|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 06:04:02
|
One of the first things that makes me go "hmmm" about Christianity is the whole topic of how unbelievers get saved. And what got me thinking critically about it (many, many years ago) was, of all things, a Jack Chick comic. You could say Jack Chick helped start me on the road to questioning my beliefs. Thanks Jack, I owe you one.
As best I can remember, the comic was about angels trying to save a sinner who was soon to die, and agents of Satan trying to keep him corrupt. The angels get a nice Christian girl to witness to him, and he seems interested, but he's very busy, he wants to talk to her some more, but Satans agents manage to keep her away long enough so that he dies unsaved. Bummer.
What got to me was that the man was condemned to eternal torture mostly because the angels were ineffective in doing their job. Got me to wondering how many real people were similarly condemned because the Christians they came in contact with just weren't very convincing. I mean, not everybody gets to have God appear to them in person. Most unbelievers have to rely on the abilities of ordinary Christians to make a convincing case, and if they don't then its off to the firey pit with you. Not them, mind you, they still get to go to heaven.
The injustice of it, the capriciousness, really got me to thinking. And it was all down the slippery-slope from there.
Does anyone disagree? Maybe I missed something.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 07:20:17 [Permalink]
|
Welcome leoofno. I think I remember the tract you mentioned. Is this it?
I don't disagree with your point, but I think many Christians would say that is only Jack Chick's slant on the matter, and there is still personal accountability.
The biggest thing that chaps my ass about the whole salvation thing is the idea that a murdering pedophile can make a death bed confession, accept Christ, and go to heaven, but an unbeliever can live a good life helping his/her fellow man and still go to hell.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 07:40:56 [Permalink]
|
Yet some Christians say that if they lead a righteous life, even an atheist can go to heaven. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?" - The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs." -- unknown
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 07:47:17 [Permalink]
|
Yup. Thats it.
I thought that most fundimental Christians believe that once exposed to the word, people then have a choice to accept or not. There is no way to heaven but through Jesus, after all. I'm thinking that its not just Jacks's take on things, but pretty standard fundiamenalist Christian thinking.
Personally, I was never tought that. I always thought that being a good person was enough. But it did not take long to go from questioning other's Christian beliefs to questioning my own.
Opinions vary about that death bed confession thing, too. I read that it was quite common in the early church for people to convert just before death because they believed that when they converted, all prior sins were washed away. Thats what Constantine did. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 08:20:56 [Permalink]
|
I think one thing we have to remember when questioning the illogical aspects of this type of Christianity (other than its followers are purely illogical half the time) is to this type of fundamentalism/orthodoxy there is no such thing as a good life. To them we are all worthless evil sinners from the moment we are either born or the age of accountability depending on the denomination in question. To them a murder or rape is no different in their God's eyes than a white lie or even thinking a bad thought about someone else.
Sadly this leads to the illogical (and really immoral) conclusion that the only redeemable "good" act a person can do is believing in their Messiah. Nothing else need apply because its not good enough. Of course they will argue that once you believe in their dogma you will be reborn, do good deeds, and turn from evil deeds, blah blah blah and so on. Of course even a cursory examination of the many Christians around us quickly shows this to not be true.
The determined fundamentalist will then point out that those people must not be "True Christians". They must deride people this way to prevent acknowledging that belief in their dogma doesn't really have power to transform lives as they so often claim. That people who have become Christians will continue to do terrible things such as murder, child abuse, rape, etc. However when pressed they will usually admit that they sin as well. This is where a true level of hypocrisy comes in as follows:
1) They claim all sin is equal to their God. 2) They claim to be true Christians but yet they admit to sinning. 3) They claim that Christians Y are not true Christians because they commit sin X (e.g. homosexuality).
To me if a person calls them self a Christian and professes a belief in Christ as the son of God they are a Christian no matter if they are the most liberal or conservative denomination in the world nor no matter what deeds they perform. This gets the conservatives' panties in a huge wad and they will scream how the liberal denominations are distorting the word of God, yada yada yada. They fail to realize that if this were so then the other Christians are just committing another sin that is no different than the little white lie they told last week or the feeling of pride they have of being an American Christian.
So the next time you have a Christian claiming another Christian group are not true Christians because of some doctrine difference, try approaching them this way 1) Get them to admit all sins are equal to God (some will claim that blaspheming the holy ghost is the exception to the rule, but that should be ok since the other group probably isn't being charged with denying the holy ghost). This should be easy to do as its basic Christian doctrine. 2) Get them to admit they sin. Anyone claiming they don't sin is claiming to be as perfect as Christ was supposed to be, something I doubt very little will do. 3) Point out that the difference in doctrine, if really against God's wishes, is just another sin and is equal to the sins against God's wishes they admit to commit themselves under God's eyes. Also point out that claiming they are True Christians and the others are not is a point of pride, in other words a sin in itself.
This should tie them in knots. Expect lots of back pedaling and doublespeak to try and get out of this corner they are backed in. |
|
|
sweetmiracle
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 11:23:04 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by bloody_peasant
I think one thing we have to remember when questioning the illogical aspects of this type of Christianity (other than its followers are purely illogical half the time) is to this type of fundamentalism/orthodoxy there is no such thing as a good life. To them we are all worthless evil sinners from the moment we are either born or the age of accountability depending on the denomination in question. To them a murder or rape is no different in their God's eyes than a white lie or even thinking a bad thought about someone else.
Sadly this leads to the illogical (and really immoral) conclusion that the only redeemable "good" act a person can do is believing in their Messiah. Nothing else need apply because its not good enough. Of course they will argue that once you believe in their dogma you will be reborn, do good deeds, and turn from evil deeds, blah blah blah and so on. Of course even a cursory examination of the many Christians around us quickly shows this to not be true.
The determined fundamentalist will then point out that those people must not be "True Christians". They must deride people this way to prevent acknowledging that belief in their dogma doesn't really have power to transform lives as they so often claim. That people who have become Christians will continue to do terrible things such as murder, child abuse, rape, etc. However when pressed they will usually admit that they sin as well. This is where a true level of hypocrisy comes in as follows:
1) They claim all sin is equal to their God. 2) They claim to be true Christians but yet they admit to sinning. 3) They claim that Christians Y are not true Christians because they commit sin X (e.g. homosexuality).
To me if a person calls them self a Christian and professes a belief in Christ as the son of God they are a Christian no matter if they are the most liberal or conservative denomination in the world nor no matter what deeds they perform. This gets the conservatives' panties in a huge wad and they will scream how the liberal denominations are distorting the word of God, yada yada yada. They fail to realize that if this were so then the other Christians are just committing another sin that is no different than the little white lie they told last week or the feeling of pride they have of being an American Christian.
So the next time you have a Christian claiming another Christian group are not true Christians because of some doctrine difference, try approaching them this way 1) Get them to admit all sins are equal to God (some will claim that blaspheming the holy ghost is the exception to the rule, but that should be ok since the other group probably isn't being charged with denying the holy ghost). This should be easy to do as its basic Christian doctrine. 2) Get them to admit they sin. Anyone claiming they don't sin is claiming to be as perfect as Christ was supposed to be, something I doubt very little will do. 3) Point out that the difference in doctrine, if really against God's wishes, is just another sin and is equal to the sins against God's wishes they admit to commit themselves under God's eyes. Also point out that claiming they are True Christians and the others are not is a point of pride, in other words a sin in itself.
This should tie them in knots. Expect lots of back pedaling and doublespeak to try and get out of this corner they are backed in.
Excellent idea, b. peasant! Remember, though, that they are often experts in mish-mash and equivocations of various sorts....but it's fascinating to hear the endless variety of nonsense they can come up with. |
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof.
-Carl Sagan |
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 13:00:03 [Permalink]
|
Is it really a common Christian belief that "all sins are the same"? The Catholic Church, at the very least, talks about "mortal" sins and "venial" sins, the former being quite bad and the latter less so. I find it hard to believe that most Christians would put murder at the same level as shoplifting a pencil. Is that a fundementalist, or, perhaps more likely, an ultra-fundementalist position? |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 13:28:08 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by leoofno
Is it really a common Christian belief that "all sins are the same"? The Catholic Church, at the very least, talks about "mortal" sins and "venial" sins, the former being quite bad and the latter less so. I find it hard to believe that most Christians would put murder at the same level as shoplifting a pencil. Is that a fundementalist, or, perhaps more likely, an ultra-fundementalist position?
Yes this is a very common belief among evangical and/or protestant Christanity.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2977 http://gatheredtogether.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=150
quote: All are sinners and all sins are equal in God's eyes
http://www.villagelutheranchurch.org/faq.htm
quote: According to the answer on the "All Sins the Same?" page the LCMS teaches that "all sins come equally under God's judgment," and therefore all sins are equal--whether sins of thought or deed, or even perhaps where our earthly laws would have us believe one sin is of greater wrong than another (for example, murdering someone versus swearing).
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=41&cuItem_itemID=6187
Yes you are right that there are many who say there are different levels of sin, but we also must look at what is the punishment for sin. Its all the same, eternal damnation in hell. Be a mass murderer and not repent go to hell. Tell a white lie and not repent go to hell.
Obviously if the Christian in question doesn't agree with all sins being equal then my line of reasoning above will not work. |
|
|
sweetmiracle
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 16:52:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes you are right that there are many who say there are different levels of sin, but we also must look at what is the punishment for sin. Its all the same, eternal damnation in hell. Be a mass murderer and not repent go to hell. Tell a white lie and not repent go to hell.
Obviously if the Christian in question doesn't agree with all sins being equal then my line of reasoning above will not work.
Ah, but the oft heard answer is something along the lines of, 'One doesn't go to h-e-double-hockey-sticks for sin. One goes there for rejecting Jesus.
The question then is, which version of Jesus do you mean? The cute little Sunday School version? The one who speaks of hell more that anyone else in the bible? The fuzzy-cuddly one? The one who has a sword coming out of his mouth? The one who just loves everyone so it's all okay one? The Catholic one? The Mormon one? The Methodist one? The Immaculate Church of the Presumtuous Assumption one?
Why can't this supreme being keep his story straight? |
Remarkable claims require remarkable proof.
-Carl Sagan |
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2005 : 04:57:08 [Permalink]
|
Heck, the earliest Christians couldn't agree on who Jesus was. The range of beliefs regarding His nature was far greater than that which exists today; from Jesus being a seperate God, to Jesus being all human, and a lot in between. And each had their own scriptures to back them up. Quite interesting. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2005 : 17:03:45 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by bloody_peasant
The determined fundamentalist will then point out that those people must not be "True Christians". They must deride people this way to prevent acknowledging that belief in their dogma doesn't really have power to transform lives as they so often claim. That people who have become Christians will continue to do terrible things such as murder, child abuse, rape, etc. [...]
To me if a person calls them self a Christian and professes a belief in Christ as the son of God they are a Christian no matter if they are the most liberal or conservative denomination in the world nor no matter what deeds they perform. This gets the conservatives' panties in a huge wad and they will scream how the liberal denominations are distorting the word of God, yada yada yada. They fail to realize that if this were so then the other Christians are just committing another sin that is no different than the little white lie they told last week or the feeling of pride they have of being an American Christian.
I have always found it amusing (and somewhat baffling) that Christians consider it their prerogative to determine whether or not another person is/was a Christian. To my way of thinking, an individual is the only one who can choose how they believe. To make assumptions about another's beliefs seems pretty presumptive, at the least, and at the other extreme, just plain psychic.
For example, many claim that Adolph Hitler couldn't have been a Christian because of his actions. To the best of my knowledge Hitler claimed to be a Catholic right up to the day he died. I allow that it was up to him to choose his religion, and not the option of people who were born long after his death. Now, clearly he interpreted the source of his philosophy differently than many (most?) other Christians, but then again I've never met any two Christians would could actually agree on how to interpret their faith anyway.
Interestingly enough, there are currently millions of people who would tag Adolph Hitler as a non-Christian, yet vigorously support George Bush's murder of tens of thousands of innocents and consider him a good Christian because of it. I don't recall the specific terminology that describes this type of pick-and-choose flawed (and obviously dangerous) logic, but I observe it a lot, and it certainly demonstrates irrational thinking.
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|