He's basically an atheist

Great Debates
141

Good question, and one that honestly gives me pause. If that hypothetical were to occur (and mine is much more realistic than yours, as I’ll explain in a moment), I believe that most Christians would be convicted to the point of selling the 4-wheeler and feeding the girl … or giving her a ride to a soup kitchen where someone else had done something similar to what he had done in Lower Slobovia.

But, I say again, my hypothetical is much more practical than yours. Charities make these kind of decisions all the time. For instance, I’ve recently done some work with WorldVision. They spend a bunch of money printing resources for an event called 30-Hour Famine. The money they spend could be used to feed children. But instead, it is used to inspire young people to raise money AND to raise their awareness of the issues around the world. It’s just another form of the investment like the one in my hypothetical. And to top it all off, in order to make all that happen, they pay salaries to people - not exorbitant ones – WorldVision is held well-accountable - but salaries that keep them above the poverty level, certainly. Some of those people use some of their salaries to buy iPods and other unnecessary luxuries. Are they to be condemned? And if not, what is the difference between the individual and the organization?

Wealth - just like any other resource – can be used for good or for selfishness and evil. Who is the judge? In my belief system, God, and God alone – not me or you. I must make judgments in order to make my own decisions (such as who to vote for) but I always do so with the acknowledgment that I am not the ultimate judge.

Wow, how insulting – and misguided. There is no sense in which that statement is true for the thinking Christian.

142

Correct, he might very well be. It’s a complex issue. And if you’re at least admitting that, then we’ve come a long way since your OP.

Yes, but that’s something that partially defines faith, isn’t it? If I throw my lot in with Muslims, then I’m gambling that their interpretation of the cosmos is the correct one. Same if I throw my lot in with Christians of any flavor.

It’s a bit too in-depth for me to get into here, and I would be remiss in doing so, anyway, since it’s not an area that I have full (or anywhere near it) understanding of. Suffice it to say that biblical scholars have long debated exactly what Jesus meant by the “kingdom of God”. It seems that at times He used it to mean His new interpretation of our relationship to God, and at others it seems to refer to the kingdom of God as it will exist on earth after His return. There are other interpretations as well. Good people and scholars exist on all sides of that argument. Personally, I haven’t studied it quite enough to come to my own satisfying conclusion. But there is no consensus that it refers to the traditional understanding of heaven.

143

If you would act that way in front of Jesus, why act differently if he’s not standing in front of you? Is Jesus more den mother or drill instructor to be pleased or obeyed when you think He can see you, rather than moral/intellectual guide and role model? In light of passages about sparrows not being able to fall without God’s knowledge, I’m not sure if your hypothetical is more practical than mine.

Maybe it was presented a bit flippantly, but I say again, if the Bible is supposed to show you the way to Salvation, and Salvation is the divinding line between you and eternal damnation, shouldn’t you err on the side of compassion? I mean, would you rather play semantic games with eternal consequence, or actually heed the rest of your Matthew 25, when it says the following? –

"The Sheep and the Goats

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37"Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40"The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44"They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45"He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.""

That all seems pretty clear to me.

144

Absolutely not. “Open to interpretation” implies that study of the Bible may lead one to a wholly different, equally valid or tenable conclusion. I don’t believe that to be true. I said before that the entirety of Christ’s life on Earth was about self-sacrifice and refusal of Earthly temptations. I don’t believe in any way that the end message of his story is that Christ sacrificed himself so that Christians are free to act unChrist-like. That just doesn’t make any sense. I am wholly aware of the idea of grace, but to act egotisticly and materialistically in the face of his gift to humanity seems at the least incredibly impolite.

And believe me, I’m not condemning people for not following Christ, but I am suggesting that if they want the privilage of using the title “Christian” to imply a greater morality, they must accept the mantle of following his teachings.

145

Point taken – and I understand that this is the source of many people’s view of Christians as hypocritical.

In the interest of transparency, let me say that this is something I struggle with as a Christian within Western culture. I fully believe in giving as much of my resource as I can in ways that positively impact the world, expressing God’s love through my actions and hopefully drawing people closer to Him through my life.

At the same time, I own a car. It’s nothing fancy – it was used when I bought it, and I’ll drive it 'til it won’t drive any more. But let me show you why it’s not just clearcut, via another hypothetical (tired of them, yet?). Let’s say my car needs service, and without it, within a year, it will conk out. At the same time, my elderly neighbor needs medication and can’t afford it. I can provide the medication with the money I have set aside for the car service, but if I do that, then in a year, I’ll have to spend much more money on a costly repair. Or I can pay for the service, and use my car to take my neighbor to a ministry center designed to help her get the medications she needs. My paying for the medications is more immediate, and more secure in the short term, but my paying for the service on my car might very well be better stewardship, if I do indeed need the car to be able to continue to help people. **So which is better stewardship? **I hope you can see that there are arguments on both sides of that hypothetical. There’s no cross-referenced index to look at to see the proper response under every possible situation.

Now, you may very well feel that I’m simply muddying the waters with hypotheticals. That’s not my intent. I consider myself to be a “thinking Christian”, and one of the things I have to struggle with is that in the culture we’re part of, much of this is not clear cut, black-and-white, as you seem to be implying it is.

It seems to me that your type of interpretation – if it were held by someone who called himself or herself a Christian – is the type of interpretation that has led to many of the religiously-incited wars and conflicts throughout history. It doesn’t have to be “wholly different” to be controversial – small differences in interpretation can have big consequences. The inability to admit that yes, there might just be another equally valid conclusion is the kind of stubbornness that Christians are often accused of – and the kind of stubbornness that has led to bloodshed throughout history.

I’m not God (just in case you were wondering;)), and I’m glad I’m not. As someone who believes in Him, and as one who attempts to live my life according to His principles, there are many aspects of our Western culture that I struggle with. I would never want to be in the position of judging who has successfully followed the principles God has given us – I have my opinions, of course, but to be the final arbiter of that? I’ll leave that to a Higher Being.

But that said, my goal becomes to “port” the message of Christ into a culture where it was not originally based. If that makes me less of a Christian in the eyes of some, then that’s a shame, but that’s what exegesis is. And the issue of wealth is one of those that is not as easy as some in this thread seem to believe. Again – this isn’t a matter of me being wealthy – I’m certainly nowhere near it by western standards. But – should that be judged by western standards? Yet another area of intellectual and spiritual struggle.

We would disagree on that. The entirety of Christ’s life on Earth – in my opinion – was to pay a debt that we owed, in order to allow us a restored relationship with God, and along the way, to teach us about the true nature of God – to give mankind the most direct view yet of the Creator. That has many many more aspects than just self-sacrifice and victory over temptation.

146

On a less contentious note, let me say that even though I’m a newly-registered member, I’ve been around a while, and I hope you will be able to become a full member once your guest membership runs out. Though we disagree, you come across as articulate and intelligent and semi-reasonable. :wink:

147

Why should there be *more * than one valid reading of what is supposed to be the definitive word of God? Look at Matthew 25 again. Read it to the end. The parable of the talents could arguably be a metaphor for…talents, or spiritual gifts, rather than money, right? But what could the end mean? Was Jesus being cryptic when he said " 41"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’"?

Was he being vague? Tricky? Ask yourself how much work it takes to justify a reading where it’s ok to be rich. How many passages to you have to be loose with? How many words do you have to stretch in order to get it? How many half-passages and partial verses does it take? How much do you need to skip from passage to passage, in order to prove this wrong? Which is simply more likely to be the truth? Then ask yourself which one is easier to tell yourself? Which one makes men put the least amount of effort into declaring their own Salvations? Which one makes it harder for humans to fight their natural inclination towards selfishness? Of greedy and power-hungry versus kind and compassionate, which traits are most like the peacekeepers? Which are more likely to be seen in the murderers, the warmongers, the nation builders, the users, the thieves and the genocidal? Can it all be coincidence?

Read what you just wrote. Then find a part that isn’t about grace, that isn’t about compassion or selfless love. Find a phrase that isn’t about giving or almost boundless generosity. Find a part that sets the standard for humans to be selfish, to withhold, to gather what they can, to die with the most toys, to horde, to judge, to force minimum wage earners to work 2 or 3 full time jobs, to refuse medical care to the needy, to close your eyes to pain, to lock yourself into a gated community, to vote against social reform, to act with anything other than grace and forgiveness? Where does Christ say “In all the time I have been on this Earth, look to me not for what I’ve said or done, but, instead grab with both hands onto your chance to do the opposite?” If Christ was here, as you said, “to teach us about the true nature of God,” he must have seen God as at least something like compassionate.

You know in your heart what the scriptures say. As do most Christians. It’s just easier to focus on the sins that we, as humans are less likely to commit. It’s easy to go to church on Sunday in shiny new cars, towing round-faced little kids in expensive clothes. It’s hard to live compassionately. It’s hard to open a soup kitchen. It’s hard to pay more taxes. It’s hard to take only what we need, rather than everything we want. It’s hard to forgive, to transcend, to be gentle with humanity. That’s why there are so few Ghandis and far too many CEOs and crooked politicians.

148

There can be different interpretations because the resource in question (the New Testament) is nearly two milennia old, written in two languages - at least one of which put very little emphasis on the importance of word order, put to parchment by people in a culture that differed greatly from ours, and interpreted and translated into English by individuals and committees with all sorts of human biases and agendas. Despite all that, I still believe that God’s message gets through, but I can’t argue that there aren’t other possible interpretations and readings.

Wow, you’re revealing a lot about your viewpoint on humanity. And I hear you - I agree with you. That wasn’t ever the focus of this argument, as far as I can tell. The question was whether any one individual can be denounced as practically an atheist simply based on the criteria of having wealth. My response was no, based on that one piece of information, you cannot fairly make that judgment. Can someone who has demonstrably lived his or her life selfishly, witholding resources from those who needed it, with the purpose of dying with the most toys, being judgmental, refusing care to the needy, ignoring pain, locking themselves away and voting against social reform – can someone who’s done all that be judged as unChristian? I believe so. But, until you just brought it up, those things weren’t even on the table in this discussion.

Nice sermon - and I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically. You’re right about all of those things. And though I’m just pixels on a screen to you, let me assure you that in my own life, I strive for those things. I live pretty much with what I need, and very little that I would want. I drive a used car, live in a tiny one bedroom apartment with second-hand furniture, and I go out of my way to help people in need that I meet along the way. I go out of my way to find people in need - I’ve gone on special trips to Mexico (not touristy areas, either) to help build housing and shelter for the poor. I’ve worked in soup kitchens and charitable thrift shops, and arranged opportunities for teenagers in my church to do the same. I’ve gone out late at night to sit at Taco Bell with someone who was hurting and in a bad emotional state.

I am gentle with humanity. Including the wealthy members of humanity – they need God too. To write someone off as hopeless just because they’ve accumulated vast stores of wealth is as callous and non-compassionate as writing off the crack-addicted teen mother.

Part of my gentle nature is refusing to judge people in such a way that it shuts the door for further dialog. That’s not helpful in any case – whether they’re rich or poor.

I think we may have taken this discussion as far as it can go. I don’t think we’re that different, you and I – and probably Sal Ammoniac too. I want people to be more socially responsible, and for those who call themselves Christians to do whatever they can in order to be Christ to their world – in their own homes, their own communities, and expanding out to their nation and their world. I get the feeling you want that too – even if you’re not a Christian, you seem to acknowledge that Jesus, as portrayed in the scriptures, presented some admirable qualities. So I don’t think we’re as far apart as it may have seemed.

You may feel differently. In any case, I’ve enjoyed the discourse. It’s made me think carefully, which I always welcome the opportunity to do.

So whaddya say? Gonna pony up for the membership fee?

149

What message gets through if you are willing to allow for that much flexibility? That you are saved, by grace,…The End? Then why all the examples, the parables, the examples set by Christ? The temptations in the wilderness? Why are there any rules at all? Why over 250 references to the poor and how we should take care of them? If the message is simply “Christ has done your job, all you have to do is believe in him” why say in Mark, 7 “…out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.”? Why this in Deuteronomy? – “7 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs.” Or this – “11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.”

Sure, there are other interpretations. When I was in High School, there were other interpretations for the literature we read, but that doesn’t mean that somebody who’d given it more thought couldn’t point to those interpretations as immature, ill-thought out and well astray of the writer’s intent. Which isn’t to say that anyone who disagrees with me is immature, but I want to clearly and definitively make the point that the simple fact that there *is *another interpretation doesn’t make it valid.

Right. I agree. But they’re important points and make for a more reasoned discussion than the OP. Maybe a better question should have been “Are wealthy Christians really Christians, or are they something like Churchgoing Materialists who identify as Christians?” Or “Does the life of Christ, as presented Biblically, make a term like “Conservative Christian” or “wealthy Christian” an oxymoron?”

My basic problem is this – there has been a lot of political influence in recent years wielded by people who are willing to use the socio-political benefits of publicly proclaimed Christianity without accepting the burden of actual (read:Biblical) Christian virtues. Our justice system, our government, our basic cultural and economic systems have been greatly influenced by people whose fundamentally unsound reading of the Bible leads them A) to band together into a powerful, cohesive, political force and B) to act in ways contrary to the teachings of the Jesus.

Hypocrisy, in my opinion, has no place as a basis for a system of government.

I’m not writing them off. Of course they can change, and I hope they do. But, if they label themselves “Christians,” I’m calling them hypocrites. Perhaps perfectly nice, amiable, well-intended though misguided hypocrites, but hypocrites nonetheless. Which, going back to my comment above, is fine by me, until it starts to corrupt my government, bend my legal system and encourages the abandonment of those who need help.

I’m thinking about it :slight_smile: