"Christians are very different from unbelievers."

[Sketcher]

Take comfort that that person who was mean to you will burn in hell for all eternity isn't revenge fantasy? Or are you saying it isn't revenge fantasy because you're the one doing it.

The comfort is that they won't ultimately get away with it. They'll either repent, or get what's coming to them. We're supposed to pray for the repentance.

 

[oi_antz]

Then let's not talk about me. Do Christians make an unconscious decision to be unfair?

I expect so, at times, some more than others. But I do want to address your problems. That is, why you are not able to be fair. You cannot blame someone else for that. You can explain that you get worn down; that is a natural, normal thing when you are in a degrading environment.

I would disagree. Christians often confuse "it's none of my business what you do" with encouragement.

Ok, what about discouragement? Does a Christian discourage sexual freedom more than atheist in general / naturally? Is this described best as "prudence"? Do you think a Christian is no different than a non-Christian regarding sexual freedoms?

Okay. If I say "by and large the majority of Christians hate atheists" then we have agreement?

Maybe. Credible research does support it. I don't know many of the majority of Christians though, I only know the ones I have encountered. I would not agree the majority of them hate atheists, but I know some do. Some find atheists (perhaps rightfully, depending on their experiences) quite difficult and offensive.

How do you know the atheist's perspective? You don't. You know the Christian-strawman-atheist's perspective.

Is this fair? I only know my own view of an atheist perspective at any given time. Doesn't everyone? Of course, I have never actually believed an atheist perspective to be most likely true. I do consider it sometimes though. It is fair that it is not as refined as someone who has considered it to be true. I think you are just arguing though, there is nothing to achieve by attacking my atheist perspective here. It has been corrected on that thread, by the way.

You realize how compassionate Christians really are when they find you're not one of them. Then they throw rocks at you. That is the opposite of compassion. You wouldn't know what that's like.

Ok, but that is just people. Christians get the same treatment. This was shown to me on Sunday:

They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you.

.. and of course you know that Jesus said the world might hate His disciples, because it hated Him too.

What do you think, it is all about being offended? Is it all about being told we are not as important or right as we like to feel, or in a similar way, being treated in a way we don't like, and we feel we do not deserve?

Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, (9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Galatians 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

Romans 4:1 - Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

I don't see these as supporting an idea that belief is more important than attitude. Can you please explain why you draw that meaning from these statements?


BTW: JGG, I do accept the description "revenge fantasy", but I view it as a real possibility. Because we all have caused others to resent us, we do require forgiveness.

Matthew 6 (Jesus says)

For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

I expect nobody should be more right to resent me than God. Especially since I declare faith in Him, and then behave so poorly when others are judging me for it. It is more comfortable to lose sight of this, and resist it from being exposed. Maybe this motivates Christians to find comfort by assuming they are forgiven. (Not suggesting it isn't true, just describing a possible cause).

 

[aiki]

Yes, but as I said earlier, they are being persecuted on the other side of the world. Do you disagree that it is worse to be an atheist in our society than a Christian?

Not at all. The late Christopher Hitchens was never chased out of town by an angry mob wielding pitchforks and torches. He was invited onto talk shows, and given opportunity to write articles about his atheistic views in prominent magazines and newspapers, and generally lauded by the liberal left of American culture. If his treatment is anything to go by, atheists do very well in America - certainly not any worse than the average Christian.

Do you disagree that it is prudent for an atheist to hide their disbelief from Christians in our society for fear of repercussions personal, physical, or professional?

No. Not generally. It is pertinent to our discussion to note that in the recent past in countries where atheistic, anti-religious regimes held power, Christians were routinely murdered for their faith. Whatever your experience might be as atheist in western culture, it does not compare to what Christians have experienced when godless, anti-religious governments have been in power.

I have a number of friends who are either agnostic or staunchly atheist and we get along fine. We agree to disagree and continue on. No big deal.

Not really. Can we find 10 films which are specifically atheist? How about Muslim? Jewish? That 10 is hands and feet above what is made for the rest of us. Such films can't be made because Christians will cry.

This is silly. Films that are directly philosophically and morally opposed to Christianity are made all the time in America. And it doesn't matter one bit if Christians cry about them; they are made anyway.

Yes, but when we take a census, or a survey we look at a tiny sample (called a representative sample) to represent the views and characteristics of the whole. Is there some reason why ChristianForums is not a representative sample?

I think I have already pointed out that a survey here would be from entirely too small a sample.

No, not this time. I am no claiming that you are anti-science, anti-progress, or anti-rationality. I am saying that so many Christians come out and specifically, and intentionally say that Christians are against those things, that the problem very clearly comes from your house.

And if I can point to many Christians who are not anti-science, anti-progress (whatever that means), or anti-rationality, what then? What about Christians like Dr. Alvin Plantinga, or Dr. J.P. Moreland, or Dr. William Lane Craig, or Greg Koukl, or Paul Copan, or Larry Taunton, or Dr. Gary Habermas, or Dr. Holly Ordway, or Dr. Hugh Ross, or Dr. Francis Collins, or Dr. John Lennox...well, you get the idea, I hope. Clearly, not all of Christianity is looking to deny reason and science at every turn.

These believers I have listed above are working hard to better inform their fellow Christians about the rationality of their faith, about how the material world demonstrates the existence of a Creator, and to encourage Christians to understand that they don't need to resort to invective and blind faith in defending their allegiance to Christ. Your quotations from Christians suggest that there is more work yet to do.

Atheists aren't the ones claiming that they are immoral, arrogant and bloodthirsty. That again, comes from Christians (your house).

Again, I offered that description of atheists as a hypothetical.

Your comparing the Christian accusation toward atheists, with a Christian declaration by Christians and saying that they're equivalent.

I don't follow you here. The accusations Christians make about atheists are declarations.

I would very much like it if Christians were to cease accusing me of everything they accuse me of.

Well, in a free society where anyone can say what they like, sometimes people may speak to you in a way you don't appreciate. It is just one of the hard realities of freedom.

You guys don't offer many positive characteristics to choose from.

In your opinion and limited experience.

Christians have chosen to take on atheists as an enemy.

Inasmuch as atheists embrace a worldview that is fundamentally contrary to Christianity, how should Christians view atheists? If I go on Youtube and look at the comments of atheists that accumulate below many Christian videos, I see a rabid hatred of Christians and their beliefs. As I said from the beginning of our exchange, the unpleasantness isn't all on one side. If atheists want to be treated well, they need to give what they desire to receive.

See? Did that hurt?

No. Was it supposed to?

Again, the quotation does not say that Christian culture as a whole is superior, only that where Christian culture is influenced more by the divine teachings of Christ than the wisdom of men the resulting morality is of a superior kind.
​

So is that to say that a Christian who is influenced more by God than the surrounding society is superior to an atheist? A culture is merely a collection of individuals after all.

Do you think being an atheist is superior to being a Christian? If not, why are you an atheist and not a Christian?

However, this is a specious argument. What morality do you, as part of the superior Christian culture, exercise that a non-Christian does not?

Why don't you ask the person who made the comment? I'm not arguing for a statement I never made.

Sure they are. However, if I then claim that I don't believe these claims, I get attacked. If I ask for evidence for these claims, I get attacked, or the claimant whines and complains that I always ask for evidence of their claims.

Well, so what? I get the same sort of response from atheists when I press them to defend their viewpoint better than they do. Goes with the territory of discussion and debate. If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

And all of these claims need to be assessed in the light of the contents of the defining source of Christian doctrine and practice, the Bible. It is the foundational source of Christian belief - or it ought to be - not the individual Christian (who may not be truly Christian at all).
​

Yes, but this is still something that all Christians say. You all suspect that all the others aren't really Christian.

This is silly. There are a great many other people claiming to be Christians who I believe truly are. I most certainly don't suspect all other Christians of a false conversion!

So if someone says or does something that isn't in the Bible, they are not a Christian? Say someone takes comfort in the suffering of others?

I never said, nor meant, that if someone says or does something not in the Bible, they are not Christian. Skiing is not in the Bible; neither is golfing. Are these things therefore immoral? If someone skis or golfs do they prove they are not Christian by doing so? Of course not. If someone says, "I like chocolate!" are they not a Christian because such a statement is not found in Scripture? To think so would be ridiculous.

What I did say was that a Christian's speech and conduct are to be judged according to the biblical injunctions governing Christian speech and conduct. Not all of the Bible is directed to Christians. Much of the OT, for instance, has nothing directly to do with Christians at all. It is not until one is in the New Testament that commands, promises and doctrine are issued specifically to followers of Christ. It is there, primarily, one finds the beliefs and spiritual principles that shape Christianity.

Great. Not the point. It is up to Christians to interpret what the Bible says, yes?

Yes. But this doesn't mean every Christian reading the Bible can have their own interpretation of Scripture. The Bible itself limits how any part of it may be understood.

I don't believe in divine authority, so if a Christian says "Christians believe..." on what basis do I have to disagree?

Very little. As an atheist, you are quite hamstrung in participating in discussions about Christian doctrine - unless, of course, you know the Bible well.

It is up to other Christians to say they disagree. If you don't, one must assume the initial claim is what Christians believe.

Reasonably, you can only assume that what the individual Christian says about their faith is only what they believe. If you want to be sure they are asserting beliefs common to the faith, you must check with the Bible, the primary source of Christian belief.

Your response here completely misses (or ignores?) my point. Whether or not atheism can be called a religion has nothing to do with the reasonableness of tarring all those who can be identified by a particular characteristic (like atheism or Christian faith) with the same brush. You would object stridently, I think, if I suggested that because a certain serial killer was atheistic in his view all atheists must therefore be serial killers. Such a charge on my part would be outrageous! But this is essentially what you are trying to do with Christians.
​

But Christianity is not simply a characteristic. It is a belief system. One that I am told influences everything you do. It is also a characteristic that comes from an external source, that is to say it is something you learn.

I don't see that the distinctions you make here alter my point any.

Yes, it does. "The world" is an implicit reference to all people, most of whom are unbelievers.
​

No it isn't. The world is a place, and presumably one of God's creations.

You don't get to decide what the phrase "the world" means. That is solely the right of the text. And the text clearly indicates what I've said: "the world" refers to people, not to place. As we know from both the immediate context surrounding John 3:16 and a multitude of other qualifying verses and passages from Scripture, Jesus did not come to save a place but to save people. That you would even attempt to argue this with me shows just how deeply and irrationally antagonistic you are to anything a Christian may say.

But understand, from an outsider's point of view: It doesn't matter what God's word says. You can all climb all over yourselves to decide who a true Christian is, but unless you reach an agreement, I can't decide for you.

No one's asking you to decide anything for Christians. There really isn't any debate about what constitutes a genuine Christian. The Bible is very clear. Unfortunately, its clarity cannot guarantee that people will not claim the title "Christian" illegitimately.

Okay, but so far the "not nice things" these two have said have not been personal attacks on believers, but on belief itself.

I disagree. If you say "I believe pigs can fly!" and I respond, "That belief is stupid," it is implicit in my remark that the one who holds the stupid belief is, at least in some measure, stupid for holding it. Likewise, when Dawkins says that "faith is one of the world's great evils," in doing so, he condemns those who exercise such faith as a great evil also.

Not nice, but not the same as what I have been posting. And it should be a matter of the degree of unpleasantness. You're the ones claiming to be a superior culture!

As I said, I'm not going to argue degree with you. That's a red herring as far as I'm concerned. And, again, I have not made any statement of my own about Christianity being a superior culture and I have explained now twice that you're plainly misreading the quotation from which you are arguing about this point.

And how has your expertise been determined?

Read through my posts on this site.

To answer your questions it is necessary to ask some basic hermeneutical questions:

1.) To whom was the writer writing?
2.) What is the form of the writing?
3.) What is the cultural context of the writing?
4.) What is the immediate scriptural context surrounding what is written?
5.) How does the entire context of Scripture qualify or clarify what is written?

As you can see, actually explaining how the verses you quoted are best understood will not be possible in a few short comments.
​

Or it might just say what it says.

Oh, the verses say what they say all right. But those verses don't stand in isolation from all that the rest of the Bible says, nor are they impervious to the light of good hermeneutics.

But take your time. I've asked this question a half dozen times, and have been presented with dozens of different explanations ranging from "Pslams doesn't count" to "hate means justice, for some reason, in this context alone". I'd be curious, so take your time.

I'm afraid your comments here hardly give me strong incentive to make an explanation of the verses you cited. Clearly, you are not interested in understanding, but only in declaring and fortifying your position. I'm not about to invest the significant time and effort necessary to do as you want when I'm assured of nothing more than the satisfaction of your idle curiosity.

Selah.

 

[JGG]

The comfort is that they won't ultimately get away with it. They'll either repent, or get what's coming to them. We're supposed to pray for the repentance.

Yeah, but you'll be just as content to watch these mean people endlessly burn in hell for all eternity for being mean to you. How is that not a revenge fantasy.

My best friend was gay. My wife was Jewish. My mother was agnostic. Do you take comfort that all of them are to suffer in hell for eternity?

 

[WoundedDeep]

"Christians are very different from unbelievers."

"So to me an athiest is a lesser person who is closed minded and shallow."

"Atheists lack the huge body of spiritual knowledge that believers have, thus making them unqualified to ‘provide for the general welfare’ as elected officials."

"I dislike atheists because they’re the rudest, nastiest, most ignorant, and most dishonest people I’ve ever met. "

"...atheists are the most immoral, unethical, and non trustworthyGroup in Society."

So other than, being lesser people, closed minded, shallow, unqualified to be elected officials, rude, nasty, ignorant, dishonest, and the most immoral, unethical, and most untrustworthy group in society, how else are atheists/non-Christians very different from Christians?

Unfortunately, you pretty much cannot tell a true Christian from a false Christian in these days of deception. This is a fact.

But a time is coming when great trials are coming against all inhabitants of the earth, then there will be a separation of true Christians from the false ones.

It is prophesied that the holy will still be holy, the righteous will still be righteous. The filthy will still be filthy, the evildoers will still do evil. (Revelations) When you see Christians start doing evil, or in a moment of difficulty start hating others, then you know that Christian is a false one. Disaster always reveals character, if a person professes to be a good person but does evil in disastrous times then you will know his profession is false.

True Christians are marked by a life of holiness, this has never been changed since the church age began. The early churches were persecuted solely because their life of holiness was such a sharp contrast to those pagans around them who lived in every form of conceivable sin. You don't see that sharp contrast today in most churches because many are lukewarm, others are outrightly false etc. The early churches were all radical Christians, yet they were holy and peace-loving, loving their neighbours just like God commanded.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Yeah, but you'll be just as content to watch these mean people endlessly burn in hell for all eternity for being mean to you. How is that not a revenge fantasy.

My best friend was gay. My wife was Jewish. My mother was agnostic. Do you take comfort that all of them are to suffer in hell for eternity?

That is entirely false. Even God has said ""Do you think that I like to see wicked people die? says the Sovereign LORD. Of course not! I want them to turn from their wicked ways and live." (Ezekiel 18)

All godly men throughout the Bible have weeped for those who are perishing, even those who spit at them, wanted to harm them or did evil to them. Godly men will not delight in the death of the wicked, especially not those who do wicked things out of ignorance.

But no one can turn from their wicked ways unless they willingly do it on their own. And most people are too proud to admit that their ways are wicked, yeah, its common for evildoers to try to justify their evil, and therefore they will never repent. Is God just to let them do whatever they want for the rest of eternity? Look at ISIS, they definitely feel justified by murdering since they do it in the name of a god, shall God never judge and punish them?

 

[JGG]

I expect so, at times, some more than others. But I do want to address your problems. That is, why you are not able to be fair. You cannot blame someone else for that. You can explain that you get worn down; that is a natural, normal thing when you are in a degrading environment.

Again, why do you place such a high expectation on me to be fair, but no expectation on Christians to be fair?

Ok, what about discouragement? Does a Christian discourage sexual freedom more than atheist in general / naturally? Is this described best as "prudence"? Do you think a Christian is no different than a non-Christian regarding sexual freedoms?

Yes.

Maybe. Credible research does support it. I don't know many of the majority of Christians though, I only know the ones I have encountered. I would not agree the majority of them hate atheists, but I know some do. Some find atheists (perhaps rightfully, depending on their experiences) quite difficult and offensive.

Perhaps, but most know about atheists through the "hypothetical atheist" that is preached about in churches. The one who claims that the universe is an accident. The one who hates God. The one who is the major cause of sexual deviance and sexually transmitted diseases. The ones who just want to sin more. These don't refer to actual atheists, but hypothetical atheists, like we see in "God's not dead" to convince Christians that atheists are horrible, wicked people that you should hate. And as a result you do. Not because you know anything about us, our experience, or our point of view, but because modern Christianity teaches that you know everything "because I said so."

Is this fair? I only know my own view of an atheist perspective at any given time.

You are a Christian, you do not have any view of the atheist perspective at any time. You have a strawman.

Doesn't everyone? Of course, I have never actually believed an atheist perspective to be most likely true.

Exactly. Why would you? You have been fed a narrative designed to remind you how much you hate atheists. You only know the strawman atheist.

Let's put it to a test: From the atheist perspective, what do we believe to be true that you do not? What claim do we make that could be true at all?

I do consider it sometimes though. It is fair that it is not as refined as someone who has considered it to be true. I think you are just arguing though, there is nothing to achieve by attacking my atheist perspective here. It has been corrected on that thread, by the way.

No, it very clearly hasn't.

Ok, but that is just people. Christians get the same treatment. This was shown to me on Sunday:

They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you.

.. and of course you know that Jesus said the world might hate His disciples, because it hated Him too.

What is this? Is this a Christian telling other Christians that non-Christians are reckless, wild living people who hate you, and this is taken as proof that Christians are getting the same treatment as us? Is this supposed to convince me that Christians don't hate us? This is the very narrative I'm talking about.

What do you think, it is all about being offended? Is it all about being told we are not as important or right as we like to feel, or in a similar way, being treated in a way we don't like, and we feel we do not deserve?

I would like to be open about the fact that I do not believe in a God, but I can't. I have to lie, all the time. Why? I might get attacked again. I might see my career stall. I have no I idea how my son will be treated as a result. All because of the hatred inside Christianity.

I don't see these as supporting an idea that belief is more important than attitude. Can you please explain why you draw that meaning from these statements?

You may have to define attitude for me then, as these statements say that nothing is more important than belief.

BTW: JGG, I do accept the description "revenge fantasy", but I view it as a real possibility. Because we all have caused others to resent us, we do require forgiveness.

Matthew 6 (Jesus says)

For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

I expect nobody should be more right to resent me than God. Especially since I declare faith in Him, and then behave so poorly when others are judging me for it. It is more comfortable to lose sight of this, and resist it from being exposed. Maybe this motivates Christians to find comfort by assuming they are forgiven. (Not suggesting it isn't true, just describing a possible cause).

 

[oi_antz]

Again, why do you place such a high expectation on me to be fair, but no expectation on Christians to be fair?

I have actually only expected that you would place that expectation on yourself. I do admit, I have some higher expectation of your fairness than some Christians I would talk to, but due to your mental capacity. You are quite intelligent, though you have suffered in many ways, which has caused you to form some beliefs/attitudes, and then you will respond this way, which is not how you would respond if your life's circumstances had been more ideal. My purpose for raising this point, is for your sake. Since I think in normal conditions you would prefer to be fair, and perhaps you were not aware of the way you were behaving.

Yes.

"Yes" to which question? I don't expect "yes" fits all three.

Perhaps, but most know about atheists through the "hypothetical atheist" that is preached about in churches.

Not me. My impression of atheists is from experience. I had not heard of the expression "atheist" until about two weeks before I joined this website. My impression is therefore not a result of indoctrination. You may not expect to learn this, but that is actually the truth in my case.

The one who claims that the universe is an accident.

Is this not typical for an atheist?

The one who hates God.

Ok, but I would rather investigate the full extent of the meaning in this. It seems to potentially have some truth, if not for a majority of atheists, then a significant proportion. Perhaps the most vocal and blatant proportion, that causes a misconception like you have in the converse.

The one who is the major cause of sexual deviance and sexually transmitted diseases.

I would not accept the word "cause" because we know the cause is natural, but rather I would suggest that Christians are expressly much less comfortable with sexual deviance than atheists. Do you know the percentage of people who have been turned off from Christianity because of it's views on sexuality? Take it further, how many people become atheist with this as their primary (even if suppressed) motivator? (eg, polygamy, homosexuality, masturbation, fornication, marriage, or even lust?).

STD is a consequence of increased risks, so we would need to seriously investigate whether atheism is responsible for increasing those risks when compared to some other discipline. Do you think there could possibly be some truth in that allegation? I believe there could be some truth in the opposite way, due to beliefs against protections, frustrations resulting in underground activities etc.

The ones who just want to sin more.

This could be a malformed expression. I think if the people who said this were pressed to explain, they would probably accept that everyone must achieve a comfort with their sinfulness. Those who pursue Christianity for this purpose will usually find comfort in being forgiven. Usually that comes with conditions, for example repenting and turning away from the sin. Some people find comfort instead by adjusting their definition of sin. These approaches are not mutually exlusive, eg some atheists have said to effect that if there is a god to judge them, then that god should understand that they did their best. They are expecting some forgiveness and that gives them the necessary comfort. Some Christians for example, might say instead that two people sworn to each other even without formal mariage ceremony but all intentions, are not fornicators. They are adjusting the definition of sin, and that gives them the necessary comfort. For a Christian to observe that an atheist shifts their definition of sin to achieve the necessary comfort, they might express this as thinking that the atheist likes to sin more. But really, humans just all suffer some desire to sin that makes them uncomfortable sometimes, and we all need to find ways to cope with it.

These don't refer to actual atheists, but hypothetical atheists, like we see in "God's not dead" to convince Christians that atheists are horrible, wicked people that you should hate. And as a result you do. Not because you know anything about us, our experience, or our point of view, but because modern Christianity teaches that you know everything "because I said so."

You seem to be speaking to me as though I am someone else. Thanks, I will get hold of that movie.

You are a Christian, you do not have any view of the atheist perspective at any time. You have a strawman.

Why?

Exactly. Why would you? You have been fed a narrative designed to remind you how much you hate atheists. You only know the strawman atheist.

Not true, I know a handful of real life atheists. I think you are one, but I doubt that sometimes.

Actually, I have not been fed a narrative to remind me how much I hate atheists, you are making that up. I have through my life, had influence from people who have represented Christianity in a positive way, as a positive thing, and I have received a lot of information from that experience that I have been able to see in a perspective of being true. I was not always able to see it that way though. I am pretty certain that you have some idea in mind of me that is quite different from the truth.

Let's put it to a test: From the atheist perspective, what do we believe to be true that you do not? What claim do we make that could be true at all?

Ok, generally and by defintion, an atheist will rather decide that God is most likely not true whereas I have always chosen to believe that God most likely is true. Atheist's claim all sorts of things that are true, and like any finite/limited human, are prone to making claims that aren't true. What is the purpose of this test?

No, it very clearly hasn't.

Why do you believe this? Please explain.

What is this? Is this a Christian telling other Christians that non-Christians are reckless, wild living people who hate you, and this is taken as proof that Christians are getting the same treatment as us? Is this supposed to convince me that Christians don't hate us? This is the very narrative I'm talking about.

Not intended for that purpose. What I intended was to show you that because of someone being offended that you don't like what they like (ie, Christians who are offended that you don't find the value that they find in their doctrines), then they become abusive. This was relevant to me last week, because I have found that very same thing, though it was not wild, reckless living, it was that I chose not to pursue their interests in wealth. This was a statement that St Paul wrote to Timothy, in the New Testament. As such, Timothy's circumstances appear that he had decided to not join his friends in wild, reckless living, and as a result, those friends had turned on him, speaking about him abusively. I mustadmit, I don't know the full story surrounding this, but St Paul's observation appeared to contain some useful truth, relevant to me, on my mind at the time, and what I thought could be useful for you to consider too. The quote by Jesus was to remind you of the point of view that the Christians would have when you disrespect their values. Then I asked you whether you think you can see a pattern, of abuse being a response to being offended. It would be nice to know that you have seen what I meant, please give it some fair thought.

I would like to be open about the fact that I do not believe in a God, but I can't. I have to lie, all the time. Why? I might get attacked again. I might see my career stall. I have no I idea how my son will be treated as a result. All because of the hatred inside Christianity.

Yes, I pity you. I have never seen anything like it. I have though been promptly excluded from a job opportunity for saying that I enjoy discussing Christianity online. I don't know how I would handle your circumstances. I make no judgement. I have seen that there is quite often disadvantage for being honest. In fact, that is a well known principle of survival in this world.

You may have to define attitude for me then, as these statements say that nothing is more important than belief.

So I have sent some examples to you in a PM, and for those watching, I will just say that I gave some specific examples of behaviours that are justified by belief, but those beliefs cause people to act irrationally. I have withdrawn this statement since it singles out a specific group of people to which I don't identify, and then goes to describe that I think they are wrong. Then later I was shown that I would be inviting judgement with the same measure, so it's better to just avoid pointing to specific people, because really everyone can be pointed at for something.

So then I think it is better to address directly the scriptures in question, those I have submitted to JGG and those he has submitted to me, and see if I can show how attitude is important. Then I may conclude to show how belief is something else.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, (9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

St Paul here is addressing some Christians in Ephesus, who he is explaining as Gentiles, they have been offered the hope of resurrection with the Jews, and inheritance of a place in God's kingdom. St Paul explains in the verses that follow, especially verse 14, that the Gentiles were invited and accepted by God and the Christian Jews, to worship as Gentiles. St Paul speaks of this in very strong terms, as the Gentiles having formerly been "lost" (as they were considered "unclean" by Jews, and thus prevented from engaging in the worship of God alongside them). St Paul is addressing the Christian Gentiles' attitude, reminding them to stay humble rather than to boast of their salvation, since there is nothing that they have done that could have brought this about. St Paul reminds them in verse 8 that Jesus has achieved all this for them, and that this was a gift from God. In saying this, St Paul is encouraging an attitude of gratitude, and that of wanting to share the gift. You may observe that this is not effectively reflected in the attitudes of some who have received the gift. Perhaps St Paul was aware of this tendency, which must be quite a basic human tendency, and is writing directly to these Christian friends to explain to them that they should be careful to monitor their attitude about this.

Galatians 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

In this verse, when going about explaining the attitude it is encouraging, I can see the first most obvious observation is that of a belief. That is, to believe that the law could "guard" a person from sin, and Jesus Christ can free us from it. So I began to investigate why this belief exists, and what Paul's understanding of sin, law, Jesus Christ must be. It becomes apparent that whether law or Christ, the one who practices the faith is trying to be justified in God's view even though they are sinners. What is this "justification"? I see that it is one's own sense of peace with God, which was firstly instituted by satisfying legal requirements, but as we can see in the eventuated Christian teaching, the freedom to know that our sins will be forgiven if we live in obedience to Him. You can see a contrast between law and Christian faith, in that law is individual's interpretation of defined decree, whereas obedience to Christ Jesus is more reasonable and loose, tailored to each individual and situation. You can see this Christian attitude in a lot of St Paul's philosophy (for example, eating of meat sacrifieced to idols is ok for some but not others), and for an example of Jesus' own attitude, when His disciples were accused of breaking Sabbath law by eating wheat as they strolled the field. There is a difference to be observed in the attitude there, whereby one type of person is trying to trap and condemn another using law, while another is trying to free someone of their feeling of sinfulness using forgiveness and providing examples of why it is reasonable. Attitudes are very prevalent in this matter, when we look at what it is all about.

Romans 4:1 - Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

This will be a very interesting point to look at, probably the best, and it will require a thorough, proper understanding of what faith is. This is important, fundamental, since what St Paul claims faith to be is in his reckoning the justification we have through our Lord, that gives us peace with God. Then, what is faith? for one thing, it is a confidence we have about what we hope for. It is worthwhile putting here that although atheist's demonstrate a lack of such confidence, it does not mean they don't have the hope. This is a description of faith submitted by St Paul in Hebrews 11. The other part of his definition is assurance of what we do not see. This might mean a few things, when considered in isolation, and not least of which is the uncanny nature of things such as coincidence. While this sort of faith might be uncomfortable for some people, who might think of it as paranoia or suspicion, it is an integral requirement of faith that we do trust our suspicion of attributing things to God rather than conflicting attributions such as coincidence. That is a hallmark of faith. So to someone who attributes things to God when they feel it is right to, and who is confident of the things they hope for (ie, a person having faith), they naturally feel justified due to their belief in what Jesus has accomplished. That justification produces in them a peace with God, which can only be achieved if someone is comfortable with their state of sinfulness in His opinion. Then I can see this is a good example of a Christian belief. Likewise, you will need to accept something that I will show you next, that demonstrates that someone's belief or faith is not necessarilly a qualification for salvation (resurrection to everlasting life), according to Jesus' definition. That is where attitude becomes what I have described as being more important than belief.


Let's look at the examples I provided, to see why I think Jesus is more concerned with attitude than belief:

Luke 10:25 (Parable of the good Samaritan)

This is a direct question asked to Jesus by a man who was enquiring of Him "what must I do to inherit eternal life?". Therefore, it directly addresses salvation on Jesus' terms.

The first observation I make here, is Jesus did not tell the man what he must believe. He did not present a formula, or even quote a law. Instead, His action was to ask the man, to challenge the man to listen to his own conscience. This is His response:

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

Can you see here that Jesus is not telling the man what to believe? Can you see that Jesus is effectively telling the man to look closely at what he already knows? In this way, Jesus is actually encouraging the man to pursue the truth, to do so honestly, to even force the man to acknowlede what he knows and to realise that he is suppressing it. You know what happens. The next part I want to point out is this:

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Can you see here too that in Jesus' own opinion, and in the opinion of the man who was challenged to be honest, the criteria for eternal life is not some belief, but some attitude. First of all we need to have the right attitude toward God. We need to love Him. If we don't love God, you know how difficult it is to be at peace with Him, to want to please and obey Him. Notice this: it is an attitude, not a belief. The next part is exactly the same in that sense, that we should love our neighbour as ourself. This too is an attitude rahter than a belief, because what it produces is a desire to make others pleased with us. If that attitude was practised perfectly, there would not be any resentment period. Only when someone treats another to displease them, is resentment formed.

That ties in perfectly to the other scripture I quoted, which again is Jesus' own definition of criteria for salvation:

(Matthew 25:31) - Jesus comes, separates those of appropriate and inappropriate attitude, and takes those fit for the kingdom to eternal life.'

Notice the explicit criteria as Jesus has said:


40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Can you see here, that Jesus makes no mention whatsoever of faith or belief being necessary for salvation? In both of these examples actually, Jesus has expressely stated that He judges people fit for everlasting life based on the way they treat others. That is clear evidence from the judge Himself, to suggest that He does view attitude more important than belief. If you know of any statements of similar effectiveness to the contrary, I certainly would like to see them.

The reason I say therefore that attitude is more important than belief, is because at the end of the day, salvation is about resurrection to an everlasting life as opposed to everlasting destruction. For that society to function well, it requires members to have a suitable attitude. I suggest the attitude is more important than belief, because what belief implies is that someone has chosen to make opinions that affect their behaviours based on what is inevitably limited information. Beliefs can be and frequently are wong. In contrast, someone with a suitable attitude will make decisions and behave based on what they reckon to be best at the time. In making the decision, they will consider their own beliefs, and the circumstances, and which potential decision is most likely to produce an outcome they prefer. Someone with a poor attitude (eg, unfit for sustainable everlasting life) will make a decision this way. Whereas what we see in Jesus' descriptions is that someone with the attitude He approves of (those to be brought into everlasting life), will also consider other people's beliefs, circumstances and will prefer the potential decision that is most likely to produce a preferred outcome for every party.

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On


Thread closed permanently for being off topic.

Mod Hat Off
​