news-record.com

It seems to me that people don't hate so fully or enthusiastically as when they encounter those who ask them to think unfamiliar thoughts - particularly ones about religion.

No surprise here - I'm a senior citizen now but have been an atheist since at least 11 or 12 years of age - throughout my life, each and every time I've expressed my skepticism, doubts, and beliefs I have been on the receiving end of comparable hate filled comments and actions - and more times than not these tasteless comments came from Christians.

"Between his gentle English accent and the over-the-top bloodlust of the adherents of the Prince of Peace, it's a hoot."

Your anti-Christianism is showing so flagrantly again, Joe. And again, it’s not a story about Jewish, Hindu or Rosicrucian bigotry, but your habitual Christian-bashing routine. And just what do you, and Dawkins, expect from those who love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ, when a man who so obviously loathes their Faith, takes every opportunity to undermine and belittle it. There are ALWAYS a fringe of folks out there of ANY persuasion who react excessively and inappropriately. But atheists seem to delight in inferring that the fringe is indicative of the vast majority.

I think I detect a persecution complex in both Dawkins’ responses and Holden’s. Oh, poor little atheist me; all those mean ol’ Christians always pickin’ on me. I’m so enlightened, intelligent and superior to those Bible-thumpin’ atheist-bashers.

I personally don’t waste my time bashing those who deny the Lord of Glory and demean His Name, because I know full well that the great “Judge of all the earth” will give them their just reward far better than I ever could. And the only “bloodlust” I have as an “adherent of the Prince of Peace” is my love and respect for the shed blood of my Redeemer.

Nikos:

Again - I'm not sure why you think I'm under any obligation to balance out my blog posts so that they either belittle all religions equally or show any religion in a positive light as often as negative.

Looking over the blog it doesn't seem that you've given Nancy much grief over writing primarily about Christianity or about showing it in an almost unflinchingly positive light. I'm not suggesting that she should aim for more balance - I'm suggesting that you should expect it from news stories, not blog posts. Complaining about a positive/negative imbalance or one religion being singled out would also be more effective if you didn't wait until you felt your group's toes were being stepped on to pipe up.

I can't imagine why Christianity being discussed here more than any other religion should surprise you. First - that's always been the case with this blog. It's also the case in almost all Western media. And in those stories, from TV to magazines to blogs, Christianity appears most often (and in a more positive light than any other religion) because it predominates and most impacts the lives of Western people -- even if they're non-religious Western people.

As a non-religious person my viewpoint will continue to skew toward the humorous and thought-provoking when blogging about religious matters generally. As a Westerner, I'll most often touch on Christianity. You can either accept that and see it as a sort of balance to the pretty consistent "religion is good for people" worldview found in many of Nancy's blog posts, or simply stop reading my entries to the blog altogether. But reading, getting peeved and chiding me for doing something you don't like with the blog posts is just wasting your time and mine.

This comment of yours comes closest to actually engaging with the post:

"And just what do you, and Dawkins, expect from those who love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ, when a man who so obviously loathes their Faith, takes every opportunity to undermine and belittle it?"

And so I'm glad to answer:

Not threaten to kill people. I expect that those who love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ will not threaten to kill people in that circumstance.

That's why this post is funny. Confounding of expectation in the extreme. It's basic psychology of humor.

Joe, Joe, Joe - All I'm saying is, could we have less National Enquirer-type material, and more story lines that, although they may be controversial, are not scum-bucket releases about oddball nutcases that have nothing of any substance to do with "Christianity" in its historical, theologically normative character. And I don't mean that reasonable stories of both a negative and positive slant aren't fair game.

But your pieces are so transparently DESIGNED to place the Faith in the worst possible light (Dawkins, who has been featured a number of times over the past years, is a virulently anti-Christian attack dog) Yes, this IS a blog - but it's a local religious blog, not the Jerry Springer show of worse-case scenorio "Christian" expression!

I really don't think much time is spent looking for balanced material for this blog site; just a brief perusal to see if any Christian-bashing goodies can be found. It would also be helpful if the blogmiester(s) of the "mostly Christian" blog actually knew what genuine, biblical Christianity was (try reading/studying the Westminster Confession or Catechism of the Catholic Church). The entries and commentary, for the most part, do NOT reflect such a knowledge.