When Christians hate
My first thought, upon seeing the horrific comments Fox News viewers claiming to be Christians posted on news channel’s Facebook page in the wake of an appearance by American Atheists spokesman Blair Scott, was that they were really written by agents provocateurs—anti-Christians posing as believers. But it would take some pretty elaborate planning to create scores of Facebook personalities crafted to appear as Christians in all their particularities. That’s not impossible, of course, but it seems unlikely.
Which leaves the unsavory alternative, namely that there are more than a few people who find no conflict between believing in a loving God and declaring their hope that atheists are raped, or crucified, or have their heads blown off with shotguns.
To be sure, I’ve seen ample hate on atheist websites—and even been subjected to it—but not this kind of bloodlust. Perhaps I could find it if I looked harder, but it’s small consolation to learn that the angry atheist fringe is just as bloodthirsty as the angry Christian fringe.
It’s easy—and tempting—to spout stupidity from a keyboard, and I doubt any of the vile commenters on Fox’s Facebook page are actually planning violence. Still, the sad effect of their angry lack of self-control reinforces, in the eyes of thousands of atheists, a perception that the people of God are hate-filled. My experience with more than a few atheists is that this is the conceptualization of God they were given at an early age, an angry and vengeful Being. And His followers, to them, are hypocrites who talk a lot about loving their neighbors, but in reality are consumed with judgment and gossip toward them.
All of which makes me think, especially in the wake of Anders Breivik’s atrocities in Norway, that we might benefit from more aggressive discipline, in Christian churches, of anger. Wrath is certainly one of the seven deadly sins of old, but not one addressed from the pulpit—in my experience, anyway—nearly as often as lust, say, or pride.
It would be something laudable, I think, if elders and pastors combed the list of Facebook entries on Fox News’ page and, should they spy any of their congregants among the hateful, hold them accountable. Even if it had no effect on the opinions of atheists, it could well be beneficial to the souls of the offenders. I don’t know what Heaven is like, but I’m pretty sure none of us will fare well if we arrive at the gate boiling over with anger.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top88 Comments to “When Christians hate”
Religion–Christianity, athesim, or otherwise–breeds hate if it is merely “my way of looking at things.” To being in relationship with the Living, loving Savior deconstructs hate. I would posit that those bloodthirsty posters have plenty of religion and little relationship. You cannot even have a rudimentary understanding of the cross and not deal with anger and hate.
Report comment to moderator
Exposing and condemning these people will hurt us now, but hopefully cut back on it in long run. But there isn’t much we can do about sock puppets and secular culture “Christians”.
Report comment to moderator
Some of the angriest, most contemptuous, most negative and critical people I’ve ever known have been Christians–especially so-called “leaders” in the church. Even when they’re talking quietly, they’re stabbing you with their words (Prov. 12:18) with a spiritual bloodlust that would be criminal if it were physical. Makes me wish to hang out with godless hippies instead.
Report comment to moderator
The people and the comments they made so misrepresent Jesus Christ that unless they are radically changed they will stand in line only to hear Jesus say: “Depart from me, I never knew you.”
Even though I am an imperfect and often hypocritical representative of Jesus myself, I sincerely apologize for the despicable outbursts delivered in Jesus pirated name. I only hope that each offended person can be accurately loved by a follower of Jesus, who while disagreeing with your un-belief loves you with the sacrificial courtesy of the real Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
3. I understand. I’ve been there, but what I discovered is that the angry Christian and the reasonable hippy are more obvious and noticeable because they are the exception. The law of averages makes me want to stay with the Christians.
Report comment to moderator
. . a perception that the people of God are hate-filled.
Let me come to the defense of Evangelical haters. They can’t help it. They do their best to be nice, truly. They cry out to God for hearts of love. The want to hate only the sin. Deep down, they are no worse than liberals who can be just as full of vile antipathies. But the conservative soul is corrupted by a particular method of thinking.
The conservative worldview promotes the characteristic vice of blaming individuals for whatever goes wrong. Liberals have different vices, but not this one. The liberal vices might even be worse. But liberal ideas don’t push liberals to demonize individuals.
Report comment to moderator
TONY WOODLIEF wrote; “…there are more than a few people who find no conflict between believing in a loving God and declaring their hope that atheists are raped, or crucified, or have their heads blown off with shotguns.”
We (TONY included) do NOT know if the people who said such things actually believe in a loving God at all! Pastors get hateful mail from anonymous writers all the time and it is wise not to pay attention to it and definitely not to judge groups by such mail. If such comments are not anonymous, then deal with that person, in context, or name them responsibly and blame them fairly when citing their comments.
This sort of judgment based on some Facebook comments seems unfair and strikes me as irresponsible journalism, although I do appreciate Tony’s recognition that such comments could well have been agents provocateurs—anti-Christians posing as believers. But we cannot really know that either can we?
Most of a journalist’s job is to verify, verify, verify. When this is not possible, maybe (just maybe) it is better to ignore, ignore, ignore.
Report comment to moderator
There is one area where many people are finally learning not to generalize unfairly about groups based on alleged isolated behaviors or comments of people who are (or just say they are) part of that group–and that is race. If a bunch of people claiming to be African-American wrote horrific things, I don’t think WORLD would post an article with the headline “When African-Americans hate!” Just my guess.
And simply based on the shaky sourcing provided in this article, I do NOT believe that at post #3, DAVID L would have written: “Some of the angriest, most contemptuous, most negative and critical people I’ve ever known have been African-Americans…”
Nor should anyone think or comment that way.
Report comment to moderator
People seem to have a strong penchant for developing and feeding prejudices.
1. We are fast losing our ability to fairly assess our sources and their reliability.
2. We are too willing to leap to conclusions about groups based on isolated (and even unsubstantiated) claims, incidents or comments.
Report comment to moderator
Read your bibles and look at the history of Christian and other religously led wars. Hundreds of millions dead in the name of one deity or another.
Dismissing those folks as “sock puppets” and “agents provocateurs or suggesting that they be “ignored, ignored ignored”, is to invite more tragedy and deny the consequences of lending them the power of your god.
Report comment to moderator
To ignore such comments gives opponents of Christ and His followers a legitimate reason to think that the attitude accurately represents us and God.
Regardless of the who made the comments they ought to be repudiated.
While it is true that God judges sin, even with death, His attitude and behavior was to take the penalty of our sin upon Himself. This is the fundamental GoodNews of Christianity that is so horribly misrepresented by these people.
Report comment to moderator
When I am tempted to respond, I must remember to consider my written words as well as my spoken ones. I ask myself, What Would Jesus Post?
Report comment to moderator
NEIL EVANS, if you think it is wrong to ignore the horrific statements in question here (whatever they were), then respond clearly and soundly in the context of their first appearance! But let’s not use unsubstantiated comments from unknown sources to justify judgments of groups, Christian or otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
NEIL EVANS, wrote; “To ignore such comments gives opponents of Christ and His followers a legitimate reason to think that the attitude accurately represents us and God.”
We are in agreement, but remember, we don’t even know whether or not the comments in question were from the opponents of Christ or not. Let’s repudiate the comments WITHOUT unfairly judging a group of people based on unsubstantiated identity claims.
Report comment to moderator
I suspect that Tony is being overly generous in allowing the idea that hateful comments are the work of “agents provocateurs.” Yes, they clearly exist and frequently “contribute” to forums such as this, but from what I have seen from my own circle of family and friends – myself included, there is more than enough evidence that genuinely devout and sincere Christians can easily slide from “hating the sin and loving the sinner” to simply hating.
Even the apostle Peter jumped to Jesus defense with a sword (John 18:10-11). Yet Jesus’ response was to rebuke his defender and heal the offender (Luke 22:51). We do well to keep that in mind when we are prompted to respond to the latest insult or slander of our Lord.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, it is precisely because I do not want real Christians as a group to be unfairly judged that I believe it is important to repudiate the comments regardless of who made them. Would the comments be okay if it were proven that they were all made by atheists posing as Christians? The comments are evil regardless of who made them.
It is human nature (which Christians also have) to judge groups by the behavior of individuals. Ignoring the misrepresenting behavior of individuals in our group (or who claim to be in our group) contributes to the misunderstanding of our group by outsiders. If we are silent regarding these evil comments, non-Christians will be fully justified to conclude that the comments are okay with us.
Report comment to moderator
TAJOHNSON,#15, excellent comment!
Report comment to moderator
The great irony of these “Christians” is that they are living like practical atheists themselves.
Says Craig Groeschel, who wrote a book called Christian Atheists , “It is a fast-spreading spiritual pandemic which can poison, sicken, and even kill eternally.”
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Neil on this one. Even if these people are not Christians, or are “secular Christians” who don’t really understand, we have to repudiate what they have said.
It is the very thing that I think we (rightfully) complain about with the “peaceful” Muslims. When other Muslims do things that are terrible, there is a huge silence from the “peaceful” ones–for the most part.
They should speak out.
And, so should we when others use the name of our Lord so poorly.
Report comment to moderator
TAJOHNSON wrote; “I suspect that Tony is being overly generous in allowing the idea that hateful comments are the work of “agents provocateurs.”
We just don’t know do we? Why does it seem so hard to get this fact across? All I am saying is that we should be honest about what we don’t know.
TAJOHNSON wrote; “…from what I have seen from my own circle of family and friends…”
Fine. Then deal with them fairly on their own merits or demerits.
Report comment to moderator
I have also seen and felt hatred in and from people who call themselves Christian and who belong to churches and we all know it is there. But as far as I can know, this experiential fact has nothing to do with those Facebook posts.
Report comment to moderator
“But liberal ideas don’t push liberals to demonize individuals.”
Seriously? You believe that?
Report comment to moderator
Maybe it was TEA Party people who posted those bloodthirsty comments, or Sarah Palin supporters!?
Report comment to moderator
Joel, can you not condemn the comments no matter who wrote them? It really is not a casual matter. It has been stated that people created in the image of God ought to be brutally tortured and killed simply for their blind denial of their creator. Are you really okay to let these comments stand awaiting a fuller investigation seeming to hope that it may turn out to be an atheist plot?
You are very correct that true followers of Jesus ought not be judged by some misrepresenting individuals. But the fact is we are. That is why it is important that we express our great disagreement with these evil sentiments.
Report comment to moderator
NEIL EVANS, perhaps I have not made myself clear or you are not reading my posts. OF COURSE I can condemn those comments no matter who wrote them!!! I do. What on earth have I written to begin to presume otherwise??? But in condemning those comments, I do not use them to judge or condemn Christians or other groups in general or presume that this is even an example of “Christians” hating. We do NOT know who wrote them.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Tony, there are a lot of angry Christians. They do use language and actions which are not good for the soul.
I think spending a lot of time with WRONG WORDS, whether listening or reading, we are training ourselves in the ways we should NOT go.
Be careful little eyes what you see. Spending time reading stuff where people use foul language.
Be careful little ears what you hear. Spending time listening to stuff where people use foul language and incite hate in others.
Be careful little feet where you go. Spending time watching stuff where people not only use foul language, but the repetitiveness is training us in the ways that are NOT of God.
It is said, “When you wallow with pigs, expect to get dirty.”
Report comment to moderator
Those comments are shameful. But I don’t believe those are Christians. They don’t sound like ANY Christian I’ve ever heard.
Report comment to moderator
On a more humorous note, when I first read the title of Tony’s post, I admit my first thought was—hmmm, ‘When Christians hate’ or ‘When good dogs go bad’. Either way sounds like a bad reality tv show. :–)
Report comment to moderator
10. I did not mean to imply that all these comments were from “Sock puppets”. What I meant was that of the three possibilities, sock puppet, secular Christian and Christian committing a sin, the last one is the only one who we can do anything about. And of course we should try. I suspect there is a little of all of these.
Report comment to moderator
Sing with me: “And they’ll know we are Christians by our love . . . “
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: We (TONY included) do NOT know if the people who said such things actually believe in a loving God at all!
Well said! Neither do we know if the person who said the following here believes in a loving God at all!
Eternal shame on you, Scroop Moth, until you truly repent. You disgust all decent people and you know it. You are beyond all moral reproach.
Report comment to moderator
Come now Scroop, was that a response to your stated opinion on an abortion thread that even a newborn child is not a person until “presented to society”? Wasn’t that what you said?
Report comment to moderator
While I don’t condone hateful speech, it does not surprise me. People (even believers) can say all sorts of ungodly words on internet sites when their buttons are pushed. Is it justified or God-honoring? Of course not. But not surprising. I’ve seen it before.
Report comment to moderator
DEBRA – No, that denunciation wasn’t a response to my belief that the human fetus is not a person.
I criticized Sarah Palin.
“Sarah Palin was the dramatic soprano; Jared Loughner the shattering wineglass.”
GWB speechwriter David Frum wrote the indictment, I prosecuted the case against Palin, and the poster pronounced my virtual elimination.
He really liked Sarah’s crosshairs. He’s a pastor, btw:
And I am grateful for Palin’s influence in the last election where politicians harmful to our country and to our economy were effectively placed in the voter’s crosshairs. Good for her and good for the voters who hit their target in many elections.
The pastor said this over fresh graves. Amen. Family members of the Tuscon gunshot victims read WorldMagBlog and shuddered.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, sorry,I was thinking of the wrong thread. But it’s still not a ‘virtual elimination’, more like a stern rebuke. A bit dramatic maybe, but as the official WMB drama-moth I would think you could appreciate that.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I appreciate drama queens — when that’s what’s going on. If the pastor said, “I don’t know WHAT came over me, sometimes I’m SUCH a witch,” it would be different. BUT WE ARE NOT AMUSED.
I’m not the most popular insect on this blog and naturally must expect mothballs. All Evangelical arguments boil down to personal attack. However, ya’ll transmogrify me into a “snake.” Like moths aren’t bad enough!
I’m not a snake. I’m nothing you’ve heard. I’m you.
Report comment to moderator
I think JM’s problem is that he cannot denounce these Christians because he knows that they can find ample justification for their hate-filled views in his bible. Their doctrine is just as well supported as his, whatever that might be.
When confronted with this reality many Christians simply resort to blanket, unsupported denials of the Christianity of those with whom they disagree.
We saw that most recently with Brevik who, while he certainly had some political motives, unquestionably took some of his motivation from Christian doctrine and Christian history.
Report comment to moderator
Still beyond all moral reproach, eh SCROOP? Why can’t you actually comment resonably on my comments on this thread?
Never mind.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, I do mind.
I think my comments on this thread have been entirely legitimate, earnest and civil. Nothing personal to anyone. One thought contained sarcasm to make a point. No grounds for offense to anyone personally. Suddenly, SCROOP MOTH gets personal. He imagines that I denounced him becuase he “criticized Sarah Palin”? (based on some long gone conversation), or that what disgusted me (on adifferent thread apparently) was that he thinks a the human fetus is not a person, and that I said so “over fresh graves.” Why such a bizarre personal attempt to hijack a thread?
Yet, he did not provide a source for this for the full context to be clear. Perhaps he is a hurting person who wants to hurt others.
Consider SCRROP’s statement: “Sarah Palin was the dramatic soprano; Jared Loughner the shattering wineglass” and judge it for yourselves. This is what conservatives must deal with far too frequently.
Report comment to moderator
“…in the eyes of thousands of atheists, a perception that the people of God are hate-filled…”
—–
These “all-so-sensitive” atheists?
Been so sheltered in inner wonderfulness?
Somehow never heard of the New Testament?
Defiance to God could not possibly be the issue?
(Wasn’t that the atheist chuckle I heard behind the curtain?)
:-O
Report comment to moderator
“..but not one addressed from the pulpit—in my experience, anyway—nearly as often as lust, say, or pride…”
—-
Oh, the listener knows.
He/she knows very well.
“But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:” (Col 3:8-10)
“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Ro 12:19)
Report comment to moderator
#36 All Evangelical arguments boil down to personal attack. However, ya’ll transmogrify me into a “snake.” Like moths aren’t bad enough! ”
Scroop, it’s not true that all Evangelical arguments boil down to personal attack. Perhaps it just feels that way to you because you identify so closely with your sin—at least on the blog….And the nature of all sin (when the pleasant façade is stripped away) is slimy, scaly, and icky. It’s no wonder you feel ‘transmorgrified’ [had to look that term up].
I think the responses you tend to get are reflections of the horror produced by some of your own outrageous comments, rather than attempts to dehumanize you. Maybe an unintended consequence of playing the drama-moth? Or maybe a natural consequence of choosing to embrace sin. Or both.
Report comment to moderator
#36 I’m not a snake. I’m nothing you’ve heard. I’m you.
Of course you’re not a snake. In fact, since you are me, I’d like to take this opportunity to set some things straight and make a public declaration on our behalf:
I [&Scroop] most sincerely repent my [our]sins, and gratefully receive the gift of Jesus’ atonement graciously provided by the Father to make a way for me [us] to be reconciled to Him. I [we] determine to submit to His will and to His Word which is alive and living and carries His authority in the Earth, in the power of the Holy Spirit of Christ. I [we] choose to trust every moment that He will make a way for me [us] to walk out this new life, and to bear the fruit indicative of a new creation, for His glory and for the edification of my [our] new brothers and sisters.
The fact is Scroop, if you made that declaration for real, from your heart, and truly pursued the God who made you in His image, with as much passion and drama that you now fight against Him, you would be surprised at the acceptance and love and peace that would come into your life. Of course, sometimes the old man (and his companions) die hard, so you might also be surprised at the rejection from people you now count as your friends, I don’t know. But I do know it’s worth it.
Report comment to moderator
“Wrath is certainly one of the seven deadly sins of old, but not one addressed from the pulpit—in my experience, anyway—nearly as often as lust, say, or pride.”
All branches of the same tree. You can lop off a branch, but what good is it if you don’t deal with the root?
Report comment to moderator
I wouldn’t be quick to affirm that people who write such things are not Christians.
Christians sin. Christians believe stupid things. Christian act on stupid things they believe, in sinful ways. All those things are true because the gospel is true — Christianity is not about people who don’t sin.
Having said that, just because these people are claiming to be Christians, even believing that they are, doesn’t make it so. But someone being stupid and/or sinful, even to the degree of hateful is no reason in itself to claim he’s not a Christian.
Now, if there’s a pattern of life of hatred, then that definitely calls someone’s testimony into question (cf. I John 2.) But we’re not looking at a pattern of life here — we’re looking at some things people wrote on a particular occasion, so we really can’t view it as though it’s part of a pattern. We just don’t know.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with you, Pentamom1. Christians walking after the flesh can be a mess. (But they’re still Christians.)
Report comment to moderator
We don’t know for sure. But I looked through the comments and they read like a blitz attack. It looked a little to consistent to me. Finding a Christian who expresses radical hate and violence may be possible. Finding a long string of them together in one place at one time smacks of a coordinated effort. Just my take.
Report comment to moderator
ARCADIA #37 spot on.
TONY WOODLIEF posted a similar commentary about hatefulness this past Spring and JOEL MARK rebuked him for promulgating “phantom Christians.”
If you listen to JOEL MARK’s spirit of denial, you will think that bad Evangelicals are a figment of a hostile imagination. You will doubt if it’s even admissible to talk about them without giving names and evidence. There may or may not be bad Evangelicals who may or may not be Democratic agents provacateurs — we’ll never know! — but in any case, they wouldn’t truly be Christians, and talking about them would only make real Christians look bad, so shut up about it already until you have a list of culprits and the evidence against each of them.
JOEL MARK says verify, verify, verify or else ignore, ignore, ignore.
Since JOEL MARK has asked for particulars, it’s fair and reasonable on our part to refer him to his own comment history, which provides prima facie evidence of personal attack.
Please note, he’s already trying to deflect scrutiny by objecting to “personal” discussion. This is misdirection, folks! JOEL MARK is a wonderful Evangelical pastor. We’re holding folks accountable for their words, not their personality, their looks, or their heterosexualist orientation. Notice, too, he is objecting to discussion of things from the past. “What’s the matter detective, did I assassinate anybody today?”
BTW, can you say Christians are the salt of the earth without having to furnish lists and courtroom testimony?
Report comment to moderator
Those comments have been condemned by the Christians here—including JoelMark. In my experience, the long list of invectives and directives toward violence and mayhem are more in line with comments on liberal sites that I’ve read from time to time—not Conservative (generally) and certainly not on Christian sites. I’m not saying that no Christian would resort to such talk, but they’d be very very immature indeed. And their speech would be condemned by virtually all other Christians–as it is here.
I still suspect it’s a coordinated effort of some kind. I’ve seen trolls gather at conservative sites and infiltrate and attempt to pick it apart while pretending to be conservative until they’re outed–usually by going too far and blowing their own cover. We’ve even seen infiltrators openly exposed in the Tea Party movement. Nothing seems to be below these people.
Report comment to moderator
I have seen comments like those before, usually on youtube videos with Christian content. A non-Christian comments negatively on something, and Christians will respond in very much the same tone as seen in Tony’s example. Some comments praise God and curse the non-Christian to hell in the same sentence.
I have heard Christians justify such language on the grounds of what Christ said to the Pharisees; but the Pharisees were the protectors and teachers of God’s law (Matthew 23:2-3). Jesus was reproving religious hypocrites who should have known better. Neither Christ nor his apostles used such language to secular people with whom they interacted. Paul even apologized for cursing the high priest for an unjust act (Acts 23:2-5).
James makes it clear that to curse others is not a Godly act. ‘Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.’ James 3:9-10
Report comment to moderator
You poor, persecuted Christians. When will the white Evangelicals have their day in the sun? When??!?!
Report comment to moderator
Regarding days in the sun: “…for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Mt. 5:45b)
Report comment to moderator
Phos,
How can that be? Where do these people come from? Where do they go to church? Who are their teachers, leaders, pastors, neighbors?
Report comment to moderator
The fact is, when people express hatred to others made in the image of God, by wishing they will go to hell and offering to dispatch them there, they’re spitting on the crucified Christ. A very few of these could be extremely ignorant or immature Christians. Some who say these things may even believe they are Christians, but I’m afraid they’re fooling themselves….and possibly fooling others who are really only looking for a convenient excuse to be fooled anyway . Those searching for such excuses will always find them (or manufacture them when they don’t). But the real danger from this kind of deception is that the well can be poisoned for those who are still sincerely searching—-the lost sheep, for whom the Good Shepherd left the 99 to search after.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, KillYourIdols, I take it you don’t like whining Christians, but what faith are you? Are you an Atheist, Buddhist, Humanist or …. fill in the blank?
Report comment to moderator
After a few days of seeing this thread, I just now clicked on the link. I was pleased to see this comment in the response to the “Christian” commenters.
Someone calling himself a freethinker says, “This story is awful. Almost too awful to be true. Where can I go to get independent verification? I want to pass on to my wingnut friends but this seems to have an over-the-top feel to it.”
It’s too suspicious even for the atheists.
I know that Tony Woodlief considered the possibility that this isn’t real, but he quickly dismisses the likelihood. Why are some Christians so eager to jump on the “self-loathing evangelical” bandwagon?
Report comment to moderator
I’m not too Facebook literate, so I could be missing something, but as far as I can see, most of those names don’t even have Facebook profiles. And the ones that do (the more common type names) don’t have profiles consistent with those posts.
Report comment to moderator
What’s the big deal. We are addressing fallen human nature and this form of hatred is rampant among the majority of the human race as wide is the path to destruction.
Those that claim they are Christian range from 75% to 85% of the population depending upon which survey you review. But when they are tested for their worldview they are predominantly humanists and they are biblically illiterate. In other words, they know not Christ nor His Father and therefore do not have eternal life.
Barna has demonstrated that only 4% of the American population have a minimal biblical worldview and when tested for a moderate biblical literacy it drops down to 0.3%.
God hates evil and a true Christian should do likewise, but not hate the person. The fallen are captives of the world’s lies and deserve respect as creatures of God’s image. Proverbs 26:4-5 and 1Peter 3:15-16 provide a good start for how the Bible teaches Christians to respond to the world. Our war is not against the flesh but lies and deceptions of the devil.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, I would never tranmogrify you into a snake. Additionally, I vehemently oppose your false ideation that you are me; rather, I would posit that you are not me at all. It is an interesting philosophical concept, to consider that one person could be another person – then “person” would not refer to a discrete entity at all. In that case, maybe we could think of “person” as a mere manifestation of a kind of life force which metaphorically “pops” in and out as “person.” However, if person is not discrete, then it would be the opposite of discrete, a term which could be referred to as “non-discrete.” On the other hand, perhaps discrete and non-discrete are not discrete options at all, but rather are ends of a continuum which doesn’t truly exist but is the best that we can conceptualize, much like our concept of the photon and wave packets. Nevertheless, I would still like to think of person as discrete. And assuming that you and I are both a person, and not the same person, I think that discretion is something from which we can both benefit.
Report comment to moderator
Hawk,
Please direct me to the Barna survey that found that “only 4% of the American population have a minimal biblical worldview.”
Besides, where in the Bible does it say that “hav[ing] a minimal biblical worldview” is necessary for salvation, or that Biblical literacy is necessary for salvation?
Lastly, these “worldview tests” are a complete joke. The tests focus primarily on right-wing political issues, such as tax policy, affirmative action, and whether the US was founded as a Christian nation. And the theologically oriented questions are also a joke. There are few questions that ask about the person and work of Christ. Instead, the focus is on whether one adheres to biblical literalism or whether one believes that the world was created in six 24-hour “days”. If such tests are the criterion as to whether someone’s a Christian, then we’re all doomed except for Biblical literalists who believe that America ought to be a Christian theocracy (or something close to it).
Report comment to moderator
On the topic of hate…
The world is filled with hateful people. But hateful people rarely acknowledge (to themselves or to others) that their hate is hate. They will always try to justify the hate through dogma. In most instances, they will attach themselves to tradition-based civic religions.
In this country, our primary civic religion is a folk variant of Christianity. It uses a lot of the language and symbols of orthodox Christianity. But in the end, it’s just a works-based moralistic deism falsely wrapped in the garb of Christianity.
Of course, it’s hard to separate the true believers from the civic Christians, as evangelical churches have frequently sought to cater to both groups. In that sense, American evangelical churches have reasoned: “It’s ok not to love Christ, just as long as you hate liberals.”
Report comment to moderator
Stick to arguing the topic, not each other.
Report comment to moderator
^
Report comment to moderator
The hate and nastiness towards Christians on WMB is disheartening. And those haters are a waste of precious time to read on other topics as well.
Report comment to moderator
This was an obvious “set up”. Blair Scott was scheduled to be on Fox News so he got the word out to his network, and they set up false identities. It was well worth their effort for this ideal opportunity to dump on Christians and Fox News at the same time.
I would defy anyone to find “Sindy Clock” and “Raylene Ingmire” anywhere on this earth.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN,
You appear to know little about the various worldview tests that are available. Most focus on the truth claims of the Bible. They focus on the nature and character of God and are scripturally sound. Liberal Christians will always rate very low as they are heavily syncretized to humanism; that is what makes them liberal.
Besides, where in the Bible does it say that “hav[ing] a minimal biblical worldview” is necessary for salvation, or that Biblical literacy is necessary for salvation?
Matt 7:21, John 17:3, John 14:15 all require biblical literacy to be able to truly know God and Christ, know His will and know what He commanded. You have to know Christ enough to be able to believe and trust Him with a saving faith and for Him to be your Lord; otherwise Christ could be your own construct and mistakenly believe that He is your fire insurance policy.
The one Barna report is dated 12/01/2003, A Biblical Worldview Has a Radical Effect on a Person’s Life
Report comment to moderator
If you’re going to propose a conspiracy theory (dozens of atheists created fake FB profiles so they could pose as Christians on the Fox News website and say hateful things, then they all “liked” each other’s posts to make those views appear more popular than they would of course be on a godly website like Fox News), you should certainly come up with even a little bit of evidence.
I remember during the ugliness of the 2008 election a video that went viral of a man in a business suit shouting at and berating an elderly gentleman. The older man was sitting on the ground outside a Tea Party event with a sign about protecting social programs. The man in a suit got in his face, shouting at him, “You want to take my money? You want to take my money? Here! Have it! Have my money!” He ripped a dollar out of his wallet and threw it at the guy.
Real nasty stuff.
The video goes viral, and a couple days later the aggressor comes forward. He admits it was he in the video and says he didn’t know what came over him — he’d never treated another person like that before.
My point? Don’t underestimate the power of (1) a crowd of like-minded people + (2) perceived anonymity.
Report comment to moderator
I think it’s entirely plausible that these people are actual Christians, but that their faith is so weak, that being presented with an actual articulate atheist scares them. So they lash out as a defense mechanism.
These people, whose faith is dependent on constant bolstering by emotional experiences and entertaining reports of recent miracles, would probably renounce their faith under persecution anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Matt 7:21, John 17:3, John 14:15 all require biblical literacy to be able to truly know God and Christ, know His will and know what He commanded.
The ability to read and write isn’t necessary to keep “the first and great” commandment nor the second which is like unto it. “. . thou shalt love . . ” The only knowledge needed to keep the commandments on which hang all the law and the prophets is self-knowledge. Specifically, one must know what, whom, and how much one loves and does not love. Without such knowledge, scripturalists are deceived.
Report comment to moderator
Matt 7:21, John 17:3, John 14:15 all require biblical literacy to be able to truly know God and Christ, know His will and know what He commanded.
The ability to read and write isn’t necessary to keep “the first and great” commandment nor the second which is like unto it. “. . thou shalt love . . ” The only knowledge needed to keep the commandments on which hang all the law and the prophets is self-knowledge. Specifically, one must know what, whom, and how much one loves and does not love. Without such knowledge, scripturalists are deceived.
Report comment to moderator
67. This isn’t about the tea party nor about liberal vs. conservative. If it was I could come up with just as much nasty stuff from your side.
I suspect it is a combinations of yours and ours, and ours need to repent and ask forgiveness. You deal with yours.
Report comment to moderator
SM,
The only knowledge needed to keep the commandments on which hang all the law and the prophets is self-knowledge. Specifically, one must know what, whom, and how much one loves and does not love. Without such knowledge, scripturalists are deceived.
All that is needed is self-knowledge???? This is humanist deception. Appears to be Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs malarkey; just get in touch with your inner self and self-acutalize, etc.
Biblical literacy is essential whether or not one can read and write; one can know the word by hearing. They have to know the word to know God to know whom they love and be able to do His will. This is the outcome of the first great commandment; to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. John 14:15 follows from this first commnandment, does it not? Would you not have to be biblically literate to know everything He has commanded?
1 John 5:3 (HCSB)
For this is what love for God is: to keep His commands. Now His commands are not a burden,
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps you can persuade me to reconsider, RWHAWK, but I can’t see how #72 refutes #69.
Another problem with your post is that Biblical literacy provides knowledge of the law but doesn’t cure weakness of will, which both OT and NT writers comment upon extensively without solution. Being a hearer only is no use, is it? The law must be written on the living flesh of the heart — which requires a transplant, which requires anti-rejection efforts — Scriptural literacy doesn’t suffice.
The idea that people need Bible literacy in order to know God (let alone to be a doer) is refuted by Rom. 1.
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
In this passage (and in subsequent verses) St. Paul says that spiritual darkness is the consequence of a punishment imposed by God for refusal to worship God as He may be known in nature; it is not a deficiency in Biblical literacy.
If you won’t see how self-knowledge is an indispensable spiritual exercise and ethical duty in both the OT and NT, then there’s probably no use in talking further.
I don’t see how it’s possible to follow Jesus’ two great commandments without the assessments and calculations that are produced by self-knowledge. In my experience, Evangelicals who mock humanist psychology are under suspicion of deceiving themselves as “hearers only.” But perhaps I’ve only known isolated examples, and James was only referring to some of JOEL MARK’s “phantom Christians.” Don’t Christian psychologists study humanist psychologists?
Report comment to moderator
I wonder if the angry Christians consider themselves full of the “wrath of God”?
Report comment to moderator
I see what would be called “Angry Christians” quickly quoting scripture to denounce homosexuality, gambling, drinking, abortion, pornography, provocative dressing, anti-death penalty advocates, and even Democrats and President Obama
Sadly they but they seldom quote scripture concerning “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” , Blessed are the meek/merciful/peacemaker…” , “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”, and “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…”
Report comment to moderator
It saddens me that judgement is such a core aspect of many of our faith walks. I attended one church; the leader would deride other denominations, make fun of other practices, lift up our congregation as one of the few “right one’s”. The underlying message was if you aren’t right, you are wrong. They “owned” accuracy (although they were and are still wrong on some core things), and the fruit was a judgmental self-righteousness that trumped humility, grace and love, not in most but in some.
If memory serves Jesus got angry and humiliated others, primarily the religious hypocrites. He overturned tables and spoke frequently of hell, yet he never sinned in any of this. As a matter of fact He is coming back, the one that wages war, in a robe dipped in blood. Like Him, we can get angry. The issues are: about what and how.
In my small brain I work to attract the lost and to fight against evil. I’ve seen the fruit of judgment in my own heart and in those that were under my old type leadership. I’ve seen it in my heart regardless of my leadership. So what is my model? Christ and Christ alone. How would he attract these folks to consider Him? I don’t think screaming will win that battle. I understand why so many feel strongly and are defensive and I understand how our old man can require validation and selfish victory. How can we love these people into freedom without sacrificing the truth, His name, or our integrity? After we study Christ’s example and pray we …
And what about leaders that model this type of life? We can discipline people into behavior modification (at times needed) or we can spur them on to good deeds, fighting for the glory God designed in each of them. How to lead with courage and tenderness, strength and humility, grace and mercy, love. In Revelation it lists the great sins the first of which, before even unbelief, is cowardice.
Lastly and thankfully, there are MANY wonderful followers of Jesus Christ that are not screaming maniacs. For example, my daughter, 17 and returning Tuesday from a missions trip to Africa, gently reminds me that the lost don’t know and need the truth spoken in love, let alone life lived in love. Wy can she say that to me? Because she does life that way. She spurs me on to good deeds with her amazing and wonderful heart.
Report comment to moderator
SM,
You’ll need to go to #66 regarding saving faith and the post that started your inquiry in the first place.
True self knowledge follows after you know God as God is the measure of all things and you measure yourself against Him. Scripture tells us to examine ourselves. Self knowledge without God is based on Maslow’s humanist philosophy as Maslow’s take is that you are your own god.
Report comment to moderator
1) I did not say or in any way imply that “this is about the Tea Party.” I chose an example where a person who lost his cool later came forward and spoke about the power of the mob mentality over his otherwise decent life.
2) This isn’t dodge ball. I don’t represent a “side” that opposes you and yours. If anything, since I am a believer, the church universal is “my side,” because I share something with all Christians that goes deeper than politics.
Report comment to moderator
RWHAWK — You now seem to have stopped defending your #69 assertion that Bible literacy is necessary to know God. What can be known of God is manifest in nature, and spiritual darkness is a punishment for refusing to worship God, not the lack of Bible literacy – Rom 1.
I looked at the verses that you cite misleadingly at #66. You pretend they satisfy EVAN’s question, but they do not. Your claims about the necessity of Biblical literacy are your deduction, not an assertion of these verses.
Report comment to moderator
SM,
You now seem to have stopped defending your #69 assertion that Bible literacy is necessary to know God.
Where did I say this?
What can be known of God is manifest in nature,
This is wrong. God revealed Himself through His special revelation and through His Creation. Both are required to fully know and understand God.
Your claims about the necessity of Biblical literacy are your deduction, not an assertion of these verses.
No, the whole Bible asserts this. Jesus modeled this throughout His ministry. Take a look at Jesus’ responses to the Devil for instance. Or His response regarding marriage between and man and a woman. He uses scripture; He modeled Biblical literacy for us to follow.
Report comment to moderator
Hawk (66):
Thanks for the link to the Barna survey. I would make several comments, however.
1. Barna doesn’t define what a “biblical worldview” is. The survey simply reports that there is a correlation between (1) certain social practices and beliefs about the nature of truth; and (2) self-identification as having a biblical worldview. So, the survey doesn’t demonstrate that only 4% of the population has a biblical worldview. It simply shows that only 4% of the population would identify themselves as making decisions based on a biblical worldview. Notably, this number roughly corresponds to the number of fundamentalist evangelicals in America. In many ways, the Barna survey simply shows that American fundamentalists no longer identify themselves as “fundamentalists”; they now opt to identify themselves as people who have a “biblical worldview”.
2. The Barna survey does not address whether those same people may be more prone or less prone than other Christians to show anger toward those who express opposing views. Paul Hill, for example, would probably have identified himself as having a “biblical worldview” and yet he chose to murder those who disagreed with him over whether abortion is murder.
3. The Barna survey does not ask questions that would allow us to discover whether those identifying themselves as having a “biblical worldview” necessarily had placed their faith in Christ alone for salvation. The survey simply shows that there is a small, cohesive subculture in America that’s consistently distinguishable from the broader population in a number of ways.
I have little doubt that you are a Christian fundamentalist (in the vein of Falwell, Schaeffer, and Nash). I have no doubt that you are a member of a cohesive subculture that is bound together by shared social practices, shared views about how one experiences reality and acquires knowledge, and a shared language for identifying yourself as a member of that subculture. I don’t begrudge you that. And you’re certainly free to come here and tout the merits of being a fundamentalist. On the other hand, it seems like a far-fetched proposition to suggest that the outer boundary of Christian orthodoxy is somehow coterminous with the boundaries of American fundamentalism. Fundamentalists like Schaeffer and Nash always insisted that fundamentalism was right, but they never suggested that non-fundamentalist Christians are not genuine Christians. Even they understood that we are saved by placing our faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, and not by achieving “biblical literacy” (which, by the way, is fundamentalist-speak for agreeing with the theological tenets of fundamentalism).
After all, are you really ready to say that Luther, Calvin, Beza, Vermigli, and a host of other reformers are not real Christians…because they didn’t have a “biblical worldview” as you would define it?
That may be about as silly as your assertion last week that the personal income tax exemption under 26 USC 501(c)(3) is commanded by Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
RWHAWK – you claim that the statement, “what can be known of God is manifest in nature”, is wrong.
However, your judgment is contradicted by Rom 1.
. . that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made . .
I took the words directly from the epistle. That which may be known of God is manifest . . by the things that are made (i.e., by nature).
Report comment to moderator
#37 – ARCADIA wrote; “I think JM’s problem is that he cannot denounce these Christians because he knows that they can find ample justification for their hate-filled views in his bible.”
Every word here is wrong. First, this is not thinking. Secodnly, ARCADIA presumes they are “Christians” without a shred of evidence except that they made vicious and hateful comments allegedly against atheists. Third, And as far as the comments go, it is clear that they are repulsively ignorant and mean and I already denounced them. I just think it is foolish for anyone to think they know the faith-identities or the sincerity of the hateful commetners. Fourthly, tnd there are no hate-filled views in the Bible except the legitimate hatred for evil.
Report comment to moderator
SM,
Your interpretation is out of context. Romans 1 discusses two attributes of God that are clearly seen in His creation to those that have rejected Him. There are many more attrtibutes that He reveals in His word. Try reading my response This is wrong. God revealed Himself through His special revelation and through His Creation. Both are required to fully know and understand God. and you’ll see I didn’t deny his general revelation in creation.
Report comment to moderator
EVAN,
What the Barna reports do demonstrate is that those that conform to a Christian worldview and are Biblically literate are more likely to live more Christlike Vs those that are heavily syncretized with humanism.
Your issue about salvation is between you and Christ. I provided you what He had to say about that and that it does involve Biblical literacy that should be growing as you grow through discipleship.
In #58 this is what I ended with:
God hates evil and a true Christian should do likewise, but not hate the person. The fallen are captives of the world’s lies and deserve respect as creatures of God’s image. Proverbs 26:4-5 and 1Peter 3:15-16 provide a good start for how the Bible teaches Christians to respond to the world. Our war is not against the flesh but lies and deceptions of the devil
Do you have any issues with this as this is the primary message I ended with?
Report comment to moderator
. . Romans 1 discusses two attributes of God that are clearly seen in His creation to those that have rejected Him.
I presume you refer to the attributes of eternal power and Godhead (divinity), but the passage says God manifests a great deal more than these in nature.
Paul says that nature clearly makes seen and understood the class of “the invisible things” of God (v.20). The passage does not restrict “that which may be known of God” in nature. It lists many of the things that are to be known by nature, besides your two. And it never says “special” or “general.”
Here are other things about God that the passage says are known, by nature, by all the ungodly and unrighteous:
wrath
righteousness
glory
uncorruptibility
truth
judgement
prohibited conduct
Rom. 1 doesn’t close this list.
Report comment to moderator
Many modern Christians have a very shallow view of God and Christ. The “Lamb of God” image is a very limited picture. God is Love and Mercy, certainly, but God is also Just. Jesus was/is also the toughest man who ever lived.
Personal revenge or retaliation is out – “Turn the other cheek,” “Love your neighbor,” etc. But God’s justice will be carried out, and we are allowed, perhaps encouraged, to pray for that justice when we recognize problems.
A review of the following New Testament verses may be helpful.
•Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
•Matthew 26:23-24 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. 24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
•1 Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
•Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
•Galatians 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
•2 Timothy 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
•Revelation 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Report comment to moderator
SM,
Here is the irony of your argument being that all we need is nature to know God: You are not using nature, His general revelation found in His creation, to support your argument. You are using His special revelation, but using it out of context. I won’t go into that right now.
Do you suppose we would find many more attributes (and knowledge of God) in the Bible that are not clearly visible in His creation?
Where do we find the gospel message in nature, for instance?
Where do we find God’s will for us in nature?
Where is the history of God and man’s relationship and covenants found, other than in scripture?
Where do we discover God’s definitions of unrighteousness in nature?
Where are the 10 commandments found?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!