Board index ‹ Christianity

[Shiny Captain]

Is there anything one can do to be excluded from Christianity? Not including the unpardonable sin or changing religions.

Throughout the years, Christians have done some pretty awful things, some in the name of Christianity, some for other reasons; The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The genocide of Native Americans, Slavery, bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the terrorist attack in Norway, and continued hostility towards homosexuals, Atheists and people of other faiths, particularly Muslims.

But when the more liberal Christians denounce these acts, they often say that the perpetrators are 'not true Christians'. I'm aware that there's very little in the teachings of Christ to justify genocide. But such acts are found in the Old Testament at the command of God.

Even if such acts were only justifiable in those circumstances because God commanded it, everyday Christians do many things every day that are not Biblically sanctioned. If an unrepentant murderer is not a true Christian, is an unrepentant homosexual also not a Christian? What about an unrepentant liar? Or a guy who disrespected his parents once 20 years ago and hasn't got around to repenting for it yet? As far as I know, the Bible doesn't differentiate between sins.

The logical conclusion of this is that since every different sect of Christianity has slightly different rules, every one of the 100s of sects of Christianity are wrong except perhaps one, and therefore the adherents are not true Christians. Even the believers in the correct version of Christianity will be imperfect in their religion in some way, except for maybe 1% of the adherents who are absolute boy scouts. This means that only a tiny percentage of a group of people, who themselves only make up a tiny percentage of the Christian population, who account for less than a third of the world, are not true Christians, are not saved. God's ultimate mission to redeem mankind through the sacrifice of Jesus succeeded in saving about 17 people of the billions who ever lived.

This would make Jesus a failure, in my book.

But on the other hand, if Christians are perfectly capable of committing some of the most horrific acts in human history, then being a Christian doesn't make you a better person than an Atheist or the Jews of the OT who did perfectly fine without him, so again, the ministry of Christ, the prophets, missionaries, writers and preservers of the Bible are all meaningless; they don't make you a better person.

[jimwalton]

I see a bunch of misunderstandings here, but thanks for sharing your thoughts. It gives me a chance to explain and clarify.

> Christians have done some pretty awful things

Yeah, they have, and they're reprehensible. There will certainly be punishments from the Lord for the perpetrators of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the genocide of Native Americans, and antebellum slavery. But the military actions on your list were not done in the name of Christ but as governments. And of course any hostility toward a person of another faith is just wrong.

> the perpetrators are 'not true Christians'

There's a lot of merit to this. Living in a Christian country doesn't make one Christian, but only turning one's life over to Christ in a love relationship. Many perpetrators of these acts are genuinely NOT Christians.

> [Genocide is] found in the Old Testament at the command of God

It's not. That's a misunderstanding of ancient Near Eastern cultural warfare rhetoric. The only time Israel was commanded by God to fight offensive war was in the conquest, but the point was not genocide, but conquest. That's a MUCH longer discussion.

> everyday Christians do many things every day that are not Biblically sanctioned

Yes, we're all sinners and that never goes away, but most true Christians don't live lives of sin. While I am always imperfect, my life each day reflects the nature of Jesus in me, not the sin nature.

> The logical conclusion of this is that since every different sect of Christianity have slightly different rules, every one of the 100's of sects of Christianity are wrong except perhaps one, and therefore the adherents are not true Christians.

No, this is a misunderstanding. The variety and diversity of the Christian population and of Christian faith are a strength. It's OK that we see things differently as we worship the same Lord. It's not true that one (the "absolute boy scouts") are right and everyone else is wrong. Most Christians probably have more than 95% right, even though there are disagreements with each other (often the disagreements are over the non-essentials, much like preferring a Toyota over a Honda. It doesn't make one right and one wrong.). The different rules and priorities are a strength, not a problem. So it's not true that "only a tiny percentage...are saved." God's ultimate mission to redeem humankind is alive and well, and people are coming to Christ by the millions, as they always have. Some Internet statistics (and we of course always have to be skeptical of statistics) show that Christianity is the fastest growing religion on earth. (http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html)

> being a Christian doesn't make you a better person than an Atheist or the Jews of the OT who did perfectly fine without him, so again, the ministry of Christ, the prophets, missionaries, writers and preservers of the Bible are all meaningless; they don't make you a better person.

The point of Christianity is to be saved from sin and to replace the sin nature with the nature of Jesus. At least one of the consequences of that is that we become Christlike: moral, good, kind, loving, responsible, and just. But there are many things besides Christianity that make someone a good person. There are many good atheists, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, etc. who do perfectly fine without Christ. But ultimately without Jesus someone is not saved from sin and doesn't enjoy new life and a love relationship with God. The ministry of Christ, the prophets, missionaries, and Bible-writers is anything but meaningless, because the point is to enter into a relationship with God, not to be "a better person" (though, as I said, that happens in someone who is a true believer). If a "Christian" is not a better person, something is wrong.

[Shiny Captain]

What would you say is the difference between living a life of sin and being imperfect but good as you say you are, Biblically and morally speaking I mean. Say a man murders a child once, and spends the rest of his life in sincere repentance and another spends his life married to another man, and never for one second regrets how he ls. One of those people is living in sin and the other is an imperfect sinner, but the repentant sinner has brought infinitely more pain into the world. And again, there's no proof that being Christian makes someone a better person. While evil acts done by Christians may not be Christ-like, it doesn't mean they aren't true believers. It merely means their actions don't match their beliefs. And given that if Christ lived, he lived 2000 years ago and all we have to go on are 4 slightly differing books written decades after his supposed death. Since people have squabbled over their meaning for millennia, who are you to decide what deeds are Christ like? Christian sects differ on all manner of meaningful topics; salvation by grace or deeds, the existence of a literal hell, the existence of a literal Eden, Adam and Eve, the existence of a literal Devil, the purpose of the resurrection, the inerrancy of the Bible. If these different belief systems all fall into the same category because you all worship God, do Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Sikhs, Deists and all other monotheists who worship some form of singular creator god also count as technically Christian?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for writing. I see more misunderstandings, and glad to have a chance to explain.

> What would you say is the difference between living a life of sin and being imperfect but good

The difference is who is the driver. In the case of "living a life of sin," without Christ I am a slave to sin, am separated from the life of Christ, and my sin nature is the driver in my life. In the case of being a Jesus-follower but imperfect, the Holy Spirit is the driver in my life, even though on occasion I mess up. But I am united with the life of Christ, and the nature of Jesus in me defines who I am and how I act.

> Say a man murders a child once, and spends the rest of his life in sincere repentance and another spends his life married to another man, and never for one second regrets how he ls. One of those people is living in sin and the other is an imperfect sinner, but the repentant sinner has brought infinitely more pain into the world.

Right. You're right. But the issue is not how much pain you have brought into the world, but whether or not your life is right with God, and whether you have the sin nature driving your life or the nature of Christ driving your life. Genuine repentance changes everything—even the pain one has brought into life.

> there's no proof that being Christian makes someone a better person

I disagree with this radically. I know many Many MANY people whose lives have ben radically changed for the better by Christ. Christ changes who people are. He changes their nature and their behavior. The evidences are copious.

> While evil acts done by Christians may not be Christ-like, it doesn't mean they aren't true believers. It merely means their actions don't match their beliefs.

Not necessarily. Often it DOES mean they aren't true believers. True Christians don't engage in or perpetrate evil acts.

> given that if Christ lived, he lived 2000 years ago and all we have to go on are 4 slightly differing books written decades after his supposed death. Since people have squabbled over their meaning for millennia, who are you to decide what deeds are Christ like?

This is an entirely separate discussion. The four gospels have much to speak in favor of their reliability in communicating the life and teachings of Christ. The disagreements over the meanings of the teachings of the gospel in Christian circles are minimal. Christians agree on probably better than 90% of what's in there. Probably better than 95%. It's mostly the non-believers trying to analyze the texts where all the goofy theories abound.

- Almost all Christians understand salvation is by grace through faith.
- Very few Christians doubt the existence of a literal hell.
- Very few Christians doubt the existence of a literal Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve
- a few more Christians doubt the existence of a literal devil, but the LARGE majority believe in a literal devil
- Christians are in wide agreement about the purpose of the resurrection
- "Inerrancy" is an inadequate word in the discussion of Scripture. Its meaning is too nebulous to be helpful. This is a much larger discussion. But Christians by a great majority believe in the authority of Scripture and its having been "God-breathed".

> Do Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Sikhs, Deists and all other monotheists who worship some form of singular creator god also count as technically Christian?

No, because Jesus is the fulcrum on which Christianity pivots. Believing in a singular creator god is a step in the right direction, but Christianity is about being conformed to the nature of Jesus, something that Jews, Sikhs, and many others find objectionable.

[Shiny Captain]

> "The difference is who is the driver. In the case of 'living a life of sin,' without Christ I am a slave to sin, am separated from the life of Christ, and my sin nature is the driver in my life. In the case of being a Jesus-follower but imperfect, the Holy Spirit is the driver in my life, even though on occasion I mess up. But I am united with the life of Christ, and the nature of Jesus in me defines who I am and how I act."

So simply by becoming a Christian, you think you're a better person than you would be as a non-Christian. Regardless of whether or not Christianity has changed your behaviour, do you think your sins are lesser because 'Jesus is the driver'?

> "Right. You're right. But the issue is not how much pain you have brought into the world, but whether or not your life is right with God, and whether you have the sin nature driving your life or the nature of Christ driving your life. Genuine repentance changes everything—even the pain one has brought into life."

Right, so murder is wrong not because it robs someone of their life, and causes untold grief to their family. It's wrong because God told me not to do it. What you're saying is that all sin boils down to disobedience; if God commanded me to commit murder (like he did to Abraham) I would be more guilty in his eyes if I didn't do it. That seems like quite an arbitrary framework on which to rest your morality. What's the point in 'Do unto others...' when in actuality the real Golden Rule should be 'Do what God says, and don't ask questions'.

> "I disagree with this radically. I know many Many MANY people whose lives have ben radically changed for the better by Christ. Christ changes who people are. He changes their nature and their behaviour. The evidences are copious."

I would love to see some of this evidence, as it sounds mostly anecdotal with a little confirmation bias mixed in. Things such as support for Israel, opposition to the LBGT+ community, opposition to abortion, contraception, sex education all seem very closely tied to Christianity, and they are all things I find morally abhorrent. I'm sure there are plenty of Christians who have nothing against gay people or the Palestinians, but support their oppression because they think it's what God wants, and pleasing God is more important to being beneficial to society. Prisons are full of Christians, history books are full of warmongering Christians, for hundreds of years Christianity was in support of the slave trade and it is only when society at large turned against the idea of slavery that Christians revaluated their texts and decided that slavery wasn't compatible with their religion after all. I simply can't accept that when you sin, it's because you're imperfect but Jesus loves you, but if a Christian commits murder then they were never a Christian in the first place. As far as I know, the Bible makes no distinction between the severity of sins, therefore you must accept that people who have committed heinous acts are indeed Christian, or that you are not in fact Christian, since no true Christian would tell a white lie or disrespect his parents. The only way you can justify the belief that Christianity makes someone a better person is if, as you do, you pretend that every immoral Christian was not really a Christian. I could argue that being born in Russia makes you a far more moral person if I said that any immoral Russian is not really a Russian.

> "•Almost all Christians understand salvation is by grace through faith. •Very few Christians doubt the existence of a literal hell. •Very few Christians doubt the existence of a literal Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve •a few more Christians doubt the existence of a literal devil, but the LARGE majority believe in a literal devil •Christians are in wide agreement about the purpose of the resurrection •"Inerrancy" is an inadequate word in the discussion of Scripture. Its meaning is too nebulous to be helpful. This is a much larger discussion. But Christians by a great majority believe in the authority of Scripture and its having been "God-breathed".

I hope you realise that the belief in Adam and Eve is extremely unscientific, the life and death of Jesus so vague as to be unfounded, and that the idea of an eternal Hell for using the critical thinking skills God gave me is profoundly unjust. I fail to see how this moral framework makes someone a better person. More subservient, more acquiescent, but not more moral.

> Christianity is about being conformed to the nature of Jesus, according to what is beneficial to priests and politicians

Fixed that for you.

[jimwalton]

Wow. While I'm reading your post, it occurs to me that you have severe misunderstandings of the Bible, and yet at the same time you write with confidence about your knowledge. And you are twisting my words. I'd be glad to discuss it more with you. Let me try again.

> So simply by becoming a Christian, you think you're a better person than you would be as a non-Christian.

This is a distortion of what I said. What I said is that Christianity doesn't really make someone a better person; what it really does is save a person from sin. That's the point. I did say, "the nature of Jesus in me defines who I am and how I act." For example, when some people come to Christ they are already good people; Christ saves them from sin, not makes them a better person. There are a lot of people who are not Christians who are good people. But I also said that someone who is truly a Christian will be committed to live morally.

> Regardless of whether or not Christianity has changed your behaviour, do you think your sins are lesser because 'Jesus is the driver'?

Absolutely NOT. Sin is sin no matter who does it. Actually it's the opposite: A Christian's sins are probably actually worse, because they should know better. If "Jesus is the driver," their sin is both less understandable and less excusable.

> so murder is wrong not because it robs someone of their life, and causes untold grief to their family. It's wrong because God told me not to do it.

Another misunderstanding. Murder is wrong for all three of those reasons, not just the last one, and at least one more—because God is life, and humans are made in his image, and therefore murder is the taking of what is sacred. Murder IS wrong because it robs someone of life. Murder IS wrong because it causes untold grief to the family and friends. You obviously have an ax to grind, but you don't seem to know what the Bible really teaches. Somewhere along the way you've been greatly misinformed.

> What your saying is that all sin boils down to disobedience

No, I didn't say that at all. The Bible defines sin in many ways: falling short of God's righteousness, rebellion against God, disobedience, enmity against God, pride, our human propensity to screw things up, error, transgression, perversion, evil, and more. Sin doesn't boil down to disobedience, and that's not what I was saying.

> if God commanded me to commit murder (like he did to Abraham)

You totally misunderstand Genesis 22, but that's a MUCH longer discussion. No room for it here.

> That seems like quite an arbitrary framework on which to rest your morality.

Not arbitrary at all. The framework on which morality rests is the nature and character of God. It's objective and immutable.

> What's the point in 'Do unto others...' when in actuality the real Golden Rule should be 'Do what God says, and don't ask questions'.

This is sort of right, but knowing where you're coming from on it, I don't agree with what you mean by it. God is neither the arbiter of right and wrong nor the commander of it; He is good (righteous) by nature and so cannot deviate from what is perfectly good.

> would love to see some of this evidence, as it sounds mostly anecdotal

Obviously, if I'm telling you stories about people's lives, it's ALL anecdotal.

> they are all things I find morally abhorrent

This of course makes me wonder on what arbitrary framework you rest YOUR morality. Without an objective standard, your morality is just your opinion. So I turn the question to you: by what objective measure do you define good and bad, right and wrong?

> only when society at large turned against the idea of slavery that Christians revaluated their texts and decided that slavery wasn't compatible with their religion after all

You're not understanding history here. It was the Christians (William Wilberforce, for instance) who undid slavery. Quakers, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists are all known in history to have worked for abolition. Thomas Clarkson and Granville Sharp, both Anglicans, formed a large anti-slavery movement. Etc. Etc.

> As far as I know, the Bible makes no distinction between the severity of sins

This is a misunderstanding. The Bible DOES make a distinction between the severity of sins. John 19.11; Ex. 32.30; 1 Jn. 5.16; Mk. 3.28-30, and others.

> I hope you realise that the belief in Adam and Eve is extremely unscientific

I guess it depends what you mean by "belief in Adam and Eve." I believe in Adam and Eve, but not necessarily that they were the first hominids. I believe that although they are historical, Genesis 2 and 3 are not about their material formation but about the role God gave them on the earth and hos they diverted from God's intentions and desires. Science can't examine the role they played in history or salvation history, and science can't tell me or you that they didn't exist.

> the life and death of Jesus so vague as to be unfounded

Virtually all scholars believe that Jesus was a person who lived in history, in Palestine in the 1st century, and the death of Jesus is a well-attested historical event. Almost no serious scholars doubt the existence and crucifixion of Jesus.

> the idea of an eternal Hell for using the critical thinking skills God gave me is profoundly unjust

I'm going to guess you have a caricatured perception and understanding of hell, and not a biblical one. Again, that's a longer discussion. Besides that, if you think God sends people to hell for using their critical thinking skills, then I'm going to have to also guess you are not familiar with Biblical teaching on the subject.

> I fail to see how this moral framework makes someone a better person

I can say it again: Christianity isn't to make someone a better person, but to save them from sin and reconcile their relationship to God. You're stuck on a mantra that I'm not asserting.

> More subservient, more acquiescent, but not more moral.

Wow, talk about confirmation bias. You don't seem to realize that most schools in America were started by Christians. Hospitals were started by Christians. Christians were active abolitionists. Christians have fought globally for justice, freedom, and morality. Our laws are based on Christian principles. Public schools were started by Christians. Christians worked against unfair labor practices, and even today are actively working to help AIDS victims, stop genocide, and to stop human trafficking. I hate to use the word, but it seems that your view of Christians is bigoted.

> Fixed that for you.

Sigh. Be careful—you've got quite a bias. I'm guessing at this point that in asking the original question you weren't really after an answer, but only an argument? I'm not sure you've heard anything I've said. If you really have questions and want to have an honest discussion, I'd love to dialogue with you.

[Shiny Captain]

I admit, that last point was a cheap shot. But aside from that, I think we're both going around in circles. You say the point of Christianity is to remove you from sin, but at the same time you maintain that Christianity does not necessarily make you a better person. You then assert that a 'True Christian' would be less likely to sin. This is both contradictory, and a form of moving the goalposts as you seem to believe that any evil believer in Jesus is somehow distinct from Christianity while at the same time admitting that no Christian is truly perfect. I've no doubt that Christians have done great things for the world, sometimes because of Christianity and sometimes because they were just nice people. You however seem to have trouble admitting that Christianity has also inspired wrongdoing. Regardless of Christian teachings, any and all forms of grouping be it race, religion, or what football team you support can and will lead to violence between adherents.

I am also aware of William Wilberforce, living in Hull we have statues of him all over. But it was the Haitian revolution that truly put an end to slavery, we just gave the credit to white Christians like Wilberforce. No doubt he was well intentioned, but the fact remains that for centuries, people justified ownership of slaves through the Bible. This means that either A) The Bible supports slavery, in which case your religion is abhorrent B) The Bible does not support slavery, but people didn't care, therefore the Bible is useless as a moral framework C) The Bible is ambiguous regarding slavery, therefore people must rely on their own consciences. Why not just do this in all matters?

As for my moral framework, well I tend to treaothers as I would want to be treated. This sentiment is a lot older than Christ, and it's pretty sensible. Beyond that, I live in a society and it benefits me to be part of a collective. Humans are social animals and as a result we are hardwired to find certain s repulsive, such as murder, because if we all ran around murdering each other our species would never advance. It's not a perfect moral system but I'm more comfortable knowing that my friend won't kill me because it's not in his DNA than I am with the idea that the only thing keeping him in check is a Bible verse.

Also, I understand the story of Abraham and Isaac, Abraham proved how faithful he was to God by being willing to commit murder, and it also forshadows the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. The point remains that God asked Abraham to murder his son and at no point was the issue of morality brought up. The message is clear, whatever God says is moral. It makes sense for God to invebt morals, if morality constrained God he wouldn't be all powerful. But it does make it arbitrary. How else can you explain laws like not working on the Sabbath?

I am enjoying this dialogue, even if we aren't seeing eye to eye. So let me put this to you. You've said that a person can live a good life without being a Christian, can such a person go to Heaven in your worldview? Can a bad person who is Christian go to Hell? Or ultimately, is it what someone believes that determines their eternal fate, regardless of how it did or didn't change their behaviour.

[jimwalton]

Great reply. Thank you for addressing the dialogue on a different plane. This is a much more profitable approach.

I'll start with the dilemma of good behavior (your first paragraph), and I'll speak honestly, not for the sake of debate. The POINT of salvation is so save us from sin, but the consequence of that should logically lead to a life less governed by sin. And since in coming to Christ to be saved from sin a person is putting one's life under the leadership of Jesus to be like Him, any Christian coming to Jesus for legitimate motives and with sincerity is going to let Jesus change his or her life to be more holy. Thus while good behavior isn't the point, it's also the necessary consequence. It's like you claiming to be fan of the Hull Football Club, but then you never watch their games, you don't buy their merchandise, you never attend a match, and you don't discuss them with your friends. I have every reason to doubt your status as a fan. If I've been saved from sin by the Lord, which is the point, but then don't conform my life to His motivated by love for Him, you have every reason to doubt my commitment.

And, by the way, I don't have trouble admitting that atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ. To be frank, those are a smear on Christianity and a historical embarrassment that won't quit. It would be nice if it would go away, but it never will. Those atrocities were perpetuated, I would say, by people who were not living "in Christ".

As far as slavery, I'm sure there were many historical factors at play to rid the earth of it, even as there are today. I was just pointing out the fallacy of thinking that Christians were all on the perpetuation side and not on the abolition side. I would say with some confidence that the people on the perpetuation side were Christian by name only (and therefore not true followers of Christ), but people on the abolition side truly understood the Bible and tried to follow it.

Your moral framework. It's true that "treat others as you want to be treated" is older than Christ. The saying didn't originate with him. It's in Leviticus 19, which means it's at least from about 1200 BC, and probably earlier. While it's sensible, it lacks a reference point, meaning that it can change from person to person, and at times even modulate into bad behavior. What if it WERE in your friend's DNA to murder you? He could justify it by your moral framework. You see, I think "good" and "bad" don't really have a meaning unless there is some recognized way that we all define them, but if there is a recognized way that we all define them, that would give evidence to the existence of a standard BEHIND "treat others as I would want to be treated." And it's that standard that matters, not your personal preferences.

Genesis 22 and the Abraham/Isaac story. The intent was never murder. The text is clear from the start that it's a test. The Hebrew phrase of Gn. 22.1 is very particular that God has an important objective in mind, and it's not murder. Abraham himself doesn't think murder is in the offing (v. 5). Thirdly, God's demand is unlike anything in the ancient world. Child sacrifices were done on babies, and were most often associated with fertility rituals or protection for the home. So we know this text isn't about child sacrifice. Isaac didn't even understand it to be about sacrifice, because he helped out. They all seemed to understand that it pertained to covenant, not homicide. This is apparent from the language in v. 2. There's much more to say, but hopefully this is sufficient to let you know this story has nothing to do with human sacrifice, murder, or God's immorality. So your claim "The message is clear, whatever God says is moral" is off-target. You're not understanding the text, or the workings of morality.

> You've said that a person can live a good life without being a Christian, can such a person go to Heaven in your worldview?

Thanks for asking a good question. No, that person cannot. Heaven is not attained by good works, but by being transformed into the nature of Jesus in a love relationship.

> Can a bad person who is Christian go to Hell?

To be honest, that's trickier. Bad persons can be forgiven, but if they continue in their badness, there's every reason to doubt that they're Christians (Mt. 7.21-23; Jn. 14.12, 23-24; James 2.14-26 and others).

> is it what someone believes that determines their eternal fate, regardless of how it did or didn't change their behaviour.

This is closer, but again, if what I believe doesn't change how I live, there's a problem. Dietrich Bonhoeffer says, with some wisdom, "The one who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient truly believes."