I wonder what it will be tonight. Only a few hours to the big unveil!!!
“…I can understand how one might find it the most sensible approach to the puzzling things about the world and the surest defense against insanity.”
I can’t. Atheism is intellectually bankrupt and any meaning they get out of their poor worldview is simply by the grace of God who “[does] good by giving [us] rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying [our] hearts with food and gladness” and “richly provides us with everything to enjoy” (Acts 14:17; 1 Tim. 6:17).
So I don't think it's fair to caricature the atheist as you have.
I would maintain that the only reason it is a caricature is because atheists are inconsistent. So, in a sense, it’s not really a caricature at all.
Do you think it's any wonder that atheists don't want to become Christians when they see us as being snarky, smug, and self-righteous?
Actually, Scripture tells us why atheists don’t want to become Christians: because they hate the light of Christ which exposes their works (John 3:16-21). Look, I’m not saying that we should be self-righteous etc. and I agree that those things are a real turn off. But to quote the Bible where it calls them fools is not being self-righteous, smug, or snarky. The fact is, they are.
Why do we have to go around finding Bible verses to bash them with?
LOL, seriously? That’s like saying that if I tell someone they are a sinner deserving hell (believe I’ve talked to a lot of atheists and Buddhists, etc. and they find the very idea to be an insult) that I’m bashing them… Sorry, but I do find your remark, within the context, to be a bit ridiculous.
But it's bad for our own souls let alone those of prospective disciples we might win to Christ if we go around gloating over those who don't know God (yet).
Honestly, who are you speaking to? I wouldn’t categorizeanything that has been said in this forum as “gloating” over the lost.
But if you would like an example of where that might befound, try 1 Kings 18:27: “And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, ‘Cry aloud,for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on ajourney, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.’” So your rebukes wouldbetter be sent to Elijah than anything I’ve seen in this thread.
Yes, I know, if you believe the ones predestined to find Christ will find him anyway regardless of how we behave towards them, then I suppose it doesn't matter…
This looks like a roundabout lazy man fallacy.
Remember: there but for thegrace of God go we. We must act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly withGod. (Micah6:8.) Let us not take away the key to knowledge or hinder others fromentering the kingdom. (Luke11:52)
Of course I don’t disagree with any of that. But apparently, if you think that anything that was said in this forum was an offense to that, we interpret what that will look like in very different ways.
If 80% of the people around me believed something I did not it might be time to reevaluate my beliefs.
Hi,
You know, as I have watched these forums this last week (my first time)I am touched by how quickly each one of you back off from one anotherwhen you feel that an offense has been taken. I just saw it in actiononce again with Rosie. Thank you. You honor your Lord by doing so.
As far as atheists go, the Word of God speaks for Itself.
Romans 1 (which I'm sure you all know very well). He says He (personally) has made that which is known about God evident to man - evident and clearly seen- they know that He is God and deserves to be honored and thanked as God and they know about His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and His divine nature. Yet they have suppressed the truth about God, they have exchanged the Truth about God (that God made them clearly understand) for a lie
If they exchange the light God has given them for darkness, they continue down a spiral to final depravity of mind - they can no longer understand. Those who call themselves atheists are either
a.) those who know God (what God has revealed to them) but lie and say they don't know what God says they know,
b.) those who are suppressing the truth God has given them and are on their way down the spiral staircase to final depravity,
c.) those who have reached the bottom of the spiral and now, finally, are what could possibly be considered atheists because they no longer have the capacity to understand.
When it comes to atheists, I don't believe them. :-) I believe God. It doesn't take long in witnessing to discover where someone is on God's downward slope. And then I can adjust what I need to say to them from His Word - if they reject God, then I must accept that and move on.
Just a thought...
Sharon
When it comes to atheists, I don't believe them. :-) I believe God. It doesn't take long in witnessing to discover where someone is on God's downward slope. And then I can adjust what I need to say to them from His Word - if they reject God, then I must accept that and move on. Just a thought... Sharon
In general, I would agree, as far as "adjusting what I need to say" is concerned. And there are times, I believe, when the hard word needs to be said. My problem is that some are too quick to pull that trigger. And it is used proudly and often. And much bloodshed is left in their wake. (metaphorically speaking). Again, i look to how Jesus deals with outsiders and sinners. He will confront them--often (and he is probably better at that then most of us), but he still communicates love. (Think, Rich Young Ruler, prostitute, etc).
Many who use the 'FOOL' type approach slam the door of communication before it gets a chance to be opened--and I am implicating none on this thread, I just use the "fool" image as "shorthand" for the abrupt way atheists or others are described and/or dealt with. Quoting prophetic language that is strong may be "from the Bible" but it may not be the way God would deal with individuals or groups right away. Again, i look to the model of Jesus.
I remember a Chicago "Southsider" friend of mine (italian, rough neighborhood, etc) who moved downstate, whose landlord was openly gay. This friend of mine used to have a hostile attitude, but he had matured enough to take a different approach, inviting the man and his partner to dinner with his own wife, etc. Long story short, the gay landlord commented (this happend 10 or 15 years ago, I forget the exact words) that this was the first time he'd been treated more "normal' or with "friendship" by a christian that he could remember. I don't know if he ever converted, but that approach opened doors of conversation. They (gay couple) knew the stance of my friend and his wife--they didn't compromise their view--but he also perceived they respect/loved him as a human with value, one that God sent his Son (out of love) to die for.
Let's err on that side. . .
As a caveat, I will state upfront that I'm not necessarily saying that anything here is wrong. Mainly, I'm just trying to give a balancing perspective.
And there are times, I believe, when the hard word needs to be said. My problem is that some are too quick to pull that trigger. And it is used proudly and often. And much bloodshed is left in their wake. (metaphorically speaking). Again, i look to how Jesus deals with outsiders and sinners. He will confront them--often (and he is probably better at that then most of us), but he still communicates love. (Think, Rich Young Ruler, prostitute, etc).
The problem I have with these types of conversations is that they are usually very two dimensional. Did Jesus communicate love? Yes. Should we communicate love? Yes. But what does that look like? Is that all there is to it? "Love" is like what the philosopher Jamie Whyte calls "Hooray words" because they are used ambiguously. They can mean anything to anyone. Are you for justice? Who isn't... Mussolini, Gandhi, Machiavelli... Look, we're all for peace, love, and justice. We just disagree about what those things look like.
Assuming most people here will agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality, you should recognize that the culture will think you and the Bible are UNLOVING because you condemn it (why can't you just let two people love each other in peace?!). What about when Jesus chased the money changers out with a whip... show that to an unbeliever and ask him if that fits his concept of love. What about when Jesus called religious leaders a brood of vipers, etc. Show that to an unbeliever and ask them if such name calling is loving. Of course, we think we have easy ways of shrugging such things off. Like, for instance, we say "yeah but that was the *religious leaders*" Well, so what? A smart atheist will just say, "So what? So it's okay to discriminate and start name calling and abusing religious people?"
Quoting prophetic language that is strong may be "from the Bible" but it may not be the way God would deal with individuals or groups right away. Again, i look to the model of Jesus.
And what was "the" model of Jesus? One minute he asks someone for a drink of water, the next minute he implicitly refers to someone as a dog. I think Jesus' approach was more dynamic and not always what we would expect in our sensitive (Christian) culture.
This I actually agree wholeheartedly with. For instance, there is nothing wrong with anger per se, but I'm not sure I know the proper limits and expressions of it. So it's better for me to just wait till I'm cooled down instead of trying to "use my anger productively". But I think we need to be careful between refraining from a thing because we aren't sure we can handle it properly and coming to view the thing as inherently evil.
I mean, heaven forbid an atheist should happen to randomly open the Bible to Psalm 14:1 or Titus 1:12 or Matthew 15:26 or ... and have his poor sensibilities hurt. Maybe we should have two different Bible version: one that we give to unbelievers with all the "love" and "hug" verses and then one we give to them after their conversion with all the "Get over it" verses. Maybe God didn't think about the fact that an unbeliever, like Dan Barker (part of the Freedom from Religion Foundation), might happen upon those passages by himself and get offended or else he would have nixed them.
John,
there is plenty of "offensive language" in the Bible (my goodness, take a look at a specific passage in Ezekiel about a donkey). And I agree we Xians sometimes get all "soft" and need an edge.
The point being, however, that we are too quick to pull out the guns. And often those pulling out the guns really don't give a crap about those they are yelling and picketing against. (extreme example: that one church that travels to funerals of soldiers with signs using vulgar terms denouncing homosexuals, etc)
The image that we (conservative Xians/evangelicals) have cultivated is frequently a combative or flaky one. That image is not always correct (I know many who are only semi-flaky, lol) but it is formed in part because that is our M.O: draw the line in the sand, publicly denounce, shun, send alarmist letters to supporters . . . without being balanced with personal, neighborly, behind-the-scenes love for people who are lost and need (perhaps) a friend to show them the way.
There are times and places for boldness and frank talk. But we are also called to reach out to a lost humanity with words and actions that are gentle and offering life. And really, to leave vengeance to the Lord in his timing.
there is plenty of "offensive language" in the Bible (my goodness, take a look at a specific passage in Ezekiel about a donkey).
. . . maybe it's a horse. I just have never memorized that passage. [:#]
I would maintain that the only reason it is a caricature is because atheists are inconsistent.
It is my observation that most atheists have a very strong definition of "God". Most of the time, I can tell them with complete honesty that if that was my definition of God, I would be atheist or agnostic. To be fair, many Christians have a definition of "God" I find equally unsatisfactory - and I often find them as difficult to deal with.
The point being, however, that we are too quick to pull out the guns.
The problem is is that I find your "we" to be too ambiguous. I specifically know of some people that I think would fall into this category, but I also can think of specific persons who fall into the opposite category, the "wuv" category. They preach Jesus wuvs you and we should all just wuv each other and whatnot... the problem is that they have defined "love" in a way that isn't any closer to the biblical picture than those in the "pull out the guns" category. And if I were to take say from my own experience which is more prolific in todays society, it is the wuvers.
(extreme example: that one church that travels to funerals of soldiers with signs using vulgar terms denouncing homosexuals, etc)
That's a cult and as I recall his "church" is really just about a dozen of his family members... not really a good example of the Church...
We need to ask whether that is that the image we are projecting or simply the image the lost are perceiving. In the former case, it's our problem and we need to fix it. In the latter case, it's simply because the gospel is foolishness and a stumbling block. We can't really do anything about that. There will always be unbelievers who view Christians as narrow minded, hateful, flaky, and combative simply because that's their view of the truth.
There are times and places for boldness and frank talk. But we are also called to reach out to a lost humanity with words and actions that are gentle and offering life
That's sort of the point I was trying to make. However I'm also stressing the fact that there was more to Jesus (and the other Bible writers) than the "gentle" wuviness (cf. my examples below). Lets be imitators rather than cherry pickers (with my previous caveats).
And really, to leave vengeance to the Lord in his timing.
Huh? When did we get onto the topic of vengeance?
I'm not really sure what your point is. But I don't think that when atheists read the Bible and discover God for who he really is rather than their false image, they will exactly line up to become Christians... Like I said, John 3...
It's a problem to find the right balance isn't it. On the one hand, we have the Jesus loves everyone approach which taken to its extreme results in tolerance for everyone and everything - on the other we have the legalist approach which tends to lead to condemnation. I think we would all agree that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Where we lie on that continuum may well be determined by our giftings. The one who has the gift of mercy will tend to the former, the one with a prophetic gifting will tend to the latter. Probably none of us have the Christlike balance, but the balance can likely be found in the body itself.
I knew when Joe started this thread it would turn into a fight about Christian charity! ... so typical.
Jesus said. I did not come to judge the world, I came to save it..
Is Christmas a word that should be avoided in thread titles?
Romans 1:18–20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
I have not posted further since things flared up, though I've been following the discussion. I am sorry if anything I said caused people to start going at each other's throats. That was not my intent at all. I suggest we cool it and leave this subject alone. There are evidently strong feelings about it on both sides, and we won't resolve our differences by hashing them out here where we cannot see each other's faces or hear each other's tones of voice. It's probably one of those things where we'll have to agree to disagree. At least for now. There are indeed models in Scripture for both harsh calls for repentance and the gentle inviting touch. The truth is that it's not either/or but both/and. We all probably also have skewed caricatures in our minds (based on past experience, no doubt) of what the other model than our preferred one looks like when practiced by our fellow believers. So probably none of us is completely right, and we need to admit that and be thankful that it doesn't take "being right" to get into heaven. And let me forestall right now a whole 'nother spate of arguing about whether anyone can be less than 100% right while not being 100% wrong...I unintentionally set people off on that rabbit trail in another thread... It's already been done to death. OK?[:)]
Yeah it is all Joe's fault, or John's, or Rosie's, or Matthew's....
How come the atheists get to spit on Jesus at Christmas and all the Christ-followers blame each other? The atheists did not pick a fight with disciples of Christ, they picked a fight with God
Let us all agree to pray for a spiritual awakening in Seattle. That is a response we can be sure God approves of.
why drag my name into this silliness.
"Cause John said he knew this would result when he saw your post.. [6] And if I didn't pad my name with the lot of you, I would be standing there all alone. [:$]
If the atheists can't stand the heat, let them stay off the busses!
why drag my name into this silliness. "Cause John said he knew this would result when he saw your post.. And if I didn't pad my name with the lot of you, I would be standing there all alone.
"Cause John said he knew this would result when he saw your post.. And if I didn't pad my name with the lot of you, I would be standing there all alone.
Huh? I didn't know you posted the image... I was referring to your opening post. Of course, that was just a reference to a joke someone made to Randy in the other Christmas thread.
Huh? I didn't know you posted the image...
