Christians love you

Posted by in Uncategorized | 10 comments

CHRISTIANS LOVE YOU

By: Guest Author – Ian Weisberg
How sweet. The Christians love us. They love everyone. What could be wrong with that? It’s a positive message. It doesn’t attack those of a different faith or even no faith at all. It’s a message of love. So why shouldn’t statements such as this, or other religious symbols, be posted in government buildings or public forums? What could anyone find objectionable or offensive? Well, think about it this way. Let’s replace the word Christians with the word Caucasians : “Caucasians Love You”. Uh-
oh, danger Will Robinson! What happened? It’s still a positive message. The Caucasians love us. They love everyone. It doesn’t attack those of a different race. It’s still a message of love, but this message would certainly cause outrage, and nobody wants to see Reverend Al on TV. So what’s the problem?

Saying that “Caucasians Love You” implies a certain level of arrogance, an air of superiority, as if Caucasians are the only ones capable of loving anyone, or that their love is somehow better than the love of another race, or that their race in general is better. Indians don’t love you? Arabs don’t love you? African-Americans don’t love you? How dare the Caucasians claim a monopoly on love! Apply that reasoning to religion and the statement “Christians Love You.” How is that any different? That air of superiority remains, the implication that Christian love is somehow better, or perhaps Christians in general are better. Hindus don’t love you? Muslims don’t love you? How dare the Christians claim a monopoly on love!

To make matters worse, you’d be hard-pressed to find a Caucasian (or any race) who truly believes that they can love better than another race. However, there are many religious people who think that only members of their particular faith know what true love is. When it comes to love, apparently religious arrogance trumps even racism.
OK, so what if this was reduced to an individual person instead of a religion, such as “Jesus Christ Loves You”. That should be OK, right? Not so fast. Jesus is a symbol of Christianity, so all you’re doing is playing word games. The inference is still the same. After all, Buddha loves you, too. Furthermore, there are those that don’t even believe that Jesus was a real person (see www.jesusneverexisted.com for more info), let alone the divine “Lord Our Father”. You might as well say “My Father Loves You” or “Mike Brady Loves You”. Sounds silly, but to non-Christians it’s at best a historical figure expressing love, and at worst it’s just another fictional father. In either case, it’s unwarranted and unwelcome. Another thought to consider is the intent behind a statement such as “Jesus Loves You”.

My family loves me, too, but I don’t go around hanging up signs in public. Is this offering of love as innocent as it seems? Sometimes the motive is the belief that theists are trying to “save” others. Believers feel that others will be punished without the love of their specific God. This could be construed as an insult to other religions and to non- believers. They may not need nor want the love of Jesus, and may find it condescending to even suggest it. Granted, this line of reasoning requires certain assumptions to be made about the intents of the religious, but then again, the phrase “Jesus Loves You” is filled with assumptions to begin with.

Who really knows what Jesus thinks, assuming Jesus ever really existed at all, and that he is still loving people 2000 years after his passing. Not sure what’s going to bother someone? Here’s a little test. Take that sign, poster, message, whatever it is that’s being displayed, and substitute a race for a religion. For example, if you’re compelled by a message that reads “Power of Christ”, change it to “Power of Arabs”. If the sign says “Allah Is Great”, change it to “Caucasians Are Great”. If the message suddenly sounds wrong, then you’ve got your answer.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Christians love you -- Topsy.com

  • Adam

    @ Morrison / Jim Christianson(?): Wrong. We don't hate Christians, just their belief system and lack of ability to change based on evidence. If they would stop hurting the advancement of the human race, we would leave them alone.

    I don't consider myself a "millitant atheist". I've said it before and I'll say it again, "If you use your religion as a crutch, I won't go around knocking it out from under your arm. But if you beat me or anyone else over the head with it, I reserve the right to shatter it to pieces." If your beliefs don't hurt people, I don't have a problem with you.

    But, a new study came out yesterday that shows 40% of Americans still believe in creationism and 38% more believe we evolved but with the help of god… that 78% (still lower than 10 years ago, so that's good)of our population that thinks god put us here. That is to be harmful and a slap in the face to knowledge gained by humanity all over the Earth.

    btw – still waiting for "evidence" from you or Grady for your claims!

  • Adam

    Explain to me how Christians "love" more people than atheists… http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/08/21/message-to-…

  • http://volizden.xanga.com/ Volizden

    @morrison

    Completely Bullshit. You DON'T know that (all) Atheists don't love christians. I have several christian friends that I love and respect and have excellent opinions and are very nice people.

    They are delusional just like the rest of you imaginary friend believers but hey we can't all be perfect right? Yes, They know I believe them to be delusional too, AND They "forgive me for it" which I dont need but that's OK too.

    You sir are guilty, as I have read so far, of making broad over reaching statements about opposing POV's and you need to stop or else you are going to get a rep for being a mindless drone…

  • Adam

    @ Morrison: First of all, I made one personal attack (I called you a prick) and I apologized for it. Thinking you are someone else isn't a personal attack – it was just a hunch. Your IP address changes a lot with your post (as to make it hard to find you) and they are all associated with a mail server that is notorious for spam. This, along with your knowledge of Cole and Iggy made me think you were (from what I gathered) a former pest of theirs. If you say you aren't… fine.

    As for me being "Iggy" – I have actually never met him. I have only spoken to Cole on the phone and haven't yet even attended a meeting of the Midwest Skeptics (I just learned about them at Skepticon 3 in November). You can read my bio on the VIP Bloggers section. I haven't yet lied to you but question your motives as to commenting on this site.

    Where do you live? How did you find this site and why do you care so much to debate with us? I allow it because you make big claims and am waiting for you to back them up. you keep dodging the original debate by calling my comments ad hominem attacks… which as I previously explained, are not.

    So please, debate, or go away. If you can't start responding with evidence for your claims (as we have asked repeatedly) however bad that evidence might be, then I will not allow you to continue to "debate" on this site. You have offered no way in which you would change your beliefs and that gives me no sign that a debate with you is fair to us or our readers. If you want to represent your faith well, you need to stick to the rules and provide some real, credible proof for what you say. If you have none, then stop wasting our time.

  • Adam

    @ Grady: Well, gosh, I wonder why they treated you weirdly? Seriously? If you went there with the intentions of learning more about why they believe the way they do and were earnest in your searching, they wouldn't have a problem with you. We don't automatically dislike theists. But, I would bet you went there with dishonorable intentions and wanted to stir up shit like you have done here. Morrison didn't answer this either, but how did you find this site and why do you care to comment so much?

    As for the "IP thing" I only mention it so people know we have the ability to track them (more so than you might think) if they decide to get out of hand by threatening us. I have a family and it's unfortunate that some believers feel that threatening harm to atheists is a good strategy. I know you and Morrison haven't done this, and I hope you won't, but I have had many friends in the atheist community receive death threats… many very sincere and specific. I just have to be careful.

    Unlike Iggy, I don't think anyone is "watching" this website. I have yet to meet Iggy or attend my first Midwest Skeptics Society meet-up (which I plan to do in the new year). I'm looking forward to meeting these people you dislike so much. As for the Bill Tammes blog, I really don't care. I'm only responsible for the speech on this site – not every atheist in America. I read some of it yesterday, and although I disagree with Iggy's approach, there were plenty of people on the other side being just as ridiculous.

  • Robbie

    @Grady

    "However, I think we are all going to make it a point to start showing up a the meetings again. Should be fun."

    Grady, Please, let us all know in advance when you are coming to any of the meetings here in Kansas City and which ones. I have not been going to any for like forever myself, so it will be great to meet you, Grady and all of your "we" or some of the "we" and also reconnect with other freethinkers.

    I'd love to know more, however, if you are a Christian (what denomination), deist, pantheist or new ager or are you a member of Jews for Jesus?

    It should be fun, I agree! I look forward to it.

  • http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com Ani Sharmin

    I’ve long thought that a good way to determine whether a certain religious sentiment may be offensive to someone else is to replace one’s own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) with those of someone else. By imagining ourselves in the other person’s situation, we can really determine how to treat others the way we’d want to be treated.

    @Morrison:
    Do you think it would be fair for someone who had a person bad experience with some Christians to generalize about other Christians?

  • Robbie

    @Ani
    ///Do you think it would be fair for someone who had a person bad experience with some Christians to generalize about other Christians?///

    Fair aside, it would be irrational. There are many (if not overwhelming majority) ex-Christians (now atheists/agnostics) in Kansas City who are very understanding of where Christians are coming from and how their illusions are standing in the way of their rational thinking.

    They do not generalize about “all” Christians, but they have knowledge of the Christianity (the dogma) that these Christians adhere to. To talk about dogma in general terms when you have a Christian present along side with the ex’es is normally an abomination and even if former Christians will cite their own beliefs and why they did so, the personal feelings of the current Christians hardly can be put aside. It never happens from what I have seen unless the Christian is a freethinking individual like a few I know, but they are on the side of “live and let live” which is way outside the mainstream of Christianity.

    It is fair to talk about the faith, it is fair to ask the Christians to testify their faith as they are commanded by Paul it is fair to be critical about them and violating the basic tenants of the faith they hold dear.

    Whether it will be “fair” by the standards of these Christians in the cross fire, is an open question. Actually, it’s more of a shut and closed question. It is not fair to them.

    But this is how freedom works. It’s fair when you go and oppress people’s freedoms and individual rights for some, but when there is a fight back it is not fair and “foul play” and “persecutions” and “agendas” are cited all the time.

    At some point, these members of the Jewish Jesusist cult just need to be left alone, ignored, alienated, abandoned and little by little their ideas will be abolished by the common agreement of the people in the privacy of their minds.

    Just like homeopathy today.

  • JimmyCrackCorn

    Christians loving everyone is kind of a new thing (see: crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc.).

    If someone really loves you, they would accept you and your beliefs. There are Christian people I love. I don't love all people, I am a realist. You can't love everyone. It is the hot without the cold, light without the dark. To know who you love, you must know people you don't love.

    On a side note: "God loves you", I hear it all the time. Why would I want God's love (pretending for a moment God existed)? I love lamp, it is meaningless.

  • Scary Biscuits

    @JimmyCrackCorn: you are right. Christians loving everybody is kind of new. It's one reason why the church was REFORMED. That was about 500 years ago. You need to catch up ;)

    You seem to think that to love means to like especially, thus necessitating other people that you like less. It doesn't. It is more like the love that a father has for his children. Just because he has more children, it doesn't follow that he cannot love them all. Love in this sense means to want a person to do well, to care about their progress and to be prepared to actively help or to sacrifice yourself in some way for them. Christians understand love as a doing word not, as more commonly used these days, to mean an attitude or an emotional state (such as adolescent lust). Thus, when you hear that God loves you or that a Christian loves you, it is not a statement of his feelings towards you or about his opinions on your life choices; it is simply an invitation to seek his help if you ever felt that you needed it.

    I hope this answers your question.