While I am sure that many Christians have treated @NLENTS (and others) poorly, is their any indication that these particular reviewers were Christian?
Just asking…
Not asking as a defense though. Christians can be pretty horrible. Even when we do wrong, Jesus is good.
I really don’t know about the reviewers, but I’m referring to the other abuse he has taken.
Curtis, you are entirely on point here. Since we cannot control what other supposed believers say and do, it leads us to Joshua’s point… I would rather apologize and make certain that I’m not acting that way than to wait around to find out with which affinity group some offender associates.
The late Brennan Manning said it well:
“The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”
Whether or not it is true, I don’t know, but I can control what I think and what I say, so let it not be me who drives any away.
No, and I wasn’t pinning the reviews to Christianity. Christianity came up here because I was expressing my gratitude and my appreciation that Christians so eagerly stepped up to show solidarity, despite whatever differences we have.
In view of that, I find it all the more interesting that Psalm 14:1 is often used by some Christians as a two-by-four to hammer atheists—but the passage has nothing to do with atheism:
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
—Psalm 14:1
The NABAL (fool) in this verse is someone who believes in an all-seeing God but then casually chooses to think and do evil, even though nothing escapes God’s notice. So the verse refers to an inner incongruity of someone who considers himself/herself a theist.
Atheism was not a big issue in ancient Israel, obviously. So the Psalmist had no reason to attack atheists. Also, “in his heart” refers to the seat of the intellect and will. To speak with one’s mouth that there is no God would be the converse of “says in his heart” that there is no God.
I’ve posted on this forum extensively on this verse in the past so I won’t repeat more than this summary.
Sorry, I was looking for this from Dan Barker FFRF co-president:
Patrick, did your post get mangled? It looks like you quoted someone but the text got appended to your first paragraph without the usual offset.
Either that or he’s preaching a sermon!
That’s much better, Patrick. Your post makes much more sense after reformatting.
Cwhenderson, I started using Christ-follower as my self-description many years ago—and I’ve often been amazed at how many positive responses I’ve received, exactly for the right reasons (i.e., they recognized why I found Christian ambiguous and often insufficient as a label.) For the most part, people who have beefs with some Christians have no quarrels with the teachings of Jesus and his emphasis on loving others.
Jesus said that if we truly love him, we will obey his teachings. And that means we want to be Christ-like in all that we do. He even said that we are to love our enemies.
I find that most Americans are unaware just how much western civilization was transformed by Jesus’ teachings through many centuries of Christ-followers who did recite and live out the themes of his sermons. If we could take a time machine back to pre-Christian Europe and observe the lack of justice, the callous and downright cruel treatment of “anybody that’s not us”, and the barbarism in general (for lack of a better term), we would be struck by the Judeo-Christian influence on our society. Indeed, many basic behavioral standards we take for granted—even if we as a society don’t necessarily live up to those high ideals as consistently as we might wish—have been the outgrowth of the impact of Jesus teachings. For examples, we are horrified by child-abuse, and we generally tend to feel compassion for the underdog, even though our ancestors of long ago tended to praise those who live by “might makes right.” [Yes, I realize that there were commendable exceptions in every society, but I’m talking about the mainstream morality of pre-Christian Europe.] We also tend to assist those who are injured or even in impending danger. And for the most part, we tend to value the lives of others and want them to be treated fairly. Our outrage and sadness when we hear of injustices towards oppressed people-groups is yet another example. In my studies of the ancient world and pre-Christian Europe, I was often sickened by the barbarism.
Just as Jesus predicted, there will always be many more Christians than actual Christ-followers. We see this theme in the Parable of the Sower, as well as in the phrase “and few there be who find it.” There is also the sometimes vexing “Many are called but few are chosen.” (I won’t pursue another tangent by expanding on that.)
Do you really need a belief/faith/religion to be moral in today’s society? Since we all agree that there are good Christians and bad Christians, good Muslims and bad Muslims, good and bad people of every religion and of no religion, isn’t it obvious that morals, ethics, and values are independent of religion.
Since morality can be explained by the evolution of human biological instincts, local current society’s laws and norms, and each individual’s human reasoning, doesn’t religion just get in the way in a progressive secular society that now exists in most of the world?
To be clear, I was not asserting that religion in general is always a constructive influence on society. Far from it. I was specifically addressing the teachings of Jesus. Yes, religious traditions and agendas often cause problems, just as every other practices, causes, movements, and philosophies among fallible humans can cause problems. Religion is just one of the many factors which flawed humans employ in pursuit of advantage over others and even the downright cruel oppression of others. We observe the same human foibles when strife, injustices, and even wars arise due to economic systems, tribalism, cultural bigotry, language divisions, and many other factors. Blaming religion is confusing the symptoms of the most negative tendencies of the human species instead of recognizing the fundamental causes. Most of what “gets in the way in a progressive secular society” can be attributed to the primal selfishness of humans, whether that tendency is lived out through the destructive behaviors of a Christian, an atheist Stalinist, a Keynesian, a strict Monetarist, a fascist, a Democrat, a Republican, an anti-theist, a white supremacist, an imperialist, a robber baron rabid materialist capitalist, a secular progressive, or a myopic constructionist crusader blind to modern day realities. All we have to do is look around and observe that all kinds of fallible humans get in the way of a kinder and more just society. Religion is just one avenue of that tendency towards conflict and harm.
Moreover, so much of what horrifies us when “religion” gets in the way of a better society is precisely the kind of illustration of how Christ-followers—those who truly live out the teachings of Jesus Christ—differ from those who pursue self-interest and political advantage by promoting their self-centered brand of religious culture (for example.)
It is also worth nothing that Jesus preached the transformation of the individual. He didn’t focus on political agendas. Other preachers may have chosen to denounce and to try to overthrow the Roman Empire but Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world”. He brought profound change to individuals so that in just a few centuries the Roman Empire collapsed and Jesus’ radical teachings began to change the entire continent of Europe.
Even so, to emphasize the important point, Jesus said that only a minority of those who showed an interest in his teachings would become true Christ-followers who obeyed them in living out the pursuit of love and righteous. I don’t blame all Christ-followers for the wrongs of some Christians, just as I don’t blame all atheists for the wrongs of the most outrageous and scandalous anti-theists. And yes, I would say that some secular progressives have got in the way of a better and kinder society. (I could name names of some of those outspoken activists but I don’t think that would be conducive to the best objectives of this sub-thread.)
Nae True Scotsman?
okay sure, you are a good person. You being a good person is mostly because of your biological instincts of empathy and compassion, your upbringing and education in the time and place you experienced, and your evolved sense of fairness and tolerance that you reasoned out yourself. Sure you put your faith in the stories written about a man who lived 2000 years ago, but couldn’t you have gotten to the same point via many different routes including a purely secular path?
And it’s worth noting that Paul built a church. Jesus didn’t.
Individualism? Seriously? I mean, I knew that Billy Graham and several others preached individualism, but I thought they were fringe. Is that widely accepted in evangelicalism?
For those without knowledge of Scottish dialects, nae is a fascinating word which can function as a noun, adverb, or even an exclamation/interjection. It means either “no” or “not” depending on the part-of-speech and context in which it is applied in a given instance.
As to the question John asked, “Nae True Scotsman?”, the answer is no. Neither a lexicographer nor a logic professor would confuse the No True Scotsman Fallacy with the valid distinction between a Christian and a Christ-follower—especially when Jesus Christ himself carefully distinguished the enormous difference between a dabbler and semi-interested person who is curious about the teachings of Jesus and one who is an actual disciple (i.e., an obey-er and follower) of Jesus who is not only willing to obey the teachings of Christ but to take up his cross daily. (By the way, I once was curious about engineering and dabbled in electrical engineering but I never became an engineer. Likewise, many of us have an interest in biology but we never committed ourselves to acquiring biology degrees and a career devoted to biology. Distinctions do matter. Not even all biology fans are biologists. I doubt that the professional biologists in this forum would tolerate my claim that “a biology fan” vs. “a biologist” is merely a “No True Scotsman” fallacy.)
The No True Scotsman fallacy is based on the famous exchange where “a Scotsman” is falsely and artificially distinguished with “a true Scotsman”, when in fact a Scotsman is simply defined as “a man from Scotland.” It is basically a binary condition. [We could split hairs about the technical meaning of “from Scotland” but in Scottish culture even my Nigerian friend who has worked in Glasgow for twenty-five years on a special-skill employment permit is never called a Scotsman even though I think he owns a home there and has rarely left the country.]
Jesus carefully and emphatically distinguished between wheat and tares. The former were those who had been fundamentally transformed by faith in Jesus Christ. The latter, the tares, were those who may even mix with the wheat and faithfully attend a church (i.e., an assembly of Christ-followers/disciples) but were not themselves actual Christ-followers.
I could cite additional teachings of Jesus—as well as the Apostle Paul and the Apostle James, as additional New Testament examples—which contrast the casual and the curious who would listen to Jesus’ teaching but were not at all actual disciples (aka Christ-followers.)
It is also worth noting that the contrast may seem less apparent in English because the word Christian has so many meanings and has become far more ambiguous than the relevant underlying Koine Greek words from the New Testament. Indeed, as just one example of this I think of the many prison chaplains I’ve known who quickly learned in their work that the word “Christian” can have any of these meanings in America’s city/county jails and state/federal prisons:
(1) Someone who writes “Christian” on the inmate incarceration intake card under religion—even though they hadn’t stepped foot in a church in many years and know virtually nothing about Jesus’ teachings. Indeed, prisoners I’ve known have said things like “When I was little, my grandmother used to read me stories from the Bible at bedtime. So I guess that makes me a Christian.” and “Uhhh… I’m an American so I guess that makes me Christian.” (Long ago when I was still teaching at a major state university, I had many graduate students who came from Islamic countries. They would say things like “Iranians are Muslims and Americans are Christians.” See definition #2.)
(2) Other prisoners would say, “I don’t know anything about other religions so I guess I’m a Christian.”
(3) “Christian” on prison paperwork can simply mean which type of clergy to contact when the patient dies.
None of the above definitions of Christian has much to do with a disciple/Christ-follower described in the Bible.
Really? That is news to me, despite an extensive background in religious studies and (later on) in evangelical academia. I’m baffled by your post.
I could cite many relevant scriptures, including Jesus saying, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” Yes, Jesus built his church and the first set of disciples, known as the twelve, were called the foundation upon which Jesus built his church.
Also, it is worth reiterating that lots of people assume that a church is a building—but that meaning of the word is entirely absent from the Bible. In scripture, a church refers to a local assembly of Christ-followers, and the church refers to all Christ-followers throughout the centuries. (Of course, when it comes to church buildings, the Apostle Paul didn’t build any of those either.)
Really? Individualism is central to the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament, so you would be very hard pressed to find someone in America who calls themselves an evangelical who did take that “individualism” for granted.
Nicodemus, a Pharisee, came to see Jesus privately at night, one-on-one, and asked what he needed to do to be saved. Jesus told him, “You must be born again.” That is about as extreme of a transformation of the individual as one can get. The Apostle Paul spoke constantly of what Jesus demanded of the individual. The Apostle James spoke similarly. The Apostle Peter as well.
Absolutely. Indeed, if you could poll millions of American evangelicals and you asked them to define what it means to be an evangelical Christian, an enormous number would say without hesitation, “You as an individual must be born-again. It is not enough to attend a church or to come from a Christian family or even to identify with and confess a particular Christian doctrinal creed.”
Djordje, your question fascinates me, so I hope you will explain your Serbian Orthodox perspectives on this topic!
If that is true, then would you assert that a person in 2nd century B.C.E. Scandinavia, who shared human “biological instincts” and “evolved senses”—and what his/her culture considered appropriate education—did not differ in what it means to be a “good person” from a person in other eras? [That’s not a rhetorical question to make a point. It is a genuine question. I’m not sure what you mean.]
As for “a good person”, Jesus taught that there is no such thing as “a good person.” Jesus asked, “Why do you call me good? There is none good but God.” (Of course, this is one of many instances in scripture where Jesus clearly stated his divinity. Indeed, this explains why the Pharisees were so furious with him and accused him of blasphemy. They knew the scriptures well enough to know exactly what he was stating. Modern day readers are far more prone to miss that declaration.)
If you mean it in that sense, yes, you are correct and I was wrong.