Interfaith Dialogue from the Christian Perspective

Karen wrote:

“The idea that god is intentionally hiding mysteriously so we won’t be “coerced” into worshipping him is just weird”

Is the idea really all the weird? Think about it. If God wants you to make your own decision then it makes sense that he would not want to intimidate you in any way. It would also make sense that instead of coming to visit us as a fearsome warrior galloping across the sky, God might choose to come to earth in the form of a baby newly born to a family so poor that he was delivered in a barn with the animals.

If you really think about it you might find that God is not forcing anything upon you. Its all those foaming-at-the-mouth nutballs who call themselves Christians who want to argue with you and force you into doing (or believing) what they want you to.

If you think about it long enough you begin to realize that God is really cool but Christians are awful and nasty. Can I choose to believe in God but not Christians?

If God wants you to make your own decision then it makes sense that he would not want to intimidate you in any way.

Brilliant! It’s either a backwards-double-secret-reverse-psychology mind-game that just makes it LOOK like the world’s religions are either making it all up or people who went way overboard on an old bunch of campfire legends. OR, it’s INGENIOUSLY subtle. Hmmmm….

Which is more likely… human fallibility, or divine backwards double-secret I perform giant miracles, yet am hidden, yet come as jesus and walk on water, yet didn’t! Yet died, yet DIDN’T, so you won’t die when you DO, but really really you DON’T really die when you die, that’s just a little trick! HURRAY!

What a big FOOLER that God guy is, making it just LOOK like you die when you die, but you don’t die, you go somewhere else!

Sorry Mark. You are being nice, and I’m actually not being nice, and I really SHOULD. But I am illustrating the wierdness that I see in it, as Karen points out.

I like him, seems like a pretty decent chap to me. Can we keep him?

Mark wrote:

If you think about it long enough you begin to realize that God is really cool but Christians are awful and nasty. Can I choose to believe in God but not Christians?

Christians definitely do exist. Proof of God is a wee bit more elusive, to say the least.

And by the way, are you so sure that God is all that cool? If you accept even half of what the Old Testament reports him doing, I’d say he’s an insecure, sadistic, psychopathic monster. And before you go saying that the New Testament replaces that view, I’d like to add that killing his own, innocent son by torture to satisfy his own bloodlust by proxy to free us from being punished for doing what we could never avoid doing in the first place, because that’s how he made us, is hardly an improvement, either.

Stick with Grimm’s Fairy Tales and Aesop’s Fables. Not only are the morals clearer, but they are morally superior to those the Bible presents.

~David D.G.

I visited Martin’s blog, read his article and left this, taking him up on his offer. It has to be approved first before it is published. If I spoke for others here inaccurately, you can differ with me if and when he or his readers come to visit.

Martin,
Thank you for this wonderful and courageous statement. After years of being repeatedly told by Christians that as an atheist I am immoral, foolish, depressed, hateful, conceited, unpatriotic, untrustworthy and downright evil, it is heart warming to hear an influential cleric denounce all those assumptions as the slanders that they are.

I learned about your article at another blog, “The Friendly Atheist” run by Hemant Mehta where I often comment and occasionally write my own articles. http://www.friendlyatheist.com The largest portion of my time there I spend trying to break through negative stereotypes and to establish positive, respectful dialogues between believers and nonbelievers. I confront my fellow atheists just as readily on their prejudice as I do the misinformed theists who come to visit. When an etiquette faux pas is inadvertently committed, (such as referring to an “avowed atheist”) some of the more touchy ones may be annoyed by it but I try to encourage everyone to patiently explain things.

If you and your readers are actually interested in engaging in the conversations you describe, then “The Friendly Atheist” is a very good place to start. We are real, live atheists and we would be happy to welcome you and your friends to as one of my good friends calls, “our virtual olive garden.”

However I would want to help the process to avoid a stumbling block right at the beginning by warning you that most of us would strongly disagree with the sentiment you attributed to Krister Stendahl that “…the only kind of interfaith dialogue worthy of the name is a conversation between equals that puts both parties at risk of being drawn to adopt the other person’s belief;” It would be helpful to not assume that the atheists you will talk with are simply the mirror images of yourselves. For instance, if one of your readers has as a motive the possibility of converting an atheist to your belief, that atheist is not likely to be harboring a desire to convert him to non-belief. There are a very few, but most of the atheists I know have no interest in causing someone else to “lose their religion.” Yes, we expect to be treated as equals and will afford you the same courtesy. But we have already been through literally thousands of dialogues initiated by believers whose overt or covert purpose was to convert us to their belief. The very best and the very worst have tried time and again, and none of it has ever worked. We have heard every argument for conversion ever dreamed up many times, and we’re very bored with it all. We consider such motivations to be aggression and we are not interested in receiving or delivering such a thing.

If there is any convincing in mind the most common one in atheists is to try to convince theists to stop intruding into five rooms where they don’t belong: someone else’s bedroom, the public schoolroom, the courtroom, the doctor’s office, and the research laboratory. When atheists fight to keep church and state separate, they are fighting for your right to worship as you see fit.

What I and several other atheists would want from such talks is mutual understanding and respect based on correct information, on-going commitments to go back to our respective “camps” to dispel misconceptions in the minds of our fellows, and agreements to work together for mutually beneficial goals.

Martin, I hope that you and your readers take up your challenge to visit and converse with us. There may be awkward moments and misunderstandings along the way, but if we come together with the spirit that you have portrayed, I think we can all benefit. I leave an olive branch at your feet.

Richard,

Great post! I agree with everything except for the doctor’s office and the research laboratory. As a matter of fact, I have some issues with the whole separation of church and state thing. As long as it’s not pushed on others, I don’t see why people can’t be honest about their faith no matter where they are.

That’s just like saying I can’t talk about this blog while I’m in church. Why not? Why should I hold back on talking about my friends just because it makes some people uncomfortable?

How can a person turn on and off their faith depending on where they are? Don’t you think pushing the school systems to hire more atheist teachers like Hemant and allowing open discussion among the students (with the teachers as role models) would be a better idea?

Religion is not going away anytime soon. I read somewhere that telling people to stop doing religion (in public or otherwise) is like telling them to stop having sex. It will still go on regardless. Pretty soon, the kids will be sneaking around and doing religion in the bathrooms in between classes. Scripture verses will be passed around in cheap plastic baggies with a secret hand-shake. Is that what you want, huh? huh? 😉

All joking aside, maybe it’s a bad idea… I’m afraid too many people on both sides probably will not see it my way. 🙁

Linda wrote:
…I agree with everything except for the doctor’s office and the research laboratory…

Note that many Christians want to gag doctors from saying certain things about reproductive options and what they can prescribe.

Also many Christians want to dictate and limit what research is allowed in the laboratory (for example, prevent stem cell research).

I don’t think anybody cares if people talk about religion in either the doctor’s office or the laboratory…

I do like, though, your version of Christianity much better than what I usually hear. 🙂

A minor correction to my earlier question. A desire to be brief led me to inaccurately characterize what you said. I mentioned “disbelief in Hell”, which is not what you said. Please read that as “disbelief in Hell for believing the wrong religion” — you never said you disbelieve in Hell for other things.

Mark, you poor fella, you’ve just been . . . SIAMANGLED!!!

Mike said:

The Hiddenness of God is part of the reason I don’t believe that God eternally damns people for choosing the wrong religion, or for choosing not to believe in her at all.

Keeping in mind that I don’t believe that either, nonetheless, the Scripture states
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

John 3:16-18

I’m not at all surprised by this. Smith is an Episcopalian; they’re notoriously liberal. It isn’t at all uncommon to hear one of them talk this way. It’s far less common to hear this kind of rhetoric from an evangelical. Our friend Mike Clawson (with whom I still disagree about the history of Christian theology and the meaning of the text) is a rare exception.

I had the privilege of meeting Krister Stendahl on two occasions over the course of the past year. I live in the Boston area, and often attend lectures at Harvard, particularly at the Divinity School. Occasionally, Rev. Stendahl would attend as well. I was able to sit next to him one evening and talk for a bit. A rare and wonderful man, greatly loved by the entire Harvard community and everyone who knew him. There will be a memorial service at Memorial Church in Harvard Yard next Friday, May 16th, at 3:00.

It seems to me that this is simply a good way to approach any conversation, regardless of what the topic is. How can you have a worthwhile dialogue with anyone who thinks differently than you unless you’re willing to honestly consider their point of view and the possibility that they may be speaking truth?

I don’t know. I can talk to people about things I disagree about without thinking that one of us has to win and convince the other that they are wrong. That’s the difference between discussion and debate. And some things are just opinions, so there’s no reason both people can’t be speaking the truth even if they disagree. I’ve also found that many times people think they disagree because they use different words and examples to express the same thoughts. I think that’s part of what this article is saying about (liberal) Christians and atheists.

However, I must say as I’m writing my de-conversion memoir, I’m feeling the tugs of what I once found appealing about Christianity. It’s an interesting experience. I know I can’t go back, because I could never be a blind believer like I was before, but it’s nevertheless interesting to have these old feelings come back to me. Not sure how that’s related to this topic, but it made me think of that.

I don’t know. I can talk to people about things I disagree about without thinking that one of us has to win and convince the other that they are wrong.

I wasn’t talking about “winning” or “convincing” the other. I was talking about trying to learn from the other. The first (what I think you and Richard are responding to) is an attempt to do something to the other. The latter is about desiring to receive something from the other.

Anytime there is a discussion about any subject, isn’t it natural to want to have an end goal? If there is an agreement, we seek a higher knowledge of what’s discussed than what we had before the discussion. If there is a disagreement, both sides should be open to the possibility of being wrong. Isn’t that what having an open mind is all about? Otherwise, what’s the point in discussing anything? We cannot go on indefinitely just agreeing to disagree. Where’s the progress in that?

I agree with you, Mike, but once the new information is received, don’t we need to decide whether that information is valid or not? We can’t continue a dialogue if all we’re doing is receiving. Can there ever be two rights or two wrongs?

Linda, you brought up an interesting question:

Can we suppose for a moment that there is no choice; that our spiritual personality is already determined? A part of our genetic make-up, if you will.

This is an idea I have considered for some time, (but so far I haven’t found much affirmation in literature. Maybe somebody can refer me to something they have read.) I sometimes talk about how it seems that there are two kinds of people, those who are strongly oriented toward their hearing and those who are strongly oriented toward their seeing. It is not a learned difference, it’s a biologically inborn difference.

Some people learn by listening to others, and they are satisfied that what they have learned is sufficiently verified by having heard it. Then they repeat what they have been told to others who will also accept it upon hearing it. Because this involves a social interaction, they tend to congregate in large groups where the verbally repeated knowledge is basically consistent. There is a power and a comfort in that consistency.

On the other hand there are those who hear things from others but who must also go out and see for themselves. For them, only seeing is believing. When there is a contradiction between what has been heard and what has been seen, then they have a crisis. They must choose between their ears and their eyes. Will they continue to accept what they have heard from their parents, preachers and friends and ignore what their eyes are showing them or will they reject what they were taught in favor of what their own eyes now reveal. The ones who do that are the skeptics. The word skeptic means “to look.” The same word is in “telescope” and “microscope.” It does not mean to refuse to believe. These visually-oriented people will be attracted to others like them, but because their process for learning is more about interacting with the physical world around them, they will apply their skepticism to each other’s conclusions as well. Consequently their groupings tend to be smaller and less cohesive.

The circumstances of their personal and cultural upbringing will determine how painful that hearing/seeing crisis will be. For me it was easy because I was raised by skeptics who encouraged me to look and look and look, but that does not guarantee producing a skeptic. My brother, raised in the same environment, is a devout Christian. He accepts for the most part scientific explanations for the world and life, but his ability to believe upon hearing and my inability to believe upon hearing seem to have been biologically inborn.

Siamang,

Can we get him to work on the word “avowed”? Is he an avowed Episcopalian?

Yeah, I needled him a little about that. Half of the definitions for “avowed” are about revealing a negative thing, but at least it wasn’t “admitted.” Why does there have to be an adjective there at all? Maybe Martin was meaning something like “confirmed” or “serious” or “strongly committed” or “real live” which is why I used that phrase in my invitation.

Thanks, by the way for that great phrase, “virtual olive grove.”

Thanks, by the way for that great phrase, “virtual olive grove.”

Thanks. I was moved by a recent trip to the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. They’ve got a small grove of olive trees on the grounds. I wasn’t aware of the symbolism before.

I love the image of a place where ideas are batted around as being a holy place.

Mark (who is probably long gone by now), I won’t address the “hidden” god syndrome because the Siamangler ;-), Writerdd and Mike C. already covered that ground. Basically, I agree that if one’s eternal future depends on which god one believes in, only a malevolent god would play hide-and-seek while sending out confusing and contradictory messages about its existence.

You said:

Its all those foaming-at-the-mouth nutballs who call themselves Christians who want to argue with you and force you into doing (or believing) what they want you to.

If you think about it long enough you begin to realize that God is really cool but Christians are awful and nasty. Can I choose to believe in God but not Christians?

This is one of those common points we hear all the time: Believe in Jesus because he’s really, really cool, but ignore/despise those “nutballs” who claim to believe in Jesus, and who say their lives have been changed by him.

Can you see how this doesn’t make much sense and isn’t very convincing? If these Christians are the people claiming to represent Jesus and his way of life, and if they claim to have been given supernatual help (the holy spirit) to improve themselves, how come they’re so “awful and nasty” (your words, not mine)?

Thank you for the thoughts on my question about the link between spiritual tendencies and our genes.

I found a few articles, but I guess I can’t post a comment with more than one link (i tried), so here’s a TIME article. I found another article in Washington Post, as well as Nature Genetics, in response to the book, The God Gene by a geneticist Dean H. Hamer.

Cipher,

There actually seems to be some evidence now of a physiological basis for ideological orientation: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story?coll=la-home-center

Are you sure about this? All the study seemed to confirm is a psychological difference between liberals and conservatives, having to do with how each group deals with ambiguity and change. While temperament no doubt has something to do with it, it could be that those who are brought up as liberal are psychologically “primed” to deal with change and ambiguity better, whereas conservatives are primed to be unfaltering in their right (or wrong) judgment. In other words, correlation does not equal causation. The change in temperament could reflect external as well as internal factors, and it could be that such personality traits are more malleable than they appear.

I had previously written:

If God wants you to make your own decision then it makes sense that he would not want to intimidate you in any way. It would also make sense that instead of coming to visit us as a fearsome warrior galloping across the sky, God might choose to come to earth in the form of a baby newly born to a family so poor that he was delivered in a barn with the animals.

Jake responded:

The trouble is, the same book that tells you he came to earth in the form of a baby also says next time he’s coming back as a fearsome warrior galloping across the sky.

Jake, does the book really say that or is it merely a currently popular yet seriously flawed interpretation invented by racist white european men as a way to hold on to political power?

David D.G. replied:

Christians definitely do exist. Proof of God is a wee bit more elusive, to say the least.

How can you be sure that there really are any Christians in the world? Just because someone claims to be a Christian does that make it true? Jesus said in Matthew 7:21 that just claiming to be a Christian doesn’t get you into heaven.

And by the way, are you so sure that God is all that cool? If you accept even half of what the Old Testament reports him doing, I’d say he’s an insecure, sadistic, psychopathic monster.

Anthropology tells us that the people living during “old testament” times were also sadistic monsters who routinely attacked their neighbors, murdered the men and boys, raped the women and took any survivors as slaves. It would make sense to me that any religious writings from that period would reflect the sadistic nature of that culture.

And before you go saying that the New Testament replaces that view, I’d like to add that killing his own, innocent son by torture to satisfy his own bloodlust by proxy to free us from being punished for doing what we could never avoid doing in the first place, because that’s how he made us, is hardly an improvement, either.

My understanding is that during the times of the old testament a family’s first born son was the most valuable thing in the world. The success of the first born son represented prospects for survival of the family in the future. If you were a neighbor during those sadistic times and you wanted to wipe out the family next door then you would not only kill the parents but you would make sure you killed all the male children.

If you were God and you wanted to show people a better way to live after watching them attacking each other, enslaving each other and murdering each other’s children wouldn’t it be a powerful statement to offer the life of your own first born son? In that culture it might look like an even greater gift than giving your own life.

Serving each other instead of killing each other? What a concept!

J Myers,

If, however, you simply mean “personality” when you say “spiritual personality,” then yes, we all certainly exhibit different tendencies and preferences (such as an inclination to believe or disbelieve in gods) as a result of our varied genetics and life experiences–I think this much is already accepted by just about everyone

I don’t know that this is already accepted by just about everyone. In fact, I disagree, especially when it comes to spiritual matters. It may be accepted in your circle of influence, but in no way is it in mine. I think this statement is a perfect example of “if it is true for me/us, then it must be true for all.”

And no, I don’t simply mean “personality.” When I said spiritual personality, I meant the ability or the propensity for being open to possibilities. I guess personality is not really a good term to use here. It does not necessarily show up in behavior or expression. That’s why I referred to it as SQ.

As I learn more about the type theory (which is different than traits), I was wondering if there is a link between our personality type and the SQ (both of which may or may not play out in our behaviors.)

Mark said:

How can you be sure that there really are any Christians in the world? Just because someone claims to be a Christian does that make it true?

For any single individual, this may be a valid point. However, considering there are a couple of billion people on the planet that claim this, what are the odds that none of them are? Vanishingly small, I would think. Christians are fairly certain to exist, in abundance and to the regret of many, but not their god.

Jesus said in Matthew 7:21 that just claiming to be a Christian doesn’t get you into heaven.

This is a complete non sequitur.

Karen said:

If these Christians are the people claiming to represent Jesus and his way of life, and if they claim to have been given supernatual help (the holy spirit) to improve themselves, how come they’re so “awful and nasty” (your words, not mine)?

Linda, I believe the answer is simple. They are not Christians. They may claim to be Christians but they clearly are not. I got the idea from Matthew 7:21

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%207:21-23

Mark said:

Therefore you can’t determine the existence of Christians by the size of the group who claim they are.

Do you actually mean to state that out of 2 billion ‘christians’, you consider it possible that none of them actually are? Does this include you? I figure that ‘you’ are the person that you would know about the best and most certainly, that’s why I ask.

It’s totally sequitur

Cute, but no. You left out the middle bit, and that made it a non sequitur (at least for those of us not up on scripture), as not getting into heaven doesn’t really have anything to do with the non-existence of christians. Well, unless you were restricting the definition of ‘christian’ to the deceased…. Anyway, this time the way you phrased it did make the connection apparent. So, yes, sequitur now!

They are not Christians. They may claim to be Christians but they clearly are not.

Clearly? Truly clearly? By what power do you look into either their hearts, or ‘god’s’ mind, to determine this?

If you are god, let me know, I’ll stop being an atheist and become a simple non-theist instead. Or whatever word makes it clear I don’t worship anything….

I’m Karen, not Linda.

Hi Karen. I have no idea why I called you Linda.

Mark, what you’re doing here is employing a logical fallacy called No True Scotsman.

Nope. Sorry. I’m not employing any logic here. I’m merely pointing out what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21

We see it all the time, but it’s not a valid rational argument and neither is it biblical. The bible says that only god knows a person’s heart and it says that you shouldn’t judge other people.

You need to read Matthew 7 and get back to us.

When someone claims to be a Christian, and believes in the basic tenets of the faith as they’re laid out in scripture, the only logical, respectful response is to take them at their word.

Jesus clearly said he was not going to take them at their word and not give a “respectful response” in Matthew 7. Have you actually read the Bible? I encourage you to take a look.

Your coming in here and asking us to ignore all of them and their behavior because you’ve concluded they’re fakers isn’t valid.

I didn’t call them fakers. Jesus did in Matthew 7. I encourage you to read what the Bible actually says instead of using your own personal values and preferences to declare the ideas of others as “un-biblical”.

Ok, Mark, since it’s your source, let me point you right back at it. It says ‘not everyone’ – that implies that there are some who are genuine, or it would have said ‘none’. The next sentence says ‘many’, which again implies some are accepted as real, or it would have said ‘none’.

So, for clarity’s sake – just what is your point, and why do you think that one small bit of a 2000 year old assemblage of blather is a good source to predict what exists now and back up your point? Especially since it contradicts it….

J Myers wrote:

Being a Christian and being a successful Christian are two different things.
Mark 7:21 discusses who gets into heaven; this is not the same as who is or is not a Christian.

J, its an interesting detail that you present but I’m only interested in the latter group – the Christians who get into heaven. I believe that most if not all of the many so-called Christians that live and work around me every day are also interested in the latter group because they don’t even ask me if I’m a Christian. They only ask me if I have been “saved”.

For the purposes of this discussion I will have to fall back and plagiarize Claire’s response and say that your first group of Christians, the one’s not going to heaven, for me is a non sequitur.

Claire said,

Ok, Mark, since it’s your source, let me point you right back at it. It says ‘not everyone’ – that implies that there are some who are genuine, or it would have said ‘none’.

Hmmm. That’s an interesting proposal. If that is indeed the case then I’m wondering if I will ever meet a “genuine” Christian.

So, for clarity’s sake – just what is your point, and why do you think that one small bit of a 2000 year old assemblage of blather is a good source to predict what exists now…

My point is that the “2000 year old assemblage of blather” is even less relevant and meaningful if the modern day so-called Christians currently feel free to ignore what it actually says.

To put it another way, when I see a Christian and an Atheist debating the existence of God I have to laugh because what I see is two people who neither believe in God but only one of them is being honest about it.

The behavior of the average Christian is the best proof Atheists have that there is no God.

Mark,

I completely understand what you are saying. I often feel that so many people misinterpret who Jesus is and what that actually means. What is the will of God? Why did Jesus come into the world? There would be many different answers to these questions.

It sounds to me like you know what you know to be the absolute truth. But is it? Would it be unreasonable to contemplate the possibility that our perception may contain flaws? Paul said that there is no one righteous, not even one. I know that sometimes it feels like everyone else must have it all wrong, because what I see seems so true at the moment. If you look back on your faith journey, haven’t you felt that way every time you had a new revelation?

I think it would be fair to say that regardless of what our beliefs are, each one of us is on this earth doing the best we can with what we know about life and love… and at times, small glimpses of something bigger than all of us.

Karen wrote:

You’re isolating one verse, interpreting it as you see fit and then deciding that you get to proclaim who is and isn’t a “true Christian.”

Hey, if you think that’s bad just take a look around and notice what Christians have done with Jesus’ utterance: “no one comes to the father except through me” and how Christians have used this one verse to decide that that rest of the world is condemned to hell forever.

That ridiculous, Mark, and I think you know it.

Ridiculous or not, isn’t it the exact same process by which so-called Christians judge Atheists and those of other religions? Then they proclaim that all the others (the non Christians) are going straight to hell because they don’t believe in God the way that someone calling himself a “Christian” decided that they should.

If Christians can do it, why can’t I? Its time for the rest of the world to push back against Christians who claim they alone get to speak for God.

Anyway, getting back to my original idea, Jesus has clearly allowed for the possibility that Christians don’t exist because claiming you are one doesn’t guarantee you really are one. At this point in my “journey” I believe that Christians don’t exist and that there is sufficient basis in the Bible to support this possibility.

Why you cling to this idea I don’t really understand, but please recognize that you’re not making any kind of reasonable argument with it.

Isn’t that what Atheists say to those trying to convince them that there is a God?

I should also add one more point to my previous post. On this blog I and others have argued from at least two positions relating to all things Christian. The one corresponds to the taxonomical view of Christians, the other the phenomenological view. In the first we argue as if from the inside of Christianity, criticizing it by its own standards and practices, almost as if we actually believed it. In the second we argue as disinterested observers–from the outside–with no dog in the fight. As an atheist I only argue in the first way whenever I see, or think I see, errors of argument, or disingenuousness, or self-deception coming from believers. Since my view is ultimately a disinterested one, I have little to win or lose in these arguments, but maybe it does some good in some way.

Mark said:

At this point in my “journey” I believe that Christians don’t exist and that there is sufficient basis in the Bible to support this possibility.

Why should you care if they exist or not? As long as they keep it out of the public sphere, it shouldn’t have any bearing on your life if they do or don’t exist.

I think part of the reason so many of us had trouble seeing your point is that it’s such a, well, pointless point. Why are you so interested in whether there are christians or not?

Mark,

I’m only interested in the latter group – the Christians who get into heaven. I believe that most if not all of the many so-called Christians that live and work around me every day are also interested in the latter group because they don’t even ask me if I’m a Christian.

Your interest in the group of Christians that gets into heaven doesn’t change the definition of what a Christian is; it isn’t a detail I brought up, it is the very matter under discussion.

Hey, if you think that’s bad just take a look around and notice what Christians have done with Jesus’ utterance:

Tu quoque; just because they do something wrong doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong when you do it.

Ridiculous or not, isn’t it the exact same process by which so-called Christians judge Atheists and those of other religions?

Just because someone else does something ridiculous doesn’t mean it isn’t ridiculous when you do it.

Isn’t that what Atheists say to those trying to convince them that there is a God?

Sometimes, when that is in fact what the other party is doing. Your point? (And “atheist” / “atheism” are not capitalized).

You seem to be painting yourself into a corner… if I understand you, you believe in God, and that there may even be some truth to Christianity… if only someone could manage to find it. But you don’t think anyone has. So… uh… see you in hell?

Darryl,

The other way is the one that most non-believers, agnostics, atheists, etc. would be inclined to use, that is, if someone claims they are a Christian, then they are a Christian.

No – what someone claims does not necessarily indicate what they actually are. The definition is that a Christian is one who believes in the divinity of Jesus (or, if you want to get really technical, in the divinity of anyone else who might instead be the Christ, but I’m not aware of any other serious contenders). You might claim (for whatever reason) to be an atheist, but if you actually believe in the divinity of Jesus, you would be a Christian, by definition.

Mike,

One disadvantage of this way though is that it can sometimes incline one to ignore all the differences and distinctions between Christians and argue as if anyone who claims to be a “Christian” is necessarily in the same camp or even following the same set of religious ideas and principles as anyone else who calls themselves a Christian, which is demonstrably not the case.

You are correct; it is a certainly a non sequitur to claim that all people who believe Jesus existed and was the son of God necessarily exhibit the same behavior or have the same beliefs about anything else. I would hope that people who understand the reason for defining Christians as I have would not often make this error. In fact, this is exactly the problem with attempting a definition based on other beliefs or actions–even if some form of Christianity is true, which is it? There a many well-intentioned Christians who come to different conclusions about the veracity of the bible, what Jesus taught or would want us to do, etc. The only means we have to choose among these varied groups is to make our own subjective assessment as to which is correct.

Karen wrote:

You’re isolating one verse, interpreting it as you see fit and then deciding that you get to proclaim who is and isn’t a “true Christian.”

That’s ridiculous, Mark…

I replied:

Hey, if you think that’s bad just take a look around and notice what Christians have done with Jesus’ utterance: “no one comes to the father except through me”. They condemn millions with just that one isolated verse.

Ridiculous or not, isn’t it the exact same process by which so-called Christians judge Atheists and those of other religions?

J Myers jumped in with this grandmotherly admonishment:

Tu quoque; just because they do something wrong doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong when you do it.

Just because someone else does something ridiculous doesn’t mean it isn’t ridiculous when you do it.

J, you seem to have completely missed my point… twice.

Go back and take special notice of my use of the phrase “Ridiculous or not”. Maybe that will help you get out of the weeds and back on the pavement.

J Myers went on to write:

You seem to be painting yourself into a corner…

Not very likely since I have no brush and no paint… and no corner.

if I understand you, you believe in God, and that there may even be some truth to Christianity… if only someone could manage to find it. But you don’t think anyone has.

The conclusion to my thesis is that the “Christianity” we see today is nothing more than a clever game invented by men to get political power for themselves. It doesn’t resemble Jesus’ teachings at all. What I have managed to discover is that if you concern yourself with who is going to heaven and who is going to hell then by your own action you have condemned yourself to hell. If you believe in God only because you want the reward of heaven you will not get there. Faith is not a lottery where only those who draw the winning ticket get the big prize. God is not a vending machine where we can simply pull the knob (prayer) and receive rewards for our own egos, greed and pride. The commercial enterprises that have grown up around Christianity, something I like to call the “Jesus Industrial Complex”, have nothing to do with real faith.

So… uh… see you in hell?

Atheists say there is no hell. But if there is, then I believe that Christians will be the first ones to put themselves there. Christians in hell and Atheists in heaven – now, wouldn’t that be an ironic twist of fate?!

The conclusion to my thesis is that the “Christianity” we see today is nothing more than a clever game invented by men to get political power for themselves. It doesn’t resemble Jesus’ teachings at all. What I have managed to discover is that if you concern yourself with who is going to heaven and who is going to hell then by your own action you have condemned yourself to hell. If you believe in God only because you want the reward of heaven you will not get there. Faith is not a lottery where only those who draw the winning ticket get the big prize. God is not a vending machine where we can simply pull the knob (prayer) and receive rewards for our own egos, greed and pride. The commercial enterprises that have grown up around Christianity, something I like to call the “Jesus Industrial Complex”, have nothing to do with real faith.

Gosh, Mark! There you go again. Worthy of posting twice. You say something that rings so true, and then turn around and say something very odd. I don’t get. Maybe this is the problem?

I have no brush and no paint…

I don’t mean that sarcatically. It’s just that I would love everyone to have a brush and lots of paint… and a blank canvas. 🙂

This is the clever game that Christians play and of which I want no part.

Wait!!! Do you notice that you refer to Christians as if they are the opposition? I understand your frustration with the mainstream Christianity today. I concur with many of your thoughts. But do you think it’s fair to lump everyone together in the manner that you do?

I often see inconsistencies and hypocrisy in much of the Christian teachings, but to deny those people as people who are just as deserving would be unjust. We do things and behave in certain ways because that’s all we know. We make adjustments accordingly as we learn new information and gain more insight. Do you think people fly planes into buildings believing that they are doing evil? They actually believe they are doing good, in their demented mind. Why? Because they have an enemy they see as evil who they believe must be destroyed.

The most dangerous groups of people are the ones who are banned together in hatred in the name of righteousness to fight a common enemy. Logic and reason can go right out the window as a result.

So do we want to keep drawing lines and putting everyone on the other side of the line?

J Myers said,

Linda, I was going to reply to you, but Mark grows more peculiar by the post…

It only seems peculiar because you are unable to follow the idea. You are still in the weeds. Don’t feel bad. Not everyone has the necessary skills to follow along with such a concept. Some people are more adept at correcting spelling errors than following deep concepts. Diversity is a good thing.

J Myers said,

It seems we’re at the point where further discussion would be unproductive. You continue to interject unrelated matters (…implying that someone was correcting spelling errors–neither of which occurred anywhere in this thread)

Gosh, J. I could have sworn it was you who said above:

(And “atheist” / “atheism” are not capitalized).

It sure seems to me that you were correcting spelling unless you want to argue that capitalization is technically not spelling.

I’m signing off this thread,

Good by J. Myers. Have a nice life and sorry about the difficulty you had following along with my idea.

…but if you exhibit such incoherency elsewhere, I’m sure we’ll cross paths* again.

Gosh, that almost sounds like a threat veiled in metaphor.

Not to worry, I’ve been threatened by religious zelots before. I have even been kicked out of a few churches for daring to ask the wrong questions.

Hi Mark,

Its pretty clear to me that Jesus considers them the opposition.

You keep referring to “them.” Who are these people who are not Christians? I don’t know if Jesus was talking about anyone in particular. To me, he is only saying that not everyone who says they know him really do. As a matter of fact, how do you know that he wasn’t talking about you? or me?

You seem to be stuck on that one chapter for some reason, but the way I see it, Jesus was basically saying that no one can really know the state of anyone else’s spirituality. We have no right to judge other people. Looks can be deceiving. Words can be empty. Actions may be hollow. But no one knows but one’s own heart.

I’m not putting them on the other side of the line. I’m yanking them back to my side of the line by getting them to understand that they are not christians and they are not saved thus they are not part of some special privileged group on the other side of the line from me.

That may be how it looks to you. But you see, it doesn’t look that way from everyone else reading your words. You can’t get anyone to understand, first of all. We all need to come to our own understanding on… just about everything in life. And when it involves bully moves such as yanking (your words)… then that person becomes suspect regardless of how much truth he thinks he’s conveying. It ends up sounding like nonsense. Then again, I too talk nonsense sometimes.. Quite often, as a matter of fact.

You are a fellow thinker, indeed! But be gentle with your thoughts, will ya? 😉

Relativistic sub-atomic physics also seems like nonsense to someone who is struggling to learn algebra.

Exactly! And we cannot digest Advanced Mark-Thoughts before we get a chance to get used to Mark Basics 101. 🙂

Derek said,

“If God were obvious, our devotion would be coerced.”

This sets off all kinds of “does not compute” errors in my head. Do they say this because God is supposed to be so damn huge and majestic that if he were to be revealed we would all fall to our knees and worship him?

More to the point, it might change their behavior just because God is in the room. That’s not what God wants. God doesn’t want you on your knees worshipping him. Too many people do the worship-on-the-knees thing and then they get up off their knees and go out into the world and do hideous things to other people, sometimes in the name of god himself. God wants you to live your life in a way that honors him and the world he created. The part about falling to one’s knees and worshipping a god is merely a ceremony to help those who are struggling to understand. One must first learn to do arithmetic in preparation to understand the value and the power of vector calculus.

Is that really coercion? If worship is deserved, and stupidly obviously so–If the revealed Glory of God is just that powerful and compelling… Would any of us feel forced? Wouldn’t it be (rather than forced) just the obviously right thing to do?

I saw a wonderful old movie the other day. Its called “roman holiday” and its in black and white. Its an awesome story of a princess who hated her life because everyone behaved artificially around her just because she was a princess and had a lot of power. There were so many things she couldn’t do because of the way people treated her “differently” from a regular run-of-the-mill human being. One day she was so fed up with her life that she climbed out the window and ran around Rome with Gregory Peck and got to enjoy being with real people doing real things. She even got into a brawl.

Jesus walked the Earth unrevealed to the general population for 30 years before making himself known to humanity.

Jesus could have rode down on horseback through a fire in the sky if he wanted people to fall to their knees out of fear. Why do you suppose he didn’t do that?

Linda said,

You are a fellow thinker, indeed! But be gentle with your thoughts, will ya?

Yea, me and President Bush, we both are just a tad blunt.
He says he gets it from his mother and the “mangling of words” he gets from his father.

It might help to remember that I’m not excluding myself from any of it.

Mark said

My thesis is that its because they are not really Christians and Atheists can include Christians on the list of things they don’t have to believe in.

There’s at least one big problem with that – your basis for saying that there are no christians is based on a bible verse.

Fine for you maybe, but why would atheists believe/accept/give any credence to any theory based on the bible?

As much as I would like to disbelieve in christians on occasion, since I’m not a believer I’m certainly not going to accept the bible’s word on it.

Yea, me and President Bush, we both are just a tad blunt.

He’s a power-drunk moron with a tenuous grasp of reality, who who gets away with it because of his position and the enormous right-wing machine that handles him and his indiscretions. Are you sure you want to group yourself with him?

Mark,

I had no intention of coming back here when I made that last post, but you’ve since repeatedly made the laughable claim that I am not capable of comprehending your (contradictory, incoherent) ideas, while you seem incapable of understanding a rather straightforward metaphor I used, all the while ignoring all the substantive criticisms that have been raised… this seems fair grounds for re-engagement. So, off we go:

It sure seems to me that you were correcting spelling unless you want to argue that capitalization is technically not spelling.

No, I don’t need to do that; I’ll just point out that capitalization isn’t spelling, technically, or otherwise. You had all the letters in the right place, you just used the wrong case. BTW, I did not make this correction out of mere pedantry; there is an important conceptual difference here that is obscured when you capitalize “atheist” and “atheism.”

Anyway, here you are again, just as I described, arguing the particulars of an irrelevancy while ignoring the substance of the matter under discussion.

Gosh, that almost sounds like a threat veiled in metaphor.

A threat? Yes, yes it was… I am threatening to discuss things with you on the internet. The horror. And it’s not just a threat, Mark—it’s happening right now.

Not to worry, I’ve been threatened by religious zelots before. I have even been kicked out of a few churches for daring to ask the wrong questions.

Oh… here’s where that conceptual distinction comes in: atheism is not a religion, nor is it a belief system.

Its pretty clear to me that Jesus considers them the opposition.

No; it’s clear (in this verse, anyway) that he considers them failures. Failing to meet an objective and opposing the completion of that objective are two very obviously distinct concepts, and it is your tendency to conflate such disparate ideas that leads you to such nonsensical positions. I explained this before, but you seem to just disregard such inconvenient matters, and keep plugging ahead as though you make sense.

All of them

No; you’re making a very poor interpretation of the passage, which was already explained by by Claire (5/10, 11:13 PM), and you’re completely disregarding the only meaningful definition of “Christian” that has been offered.

That could also mean he was talking about EVERYONE in particular.

No; again, see Claire’s post. Also, I have to ask you: if everyone has always and will always fail to meet God’s standards (as you are claiming), what would be the point? Why did Jesus show up in the first place? Why wouldn’t God bring on the apocalypse right now? What is he waiting for—does he just enjoy seeing the horror manifest in each soul as, upon the demise of its earthly carriage, it learns that it has failed the Lord, and will now be sent to suffer for all eternity?

Do you see how little sense you’re making yet?

Which is what makes Christians look so silly when they start to assume they are saved and assume they are perfect and they turn around and put all there energy into judging everyone else.

Wait, I thought you said that such people weren’t Christians? I agree with you that they look silly by claiming that they know the precise nature of reality. Do you not realize that you are doing the exact same thing?

He was. You don’t seem to be following that I’m describing my understanding of reality and how the universe works. This is not some game intended to make me look right and everyone else look wrong. Unlike Mr. Myers’s assertion, I’m not interested in painting anyone into any corners.

Again, how did you arrive at this understanding? From your very poor interpretation of a single passage in a very unreliable text? This is all it takes to establish metaphysical certainly for you?

And regarding “painting… into a corner,” not only is this a common metaphor that shouldn’t need to be explained, but you weren’t getting it, so I explained it… and you still don’t get it. Again, you are the one who painted yourself into a corner; you keep contradicting yourself. No one accused you of painting anyone else into a corner; not only does the metaphor become rather strained in that formulation, but as you yourself noted, you lack the necessary tools.

This discussion was not intended to be a tutorial on the contents of the Bible. There are many references all over the bible where Christians are being told by God that they may claim to be faithful but in their heart they really are not.

I think the point here is that the one verse you cite doesn’t mean what you claim it does, so referencing some other part is the only hope you have of salvaging your point. And do you even realize that what you are saying here is different from what you were saying before?

My thesis is that its because they are not really Christians and Atheists can include Christians on the list of things they don’t have to believe in.

And back to your contrived definition of “Christian,” and your improper, concept-blurring capitalization.

Yes, Agreed, with only one exception. When someone starts to ignore his own failures, flaws and sins and begins to put energy into worrying what his neighbor is doing then its pretty clear that his cup is dirty on the inside and that he is not a Christian.

Isn’t this exactly what you’re doing here by going on and on about all these allegedly “false” Christians while ignoring the contradictions of your own pronouncements? And again, your criteria has nothing to do with whether or not one is or is not a Christian.

I’m not putting them on the other side of the line. I’m yanking them back to my side of the line by getting them to understand that they are not Christians…..

Wrong; refer to the definition, or provide some valid reason as to why your pet definition should stand, given the problems with it that I’ve highlighted.

… and they are not saved thus they are not part of some special privileged group on the other side of the line from me.

You cannot know this, any more than they can know that your beliefs are wrong.

Agreed. In fact you saw how my idea went sailing far over the head of Mr. Myers. He doesn’t get it but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a hundred people reading this thread who will.

Mark, your “idea” is nonsensical, as I’ve previously explained in some detail, and the substance of which you’ve completely disregarded. And in case you haven’t noticed, no one else is “getting it,” unless you include those who seem to have arrived at the same conclusion that I have.

I’m much less worried about words such as “yanking” and I am much more concerned about how you got completely turned around and thought I was drawing a line and putting people on the other side…

Because that is exactly what you’re doing when you claim that every Christian on the planet is wrong.

…when in fact I’m trying to erase the lines that so-called Christians are desperately trying to draw with flawed and bigoted concepts such as being “saved”.

“Flawed” and “bigoted”? Being and atheist, I certainly agree with “flawed,” but within the context of Christianity, this is nonsense. Being “saved” (in some manner) is the fate of every successful Christian. Saying it’s a flawed concept is an even stronger admonishment than your claim that no one is actually a Christian; it is to say that Christianity itself is false. As far as it being a “bigoted” concept, that, like so much else you’ve said, doesn’t even make sense.

Relativistic sub-atomic physics also seems like nonsense to someone who is struggling to learn algebra.

Last I checked, it seemed like nonsense to everyone; quantum mechanics describes sub-atomic physics, Relativity describes large-scale phenomena, and yet have the two been reconciled. For the sake of your analogy, let’s assume you used an meaningful example. In that case, the “seeming like nonsense” to your struggling algebra student would be a failure of the student, not a result of the incoherency of the subject. This is not analogous to what we have here; you have yet to provide a coherent position for anyone else to fail to grasp (so, amusingly, your example was more accurate than you intended!).

Wow! a statement focusing on improving one’s self instead of condemning others. Cool. That’s the first sign of a clean heart.

And what then can be said of your heart, he who hath condemned all of Christendom?

Well, look at this monstrosity of a comment I’ve made, again pointing out so many things that are wrong with what you’re saying… Mark, it’s time to either address the criticisms that have been raised, or admit that you position is incoherent, and modify it accordingly.

J. Myers wrote:

…Mark, it’s time to either…

Mr. Myers, you SAID you were NOT going to participate in this conversation any further. WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE??

As far as I’m concerned, any credibility or integrity you once had is now shot.

It would be most impressive if you would actually do what you say you are going to do.

Good day, sir.

Mark,

WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE??

Uh… I pretty clearly explained that, Mark, not that explanations have helped you to comprehend any other points. Re-read the first paragraph of my last post if you’d like to see the answer to this question again.

As far as I’m concerned, any credibility or integrity you once had is now shot.

Then you have some very peculiar criteria as to what constitutes “integrity” and “credibility.” Apparently, incoherency, self-contradiction, out-of-hand dismissal of criticism, and making inaccurate comments about someone in their (presumed) absence are permissible, but re-entering an internet thread that I bowed out of to contest the claims made about me in my (presumed) absence is not. Hmmm.

Nice ad hominem, by the way. My points and arguments still stand, whatever you may think of me. If you want those to go away, you have to address them.

It would be most impressive if you would actually do what you say you are going to do.

I’m not here (or not here) to impress you, Mark, nor is anyone else. We are here to conduct good-faith discussions–something in which you apparently have little interest. Tell me, what is your aim with vacuous pronouncements such as this?

Claire previously said about President Bush:

He’s a power-drunk moron with a tenuous grasp of reality, who gets away with it because of his position and the enormous right-wing machine that handles him and his indiscretions.

I’m not basing my opinion on what I’ve been told, I’m basing it on things I have seen and heard him say. I’ve seen lots of video of him being intereviewed and in press conferences

Its an amazing coincidence today that NBC was caught faking an interview with President Bush by editing his responses to the questions in an obvious effort to make him appear to say things he never said and also covering up the President’s objection to false statements made by the NBC journalist. You should keep this incident in mind whenever you begin to believe that you know someone only by what biased broadcasters allow you to see of them on your TV. NBCs pitiful response simply claimed that they have freedom of the press so they can edit any way they want. They also made the laughable claim that its ok if they lied on their television broadcast because the truth of the unedited story is buried somewhere on their website.

I’m sure that you find all this delicious because of your obvious hatred for the current President but the media will do the same to people you think are important. I’m sure you are not so shallow as to approve of lying by the media just because the lie they tell makes you feel good.

You can find hundreds of news hits by googling these three names all at the same time.

“Richard Engel” “Ed Gillespie” “Steve Capus”