Do Christians despise God?

[Mithrae]

A post from another thread which on reflection might be an interesting topic in its own right:

Other than things like attending Church, etc., again you would be correct [that "Christians live lives much like unbelievers do"]. So then, other than that, what would give you the impression that the lives of Christians would be any different, and how would this have anything at all to do with Christianity being true, or false?

You mean... what would give that impression, besides virtually all of the NT insisting that Christians should be starkly distinguished from the world? Indeed that the world would hate Jesus' followers just as it hated him?

• John 15:16 You did not choose me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in my name he may give to you. 17 This I command you, that you love one another. 18 If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent me.
  
  1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. . . . 16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

There is so much poverty and need in the world, while most people in countries like Australia and the US have more wealth than we reasonably know what to do with. How can any Christian claim that the love of God abides in them if they're spending money on houses, cars or a fancy sound system for the building they attend once or twice a week? Jesus not only told his followers to sell their possessions and give to the poor, he even emphasized this as a truly fundamental aspect of the kingdom of God; that retaining treasures on earth or working for money was akin to blinding yourself entirely:

• Luke 12:29 And do not seek what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not keep worrying. 30 For all these things the nations of the world eagerly seek; but your Father knows that you need these things. 31 But seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you. 32 Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
  
  Matthew 6:19 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 22 The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. [You cannot work for God if you're working for money.] 25 For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?

According to Jesus' standards, by dividing up their time and spending far more effort working for money than serving God, refusing to trust in him for their daily bread but instead retaining earthly treasures year by year, most Christians are showing that they despise God despite professing him as another master.

Does that have anything to do with Christianity being true or false? Why would anyone imagine it to be true, if even the folk professing to be followers of Christ ignore his teachings? Certainly that hypocrisy and the comfortable irrelevancy of churchianity was one of major reasons why I walked away from "the faith" altogether. Jesus preached a deeply compelling but incredibly difficult message. It may be that Christians' determined efforts to bury and ignore that message do not invalidate it; perhaps even that the ongoing availability of that message despite seventeen-plus centuries of church efforts to subvert and undermine it is a testament to its power. But at least superficially the fact that Christianity as widely practiced looks like little more than a social club, the fact that not even Christians follow Christ, is a constant advertisement implying that there's nothing much to see there.




So was Jesus wrong in his stark dichotomy? Is it possible to spend so much time working for money and retaining earthly treasures, and not actually hate God as Jesus said?

Or does the refusal of most Christians to follow Jesus' teachings in this area have exactly the effect that he said it would: "If your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" Do most Christians inwardly despise God, perhaps without even realizing the depth of that darkness?

[Mithrae]

...Do most Christians inwardly despise God, perhaps without even realizing the depth of that darkness?

Well, all people, Christian or not -- in their natural state -- despise God. This is the human condition.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that. Certainly no more than we naturally 'despise' our neighbours, which of course we don't. There's often a conflict of interest between what we desire for ourselves and what's best for others (and/or what the Christian God wants), but that's hardly the same thing as hating or despising others. Would you really accuse say Gandhi of despising God and expect anyone to take you seriously? Paul declared that everyone falls short of perfection, which is certainly true, but he also wrote that many (all?) people already by nature have God's law in their hearts:
Romans 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do by nature the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Aside from that, though, I think if you really start thinking about it, you might come to the conclusion that there are really far fewer Christians than claim or profess to be.

I'm not interested in redefining words to come up with the mythological True Christian. It's obvious that most Christians ignore Jesus' command to stop working for money and give up their possessions; that's not really in dispute. The question is whether Jesus was correct in saying that by trying to serve two masters - trying to work for God while still working for money - they are going to hate and despise one of them?

This seems to be a uniquely Christian (or perhaps Abrahamic) problem; obviously Jesus viewed working for money as a serious problem for all of us, but it's the hypocrisy of also professing/trying to work for God at the same time which creates the conflict he said would lead to hatred. Was Jesus wrong? Or do most Christians inwardly despise God?

[Goose]

Perhaps, but it seems very illogical to believe in a god who is very poor in his ability to inspire people to do what he wants them to do.

Why would it be illogical to believe in such a god? That might make him a poor motivational speaker but that doesn’t disprove the god. Besides in the case of Christianity I would argue it’s us Christians who have a very poor ability to heed the inspiration or instructions from God. The fault, then, lies with us, not God

If the Christian god cannot get people to act in accordance with his commandments, then why believe he can turn water into wine, part seas, raise people from the dead, or create universes?

This doesn’t follow. Water, wine, seas, the universe, and corpses aren’t moral agents endowed with free will. Whereas we are. God may very well have good reason to not force us to act in accordance with his commandments.

If you understand Christianity as the invention of people and that there are no real gods, then it's very easy to understand why Christianity fails so miserably to make people good.

Well in order to prove the consequent all you need to do is prove the antecedent - Christianity is the invention of people. If you are trying to prove the antecedent - Christianity as the invention of people - by way of proving the consequent - Christianity fails miserably to make people good - then you commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Pick your poison.

[Goose]

If I may chime in with some food for thought.

Most Christians don't live significantly differently from non-Christians. Besides attending Church your "etc." could include a little less indulgence in the most visible 'sins' like drinking, swearing and fornication and perhaps a greater prevalence of more insidious and harmful traits like judgementalism, gossip and factionism.

But I would say, as an example, Christians who manage to avoid fornication live significantly differently than non-Christians since sexual immorality is so widely accepted in much of the non-Christian world (at least the non-religious world).

But virtually all Christians have or intend to have jobs, cars, houses and so on, just like everyone else and directly contrary to Jesus' commands to give up your possessions and stop working for money.

I think we can say the desire for earthly riches might run against Jesus’ teachings. But is working so that one may have the means to buy food, shelter, and clothing really contrary to what Jesus teaches? I don’t think that is.

So it would seem the contention here is that: Jesus commands us to give up our possessions and stop working for money.

Is this true? I don’t see that it is.

All three synoptic gospels suggest that this was a fundamental and non-negotiable aspect of Jesus' teaching. The passage from Matthew 6 quoted above suggests that having treasure on earth and working for money are like a lens through which all you'll see becomes darkness. In Mark 10, when asked what must be done for eternal life, Jesus said "sell all you possess and give to the poor" and "How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God." In Luke 14 he even more explicitly said "none of you can be my disciple who does not give up all his own possessions" and comparing so-called followers who didn't do so with flavourless salt, not even worthy of the dung heap.

Matthew 6 doesn’t command us to give up our possessions and stop working for money. Mark 10 commands a rich man to give up his possessions in order to gain eternal life. The point being, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!� (Mark 10:23)

As for Luke 14:33. This pericope opens with Jesus’ hyperbolic statement to his audience:

“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.� – Luke 14:26

It’s worth mentioning that both Matthew 6:24 and Luke 14:26 use the same word μισε�ω (hate). Was Jesus literally teaching that one hates God if he works for money in Matthew? Well, we could also ask was Jesus literally teaching that in order to be his disciple one must hate his mother and father and so on? How would the latter statement reconcile with Jesus’ overarching message of love? How would it reconcile with Jesus’ endorsement of the Ten Commandments one of which is to honour one’s mother and father? It seems to me a better explanation of these texts is that Jesus was using hyperbole to make important points.

Matthew 6:24 �No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other,� is taken to mean “You cannot work for God if you're working for money.�

But I don’t think that follows. What if one is being paid to work for God as Paul was? The key, I think, is in verse 21, “for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.� It’s about our heart toward God. Who does our heart δουλευ�ω (serve)? Not whether we work or not. We aren’t instructed to be unemployed paupers. In fact, we are instructed to do our work as though for the Lord (Col 3:32).

The point of Matthew 6:24 being that your heart cannot serve the world and serve Jesus. And the point of Luke 14:26, 33 being that one must be willing to forsake all in order to follow Christ. And that this cost must be weighed like any major undertaking (14:28-32).

Not to mention, Luke 14:33 doesn’t use πωλε�ω (sell) whereas Mark does. Luke uses ἀποτα�σσομαι (forsake) which is more in line with the opening idea in Luke (14:26) that one must be prepared to forsake one’s family thereby forsaking all that one has, even one’s life (14:27).

Yet despite that, in my eight years as a Christian (and years of church attendance with my family as a kid) I'm pretty sure not a single sermon was preached telling the congregation to give up their possessions, and I'm certain that no-one was ever told to quit their jobs!

Maybe that’s because that’s not what Jesus meant?

So... what's up with that?

In a word: context. I do think context plays an important role here. If we fail to take the greater context into account we may end up erecting strawmen.

You didn't actually answer the question of the OP. Jesus said that if you're working for money you're trying to serve two masters, and are going to hate one of them. Was Jesus wrong?

Well Jesus also said in the above passage that one is to hate his father and mother, wife, brother’s sister and even one’s own children in order to be his disciple. Was he wrong here too or were these hyperbolic statements meant to convey a message and not meant literally?

Mithrae, I think your OP is an important reminder for Christians to be aware of where their heart is. It's good Sunday morning stuff! But I do think you may be taking the symbolism a little too far if you are suggesting Christians hate God if they have paid employment.

[PinSeeker]

I don't think there's any reason to believe that.

The Word of God is very clear that we inherited Adam's sinful state -- that it was imputed to us -- at the time of the Fall. He, as the federal head of the human race, became dead in his sin and, in the exact words of Genesis 3, at enmity with -- the state of being actively opposed, hostile, and antagonistic toward and possessing bitterness, resentment, ill will, loathing, destestation, abhorrence, malice, spitefulness, venom, malevolence... and hatred... for -- God. So the reason for my believing that is God's Word. And you're debate on that, while I respect your right to engage in it, is really with God, and not with me. But I'm more than happy to talk with you about it.

Would you really accuse say Gandhi of despising God and expect anyone to take you seriously?

Well, Mahatma Gandhi didn't really believe in God... or rather he believed with all Hindus that we are (or can be, anyway) co-gods. Which in one sense isn't too far from the truth, but in another much more important sense is infinitely far from it. Those who are in Christ are certainly brothers to and as such co-heirs of God's Kingdom with Christ, but surely not equals with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost (which of course is one God in three distinct Persons).

But to answer your question, Ghandi (and any Hindu, for that matter), is as guilty of Adam's sin as anyone else regardless of religious persuasion; it just manifests itself in different ways. Adam and Eve wanted to be like God. Indeed, they wanted to be God for themselves, and became wise in their own eyes. And this is what we all do; it's just that some of us realize at some point (because of the work that God, by His Holy Spirit, begins in us by giving us new birth -- making us spiritually alive) the wrongness of it. And at that point, although we still possess the old sinful nature (what Paul refers to as the "old man"), we begin (again, because of God's work in us by His Holy Spirit) in our new God-given nature to fight against it, or as Paul says, to strive to "put off the old man and put on the new"...

• "..in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth." Ephesians 4:22-24

Paul declared that everyone falls short of perfection, which is certainly true, but he also wrote that many (all?) people already by nature have God's law in their hearts: Romans 2:14

Right, all do, but only some/many acknowledge it. The ones who don't actually consider themselves, albeit possibly subconsciously, to be the writers of it -- again, wise in their own eyes. Thank you for pointing that out.

I'm not interested in redefining words to come up with the mythological True Christian.

Neither am I; I would never presume to do so. That's God's business. I mean, I can make judgments for myself in guarding my own heart, but the real sorting out is God's business.

It's obvious that most Christians ignore Jesus' command to stop working for money and give up their possessions...

Never did He command or teach such a thing. He merely -- (chuckles... "merely") -- commanded not to love money or possessions more than or even nearly as much as God/Himself. And to acknowledge that all that we have (whether plentiful or not) is because of God, and His is the glory because of it.

The question is whether Jesus was correct in saying that by trying to serve two masters - trying to work for God while still working for money - they are going to hate and despise one of them?

See above.

obviously Jesus viewed working for money as a serious problem for all of us...

Not so in the least. Not working, per se, but working for the wrong thing instead of the Right Thing, Who is the ultimate Provider. As a pastor-friend of mine liked to say, the main thing is to keep The Main Thing the main thing.

, but it's the hypocrisy of also professing/trying to work for God at the same time which creates the conflict he said would lead to hatred. Was Jesus wrong? Or do most Christians inwardly despise God?

No, He was right (of course), but your take on Him is wrong. The "old man" part of the Christian still inwardly -- and often unwittingly outwardly -- does indeed despise God. Again, see above.

Grace and peace to you, Mithrae.

[Mithrae]

Most Christians don't live significantly differently from non-Christians. Besides attending Church your "etc." could include a little less indulgence in the most visible 'sins' like drinking, swearing and fornication and perhaps a greater prevalence of more insidious and harmful traits like judgementalism, gossip and factionism.

But I would say, as an example, Christians who manage to avoid fornication live significantly differently than non-Christians since sexual immorality is so widely accepted in much of the non-Christian world (at least the non-religious world).

You really think that's significant? I suppose that's a fairly subjective term in this context, so perhaps it would be better say that Christians don't live noticeably different from non-Christians. You really don't know who someone's sleeping with unless they tell you, and you still really don't know who a Christian is sleeping with even if they go out of their way to inform you that they are living a righteous life. Besides Sunday mornings (perhaps) you'd have a hard time distinguishing a Christian from a non-Christian - and even moreso an 'on fire for Jesus' Christian from one who just adopts the conventions of their social circle - without an intimate knowledge of their lives. That stands in contrast to the Johannine passages cited in the OP (and various others throughout the NT) which suggest that Christians should be starkly distinguishable from and even hated by the world. So where does that stark difference lie...?

All three synoptic gospels suggest that this was a fundamental and non-negotiable aspect of Jesus' teaching. The passage from Matthew 6 quoted above suggests that having treasure on earth and working for money are like a lens through which all you'll see becomes darkness. In Mark 10, when asked what must be done for eternal life, Jesus said "sell all you possess and give to the poor" and "How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God." In Luke 14 he even more explicitly said "none of you can be my disciple who does not give up all his own possessions" and comparing so-called followers who didn't do so with flavourless salt, not even worthy of the dung heap.

Matthew 6 doesn’t command us to give up our possessions and stop working for money. Mark 10 commands a rich man to give up his possessions in order to gain eternal life. The point being, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!� (Mark 10:23)

As for Luke 14:33. This pericope opens with Jesus’ hyperbolic statement to his audience:

“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.� – Luke 14:26

It’s worth mentioning that both Matthew 6:24 and Luke 14:26 use the same word μισε�ω (hate). Was Jesus literally teaching that one hates God if he works for money in Matthew? Well, we could also ask was Jesus literally teaching that in order to be his disciple one must hate his mother and father and so on? How would the latter statement reconcile with Jesus’ overarching message of love? How would it reconcile with Jesus’ endorsement of the Ten Commandments one of which is to honour one’s mother and father? It seems to me a better explanation of these texts is that Jesus was using hyperbole to make important points.

Matthew 6:24 �No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other,� is taken to mean “You cannot work for God if you're working for money.�

But I don’t think that follows. What if one is being paid to work for God as Paul was? The key, I think, is in verse 21, “for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.� It’s about our heart toward God. Who does our heart δουλευ�ω (serve)? Not whether we work or not. We aren’t instructed to be unemployed paupers. In fact, we are instructed to do our work as though for the Lord (Col 3:32).

The point of Matthew 6:24 being that your heart cannot serve the world and serve Jesus. And the point of Luke 14:26, 33 being that one must be willing to forsake all in order to follow Christ. And that this cost must be weighed like any major undertaking (14:28-32).

Not to mention, Luke 14:33 doesn’t use πωλε�ω (sell) whereas Mark does. Luke uses ἀποτα�σσομαι (forsake) which is more in line with the opening idea in Luke (14:26) that one must be prepared to forsake one’s family thereby forsaking all that one has, even one’s life (14:27).

The use of 'hate' in Luke 14:26 is certainly puzzling, isn't it; if it only means "love God more than..." then why doesn't it say that? Are readers supposed to conclude that the teaching is just figurative, that disciples of Jesus don't really need to change their relationships with family and possessions in any noticeable way? That he said 'hate your mother and father' in order to teach something that in practical terms amounts to nothing much at all? To me it seems far more likely that the shocking use of that word 'hate' is meant to underscore and really make readers think about the shocking extremes of Jesus' message. I wonder how the average mother would react if her son said "She's not really my mother, all these other people who think and live as I do are my real family" (cf. Mark 3)? How might the children of a rich ruler react if he decided to give up all his wealth - their present comfort and future inheritance - and follow a homeless preacher? It's easy to see how folk intending to follow Jesus' teachings might actually have to harden their hearts against their family to do so, and could anticipate being perceived as actually hating them. The passage in general, and the use of that word 'hate' in particular only really make sense if it is an extreme teaching, if Jesus/Luke were literally talking about giving up everything.

The rich ruler in Mark 10 asked a general question - how to have eternal life - and Jesus generalized his response to all those with wealth. Who can be considered wealthy? Well, certainly those in the top 80 or 90% percentiles in rich countries like Australia and the US are very wealthy by global and even moreso by historical standards! Jesus' message certainly applies to us. But even his disciples' responses are telling; they didn't say "Wow, those rich people have it tough," they said "Wow, everyone has it tough; who can be saved?" They themselves had been called to leave everything and follow Jesus (10:28), and few if any of them were likely to have been rich even by Galilean standards; Matthew's 'great commission' was that they teach others to obey everything Jesus had commanded them.

And Matthew 6 is perhaps even clearer and more unambiguous than those two, rivaled only by the parallel passage in Luke 12 (also quoted in the OP) where Jesus unambiguously gives a universal teaching to "Sell your possessions and give to charity." In both of those passages Jesus explicitly tells his followers to trust in God's provision - "do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on" - just as he elsewhere tells them to pray for their daily bread. Working for money is the opposite of the mindset Jesus preached; assuring ourselves of our next week's and month's material wellbeing through our own efforts rather than trusting in God's provision, a life of planning rather than faith, and usually one which requires earthly treasures to maintain especially in the modern day (ie, good clothing, stable residence, bank account, transport, internet). But even more explicitly, Matthew's Jesus says "You cannot serve both God and money," or as I paraphrased in the OP "You cannot work for God if you're working for money"; it's the very next verse after that which says not to worry about acquiring your own food and clothing, leaving no doubt as to Matthew's meaning. It really doesn't get much clearer than that... except perhaps in John 6, where Jesus says "Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you."

This isn't just one anomalous phrase which might be taken as merely figurative, like cutting off your hand or poking out your eye: John the Baptist, Jesus and his followers all set an example of rejecting personal possessions and work for money, and Jesus' teachings reflect that message very clearly from several different angles in numerous passages, in many cases suggesting it to be one of the most fundamental aspects of discipleship, the kingdom of God or having eternal life. This according to John is how "the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious," through the former showing their love by action rather than words, giving up their world's goods or even their very lives to help others in need. That is the stark distinction the NT talks about which, obviously, is entirely lacking from virtually all Christians' lives.

You didn't actually answer the question of the OP. Jesus said that if you're working for money you're trying to serve two masters, and are going to hate one of them. Was Jesus wrong?

Well Jesus also said in the above passage that one is to hate his father and mother, wife, brother’s sister and even one’s own children in order to be his disciple. Was he wrong here too or were these hyperbolic statements meant to convey a message and not meant literally?

Mithrae, I think your OP is an important reminder for Christians to be aware of where their heart is. It's good Sunday morning stuff! But I do think you may be taking the symbolism a little too far if you are suggesting Christians hate God if they have paid employment.

It's worth repeating that Luke 14:26 absolutely makes sense if (and only if) Jesus expected his teachings to be literally followed - as indeed they were literally followed by himself and his disciples, and Matthew's great commission commanding them to teach others likewise - in that folk intending to follow those teachings probably would have to literally harden their hearts to family members who think they're throwing away their comfortable lives, and often would be perceived as actually hating them. That's really the only way I can see that the verse makes sense at all. If it only meant "love God more than..." we'd surely expect that's what would have been written, rather than that ugly, shocking word 'hate'; it only makes sense as a shocking reminder of what an extreme teaching this was and what it would entail!

There's really no reason to think that Jesus' teachings in this area - from so many different passages and different angles - were all somehow merely 'symbolic' besides the obvious and understandable reluctance to accept it. Jesus wasn't even that unusual in this regard; Cynic philosophers such as Crates of Thebes and Diogenes of Sinope had taught something similar for centuries previous. That's not to undermine the uniqueness of the spiritual/Jewish setting into which Jesus incorporated those ideas (it's not even certain that Jesus was directly influenced by Cynics at all), but it shows the error of any modern assumption that such a teaching would be simply too extreme to be intended literally.



I myself do not follow the examples of Siddhartha or Crates or Jesus in this area; I briefly tried to as a Christian lad, and even as a non-Christian came very close again last year when I was out of work for long while. So on the one hand it's easy to sympathize with the difficulty of actually obeying Jesus' teachings; but on the other hand for folk who actually believe that he was the Messiah (let alone God incarnate!) how can they possibly justify disobedience? I accidentally stumbled across that implication of Matthew 6:24 responding to another thread, but it is perfectly coherent reasoning which leads to that conclusion: Trying to serve both masters, retaining earthly treasures and working for money whilst also trying to serve God seems to be a deep and direct conflict of interest by Jesus' teachings... so for those unwilling to part with their money, surely it will eventually result in despising the God who commands them to do so!

If they think they don't, perhaps it's because of that deep darkness within them which Jesus warned of in the preceding verse?

Or, perhaps Jesus was just wrong entirely?

[Tcg]

Well, all people, Christian or not -- in their natural state -- despise God. This is the human condition.

I don't. I'd have to posses belief in such a thing before I could despise it.

Given that I lack that belief, I don't despise god/gods of any flavor.

I also don't hold any grudges against Santa, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot, the Jersey Devil, Champy, the Grinch, Huck Finn, or Superman.

It's not their fault they don't exist.

[PinSeeker]

I don't.

Ah, yes you do. You just aren't consciously aware of it, that's all. As Stuart Smalley (Al Franken) said, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!"

[postroad]

[Replying to post 17 by PinSeeker]



Interesting? You're making claims on behalf of another individual based on your own opinion?

We have a member who insists that believers who eat pork are in denial that they must keep the dietary laws.

Do you despise God by eating pork or refusing circumcision?

[William]

[Replying to post 16 by Tcg]

Well, all people, Christian or not -- in their natural state -- despise God. This is the human condition.

I don't. I'd have to posses belief in such a thing before I could despise it.

It is acceptable and sometimes even commendable to despise ideas of GOD which are despicable. Even to question the morals of such ideas of GOD. Belief in the concept is not necessary before one can legitimately not like something. Just knowledge of the concept would suffice.

[PinSeeker]

Interesting? You're making claims on behalf of another individual based on your own opinion?

Well, it's not just my opinion. Read Romans 1 (although who knows what you'll actually come away from that with...).
We have a member who insists that believers who eat pork are in denial that they must keep the dietary laws.

Do you despise God by eating pork or refusing circumcision?

As for pork, the dietary food laws are no longer in effect (obsolete). The Israelites were required to follow the food laws because they were pointing to Christ, but that is no longer the case since Christ has come. Hebrews 9 and 10 make that very clear. And all God's gifts are made clean by and blessed to us in Christ. Read Romans 14 (although, again, the "interesting take" thing probably applies here, too).

As for circumcision, it is (and really always was) spiritual; WE (believers) ARE the circumcision. Read Romans 4 and Galatians 5 and 6 (although... well, insert "interesting take" line again here...). It's the same with outward circumcision as with the food laws; it pointed the Israelites to Christ before he came, but now we have Him, so outward circumcision is no longer of any consequence.