Perhaps Rauch should have the understanding that God did not create automatons; He created human beings with a free will. Free will requires the allowance of evil that man might indeed be free to choose- even in contradiction to the will of his/her Creator.
But I also think there are evils (like children dying of smallpox etc) that are hard to chalk up just to human free will. I really like Tim Keller's point: to paraphrase, he said that theodicy is like a bucket, and all of his arguments and explanations couldn't fill the bucket more than three-fourths full.
The field of theodicy is wide open, but it is only narrowed by biblical evidence regarding the attributes of God. The granting of free will is only possible if man is not programmed to choose only what God wants. Free will also gives man the option to choose obedience or disobedience. Were mankind “programmed” for obedience only, then God would be responsible for man’s actions; free will makes man individually responsible for his/her disobedience.
Also: The problem of sin. If anyone reads Genesis they understand this is where evil entered humankind. God had one specific rule for His human creation whom He endowed with free will. We know how that turned out.
Also: The problem of sin. If anyone reads Genesis they understand this is where evil entered humankind. God had one specific rule for His human creation whom He endowed with free will. We know how that turned out.
The ideological leanings of the young generation are not a surprise. An education system that fully embraced Paulo Freire creates these neo-Marxists by design
I find this incredibly disturbing coming from FAIR. FAIR hasn’t committed (as far as I know) to being neutral in terms of religion, but as someone who is here because of the commitment to being non-partisan, I also need it to be free from favoring any specific religion in order for me to support it.
Just a reminder to the author: Christians believe that the act of homosexuality is a sin. Period. A Christian said this to my face just recently. Christians aim to “encourage homosexuals NOT to live that way”.
Who would want to join a community of people who:
Constantly focus on what kinds of sex you are / are not having?
Do not accept you for who you are and want to “encourage you NOT to live the way you want and need to live”?
This notion of “Christianity” working together with “liberalism” is naivety on steroids and it’s extremely annoying that FAIR would even give this any airtime at all.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I definitely hear your disappointment, and I really appreciate you having the courage to share it <3
I would just make two points:
1) I can't speak for FAIR, but my impression is that they're a big-tent publication; that is, they platform writers who advocate for a variety of views, some of which can be in conflict with each other. Or to put it another way: as the author of the piece, I am certainly not reflecting the "official" FAIR line on religion. I'm neither paid by FAIR nor affiliated with them (though I do enjoy writing for them!). I'm just a guy whose opinion they decided to platform, not an official representative of their viewpoint on anything.
Does that make sense?
2) I agree with a lot of your criticism of Christianity, but just to add my own nuance as a believer of some-odd years:
Some Christians absolutely do consider homosexuality to be a sin. Other Christians actually don't. This is an issue that splits the church, and I've known many Christians on both sides of this issue. As one example, two of my friends are lesbians who are happily engaged (to each other), and both consider themselves devout Christians. I myself am a practicing Christian and also do not consider homosexuality to be a sin.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read Julian's piece and offering your feedback, Meredith.
I'm sorry that FAIR's decision to publish this piece has disappointed you, but I would like to remind you of the note accompanying all content we publish on our Substack:
"The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.
In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse."
You are correct that FAIR is committed to remaining neutral and does not take a position regarding religion. In practice, this means that we do not exclude anyone based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Our membership includes individuals aligned all along the "religious spectrum," including those of devout faith, atheists, and agnostics. All are welcomed to express their thoughts and ideas so long as they are aligned with FAIR's core values and mission to promote fairness, understanding, and humanity. I've read Julian's piece several times and find no evidence that it undermines FAIR's core values or mission. If you feel otherwise I would really appreciate your thoughts, as values alignment is extremely important to all of us at FAIR.
I would also remind you that we at FAIR go to great lengths to avoid stereotyping individuals based on their identity. It's certainly not the case that Christians universally believe homosexuality is a sin. Just as you anecdotally point to a Christian friend who believes Christians should discourage homosexuality, I am acquainted with plenty of Christians who do not feel this way and even embrace the gay community. In fact, as recently as January Pope Francis posed the question: "If a person is gay and seeks God and has goodwill, who am I to judge him?"
I think Pope Francis' comment heralds an acceptance and acknowledgment of the humanity of gay people, and as one of the most prominent Christian leaders in the world his perspective no doubt reflects that of a not insubstantial portion of Christians.
You are clearly troubled by what you believe to be the narrow mindedness of Christians. I would invite you to practice the open mindedness you seek in others. You might be surprised by what you find.
In my experience, Christian communities do not "constantly focus on what kinds of sex you are / are not having." There are no Heterosexual Pride marches. I'm not saying the issue is buried, but for the vast majority of churches with a Biblical view of sexual morality, that's not the primary focus. I don't think I hear a reference to homosexuality even once a month in my church. We're spending more time discussing how to overcome pride and selfishness, how to support those who are weak, how to sacrifice ourselves for the benefit of those around us, particularly within our family, how to find joy in doing the right thing even when it's hard, how to put God first.
It is inherent in any moral code that it calls you to do things that you wouldn't do if left to your own devices, and not to do things that you otherwise would. Whether it's a call to limit sexual activity to a one man/one woman lifetime marriage, or to give of your resources to the poor, or risk your life for the sake of someone drowning, or get your butt off the sofa and develop yourself so you can be a productive member of society, or guard the pass at Thermopylae, moral codes tell us that we can be, and should be, better than we have been. You may disagree with Christianity's moral code, but you undoubtedly have one of your own. Would you accept a KKK member for who he is and say nothing about the need to change? I hope not. The message of Christianity is that while God accepts us as we are, he loves us too much to leave us as we are; every one of us needs to repent of our moral rebellion to be right with him--and right with those around us. And part of the hope of Christianity is the belief that God himself gives us the power to do that once we surrender to him; that in submitting, we are freed from our self-destructive ways.
Yes, there are some loudmouths who obsess on sexual matters (on both sides); there are people who get fixated on just about every topic under the sun. And some of them have an accusatory, vindictive attitude toward their opponents. They don't speak for me, and if you look past X to the church down the street, I think you're more likely to see what I describe.
Absolutely agree. As a mother I noticed distinct differences in the youth who were raised with vs without religion. The moral and ethical code in combination with the community church provided gave a structure and safe space for children to grow and express themselves.
As a result we actually made a decision to pull our children from public school and send them to parochial school to reinforce what we were teaching at home.
Religion does not come without problems, but I can say so far we are proud of the kindness, compassion, social awareness, freedom of expression and open mindedness we see our children engage in.
Children need moral and ethical structure and religion provides that basis. If you do not have belief in God, you will search for God in materialistic and unfounded causes that have not stood the test of time.
I've been thinking over similar issues when coming to terms with my own faith after leaving an environment of those who had been hurt by it. To hear the case made to keep open dialogue while still recognizing the value my faith brings reassures me that there are other possible outcomes for me than ending up as the "evil Bible-thumper" my former peers insisted faith would make me.
I think the case for a 'genuinely' Christian/Classical Liberal society is extremely strong, empirically. The Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints as mentioned by Julian has, as Article of Faith 11 (of 13)...
"We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may". (standing since 1842).
That's Classical liberalism already understood in the early LDS Church, so it's already a combination.
Perhaps Rauch should have the understanding that God did not create automatons; He created human beings with a free will. Free will requires the allowance of evil that man might indeed be free to choose- even in contradiction to the will of his/her Creator.
Very true!
But I also think there are evils (like children dying of smallpox etc) that are hard to chalk up just to human free will. I really like Tim Keller's point: to paraphrase, he said that theodicy is like a bucket, and all of his arguments and explanations couldn't fill the bucket more than three-fourths full.
What do you think?
The field of theodicy is wide open, but it is only narrowed by biblical evidence regarding the attributes of God. The granting of free will is only possible if man is not programmed to choose only what God wants. Free will also gives man the option to choose obedience or disobedience. Were mankind “programmed” for obedience only, then God would be responsible for man’s actions; free will makes man individually responsible for his/her disobedience.
Also: The problem of sin. If anyone reads Genesis they understand this is where evil entered humankind. God had one specific rule for His human creation whom He endowed with free will. We know how that turned out.
THANK YOU! 🙏🏽⬆️🎯
Also: The problem of sin. If anyone reads Genesis they understand this is where evil entered humankind. God had one specific rule for His human creation whom He endowed with free will. We know how that turned out.
The ideological leanings of the young generation are not a surprise. An education system that fully embraced Paulo Freire creates these neo-Marxists by design
I find this incredibly disturbing coming from FAIR. FAIR hasn’t committed (as far as I know) to being neutral in terms of religion, but as someone who is here because of the commitment to being non-partisan, I also need it to be free from favoring any specific religion in order for me to support it.
Just a reminder to the author: Christians believe that the act of homosexuality is a sin. Period. A Christian said this to my face just recently. Christians aim to “encourage homosexuals NOT to live that way”.
Who would want to join a community of people who:
Constantly focus on what kinds of sex you are / are not having?
Do not accept you for who you are and want to “encourage you NOT to live the way you want and need to live”?
This notion of “Christianity” working together with “liberalism” is naivety on steroids and it’s extremely annoying that FAIR would even give this any airtime at all.
I am extremely disappointed.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I definitely hear your disappointment, and I really appreciate you having the courage to share it <3
I would just make two points:
1) I can't speak for FAIR, but my impression is that they're a big-tent publication; that is, they platform writers who advocate for a variety of views, some of which can be in conflict with each other. Or to put it another way: as the author of the piece, I am certainly not reflecting the "official" FAIR line on religion. I'm neither paid by FAIR nor affiliated with them (though I do enjoy writing for them!). I'm just a guy whose opinion they decided to platform, not an official representative of their viewpoint on anything.
Does that make sense?
2) I agree with a lot of your criticism of Christianity, but just to add my own nuance as a believer of some-odd years:
Some Christians absolutely do consider homosexuality to be a sin. Other Christians actually don't. This is an issue that splits the church, and I've known many Christians on both sides of this issue. As one example, two of my friends are lesbians who are happily engaged (to each other), and both consider themselves devout Christians. I myself am a practicing Christian and also do not consider homosexuality to be a sin.
What do you think of all that?
Thank you very much for taking the time to read Julian's piece and offering your feedback, Meredith.
I'm sorry that FAIR's decision to publish this piece has disappointed you, but I would like to remind you of the note accompanying all content we publish on our Substack:
"The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.
In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse."
You are correct that FAIR is committed to remaining neutral and does not take a position regarding religion. In practice, this means that we do not exclude anyone based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Our membership includes individuals aligned all along the "religious spectrum," including those of devout faith, atheists, and agnostics. All are welcomed to express their thoughts and ideas so long as they are aligned with FAIR's core values and mission to promote fairness, understanding, and humanity. I've read Julian's piece several times and find no evidence that it undermines FAIR's core values or mission. If you feel otherwise I would really appreciate your thoughts, as values alignment is extremely important to all of us at FAIR.
I would also remind you that we at FAIR go to great lengths to avoid stereotyping individuals based on their identity. It's certainly not the case that Christians universally believe homosexuality is a sin. Just as you anecdotally point to a Christian friend who believes Christians should discourage homosexuality, I am acquainted with plenty of Christians who do not feel this way and even embrace the gay community. In fact, as recently as January Pope Francis posed the question: "If a person is gay and seeks God and has goodwill, who am I to judge him?"
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/pope-francis-created-seismic-shift-acceptance-lgbtq-catholics-say-rcna202113
I think Pope Francis' comment heralds an acceptance and acknowledgment of the humanity of gay people, and as one of the most prominent Christian leaders in the world his perspective no doubt reflects that of a not insubstantial portion of Christians.
You are clearly troubled by what you believe to be the narrow mindedness of Christians. I would invite you to practice the open mindedness you seek in others. You might be surprised by what you find.
In my experience, Christian communities do not "constantly focus on what kinds of sex you are / are not having." There are no Heterosexual Pride marches. I'm not saying the issue is buried, but for the vast majority of churches with a Biblical view of sexual morality, that's not the primary focus. I don't think I hear a reference to homosexuality even once a month in my church. We're spending more time discussing how to overcome pride and selfishness, how to support those who are weak, how to sacrifice ourselves for the benefit of those around us, particularly within our family, how to find joy in doing the right thing even when it's hard, how to put God first.
It is inherent in any moral code that it calls you to do things that you wouldn't do if left to your own devices, and not to do things that you otherwise would. Whether it's a call to limit sexual activity to a one man/one woman lifetime marriage, or to give of your resources to the poor, or risk your life for the sake of someone drowning, or get your butt off the sofa and develop yourself so you can be a productive member of society, or guard the pass at Thermopylae, moral codes tell us that we can be, and should be, better than we have been. You may disagree with Christianity's moral code, but you undoubtedly have one of your own. Would you accept a KKK member for who he is and say nothing about the need to change? I hope not. The message of Christianity is that while God accepts us as we are, he loves us too much to leave us as we are; every one of us needs to repent of our moral rebellion to be right with him--and right with those around us. And part of the hope of Christianity is the belief that God himself gives us the power to do that once we surrender to him; that in submitting, we are freed from our self-destructive ways.
Yes, there are some loudmouths who obsess on sexual matters (on both sides); there are people who get fixated on just about every topic under the sun. And some of them have an accusatory, vindictive attitude toward their opponents. They don't speak for me, and if you look past X to the church down the street, I think you're more likely to see what I describe.
Absolutely agree. As a mother I noticed distinct differences in the youth who were raised with vs without religion. The moral and ethical code in combination with the community church provided gave a structure and safe space for children to grow and express themselves.
As a result we actually made a decision to pull our children from public school and send them to parochial school to reinforce what we were teaching at home.
Religion does not come without problems, but I can say so far we are proud of the kindness, compassion, social awareness, freedom of expression and open mindedness we see our children engage in.
Children need moral and ethical structure and religion provides that basis. If you do not have belief in God, you will search for God in materialistic and unfounded causes that have not stood the test of time.
Thoughtful essay! Thanks for sharing.
I've been thinking over similar issues when coming to terms with my own faith after leaving an environment of those who had been hurt by it. To hear the case made to keep open dialogue while still recognizing the value my faith brings reassures me that there are other possible outcomes for me than ending up as the "evil Bible-thumper" my former peers insisted faith would make me.
I think the case for a 'genuinely' Christian/Classical Liberal society is extremely strong, empirically. The Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints as mentioned by Julian has, as Article of Faith 11 (of 13)...
"We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may". (standing since 1842).
That's Classical liberalism already understood in the early LDS Church, so it's already a combination.