He's basically an atheist

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@marshmallow

I don’t think there’s an interesting discussion. I’ve read threads similar to your post that go on for dozens of pages, which confuses me. If someone doesn’t do what Jesus said who cares? It doesn’t impact his views of the supposed Christ. If he thinks there’s some divine stuff going on with Jesus then he’s a Christian, plain and simple, even if he eats babies for breakfast.

Bad definition: after all, Muslims think there’s some divine stuff going on with Jesus :). I’d rather put the definition in the “sincerely claims to be a Christian” format.

Daniel

[Malacandra]

@athelas

Yeah, well, every time I have a question about organic chemistry, the professor seems to come up with some way to explain it away. Sounds pretty fishy, if you ask me. Therefore, all orgo is wrong.

Absolutely! Because of course, you who have never studied organic chemistry in depth and certainly don’t think it has any relevance to your own life naturally have a point of view on the subject that is quite as valid as your professor’s. He may claim to have spent years learning all about orgo, but anyone can see he’s just a champion rationaliser - and, of course, by association the subject itself is not worth bothering with.

[Wee_Bairn]

@athelas

Yeah, well, every time I have a question about organic chemistry, the professor seems to come up with some way to explain it away. Sounds pretty fishy, if you ask me. Therefore, all orgo is wrong.

So you’re saying its up to you, a mere human, to determine which of God’s rules to follow and which to ignore? You have the ability to determine the ones he really meant were important and everyone should follow, and those which he was just kidding about, which you can ignore? Pretty presumptuous.

[Ludovic]

@Malacandra

Absolutely! Because of course, you who have never studied organic chemistry in depth and certainly don’t think it has any relevance to your own life naturally have a point of view on the subject that is quite as valid as your professor’s. He may claim to have spent years learning all about orgo, but anyone can see he’s just a champion rationaliser - and, of course, by association the subject itself is not worth bothering with.

Does that include the high school chemistry teacher who, despite having a Ph.D., insisted that there was no such thing as
conc[sub]final[/sub] = conc[sub]initial[/sub]1/2[sup]number of half-lives[/sup] and that we had to use
conc[sub]final[/sub] = conc[sub]initial[/sub]e[sup]number of half-lives*some stupid number I can never memorize[/sup]
despite the fact the first formula gives the correct answer, is easier to remember, and is an algebraic manipulation of the latter formula?

[Sal_Ammoniac]

@Apos

Sal, that still just doesn’t make any sense. Even if someone is irrational and has all sorts of zany beliefs that don’t match up, none of that negates the fact that they do, in fact, believe. So what’s the point of calling them atheists? It’s just false. Being a bad believer does not make you not be a believer.

I guess I don’t understand the term “bad believer.” Why would someone be a believer in something they didn’t care to practice? “I believe in X, but refuse to act as if I do?” Again, what are we supposed to think about such a person? Saying they’re a bad believer seems to let them off the hook, as if there were not a giant chasm of incompatibility between what they profess and what they do.

[Voyager]

@Wee Bairn

So you’re saying its up to you, a mere human, to determine which of God’s rules to follow and which to ignore? You have the ability to determine the ones he really meant were important and everyone should follow, and those which he was just kidding about, which you can ignore? Pretty presumptuous.

That’s what everyone does, no matter how literally they believe in the Bible. They are happy to dump the OT laws they feel don’t count anymore. When there are contradictory guidelines, they choose which to follow. Most people act like atheists in choosing which parts of the Bible to follow, using their own moral sense to filter it (or sometimes the moral sense of a religious leader.)
But that doesn’t make them atheists. Atheism has nothing to do with following the law, just belief.

[Wee_Bairn]

God thought not working on Sunday was such a big deal that he made a commandment against it (notice lack of one vs. homosexuality, but that’s not at issue here), right alongside murder and stealing, yet many Christians routinely work on Sunday. I can see ignoring a random passage, but a commandment?

[Sal_Ammoniac]

Well, exactly. The same forces that want to put a Ten Commandments tablet on every courthouse lawn have not exactly been falling all over themselves to ban shopping at Wal-Mart on the Sunday. Given that, those of us on the other side shouldn’t be afraid to fight back, and say, “You guys don’t even act as if you believe the religion yourself, so why the hell are you trying to push it on the rest us?”

[Wee_Bairn]

As much as I hate to say it, and I really hate to say it, give the loons at Chick-Fil-A credit, they’re uber-religious, and guess what- they ain’t open on Sunday.

[Revtim]

@Sal Ammoniac

But that’s basically what I would say. If you’re the type of Christian who is going to say, “I believe in heaven, and I believe the Bible tells you how to get there,” but then you don’t do what the Bible quite clearly says you have to do – well, what am I supposed to think, as a disinterested observer? To me the obvious conclusion is that people don’t really believe in what they claim to believe, because they don’t act in accordance with those beliefs. They are, in a word, atheists – not self-professed atheists, obviously, but atheists to my critical eye.

Why would a critical eye come to the conclusion that they do not believe in a god at all, instead of simply not being fundamentalist, or at worst, a bad Christian? Why would anybody reasonably make the jump to them not believing in a god? That does not seem to follow.

[Sal_Ammoniac]

Because if they believed in a god, wouldn’t they follow that god’s dictates, if he told them he was going to punish them everlastingly if they didn’t? The disconnect there is simply too big for me to swallow. Either they don’t believe in the everlasting punishment, or they don’t believe in the dictate, and if either of those things are true, then they don’t believe in the god. A god who tells you untruths is hardly god, after all.

[Wee_Bairn]

@Sal Ammoniac

Because if they believed in a god, wouldn’t they follow that god’s dictates, if he told them he was going to punish them everlastingly if they didn’t? The disconnect there is simply too big for me to swallow. Either they don’t believe in the everlasting punishment, or they don’t believe in the dictate, and if either of those things are true, then they don’t believe in the god. A god who tells you untruths is hardly god, after all.

Exactly- can’t have it both ways. This ain’t mom telling you to be home at ten, and you know being home at eleven won’t hurt anything. You don’t question God, you are taught a mere human cannot even grasp the concept of God.

[pravnik]

Even a literalist can get around that one - Jesus worked on the Sabbath, in apparent violation of Jewish law.

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”

He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

Matthew 12: 1-14.

[Apos]

@Sal Ammoniac

Because if they believed in a god, wouldn’t they follow that god’s dictates, if he told them he was going to punish them everlastingly if they didn’t? The disconnect there is simply too big for me to swallow. Either they don’t believe in the everlasting punishment, or they don’t believe in the dictate, and if either of those things are true, then they don’t believe in the god. A god who tells you untruths is hardly god, after all.

Again though, not all Christians are literalists, and not all followers of a religion are expected to be perfect followers. Again, I still don’t even see the point. You can go on and on about how YOU think they don’t REALLY believe. But if they believe, they believe no matter how silly or self-contradictory the belief. Who are you to say that they don’t?

[Sal_Ammoniac]

It sounds to me like you’re saying that we should take a profession of faith unquestioningly, or at face value. I’m asking why we should.

Or to put it another way, how great would the incompatibility have to be between beliefs and actions before you would say that the person is not really a believer?

[Der_Trihs]

@Sal Ammoniac

Let’s take a test case: one Mitt Romney. Now, we know two things about him: 1) he professes to be a conservative Christian and has staked out positions (on homosexuality, for example) that are consistent with that profession; and 2) he’s filthy rich, with a fortune recently estimated at around $200 million.

Here’s where things get awkward. In the New Testament, Jesus is not that big on condemning – he says nothing about homosexuality, for example – but on the subject of wealth, he’s absolutely categorical: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,” he says. Or again, “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.” Or again, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

Jesus doesn’t have much to do with many ( most ? ) versions of Christianity; he’s more of an icon used for advertising or a symbol to be reverenced without consideration of what that symbol stands for, like Mickey Mouse or the American flag. Ultimately, a Christian is anyone who believes he’s a Christian.

As for being rich, there’s been versions of Christianity around for a long time that regard wealth as a sign of God’s favor; I recall a poll years ago where 13% of the respondants said they belielved that a person’s financial worth is a direct reflection of his worth in God’s eyes. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mitt Romney falls under this version of Christianity.

And I’d like to point out that “not Christian” is not at all the same as “atheist”.

@Sal Ammoniac

Because if they believed in a god, wouldn’t they follow that god’s dictates, if he told them he was going to punish them everlastingly if they didn’t? The disconnect there is simply too big for me to swallow. Either they don’t believe in the everlasting punishment, or they don’t believe in the dictate, and if either of those things are true, then they don’t believe in the god. A god who tells you untruths is hardly god, after all.

Or they interpet the god’s command to mean what they want, or they listen to some religious leader who claims a new set of commands, or are too dumb or ignorant of their religion to know of that divine command, or they can just ignore it and believe everything else, or they have a revelation that tells them God’s changed his mind. There are all sorts of possibilites besides atheism.

@Sal Ammoniac

But that’s basically what I would say. If you’re the type of Christian who is going to say, “I believe in heaven, and I believe the Bible tells you how to get there,” but then you don’t do what the Bible quite clearly says you have to do – well, what am I supposed to think, as a disinterested observer? To me the obvious conclusion is that people don’t really believe in what they claim to believe, because they don’t act in accordance with those beliefs. They are, in a word, atheists – not self-professed atheists, obviously, but atheists to my critical eye.

Why ? They can just interpet the Bible to mean what they want it to mean.

@Sal Ammoniac

Or to put it another way, how great would the incompatibility have to be between beliefs and actions before you would say that the person is not really a believer?

Infinite. Being a believer has nothing to do with one’s actions. It’s just a label, really.

Sal Ammoniac, I notice a certain subtext in your remarks equating “atheist” with “unethical hypocrite”.

[Sal_Ammoniac]

@Der Trihs

Sal Ammoniac, I notice a certain subtext in your remarks equating “atheist” with “unethical hypocrite”.

Huh?

[Apos]

@Sal Ammoniac

It sounds to me like you’re saying that we should take a profession of faith unquestioningly, or at face value. I’m asking why we should.

Because what’s the alternative? There is none. The only people with access to their beliefs are the people themselves. Personally, I find it 100% plausible that people would both believe in God and not necessarily follow every command that YOU (not they!) interpret as being important, or even that they would believe and agree that they should be doing what you say, and fail to.

Or to put it another way, how great would the incompatibility have to be between beliefs and actions before you would say that the person is not really a believer?

Again, I don’t see how these things connect up. People can be 100% hypocritical and still be believers. If they say they believe, well MAYBE they are lying, but isn’t it far more likely that they are just hypocrites?

[Sal_Ammoniac]

I’m sorry, but I just don’t get it. If you really believed in eternal punishment, wouldn’t you do something to avoid it, when that something is laid out with some explicitness? I can only interpret Romney’s actions as signaling that he doesn’t believe what he claims to believe. You may call it hypocrisy, but there comes a point when it looks like the hypocrisy is being quite wilfully indulged in.

And all of this would be a private matter, except that the Romneys of this world go around trumpeting their religion, and explicitly basing policies on this religion. I think we’re remiss in not saying to Romney, when he claims to be a Christian, “No, you’re not.”

[Apos]

@Sal Ammoniac

I’m sorry, but I just don’t get it. If you really believed in eternal punishment, wouldn’t you do something to avoid it, when that something is laid out with some explicitness? I can only interpret Romney’s actions as signaling that he doesn’t believe what he claims to believe.

First of all, as has already been pointed out to you many many times, YOUR interpretation of how to read the Bible and why is not the be all and end all of Christianity. Romney belongs to the Mormon church, and that church, as far as I am aware, does not require that anyone take vow of poverty to be a good standing member. That’s pretty much game over for you right there.

You may call it hypocrisy, but there comes a point when it looks like the hypocrisy is being quite wilfully indulged in.

Again, never ascribe to willful design what can be more easily explained by laziness or ineptitude.

And all of this would be a private matter, except that the Romneys of this world go around trumpeting their religion, and explicitly basing policies on this religion. I think we’re remiss in not saying to Romney, when he claims to be a Christian, “No, you’re not.”

I don’t see what basis you have for saying he’s not a Christian. No one is the grand arbiter of what all Christians should be like, and if there was one, it certainly wouldn’t be random poster A on message board B: it would be someone like the Pope.

Worse, even if there WAS such a definition, that STILL wouldn’t mean that someone that didn’t live up to those standards could in any sensible way be called an atheist. Either he believes in a God, or he doesn’t. The only one who can really say so for sure is himself, and I don’t see the point of running around claiming that you’ve divined out better than him what he really secretly believes.