To me, the most plausible argument against the existence of God is this. No, that is not a parody site. And I'm serious. My moods when I am most tempted to disbelieve in God occur when I come across crushing stupidity in Christianity. I start thinking of Christians as "them" instead of "us."
I found the link at the site, Stupid Church People. It is the blog of two pastors who started off making fun of all the silly crap in evangelicalism, eventually despaired of the silliness, fakeness, and hypocrisy of evangelicalism, left the church environment entirely to find more authentic spirituality, and ended up renouncing the faith altogether. Read this post and realize that the very things this pastor is talking about eventually killed his faith. I find this stuff fascinating because in my opinion, evangelicalism is deadly. Yes, millions grow up in it just fine, learn to know Christ there, etc. But there are many who get caught in the eddies of everything wrong with it, and it is in those vortices that anything and everything that would incline them to pay attention to anything called "Christianity" is sucked right out of them.
I see Lutherans flirting with this stuff, and it scares me. Yes, the American Lutheranism has its problems, problems with discipleship, problems with missions, and problems with keeping the kids around when they grow up. But looking to evangelicalism, the church growth movement, and all that stuff for the answer is like trying to solve your emotional problems by doing drugs. It's not worth it. It doesn't have the answers. I'm not sure it has any answers. We don't want to create that same kind of culture in the LCMS for any reason.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
A Major Argument Against God
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Josh,
One of the strongest arguments FOR God, IMO, is the people factor, e.g., look at the people He chooses. Paul, Peter, David, Abraham (liar), Jacob, Noah (drunk), Augustine, me. Yes, the foolishness that is passed off as Christianity is just that, foolishness. But the fact that God chooses fallen people like us is the greatest argument for Christianity there is. It is what it is because the actions of people, regardless of what those in evangelical circles might claim, have little bearing on salvation. It is not because I do the right things -- because I don't -- that gains my salvation; it is the death of Christ and the redemption He bought for me that does. No other religion in the world makes that claim. All other religions are "do this"; only Christianity is "this happened."
"Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (Ps. 20:7)
Scott
I am a little unclear on what exactly you were referring to. If you meant GodTube in general, I agree that it is stupid. However, if you were referring to a particular post at GodTube, I don't know which it was.
They shall know we are Christians by our idiocy.
But didn't those two pastors endanger their faith when they created a blog to mock their brothers?
Don't you see, Josh?
If you just replace all of your materialistic lust for worldly things with lust for Christian (tm) worldly things, than God likes you and wants to be your friend.
That's the message of the Gospel, right?
Greg, it is the very idea that the Internet needs a Christianized version of YouTube. I mean, for Pete's sake. It's just so...embarrassing.
And yes, John, I think they did. A running thread throughout the blog is "evangelicalism = the growth movement = the Church." There is zero sense that evangelicalism is radically disconnected from almost anything that happened in the Church from 100 to 1800.
Sorry, David, I accidentally deleted your comment. I certainly hope you don't think I mean that atheism, divorce, and bitterness are a better alternative to evangelicalism, as though the LCMS should adopt an atheist creed rather than fall into the pits of what is popular among evangelicals. What I mean to point out is that this "church growth" stuff can push people to be a thousand times worse off than they were before.
That's ok, Josh. And no , I didn't think you were saying what the Stupid Church Guys have turned into is a better alternative to evangelicalism .
What I was trying to communicate is that I find it amazing the excuses people will find to run away from God. Not everyone who lives through kooky fundamentalism turns out that way. Those guys chose that path . They may have lived previously among the Stupid Church People , but now as the Stupid(er) Non-Church people I can't imagine how they think they're better off . Trading "The Purpose Driven Life" (fluff) for "The God Delusion" (poison) isn't trading up . Leaving behind "Left Behind" to embrace "Letter to a Christian Nation" isn't the only alternative. They gave up too soon.
I sometimes wonder if people like these guys were always in the back of their mind looking for a way out and their focusing on the idiotic aspects of evangelical culture was the way they justified their leaving ? If you can demonize your former community then it's much easier to leave.
Again, I agree with you that it is playing with the worst kind of fire for a historically confessional Church like LC-MS to flirt with the evangelical church-growth happy-clappy stuff. I'm genuinely sorry that these Stupid Church People bloggers probably never even considered something like an LC-MS parish because their worldview had already been conditioned to reject traditional , liturgical churches out of hand. (those are the frozen chosen , the "dead" orthodox . We just know that can't be the "authentic" New Testament Church) . Or worse yet , what if they did try visiting an LC-MS parish and it was one that had adopted a Willow Creek/Community Church of Joy approach and they're thinking as they run out the door : "Hell, it's exactly the same crap I left behind at Lakeview Community Bible Fellowship . No thanks." ?
Re-reading what I just wrote I realize that I sound like I'm angry at them (by calling them Stupid Non-Church people) and I'm really not . I'm heartbroken . I'm angry at the evangelical weirdness that gives people the nudge towards God-hating and I'm angry at the God-haters (the Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens types) who so readily supply them with slick , superficial "reasons" for why they are right to reject everything about Christ , rather than seeing that Christ isn't about all that junk they were leaving .
Rambling. Sorry.
So, yeah, basically I agree with everything you wrote.
I'm one of those people who grew up in evangelical denominations only to find myself in the margins. You can only fake belonging to a faith group for so long until you yourself become fake. I finally realized that's what I was doing about six months ago.
My wife and I left our former church (on good terms, and for more logistic reasons than theological) and after spending 2-3 months visiting one evangelical church after the next, I finally came to the realization that *I'm not an evangelical*. I don't share the same beliefs and attitudes and outlook and culture as these folks. That doesn't make them bad; but it does make it bad when I try to force myself into being one of them.
We started attending an LCMS church just on a recommendation, and I found a real home in the confessional Lutheran approach to things, where there is tradition without human-worship and a fervent faith in God without the mindless emotion of so many evangelicals. However, even our church, which has some financial trouble right now but is otherwise in good shape, is starting to let in those mega-church influences, and it makes me worried. I left evangelicalism precisely to get away from this stuff.
David, they think they're better off because anyone who changes his mind about anything thinks he was better off than before, since if he were to think that his previous beliefs were better than his current, he would still hold them.
In any case, right when they left the church, there is still genuine faith expressed in those blog posts. What you see, though, is this belief at the same time that the Church, Christianity as such, strictly identified with megachurch evangelicalism, has "failed," so the authentic way of following Jesus is to be found outside of it. So they left. And died a few months later. Even in the worst of that evangelical circus, there is still something of Christ. But alone, you have nothing.
Funny, I once knew a Christian so kooky I had to stop listening to him because I kept finding myself thinking, "If what you're saying is Christianity I have to tell you Bub, I don't believe a word of it and can't believe you do either. Your arguments are nonsense, and when's the last time you did a reality-check or a perspective-check? Leave me alone!!!"
I've spent a good amount of time with ex-Christians on various message boards, and a lot of them said that their trip to atheism began with a legitimate question that received a series of increasingly strained and goofy answers until they just walked away in disgust.
On that cheerful note ...
;)
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Hi - I am Steve from Stupid Church People... and you all vastly over simplify my journey.
I enjoy reading here the summary of my journey in a few sentences when you really don't know me. It definitely gives me a sense of how those I criticize might feel when they read what I have written about me...and it always makes my skin a little thicker to the criticisms.
For example, John writes:
But didn't those two pastors endanger their faith when they created a blog to mock their brothers? Well, John that's just BS. The site is not based on mocking anyone...except we have spent some time making fun of the same things like GODTUBE or the televangelists, etc. But that's a minimum part to what I've written. If you spent 5 minutes reading my blog and didn't just judge it on it's name you would know that. You have NO idea how many people I have heard from each and every week that find encouragement from knowing that they aren't alone in feeling alone within the church.
And David: I certainly considered and attended more traditional and liturgical churches... and found great inspiration and meaning there. I even posted about it somewhere along the line. But in my opinion, it's still like pouring new wine into old wineskins. All churches and denominations are about perpetuating the organization at all costs...even faith.
Unlike you David, I am not angry at the evangelical church as you describe (I have often defended it)... it is doing what it thinks is best just as you liturgical types are. Rick Warren has it right... "it takes all types of churches to reach all types of people".... how can you be angry with that.
As my college professor said... "if I can destroy a persons faith, then it wasn't much of a faith to begin with".
And Josh S... you seem to think you know me so well. Please tell me... what died?? How do you know what's going on in my heart. I can tell you I am searching for truth and last time I read the Bible, it didn't say it was only found by hanging out at church. I am more than the sum of my blog posts....just as you are more than the sum of your comments about me. You come off as an arrogant know it all, but I am sure you are a nice guy with plenty to offer. Why can't my journey be seen as just that.. a work in progress.
So after reading what has been written here... why should I see the LCMS as any different than the evangelical movement. Both are the same thing, just a different flavor. You think you are somewhat better than the Saddleback's or Willow's of the world and you proclaim so here quite plainly... you equate them to "doing drugs". You say they don't have the answers.
I guess that depends on the questions.
So please... let's dialogue. Ask me anything you want. Let's get to know one another and learn from each other (of course I doubt you think you have much to learn from me). Unlike a lot of pastors that have visited my site, I won't run away from criticism... I welcome and invite it. But it's a two way street and I am looking forward to it.
P.S. Anne: I like what you wrote. Of all...it rings of truth for me. Thank you for that insight.
Steve, it is inevitable that a single sentence summarizing several years of someone's life is going to leave out significant details. Maybe I was confused, but I thought you had become an atheist, perhaps an agnostic, or entirely given up the Christian faith, or something along those lines. So, given a certain definition of the word "faith," if that is the case, it's indeed accurate to say your faith is has died. But if that's not the case, I'm sorry for misreading your blog. In any case, I suppose you could say "Who are you to say what faith is or isn't?" but at some point, words must be well-defined within a community in order to even be meaningful. So, I'm using the word in the context of my own community in the way that is common to us, and the definition we use is trust in the crucified and risen Son of God as your righteousness. I'm not saying that you're no truth-seeker or not genuine or anything like that. It's just that "faith" means something very definite to us, and given that we as a church give central theological attention to "justification by faith," it is quite natural that we should use the word in a definite way without redefining every time someone else wants us to use it differently. So I don't mean offense, and if it's of any comfort, Rome objects just as vigorously to our definition of faith, if not more so.
Anyway, regarding Lutheranism, a number of us, myself included, were driven here by the church growth movement and found something so different that it almost felt like an entirely different religion. Surely there must be something different. That's not to say you don't find some of the same garbage you get any time you get people in power or having control of large sums of money. But from my own perspective, I don't see how it's the "same thing," unless by the "same thing," you mean that it's still a defined group of people of some sort with the necessary characteristics that groups of people have, especially as it is a group committed to certain truth claims and thus believes that contrary claims are untrue.
Josh... to be clear, I haven't declared anything. Certainly I have openly questioned just about everything...so depending on when you tuned in or what you happened to read it's easy to understand any confusion.
Apparently you are comfortable making declarations regarding someone's faith from afar (you said mine is dead)... I can only imagine what you do to the people around you. It's really irrelevant what I say about my faith, you will judge me as you choose. But I run a public site so I am not immune to your opinions. Would you feel differently about me if I said my faith was alive and strong... I doubt you would believe me and I would most likely have to prove it to you in some manner beyond my simple words.
But to what you believe about faith, correct me if I am wrong, but don't you believe that God is the giver of faith in regards to salvation... it's really no decision of mine in the first place. And as we know from Scripture...not all those who declare faith will be granted eternal life anyway. It's quite a vague and mysterious game...this knowing who's in and who's out...isn't it?? At least on this side of heaven it appears to be unclear at times.
As to your journey...I certainly understand leaving something and feeling like the new thing is revolutionary. I left Texas in 1989 moving from conservative, Southern Baptist upbringing and pastoring to join the staff of Saddleback Church... and I never knew church could feel so free and pure. Well I won't go into the entire journey, but I get the "it feels like a whole new religion"...and in many ways it is. New paradigms, new blood...and excitement to be doing something so different from the norm for yourself.
What I meant by the "same thing" is as you mention. It's a sociological perspective that I am coming from...and the psychological effects of the group norms and mores. It's fairly powerful stuff...and dangerous. If your faith is dependent on the group to sustain it, what type of faith is it I wonder? Moving into nothing has been very revolutionary for me as well. Yes, I have exposed myself to books and authors and internal questions that I would have never asked were I attending church...and I am a stronger, more grounded and stable person for it.
Sorry for the long comments. I may not be a pastor any longer, but like one, sometimes I just don't know when to shut up. Thanks for listening and for the feedback.
Someone explain this - 'justification by faith'? Is it we are justified by our faith in God - so ie: heaven bound? Someone explain this doctrine so I can see what it's theological implications are.
Because what truly bothers me here is how Josh can call Steve's 'faith dead' and not be presuming something quite severe for him (at least Josh would know what that term means to himself and its severity or insulting nature)?
I also tend to agree w/Steve - no matter the church the same problems will emerge without a doubt and for the same reasons. Now the Lutheran church is nothing special (sorry to ruin people's underlying assumptions) - it's another cog in the denominational wheel - not much different theologically to many of the others and services that reflect the church 'norm'. And for some reason this denomination has it 'better than others'? Thats quite the stretch.
The key problems in all of these denominations can be taken down to very central theologies in the church: what the gospel means, what we mean by 'justification by faith', or importance of ritual to the faith. Once we start studying the results of what our church theologies mean and produce - only then can we decipher the problems in the whole body of Christ. I have come to see that 'what the church teaches' is the problem and this is where we all need to focus some atention - if we want to see faith bettered for all.
I don't know much about Lutheranism per se - but I know enough to know it is built upon the theology of Martin Luther? (Or why call it Lutherans - which is rather funny - Paul was quite adamant against doing this in one of his letters - being called someone's - 1 Cor 1:12) That being said, you aware Luther was anti-semitic right? You can take a short look at some their own words on a Jewish website: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/reformers.html
Food for thought more and less and questions.
Steve consistently declares that we are ALL stupid church people. Never once have I heard him use the phrase without including himself (and me, as well).
They didn't create the site "to mock their brothers". They created it to mock themselves... (their 'brothers' just happened to fit the bill)
Having been around SCP from almost the beginning, I can agree that this post has unfairly categorized stupidchurchpeople.com.
I suggest listening to some of the earliest podcasts... priceless.
jefe, are you under the impression that I write all these comments myself under pseudonymous identities?
societyvs: "Justification by faith" is that we are made righteous before God by trusting that Jesus, the crucified and risen Son of God, is our righteousness. Now I could be wrong, and Steve hasn't contradicted me, but he doesn't appear to believe in even the "death and resurrection" part of that any more. And if I'm wrong--perhaps I've conflated him and Josh--I would like to be corrected so I don't give any false impressions. If he at least still believes in the death and resurrection of Jesus, I won't say his faith is dead. But at some point, you have to say someone isn't a believer, and if someone can't even confess the Apostles' creed then no, he's not a believer.
Luther was anti-lots of people. An no, the Lutheran Church isn't built on Luther. There's a lot of history to the name. To make a long story short, it's the name the followers of the pope gave us, and it stuck. That's just how things roll sometimes. And yes, I've read On the Jews. I've probably read more Luther than you have. If you want some titillating stuff, I can come up with boatloads. Wait until you read what he said about bishops. His anti-episcopalism was far, far worse than his anti-Semitism. Scintillating!
Anyway, societyvs, you are exactly part of the problem. You think American Evangelicalism = Christianity. You appear to have absolutely zero concept of the history of the Christian faith and the political and sociological peculiarities that created American denominationalism and later evangelicalism. You think we share that identity because all groups of people are fundamentally the same (and fundamentally the problem--true authenticity comes from not being part of a group).
Anyway, more later.
“But at some point, you have to say someone isn't a believer, and if someone can't even confess the Apostles‘ Creed then no, he's not a believer.” (Josh)
Why do we have to have labels about ‘believer’ and ‘unbeliever’ exactly – and what dividing stick are you using exactly? I personally can say I don’t agree with the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed – and I have reasons for the things I don’t believe – but is my faith dead? If so, someone call me and tell me because my mind and heart still reflect (and live by) on the teachings of God. I think you are too into labels about what makes someone ‘in the faith’ and what removes someone ‘from the faith’ – when in the end – you don’t have that much of a say on it (only God does).
As for the ‘justification by faith’ idea – I have plenty of questions regarding that subject – namely on being justified via association/vicariousness – cause that’s how the idea comes off. How is it that a faith can teach this – doesn’t that take the honus off the believer of doing anything?
“And yes, I've read On the Jews. I've probably read more Luther than you have” (Josh)
Congrats on that! But the fact Luther was anti-semitic is not the same as being anti-bishops and structure…in case you haven’t noticed. So what did you think of ‘On the Jews’?
“societyvs, you are exactly part of the problem” (Josh)
I tend to think I am part of the solution (shows how different we view the world). I wonder if people thought Luther was a problem in his times when he asked for change and then sought it out? Don’t you find it strange the people that want to see the church ‘change’ are the same one’s still run out of it?
“You think American Evangelicalism = Christianity” (Josh)
No, I tend to think Christian denominations (all of them) = Christianity. Wasn’t I the one that called Lutheranism another cog in the ‘denominational wheel’?
“You appear to have absolutely zero concept of the history of the Christian faith and the political and sociological peculiarities that created American denominationalism and later evangelicalism” (Josh)
Zero concept – wow you cut to the judgmental chase don’t you? To be honest, I know church history quite well from the beginning we have in the actual NT writings, to the splinter groups in the East-West Roman Empire, the persecution era’s, Constantine’s unification of the faith, the development of the councils and theological results, then to the expansion, orthodox break-off, monks, Catholicism vs. Reformers, fleeing to America due to persecution, etc. I missed a lot (I know) – but that’s just off the top of my head with no books or anything around me.
“You think we share that identity because all groups of people are fundamentally the same (and fundamentally the problem--true authenticity comes from not being part of a group).” (Josh)
Fundamentally the same – are you all Christian denominations? If no, then what are all the various strands – not Christian? If not, please explain this.
True authenticity is from acknowledging you are part of the whole group – from one same book and God. Are not all denominations part of the ‘body of Christ’? Separation to Paul seems such a foreign concept – yet this is what you are trying to do. It seems you are saying the Lutherans are ‘one body of Christ’ and the Evangelicals are ‘another body of Christ’…but how can there be 2 bodies of the same person?
societyvs, a word that describes everything describes almost nothing. Thus, if truly everyone has Christian faith, then no one does, because "having Christian faith" doesn't actually mean anything.
I personally can say I don’t agree with the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed – and I have reasons for the things I don’t believe – but is my faith dead?
Yes. You're not a Christian. Maybe you're an Arian, or an Enlightentment Religious Person, but you're not a Christian.
If so, someone call me and tell me because my mind and heart still reflect (and live by) on the teachings of God.
Which god? Obviously, not the Holy Trinity. Having faith and in some alternative deity, perhaps that of Arius or Thomas Jefferson, is not Christian faith.
But the fact Luther was anti-semitic is not the same as being anti-bishops and structure…in case you haven’t noticed.
Luther wasn't anti-structure. He was pro-structure. I mean that he literally wrote that people should do even worse things to the bishops populating Germany than he said they should do to the Jews. His rantings against the anabaptist revolutionaries were even more extreme. So I don't see how it's any different. When a religious group ran afoul of Luther, he tended to blow his stack and write some pretty violent things. People think "On the Jews" is unique because they apparently don't appreciate the differences between 1535 and 1935.
Zero concept – wow you cut to the judgmental chase don’t you?
Well, considering how little understanding of the Reformation and American Christianity you have thus far demonstrated, your historical sense of being is way, way off.
What is this denominational wheel anyway, and how do I get to turn it? No one invited Lutherans to the Great American Denominational Hootenanny. I'm offended.
True authenticity is from acknowledging you are part of the whole group – from one same book and God.
Which book is this? Which god?
Separation to Paul seems such a foreign concept
Rom 16:17, Gal 1:8, 2 Tim 3:5
Ah, I forgot to say what I thought about On the Jews. I was quite surprised by it. Based on the PR it gets, I was expecting a proto-Nazi diatribe against an impure race. What I found instead was yet another theological tract from Luther concluding that people that deny the Christian faith should be run out of society. I was disappointed. I mean, how quintessentially and boringly medieval.
“if truly everyone has Christian faith, then no one does, because "having Christian faith" doesn't actually mean anything.” (Josh)
Why would something mean less cause everyone has it? We (that are alive) all breathe air – but that doesn’t cheapen its appeal for any of us – I would say we are all fairly happy all have ‘air’. Now God isn’t ‘air’ but He is a Spirit – and apparently we all have a ‘spirit’ – why should I think God is so distant from humanity…because a church deems this doctrine?
“Yes. You're not a Christian. Maybe you're an Arian, or an Enlightenment Religious Person, but you're not a Christian.” (Josh)
This is all too funny to be perfectly honest…neat little labelled boxes for each and every person that comes to the faith…as usual everyone is compared to orthodox belief systems that were firmly established after Constantine’s rule (which mind you – has nothing to do with American history and also the basis for more then just the Lutheran Church). I think it would also be fair to call you a Lutheranite and not a Christ-ian…based on your denominational leanings. Or a Nicene-ist? I would contend quite simply that being Christ-ian is following the teachings of the Christ plain and simple.
“Which god? Obviously, not the Holy Trinity. Having faith and in some alternative deity, perhaps that of Arius or Thomas Jefferson, is not Christian faith.” (Josh)
Of course not the Holy Trinity (3 in 1 God) – there is no such thing. Which begs the greatest question ever – are you a real Christ-ian (I do believe Jesus was a Jewish Monotheist) if you believe in the Trinitarian God? Or a Triune-theist? Now I am not taking an Orthodox Christian position on this – but a Jewish orthodox one – you know – the same one the writer’s of the NT would have had (following their first commandment which was given directly from God at Sinai – heck – even written into a rock by God’s own finger). You want to split hairs on theology about who is and isn’t a part of this faith – I can say quite plainly ‘there is only One God, the Lord God’…now can you or does your orthodox position on the Trinity not allow it?
“Well, considering how little understanding of the Reformation and American Christianity you have” (Josh)
That’s rather unimportant at this point – you are pointing to doctrinal ideas that are shared in orthodox faiths global wide and find their original writing in a history that pre-dates the European invasion of America by a good 1000 years. So you can ask if I know the American historical contexts of the churches in North America (I can go and research that if I so please) but fact is this is not ½ of what you alone are addressing (including the biblical scriptures – which go as far back the 1st century).
As for the Reformation – I know quite a bit about it and have studied in both the biblical history classes I took earning a bachelor of theology and via my own studies and documentaries. I would say the Reformers were just as harsh as the Catholics in some instances (persecuting those unlike them) and eventually saw one of their strands of faith become usurped by a Monarchy (falling into the same trap they just ran from). But I don’t know the history apparently so I must be making this all up.
“What is this denominational wheel anyway, and how do I get to turn it?” (Josh)
The denominational cog is the approximate 100’s of church denominations that exist at any given time in the West all calling themselves ‘the church of God and Christ’. And you took your turn – you joined the Lutheranites.
“Which book is this? Which god?” (Josh)
The book – the Bible. The God – the ‘One’ – the Lord God. Why do you think I follow another God or something…or read another book?
As for the scriptures – Paul is addressing doctrines there – so I guess your right to question until your heart’s content…I do the same so that makes 2 of us.
The book – the Bible.
The Bible isn't a book. It's a collection of books. Which collection defines this religion you've created to which we all belong? What's the rule for inclusion that you've decided on? Should we include the Koran or the Talmud?
The God – the ‘One’ – the Lord God.
I recall a famous hymn that says of Jesus, "and there's none other God." I'd put it like that. I can indeed confess there is but one God--and I point to Jesus, where the mystery is made manifest.
I would contend quite simply that being Christ-ian is following the teachings of the Christ plain and simple.
And I would contend that those teachings are summarized quite well in the Lutheran Confessions. But of course, you don't agree with that. You have your own interpretation of Christ's teachings that conflicts with our interpretation. Oh, let me guess, you don't interpret Scripture (whatever that is). You follow the plain, simple teachings of the Bible with no interpretation at all. You and Alexander Campbell, right?
Now, I think a conversation could be interesting, but at this point, you're just emoting. You've created a religion to which you apparently claim all people belong, regardless of whether they believe a single tenet of your creed (such as simple monotheism) or follow any of its principles (such as your interpretations of the teachings of Jesus), and regardless of whether or not they actually want to be part of your religion or identify themselves with it in any way. That's all a little weird, if you ask me. It's also arrogant--I think any atheist would be offended if you said he had faith in your god, but he wouldn't be offended at all if I told him he didn't have faith in the Christian God. He'd agree with me!
I find it quite ironic that people who disparage "theological hair-splitting" end up creating rather complicated theologies of their own, and those who hate denominations inevitably end up creating very, very small denominations--even if that denomination has only one person.
(Since you are such an expert in everything and such an inordinately careful reader, I would have thought you'd notice that the pronouns in the verses I referenced refer to the people that teach the false doctrines.)
Also, given that you have explicitly denied the existence of the deity I worship, commonly known as the "Christian God" or the "Blessed Trinity," and very emphatically pronounced faith in a different deity entirely, why are you so offended that I say you don't have Christian faith? You have a different faith in a different deity and have apparently created an entirely different religion around him, although drawing on some of the same texts my religion draws from. Guess what? The Mormons did the same thing. And no, they're not Christians, either.
"Also, given that you have explicitly denied the existence of the deity I worship, commonly known as the "Christian God"" (Josh)
I deny there is a Trinity outright - I don't see the problem - it's quite simple math and is backed by the very teachings you pull from - or the books/letters of the bible. Fact is, you see a Jesus = God - I don't - that breaks the very first commandment (God is One and the Shema). So if you want to play verbal gymnastics we can - you are also not a Christ-ian - how is this possible if even the Christ you claim to follow says he believes in the One God:
"Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD" (The Jewish Shema) - Mark 12:29.
"You have a different faith in a different deity and have apparently created an entirely different religion around him" (Josh)
Your the kettle calling the pot black with your comment there. Isn't this what the early Christian communities in Gentile areas did also - to the Judaic faith? Now you adhere to their orthodoxy so the same thing you say about me and the Mormons is the exact same thing the faith you hold has also done - no different. The Jewish people claim we follow a different God (although we use the same scriptures - Tanakh) - and yet Christianity finds a plural 3 piece God - yet the Jewish faith it's founded from has a Monotheistic belief and always has? Sounds like someone changed something somewhere - and you can't blame me for that - I don't even suggest the Trinity is a fact or the Jesus is God.
Maybe I don't look like a Christian to you - but so be it - you accept ideals about God that are quite fantastic and have no foundation in original Jewish thought at all. There are over 12,000 references to God in the whole bible - not one single time is the Trinity mentioned - wow!
"Which collection defines this religion you've created to which we all belong?" (Josh)
Well the collection all agreed churches seem to follow is the Tanakh + the NT books and letters.
"you're just emoting." (Josh)
Not really - if we need to get down to cold hard facts I can go and look at that Lutheran Confessional and study your stuff - no probs here.
"You've created a religion" (Josh)
Well, actually I haven't. I don't run a church, have set statement of faith, a vision and a mission, and most of all I don't have a structural composition of rules and regulations by which people 'may or may not belong'. I merely stated a few things and whether someone wants to adhere - so be it - but that's between them and their studies.
I also have not changed or made a new God of any sort - I am reading the same scriptures and passages you allude to and believe them to be the teachings of God (namely the gospels). I, however, reserve the right to how my view of God is going to look and take that upon myself as asked in the first commandment given by Jesus 'love the Lord your God...' (also from Deut - the Torah). I take ownership of that.
"It's also arrogant--I think any atheist would be offended if you said he had faith in your god, but he wouldn't be offended at all if I told him he didn't have faith in the Christian God. He'd agree with me!" (Josh)
Your joking right? If the atheist doesn't believe what I do - then so be it - that's their sole right to do. I would not badger them about that decision but I can and still remain there friend. Actually I blog with quite a few atheists and we talk about religion and not having religion - we find a common bond in talking about these things...I never tell them they have to believe me. However, I am aware that the dividing line I draw between anyone and God is simple - immorality. What does the atheist have to fear in conversation with me - nothing!
However, with orthodoxy the atheist is held quite a few religious rules and breaking them results in eternal torment (in fire). I am not sure the atheist would agree with you - they are literally being held hostage by God in that scenario - and I think God respects them to think freely enough about their own faith (or lack of it). So would they agree with you - maybe that he doesn't need to follow your God - but then again - i ain't the one holding the threat of punishment over their heads as a way to convince them.
"I would have thought you'd notice that the pronouns in the verses I referenced refer to the people that teach the false doctrines" (Josh)
I noticed it - but I wouldn't want to think you meant those as a 'shot' at me - since we are all in the same faith here...the one that follows the Christ. But maybe you did mean them as a 'shot' at me - oh well - too bad for me I guess...I cannot respond to something said by Paul and then not elaborated upon.
But my point still stands as said - the Lutheran denomination is just another in a line of many denominations - another cog in that wheel...and you may not like that - but honestly - are not all these denominations saying the same thing you are? They are correct and they have the scriptures apportioned correctly in their statements of faith. Then they all follow the same creeds, theologies, history, and similar looking structures and services. They are all one - just you can't see that for some reason. You'd rather that they were all different and seperate churches (or maybe not even churches at all according to your defining the faith so narrowly) - many bodies of Christ (something also not in scripture). Why can't they all just be 'one'?
As for creating a new religion or doctrine - I ain't saying something that isn't already out there whether in Jewish theology or liberal Christian theology...I actually thought my studies were odd and unique and then I start reading a variety of different writers and noticed I was coming to the same conclusions they were from a very obvious read of the passages as they were - so no, I am not alone in what I think or write (even when I thought I was). I have seen this in Jewish rabbinical writings and liberal theologians - they beat me to the punch and my work is solely based in the NT writings (yet I have found huge commonalities with the Jewish community - weird - but not really once one considers how Jewish these writings truly are).
Ahh, the blessed Trinity. The mystery that no one can explain, and which even fewer understand, but without to whose total devotion, you are cast into outer darkness by the defenders of the faith. Cheers.
deny there is a Trinity outright
So you deny my deity exists, yet you're highly offended that I deny your deity exists. At least you play fair.
Fact is, you see a Jesus = God - I don't - that breaks the very first commandment (God is One and the Shema).
So I'm mean and judgmental and just like all those other bad denominations for saying you don't have faith because you don't believe Jesus is God, but you're totally different. You just say that I'm breaking the first commandment--the one that commands faith--because I believe Jesus is God. You're so refreshingly different than all of us.
Well the collection all agreed churches seem to follow is the Tanakh + the NT books and letters.
Who are these "all agreed churches?" Are Orthodoxy and Catholicism not invited to your party? What about the Copts?
If the atheist doesn't believe what I do - then so be it - that's their sole right to do.
But you earlier insisted that everyone has faith in your deity. Have you changed your mind, and now only people who follow the Simple Monad have faith in him?
I noticed it - but I wouldn't want to think you meant those as a 'shot' at me.
You said "Separation to Paul seems such a foreign concept," and I was pointing out simply that he advised separation from certain sorts of people in at least three places. That's all.
are not all these denominations saying the same thing you are? They are correct and they have the scriptures apportioned correctly in their statements of faith.
Whereas you, by contrast, say that you are correct and have the scriptures apportioned correctly in your comments on my blog. You're such a radical.
my work is solely based in the NT writings
So in other words, you've interpreted Scripture. The difference between you and those bad denominations is that your interpretation is right, and all theirs are wrong.
However, I am aware that the dividing line I draw between anyone and God is simple - immorality.
And you've drawn some standard out of the Bible that you use to judge people's relationship with the Monad. Unlike those denominations that, uh, wait, I'm confused, what makes you so different again?
“So you deny my deity exists, yet you're highly offended that I deny your deity exists” (Josh)
Actually I am not offended at all – deny away – I don’t see why discussion has to be about being offended on some level. And to be honest – I never claimed there were 2 different deities at all – just One.
“You just say that I'm breaking the first commandment--the one that commands faith--because I believe Jesus is God. You're so refreshingly different than all of us.” (Josh)
I am stating a point about semantics and how you want to throw out people’s faith because they need to line up to something – so I decided to draw you a line so you can see why this is problematic. Point not noted I am guessing?
“Who are these "all agreed churches?" (Josh)
Do I really have to name them all? And yes, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are both part of the sphere I would define as the ‘whole church’. Now we all know they split hairs on some theological issues – and so have many denominations after them – but the facts still remain that all the churches I can name adhere to some very basic principles – a church body, statement of faith, God & Christ, religious hierarchy, etc.
“But you earlier insisted that everyone has faith in your deity. Have you changed your mind, and now only people who follow the Simple Monad have faith in him?” (Josh)
I stated ‘everyone has faith in my deity’…where? I want to see the exact sentence so I can clarify this point? I checked for it – and it wasn’t there in any of the comments I made – which leads me to believe you are either misrepresenting me on accident or outright lying? Or putting words in my mouth – then accrediting them to me.
As for the deity question – this is easy – there is One God…I am not sure why you think you and I worship various Gods?
“Whereas you, by contrast, say that you are correct and have the scriptures apportioned correctly in your comments on my blog. You're such a radical.” (Josh)
Okay, this again – where did I say ‘I was correct in all my teachings’? I have merely pointed out that a lot of doctrines are up for question and need to be discussed – not that I am right on each and every issue. I have a studied opinion on each thing but then again – I am open to change.
“So in other words, you've interpreted Scripture. The difference between you and those bad denominations is that your interpretation is right, and all theirs are wrong.” (Josh)
I do interpret scripture and I study it…we all do that I am fairly sure. Again, you put words in my mouth (3rd time) and I acknowledge there are differences in the way we think – this is true – but I have never called a denomination ‘bad’ – except that they are all a united body (irregardless of the differences).
One of the problems is that all these denominations think they are alone ‘right’ to the others denominations ‘wrong’ – I, however – tend to think the differences are all due to narrow-mindedness in thinking and developing rigid structures to keep ‘one’s perspective’ in and ‘another’s perspective’ out. Why is difference in interpretation such a ‘bad’ thing exactly?
“And you've drawn some standard out of the Bible that you use to judge people's relationship with the Monad” (Josh)
It’s the standard that is quite simply put – there. I can go back to the Tanakh to find it, the gospels, and even the letters. The only think keeping a person from God – well – is that same person (Matt 7:24-29). Now if that’s a judgment or just an honest teaching from the gospels I learned – well – I guess I am ‘guilty’ – no complaint there. But I wouldn’t quite consider that ‘judging’ someone – they can make those choices for themselves.
A conversation in which I have to repeatedly remind you what you said isn't really a conversation worth having. This whole thing started off with you getting very snippy and offended because I distinguish between "believer" and "unbeliever." Thus I concluded that you think everyone ought to be considered a believer. Of course, the immediate question, is "Believer in what or whom?" You have proceeded to give me some details about the deity you believe in and why, so, being a logical person, I concluded that you think everyone is somehow a believer in this deity. But I am noticing that you are not particularly rational; you just vent your spleen in my comments and get offended when I respond as though your words should mean something roughly approximating what they say.
Your red herring about "each and every issue" is completely beside the point. You are criticizing denominations for basically thinking they have anything right, yet you do in fact seem to believe that you are right in a number of things. I assume that you believe that you are right about not believing in the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus. Most people believe things they think are true, thus believe that they are right about what they believe.
You have used the word "problem" repeatedly in connection to denominations. Most people consider "problems" to be "bad things." If you don't think denominations are bad, stop calling them "problems."
And yes, I do believe there is one God. It does not logically follow that therefore whatever one worships is the true God. One could worship a creature, a philosophical construct, the figment of one's imagination, a fictional character, and so on. In your case, you worship a fictional character that you have constructed out of a poor understanding of the Scriptures.
It appears to me that you simply do not have the ability to tell the truth about what you actually think. First you don't believe things, then you believe things. First you are against judgment, then you judge. First you are against assertions, then you assert. First you're insistent on the Bible (the Catholic Bible, the Lutheran Bible, the Jewish Bible, the Muslim Bible, the Mormon Bible, or the Reformed Bible?), then you say that neither belief nor teaching matter.
And I'm sure I could catch more were I to press this farther. Now you're saying morality is important, but I'm sure you will become a moral relativist when I bring up homosexuality and a strict objectivist when I bring up slavery. You will be a fundamentalist when the text supports you and a liberal when it doesn't.
I have a suggestion: Take some time out to decide what you actually think about things and come up with some kind of actual views that you can articulate with some kind of rationality. This potpourri of incoherent venting is wasting my time and yours.
“But I am noticing that you are not particularly rational” (Josh)
Interesting – then I am not sure you actually read through anything I write without making presumptions to what I mean – since you do not ask for clarification on anything I write. I think you presume stuff about what I am saying before perusing any of it and discussing further – instead you settle for ‘insults’ towards the person – like the one above.
“You are criticizing denominations for basically thinking they have anything right, yet you do in fact seem to believe that you are right in a number of things.” (Josh)
Rightfully so, I have been a part of denominations and have become well acquainted with the belief set and what it also ends up looking like. I think it is fair to question any and all of the dogma’s within the church – what makes any of that untouchable? I raise points because they need to be raised – questions because things need to be explained in more depth. Do I presume I am right? What does that even matter to be honest – I am open to working through the issues I once held as normative to faith.
And maybe the critiques are valid – look at the things you write to me and the judgments/insults you hurl without really any concern for the person on the other end…maybe this is good – theology has obviously led you to believing this is alright to do…and I have the gall to ask ‘why’?
“If you don't think denominations are bad, stop calling them "problems."” (Josh)
No I say they have problems because they do have problems – heck even the latest studies in Christendom are revealing this obvious fact (ex: barna). Just because an institution may have a problem doesn’t make it ‘bad’ – that’s quite the exaggeration.
Interesting that you would say that though – why do you think if something is problematic it is bad? Look at the prophets (Kethavim) and their writings – do they think the community of Israel is ‘bad’ just because of a few problems? No.
“In your case, you worship a fictional character that you have constructed out of a poor understanding of the Scriptures.” (Josh)
Fictional character…I almost think this is insulting to the very God we worship. So you think I have created a God? If so, why do you think this? I say ‘He is One’ and I take this from scripture like you do – and this is now my fictional representation of Him? I don’t know whether to cry or laugh at both your pride and judgments.
“It appears to me that you simply do not have the ability to tell the truth about what you actually think.” (Josh)
There is an answer for this actually – ask questions and dialogue with the person – as a sane human being and your absolute equal. Then we might find that some of these mis-conceptions that exist only exist because of lack of discussion.
“This potpourri of incoherent venting is wasting my time and yours.” (Josh)
Whoa…that’s an assumption about what I thought of the dialogue – it wasn’t a waste of time – I find it interesting.
Your words reveal a lot about your beliefs.
Post a Comment