Just the Wrong Way To Treat A Human Being

The Friendly Atheist passes along the account of an high school student who reportedly backed down from her quest to start an atheist club because of “numerous threats and … verbal attacks,” and a “vindictive which-hunt to hurt the reputations of affiliated local groups and our own family.”

I’m assuming the reports are true. This is the wrong way to treat a human being. It’s the wrong way to advance Christian beliefs. It’s just wrong.

Sometimes we Christians embarrass ourselves. It’s a good thing the truth and goodness of our beliefs are based in the one truly true and good one, Jesus Christ. The rest of us don’t always follow him so well. Kalei deserves an apology.

Comments 4
  1. scblhrm

    I assume that Kalei’s story is accurate here, and as such Kalei does deserve an apology. Without question.

    Kalei: accept an apology from one of Love’s rescued insignificants.

    “If ever the book which I am not going to write is written it must be the full confession by Christendom of Christendom’s specific contribution to the sum of human cruelty and treachery. Large areas of ‘the World’ will not hear us till we have publicly disowned much of our past. Why should they? We have shouted the name of Christ and enacted the service of Moloch.” (C.S. Lewis, “The Four Loves”)

    Kalei’s story is hard evidence of the truth of C.S. Lewis’ descriptive.

    Is Love the Highest Ethic?

    Love’s Ontology affirms that, yes, Love is, and not merely in this world, but in all possible worlds. Actually. Fully.

    The trinity of [Mindset, Action, Philosophical Necessities] need to all agree, that is to say, not violate one another necessarily.

    We find in Love no void of all which we call Self, and, we find in Love no void of all which we call Other, and, we find in Love no void of all which we call the singularity of Unity within embrace which we call the Us.

    Self-Other-Us.

    Three.

    Yet One.

    E Pluribus Unum.

    This is Love.

    And such is the End of all Regress, for, God is Love, that is to say, Ultimate Actuality is Love.

    Love’s ontology need never apologize for it is the very Sum, the very Context from which all lesser sums, all lesser contexts subsume the very thing we call definition. Though, many of us who ascribe to the truth of such do need to apologize (perhaps daily, as I), or did need to apologize (perhaps more globally, as C.S Lewis alludes to). The good news is that Actuality itself actually has something left at the end of such a process of contrition: Love’s Ontology, that innately singular-and-triune geography of E Pluribus Unum. Whereas, we find in Atheism and even in Pantheism that at the end of any such process the very acts of cruelty we despise are left fully intact, on ontological necessity.

    This is not the case with Immutable Love.

    It will be opaque skepticism in some bizarre amalgamation with mereological nihilism, or, it will be that I do in fact exist. If there is I, if i-am, then mereological nihilism is false, and a whole new reality has been stumbled upon. In such a reality, statements like, “In all possible worlds, love is the highest ethic” become perfectly plausible as statements of Knowledge, even of Certainty.

    Mereological Nihilism falling into absurdity, we then at such a juncture come to the business of Love itself, of Civility, of Valuing the Other in, at least in this format, conversation, and, in other more harsh formats, such as Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. found himself in, every bit of life to its bitter ends.

    I find within myself, within this little i-am, the pressing need to follow love more precisely in such arenas, for I find a great chasm, a great lacking (within my own Self) of such Immutable Love, wherein He spreads His arms wide and pours Himself out for His enemy, who is His beloved.

    Enemy = Beloved seems an odd Fact Statement, but then, when all regresses begin and end within that fully singular, that fully triune Self-Other-Us Who is Himself E Pluribus Unum, Who is Immutable Love, we can begin to see where such Fact Statements become statements of Knowledge, even of Certainty, for Love is, therein, the Highest Ethic in all possible worlds.

  2. GrahamH

    Tom – A very praiseworthy post. Well done.

    scblhrm – I didn’t really understand much of what you wrote (it gave me a bit of a headache I am sorry to say, although that could be my feeble brain), but if there are nice sentiments in there well done to you too.

  3. scblhrm

    GrahamH,

    I’m sorry about doing that….my writing is almost as messy as my thinking.

  4. Billy Squibs

    I couldn’t agree more, Tom. This is a very unfortunate story. I wonder why fellow Christians (and I assume that they are at the centre of these objections) would behave so badly.

    Is it a teenage thing – i.e. attacking those who are different? Is it lack of tolerance (in what I take to be the classical meaning of the word) based on a perceived threat? Or something else entirely?

    I would like to think that young and old Christians who are

    a) knowledgeable as to why they hold the beliefs that they do would not feel threatened.
    b) are deeply concious of the worth of all humans would not engage in such behaviour.

Comments close automatically after 120 days. Comment numbering may be incorrect due to a temporary bug.