Christians to Atheists; "We Don't Want Your Help!"

Post Reply New Topic

Why not? Perhaps they wanted to demonstrate the fact that no one has to have the backing of a religious organization to do good deeds.


Again, why not? The soup kitchen does not have an exclusive license to help the homeless, and it isn't like the atheists were obstructing traffic into or out of the soup kitchen, either.

Come to think of it, it would be a great thing to have individuals and groups try to "out charity" each other, regardless of the motivation, because the people who would benefit the most would be those who need it the most - the homeless!


Did they? I did not see it stated anywhere in the article that either side invited the media in. Please cite the appropriate statement from the article I linked to.


For you to leave these questions un-answered is to reveal your bias against atheists, even when they do a better job of serving the poor and homeless than the Christian soup kitchen!

I see no problem, other than a lot of Christians getting embarrassed over the fact that not only can non-Christians do what Christians are supposed to do and do it better, but that people who don't even believe in God can demonstrate at least as much compassion for the poor and homeless as any "Godly" person - not just Christians, but Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and anyone else who claims to be a God-believer. It is not the intent that counts, but the physical act that feeds, clothes, and houses the needy that makes all of the difference.

By the way ... how many homeless have you cared for this year?

I've personally clothed, housed and fed 3 so far, and another one is coming in tomorrow ...

One thing I've been pondering is why aren't those same atheists doing charity elsewhere instead of in the same circle where there's already a charity movement going on.

That's like wondering why farmers aren't farming elsewhere instead of on a farm.

Around charity centers is where homeless people tend to congregate; which is the main reason why anybody wanting to start a charity center in their own neighborhood will likely run up against the nimby factor - no one wants to look out the kitchen window and see homeless people hanging about, even if those people are being helped.

They are insecure. A secure religious person has no reason to attack atheists or refuse their help. Unless they think they are poisoning the food or something.

Imagine having your whole world view brought into question. If you are not secure in your beliefs, you are going to go on the offensive.

I agree. But I look at the opening of a second soup kitchen as a positive sign. The point of Christianity is to lead others to Christ. Right behind that is promoting Christ-like behavior. I think the Christian group misbehaved in how they've handled it. They did the right thing in refusing the atheist group in that they want to separate themselves from secularists in order to send the right message about what they're there for. They just should have been more civil about it. The amazing, maybe even miraculous, thing about all this is that by refusing to associate with a secular group in a joint effort, they, perhaps unintentionally, encouraged Christ-like behavior from atheists. It's interesting how Jesus still positively influences those who often profess to hate Him.

Oh, THE HORRORS!! ! More poor people getting quicker access to food!

WTF are you talking about? Are we talking about the same event (or planet)?!

Setting up across the street was necessitated (& even endorsed) after the Xian soup kitcheners REJECTED cooperation with the atheists (which, btw, would involve no identification of atheist volunteers as atheists). If you want to see what real ARROGANCE is like, just read this quote:



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGkuXTv1C4A[/youtube]

Everyone is insecure to some degree. Security is attained when people see reassuring evidence. Same reason why it is generally inadvisable that married people spend excessive time with the opposite sex. It could be perfectly innocent, but often isn't. Being able to visibly see your marriage partner staying faithful and making you the focus of his/her interest in the opposite sex is going to go a long way to building trust--and with trust comes security.

Religious people, myself included, are secure in knowing at face value that we're right. We're just not always secure beyond that. Someone who isn't used to being challenged should avoid the challenges. Someone who wants to build faith, however, should strengthen themselves by studying the tenets of their faith to the point that responses to challenges are automatic. I think what you're seeing as "insecure people" really isn't all that insecure if they're even bothering to go on the offensive. They're secure enough that they make the effort, after all. Their security is tested when you ask tough questions. I find that "losing" an argument is OK because it exposes weaknesses that can be strengthened. What troubles me is not that I don't always have good answers, but that other Christians don't care to seek good answers. Building security in faith means being open to being wrong, expose the problems, and find solutions so that the right answer comes almost instantaneously with repeated challenges.

As a Christian, I prefer a personal defensive stance rather than an offensive one. I'm more secure in my knowledge of my own position than I am of others, so it's pretty rare for me to actively attack the atheist position. I personally find that the atheist position is often NOT that well thought-out--same as what we're accused of--and that atheists are just as guilty if not more so of going on the attack as Christians are. I mean, think about it: The atheists in this particular situation tried to insert themselves, deliberately, in something they likely knew would be provocative towards a Christian group. Christians, not expecting a challenge, responded rashly (I'm giving the Christian group the benefit of the doubt here, fyi, and I'm not taking it for granted that they're NOT a mean-spirited group). Christians and atheists are both guilty of this. If I formulate a logical challenge to evolution, one or two atheists here will come out of the woodwork defending evolution, and they'll get downright nasty with ad hominem attacks and straw men if I persist in picking their counter-arguments apart. That leads me to believe, if you're right about Christians being insecure, that atheists are at least equally insecure.

Pretty poor behaviour from the soup kitchen.

On another note I was really impressed by the atheist response to this incident. Being upfront dealing with intolerance is pretty awesome.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

Because they maybe dont waste time on separating people into christians, atheists, homeless, none homeless, but want to use that time instead on helping people?

Sorry, around here its simply weird to think of areas with homeless people, as canadian gold-claims, that need to be fight for.

Around here there are chruch and nonchurch places for people, and normally all of them are in contact, so that if one is full and cant offer any beds anymore, people can be told where to go otherwise.

Just as normal and religious socialhelpers, doctors and nurses offering medical support, anti-drug helpers ...

If any homeless center, started banning other groups as the nurses/doctors to forbid them to offer their help to the homeless around their homeless centers, they would loose all support from donators, anyway if christian or secular.

I dont see the reason, why helpers need to be parted into christian and atheist helpers? Whats so horrible about thinking of these people simply as "good people that like to help"?

So if you are getting soup,and you tell them you are an atheist,will they say"No soup for you?"

You'll still get soup. But if you're part of the "in crowd", they'll scoop up more of the good stuff from the bottom of the pot for you.

I wonder what's at the bottom of the pot.I had a friend that was visiting the Reservation,and when he went back for seconds of stew an elder said"dig deep,puppy on bottom."

lol

Well, a consistent atheist would have to say there's nothing at the bottom.

The Christian would point out there's fire at the bottom.

Yop, you are right about that helping people is a good thing. So other people, haveing the same opinion are as weel a good thing?

What about "Hello, I would like to offer my help. " is challenging?

I dont understand what about: "Hello, my name is ... and I like to help." - "Hi, mine is ... and I like to help to." can be about defensive or offensive?

[quoet]I'm more secure in my knowledge of my own position than I am of others, so it's pretty rare for me to actively attack the atheist position.[/quote] What about simply not caring for attacking an atheist position, because of not caring if someone is officially christian or not, but simply be happy to have found someone that wants to do something, that Jesus would as well want him to do? Do you think if someone came to Jesus and asked "Hi Jesus, I have some time to offer that I would like to use to help other people." then Jesus would have rather cared about attacking him if he was atheist or about what that person could do, to help others most? O_o

What about the thought of "Oh, I´d like to help others." is not well thought out? Thats what this topic is about. Nothing else. Thats the only thing you need to care for, if someone offers you help.

In my country 50% of the people are atheists, and no christian group ever cared if people helped them because Jesus said, that you shall help other people, or because social habbits told them do so. So no its not in general automatic against christians. Its only certain people and their private personality and opinions, that let them thought, that as christians they must feel provocated. Tons of other christians, dont waste their time on that and their private problems, but instead use their time wisely to think about, how the offered help can be best used for helping others.

What about "Hi, I´d like to help you, I think its a good thing you do here." is a challenge? According to you our scout troups regularly challenge our poor priests, by offering them help for their organisations, street markets, funding, easter and christmas traditions, church markets.... Until now, no priest ever feeled challenged by the scouts offering regularly help?

I simply dont get it. Our priest never ever would have the idea to talk about defensive, aggressive, challenges or whatever, when being asked if people can help him. Normally he simply thinks about, what task he wants you to do.