Do Christians despise God?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Do Christians despise God?

Post #1

Post by Mithrae »

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

showme
Sage
Posts: 881
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:04 pm

Re: Do Christians despise God?

Post #31

Post by showme »

[Replying to post 22 by Jagella]
I'm not really trying to prove that Christianity is the invention of people. I think it is far more probable that people invented it rather than that a god inspired it. Christianity has all the hallmarks of human ignorance, superstition, and failure to prove its claims.
You don't have to prove anything. Paul pretty well claims that the gospel of grace was his gospel, and that is the gospel that the "Christians" fall in line with. And of course, some people think that Paul was people too, which would make "Christianity" "the invention of people".

As for "Christians" despising God, well I think that for the most part they are "deceived" in believing that Paul spoke for God, and apparently some gravitate to the darkness of Paul's message, versus the light of the gospel of the kingdom of heaven, which is based on Truth, versus I'm fine, and your fine, feel goodness. As for ignorance, that seems universal to all mankind.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Do Christians despise God?

Post #32

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 10 by Mithrae]

All I can say here is we have a completely different understanding of who Jesus was talking to, and also what he may have meant. The question would be, which of us if either, is reading correctly.

When we arrive to Matthew 6, we are reading a very long discourse given by Jesus, which began in chapter 5. At the very beginning of chapter 5, Matthew reports.
When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying,
Who was it that came to Jesus? It was his disciples. And it goes on to say, "He opened His mouth and began to teach THEM." Who? Those "who came to him."

Clearly, Jesus is teaching his disciples, who would later become Apostles, and it would be a fact that they later on would be on a mission that Jesus had for them, and he was explaining to them that they should not worry about such things.

It is very dangerous, and reckless, to read the things contained in the Bible, as if every word would apply to oneself. We do not do this with other written material, so why would we do this with the content of the Bible?

What you are saying would be like arguing that all Christians should be looking to get to Paul before winter, and to bring his cloak along with us when we arrive, because Paul certainly gave this command.

Of course you would argue that this command could not possibly apply to all Christians, because it was clearly only intended for the one being addressed at the time, and you would be correct, but you have now just established that not everything written in what is contained in the Bible, would apply to all Christians.

So now, we would have to go back, read carefully, and determine those things that may apply to us, as opposed to those that would not, and we have just established, that everything command in the Bible, could not possibly apply to us. This would go for the passage you refer to, concerning the "rich young ruler."

In this passage we are dealing with, a man who had taken care of his earthly existence, and he had more than enough to last him the rest of his life. So then, since this life was taken care of, he now turns his attention to, the next life.

He must have perceived Jesus as some sort of prophet, and so he asks, "what must I, (emphasis on the I) do to obtain eternal life?"

So then, what Jesus is saying is, "well if it is up to you, you know the law, keep it." Of course the man is deceived into believing that he has kept the law, and asks, "what more do I lack."

Well instead of arguing over the situation, Jesus tells him to "sell all he has, and give to the poor." You see, this man had been very successful in being in control, and he was not willing to give up that control, and allow someone else to be in control.

In other words, this was a command to a particular person, in order to demonstrate a point to that particular person, and would not be a command to all Christians to "sell all they had, and give to the poor."

Of course the next thing that will be argued is, then none of the things in the Bible would apply to us, since all these things were addressed to those back then. And again, we would not think this way with other written material, but for some reason, when it comes to the Bible, things must be different.

As an example, if I were to pick up a letter addressed to a friend of mine, I would be reading a letter that was not intended for me. For this reason I would need to be careful when reading this letter.

This means, I need to read this letter, exactly as it was written, which would be a letter to my friend. However, this would not necessarily mean that none of it would apply to me. In other words, there will surely be things in this letter that would only apply to my friend, but there may be other things contained in this letter that I may learn, and they may apply to me as well.

You see, if in this letter, the author was to inform my friend that the grocery store was having a big sale on ribeye steaks on the weekend of 2/10, although this letter was not intended for me, I can learn, and understand that this sale would apply to me as well, and I could take advantage of this sale.

However, if in the very next sentence this author went on to say, "I will be at the store at 10 am on Saturday, and plan on buying a whole ribeye, and if you will meet me there, I will pay for a whole ribeye for you as well."

So you see, if I read carefully, there are certain things that could, and would apply to me, even though this letter was not intended for me, while there would be other things that would not apply to me, and it is not difficult at all to determine.

But for some reason, when it comes to the Bible we lose this ability, and come to the conclusion that it either all applies to us, or none applies to us, when we would never do this sort of thing with any other written material.

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Do Christians despise God?

Post #33

Post by Goose »

Mithrae wrote:You really think that's significant?
Absolutely! I sure do think it’s significant if one can manage to avoid sexual immorality in this day and age where it is so prevalent and generally acceptable.
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.
But I still think the Christian attitude towards sexual immorality is noticeably different from the non-Christian (or non-religious). Now, that’s not to say every Christian manages to avoid sexual immorality throughout their lives. But generally the Christian attitude towards sexual practices is starkly different from non-Christian.
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...?
Their attitude toward sexual immorality for a start. That is a stark difference. Now, sure, a Christian pastor might be nailing the church secretary all the while preaching against sexual immorality on Sunday mornings. But that’s the unfortunate hypocrisy we were talking about. An anecdotal case of a Christian caught in an act of immorality doesn’t overturn the Christian position on sexual immorality.
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?
Because Jesus used hyperbole here to grab the attention of his audience underscoring the significance of his main point. I don’t think that’s so puzzling. People used hyperbole then, people use it now. To deny the use of hyperbole here is argue Jesus literally meant that one is to hate one’s own family including one’s own children. That seems prima facie absurd given Jesus’ overall message of love. Once we accept Jesus used hyperbole in Luke 14:26 we have a precedent for the use of hyperbole in regards to the word “hate� which may shed light on its intended meaning elsewhere such as in Matthew 6:24.
Are readers [of Luke 14:26] 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?
What readers are supposed to conclude, I think, is that anyone contemplating following Christ need to consider and be prepared for what it may cost because it may just cost everything. Your family (all you posses) and even your own life. And that we are to weigh the cost of this major undertaking. Just as one who builds a tower (Luke 14:28-30) or a King who considers war with an enemy (14:31) must both weigh the cost before they begin down their respective paths. But to conclude that one is to literally hate one’s own family in order to be a disciple is an unreasonable overly literalistic reading. It would also ignore the fact that we have no record of Jesus showing hate toward his own mother. Nor did Peter or Jesus show hate toward Peter’s mother-in-law. Indeed they showed compassion toward her (Mark 1:30-31).
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.
Yes, I think that’s along the lines of what I was driving at.
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.
I think that’s consistent with what I said.
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.
Right. Jesus answers the general question – how to attain eternal life (Mark 10:17) – by asking if the man knows the commandments (Mark 10:19). He isn’t answering the question of what it takes to be a disciple of Jesus. The rich man says he keeps all the commands. In other words, the rich man is asserting he has been fully righteous since his youth (a highly unlikely claim – Jesus knows this). Jesus exposes the rich man’s heart, by telling him lacks one thing. He must go sell all his possessions and give to the poor to have treasure in heaven. Taking up his own cross and following Jesus is what it takes to be a disciple. In other words, you seem to be conflating storing treasure in heaven with what is needed to be a disciple of Christ. These are separate ideas. One can follow Christ and store no treasure in heaven.

�Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.� – Mark 10:21

Jesus is dealing with the heart of a particular person. He’s speaking directly to the rich man. I don’t see this as a universal command. Compare for example the command of the great commission at the end of Matthew.
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.
I don’t think the disciples were saying "Wow, everyone has it tough; who can be saved?" as though they thought of themselves as rich. Especially given that a few verses later, as you mention, Peter says they have given up everything (Mark 10:28). I think the disciples reaction was to imply, “Hey, Jesus, if even a rich person, who is favoured by God, will have a hard time getting into heaven who then can be saved?� Remember in that culture to be wealthy was to be favoured by God (Deut 8:18; Prov 10:22; Ps 37:22).

As for Mark 10:28 and the disciples being called to leave everything. Firstly, this doesn’t say they were called to leave everything. It’s Peter stating that they did leave everything. Jesus goes on to reassure them their sacrifice will be rewarded in this life and the life to come with treasures in heaven (Mark 10:29-31).
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."
I will focus here on the bold because this, it seems to me, the main contention. At least it’s the one I take issue with. This premise that a Christian cannot work for money.

First Matthew 6:24 says, “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 serve God and wealth.� You’ve taken this to mean, �You cannot work for God if you're working for money.� But this doesn’t follow at all. The word serve, as I mentioned, is δουλευ�ω (serve). It has the connotation of being ruled by money. If Matthew had meant you cannot work for money he could have used ἐ�γα�ζομαι (work, trade, labor for). I think that once we appreciate how the issue here is being in servitude to money we realize the idea of holding paid employment isn’t the problem.
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.
I wholly disagree here with the premise that: �Jesus and his followers all set an example of rejecting personal possessions and work for money…�
  • 1. Jesus owned clothing and footwear. So he didn’t give up all his possessions.

    2. Jesus had a trade, he was a carpenter (Mark 6:3).

    3. Before Jesus performs his miracle with the loaves of bread and fish, there is a presumption that the disciples are to buy food for the five thousand (Matthew 6:37, John 6:5-7).

    4. The disciples had a money box/bag kept by Judas which the disciples and Jesus used to buy things (John 12:6, 13:29).

    5. The disciples went back to their trade of fishing after Jesus’ death (John 21:1-4).

    6. The disciples had the resources to stay in the upper room (Acts 1:13).

    7. Peter had a home (Mark 1:29-30).

    8. Paul worked as a tentmaker (Acts 18:1-3).

    9. Paul instructed the Thessalonians to work so they will not be in need (1Thess 4:11-12).

There are many more such examples. It just doesn’t seem that the disciples set a very good example of rejecting personal possessions and work for money. Either that or Jesus was one big fat hypocrite. Or Jesus never meant that his followers should sell all they have, quite their jobs, and become unemployed paupers.
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!
I don’t disagree that following Jesus in that age could have very well meant losing one’s family, that was Jesus’ point afterall. The perception of non-believing family members being a hardening of heart or even hatred toward them is certainly a possibility. But the extreme teachings of Jesus weren’t these ideas of serving God rather than money. His extreme teachings were the ones where he claimed to be the unique and divine son of God. That’s what got him in the deepest trouble with the Jews and eventually lead to his crucifixion. To interpret Luke 14:26 in a literal sense is to think Jesus preached hatred towards one’s family. I’m sorry but that’s simply a horribly poor interpretation.
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.
And yet the entire foundation to this teaching is symbolic.

�for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.� – that’s symbolic unless one thinks one’s heart is literally found in the safety deposit box along with the family jewels.

�You cannot serve God and wealth.� – that’s symbolic unless one thinks one can literally serve money.

I just don’t see how one can dismiss the symbolism.
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.
Granted but this would seem to undermine your earlier argument that Jesus’ teachings regarding giving up all one’s possessions was extreme. If there were others teaching this and it wasn’t “that unusual� of a teaching how , then, can you argue it was an extreme teaching?
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!
Well I think you have this bit bang on, “Trying to serve both masters, retaining earthly treasures... so for those unwilling to part with their money, surely it will eventually result in despising the God...�

And that’s the rub. If a Christian is building treasures on earth rather than in heaven and is unwilling to part with his earthly possessions, where is his heart really?

This bit about Christians, as a whole, not “working for money� is simply mistaken and not supported by the texts. Christians can and should hold down paid employment, pay their fair share of taxes, and be productive parts of society.

Anyway, very interesting discussion. It’s made me think and for that I thank you. :D
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Do Christians despise God?

Post #34

Post by Jagella »

Goose wrote:But I’m not concluding God cannot inspire people. Whether people choose to obey that inspiration/instruction is another story.
Inspiration doesn't involve choice but comes naturally. It results from being impressed with something or somebody. It seems odd and I think unreasonable to believe in a god who leaves many people unimpressed. I would expect a real god to be very impressive! Gods that people make up, on the other hand, can easily be unimpressive for many people. Since many people are not impressed with the Christian god, it seems more reasonable to me that he is not real but made up.
If a General loses a battle because the soldiers refuse to obey orders it’s the soldiers’ fault. Not the General’s.
Sorry, but no good general will make excuses for losing a battle by blaming his soldiers. It is his responsibility to win the battle and not shirk his responsibility. So unlike this general, your god seems very petty blaming his puny little creatures for his failures. He shirks his responsibility for what he has done.
If there’s no violation of free will then we have the choice to obey or not.
Obedience is not the issue. The issue is whether or not people are inclined to obey the Christian god. It seems reasonable to me that if the Christian god exists, then he would have no trouble getting people to love him and follow him by being lovable and so wise that we would want to follow him. Since he fails to do so, it makes no sense to me to say he exists.
That’s affirming the consequent bro. And that’s a fallacy.
If you assume for the sake of argument that Christianity is the invention of people, then what logically would follow? How might a man-made Christianity compare to a genuine Christianity? Would you expect a lot of immorality and hypocrisy in a made-up Christianity? Would there be good evidence for miracles in a Christianity that people made up? If you honestly and sensibly answer these questions, then you will begin to see things my way.

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Do Christians despise God?

Post #35

Post by Goose »

Jagella wrote:Inspiration doesn't involve choice but comes naturally. It results from being impressed with something or somebody. It seems odd and I think unreasonable to believe in a god who leaves many people unimpressed. I would expect a real god to be very impressive! Gods that people make up, on the other hand, can easily be unimpressive for many people. Since many people are not impressed with the Christian god, it seems more reasonable to me that he is not real but made up.
But many Christian people are impressed with the Christian God. That’s enough to falsify your argument here.
Sorry, but no good general will make excuses for losing a battle by blaming his soldiers. It is his responsibility to win the battle and not shirk his responsibility. So unlike this general, your god seems very petty blaming his puny little creatures for his failures. He shirks his responsibility for what he has done.
Oh sure if a battle is lost we tend to blame the General, granting the soldiers executed the General’s orders of course. However, if soldiers willfully refuse to obey the General’s orders in a time of war, it’s the soldiers who are held to account, not the General or officer who gave the order(s). Articles 90-92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice make that quite clear. That’s how it works with moral agents endowed with free will. We hold the one disobeying to account.
Obedience is not the issue. The issue is whether or not people are inclined to obey the Christian god. It seems reasonable to me that if the Christian god exists, then he would have no trouble getting people to love him and follow him by being lovable and so wise that we would want to follow him. Since he fails to do so, it makes no sense to me to say he exists.
Except many Christians are inclined to obey, love, and follow God. Not all Christians are perfect of course. But many of us are certainly inclined this way.
If you assume for the sake of argument that Christianity is the invention of people, then what logically would follow?
Still affirming the consequent if you are attempting to prove Christianity false by what would follow. It seems you just can’t make your argument without implying this fallacy.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Do Christians despise God?

Post #36

Post by William »

[Replying to post 35 by Goose]


Jagella wrote:Inspiration doesn't involve choice but comes naturally. It results from being impressed with something or somebody. It seems odd and I think unreasonable to believe in a god who leaves many people unimpressed. I would expect a real god to be very impressive! Gods that people make up, on the other hand, can easily be unimpressive for many people. Since many people are not impressed with the Christian god, it seems more reasonable to me that he is not real but made up.
But many Christian people are impressed with the Christian God. That’s enough to falsify your argument here.
Argumentum ad populum

Your reply does not address Jagella's own argument other than that.

It seems strange that Jagella's argument implies that Argumentum ad populum is okay when used his way, but fallacy is still fallacy.

My own answer to the argument is that if we take altogether something that all humans cannot help but be impressed with, then that will be GOD.

Since not all humans are impressed with ideas of GOD which give the logical impression that the ideas themselves are a very human invention, then it can be questioned under that premise.

Humans can and do despise themselves and each other. That is a given. Therefore their ideas of GODs are going to reflect that, and when they write these ideas down and present them as "The Truth" things naturally enough become wobbly-wheeled.

Christianity is build upon foundations of doctrines which do indeed despise.

As such, it naturally attracts support from individuals who also despise. That this is popular is evidence that human beings naturally despise one another, in the spirit of competition apparently.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Do Christians despise God?

Post #37

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Mithrae wrote:
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?
Bravo!

I take the following approach: If all the wealth in the world were divided amongst all the people, we would all have a net worth around $33,000. If all the income of the world were divided amongst all the people, we would all have an annual income of around $16,000.

If my net worth, or income, falls below these levels, I consider it mine to keep, by right of fair justice. But if it rises above, I consider it the world's, to deliver to such good charitable causes as I deem appropriate, to relieve that poverty.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Last edited by 2ndRateMind on Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Do Christians despise God?

Post #38

Post by Goose »

William wrote: [Replying to post 35 by Goose]


Jagella wrote:Inspiration doesn't involve choice but comes naturally. It results from being impressed with something or somebody. It seems odd and I think unreasonable to believe in a god who leaves many people unimpressed. I would expect a real god to be very impressive! Gods that people make up, on the other hand, can easily be unimpressive for many people. Since many people are not impressed with the Christian god, it seems more reasonable to me that he is not real but made up.
But many Christian people are impressed with the Christian God. That’s enough to falsify your argument here.
Argumentum ad populum
Well if you think what I worte there is an argumentum ad populum then clearly you don't know what an argumentum ad populum is. Nowhere did I argue the truth of a premise based on many people believing its true.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Do Christians despise God?

Post #39

Post by Goose »

2ndRateMind wrote:
Bravo!

I take the following approach: If all the wealth in the world were divided amongst all the people, we would all have a net worth around $36,000.
Interesting approach. Now, does that number take into account global debt? Usually net worth implies debt has been taken into account. But I'm wondering if that $36,000 number does reflect debt adjustment against assets.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
PinSeeker
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2920
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Do Christians despise God?

Post #40

Post by PinSeeker »

Mithrae wrote:Thanks for the effort put into your post, PinSeeker :) I'll only address some of it, because parts of our exchange are more or less tangential to the thread topic (eg. interpretation of Genesis), but let me know if you feel I've overlooked anything important.
Thanks for the compliment; I would return the same.

But I disagree with you on at least your point that Genesis is tangential to the thread topic. We've been talking about the term 'enmity' and its use and who it is assigned to, and where it is directed. Genesis 3:15, rather than tangential, is central. It explains the human condition (all people, not just Christians or non-Christians) after the Fall and the natural inclination of each one to despise God.
Mithrae wrote:
PinSeeker wrote: Ah. Or in Biblical terms, being wise in your own eyes. Not that I'm actually accusing you of such, but that seems to be exactly what you are saying.
I'll accept that; I think it's fair to say that I have learned some things and gained some wisdom at my ripe old age. And while most of it is due to my genetics, family, education and other circumstances beyond my control, it has become my wisdom, such as it is, with whatever vanity but also all the biases, ignorance and fallibility that implies.
I appreciate your comments and humility. But one thing to say to all that: God is sovereign over all that. No circumstance -- indeed no thing whatsoever -- is beyond His control.
Mithrae wrote:By contrast, you seem to be implying that your opinions are for all intents and purposes the opinions of God himself: Purely because a selected anthology of Hebrew and early Christian letters, biographical sketches, historical narratives, mystical revelation, legends, mythology, poetry and ritual legislation, chosen and canonised by largely anonymous groups of rabbis and priests, happens to contain some sentences which might - arguably - be used to support your opinions (and to ignore/creatively reinterpret any other verses which you don't like).
Ahhh, no, my opinions are based firmly in what God has said. I don't ignore or "creatively interpret" anything contained in God's Word. I would readily say that my understanding of this or that may be flawed to some degree, and if that's the case regarding any part thereof would welcome correction. And I would be trusting in the Spirit as my Teacher to do that through ordinary means (or even extraordinary, if He were to deem that necessary). And finally, the only thing I "don't like" concerning God's Word are distortions of it, either by me or by anyone else.
Mithrae wrote:According to both John the apostle and John of Patmos, the Word of God is Jesus, not some collection of paper and ink. As I quoted above, Jeremiah explicitly said that the new covenant would not be like the old - that in the new, God's law would be written on his people's hearts and minds. Alluding to that passage in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul is even more explicit, describing "a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." Claiming that Paul's letters are the 'Word of God' - even though he himself never made any such claim, and clearly believed quite the opposite, and other passages explicitly identify Jesus as the Word of God - is quite literally the sin of false prophecy which under Deuteronomic law would be punishable by death.
Mmm... Some truth, some misunderstanding, and a lot of personal opinion here. Where to start?

1. Yes, the Word of God is Jesus. But what you really mean with that statement is ambiguous to me. I'm certainly not going to put words in your mouth, but allow me to clarify: Jesus is the Word personified. Jesus Himself said that every word of Scripture is about Him, both directly (John 5:46) and indirectly through Luke (Luke 24:27).

2. Regarding the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah and Paul, what is being said here is that the new covenant will not be -- and is not -- breakable any longer. And both men are saying the same thing; yes, Paul is more explicit because He knew Christ and knows that he has received the Spirit.

3. Paul's letters were just that -- letters to the churches in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, and so forth. So in that sense, yes, they are his words. But his whole purpose was to proclaim the Gospel; he was not a prophet but an apostle, an expository preacher and an evangelist. He couldn't be a false prophet, because he wasn't a prophet at all. Nor did he claim to be.

Maybe we need to step back and Biblically define what a prophet is and what a false prophet is. If you know this, forgive me. But a prophet is someone who related God's words directly to the people (not merely someone who, as is commonly thought, "predicts the future"). Thus, in reading all the prophets of the Old Testament, you will often see the words "Thus saith the Lord" or some variation thereof depending on the translation. But beginning with Matthew and continuing all through the New Testament, you don't see that. Why? Because, as Hebrews 1 says, in these last days (which began with the coming of Jesus and will continuing to His return), God has spoken to us by His Son:
  • "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son..." (Hebrews 1:1-2)
So, as signified by the word "after" above, the time of the prophets passed when Jesus came into the world. So then we can understand what a false prophet is, Mithrae, by understanding what the opposite of a prophet is (obviously), and that is one who falsely claims the gift of prophecy or divine inspiration, or who uses that gift for evil ends.

Paul was not a prophet, and he was very clear on that himself. And he likewise was not a false prophet. He even called himself a wretched man (Romans 7) and the chief/foremost of sinners (1 Timothy 1). What Paul did claim to be was an apostle (and the least of these, actually). And as such, like the other apostles, he visited and walked with, spoke in person to, and wrote letters to various churches (bodies of Christians) proclaiming Christ and Him crucified -- the Gospel. He was a missionary, an expository preacher, an evangelist, and a doer of good works (as today all Christians should be to some extent according to their callings). And he was used by God via His Spirit to explain the Scriptures (what we now know as the Old Testament) to contemporary and future believers. This is why the Spirit moved men to include it in the Canon of Scripture. So in that sense, it is indeed part of the Word of God. Now. Does this mean that Scripture could still be added to? No. The time of the apostles is past, too. There is no need to add to Scripture, because it contains everything we need, and also because Jesus forbade adding to it (Revelation 22).
Mithrae wrote:But this is what seventeen-plus centuries of church subversion and dogma have done. In all those centuries when the masses were overwhelmingly illiterate, claiming that God's will must be known through a written book turned God into a pawn of the powerful. It's an historical fact that the biblical anthology has never really guided or clarified much at all; since the advent of the printing press, the Reformation, availability of the bible in vernacular languages and the increase of literacy, Christian denominations have multiplied exponentially with every would-be teacher claiming the authority of God himself for whatever novel interpretation or selective emphases they'd come up with. For the most part, they keep insisting that the bible is the Word of God because it continues to give them influence over anyone foolish enough to believe them.
Eh... you're just talking about sin (whether you realize it or not), and Christians are just as guilty of sin as anyone else, as that is the human condition. But yet the Word of God remains what it was and what it is, despite man's sin. The grass withers and the flowers fade, but the Word of God endures forever. Again, God is more powerful than and sovereign over all of that. One great day, all will be made right again. God will do it, exactly as He has said, in the fullness of time. His time.
Mithrae wrote:Personally... long, long ago... I decided to not to make such exalted claims for my own 'wisdom,' instead praying and trusting in God to guide me as he chose and as I remained honest in pursuit of truth. I've never stopped honestly seeking, nor ever asked him to stop guiding me (indeed I've renewed that prayer more than once over the years)... so perhaps, if it matters, I may have a better claim to the Spirit's guidance ...
Great! Well, maybe God is allowing you to stray for a time and then plans to draw you back to Himself and Christ at some point in the future. Or maybe He's already doing that. Hope so.
Mithrae wrote:Or perhaps we're all just folk with no particularly unique or special insight into the mind of god at all.
Oh, I wouldn't say "at all." Surely, His judgments are unsearchable and His ways unfathomable (Romans 11). Surely, His thoughts and ways are far above our own, as the heavens are above the earth (Isaiah 55). Such knowledge is high, and we cannot attain to it (Psalm 139). But we can know quite a bit, because He has told us. His word is a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path (Psalm 119). And all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Mithrae wrote:
PinSeeker wrote:
Mithrae wrote:As to whether or not Jesus did teach against working for money... It really is very clear - both from the example which Jesus and his followers set, and the teaching repeated again and again by different authors from different angles - that Jesus taught his followers to leave their jobs and forsake all they owned, to work for the kingdom of God instead of for money, to have faith in His provision for their daily bread.
No, He taught His followers (and us) not to put our ultimate trust in jobs, or money, or anything else they owned, for their salvation or even their well-being.
Well you're certainly welcome to try to show how all the gospel passages I've highlighted don't really mean what they say...
Actually, I think I've done a pretty good job not of "highlighting that they don't really mean what they say," but rather that they mean far more than merely what you realize they do say.
Mithrae wrote:... although I think I might see a problem looming on the horizon (which is why I wrote all of the above): It's possible that like many Christians you may try to use Paul to cancel out Jesus, or even try to use Abraham or anything under the 'old covenant' as Showme seems to be doing - use any and every other page from a fake 'Word of God' to nullify commands of the real Word of God in Johannine theology.
Anything is possible, I guess, but never would I purposely do any of that. I haven't been following your conversation with Showme, but I would be interested to dig into what your understanding (and maybe showme's, too) of the Old and New Covenant is. In Christian circles, there are two general streams of thought on that: Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. One is wrong, of course. Generally speaking, the Bible is one unified work from beginning to end, Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. But more specifically to your comments here, nothing in the Bible contradicts anything else in the Bible. It's possible I may get some things wrong, but if that were the case, it would be my problem, not God's. O:)
Mithrae wrote:
PinSeeker wrote: I think you would have to admit that what I'm saying here with regard to every subject we're discussing (jobs, money, possessions, teachers, etc.) has one clear, succinct, common, very consistent theme: God doesn't prohibit any of these things but rather endorses all these things, because He is the real, ultimate Source, Provider, and Teacher. He works through ordinary, earthly means to provide for His people. And this fits perfectly with Jesus's command in Matthew 6:33 to "seek first His kingdom and His righteousness..." -- in other words, not to seek nothing else (or necessarily to physically abandon anything), but to seek Him first and above all else -- "and all these things will be added to you" -- that He will provide all that you need in every physical and spiritual aspect via His Spirit by using various earthly means.
Yes, there's some consistency there and that's a nice message - thank God for your blessings - and certainly one which Jesus endorsed, but it clearly is not the substance of what he taught.
Thanks for the compliment (again), but yes, it most certainly is the substance of what He taught (and lived). The problem is -- and again, no offense intended -- you're analyzing it in a far, far too wooden way. I'll just leave this here, but, well, read on...
Mithrae wrote:It's a message which leaves Christians basically indistinguishable from the rest of the world, even though John's Jesus said there would be a clear distinction such that the world would even hate his followers. Each variety of Christianity which does not involve forsaking all attracts millions of followers, even though Jesus said his way was narrow and wondered whether there'd be anyone of faith left when he returned.
The feature distinguishing Christians from the rest of the world does not involve material possessions (like a house, a car, a TV, or anything else), but rather a character trait -- what Christians really yearn for, live for, value, and indeed worship. Jesus Himself said that the Law is summed up first and foremost by the command to love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and second to love your neighbor (everyone) as you do yourself. In other words, it's not material, it's spiritual. And that distinction is crystal clear. That distinction is why this board exists, for crying out loud. Do you not see any distinction between folks like me and... well, other posters on here who are very obviously opposed to Christians and Christianity (and God/Christ Himself)? You don't have to answer that; certainly you do. Now, I will say that with certain people who profess to be Christians, there may actually be no distinction along those lines, and where that is the case, that would call into question whether that person is really a regenerate Christian or not.
Mithrae wrote:It's actually quite remarkable, almost a litmus test of sorts: If you call something Christian, no matter how far-fetched (eg. Mormonism), no matter how obviously man-made and false (eg. Jehovah's Witnesses), no matter how weird and seemingly crazy (eg. Pentecostalism) and no matter how diametrically opposed to Jesus' teachings (eg. prosperity gospel), it seems you are all but guaranteed to attract millions of followers. But forsaking all, as Jesus plainly taught? Well, there's some believers who do that; at least a few dozen from the world's wealthier countries, perhaps even a few hundred. If you're looking for the narrow way, it's certainly not going to be anything you hear from a well-dressed preacher in a comfortable church building!
Hmmm. A lot to chew on here, too. With regard to the first part, I would just point out this Scriptural passage from 2 Timothy 2:
  • "...the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."
This time is obviously here; we can easily see that by looking around in any direction, as you point out. Oh, it was around in Paul's day, too, but this was a letter to Timothy, who's ministry had only just begun, exhorting him to continue in the Gospel regardless of circumstance or where some might be led at any point in his future. It applies just as much to us today as it did to Timothy and any of his contemporaries.
Mithrae wrote:"All these things will be added to you" in Matthew 6:33 covers food and clothing; that's it. That's all he's talking about in the paragraph.
Ohhhh... not so. Not at all. It covers food and clothing, but it also covers all material, emotional, spiritual needs. We will agree to disagree, I guess. But if you want to stick to that -- which is fine with me; it's certainly your prerogative -- you might as well say that Psalm 23...
  • "The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside quiet waters. He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; You have anointed my head with oil; my cup overflows. Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever."
... is only about physical needs, and it most certainly is not.
Mithrae wrote:He told his followers to pray for their daily bread, not a two bedroom mansion and fancy second-hand car.
Absolutely. He taught them to acknowledge God as Provider and pray for His continued provision. But He didn't tell His followers it was wrong/sin to have a mansion or a fancy car or any other earthly possession.
Mithrae wrote:Jesus was homeless, he said so himself...
So all Christians should be homeless? Surely you're not suggesting that, Mithrae. Surely not. Please tell me you're not actually suggesting that.
Mithrae wrote:...they sheltered with people willing to accommodate them. The example he set, and his followers set, was forsaking everything; eventually even their own lives, most of them.
Well, okay, and these other people were believers/Christians. So Christians today are supposed to "shelter" with other Christians who are willing to accommodate them? But then how would this even be possible if all Christians are supposed to abandon everything they have? Oh, my.
Mithrae wrote:The words he taught are clear enough in themselves... their example, even clearer.
Well, to some, anyway...

Post Reply