audiophile21
New member
Dear Christians,
This open letter is not about being cute and funny. This is about being honest about the idea of giving any subject or concept a special status and its effects upon two different groups of people: those who support this idea and those who do not. And don’t worry. I will have questions for you to respond to at the end of this letter.
Obviously, I belong to the latter group and, while I don’t entirely speak for the rest of the non-Christians out there, I can at least tell you what I deduced as to why this idea can be widely unsupported by us. As Mark 4:9 says, “He who have ears to hear, let him hear.”
I’m a firm supporter of examining the merits of any idea, concept, statement, argument, etc. (hereafter referred to as idea). I support that, in order to test the subject being focused on, it needs to be poked, prodded, examined and criticized. Any idea that can be praised and revered can also criticized and disregarded. There are no sacred cows.
What I have found through personal experience is that whenever an idea is regarded reverently for a period of time, the idea itself gets corrupted. Often, the idea would start out logical, but its value would decrease until it lost most, if not all, its original meaning and all that is considered important is the symbol of idea itself.
Now, what does this have to do with you? Elementary! Whenever you present your ideas, you insist that these must be treated with the utmost respect (for instance, the Bible is the infallible word of God), even by other people who don’t share the same reverence for them as you do.
What you don’t realize is that this comes across as a DARE! That’s right! You heard me! D-A-R-E! It is essentially a person drawing a line in the sand and demanding the other person not to cross it. So, of course, the other person is going to cross that line! So, when you tell us to treat the idea with the utmost respect and we see all sorts of flaws and mistakes, we’re not just going to let it drop for your sake.
Do you want a recent example? How about Mohammad Day? Everyone who is familiar with this incident knows this all started when an internet group posted personal info of the makers of South Park and made a statement regarding the responsibility of passing deadly judgment on them because they had the audacity to make an episode about Mohammad. This statement basically implies that even nonbelievers are obligated to follow the rules of Islam. In retaliation, Anonymous dedicated a random day to posting pictures of their versions of Mohammad online.
While this is an extreme example, it does highlight the predictable result of trying to control what people can say and only allowing one point of view of any religious subject to be expressed.
To close, most of the “persecution” that is complained of is really nothing more than a retaliation of a perceived notion of one group of people trying to control the actions of another. In this case, if the former is less aggressive in their approach and practices (Buddhists, Trekkies, etc.), there wouldn’t be such a big backlash.
Understand this and you will be one step much closer to understanding why the “anti-Christians” do what they do.
Well, what do you think? Was this a little too harsh? Let me know in the responses.
With mild respect,
Audioslave21
This open letter is not about being cute and funny. This is about being honest about the idea of giving any subject or concept a special status and its effects upon two different groups of people: those who support this idea and those who do not. And don’t worry. I will have questions for you to respond to at the end of this letter.
Obviously, I belong to the latter group and, while I don’t entirely speak for the rest of the non-Christians out there, I can at least tell you what I deduced as to why this idea can be widely unsupported by us. As Mark 4:9 says, “He who have ears to hear, let him hear.”
I’m a firm supporter of examining the merits of any idea, concept, statement, argument, etc. (hereafter referred to as idea). I support that, in order to test the subject being focused on, it needs to be poked, prodded, examined and criticized. Any idea that can be praised and revered can also criticized and disregarded. There are no sacred cows.
What I have found through personal experience is that whenever an idea is regarded reverently for a period of time, the idea itself gets corrupted. Often, the idea would start out logical, but its value would decrease until it lost most, if not all, its original meaning and all that is considered important is the symbol of idea itself.
Now, what does this have to do with you? Elementary! Whenever you present your ideas, you insist that these must be treated with the utmost respect (for instance, the Bible is the infallible word of God), even by other people who don’t share the same reverence for them as you do.
What you don’t realize is that this comes across as a DARE! That’s right! You heard me! D-A-R-E! It is essentially a person drawing a line in the sand and demanding the other person not to cross it. So, of course, the other person is going to cross that line! So, when you tell us to treat the idea with the utmost respect and we see all sorts of flaws and mistakes, we’re not just going to let it drop for your sake.
Do you want a recent example? How about Mohammad Day? Everyone who is familiar with this incident knows this all started when an internet group posted personal info of the makers of South Park and made a statement regarding the responsibility of passing deadly judgment on them because they had the audacity to make an episode about Mohammad. This statement basically implies that even nonbelievers are obligated to follow the rules of Islam. In retaliation, Anonymous dedicated a random day to posting pictures of their versions of Mohammad online.
While this is an extreme example, it does highlight the predictable result of trying to control what people can say and only allowing one point of view of any religious subject to be expressed.
To close, most of the “persecution” that is complained of is really nothing more than a retaliation of a perceived notion of one group of people trying to control the actions of another. In this case, if the former is less aggressive in their approach and practices (Buddhists, Trekkies, etc.), there wouldn’t be such a big backlash.
Understand this and you will be one step much closer to understanding why the “anti-Christians” do what they do.
Well, what do you think? Was this a little too harsh? Let me know in the responses.
With mild respect,
Audioslave21