Posted by Jim Henderson on: 04.15.2006 /
We have come to learn that Atheists and Christians can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions - now we find that the same thing is often true between christians.
From A New Kind Of Christian Talks About Hell
Comment # 1 - Sign me up
Sign me up as a “New Kind of Christian”. I almost wish there were another name for it - as I don’t want to be seen as what many people think of when they describe themselves or others as Christian. I totally agree that the essence of being a Christian is love and goodness - and if that is not the manifestation of believing in God/Jesus - I am not interested. I have always said that if the Dalai Lama is going to Hell and Falwell/Robertson/Swaggert are going to Heaven - I am just going to have to learn to enjoy warm climate.
Comment #22 - I’d rather be an Atheist
It undoubtedly says more about me (in the context of this group) than it does about her, but I was astounded at what claptrap this was. It that is what it means to be a “new kind of Christian”, sign me up for atheism.
What does this tell us about our assumptions about Christianity?
Is not agreeing about this issue really anything new- Hasn’t it been argued among Christians for ever?
Why do we find it so difficult to acknowledege this?
What does that say about what we call Christianity?
Why should our enemies ignore this and not exploit it instead?
If being creedal christians is the criteria does that mean that Quakers are going to hell?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Ir
1 04/16/06 4:44 AM | Comment Link |What does this tell us about our assumptions about Christianity?
As a Christian I assumed that ‘the truth’ was always ‘clear’ to those who were genuinely open to receiving the truth. Sometimes Christians had to get together and sort out what was true, but - God always guaranteed they came to the right answer. For example, when the decisions were made about what goes in the New Testament, it was ‘clear’ which writings were inspired by God and belonged in there, and which weren’t. And if there was a bit of controversy over one or two books, God made sure the right decision was made in the end.
Similarly, at the council of Nicea, God made sure that the truth was written down as the Nicene Creed, not heresy.
Also, God made sure the Bible was ‘preserved’ - so we have essentially what the writings originally said (I think we probably do have essentially what was originally written, in all writings that made it into the Bible, by the way - because the fear of God would have stopped people messing with the texts)
Also, if the predominant church was getting way off track, God would raise up a reformer to bring it back on track - like Martin Luther.
Also, I believed that there was always, and still is, a ‘you-know-it-when-you-see-it’ about ‘true Christianity’ (probably this came from God’s Holy Spirit) that kept true Christians from getting off-track and that would lead genuine seekers to the truth.
One day I realized that this ‘history’ of the church is a story that reassures Christians. It also is the story the church would have wanted people to believe, down through the ages. The agenda of ideological groups - including churches - is always to persuade people that there’s no serious doubt over whether they are correct. Generally groups minimizing/suppressing evidence of disagreement with them, intentionally and/or unintentionally, in pursuit of that goal.
So I had believed a ’story’ about the history of the church which it was in the church’s best interests to encourage. The question is: is the ’story’ historically accurate?
Why is it difficult for Christians to acknowledge that the ’story’ of the unity of the faith may not be quite accurate? I don’t think it occurs to Christians that it might not be. It didn’t occur to me for a long time.
What does that say about what we call Christianity?
It’s one more piece of evidence that Christianity actually a huge system of belief which encompasses much more than questions about Jesus’ life and mission.
This is a fascinating question - yes, of course, obviously the ‘enemies of Christians’ will ‘exploit’ the way people who call themselves Christians cannot even agree on what the definition of a Christian is - and not only that, but the differences in definition are quite significant. Of course they will exploit them - why not?
But here’s the fascinating part: is it possible that a person who asks “How am I supposed to know which of you has the right definition of ‘Christian’?” is not actually an enemy trying to exploit Christians? It is possible that they are simply curious? What if they have a genuine interest in finding out more about Jesus and so they are asking for some help in understanding what being a Christian is all about?
Why do we (heh - I mean, Christians :)) get so defensive and assume that a person asking a question like this is trying to exploit Christians /mock Christian belief?
When it comes to issues like this I wish Christians would use what I might call the ‘turn it around’ technique. It goes like this: suppose you knew five atheists and each one had a different definition of what an atheist is. Assuming your brain functions normally, wouldn’t the obvious question to these atheist be “How do you know you’re right?” Does the question mean you’re an enemy of atheism, trying to exploit their differences? Mightn’t it simply be the question of a friendly, curious Christian? If so, then hey, maybe it’s best not to assume that an atheist asking the corresponding question of Christians is an enemy trying to exploit differences of opinion among Christians.
Actually, in this case a better analogy is - suppose you have five teachers who tell you five different ways to pass your finals and they say that their way is the only way that works - the four other methods will guarantee failure. Since you want to pass, is it unreasonable of you to ask the teachers how you can know which one has the ‘truth’ about how to pass? If you ask the question, does that prove you’re trying to get all the teachers fired? Or are you just trying to find out what you need to know?
I’ve seen Christians notice - say, on a public Christian discussion board which people who aren’t Christians can read (if not post on) “Hey, it’s a bit awkward that an outsider who drops by will see that a large part of what we seem to do here is disagree with each other over what it means to be a Christian and live as a Christian”. But I haven’t seen any Christian groups figure out a solution to that - probably because the temptation to debate differences is greater than the desire to present a unified front to outsiders for the sake of making their faith seem more appealing.
The turn-it-around technique is revealing when used regarding those who actually do want to exploit and hopefully tear down Christian belief - like this: do Christians ever try to exploit what atheists say in order to undermine the credibility of their viewpoint? Hmmm, I wonder… ;) The turn-it-around technique in general provides fascinating revelations (I think) regarding how similarly Christians and atheists with agendas operate.
I don’t actually know what Quakers believe. I know that many conservative Christians think everyone who doesn’t believe quite like them is going to hell. Hell is going to be a very full place with the majority of humanity in it, according to their beliefs. (What does that imply about God? Was God’s plan truly to create a race, the majority of which would be eternally tormented? Is it possible that there’s any ‘greater good’ which justifies this? Well, some Christians think so and I don’t even get the impression they lose any sleep over it either. I agree with the people who think that if these guys are going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell, hell sounds like a much more interesting place)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
2 04/16/06 8:37 AM | Comment Link |Why didn’t the people who trained us in the basics of Chrisitianity point this possibility out to us rather than “preach around it” so that we would know that we take this story on “faith” - which by my way of thinking is as good as it gets for ANY belief system (including Atheism)
Did they think we wouldn;t read other versions of the history of the bible/church/christianity?
Comment by: skikid
3 04/16/06 9:26 AM | Comment Link |Ir~
I always love your posts.
As I begin to put the pieces of my puzzle (it’s a great analogy) it occurs to me that maybe there is more than one way to pass my finals so to speak, maybe there is more than one path to truth. I was at a conference on Friday (boring science stuff) and a couple of us snuck off after 6 hours of lecture. As we are shooting the breeze talking about our weekend/Easter/Passover plans it became apparent that we all had really different takes on ‘truth’ one of us was Bahai, another was a Creationist and me (whatever I am these days :)). As we continued to talk the common ground that we all had was the high value we all place on love, relationships, peace and justice and we all seemed to think that our God embodied these things in someway. So that leads me to wonder if there is not more than one path to truth.
Comment by: Ir
4 04/16/06 10:46 AM | Comment Link |1) Maybe the people who trained us don’t realize it’s a ’story accepted by faith’ either. Maybe like Peter in PA (with all due respect, Peter) they think it’s ‘historical reality’.
2) They would feel guilty instilling doubts in us. The person whose preaching I most recently sat under admitted he has doubts sometimes (in general - not necessarily about church history) but said he preaches his faith, not his doubts (because he thinks that’s what is helpful, I think).
1) They might not realize how prevalent other versions are.
2) They believe - and encourage us to believe - that only what Christians (true Christians, of course write can be trusted. So, if there are other versions out there, they are unreliable and inaccurate.
The reason is that in their view, there is no ‘neutral’ writing out there. Either it’s inspired by the Holy Spirit or it is written by people Satan is using to destroy God’s work. So, the books by non-Christians are too ‘biased’ to be trustworthy.
It’s similar to how some Christians think all mainstream scientists have an agenda to destroy trust in the Bible that they are implementing by insisting the earth is older than Genesis says.
Comment by: Mike C
5 04/16/06 12:26 PM | Comment Link |Great post as usual Ir!
I’ve also wrestled with these same questions about church history and wondered why God would allow so much disagreement among his church. I too had heard (and believed myself) the theory that God providentially protected his true church throughout history, and that anything that veered off from that was just heresy.
Then I went to an interdenominational Christian college. Even though Wheaton is still very much stuck within the “evangelical” realm, there was still enough diversity of belief that I began to question how we could all be right when we all approached faith so differently. Maybe that was the benefit of going to a school like that. Because I was with people of different backgrounds and traditions I didn’t just assume that I was the only one who was right and my friends were all wrong. I was forced to consider that the Christian faith was a lot bigger tent than I had once assumed.
So I guess I put the puzzle pieces back together in a different way than you on this as well. ;) I still believe that God has providentially guided history, including the history of the church, but now I don’t think that his purpose in doing so was just so that we’d be able to preserve a unified Christian doctrine and one true church. I think the diversity and the disagreements are part of his plan.
In other words, I think diversity and disagreements are often a good thing… because they force us to find our unity not through conformity (to doctrines or practices), but through love. Jesus prayed that his followers would be unified, but not because they all thought or acted exactly the same way. He prayed that they would be unified in love for one another.
So, like you, I’ve rejected the story that says the Christian faith is just this one unified, monolithic movement throughout the centuries. My knowledge of church history tells me quite the opposite. And yet for me this is not a reason to just reject Christianity altogether, but instead to start thinking about it differently than before.
What if God’s purpose is not to get everyone to just agree intellectually on the same doctrine or worldview? What if his purpose is to transform us into people who practice love and compassion in this world?
If that was your purpose, would you try to achieve that by making everyone the same (so that’s it’s no struggle to show love and compassion)? Or would you let diversity flourish, and then call people to love each other despite their differences? Which would be closer to the true ideal of love?
Anyhow, that’s just how I look at it now…
-Mike
Comment by: Eliza
6 04/16/06 12:32 PM | Comment Link |As an atheist who has been pressing the “what defines a Christian” line of questioning here and on the discussion board, I want to comment first on whether “an atheist asking the…question of Christians [could be] an enemy trying to exploit differences of opinion among Christians” and/or be mocking Christian beliefs. Of course, it’s possible. I was asking myself something similar yesterday while posting on the “New Kind” thread.
But I really think that “what is a Christian and how do you know” are very fair questions. They are certainly very interesting questions to someone like me who hasn’t been exposed much to Christian creeds/churches, and who has been reading the Bible yet finds no one “definition” becomes crystal clear.
This may also be one of those many situations in which someone from outside the “group” sees things that those inside can’t see. I feel that’s the case when someone responds as if my unchurched questions or comments are shallow or off-point, or that just opening the bible and reading it is not the “right” way to approach it. (If the “right” way is more complicated than that, but you can’t agree among yourselves what it is, you really need to talk to each other more about this.)
Maybe this is just my skeptical belief system coming out in a way I can’t fully see, but I really think anyone should welcome the chance to explain (and maybe examine) their beliefs, requirements, expectations they hold - of others and themselves. “The unexamined life is not worth living” (Socrates) though that’s a bit extreme if taken literally. (So: is the application of a skeptical approach inappropriate to questions about religion??) Truthfully, there is some element of trying to poke holes into someone’s position but that’s to try to see how it is that it holds water for them…and see if I can see where they are coming from, and how it fits with other people’s explanations for their own beliefs, and whether it might resonate and work for me.
Jim asks, “why should our enemies ignore [the difference between Christians] and not exploit it instead?” I’m intrigued — who do you see as those enemies? As a non-Christian “outsider” I see the forces most detrimental to Christianity today as being (1) materialism (on which capitalism depends; advertising is the virus that spreads it), (2) apathy (not unrelated to materialism, but not the same), and (3) high-profile Christians whose actions or messages don’t convey a message of brotherly love, humility, and acceptance of all. You probably know the ones I’m referring to.
You Christians have an inspiring figure in Jesus. He can pretty much speak for himself, if you can get past the 3 forces above and relay the message in ways that various types of people can accept. For me, the most appealing “version” of his message is in the Jefferson Bible, since that cuts out all the mystical, divine, prophetic stuff. But that gets back to the questions: what is a Christian, and how do you know?
Comment by: Ir
7 04/16/06 12:54 PM | Comment Link |What if, indeed? :)
I love it when you ask questions like that, Mike!
Comment by: Ir
8 04/16/06 12:58 PM | Comment Link |Me too, Eliza.
That’s a great list, Eliza! I think many Christians/followers of Jesus would agree with you.
Comment by: Eliza
9 04/16/06 1:23 PM | Comment Link |Jim asks:
I have a soft spot in my heart for the Quakers, coming from a 300-year line of Quakers on my dad’s side and having this sense of “rightness” about their approach - the Friends would be the group I’d join if I only believed in God. ;)
But back to Jim’s question: I don’t know what constitutes a/the “creed” — does this refer to the Nicene creed? Or to several variations since 325 AD? There may be other Christians who are “non-creedal” — as Tom said in “New Kind” thread,
Someone in another thread contended that the Gnostics were not Christians. While not all Gnostic sects have been Christians throughout time, there were definitely Gnostic Christian sects. Historic fact. If you deny this, please accept my contention that you may have been deceived, perhaps by your religious education. As Ir said, there is “a ’story’ about the history of the church which it was in the church’s best interests to encourage” (though perhaps she wouldn’t like me quoting her in this context). ;)
Repeating something I said in another thread: Nothing (that remains) was written during Jesus’s life, by him or by others. The books of the NT were written ~30-70 yrs after his death, and the NT didn’t come together in current form until ~300 years after Jesus’s death. The first 300 years’ worth of Christians didn’t have this particular set of orthodoxy to follow (they had various oral traditions, and later various texts many of which didn’t make it into the NT). There were Gnostic writers who were contemporaneous with the writers of the NT, at least with the author of the Gospel according to John, but the Gnostics lost out in the power struggle over whose version of Christianity would be carried down as “truth”.
Did the first Christians, the ones closest to Jesus temporally, get it all wrong?” Doesn’t it actually seem more likely that the first Christians would have been the ones to get it all right?? Being so much closer temporally to the messenger??
I have long thought that the Quakers are the spiritual descendents of the early Gnostic Christians, but until just recently I haven’t found much to suggest others see that connection. Now, there’s: Was George Fox a Gnostic (book by Glenn D. Reynolds, 2006) and Blog of a “progressive-liberal seminarian” who calls himself a Quaker-Gnostic (2006) - I haven’t read the book & have only perused the blog but that’s more info if anyone is interested. On a related line of inquiry, there’s The Gnostic Paul (book by Elaine Pagels, 1992) - which I also haven’t read but may add to my list to get to sometime.
Comment by: Eliza
10 04/16/06 1:27 PM | Comment Link |Yes!! What a totally excellent question!!! Ask it often and out loud!!!!
Comment by: NCxian
11 04/16/06 5:13 PM | Comment Link |I could not agree more, although had I not seen it broken out this way, Eliza, I would have probably lumped the first two together. At the Off the Map site, there is some Brian McLaren video where he makes the exact same point. I think it called “Missional Christian” or something like that, but I am not positive. Maybe Jim or Lisa are listening in and can say for sure. McLaren is something of a guru of New Kind of Christian.
Comment by: Lisa
12 04/16/06 6:17 PM | Comment Link |I believe NCxian is speaking of Mclaren’s videos at the OTM site found in the MEDIA CENTER / Missional Series.
Comment by: Westy
13 04/16/06 6:33 PM | Comment Link |Keep up the good dialogue folks.
And might not the best way to transform people into those who practice love and compassion in this world be for them to become true Christ-followers? True Biblical Gospel-believing Christians should exemplify love and compassion.
Comment by: Ir
14 04/16/06 6:40 PM | Comment Link |*sigh*
Comment by: Ir
15 04/16/06 6:41 PM | Comment Link |Westy wrote:
*sigh*
Comment by: Ir
16 04/16/06 6:52 PM | Comment Link |I love yours too skikid :)
(Sorry, I missed this post earlier)
Yes - what seems so strange to me is that by what we choose to talk about, we can feel close or distant; we can find ourselves noticing we have a lot of common ground or find ourselves feeling estranged from each other by our differences.
And yet we haven’t changed; all that has changed is what we’re talking about.
I had two encouraging conversations in recent weeks with friends I met through church/Bible study and still get together with on a social basis. Both of them were talking about practical involvement in ways that help other people - about how important it is to each of them to live out their Christian faith that way. We could have talked about my not-believing but instead they each shared that with me and I was glad to hear about it.
It was encouraging; it is definitely common ground.
Comment by: everett
17 04/16/06 7:16 PM | Comment Link |As i have sat and read blog after blog the last few months on OTM I have been encouraged and disappointed all at the same time.After watching the video on A new kind of Christian… i figured i had to type something. IMO the only thing the lady said that was true was GOD is love. Christianity is on the belief of the Birth,Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Without those three events there is no Christianity.i could quote verses but for those that don’t believe the scriptures that would be a mute point.This weekend is why there is christianity to begin with if you are a believer.
I know that all followers of Christ should act in a different manner. Do we no we do not and most times that puts a sour taste in non believers mouths. I am guilty of that myself. I will never be perfect but i can try and lead my life on what i believe is true.
Comment by: Mike C
18 04/16/06 8:09 PM | Comment Link |I’m not sure I would characterize it so much as a “power struggle”. The early Christians, at least pre-Constantine, didn’t really have much in the way of “power”. Most of the church consisted of the urban poor scattered throughout the Empire and were frequently the target of Imperial persecutions. In fact, most of the early church leaders who gathered at Nicea to create the creed had just a few years prior suffered directly and personally under Diocletian’s persecution in 303.
I think some people have this impression of the early church leaders as a bunch of rich and powerful white men who came together to impose their theology on everyone else and suppress everyone who disagreed with them, but nothing could be further from the truth. The majority of early church leaders were poor, were Middle Eastern or African, and had no temporal power at all.
And while yes, the Gnostics were vaguely connected to Christianity, they were never part of the mainstream and their ideas were never in direct competition with orthodox Christianity. To use an analogy, Gnostics to early Christians were not like Protestants to Catholics, i.e. not just a group splitting off from the inside. They were more like Mormons to orthodox Christians today, i.e. a different and competing religion that borrows some of the same basis and ideas from orthodox Christianity, but that formed independently and did not originate directly from within it.
Personally, I don’t find gnostic ideas very compelling. I don’t buy their whole physical/spiritual dualism where the body and this physical world are considered illusory and evil and only the spiritual is real and good. Human beings are much more holistic creatures IMHO. The body is not evil and the spiritual is inextricably intertwined with the physical.
Gnosticism also just seems too elitist for me. As I understand it, they were a mystery religion that would only reveal their “deeper truths” to a select few initiates. I’d prefer a religion that is more accessible to all.
But hey, that’s just me… :)
Comment by: Mike C
19 04/16/06 8:11 PM | Comment Link |Maybe I’m just too much of a fantasy/sci-fi nerd, but I don’t think I’d want to live in a world without mysticism. :)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
20 04/16/06 8:22 PM | Comment Link |this is essentially the conclusion I have come to as well - although purposely hiding the discontinuity (which I believe C theologians/pastors and leaders have done in order to stay in business) is disingenous especially when we trumpet to all other religions and their “misguided” followers that “we have the truth” and view ourselves as taking the “high road” -
If we are in the business of loving others why should we hide anything. Instead, why not take the initiative and point out our mistakes for them so they know that we have no expectation of winning them because we have found The Truth but because we have encountered Jesus
Comment by: Ir
21 04/17/06 4:36 AM | Comment Link |Just to say - I think the conservative Christian teachers and preachers I’ve encountered are doing what they believe is right. I don’t think they’re intentionally trying to do anything except ‘help’ people by getting and keeping them ’saved’. (Well, maybe not so much the ‘keeping them saved’ part) I don’t think ’staying in business’ is their driving motivation although gaining converts and retaining some does have that effect.
Indeed. That sounds like real humility to me.
Hiding is such a way of life for many Bible-believing Christians that I doubt they have any idea how much they engage in it.
Comment by: Jayson B.
22 04/17/06 6:38 AM | Comment Link |Pre-constantine of course, I’m sure that’s what you meant.
But the spread of christianity before constantine was nothing of note. It was just another god, another religion. They were persecuted just like anyone else (many christians envision themselves as under constant persecution, selectively being attacked by the forces of satan).
But people do forget the single force that drove christianity to popularity: constantine. Without him, I have severe doubts that christianity would be what it is today. In fact, I would imagine it could have easily played the opposite way.
It amazes me that the fate of our planet hung in the balance on ONE day, in ONE battle, the day that constantine fought Maxentius to be imperator of rome. Constantine either prayed and believed that he would win under the christian cross, or (according to legend) recieved a vision that he was to do so.
Regardless, if constantine hadn’t won that battle, it is very doubtful we’d be having these conversations today.
So, christianity as a CULT didn’t have people who were rich or influential. But christianity as a RELIGION most certainly did.
I find this subject utterly fascinating. Constantine wasn’t a genius, he wasn’t a particularly amazing or interesting roman emporer, but he changed world history in the mightiest of ways. In this aspect, he’s more important to christianity than christ himself.
this isn’t to argue on the validity of whether constantine either recieved divine justice or was just wishing on a four leafed clover, but it’s still a fascinating subject.
Comment by: Jayson B.
23 04/17/06 6:42 AM | Comment Link |I should edit myself before posting. Please, do NOT take this comment as saying that constantine is more important than christ. That’s not what I mean at all, and I do not mean to insult your feelings for jesus.
I just mean that when it comes to popularizing christianity, legitimizing it, constantine played a greater role than anyone else.
Comment by: Stephan
24 04/17/06 6:54 AM | Comment Link |Jayson, I think Constantine is more important than John Lennon. I hope Beatles fans don’t hate me for saying that.
I love this whole line of questions and answers. I’m beginning to think it’s a waste of time for Atheists to try to understand Christianity, or for Christians to try to understand Atheism. But for Atheists to try to get to know Christians, or for Christians to try to get to know Atheists, now that’s something I think is worthwhile and will make the world a better place.
I hesitate to define what a Christian is, because as soon as I do, someone says, “Well, what about (place name of your group here)?” I love the diversity of beliefs we have in the Christian Church, and I strive to understand and embrace it.
Comment by: Julie Marie
25 04/17/06 7:35 AM | Comment Link |I have a different opinion on that. Most of the Atheists posting here have Christian roots; they do understand Christianity.
I think we can certainly come together and find common ground for making the world a better place, but I also believe the opportunity for Christians to have their belief system challenged is rare and valuable…especially by people who have been Christians. It has helped prune some dead wood from my faith.
As far as understanding Atheists, I’ve found they advance their points of view well…at least the ones on this site.
Comment by: Lisa
26 04/17/06 7:41 AM | Comment Link |jim said,
imo, people don’t want to be ‘won over’, period. Even if true humility is present, the ‘expectation’ may be the issue. Also, isn’t it just semantics here? Jesus did say he was The Truth, The Way, The Light.
Comment by: Julie Marie
27 04/17/06 7:42 AM | Comment Link |I should say Christians in 21st century America.
Comment by: Julie Marie
28 04/17/06 7:46 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for taking the time to clarify, Jayson. I agree, Christianity with a capital C owes an awful lot to Constantine.
Comment by: Julie Marie
29 04/17/06 8:00 AM | Comment Link |the opportunity for Christians to have their belief system challenged is rare and valuable or maybe I should say a self satisfied evangelical in the buckle of the bible belt.*sigh*
Comment by: Rorgg
30 04/17/06 9:01 AM | Comment Link |I related this on the “how did you come to your beliefs” forum, but it bears repeating here (in short form). The realization that non-literal, and then non-credal interpretations of Christianity were valid was the first step of the examination of my own beliefs and eventual adoption of agnosticism.
And I see that as a GOOD thing.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
31 04/17/06 9:57 AM | Comment Link |Christianity with a Capital C owes a religion to Constantine. You be the judge whether that is good or bad. We can disagree about the unknowable ie whether or not C would be here today is speculation but what we do have is here and open to critique
Comment by: Julie Marie
32 04/17/06 10:10 AM | Comment Link |good distinction, Jim. That’s what I meant in my head, I just didn’t communicate it well.
Comment by: Ir
33 04/17/06 10:19 AM | Comment Link |As well as whatever else he might have done, I heard from a Jewish-Christian teacher that Constantine was responsible for taking the faith away from its Jewish roots and introducing a lot of anti-semitism into the church.
I can’t point to source materials on that, so, anyway, feel free to research that if you like.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
34 04/17/06 11:12 AM | Comment Link |Going way back to Ir’s #1, she asked, “Why do we (heh - I mean, Christians :) ) get so defensive and assume that a person asking a question like this is trying to exploit Christians /mock Christian belief?” I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me it isn’t the content of the question, it’s the context of the question. When I get a hard question in the context of an interested and sincerely curious person, asked and responded to in a respectful way, I consider that I have been given a gift. The opportunity to explore and refine my own thoughts and to have them pruned and sharpened and shaped by the clear articulate thoughts of another. But when I get a hard question in the context of an mocking or ridiculing and contentious person, asked and responded to in a disrespectful way, I respond the way any reasonable person would; I consider that I have been given a taunt, a slap in the face.
So, for me, the “burden of proof” is on the interlocutor to place a question in the appropriate context so that it’s purpose and intent can be interpreted correctly by the respondent.
Comment by: Ir
35 04/17/06 11:17 AM | Comment Link |Fair enough, Tom. I’m glad you don’t assume simply based on the content of the question that the questioner is trying to mock/exploit your faith.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
36 04/17/06 11:19 AM | Comment Link |Mike C nails it!!!! And, actually, I’ve come to the conclusion that most of what most Christians believe about God’s intentions are just as misunderstood as this. I think most Christians believe that God’s primary focus for us is on heaven and that His secondary focus is to give us a good, easy life now. I’m inclined to think that God is preparing us for something so vastly greater than we can imagine that there isn’t a sufficient way for us to understand. (Though there are clues. That’s what “streets of gold” is about.) As a result, hard experiences now are not a case of “something went wrong”, they are a (generally misunderstood) case of this is part of your training regimin to create the character/correct the deficiencies so you’ll be prepared.
Comment by: Jayson B.
37 04/17/06 2:11 PM | Comment Link |This is one of the first things that turned me away from christianity. I cannot, will not, accept a god who “tests” us with suffering. Not only do I find that idea not logical, but I find it an insult to the people on this earth who truly suffer. I find it selfish because it explains away the trivial-in-comparison suffering that you go through and sounds very nice, without considering the poor people on this earth who are born, live, and die in complete and unspeakable suffering.
Suffering happens. We can reduce it, we can help with it. But it does anger me when people trivialize suffering into some religious test. Tell the people who wake up each day starving as their own bodies cannabolize their flesh to stay alive. Tell it to the people who grew up in slavery, not knowing freedom, only knowing torture. Tell that to the children who are tortured sexually to the point where they are dead by the time they’re 5.
That’s no test.
Comment by: Jayson B.
38 04/17/06 2:11 PM | Comment Link |I apologize, nothing sets me off more than that.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
39 04/17/06 2:58 PM | Comment Link |Ir, #35, absolutely not. Some of the greatest growth in my spiritual life that has not been out of the crucible of pain, has been out of discussion with agnostic friends who knew how to ask hard questions well. And they are some of my most valued friends; they help me grow. In fact, one of them wrote me a note today:
And Jayson; no apology necessary. I was not sufficiently clear in what I wrote. I was not refering to suffering in general. I was refering to suffering and pain in the life of a Christian. This is a huge topic. Way more than I want to type right now. Suffice to say that generalized suffering in the world is a big question mark for me. It makes sense to me, theologically — God gave man free will (a good thing) and man, as he always does, abuses and misuses it — but it is still an ugly and hateful thing.
But for the child of God, he has promised, and it has been understood for 4,000 years, that even those things that men mean to us for evil, God means for us as good, and He is capable of bringing good out of them if we will let Him. I happened to be the victim of an assault this past week. I realized right away that it provided me with a great opportunity to learn some very practical, down-to-earth spiritual lesson. I don’t know what all of them will be yet, but some are already coming clear.
As for the people you refer to in your second paragraph, I can only conclude that God’s heart is every bit as broken as yours. Probably more so because, unlike any of us, He knows just how very much man was designed to be capable of; He knows better than us just how very far we’ve fallen.
Comment by: Lisa Wellington
40 04/17/06 3:03 PM | Comment Link |Jayson, who are you quoting here? I can’t find the source.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
41 04/17/06 3:18 PM | Comment Link |Jayson - very eloquent- If I thoughtJesus sent that kind of suffering I too would be an atheist. Suffering happens - groups have theories about its source- all we know is that it is and that god/jesus is against it.
Comment by: Ir
42 04/17/06 3:18 PM | Comment Link |Lisa, Jayson was quoting Tom from #36.
Comment by: Jim Pemberton
43 04/17/06 3:18 PM | Comment Link |Very thought-provoking comments here! As a Christian, one of the things I’ve come to learn is that while we can know some things for sure about Him, God continually thwarts attempts to put our understanding of him in a neat little box. Do we not grow by wrestling with the theological tension? On the other hand, our fallen race often takes the opportunity to use non-essential theology to beat each other up, even by arguing over what constitutes non-essential theology.
On the flip-side, we often focus on the essentials that most of us agree on when confronted with a non-Christian. This can come off as disingenuous where difficult questions go unanswered. If the questions of a non-Christian are answered openly, then theological tension, especially where it is manifested in lively debate over non-essentials, can provide plenty of rationale for one deciding to remain non-Christian. The point is, Christians can only provide information, but it is this God who resists being put into an intellectual box who “wins people over” to Himself.
Comment by: Jayson B.
44 04/17/06 4:17 PM | Comment Link |Thank you Jim. I’ve been trying very hard lately to get my point across without coming off as offensive (which sometimes as an atheist it is difficult to do, given that our beliefs are offensive to many), and I was worried that this wasn’t going to be recieved properly.
Comment by: Stephan
45 04/17/06 4:34 PM | Comment Link |Jayson, I agree with you entirely. I touched on this in one of my “Why I believe…” posts. I don’t believe God creates suffering in order to teach us something. I believe God can use suffering, after the fact, to teach us if we are willing. I believe the lesson is the result, not the cause. A god who would create suffering to teach someone a lesson is not a god I would want to serve. You don’t throw your kid into the street to tell them that cars are dangerous, but if they run out into the street you will use that as a teaching point to tell them not to do it again.
Comment by: Stephan
46 04/17/06 4:35 PM | Comment Link |I just read that again, and the words “Jayson, I agree” seem so foreign coming from me. Did I really write that?
Just a minute…
Yeah, I read it again, and apparently I agree with Jayson. Somebody write this date down.
Comment by: Lisa Wellington
47 04/17/06 4:44 PM | Comment Link |I agree with Jayson that the ’suffering in order to build character (or make you one)’ is a warped theology. I also agree with Stephan that God is resource-full.
Comment by: Lisa Wellington
48 04/17/06 4:47 PM | Comment Link |I vote that we make this day, 04-17-06, a holiday to commemorate Jayson B. and Stephan agreeing on something. Can we have a moment of silence please.
Thank you.
You may continue.
Comment by: Julie Marie
49 04/17/06 5:12 PM | Comment Link |I noticed too Jayson…:) I’m much more able to understand your point without having to calm myself down. Of course, I could be mellowing too…
Comment by: Julie Marie
50 04/17/06 5:59 PM | Comment Link |my pastor explains struggles something like this: if you have a character flaw, and fail to correct it, God allows circumstances into your life that will force you to deal with it. If you fail to correct the flaw, that broken record keeps coming around again, and each time, amplified.
The phenomena could also be explained in a secular way pretty easily: if you don’t correct your character flaw, as you age, each time it gets you into trouble the stakes are higher. (selfishness as a child: lose friends. selfishness as an adult: lose spouse)
In this case, I prefer the secular explanation.
this construct isn’t meant to explain tradgedy and deep sufferring though.
Comment by: Eliza
51 04/17/06 7:12 PM | Comment Link |Great discussion, you guys. Though I did have to clean my glasses when I read Jim and Stephan agreeing with Jayson B. - first to check that I was reading right, then to wipe my misty eyes. ;)
Going back to Mike C. #18 above - here is a section from wikipedia (abridged & rearranged here to make it shorter) on Valentinius:
To the victors go the rights to write history.
My comment on gnosticism had been in response to Jim’s question initially
…Anyone want to wade in on this question?
Comment by: Mike C
52 04/17/06 7:16 PM | Comment Link |I think I agree with both Jayson and Tom. We Christians are called both to relieve the suffering of others, while at the same time embrace our own sufferings as an inevitability in life and therefore an opportunity to be spiritually formed. Like Jayson, I too am outraged by the injustices in this world, and based on numerous passages in the Old Testament prophets, I believe God is too. However, like Tom, when I myself suffer my ideal response is not to be outraged on my own behalf, but to patiently endure it and look for how some good could possibily come out of it.
Just one of the many paradoxes in the Christian faith, IMHO.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
53 04/17/06 7:39 PM | Comment Link |This is a complicated issue- Yes - with or without God people can “redeem” suffering (Victor Frankl comes to mind) Followers of Jesus are “warned” to anticipate some kinds of suffering and not get all freaked out by it or think they are something special because of it.
The suffering Jayson raises is mostly brought on by other people - circumstances that “could have been changed” (slavey, malaria, hunger) It is this kind of suffering that we must all stand against and which I believe god himself repudiates
Comment by: Eliza
54 04/17/06 7:43 PM | Comment Link |…and yet allows to occur
Comment by: Mike C
55 04/17/06 9:31 PM | Comment Link |And so do we…
It reminds me of a cartoon I heard about once:
Two men are sitting talking and the first says, “I’d like to ask God why he doesn’t do something about all the pain and suffering and injustice in the world.”
The second man says, “Well then, why don’t you ask God?”
The first man answers, “I’m afraid he’ll ask me the same question.”
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
56 04/17/06 11:48 PM | Comment Link |RE:Eliza’s #54 — True, but how could He not? Consider: If I want to extend freedom of choice to my grandson, I have to let him make his decision. period. And that means I cannot withdraw my grant of freedom if he makes a bad choice. Indeed, I would not. I believe that the inherent consequences in a poor choice are among the most effective and memorable teachers.
God, simply because He is God, is not, thereby, enabled to do nonsense. If He has given man freedom of choice, then, heart broken as He must surely be, He has no alternative but to allow men to exercise that choice even when they make hellacious choices.
The alternative is no freedom at all. And, if you think about it, a world like that would be bizarre in the extreme. A 2×4 works wonderfully for holding up walls precisely because it is rigid. But that very rigidity also makes it a perfect club. God allows me to choose whether I will be a builder or a destroyer. Having granted the freedom, He cannot go back on His word.
So, yes, He does allow it to occur. But believe me, you wouldn’t want to live in this world if He did not. The elimination of hatefulness would also, of necessity, be the elimination of loveliness. A world of automatons.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
57 04/17/06 11:51 PM | Comment Link |Oops. I should edit first. I meant to add: Imagine a world where the 2×4 was rigid if it was used in a perfectly good way, but in which its character and substance changed, say to rubber, if I tried to hit someone with it. That would not only be bizarre, it would also destroy my freedom of choice.
Comment by: Eliza
58 04/18/06 2:07 AM | Comment Link |Natural disasters? Disease? These kill tens or thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in one fell swoop, regardless of the choices those people make. Natural disasters and disease are not (usually) manifestations of hatefulness or evil committed by people, but they do bring about considerable suffering.
Comment by: Peter from Pennsylvania
59 04/18/06 4:16 AM | Comment Link |Eliza writes
Okay… I’ll go there.
Of course not. There’s a HUGE difference (according to my understanding) between faith as trusting in God and in Christ on one hand and having all your theology right on the other. (I get into debates about this with fundamentalists all the time.)
Looking at the Gospel as a whole, it’s only trusting in Christ and believing in HIm that is required, as I see it. If we were only saved by the truthfulness of our whole body of doctrine, then Xianity would be useless (as many of you think it is I admit) and impossible. The thief on the cross was promised paradise, and yet he had no time to figure out “limited atonement” and the meaning of “propitiation”.
But…
Someone who espouses beliefs that CLEARLY contradict the classic “orthodox” Christianity that I have described earlier is, imho, embracing non-Xian theology. Example: to state that Christ was not a virgin birth… Are they “not saved”? Again, I don’t think that’s the criteria…
What is a “classic orthodox Christian”? Hmmm… I wonder if that wouldn’t be a good post all by itself? Perhaps now that we’re weeks into this discussion, we should define our terms. ;-)
For me, it’s defined in and by the Apostle’s and Nicene (western recension perhaps for those of you kn the know) creeds. Some who are not creedal Christians (the quakers I’ve known are a good example of this) still espouse these beliefs. Should we have a discussion on this? Or not?
Comment by: Ir
60 04/18/06 9:20 AM | Comment Link |I don’t exactly understand this line of arguing. When my children were little I would give them some freedom of choice. I would let them say yes or no to a range of food choices, but I would not have let them run into the street, as far as it was within my power to stop them. In other words I used my best judgment to allow them freedom of choice when it was safe to do so
So, God is all-powerful, we are his children - why does God not also exercise his best judgment (which is perfect, since he’s God) and only allow us freedom of choice when it is safe to do so?
Why does it have to be all-or-nothing, so that either we have no freedom of choice or we have absolutely freedom of choice and can make really stupid choices such as ones which may result in us being eternally tormented - or choices that fail to alleviate serious suffering of other human beings that we could be alleviating.
Comment by: Stephan
61 04/18/06 9:40 AM | Comment Link |Ir, how do you know that God hasn’t limited what we can choose? (And all the Atheists rolled their eyes…)
I believe the angels were given options that we don’t have. Satan’s utter rebellion is a case in point. He specifically chose to remove himself from God, as did many of the angels who followed him. I’m not sure we have this choice.
I’m sure there are other examples I don’t even know about because of my human limitations, just as your children probably didn’t know some of the choices you did not allow them to make.
I think the assertion that “anyone who’s not a Christian is going to hell” would be worth discussion here, but from a backwards sort of way. I don’t think many (if any) of the Christians here espouse that belief, but several Atheists are more than willing to say that that’s what Christian believe. You get Christians arguing what we don’t believe and Atheists arguing what we do believe.
Do you get my point?
Comment by: jaysonb
62 04/18/06 12:40 PM | Comment Link |Stephan,
The reason why we say that is because it seems quite obvious that an atheist would go to hell. If you would like to explain to me how an atheist, while still being an atheist, can not go to hell I would love to hear it. I mean that seriously.
One of the problems here Stephan is that as atheists, our reason has led us all pretty much to the same conclusions. So what we think, or hae concluded, is amazingly similiar.
But with christians, it’s far more difficult to track down. Most christians will tell you they believe in one thing about jesus, and the moment you bring that thing up, you have another christian raising their hand saying they don’t believe that. That’s fine and all, but it makes any generalizations that an atheist makes JUST generalizations. They aren’t talking for every christian, because its pretty clear that there’s too many different sects to put them all under the blanket.
Comment by: Stephan
63 04/18/06 1:06 PM | Comment Link |Jayson, I think scripture is intentionally vague on who is and who isn’t going to hell. And I don’t think the questions, “Who is a Christian?” and “Who will be saved?” have the same answer. I don’t even believe this is the whole point of Jesus’ message. I believe the benefits of salvation can be had here and now.
There is a very wide range of beliefs among Christians regarding hell, as you are aware. Some (universalists) believe all will be saved, because Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross covered everyone. Some (inclusivists) believe most people will be saved, and only those who specifically choose to go to hell will go there. Still others (exclusivists) believe that only those who make a personal commitment to Jesus will be saved. You can back any and all of these viewpoints up with scripture.
I’m not honestly sure where I fit on this continuum, or even if I’m on it. I’m quite sure God’s not on it. I’m also quite sure it’s none of my damn business who is going to hell, so I don’t spend much time one it. I just try to be obedient and spread God’s blessings here and now.
Comment by: Mike C
64 04/18/06 6:52 PM | Comment Link |I agree with Stephan on that. Well said…
and I place myself probably within the inclusivist camp, though I hold out hope that universalism may be true (I don’t think it is though, because I don’t think God would force himself on anyone. If someone genuinely wants to reject God I think God lets them.)
Comment by: Mike C
65 04/18/06 7:36 PM | Comment Link |Interestingly, when Hemant was out here visiting us at Via Christus, I actually told him that I thought it was quite possible that he was actually closer to following the way of Jesus (without even knowing it) than many Christians I know.
Many Christians believe in the idea of “anonymous Christians”, i.e. people who are saved through Christ even though they themselves don’t know it yet. I can imagine many atheists being in this category.
Comment by: Ir
66 04/19/06 6:28 AM | Comment Link |Indeed.
For another example of that - I know you don’t want to increase your online time to another venue but if you’re curious, take a quick look at Eliza’s posts about Jesus on this page. Eliza is an atheist - you may have read some of her posts on the blog.
That makes a lot more sense to me than “believe this and you go to heaven; otherwise you go to hell”. If I were choosing who to hang out with, I’d choose neat people. I wouldn’t choose - excuse me - assholes, even if they did happen to believe the same as me or be very good at flattering me.