# Christianity and Love, Part 2 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2000, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663 "2000-06-27T01:45:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2000, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/161 "2000-07-05T12:02:39Z")
Esprix, it may be dead but it’s still kicking… 😉 FoG said: > [@](#): > > Actually, my using my niece as example was INTENDED to make a point. Jesus Himself said we must come into the kingdom of God like little children. In fact you later said . . . > > “Your belief is for the simpleminded.” > > EXACTLY!!! You win the prize David. You nailed it. Well, at least we can agree on something. The difference is that most people believe “simpleminded” to be an insult. You apparently believe it to be something to be proud of. I think this is probably the most disgusting display of premeditated ignorance I have ever seen. Proud to be simpleminded. Frankly, it makes me ill. It also is making me not bother to respond to the rest of your answer. There is no point in continuing a discussion when one person declares how proud he is to be simpleminded. The only point I will address is the following: > [@](#): > > LOL! Again, we don’t “hold onto creationism” like we’re slipping off some slippery slope and can barely hang on! It’s just the Bible itself, Dave, just the Bible. If it says it, I believe it (and yes I kno-o-w that statement drives some of you guys crazy, but there it is anyway! ). Indeed. It is the simpleminded view, so I would expect you to say that. > [@](#): > > And pardon me but _evidence to the contrary_!!! THAT is laughable. Are you talking about evolution? Unreal to me that that ridiculous theory is still taught as fact. WITHOUT trying to start a huge creation/evolution thing, my brief comment is – evolution is about as likely as throwing up into the air all the components of a computer, and having them magically fall to the earth over millions of years, interconnecting perfectly to create a fully functional computer at the end. _end of comment_ You admit that you enjoy being simpleminded, and then you try to tackle a scientific theory? Give me a break. Smarter creationists than you have tried and failed miserably. Do you want to give it a shot? You made a claim here, and I call on you to back it up. In the past, I have started new threads **specifically** for creationists like you to back up their snide comments like these. None has done it. You think you’ll be the first? Do you have the scientific evidence to counter evolution and promote creationism? If so, just say the word and I’ll open a thread for you to go to town. But if you’re not willing to back it up, I’d recommend that you don’t make such ridiculous comments in the future. * * * “The most amusing threads on this board involve David B kicking some obnoxious creation scientist ass.” – Greyson3 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2000, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/162 "2000-07-05T12:45:48Z")
What delightful hubris! 😃 The implication that simple is bad and complicated is good is patently ridiculous. “Simple-minded” might mean a mind uncluttered with unnecessary entities. > [@](#): > > At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. — Matthew 11:25 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2000, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/163 "2000-07-05T15:03:23Z")
> [@](#): > > **Tris:** I think you want logic to define your faith. You sell your faith cheaply indeed, if it will not encompass more than the universe itself. Take the leap. God is beyond the limits of reason, science, and logic. Those tools are for the universe we perceive with our senses. And to limit your faith to what you can describe in logic and science makes you poor indeed. > \*\*FoG:\*\*I actually agree pretty much. You’re basically saying what I’ve been trying to say but in a different way. This is what I mean when I say there are some things that WE don’t see as logical, but God does. I actually don’t limit my faith to what I can describe in logic and science - in fact my whole point IS that you have to go beyond that to have an EXPERIENCE with the actual, living, breathing, one true God to fully grasp what it’s all about. And I will buy into this as well. The experience of God in one’s life phenomenon is beyond description. Nonetheless, since our call is to attempt, to the best of our ability, to spread the Good News, one attempts to work out logical categories and “explain” the transcendent phenomenon in human terms – knowing full well that we are going to leave images that the elephant is very like a snake, a tree, etc. – but the important part is that our hearers know that there **is** an elephant – or at least that sane human beings have observed one. FriendofGod again: > [@](#): > > Another way I know it’s God is that many times I don’t WANT to change in an area at all, but God keeps nudging me! Sometimes it’s irritating and I fight him, but eventually give up cuz I know He’s doing it in love and it’s for my best anyway. But the point is … if it was _only_ _me_, I guarantee there would be some issues that would never be brought up. God brings them up whether I like it or not. He’s telling the truth there, from my experience. If, as nontheists would have one “believe,” the experience of God is within one’s own mind, that mind is far more complex than one might expect, as there definitely _seems_ to be a consistency in what disparate individuals are called to do which seems to override divergent individual motivations. _Something_ strange is happening here, on any basis you care to explain it. FrOG again: > [@](#): > > When Christ comes into your life, just like the verses I quoted earlier, He literally writes His law on your heart and mind. In other words, your beliefs and mindset about life change in a flash to the same mindset that Christ has! So suddenly you have new beliefs because the God of the universe is in you . . . but if someone asks you to explain _why_ you believe it, you can’t explain it! This is what frustrates skeptics so much. Accurate, though as somebody else no doubt will point out if I don’t, Friend’s use of “literally” is not meant literally. And in my own experience, the change in world-view was instantaneous but absorbing the implications in one’s life is a more gradual process. And, unfortunately, some people, having experienced the influx of God into their lives, become convinced that they know His Will and can speak with His Authority, and fail to study further and learn the divine humility. One thing every contributor to this thread can agree on is that such people are truly obnoxious to deal with. And, FoG my friend, you were interpreted as taking on that role by what people read in – or read into – many of your early posts. Having printed out the 200+ sheets it takes to put the two threads into hard copy and reread it over the Fourth, I can see that your actual view is not quite that. But you are going to have to do some hard convincing to prove it to most other posters here. (By the way, this is, for those who were not clear, the work of the Holy Spirit. _C’est son metier_. See John 14ff on how the Holy Trinity works in people’s lives.) FoG again: > [@](#): > > …when you see a Christian that you judgmentally accuse of having “blind belief” … that’s not what they have. They have a solid belief based on the living, breathing God that is living inside them. They might not be able to _explain_ it … but it isn’t just “based on faith” or “based on nothing”. It’s based on God Himself living in them. And again, the UNDERSTANDING behind the belief comes with time. I have learned much of it myself through prayer, study, and thought. And I have much, much more to learn as well. This is either an impasse or a breakthrough. Friend, you are describing a **subjective** or **anecdotal** perception, utilizing the terms of discourse David would. And (contrary to your assertion) it is based in faith – your adherence to your Lord and Master whom you perceive working within you. You are not prepared to reject this as hallucinatory or self-delusive – you **know** better. But you must get clear that such evidence is not **objective proof** to others who have not had the same experience. Which is why your witness will influence few if any who read it. (Thank God for the few who are in fact influenced by it!) If you care to argue points with David and Gaudere, you must work within their framework of assumptions. David is prepared to accept that I am convinced of having had this experience…but he is not convinced that what happened to me was what I believe it to be. He has, quite politely, avoided telling me I am deluded, but he is not prepared to accept that there is a superuniversal Creator whose perception includes every sparrow that falls and every Polycarp that posts, and that said Creator invaded my life and works within me. “And now for something completely different…” 😉 > [@](#): > > **David:** Indeed, this is similar to the reason that some Christians hold on to creationism, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. They believe that if they give up on creationism, all of Christianity will follow. Now, you know that isn’t true, but others don’t. > > **Friend** : …we don’t “hold onto creationism” like we’re slipping off some slippery slope and can barely hang on! It’s just the Bible itself, Dave, just the Bible. If it says it, I believe it (and yes I kno-o-w that statement drives some of you guys crazy, but there it is anyway!). > > And pardon me but _evidence to the contrary_!!! THAT is laughable. Are you talking about evolution? Unreal to me that that ridiculous theory is still taught as fact. WITHOUT trying to start a huge creation/evolution thing, my brief comment is – evolution is about as likely as throwing up into the air all the components of a computer, and having them magically fall to the earth over millions of years, interconnecting perfectly to create a fully functional computer at the end. Uh…in a word, _ **No!** _ The Bible says, “There is no God” (Psalms 2:1b, IIRC–it’s what “the fool says in his heart”) And oodles of more Bible quotes that taken out of context could shoot down any tenet of the faith. [Minor hijack for a terminology rant: elements of a belief structure are _tenets_. Remember the palindromic structure: a tenet backwards is still a tenet. The “tenants of your faith” that half the posters to this board have brought up at one time or another are little spiritual entities that are renting unused portions of your faith. They’re behind on their rent; tell 'em to pay up! /end rant] The **Bible** does not say that “the world was created in six days.” It describes creation in six _yomim_ – a term used for day, to be sure, but also for indefinite periods of time. The term used for “in Abraham’s day” (= the period when Abraham flourished) is _yom_. Okay, you can buy 6,000 years by “one day is as a thousand years.” The point to the whole dialogue is to bring home to a bunch of nomads that **the world is God’s creation**. So it is told in **fable** format. Remember Goldilocks and the Three Bears? If Goldilocks found three microwaves or three VCRs, you’d know that Papa Bear’s was “off” in one direction, Mama Bear’s “off” in another, and Baby Bear’s was “just right.” The formula has been established, and every little kid loves to rattle the lines off along with whoever is reading it to them. So we have the “six days of creation” – in which God says “let there be X,” and voila! X comes to exist, God checks it out and pronounces it good, and “the evening and the morning are the Nth day.” Repeated over and over again. Message: it’s God who created everything, not the false gods of those other tribes. And he pronounced it all as good. Renunciation of “the world” by ascetics is proper only to the extent that they are renouncing those things that draw them away from God; when they start condemning His Creation, they’re condemning Him as well, whether they realize it or not. Anyways, fable. Truth value: metaphorical. Stress is not on six days (except insofar as it makes clear the Sabbath day issue, a totally separate discussion), but on Him as Creator of all. It is not the Bible but the literal interpretation of fallible men that I object to here. Now, why do I say this? Because that world that He created, and which you and I, Friend, would agree bears witness to Him to those who have eyes to see, is laden with evidence that indicates it came into existence about 4,600,000,000 years ago and that the creatures therein came forth in accordance with the laws of nature, including those worked out by Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin. Virtually every scholar in the fields of historical geology, paleontology, and biology will confirm this, except the few that insist on the primacy of a literalist interpretation of the Bible and shade their interpretation of nature to conform to their theories about scripture. Get any basic college textbook in any of those fields (from a reputable school, somewhere other than Bob Jones University or Joe’s Bible Seminary and Used Car Lot, Inc.) and check it out. Rocks (other than those turned in the building of mountains) lie in layers as they were deposited, throughout the world. The older ones hold fossils of the earlier life forms. And whenever radiometric dating is possible, the dates conform to the understanding of what came when that we get from the strata and the fossils. And I marvel at God’s inventiveness. Read how a stegosaurus made a living – it is, in a quite close parallel, as likely as a rhinoceros tapdancing – but every bone and coprolite shows the accuracy of the concept. The point I am going for here is that there are, as He Himself calls for, two witnesses to God’s creation – the early chapters of Genesis and the world itself. On the literalist interpretation of Genesis, the world is filled with lies about how it was made. And my God is not a liar! (Don’t bring Satan into this! Granted he can warp the truth, but he created nothing. Every rock and every shell and bone fossilized in it shows me a world where God’s law for nature is being carried out, and in accordance with the findings of science.) > [@](#): > > Are you assuming that true-blue Bible believers don’t think any parts of the Bible are metaphor? Of course parts of the Bible are metaphor! Jesus told stories that He LABELED as parables. Parts of the book of Revelation are clearly LABELED as metaphors for something specific (ie, Lampstands are a metaphor for churches in the book of Revelation for example). How does that make the Bible any less 100% true? It’s true that Jesus told the parables He told. It’s true that John saw what he saw in Revelation, and it’s true that the angel told him what some of the things meant! So the rest of us simply see a broader use of metaphor than those miscalled “literalists.” Sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me. Friend again: > [@](#): > > Actually I don’t totally disagree [with an earlier post of mine --Poly], especially the line “a system that presupposes guilt for sin being present”. When I USUALLY begin a discussion with someone who doesn’t know Christ, I always realize that my first and biggest task is going to be, over the course of many months, partnering with the Holy Spirit to convince them what sin is. Only then do they realize their OWN sin, then realize their NEED for salvation, and to be honest, the rest is easy. THEY ask for the rest at that point! How essential is all this emphasis on sin? Granted when I’m caring for unruly preschoolers, one technique I can use for misbehavior is punishment and the fear for it. But when I was dealing with their father and uncles as teenagers, I found that I got much better results by stressing the love (close friendship sense) and loyalty between us than by threats. Hey, God loves you. Like any Father, he may see the need to punish to properly direct growth. But He is not primarily interested in punishing – that’s a last-resort strategy. To me, it sounds like most evangelicals have not made it out of kindergarten yet, and insist that Big Daddy will spank if you don’t stop stealing Joey’s shovel or feeling of Ruthie’s weewee. > [@](#): > > \*\*Polycarp: And I reject the version of God that depends on the insecurity of people’s belief structures requiring an inerrant book to prop them up. (This is not a slam of you, FoG; but how many people have you known who use the Bible to prove God, when the only rational way to approach it is that God proves the Bible. If there is no God, then the Bible is a collection of myths and folklore, as David B. suggests; if there is, then it bears witness to Him – including, in my considered opinion as a student both of Biblical scholarship and of history of literature and anthropology, some myth and legend giving early understandings of Him.)" > > **FriendofGod:** Interesting quote. I agree with the statement “God proves the Bible”, which is kinda what I’ve been trying to say lately . . . that outside archeological and historical proofs might be impressive, but it takes an encounter with the actual, living, breathing God Himself to totally convince you of it. > > Your last statement puzzles me … are you saying parts of the Bible are myth and legend, or are you saying myth and legend help give us early understanding of Christ? Both. Remember that myth, legend, fable, and so on are _literary genres_. The Book of Job is a didactic poem on the unfathomableness of the Divine Will superimposed on an old legend --Job was, apparently, Judah’s second cousin, living long before the book was written. Most Biblical scholars will confirm this. It’s quite clear that we do not have the actual words of Bildad the Shuhite, if there ever was such an individual. But the indepth look at human inability to comprehend the purposes of God that is set forth in it is not minimized one whit by whether it or any part of it is literal history. I understand the Bible as a compendium of literary works, brought together under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Great portions of it speak to the depths of who I am. Other parts, such as the details of priestly ceremony in Leviticus and the lineages of the first nine chapters of First Chronicles, leave me cold. I read it as a guide to my life and as containing the precious teachings of my Lord and Savior. But that does not mean that I cannot see the stylistic techniques of the writers, read Esther as an Arabian-nights story, Daniel as apocalyptic, Galatians as the chastisement of an early church by its dyspeptic founder who sees them going astray from the faith (in the same way as evangelical Christians today tend to go, by the way, as I’ve attempted to point out before), and so on. I welcome your responses to this, Friend, and look forward to seeing what others have to say. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2000, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/164 "2000-07-05T17:05:09Z")
**Libertarian** sed: > [@](#): > > The implication that simple is bad and complicated is good is patently ridiculous. “Simple-minded” might mean a mind uncluttered with unnecessary entities. Except that it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > **simple-minded** or **simpleminded** (sîm´pel-mìn´dîd) _adjective_ > **1.** Lacking in subtlety or sophistication; artless or naive: _a simple-minded horror movie; simpleminded generalizations._ > **2.** Stupid or silly; foolish. > **3.** Mentally impaired. from _The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition_ copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2000, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/165 "2000-07-05T20:34:15Z")
It’s wonderful that we can have this sort of open dialogue on what I consider a very important subject, but we should not have our expectations too high. After all, old-timers on this board can remember posts in which **Satan** and **Eve** were trying to argue **Adam** around to their point of view. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2000, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/166 "2000-07-06T04:05:03Z")
Well it looks like it’s been another interesting day of posting at the Straight Dope. Let me respond to a few. Before I comment on David’s quote, let me comment on andros’ quote of the dictionary def. of “simpleminded”: "simple-minded or simpleminded (sîm´pel-mìn´dîd) adjective 1. Lacking in subtlety or sophistication; artless or naive: a simple-minded horror movie; simpleminded generalizations. 2. Stupid or silly; foolish. 3. Mentally impaired." OBVIOUSLY from reading what I said, this isn’t even close to what I meant. Libertarian said it best: “The implication that simple is bad and complicated is good is patently ridiculous. “Simple-minded” might mean a mind uncluttered with unnecessary entities.” Precisely. The point is that the gospel is EASY TO GRASP. SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND. People who aren’t intellectual giants can understand and receive it. Those who complicate it in their minds have “cluttered their minds with unnecessary entities”. So that’s what I meant by “simpleminded” - just someone who can grasp simple concepts and doesn’t overcomplicate them. And that was pretty obviously what I meant from reading what I said. Now, let’s get to David’s boorish statement: "I think this is probably the most disgusting display of premeditated ignorance I have ever seen. Proud to be simpleminded. Frankly, it makes me ill. " What arrogance. Do you look down on those who aren’t, in YOUR estimation, quite as quick on the draw as you (supposedly) are? Do you consider someone who likes to go deeper and ponder the deeper issues in life and analyze things SUPERIOR to those who prefer keeping it simple? Do you think they’re lacking something that YOU have that THEY need? The truth is David, THEY have something YOU need … a dose of simplicity. (NOTE: I’m not talking about “Christians” now … just people in general who think in simple terms). I, too, like to dig deeper and study and research and figure things out. I find it fascinating and probably always will. But people who DON’T care for all that digging and analysis and research have something that I can learn from. People like that REMIND people like me that life is basically simple. It reminds ME not to overcomplicate things, which I myself have done before. If you take yourself down a peg or two David, maybe you can see that as well. - and no, I already said I’m not getting into a creation/ev debate … it was a side comment and has nothing to do with the main point. Plus I’m not an expert creation scientist anyway so I wouldn’t be much competition fer ya Dave. Polycarp . . . overall let me just say, it’s nice that SOMEONE out there agrees with SOME of what I say occasionally! Sometimes you are a breath of relief for me to read. I realize we don’t agree on everything, but still I enjoy the pleasant tone of your posts. I find it humerous that you read the entire C&L post over the holidays . . . SO DID I! But I didn’t print it, just read it on the screen. I had this “oh boy here it comes” feeling when I reread my post on page 2 that summarized the gospel. That’s what started the tit-for-tat with Guadere. Hmmmm…do you think I came across as obnoxious and/or prideful? Perhaps I did. I know what you mean about “the divine humility”. It’s that sense that yes, God is in you and you believe the truth . . . but you must not then abuse that fact and overplay it. Or to say it another way . . . you’d be better off being pleasant rather than confrontational. Content wise, in rereading, I think what I said was fairly sound (although it was comical watching myself TRY to come up with numerous alternate ways of explaining the same basic points). I’ll have to ponder this one some more. I will say this . . . sometimes my approach comes out of my frustration with society at large. I feel like I’m always fighting the biggest lie of all — that everything is relative and there are no absolute truths. However, there are several ways to tackle it and there are probably better ways than the way I tried. Later you said: "This is either an impasse or a breakthrough. Friend, you are describing a subjective or anecdotal perception, utilizing the terms of discourse David would. And (contrary to your assertion) it is based in faith – your adherence to your Lord and Master whom you perceive working within you. You are not prepared to reject this as hallucinatory or self-delusive – you know better. But you must get clear that such evidence is not objective proof to others who have not had the same experience. " Forgive me, but I must say I’m amused that this idea might be called a “breakthrough”! (ie, “He’s finally getting it!!!”) I think I’ve said several times in this post that my BIGGEST “proof” of God is that He lives in me, and that I don’t expect anyone to believe _just_ based on that fact. The whole reason I tried focusing on the logic of Christianity is that I figured that’s the best approach to take with a group that seem, for lack of a better term, obsessed with logic and thought. Maybe the OPPOSITE approach is better, I dunno! But that’s why I did it. Polycarp, regarding creation/ev - I will say the same I said to David … interesting topic but I’m not interested in a huge debate on it. People can believe different things on this subject and still know Jesus and go to heaven. One more quote of yours I wanted to address: “How essential is all this emphasis on sin? . . . I found that I got much better results by stressing the love (close friendship sense) and loyalty between us than by threats.” Actually, I am taking the tack of the book of Romans, which is essentially the “gospel tract” of the New Testement. The first several chapters are nothing but convincing people that they are full of sin and can’t get out of it. Yes it’s a hard message at first, but if people don’t see their NEED to be saved, why will they want to be saved? I submit that THAT is the biggest reason people don’t come to Christ … they don’t see their need. This isn’t at all about God “punishing” people … it’s about a person looking inside themselves and realizing how very dark it is in there. Romans 3:20b says “…rather, through the law we become conscious of sin”. After going through several heavy chapters in this vein, we finally get to the refreshing Romans 8:1-2 - “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.” Have you ever heard of the book “Hell’s Best Kept Secret”? It’s an excellent book by Ray Comfort (of YWAM) and I would highly recommend it. His main argument is that one of the weaknesses of modern evangelism is not using the tool of ‘the law’ (ie right and wrong) to preach the gospel. Not the law as the way to get to HEAVEN, but the law as a way to expose what’s right and wrong, thereby exposing a person’s NEED for heaven. Now, if I meet someone, actually EXPRESSING Christ’s love to that person is the most important thing I can do, certainly. And it is Christ’s love, seen in action through a Christian, that many times initially starts the curious quesions. But as far as ‘presenting the Gospel’, I always start gently with the whole concept that man is basically sinful (well, I start there AFTER an intro comment about the good news of the gospel and that you can know for sure you are going to heaven). I will admit that hearing this from someone who clearly LOVES them personally makes it much easier to take. That’s it for now. Thanks always for your interesting posts Polycarp. 'night all. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2000, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/167 "2000-07-06T10:19:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Except that [simple-minded] doesn’t [mean a mind uncluttered with unnecessary entities]. People are allowed to coin words and define words in new ways for purposes of philosophical and other discussions. Dictionaries _change_ over time to reflect usage; usage does not change to reflect dictionaries. Otherwise, you’ll have to settle for this: **Main Entry: survival of the fittest Date: 1864 : NATURAL SELECTION** [Merriam-Webster OnLine](http://www.m-w.com/) An argument based on using a term differently from the way your adversary intended it is an equivocation. ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2000, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/168 "2000-07-06T11:14:48Z")
I can feel the love on this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2000, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/169 "2000-07-06T12:20:26Z")
I remember that same feeling as a child, with the same sarcasm as regards my mother. If only I knew then that love is not pity, not tolerance, and not sentimentality. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2000, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/170 "2000-07-06T12:22:49Z")
Nice Guy Jack said: > [@](#): > > I can feel the love on this thread. Yeah, but is it “a love to make kings and vagabonds believe the very best”? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2000, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/171 "2000-07-06T12:56:12Z")
FriendofGod, being proud of your simplemidedness is what DavidB was refering to, not being simpleminded itself, _as you well know_. Libertarian, new uses for old words and terms are something you seem to specialize in. It would be helpful if you could provide us with a _Libertarian-to-English, English-to-Libertarian_ dictionary, to stop your constant amazement at our inability to read your mind. Or you could get a dictionary and try to find words that fit the definitions you come up with. There are no definitions of “simple-minded” in any of the dictionaries I’ve found that match up with yours or FriendofGod’s. Perhaps you are looking for “child-like” or “simplistic”? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2000, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/172 "2000-07-06T13:38:12Z")
Though I’m not “looking for” anything, but rather was merely able to discern Friend’s meaning from his context, I think what you offered, “child-like”, is a reasonable alternative. As to the Lib/English English/Lib Dictionary, I’ll get to work on it and publish it in MPSIMS. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2000, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/173 "2000-07-06T15:16:56Z")
“Simple-minded” meaning **focused** is _good_. When simplicity makes something clear, it is wise not to unnecessarily complicate it. “Simple-minded” meaning rejecting what does not fit a concept is _bad_. “You shall know the truth” – **all** of it – “and the truth shall make you free.” > [@](#): > > Polycarp, regarding creation/ev - I will say the same I said to David … interesting topic but I’m not interested in a huge debate on it. People can believe different things on this subject and still know Jesus and go to heaven. Well, yeah. But did you catch the gist of my point? If God created everything, and to an unbiased observer it bears evidence of great age (nearly five billion years) and of ongoing sequences of animals that appear to have changed one to the other, then to say that He created it, in six days or six thousand years for that matter, complete with this evidence, is to suggest that He was playing some sort of head game with the people He claims to love enough to die on the cross for. That, and the fact that your or my or any Biblical scholar’s _interpretation_ of Genesis 1 is not itself the Word of God, lead me to believe that He created according to the natural evidence and that Genesis 1 is easy-to-remember fable with the point that it is His Creation, not according to some logic that says that the Bible **must** be literally true in everything that is not “obviously” metaphor, because I need it to secure my faith. If your faith rests on a book and not in its Author, you need to rethink your faith. (Not you, specifically, Friend – “you” in the abstract.) > [@](#): > > Actually, I am taking the tack of the book of Romans, which is essentially the “gospel tract” of the New Testement. The first several chapters are nothing but convincing people that they are full of sin and can’t get out of it. Well, OK. But remember that Romans, thorough examination of Paul’s theory of salvation though it is, is a letter written to a **church**. The people reading it were already half convinced of God’s existence and good nature and their own sinfulness; Paul just needed to hammer home how it worked, in **his** opinion. Billy Graham preaches to the people who have decided to attend one of his crusades. I find “sinners in the hands of an angry god” so distasteful and so at variance with the One Who has shown His love to me and in me that I avoid the whole sin question insofar as possible – and except for where Jesus Himself saw fit to condemn, i.e., self-righteous judgmentalism in “the saved” – Pharisees in his time, and some of our brothers and sisters today who are encapsulated in Ray Stevens’ brilliant name coinage: Sister Bertha Better-Than-You. Your bringing up Romans 8 brought back a **very** old memory. When I was so small I could be bathed in a bathroom washbasin, my grandmother was doing so and talking to me. And she taught me Romans 8:28 in the course of what she had to say. I don’t remember a lot of it, but I’m fairly sure that my certitude of the goodness of God’s creation dates from that conversation. “All things work together for good to them that are called according to His purpose.” That is why I believe Gaudere is doing God’s work, even though she is convinced that Lib. and I are crazy for saying so. 😉 And can you imagine what depths David B. could fathom with his wonderful capacity for incisive analysis if he were operating from a Christian perspective? I’m no slouch at analytic thinking, but David outshines me at it like a searchlight does a candle. > [@](#): > > Now, if I meet someone, actually EXPRESSING Christ’s love to that person is the most important thing I can do, certainly. And it is Christ’s love, seen in action through a Christian, that many times initially starts the curious quesions. But as far as ‘presenting the Gospel’, I always start gently with the whole concept that man is basically sinful (well, I start there AFTER an intro comment about the good news of the gospel and that you can know for sure you are going to heaven). I will admit that hearing this from someone who clearly LOVES them personally makes it much easier to take. Yep. Very tricky to do on line. But possible. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2000, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/174 "2000-07-06T15:50:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Sister Bertha Better-Than-You Who was watching all the commotion with sadistic glee . . . 😉 **Lib** , apologies for the semantic hijack. It seemed that David used “simple-minded” as a depreciative. When FoG embraced the term (in his own definition), David (still using _his_ definition) was understandably amazed. From David’s perspective, it went something like: “You’re willfully ignorant!” “Yes I am!” " . . . Huh?" Sorry, all. Back to whatever topic we’re on nowadays. ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2000, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/175 "2000-07-06T16:28:08Z")
Just time for a brief comment before work . . . I admit last night I wished I hadn’t jumped all over David for his comment quite as harshly as I did. andros, your comment right above this one is very clarifying and helpful. Perhaps that is what David thought. At any rate, I apologize to Dave for being more than just a little too sharp in my tone, especially since I might’ve just been misunderstanding what he meant. More later this weekend when I get time. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2000, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/176 "2000-07-06T19:23:38Z")
To Andros – we should definitely find a way to get a copy of the “Mississippi Squirrel Revival” to SqrlCub…he’d find it hilarious! ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2000, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/177 "2000-07-07T00:21:15Z")
Andros: Yes, that is sure what it looked like to me. And slythe already addressed this, but I want to make sure it’s understood. FoG said: > [@](#): > > "I think this is probably the most disgusting display of premeditated ignorance I have ever seen. Proud to be simpleminded. Frankly, it makes me ill. " > > What arrogance. Do you look down on those who aren’t, in YOUR estimation, quite as quick on the draw as you (supposedly) are? As slythe said, this is not at all what I said. I was remarking on your apparent embrace of ignorance, not on somebody who just happens not to be as bright. Everybody is different – some are of higher intelligence, some of lower. But there is a huge difference between a person purposely being ignorant (and proud of it) and somebody who just cannot get the hang of something. It looked to me like you were embracing the former. On an unrelated note, Poly said: > [@](#): > > And can you imagine what depths David B. could fathom with his wonderful capacity for incisive analysis if he were operating from a Christian perspective? I’m no slouch at analytic thinking, but David outshines me at it like a searchlight does a candle. Jeez, man, you’re gonna make my head get so big it explodes! 😉 Thank you for the kind words. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2000, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/178 "2000-07-07T01:06:48Z")
I have a side issue on the simple-minded aspects of Christian faith. It seems to me that Friend is being anything but simple minded. Pardon my arrogance, but I am fairly sure that I know more about simple-mindedness, and simple-minded people than anyone else on the board. Friend might be scholastically uncritical, or bound by authoritarian limits, or flawed in his logic, but he is certainly not simple minded. But the fact is that truly simple-minded people can have sincere and devout faith. They can, and often do believe with great fervor in their religion, and in God. Since I am a Christian, I must make one thing clear. I find that it is very likely that such simple faith is greatly loved by the Lord. Not because it is uncritical, or because it is so easy to fool the feeble minded, but because love is love. It does not need belief, or understanding. It is sufficient unto itself. I am hardly simple-minded, but among the many legal morons it has been my esteemed pleasure to know are true leaders of faith. Wisdom is not intelligence, nor does it come from learning facts, or solving riddles. So much of what I have come to believe, as a result of my faith was unknowable to me when intellect and logic were the limits of my abilities. I do not share the view that fragments of scripture used to prove logical points in arguments of theology are much related to faith. Preachers and priests, and those who pray loudly in the market place seem to me to be seeking an audience for themselves. I cannot tell you what is the truth about God. I can tell you that I believe you can learn what truth God has to reveal to you, and that the Bible can lead you there. But the value of Pi is not three, and I find it unlikely that God put fake dinosaur bone shaped rocks everywhere to test our faith. That is not about God. That is about the world. Go back and read again, and concentrate on the part where you open up your heart and soul to God. Or not. If you do not wish to do so, it would be pretty pointless anyway. Tris ---
**Author:** ![FriendofGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@FriendofGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendofGod)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2000, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/179 "2000-07-07T03:09:51Z")
Greetings all. Just time for a few more quick comments: David, Again, sorry for snappin’ atcha. I understand better where you were coming from now and totally understand your reaction. Just to totally clarify where I was coming from . . . I am proud that the gospel isn’t particularly difficult to understand. I am proud that someone who isn’t an intellectual giant can grasp it fairly easily. That’s what I meant by “simpleminded” … not someone who is ignorant, just someone who thinks in simple terms. “Childlike”, as someone else said, is a good substitute word for what I mean. A child doesn’t complicate things. They aren’t necessarily ignorant, they just see things simply. And yes, the verse quoted above about children and the kingdom of God was the exact verse I had in mind when I made my comments. Now, a brief response for Trisk and then Poly . . . Trisk (you don’t mind if I call you Trisk do ya ? :)) - You said: “It seems to me that Friend is being anything but simple minded.” You are right, I tend to enjoy going deeper into issues than lots of people. It can be a good thing and it can be a bad thing if taken TOO far . . . again, people like me can tend to OVERcomplicate issues if we’re not careful. By the way, I think you meant this somewhat as a compliment … if so, thanks! 🙂 I absolutely loved everything you said in your second paragraph. I agree wholeheartedly. (I hope my agreeing with you doesn’t get you in trouble! Some folks around here don’t seem to like what I have to say!) Poly: You brought up 2 issues. First, regarding the whole Genesis/6 days/6000 years/6 million years debate (what a convoluted title!) . . . One thing I find intriguing here. You and I both wholeheartedly agree that God is good, honest, loving, and kind. We both know we can trust God with our whole lives. That belief leads YOU to look at some of the evidence for evolution, compare it to the Bible, and say “They contradict. Therefore, the Bible is speaking metaphorically in Genesis 1 because I KNOW God and God can’t lie.” That belief leads ME to look at some of the evidence for evolution, compare it to the Bible, and say “They contradict. Therefore, science is incorrect and simply hasn’t found the evidence to back up all of Genesis 1, because I KNOW God and God can’t lie.” So we arrive at the SAME BASIC CONCLUSION but get there from totally different routes! It’s all based in our understanding of the character of God. One particular quote: "If your faith rests on a book and not in its Author, you need to rethink your faith. " I agree in ESSENCE, but I believe that the Bible provides what I call the “stripes on the road” in your life. Wasn’t it you, Poly, that said you were once involved in the Charismatic movement? I am in it myself as we speak. What is one of the great dangers of the movement? That people _think_ God’s told them to do something, and it contradicts the Bible. To me, the Bible is an essential safety net, a guidebook, that provides parameters. I am full of silly illustrations lately and here comes another one – remember that zany TV show from the early 80s called “The Greatest American Hero”? It was about a super hero who lost the instruction book that was to tell him how to use his powers. Therefore, everything was twice as difficult for him. Same would be true for a Christian who didn’t trust in the Bible. Yes, the core of Christianity is walking with Christ. But without the “instruction book”, that walk becomes precarious, and can even lead to serious deception. Just my 2 cents worth. I’d be interested to hear your thougts on this. On to Romans. Without commenting on everything you said, let me just mention these things. First, I am sensing that you have a high gifting of Mercy, which naturally causes you to lean toward the Love aspect of the gospel message (correct me if I’m wrong). I think that’s awesome. God gives each believer different gifts to focus on different things. Just for the record, I don’t believe in “sinners in the hands of an angry God” either. Focusing on sin isn’t focusing on God being judgmental and harsh … it’s focusing on our desperate NEED for His love and mercy. It’s focusing on how lost we really are. Another comment – again, the Internet makes this kind of thing difficult. The truth is, when I talk to someone one on one about this, I always spend LOTS of time asking questions and finding out where THEY are at spiritually. If they already SEE their sinfulness, and in fact if they see God as a harsh judge who’s about to whack them, I will focus more on God’s love to balance their perspective. If on the other hand they are nonchalant, and tend to think they can “do whatever I want and God will forgive me”, I will focus more on God’s judgment. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, as it says in Proverbs (not the “terror” kind of fear, but the “respect” kind of fear). You said about Paul’s presentation "Paul just needed to hammer home how it worked, in his opinion. " Well, I’m afraid I can’t agree here. God allowed it into His Holy Word and I believe it to be inspired by God. If salvation is a matter of opinion we’re all in trouble! I don’t think that’s exactly what you meant, but it kind of sounded that way. And this IS only one approach to take. Again, the gospel appears in VARIOUS parts of the Bible, sometimes emphasizing different aspects. Your last comments about Romans 8:28 were beautiful and touching. I liked this especially: "And can you imagine what depths David B. could fathom with his wonderful capacity for incisive analysis if he were operating from a Christian perspective? " AMEN! That is true, true, true. God could use David in His kingdom in a huge way. I pray someday that He will! 'night all. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2000, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663/180 "2000-07-07T12:42:58Z")
There is absolutely nothing to be gained by talking to someone who says that he/she will use science until it conflicts with his/her beliefs. Willful ignorance is a shameful state and should not be encouraged by those who are trying to defeat ignorance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-and-love-part-2/23663.md?page=10)