persecution. I am amazed at how many words you all have simply redefined and twisted to suit your purpose. To say that it leads to persecution is a tactic and not intelligent argument, especially since it would just as easily apply to your comments."
“(by the way, lovingly urging someone to stop being gay is persecution of the most patronizing order), you should absolutely apologise (sic) for it, as should those whose preachments have led to this in the past.”
And I replied:
"Since my deep faith conviction as a Christian requires me to inform homosexuals to stop being homosexual, would your insistence that by doing so I am causing others to harm homosexuals and should apologize, be properly considered persecution? Is it persecution when homosexuals picket business owners for choosing not to make homosexual supporting items? Or is it persecution when homosexuals post the personal information of those who do not support their “orientation” online and harasses them with obscene phone calls and emails etc.?"
He concluded by saying:
"Thank you Danzil. It is exactly this type of respectful public discourse that allows people of all faiths and none to express their reasoned arguments without fear of being labelled (sic) as bigoted or (insert ideology)phobic. I fully trust that anyone reading our exchange is presented with a clear understanding of each point of view and the tools necessary to make a fully informed judgement (sic). Thanks again."
"You are welcome Adrian, thanks again for commenting. I will be reading your material as well. Have a great New Year."
As you can see he communicated typical atheists/pro homosexual arguments and sentiments even though he was a lot more polite than the average atheist.
I hope this brief dialogue will be useful to you, or at least edifying. Join me in prayer for him that God will save him.