Everybody loves a good scandal.
Watching others implode makes us feel good about ourselves.
When someone says, “I was mistreated” we love saying #MeToo !
We discussed this scandal on the podcast this week.
You can follow the links to gather all the juicy details.
The atheists are even jumping in on this one!
Standing-up for sexual abuse gives them an excuse to throw Christianity under the bus.
I’d like to ponder for a moment:
Â
When Christians Make Atheists Their Champions
It should be obvious that Christians ought not ally themselves with people who hate religion. But it’s not. So I will offer some observations on the “Life After” group. These are some of the people supporting Rachel Custer in her relentless pursuit of justice.
Reminder:
If I am not required to explain anything, then you can’t judge me. I may set fire to kittens and sell crack to 2-year olds. I may be a University professor who propositions women at writing conventions and gropes students in my office.
These are my choices, thoughts, and preferences and I don’t need to explain them. Thanks for understanding!
Shame and guilt are the result of religious indoctrination. See? Withholding information about sex and science and history results in developmental delays. I guess religious indoctrination is bad. Remember, atheism is a religion.
Fortunately, I don’t need to explain my thoughts or choices regarding the raising children.
Thanks for understanding.
It should bother you when the people who are championing your cause are morons.
Before you ask the heathen to help you build a gallows for a brother in Christ, consider this:
1 Corinthians 6
If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!
7Â The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Â Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9Â Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men10Â nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
6 Responses
I’ve been reflecting on the humanist morality position for a while now – it made zero sense to me before. I think I’ve come to see a few things about it now. (TL;DR version in the final paragraph).
First, the only concrete answers I’ve gotten from any atheist/humanist regarding morality is that it is personal preference. This is mystifying and sensible on two different levels. Mystifying in that it almost entirely cripples the word by making so subjective. Sensible in that it’s the only answer possible to have.
Second, such a view of morality is dependent on tribalism more than any other systems of which I’m aware. It can only exist if you form groups of like-minded people to enforce norms on any deviants to then label them as “wrong” in this regard. If a deviant is unable to comply, then they are cut off from the group (“If you can’t see why it’s wrong, then I’m not explaining it to you” sound familiar?). It also explains why they can claim moral progress, because the current state of the group is the ideal – even if slavery was not wrong for some people in the 1800s at the time, a humanist can still say it’s wrong now, because of the progress that has been made.
Perhaps this explanation can be applied to many groups, but it feels like the humanist is most prone to needing to comply to group think – as there is no other underlying support network for why something is wrong. This also accounts for virtue signaling – in order to maintain social relevance, I have to show how pioneering and brave I am to the group to justify and get support from them for my right actions.
The moral of the story is – humanists at best have an understanding of morality that is like everyone else’s and at worst function like self-righteous middle-schoolers who have no real concept of what they are doing.
Haven’t listened to the podcast yet. Just wanted to say, it’s not just atheists who do this but sometimes Christians too. Their goal or agenda is not healing or empowering victims, but rather attacking the church, seeking vengeance, or virtue signaling for their own tribe. They exploit the crap out of victims, use them almost like a commodity. We see this kind of tribalism play out in politics, too. “Who” the offender is actually determines whether a wrong doing happened or not. I must confess, my heart kind of sung when Trump took that narrative and flipped it on it’s head, inviting some of the Clinton women to the debate. It was like finally, someone gets it.
I recently had a spat with Spiritual Sounding board, Kathy and gang. Flat out, their agenda is to attack the church, to seek revenge against marriage, to slay complementarians, not to empower or heal victims. In the blink of an eye in these situations, I always become the enemy, soon accused of lying, playing the victim card, being an abuser myself, because my own story is not about churchian abuse but rather atheist abuse, cover ups, silencing. It slams against the desired narrative which wants to declare the church is the root of all evil.
I can’t figure out how to take a screenshot of a whole Twitter conversation.
So, here’s the relevant link: https://twitter.com/MichellePanchuk/status/1018928377934307330
“I’m pitching a personal essay…”
Possibly to Amanda Marcotte at SALON.
JB, I’d love to see you try to explain atheist sexual morality the way Andrew Klavin explained Diversity (look for his video “D is for Diversity” on YouTube).
Because it seems they are saying that ANY sexual desire is good, unless it’s bad, but it’s only bad if someone else finds it offensive, but only repressed religious people are offended by sexuality because their religion keeps them from accepting that every kind of sexual desire is good…
Wait, no, I mean they think we should be open and free and public with our sexuality except in the presence of other people who might find it offensive, unless the people offended are religious people…
Maybe you better try it. I need to lie down and play Angry Birds until my brain stops spinning.
The problem with these “angry ex’s” is their total ignorance of elementary things like philosophy. They need to read Nietzsche to understand what it means to be an atheist without being a total hypocrite (which means, according to their own naturalist standard, it’s okay to burn kittens or do whatever you want to other people) instead of borrowing Christian morals in order to club Christians with their sanctimonious anti-Christian fundamentalism (it actually hurts my head to write this sentence it’s so full of contradictions).
Of course, they DO make a great case in point for why atheists are fools.
Siding with non-believers against a fellow believer is not cool. Rachel cannot control who comments on her story. She can control who she retweets. She is mistaken to believe the heathen care about her. They are using her to attack the faith. Her methods of seeking “justice” made this possible.