I’m finding it increasingly common to have my posts at Christian blogs removed. It seems proprietors are simply unable to respond. This is not to say my arguments are particularly good (though they may be); rather, I think many Christians lack critical thinking skills, preferring diatribe over debate. They’ve been told what to think, and now they’re going to tell you what to think. Like their faithfully held beliefs, they entertain no possibility they could be wrong, and must work assiduously to maintain that appearance.
The latest example comes from the Possessing the Treasure blog. It’s proprietor, Mike Ratliff, recently fulminated against the growing acceptance of homosexuality in Christianity and society, a practice, he reminds us, is a “sin,” “abomination,” and “sexual perversion”.
Now, it gives me a lot of satisfaction to see Christians working themselves up over issues like this, primarily because they’re quite literally shooting themselves in the foot and contributing to their faith’s demise among the next generation. Many wonder, as I do, what is the Christian’s prurient fascination with homosexuality, when Biblical morality covers so much more. This is the question I put to Mike. In his response, Mike dodged the question, but not before alluding to my lack of god-logic for failing to understand. So here’s what I wrote back, which Mike refused to publish:
Mike: I do not expect you to understand what I am going to tell you since you are an atheist. You are not regenerate. You do not have the Holy Spirit.
Me: Yes, I lack the required special gnosis which supersedes normal reason and logic, apparently.
Mike: To answer your “thought” about why we are focusing on homosexuality like this is that it is clearly an issue of morality. It is sin and not the same thing as race or whatever. It is a sexual perversion whose advocates insist it is not. It demands protection and acceptance in our society. It is immoral as I said and, therefore, should not be given that sort of recognition.
Unfortunately, your “reply” doesn’t answer my objection. How is homosexuality any worse than, say, adultery? Or blasphemy? Or working on the sabbath? Aren’t these “issues of morality” just as serious? Christians aren’t clamoring to place restrictions on them, or reverse their acceptance. Why?
It matters little to me, as a non-Christian (and heterosexual, by the way), what Christians accept or don’t accept within their own religion. What bothers me is your attempt to force Biblical morality on the rest of society. As you may not be aware, the Bible is not a part of the U.S. legal code. When it is, then by all means outlaw homosexuality (and adultery, and worshipping other gods, and working on the Sabbath), but for now, you would do well to keep your morality to yourselves.
Mike: As far as your poor logic concerning God’s Law, the moral parts of the Law are still very much in affect and are contained in our faith. On the other hand, those dietary and ceremonial parts of the Law were fulfilled and done away with at Christ’s crucifixion.
Me: Good news to slave-owning Christians who wish to increase their holdings from pagan nations! (Lev. 25:44)
Further down in the comments, a person named Jackie wrote, “[G]ays are actually helping to fulfill this same worldwide “sign” (and making the Bible even more believable!) and thus hurrying up the return of the Judge! They are accomplishing what many preachers haven’t accomplished!… Thanks, gays, for figuring out how to bring back our resurrected Saviour even quicker!”
Jackie’s reasoning is sound (and something I’ve previously blogged about), but of course it wholly undermines Mike the Christian’s rationale to keep “sexual perversion” at an absolute minimum. Unsurprisingly, a reply pointing this out did not make an appearance either.
Amateur Christian theologians like Mike aren’t the only ones running away. Over at the Debunking Christianity blog, John W. Loftus (whose book, Why I Became an Atheist, I’m currently enjoying) has issued a debate challenge to his former mentor, William Lane Craig. The latter has so far demurred, saying he refuses to debate former students. That’s odd. In his book, Reasonable Faith (p. 21), Craig wrote, “Again and again I find that while most of [anti-Christian college professors] are pretty good at beating up intellectually on an eighteen-year-old in one of their classes, they can’t even hold their own when it comes to going toe-to-toe with one of their peers.” Is it Craig who’s afraid he can’t hold his own against one of his peers?