I consider myself to be fairly open minded. By that, I mean even when I do have a strong personal opinion about something, I “force” myself to recognize that other people may hold just as valid of opinion on the same subject…neither one of us will ever have the entire truth…and….somehow one of us (including me) may be ultimately wrong. Because of that, I am not above allowing myself to “be wrong” should evidence to the contrary of what I formerly believed should make more sense.
What may be surprising to most is that I grew up in an extremly conservative, fundamentalist Christian cultural mindset. There were many things “taught” to me about “right” versus “wrong” in all areas of life – theology, ethics, behavior, morals, activities, politics, science, and even history. I was taught in school that evolution was a plot by Satan to tear down God, the earth was created in 4400 BC (with the slight possibility that it may be as far back as 10,000 BC), the inerrant, infallibility of the canonical protestant scriptures as they are today, that other religions belonged to the devil, and all of the other beliefs that go along with fundamentalistic protestantism. It never really occured to me back then that some of what I was being taught may be misinterpreted. Life was good, I was happy, I believed what I was taught, and I saw nothing wrong with living life from our viewpoint. I took it for granted that everyone else “believed like we did”.
When I hit my mid teens, however, I began to question more of what I was taught (even though one of the attitudes I had inherited was that we were to fear “questioning” what we were taught because that meant questioning the infallibility of the Bible). It’s a scary thing to question something when you’ve been taught it is ”of God”. Yet, one thing I constantly mulled over was “what is truth” – is truth simply what I am told to believe? How do I know that what I am “told” is truth? Is what I’m being “told” really “truth” or is there “truth” in other aspects of life that is just as reliable?
The older I became, and the more research I did on various world viewpoints, the more I realized that I can in no way claim to know absolute truth in as many areas as I thought I knew when I was a child. For one thing, I never knew how the mainstream world viewed the beliefs I grew up with until I entered my 20s. Would it surprise anyone that it shocked my core senses when the news recently announced that the Church of England was apologizing to Charles Darwin? In the world I grew up in, Darwin and God just didn’t mesh. The fact that I no longer hold staunchly to a young-earth theory still doesn’t remove the raw feelings that emerge when a core belief I once held is seemingly attacked.
Now lately, I’ve been thinking about how different people battle each other with their different view points. Christians, as a whole, have long been slandered as “pig headed, arrogant, and close-minded.” This is claimed to be due to our staunch historical insistance that our views are “correct” and others are “wrong”. However, what bugs me is that I’ve often found that those people who often call us “close-minded” are the most close-minded of anyone. They state that we aren’t accepting of their beliefs, yet, in the same breath, they are not accepting of our beliefs either.
For example, the Christian religion is a missionary one – meaning that it is inherant in our belief system that we tell others what we believe and why. When the “telling of what we believe” occurs, that is called “witnessing”. Christians often get belittled for doing this by those outside of a religous faith, yet the ones doing the “belittling” are, at the same time, performing their own version of “witnessing” – the spreading of one’s beliefs to another, while trying to get that person to adhere to that belief.
From what I’ve read on many websites, those against belief in God often use as many (if not more) “hate” and “filler” type of words than Christians themselves do. They profess that their beliefs are the “right way” and that the Christians, with their beliefs, are “wrong” and “closeminded”. How, then, might I ask, are they being “open minded”?? Any time one tries to force their own beliefs on someone else, while belittling the other person’s own beliefs through the use of harsh key words and various propaganda tactics, that is the very definition of being “close minded”. This happens not only in the so-called “Christian vs. Non-Christian” faction, but in other areas of debate as well – rightwing vs. leftwing, republican vs. democrat, conservative vs. liberal, prolife vs. prochoice, traditional marriage vs. gay rights, traditional womanhood vs. feminism, and so forth.
Why do many people feel that they can “convert” someone to their own beliefs by making the other person feel stupid? Why do people resort more to bashing another’s intellect and emotional stability than to sticking with fact and examining evidence?
Now, we all know that there are many Christian people who do act in such a way. But recently, I’ve been more critical in noticing the key words that people use towards Christians in particular. They are words that cause us to “miss the message” of what the other party may be trying to say because they cut to our core being and are intended to make us feel stupid. When I see so-called “scholars” using these words, or when I run across certain phrases in “non-Christian” books, I immediately tend to discredit the author because they are, in essense, doing no more than staunchly witnessing for their own beliefs.
For example, in my studies of Ancient Greece a few months ago, I could tell the author was not a Christian. Ok, fine by me….that’s his choice, right? However, in one section that was discussing the Greek’s religious beliefs, the author noted that they used their religion to describe the various natural events in their “primitive” world. But he went too far when he made the statement that “because of modern scientific discoveries, scholarly, learned people of modern society no longer need to believe in a bunch of immortal gods controlling them.” What is inferred in that statement is obvious – if you’re smart and modern, you’ll realize that “god” doesn’t exist. That immediately discredited that author in my mind because he was using his medium to force his belief on the reader while implying that those who do not believe his way are stupid.
What this all boils down to is how powerful your tongue -and the words you choose to use- can be. If one wants to effectively “witness” (and this applies to christians and non-christians alike) about their beliefs, you never want to discredit yourself by implying that the person you are speaking to is stupid and you are “omniscient”. The most effective way to display your beliefs before others (witness) is to present fact without battling, distinguish what is opinion, and to steer clear of belittling words and phrases that focus on a person’s intellect as a means to get them to change their mind. Just because someone has not reached the same conclusion about something in life that you have, doesn’t mean they are “dumb”.
With all of that in mind, here is a list of words that will not work in converting a “Christian” to another belief system. I see non-christians use them a lot, and they only make me hold even tighter to my original core belief in God. A truly-human response to stimuli, I know, but that’s what happens none-the-less.
The following list of words have been compiled from various “non-christian” websites I have visited lately. What’s weird is how many of the site authors seem to be trying to bring their readers over to “their” point of view – yet the intended audience is alienated and made to feel like idiots. One author specifically said “Christians- wake up!!! The God of the Bible does not love you!!! He never did, and never will!!! How many atrocities will it take to get it through your thick skulls….”.
Ok. Yeh. Good one. Very effective.
Telling someone to “wake up”, they’re “not loved”, and they have “thick skulls”, is a great way to start a relationship with a reader.
I often wonder why those people seem to “care” so much? Why do they get so riled up over the idea that some people believe in the supernatural when they don’t?? No one will ever prove one way or another until the second after they die anyway. Is it really that bad if someone wants to believe in God or an afterlife?? I can understand the mindset of a Christian who is working from the belief that they must share their beliefs in light of eternal salvation for others – but I will never understand why those who don’t believe in God feel like it’s their mission to “convert” those who chose to?? What do they stand to gain in it all?
Anywho, for my christian readers out there, read this list and see if you don’t agree with me – are these not words that would cause you to want to tune out everything else the other person is saying?! (I will not link to the websites because I don’t want to promote them.)
Words & Phrases Non-Christian Shouldn’t Use in Reference to Christians
(If You Truly Want to Get Your “Point” Across):
- Biblethumper
- Biblegod
- Closeminded
- Pious
- Brainwashed
- Stupid
- Mindless
- Plain Ignorant
- Bible Myths
- Xtians
- “REAL” (in all caps)
- Gullible
- They don’t think
- Wake Up!
- Your thick skulls
- Fool
- Idiot
- Those with a normal IQ
- Clowns who authored the Bible
- Fake history
- Pretend
- Know that Jesus didn’t exist
- Maintainers of the status quo
- Defenders of a dying, old faith
- People who circle their theological wagons
- See everything through their filter
- Hypocrite
- Deluded
- Braindead
- Non-factual
- Lack of basis
- Desperate
- Doltish
- Fanciful
- Dishonest
- Incapable of thought
- Limited in reading skills
- Extravagant claims
- Incapable of analyzing the subject
- Incapable of reasoning
- Narrow minded
….and thus the list goes on and on. What’s funny is those very same authors claim that the Christians they’ve encountered are unable to discuss things logically without throwing “rambling, slanderous, disjointed paragraphs” at them – effectively accusing Christians of doing the very same things they are doing. The authors often end with the conclusion that because the Christian did not convert to the author’s own personal world view point after reading their websites, then the Christians must be incapable of rational thought….and “because Christian belief requires ignorance, narrow-mindedness and a complete inability to consider a differing viewpoint.”
That last statement was pulled off of one of those websites directly aimed at converting Christians to atheism. I find it highly laughable! Since when did “considering a different viewpoint” come to mean that one must also be convinced that the opposing viewpoint is now inerrent truth? Since when did “considering a different viewpoint” come to mean “agreeing” with everything the author said?
Many Christians are perfectly capable of researching, learning of, and debating the merits of a particular viewpoints without “believing” in them.
But anywho…my point is…uh…don’t make fun of others.
(I just took the long way around to say it).