It's official, there is a "movement" to legitimize Christian Atheists as Christian. To most, the concept of a Christian Atheist seems oxymoronic. It seems self contradictory. It seems, quite frankly, moronic.
I know that some commenters here have fled from actually delineating a point where ones beliefs cross from Christian to something other than Christian, but surely one could surmise that denying the very existence of the deity the religion is named after is crossing that line.
I suspect that there are reasons why these folks won't accurately label themselves.
1. Quite possibly they find some sort of comfort in the forms and rituals of Christianity, yet want to strip any of the meaning out or to insert new meaning more to their personal taste.
2. They're simply afraid, or cowardly.
3. In much the same way as Progressive Christianity has taken over many of the mainline denominations, because the imprimatur of a mainline denomination carried more gravitas that the UCC or one of the fringe denominations, this clinging to the term Christian is merely a ploy to attach this new "belief" to the coattails of historic Orthodox Christianity.
4. Either #3 or it's similar to those who attach themselves to traditions that can be more flexible in doctrine. I believe that this is why so many progressive christians self identify as Anabaptist. They latch onto the Anabaptist doctrines that fit their political (or other) agenda, while ignoring other doctrines which don't.
Personally, I don't understand this desire to completely reject virtually everything about Christianity but the name, but to cling to the name for dear life. I suspect that some of it is purely naked financial self interest. As long as pastor GLBTXYZPDQ of the PCUSA can somehow contrive a way to keep the term Christian attached to themselves, and get past the whole lying in their ordination vows, they can remain employed. Keep the paycheck, the manse, the tax free housing allowance, the pension, and whatever other benefits that come with the job.
I'm going to guess that it's a lot easier to get folks to come to 1st PCUSA church, than the 1st Christian Athiest church.
Ultimately it's almost a sort of false "look at me being so incredibly brave and taking a stand", with little or no risk involved. What ever happened to "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no."?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
71 comments:
It appears to be the same thing that has been going on all along. Redefine marriage until it doesn't mean anything. Redefine love until it means everything and, therefore, nothing. Redefine definitions so they simply are what whoever is using them want them to mean. Redefine "tolerance" so it means "embrace" rather than ... you know ... tolerate. Redefine "judgmental" so that it only is judgmental if someone else is doing it. Redefine gender so it is whatever you feel like it is. So, redefine "Christian" so "Christian" means nothing and then "Christian Atheist" is perfectly reasonable, like "round square" or the like. Eliminate the meanings of the word and you can make sense of anything at all.
I'm quite sure it's not as benign or "misguided" as that might sound. I'm quite sure that the things that are on the redefinition hit list are things God cares about.
If I had to guess what they mean by it, I'd guess they mean they believe in the teachings of Jesus on how to live life, but don't think that Jesus was intending to teach a literal God. I doubt seriously there is any "ploy" on anyone's part or any trickery (at least not for many - no more than those who use conservative Christianity as a ploy to get rich or push their political agenda). But then, I know no Christian atheists, personally, nor have I read any writings by any, so you'd probably be best to ask them.
I would suggest, though, not beginning with assumptions of trickery or cowardice or laziness on their part. You know what they say about those who assume.
Well Dan I assumed that you would be unwilling to do anything but offer excuses for these folks, and my assumption was correct. It's interesting that on one more topic you are willing to put forth your assumptions about people's beliefs and motivations from anaditted position of ignorance. I would suggest that not making assumptions about where I "began", might be a good move. I would suggest that when the public writings and actions of these folks are clear and unambiguous and on the record, that drawing conclusion based on actual evidence is not actually assuming.
Of course, had you bothered to actually read the post, you would find that your assumption is incorrect. I pointed out multiple options to explain this phenomenon, yet you choose to ignore that and simply blindly defend these folks.
Thank you for the example of what happens when you make assumptions based in ignorance.
? How is my guess from ignorance any less viable than your guess from ignorance? You don't cite anyone who actually believes this way, you just offer what you "suspect..." How is what I suspect "incorrect?" On what do you base this claim?
As I said, I know no one who believes this way, so my guess IS a guess just based upon human nature. So, if you have some authoritative data that demonstrates I am incorrect in every or even most instances, please offer it and educate me. I suspect that you can't support your claim that I am incorrect.
Here is at least one Christian atheist who appears to be saying just what I am guessing: She believes in the ethical, justice and love teachings of Jesus, but does not accept the notion of a supernatural God.
https://news.vice.com/article/this-christian-minister-doesnt-believe-in-god-and-shes-not-the-only-one
I could be wrong, she doesn't come out and say it that way in the article, but it sounds like to me what she's saying. She believes that Christianity and atheism can be reconciled...
"While Ripley and Vosper disagree that atheism and Christian ministry can be reconciled..." and goes on to talk about solidarity with the oppressed and matters of justice that fit in with Jesus' teachings...
"I decided that as a mark of solidarity with those people who were being oppressed and denied their human rights, I would become an atheist alongside them,"
and...
"I'm betting on the United Church of Canada being the first denomination to have the courage to step beyond doctrinal boundaries and say we are a church that is about love, compassion, and justice,"
If I'm not mistaken, the Unitarian Universalists (who I don't believe generally identify as "Christian") fall under this umbrella of believers who accept the ethical teachings of Jesus but not the God part, at least necessarily.
At any rate, it appears at least in this one case of an actual person who self identifies as a Christian atheist, that my guess appears to be correct, or at least closer than your guesses.
For what it's worth.
Because I'm not "guessing from ignorance", I'm reading and listening to actual people making actual statements and taking them at their word.
In this case, the point of the post is not intended to look at the specifics of what they espouse, but rather to speculate on why they cling to something that they deny.
For example, why would one claim to follow someone who they deny the existence of and deny the veracity of 90% of that person's recorded words?
The problem you have is that you are making assumptions from an admitted position of ignorance, based on your self centered worldview ("I know no Christian athiests..."), without even bothering to look at any data to see if it supports your knee jerk reaction.
Since your suspicion ignored the wntirety of what I wrote and misrepresented the small part it did focus on, it's pretty much incorrect by its very existence.
As to the data you seek, how about you exert a tiny bit of effort and do your own research, rather than expecting me to spoon feed you things.
Or stop commenting out of your ignorance on certain topics.
That all ignores the fact that you've admitted your ignorance on the subject. You've chosen to assume that I am similarly ignorant. Which raises questions about your warning against assumptions.
? How is my guess from ignorance any less viable than your guess from ignorance? You don't cite anyone who actually believes this way, you just offer what you "suspect..." How is what I suspect "incorrect?" On what do you base this claim?
As I said, I know no one who believes this way, so my guess IS a guess just based upon human nature. So, if you have some authoritative data that demonstrates I am incorrect in every or even most instances, please offer it and educate me. I suspect that you can't support your claim that I am incorrect.
I've now cited someone who appears to be saying just what I guessed (and that not entirely from ignorance, as I stated, I'm familiar with human nature). You appear to not know their motivations, which is why you are speculating, right? So why is your speculation valid andminenot? How am I mistaken?
To address your question about "claim to" follow someone when they "deny the veracity" of 90% of his words? ...I rather doubt that they deny 90% of Jesus' words. Rather, they agree (I'm betting many would say) with the gist of 100% of his teachings and interpret differently than you or I the portion of his words about God. That is my suspicion. I see no reason to assume any nefarious motives on their part, by and large.
Most of these folks hew pretty closely to the Jesus Seminar when it comes to assessing the probability of the statements attributed to Jesus being accurate, if I remember correctly the Seminar trashed the vast majority of Jesus recorded words as being made up. Further, when one explicitly denied the existence of God and denies the existence of Jesus, it's hard to understand why one would order their life around a nonexistent being about whom we have virtually no knowledge.
It's interesting that you claim you've cited someone without actually citing someone, and that you think that one out of context non existent citation eliminated your ignorance.
While you are free to engage in supposition about motive, with no real basis, in order to try to validate your unquestioning support, I'd suggest actually looking at something beyond your personal experience before you generalize further.
How is my supposition about motive less valid than yours? Feel free to disagree, I find my supposition reasonable and I'd be willing to bet if you ask many of these people why they call themselves Christian, they'd answer as I suggest. Do you suspect otherwise?
I didn't say it was less valid, I said it's less supported. I also haven't advanced a single supposition, I've offered multiple options that potentially explain the phenomenon. As you might have noticed, I posit a range of motives, the fact that you've chosen to ignore part the options I've suggested and to focus on one raises questions about your motives.
I do understand that there is a certain comfort is simply engaging in supposition and making up motives and answers that allows the ability for maximum flexibility and minimum support. The problem is that when your supposition is in opposition to what folks who actually hold this position say, I'm forced to go with them.
What I find interesting is that even in the face of explicit denial of the very existence of God, your default position is to try to validate these folks as Christians, rather than to actually concede that there is a point where the label Christian is not accurate, and ones belief system is extra Christian despite the clinging to the term.
Still no citation, even though your characterization of this mystery quote doesn't fill me with confidence that it 100% validates your hunch.
Craig, I have to say that I'm not understanding much of what you're writing. What mystery quote? What validation of these people? What ignoring of your words?
You appeared to be wondering what their motivation might be and then offered some that did not strikeme as plausible and so I offered another possible motivation. It seems reasonable to me but you are free to disagree. But I ask you... Do you think it's not a likely response you'd get if you asked one of these people directly?
Another question: how large is your sample of Christian atheists you're familiar with? Are any of them friends? People you've spoken with directly? Have you asked any the Why? question?
You claimed you had a citation that validated your hunch, yet no such citation has been provided thus far. Therefore in the absence of the citation you claimed, it's just a mystery.
Yes, you've offered an unsupported hunch. Unfortunately the writings of those who actually hold the position don't agree with your hunch.
Sample size, I've interacted with a few and read more, but I haven't kept score. What I'm noticing is the increase in number and acceptance of this oxymoronic belief system, which is why I've commented. It's clearly a minority position, but it's growing. Of course I've asked questions. The problem is, that it's been difficult to get direct answers. The reason for this (I believe ) is that being too direct in answering questions makes it hard to dissemble and obfuscate when they take ordination vows. It's hard to affirm a belief in God when one doesn't actually believe in God.
My point is less about the specifics of the belief system and more about clinging to the label "Christian" when it's clear that this is anything but Orthodox Christianity. If believing this stuff makes them happy, them that's fine, just be honest about what you call yourself.
I am inclined to think that the Unitarians have the right of it... If you like Jesus' teachings but don't think the God part is critical, then say that and don't say you're "Christian," since Christianity is closely tied to theism. I was not defending the idea of atheist Christians. I was just offering a reasonable and I suspect accurate explanation as to why they'd call themselves Christian. I just don't think that fundamenalists, evangelicals or progressive Christians get to decide for others.
As to my quote and citation, I see it at 5:54am ( although that's not the time I posted it.) Do you not see it?
I have offered a supported hunch, not from a place of total ignorance, just to clarify. I've said I have experience with human nature, especially in the context of religious organizations. It's rare that I find humans living a lie as it relates to their belief system and disagreements with others. As a general rule, people seem to mean what they say and the disagreement is not of a disingenuous nature, but more typically from different (and sometimes incomplete) understandings and interpretations. Just to clarify.
I have offered a supported hunch, not from a place of total ignorance, just to clarify. I've said I have experience with human nature, especially in the context of religious organizations. It's rare that I find humans living a lie as it relates to their belief system and disagreements with others. As a general rule, people seem to mean what they say and the disagreement is not of a disingenuous nature, but more typically from different (and sometimes incomplete) understandings and interpretations. Just to clarify.
I just refreshed again and it showed up, don't know what was wrong. My apologies.
For what it's worth, you've now agreed with my original point. Why cling to a label that is clearly not descriptive of your belief system.
Speaking for myself, yes, I agree. If I were to decide God didn't exist, I would still consider myself a follower of Jesus. I probably wouldn't self-identity as Christian, since that term is thoroughly associated with theism. Maybe Jesus-ian.
But that's me. I also recognize the others may feel differently and for largely the same reasons. That is, they consider themselves a follower of Jesus or Christ-ian regardless of its association with theism. Because, to them, Jesus' ethical Way teachings are the heart of Christianity. I can see that, too.
Do you see how that might be a reasonable motive?
That, and perhaps the additional motive of thinking, "they don't speak for Christianity..."? Makes sense to me.
Put another way, I can see your options as possible explanations to the question of why embraced the term Christianity?
And further, I probably would not embrace the term Christianity as a non-theist Jesus follower.
And I can also see that some people might want to consider themselves a Christian if they are Jesus follower and not a theist.
I'm able to see all these options and of the options suggested so far, I would guess the most likely for many people like this is the one I suggested over the ones you suggested.
They just do not seem likely to me.
Yes, I understand that you can contrive a convoluted justification for clinging to the label of Christian. You might have noticed that I also came up with several reasonable options. The problem, of course, is that you are speaking for yourself and trying to make the hypothetical that makes you look the best.
You may actually believe that it's possible to revive theism from Christianity and still have Christianity. The problem is that, once you redefine Christianity to mean anything, you them remove any meaning from the term.
As for your "you don't get to decide ...", that's not the issue in the least. My basic question is why people choose to cling to a label while actively denying the tenets that make Christianity distinctive. What I am arguing is that "atheist Christian" is an oxymoron. But if you want to keep trotting that tired old diversion out, by all means...
Of course I'm shocked that you think your hunch is correct, shocked.
I'm asking a reasonable question, Craig: Do you see how this at least MIGHT be a possible explanation for why people would do this?
Sure, "I follow a Jesus who doesn't exist, deny the existence of the God Jesus talked about, and deny the veracity of the vast majority of his recorded teachings." might possibly be a logically inconsistent and not particularly coherent explanation.
Of course, "I like my job, salary, pension, and position." might explain it to.
Yes, it might. I wonder how many of these Christian atheists are in that position? Vs how many are, for instance, are not employed clergy? Do you know?
I don't know. But when an ordained clergy person decides to dissemble, obfuscate, or outright lie in order to get or maintain employment instead of demonstrating the courage to stand up for their true beliefs, they forfeit any claim to respect.
What I will say is that there are a growing number of employed clergy espousing this "Christian atheism" and using their positions to lend credence to their positions. You may have noticed that your poster child for this position is an ordained pastor.
Interestingly enough, I have a fair amount of respect for her willingness to be honest about her beliefs knowing that it could result in negative consequences.
But, then again I'm not the one who finds the whole "I claim the name of someone who I deny exists and whose teachings I deny the majority of." to be a reasonable position.
So in her instance, the only one cited here, do you suspect that my response is a reasonable guess as to how she might answer?
There is a wiki page for Christian atheism, have you read it? Seems like it's closer to what I was saying and really nothing like what you're saying?
Personally I'm not comfortable extrapolating out from one out of context example to make a broad generalization about a larger group, you might be but I'm not. Especially given that according to your own words she only "appears" to support your hunch. From my more extensive sampling I'd suggest that a broad overgeneralized hunch isn't supported
As for the wiki page, no. I've spent more time reading what these folks actually write, than counting on an open source wiki entry. But I just might peruse it for some laughs.
But, by all means trust wiki as long as you perceive that it agrees with you.
To be clear about Vosper, if I want to know how she'd answer, I'll look at the totality of what she's said publicly because I suspect that one could reasonably find her answer in her own statements rather than trusting your hunch about what she might say.
What I said was that I would have more respect for someone who is up front, forthright, and honest about their beliefs and is willing to accept the consequences of standing on principal, than I would for someone who would dissemble, obfuscate, or lie about their views in order to avoid consequences.
Surely, you agree that honesty is more deserving of respect than dishonesty.
If you have a source you'd like to cite that supports your hunches, please cite it.
And I didn't ask you to extrapolate out. I'm asking about her response?
Yes, honesty is good and preferable to dishonesty.
At some point I'll be happy to give you a source that corresponds with my characterization. But not from my phone.
Once again, if I want to know what Vosper has actually said, as opposed to your hunch about what she might say, I'll go to the source. Why should I give credence to what you think she might possibly say, when I can actually see what she actually said.
As long as you presume to suggest that Vosper's response represents anyone's but her own, then of course you're trying to extrapolate.
You do it frequently, and it's usually pointless and annoying.
A writer named Christian Chiakulus has written an essay explaining her reason for being a Christian atheist. It resounds with what I suggested if you'd like to look it up. In doing some reading, I'm not finding anyone who appears to have the motives you've suggested. Do you have any sources you can cite?
Did you not read my earlier comment regarding citing sources, or are you just being difficult? Or do you think that dropping a name and your interpretation of what she said somehow is pursuasive? Perhaps you think asking the question after it's been answered some how helps your cause.
Just to be clear, I am not denying that there are folks who agree with your hunch. Quite the contrary, I'm not even trying to suggest that my list is either exhaustive or exclusive. I'm simply putting forth some reasons why people might cling to an adjective that doesn't accurately describe them. It's possible that there are multiple reasons, even some that overlap both your hunch and my list.
Unlike you, I'm not trying to prove that my position is exclusively right. I'm simply examining a strange phenomenon and wondering why.
Sorry that this speculation has caused you so much difficulty.
Your post appeared after I wrote that. No hurries, I was just asking.
I'm not trying to "prove my position is exclusively right." I merely said that it strikes me as the most likely. You are free to hold other opinions. Ultimately, I suspect asking these folks their motives may be the best way of discovering their motives.
No difficulty. Just offering an opinion. You seem to be the one having difficulty accepting that opinion as an option. Or at least, until your last comment. I suspect there are overlapping reasons, as well. I just don't generally see any reason to suspect negative motives such as cowardice or greed as a general motivating factor.
Do you?
It's interesting that of the four options I offered only part of one of them is "negative" (cowardly), yet you seem to want to believe that all I offered were "negative".
I'm sure you see some major difference between insisting that your hunch is "most likely", and trying to prove your hunch is right. If that makes you feel better, then fine. I also don't assume or suspect negative motives. I do, however, look at people's words and actions and form opinions based on those.
For example , I am personally aware of someone who has lied (dissembled, obfuscated, spun) when taking their ordination vows. So when I see behavior like that I have to wonder what would motivate someone to act that way. Unfortunately, seeing dishonest behavior leads me to conclude that it is due to less than honorable reasons.
In conclusion, I've offered multiple options all of which are likely. You've offered one hunch which could be possible as well. I've noted the problems with your hunch, but you've chosen to insist that your hunch is most likely based on your own personal feelings. That's fine if you want to embrace the intellectual gymnastics needed to get to your hunch.
Craig, brother, life and people are not as cruel or bitter as you seem to want to make it. Lighten up, man.
I suppose it's possible you're not aware of what you are saying that sounds bitter and negative in your assessment of others. Something to consider...
1. You say they "Won't accurately" label themselves, implying deception.
2. You say they want to "strip away" the meaning, or "insert new meaning more to their personal taste," as opposed to, "in seeking Truth, they find different meanings than I do in sacred text."
3. You say others have "taken over" denominations, hanging on to a label as a "ploy," implying deception.
4.You speak of adopting Anabaptist beliefs so they can be flexible so as to substitute political beliefs, seeming to suggest it's about expediency, not faithfully seeking Truth...
For example. You're coming across as cynical and harsh in your assessment of those who disagree with you. If that is not your intent, perhaps you should choose more gracious and open words.
Sometimes, I find myself around liberal people asking about conservatives, why do they care about someone having an abortion or being gay? Do they just hate gay people? Just wanna control woman?
I will respond saying the more likely reason was out of concern for people... and why do I say that? Is it because I know conservative people have good intentions? No. It's just that people acting out of concern is a more reasonable explanation typically.
Vosper, in response to the question, "Do you believe in God the Father, Son,and Holy Spirit.
"IF by “God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” …
… you expressly mean the Trinitarian God, composed of three persons equal in essence, a being who presides over Earth from another realm, a supernatural one, from which it has the power to intervene in the natural world – capriciously or by design – by responding to our prayerful requests, or altering our minds and so, too, our actions, or intervening in the natural world with or without provocation or invitation in order to alter weather patterns, health, the accumulation or loss of wealth, the circumstances of birth including geography – a predictor of health and access to food and water – gender, sexuality, mental capacity, or beauty – all predictors of the power status and ease with which individuals will live their lives, then, no, I do not believe in that at all. Neither do I believe in a god of no substance who exists beyond the universe yet contains it, interpenetrating it in some incomprehensible way for some incomprehensible purpose.
I see no evidence of such gods. And so I see no reason to remain aligned with a doctrine which does not fit contemporary and ever-evolving scientific understandings of the universe or ethical perspectives on human dignity and rights."
Vosper continued.
"Were I to be given incontrovertible proof that a god does or gods do exist, the evidence of the cruel and capricious realities of disparity, tragedy, illness, and anguish in the world, and the truth that our world and our experience of it is wrapped not only in beauty but also in excruciating pain, would prevent me from worshipping it or pledging my allegiance to it, no matter the cost."
Vosper responding to "DO YOU … COMMIT YOURSELF ANEW TO GOD?"
"IF by ‘God’ …
… you expressly mean the Trinitarian God identified above, then, no, I do not."
Not exactly in line with your hunch. I'll post more when I have time.
Vosper
"I DO NOT BELIEVE …
… in gods who can intervene in the natural world; therefore, I cannot believe that there is something we could define as a “call” from any god to us to direct us to act in any particular way."
Vosper responding to "DO YOU BELIEVE GOD IS CALLING YOU TO THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD?"
IF by the “Word” …
… you mean the Bible as the sole source or the primary source from which I am to draw wisdom for myself or those to and with whom I minister or that our ethical and moral choices must be grounded in its content, then no, I do not consider myself engaged in a ministry of the Word nor do I accept a call to that ministry.
If you ask her, I would bet she'd say that the teachings of Jesus do not conform to this brutal and unjust god you've described. Thus, I am in line with Jesus' teachings, over and against this interpretation of a cruel and capricious god.
Feel free to ask her and clarify. I see no evidence that she is motivated by any of the options you've suggested and is, instead, motivated by notions of goodness and love and justice in line with the teachings of Jesus.
I think where you're getting off is that you hear someone who reads the words of Jesus and finds Jesus' teachings to be about justice for the poor, a kingdom of love and mercy and grace and they align themselves with those teachings... you hear that and assume "they ALREADY hold fast to 'liberal' ideas of love and they're just picking Jesus' teachings that align with those pre-held beliefs, thus, they're just picking teachings that they can use to support liberal beliefs, NOT looking for Truth and going where that leads..." Is that what you're doing?
An excerpt from John Shuck's statement of beliefs.
"For example, I believe that:
Religion is a human construct
The symbols of faith are products of human cultural evolution
Jesus may have been an historical figure, but most of what we know about him is in the form of legend
God is a symbol of myth-making and not credible as a supernatural being or force
The Bible is a human product as opposed to special revelation from a divine being
Human consciousness is the result of natural selection, so there’s no afterlife"
Of course you do. I suspected that anything I provide would be forced through your lens of sympathy to Vosper, regardless of the reality of the situation.
The fact is, that she wants to identify as a christian while denying;
The existence of God
The existence of Jesus
The source of the teachings of Jesus she selectively clings to
In short, she wants a to follow a Jesus that she gets to design and mold to her particular tastes. I guess that sort of puts her in the role of the god she so vehemently denies.
"Craig, brother, life and people are not as cruel or bitter as you seem to want to make it. Lighten up, man."
Except absolutely nothing in this thread indicates I believe life to be "cruel or bitter" in the least.
"I suppose it's possible you're not aware of what you are saying that sounds bitter and negative in your assessment of others."
I suppose it's possible that you realize that your characterization of me as "cruel and bitter" does not conform with the reality of anything I've written.
I also suppose it's possible that your desire to be contrarian is motivating you.
1. You are free to interpret things in whatever negative way you wish. My statement stands. If one labels oneself in a manner that is misleading, I find that to be problematic. As well as out of step with Jesus teachings.
2. Except I'm not talking about interpretation of a sacred text.
a. They deny the existence of a "sacred text"
b. I'm talking about actual word definitions.
3. I know that you sometimes find facts inconvenient, but the fact is that the PCUSA as it exists currently has virtually nothing in common with what the term Presbyterian has historically meant.
a. This takeover involved multiple instances of those on the progressive side engaging in falsehood and deception in order to achieve their goals.
b. I can think of no other word besides deception for someone who claims to adhere to the tenets of an organization, while simultaneously denying said tenets.
4. Yes, I do see a number of folks who are "situationally Anabaptist". I suspect it's the attraction of a non credal polity which allows people to claim virtually any combination of beliefs and still claim to be Anabaptist. Sorry if it offends you, but it's something I'm seeing.
"For example. You're coming across as cynical and harsh in your assessment of those who disagree with you. If that is not your intent, perhaps you should choose more gracious and open words."
Given the nature of your subjective opinions, I don't really put much stock in how your biases affect how you perceive me or my words.
The fact is that out of 4 options (not that I claimed those to be exhaustive), only part of one option was "negative", yet your inability to acknowledge that reality calls the rest of your interpretative skills into question.
Why bring abortion and being gay into this?
However, if it helps assuage your fears, I am concerned. Both Shuck and Vosper (as well as others) are employed in positions of trust and influence. If they engaged in deception to gain those positions, that's a concern. If they used deception, then they aren't acting in a Christ like manner, which undercuts their claims. If they use those positions of power and influence to lead those who follow them down a path that is false, then what on earth could be more despicable?
So yes, I'm concerned. I'm concerned for those who stumble into one of their churches expecting the Gospel and get something else. I'm concerned for those who expect Christianity and get some strange melange of progressive christianity, pantheism, panentheism, Hinduism, and Islam.
But if you'd rather characterize it is "cruel and bitter" go ahead. Sometimes Truth is a leaves a cruel and bitter taste when one is used to lies.
"If you ask her, I would bet she'd say that the teachings of Jesus do not conform to this brutal and unjust god you've described."
1. The "brutal and unjust" god is her construct, not mine.
2. The fact that she might say something has absolutely zero correlation to the reality of the situation.
3. If this god she's constructed is so "brutal and unjust", why would she want anything to do with the faith that he is associated with.
4. Wouldn't it be much more rational to run as far away from anything even remotely associated with this "brutal and unjust" god and strike out on a new path free from the "brutal and unjust" baggage.
5. Oh, she actually denied the existence of Jesus, as well as any authority of the only source where one can find his "teachings". That seems problematic is one is trying to construct in intellectually coherent philosophy.
Anyway, I've thrown out some of the low hanging fruit that supports my list of options. You've chosen to ignore and/or interpret it in a manner that is favorable to your hunch despite what was actually said.
Honesty, I appreciate your response as it eliminates that need to dig any further as you have clearly made up your mind and aren't going to let anything get in the way of your preconceived hunch.
Thank you for saving me the time and effort.
Last comment, we're getting no where.
3. If this god she's constructed is so "brutal and unjust", why would she want anything to do with the faith that he is associated with.
We do not accept your "side's" portrait of God as brutal and unjust and capricious. That you all view and define God in that manner (if not those words) does not mean that God (or Jesus) is associated with that human view of God.
You asked what might motivate people to be Christian atheist. I offered a reason (one possible reason) that is reasonable and I suspect likely. This is not by way of endorsing Christian atheism or defending these people any more than I defend conservatives against attacks (such as I mentioned above). It is a defense of truth and fairness in assessing others, not of the people involved.
Peace,
Dan
"any more than WHEN I defend conservatives..."
I've been trying to follow this conversation and for the most part was not much interested in joining in. But now I need clarification.
Dan,
You said...
"We do not accept your "side's" portrait of God as brutal and unjust and capricious. That you all view and define God in that manner (if not those words) does not mean that God (or Jesus) is associated with that human view of God."
When you say "your side's portrait of God", of whom do you speak? The side that doesn't reject Old Testament stories that illustrate how God dealt with sinners and sinful societies because such stories do not depict the nature of God as nothing but rainbows and daffodils?
One more thing, I wouldn't wager on the truth or falsehood of you ever defending conservatives, but would ask that you not do it. There's nothing in the history of discourse between us that gives any indication that you have any idea of what it means to be conservative. And no, your claim to have been one at one time is not the least bit convincing given how you speak of conservatism now. It only supports my belief that you have no understanding of it at all.
A better idea would be to direct such people you encounter that wonder about conservatives to my blog, where they can actually find out what conservatives believe and why. You clearly have no idea.
An equally good idea would be as follows:
When you find yourself around liberal people asking about conservatives, "Why do they care about someone having an abortion or being gay? Do they just hate gay people? Just wanna control woman?", ask them why they reject the right to life of innocent and helpless human beings and why they reject sexual morality?
---
So, you're suggesting answering in a jerk-y, arrogant and belligerent manner? No, I won't do that, sorry.
As to your question, as you surely should know by now, I don't accept your human interpretations of either God, the Bible or what I'm actually saying as rational or moral. So, what I meant is the traditional human fundamenalists' interpretations.
Dan thank you for admitting that you are an atheist.
The problem isn't my "side's", view it is to look at what scripture says about God's nature. The fact that God might not conform to your wishes, says nothing about God and everything about you. You and yours can reject whatever attributed of God offend you whenever you like, the problem is that your rejection (based on your perception of what God should be), doesn't actually mean anything. You've made my point for me, you all want to define God and Christianity according to your own definition without regard to the reality of the situation.
I have to note the irony in you claiming not to assess others, after assessing me as " bitter and cruel".
But consistency has never been your strong suit.
1. Didn't admit I am an atheist. Not sure what that's about.
2. If you use words like ploy,strip away meaning, cowardice, etc... words with negative connotations, you will sound negative. That's just how words work.
When you use words like "We don't accept...", you are referring to yourself as well as the atheists in the same category. That's how grammar works.
I guess the problem isn't your perception of the positive or negative connotations of the words I use as much as whether those words reasonably describe people's actions and attitudes. If they are reasonably accurate (and they are) then I'm fine erring on the side of accuracy over positivity. If all we're about is just trying to make folks feel good, then why even waste the time.
But by all means, continue to chide me for assessing others while making negative assessments about me.
Dan,
"So, you're suggesting answering in a jerk-y, arrogant and belligerent manner? No, I won't do that, sorry."
No, but thank you very much for again projecting maliciousness on me as you are wont to do. To respond to the questions you say are asked of you in the manner YOU suggest does nothing to address the more serious problem of pro-abortion and/or pro-sexual immorality attitudes. While "concern for people" does weigh heavily in the general conservative ideology, there's that problem you have of speaking for that of which you clearly know little, if not nothing at all. In the meantime, you ignore the opportunity to address two important manifestations of sexual immorality with no more than a shrug. Thanks for nothin'.
MA
There Dan goes again, making negative generalizations about people, after making such a fuss about how wrong it is to do so.
Post a Comment