Atheists Preaching the Gospel! (heads up, atheists!!)
- Thread starter Gospelutionary
- Start date
LoveDivine
Well-Known Member
I think I can bring some harmony to this thread as I do understand both Chris and Messy.
I will start off by saying that I agree with Chris that we need to be really careful in our study of Christ's teachings. We shouldn't dismiss anything and we have to study the context and historical significance. I do believe that a follower of Christ can obey the spirit of Christ's teachings without being reduced to homelessness. I don't arrive at that conclusion because I think it's ridiculous that Christ would ask that we sell EVERYTHING. In fact, I believe He has the right to ask and expect us to do anything. Christ also commands us to pick up our cross. In the first century, that literally meant martyrdom. If a follower of Christ can have the guts to die for Him, I think they can also have the grace to part with their material possessions.
My view is that Christ was addressing the sin of the love of money and the selfishness of human nature. I think that the real intention of Christ was to reveal the misplaced affection of our hearts. If His only intent was to awaken our social consciousness and our desire to help others, He would have limited his instructions to giving to the poor and sharing our possessions. He repeatedly emphasizes though that we cannot serve two masters and the importance of laying up treasure in Heaven. He also advises the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and to follow Him. Why did He tell the young man that? Christ didn't insist to every single individual that they sell absolutely everything. There were quite a few followers of Christ mentioned in the gospels that clearly had wealth and these followers were devoted to Christ. (Joanna wife of Herod's steward quickly comes to mind. She is one of the first to see him after the resurrection). If we examine the story of the ruler, we see it is because he loved his wealth. He wanted to follow Christ but went away sorrowful because he couldn't part with his money. Christ's instructions to him actually had nothing to do with helping the poor (although the poor would have benefited from the redistribution of his wealth). Christ was testing him to see where his priorities lay. Another great example is the story of the woman who anointed Jesus' head with very costly perfume and washed his feet with her tears. Judas reprimanded her for not selling that perfume and donating the proceeds to the poor. Jesus rebuked Judas and told him, "the poor you always have, but you will not always have me." These examples illustrate that Christ's number one concern and focus was not simply in inspiring us to be a good neighbor and helping the poor. Love for others is actually of secondary importance. Love for God is paramount. He was after something much greater than outward charity. All of Christ's teachings have a similar vein. We need to keep in mind that Jewish culture was based on following the law of Moses and outward morality. Christ's teachings challenged and undermined the self-righteousness of the religious leaders. Today most people think of the term Pharisee to be some awful, hypocritical individual. In reality, Pharisees were very respected, religious leaders. They were scholars of the law of Moses, and were very moral outwardly. Yet, Christ makes it clear in his teachings and through his rebukes that they were not religious in truth. All of his teachings (not just the monetary ones) follow the same pattern: what is the motive and priority of your heart. Lust is the inward sin of adultery, hatred is the same as murder, etc. He also states that we are to turn the other cheek. I don't think Christ literally meant that we have to allow ourselves to be severely beaten without attempting to protect ourselves. His point was that Christians should not retaliate and return evil for evil. He also states that it is better to cut our hand off and pluck our eye out if it causes us to sin, than to be whole and lost. Again, I don't think He was advocating self-mutilation. He is stating that we need to be ruthless in our efforts to control our sinful passions. I think that it would be safe to apply that same line of reasoning to his monetary commands. We are to be unselfish and dedicated to helping others. If we see someone in need we aren't to ignore him, but are to do what is in our power to help.
I will start off by saying that I agree with Chris that we need to be really careful in our study of Christ's teachings. We shouldn't dismiss anything and we have to study the context and historical significance. I do believe that a follower of Christ can obey the spirit of Christ's teachings without being reduced to homelessness. I don't arrive at that conclusion because I think it's ridiculous that Christ would ask that we sell EVERYTHING. In fact, I believe He has the right to ask and expect us to do anything. Christ also commands us to pick up our cross. In the first century, that literally meant martyrdom. If a follower of Christ can have the guts to die for Him, I think they can also have the grace to part with their material possessions.
My view is that Christ was addressing the sin of the love of money and the selfishness of human nature. I think that the real intention of Christ was to reveal the misplaced affection of our hearts. If His only intent was to awaken our social consciousness and our desire to help others, He would have limited his instructions to giving to the poor and sharing our possessions. He repeatedly emphasizes though that we cannot serve two masters and the importance of laying up treasure in Heaven. He also advises the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and to follow Him. Why did He tell the young man that? Christ didn't insist to every single individual that they sell absolutely everything. There were quite a few followers of Christ mentioned in the gospels that clearly had wealth and these followers were devoted to Christ. (Joanna wife of Herod's steward quickly comes to mind. She is one of the first to see him after the resurrection). If we examine the story of the ruler, we see it is because he loved his wealth. He wanted to follow Christ but went away sorrowful because he couldn't part with his money. Christ's instructions to him actually had nothing to do with helping the poor (although the poor would have benefited from the redistribution of his wealth). Christ was testing him to see where his priorities lay. Another great example is the story of the woman who anointed Jesus' head with very costly perfume and washed his feet with her tears. Judas reprimanded her for not selling that perfume and donating the proceeds to the poor. Jesus rebuked Judas and told him, "the poor you always have, but you will not always have me." These examples illustrate that Christ's number one concern and focus was not simply in inspiring us to be a good neighbor and helping the poor. Love for others is actually of secondary importance. Love for God is paramount. He was after something much greater than outward charity. All of Christ's teachings have a similar vein. We need to keep in mind that Jewish culture was based on following the law of Moses and outward morality. Christ's teachings challenged and undermined the self-righteousness of the religious leaders. Today most people think of the term Pharisee to be some awful, hypocritical individual. In reality, Pharisees were very respected, religious leaders. They were scholars of the law of Moses, and were very moral outwardly. Yet, Christ makes it clear in his teachings and through his rebukes that they were not religious in truth. All of his teachings (not just the monetary ones) follow the same pattern: what is the motive and priority of your heart. Lust is the inward sin of adultery, hatred is the same as murder, etc. He also states that we are to turn the other cheek. I don't think Christ literally meant that we have to allow ourselves to be severely beaten without attempting to protect ourselves. His point was that Christians should not retaliate and return evil for evil. He also states that it is better to cut our hand off and pluck our eye out if it causes us to sin, than to be whole and lost. Again, I don't think He was advocating self-mutilation. He is stating that we need to be ruthless in our efforts to control our sinful passions. I think that it would be safe to apply that same line of reasoning to his monetary commands. We are to be unselfish and dedicated to helping others. If we see someone in need we aren't to ignore him, but are to do what is in our power to help.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
We seem to have lost the respectful and peaceful tone of this thread
I came in too sharp?
Apologies if so.
I don't think there's anything I'd withdraw terms of substance, though I could have written to a different tone.
I thought I was being consistent with that of the thread's author.
"... start sharing with your christian friends or during any random encounter with a "churchie" "
Yes, there are things in the bible that I wish more Christians were aware of, but I don't go actively preaching or anti-evangelising.
If however someone raises the topic, face-to-face or in a forum, well, that's fair game though I do try to be at least as polite in reply as the tone of the incoming statements and questions.
And here atheists were specifically given a "heads up" to join in.
Chris
Upvote
0
- Jun 16, 2010
- 231
- 2
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Not to worry, Chris, as I think you've handled yourself well so far. As is often the case when I bring ideas like these up for discussion, both on forums and encounters elsewhere in the "real world", people can sometimes feel a need to remind me, however gently & thinly veiled, that it is Pharasaical to even remind Christians that Christ does push the point about the reality or intersection of love & economics.
Strange as it seems, people begin acting as if literally forsaking all wealth and giving to the poor would somehow be the extreme antithesis of love, or at least that doing so could ONLY be an UNloving attempt at displaying outward righteousness!
That's when all talk is usually directed to the "rich young ruler" & all the others who were assumed to have maintained their wealth while following the guy who insisted that ANYONE who wanted to must forsake it all first.
Maybe I should clarify that the same "whosoever" language Jesus uses in his most quoted thought about being "born again" is exactly the same "whosoever" he uses when he issues the same command about selling and forsaking all in at least 3 other references ASIDE from the rich ruler and even spoken to "INNUMERABLE MULTITUDES", as well as the religious leaders (Luke 11, 12, 14).
While there's no doubt that someone could have the wrong motive(s) for actually following that command as stated (i.e. "receiving the kingdom as a little child"), it's more than just odd that commands/teachings such as this are almost always argued against on the grounds that to do so must indicate a lack of love (at best) or a Pharasaical heart (at worst).
You would be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't quote St. Paul about "giving away all goods" as a standard defense against the gospel of Christ hitting too close to home (or bank accounts--actual stored up treasures on the face of the earth!.
Strange as it seems, people begin acting as if literally forsaking all wealth and giving to the poor would somehow be the extreme antithesis of love, or at least that doing so could ONLY be an UNloving attempt at displaying outward righteousness!
That's when all talk is usually directed to the "rich young ruler" & all the others who were assumed to have maintained their wealth while following the guy who insisted that ANYONE who wanted to must forsake it all first.
Maybe I should clarify that the same "whosoever" language Jesus uses in his most quoted thought about being "born again" is exactly the same "whosoever" he uses when he issues the same command about selling and forsaking all in at least 3 other references ASIDE from the rich ruler and even spoken to "INNUMERABLE MULTITUDES", as well as the religious leaders (Luke 11, 12, 14).
While there's no doubt that someone could have the wrong motive(s) for actually following that command as stated (i.e. "receiving the kingdom as a little child"), it's more than just odd that commands/teachings such as this are almost always argued against on the grounds that to do so must indicate a lack of love (at best) or a Pharasaical heart (at worst).
You would be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't quote St. Paul about "giving away all goods" as a standard defense against the gospel of Christ hitting too close to home (or bank accounts--actual stored up treasures on the face of the earth!
.
Upvote
0
LoveDivine
Well-Known Member
Not to worry, Chris, as I think you've handled yourself well so far. As is often the case when I bring ideas like these up for discussion, both on forums and encounters elsewhere in the "real world", people can sometimes feel a need to remind me, however gently & thinly veiled, that it is Pharasaical to even remind Christians that Christ does push the point about the reality or intersection of love & economics.
Strange as it seems, people begin acting as if literally forsaking all wealth and giving to the poor would somehow be the extreme antithesis of love, or at least that doing so could ONLY be an UNloving attempt at displaying outward righteousness!
That's when all talk is usually directed to the "rich young ruler" & all the others who were assumed to have maintained their wealth while following the guy who insisted that ANYONE who wanted to must forsake it all first.
Maybe I should clarify that the same "whosoever" language Jesus uses in his most quoted thought about being "born again" is exactly the same "whosoever" he uses when he issues the same command about selling and forsaking all in at least 3 other references ASIDE from the rich ruler and even spoken to "INNUMERABLE MULTITUDES", as well as the religious leaders (Luke 11, 12, 14).
While there's no doubt that someone could have the wrong motive(s) for actually following that command as stated (i.e. "receiving the kingdom as a little child"), it's more than just odd that commands/teachings such as this are almost always argued against on the grounds that to do so must indicate a lack of love (at best) or a Pharasaical heart (at worst).
You would be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't quote St. Paul about "giving away all goods" as a standard defense against the gospel of Christ hitting too close to home (or bank accounts--actual stored up treasures on the face of the earth!
Just to clarify, I wasn't implying that Chris was being harsh. I was just disappointed that the whole tone of this thread had changed. I think Chris was right that he was just responding to the tone of the last few postings. This has been a very good discussion and one that I thoroughly enjoyed initially. I would like to clarify a couple things since this will be my final post in this discussion.
My last post was grossly misconstrued. I do respect the OP's position on the subject though it differs from mine slightly. The same respect isn't being returned though. I have no issues with someone strongly disagreeing with me and dismantling my arguments point by point. If there is deficiencies in my logic, I will accept that. I don't see the point though in continuing to discuss disputed topics if my posts are going to be taken out of context. I realize you may strongly disagree with my position. I respect that. I would just like an accurate representation in this discussion of what I actually posted. For anyone who has read this entire thread, I have from the very beginning stated that I thought the majority of Christians were in violation of Christ's teachings. Later on I agreed with the OP's observation that badly motivated charity is better than no charity. I even quoted Ben Franklin to reference that society needs at least an outward form of religion. My reference to the Pharisees had NOTHING to do with giving to the poor or charity. I was giving some background information to the spiritual climate within Israel at the time of Christ. My point was not to explain away the necessity of selling everything but to provide insight into the real intent of Christ's teachings. The goal of Christ's preaching was to unsettle the self-righteousness of a seemingly upright nation. I never once stated that giving to the poor was the opposite of being truly loving. Yes, I did include the example of the woman who anointed Christ with costly perfume and Judas' rebuke. I explained that her love for God and extravagant display of this love was more important to Christ than her fiscal responsibility. I do stand by my statements that love for God is paramount and love for other humans is secondary. How that can be construed that giving to others is the absence of love, I am not sure.
Secondly, the rich young ruler (at least at that point) did not find salvation. The Bible states he went away sorrowfully because he was unwilling to part with his wealth. I am not aware that story is a common defense for my position. If anything, that example would seem to support your position more. I mentioned the story because I personally believe that exchange provides some insight into Christ's true intent and purpose. You may not agree with my view, and that is fine. I am not trying to dissuade you from disposing all your assets. I respect anyone that does take those words of Christ literally. My purpose in posting was not to contradict your view that Christians need to be more giving, but to point out that true faith is a matter of the heart. In reality, human nature protests most violently against true submission from the heart. Many people have taken drastic measures, sold everything, lived an acetic life and never found salvation. Others have not and found Christ. (The New Testament has far too many examples of justified men/women who were wealthy). Am I saying we can ignore the commands of Christ? No, of course not. I have stated all along that we need to obey His most important commands. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself (what is known as the moral law of God). I am just saying that a Christian can fulfill that without being reduced to homelessness. When your money has no hold over you and you are always looking for opportunities to bless others, you are fulfilling the spirit of his commands.
Upvote
0
- Jun 16, 2010
- 231
- 2
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Yankeegirl,
At the moment I don't have time for a detailed response to what you've just shared but I would like it if you were willing to stick around since you said that if there were any deficiencies in your logic/points that you'd be happy to hear what they/that might be.
If this is still true then maybe it would be worth your while to at least take another peek soon. Peace.
Thanks for your time & input either way.
At the moment I don't have time for a detailed response to what you've just shared but I would like it if you were willing to stick around since you said that if there were any deficiencies in your logic/points that you'd be happy to hear what they/that might be.
If this is still true then maybe it would be worth your while to at least take another peek soon. Peace.
Thanks for your time & input either way.
Upvote
0
A second look, or thought.
"So, atheists, here I am to drop the key at your feet..."
You might want to be a little cautious about what we'd unlock.
Though I not infrequently do find myself having more in common with (for want of a better term) "live" Christians than I do with most (for want of a better term) "church goers". No matter how far apart out conclusions, we do at least share something about what the big questions and issues actually are.
Lukewarm or indifferent is perplexing from where I am, too.
I mean, many don't even know what condemnation Paul heaps on atheists such a me.
(One of the "vessels of wrath, made for destruction" for a start, if I'm wrong about Paul not being right.)
"So, atheists, here I am to drop the key at your feet..."
You might want to be a little cautious about what we'd unlock.
Though I not infrequently do find myself having more in common with (for want of a better term) "live" Christians than I do with most (for want of a better term) "church goers". No matter how far apart out conclusions, we do at least share something about what the big questions and issues actually are.
Lukewarm or indifferent is perplexing from where I am, too.
I mean, many don't even know what condemnation Paul heaps on atheists such a me.
(One of the "vessels of wrath, made for destruction" for a start, if I'm wrong about Paul not being right.)
Upvote
0
LoveDivine
Well-Known Member
I prefer not to continue this particular discussion. I think we are at an impasse and it is not likely that either of us will be persuaded to think differently. I can see that you are very passionate about this aspect of your faith and I respect that. I only came back to this thread to comment about something slightly off topic. I checked out your profile here and I was intrigued when I read that you had been influenced by Leo Tolstoy. I sort of smiled when I read that. I love Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. I can see how his influence has shaped your views. Much of his writing has an emphasis on social reform and consciousness. Although we have clashed on this thread, I think we actually have a fair bit in common and are not all that far off on our views.
Upvote
0
oi_antz
Opposed to Untruth.
I don't know why it got placed in this sub-forum, but it caught my attention. Yes I have had some enthusiasm too for the prospect of atheist's preaching the gospel, but of course it could not be possible without actually them becoming Christian. But the thing that made me enthusiastic is in seeing their characters, some things about them that seem to lend themselves strongly to preaching the good news: matter-of-factness, careful speech, robustness, investigativeness, thoughtfulness, etc and so forth. I saw all this potential in various atheists a few years ago when I first encountered them (not as though they are a foreign species, but just a belief structure / religious identity and so forth I didn't really know about until then). So when I first saw this potential that seemed to be wasted, I was enthusiastic that maybe they will lead some sort of revolution for Christ. But since that initial enthusiasm, speaking more with people who are committed to that type of belief structure, I have seen that it's not so easy for them to just flip over and start preaching the good news of Jesus Christ's kingdom. There's all sorts of different reasons for that, of course. So it's certainly given me some good reason to think seriously about the nature of faith: in that it is a gift from God. Why does God not give it to these people who I see great potential in? Is that what has happened, or have they refused His offer? I know that faith is a transaction involving two parties. Both parties must be willing. So I don't know, maybe some of these atheists have suffered extremely poor indoctrination (as I know is out there it appals me), and they have therefore come to recognise Christianity as something that is repulsive (rightly so, IMO), or maybe they do truly wish to enjoy life to an extent that makes them uncomfortable in the presence of Holy God, and they refuse to go near the light for fear their deeds will be exposed.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
