I can appreciate the sentiment you're expressing, but I'm a heathen Lutheran.

I have NO desire to witness to anyone....my spirituality is very personal, and I just don't give a shit what anyone else believes or doesn't believe. I don't think people can be forced to believe, or force themselves to stop believing. My point to the OP is that I find it hard to imagine him befriending someone he would obviously consider an ignorant idiot, and have genuine interest in their feelings. I could be wrong, but based on his postings, he would be a royal and condescending ass as a friend to any Christian. If my atheist friends talked down to me the way he does to people here, I'd tell them to piss off and move on.
Hi Sherry I am Lutheran also, and seek reform similar to the church reformation except with the state Constitutional laws that were corrupted the same way.
I have much worse experience than this, with "friends" being abusive, condescending, rejecting and pure insulting. I ask them if they have a problem with me, then let's correct the problem. If they refuse to follow mediation or conflict resolution, that is their problem not mine, but I give them that choice.
The Bible says that of a couple unequally yoked, if the nonbeliever asks the believer to depart, then the believer does that. But the believer does not reject the nonbeliever.
So I apply this toward friendships as well. If my friends cannot take the level of reconciliation I seek, and they ask to depart company, I can try to work it out and ask to correct it, but if the desire is not mutual, then I must accept that.
If they keep coming back and trying to fix it, or change something even if they project it as changing me, then I try to work with that person. Again, if they refuse to try, and they give up and walk away, then of course I let that go.
The only people I've had trouble reconciling with are mentally ill and/or off their medications. Other than that, people who are thinking for themselves, and have control of their memories and communicating their perceptions, no matter how negative, are usually able to maintain some kind of workable debate or discussion if we stick to the issues.
I try not to go off onto personal judgments because that gets us both off track.
I find if you identify and stick with the core issues, people care so much about the points or beliefs they espouse, they will work through until some agreement or information is established that resolves the conflicts or furthers the process even if it isn't finished yet.
If the person is being a jerk, then they can learn how not to be that way if we are going to be able to communicate.
The real jerks who are not interested in any resolution
will BACK OFF on their own when they find out I am serious about
establishing agreement and truth! that is TOO MUCH WORK.
So only the people who really care will stick around and keep trying.
The rest will run the other way, I don't have to tell them or ask them.
They screen themselves out when I adhere to resolving the truth in a respectable
two-way relationship.
That is how I handle that. The problems tend to take care of themselves
without me ever having to play the bad guy or jerk back to them!
Hope you enjoy more productive and constructive interactions
and not the negative type that waste energy and destroy relations.
You are right, that there is no sense in getting caught in that.
I agree with you there!
Yours truly,
Emily
P.S. Please tell your atheist friends to get on backpage.com
there is a whole "A-team" of atheists still learning how to deal
with theists and Christians and vice versa. Some of them only know how to share insults back and forth, and don't see any reason to change. So anything you do instead of that
might lend encouragement and support for others not to give up and resort to insults.
I have tried to make the point that the more one side opens up to accept and work with the other approach, then the change is mutual and the barriers can drop that are blocking both of them. But they don't get that, they keep trying to say the other person should change. They see no merit in the other approach (ie theist vs nontheist) while I see that the two paths, the churched under sacred/divine laws and the gentiles under secular/natural laws, are necessary complements required to check and balance each other, with faith and reason together to establish and align along points of common truth.
The frustration is mutual, in failing to communicate when both sides use different languages and concepts (ie science and agreement in logical reasoning vs scripture and faith in agreement in interpretation), but so are the steps to resolution also mutual.
Both would have to agree to forgive and accept differences in order to make corrections.
But the minute one side makes mistakes, they are accused of being completely false and wrong instead of correcting that particular misperception or misinterpretation. So they spend all their time and energy using that to "discredit" each other, instead of correcting it.
I think you must be familiar with this type of interaction.
If you take the opposite approach as I do, maybe you can help on that board.
I have not been able to correct the problems, so maybe your approach might work better?