"I'm still a Christian because I believe the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the best explanation for what we know happened in and near Jerusalem nearly 2000 years ago. Historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Even if we were to accept the premise that the gospels were not written by the men to whom they are attributed, I believe they are based on actual accounts of people in a position to know the truth or falsehood of what they were writing. There is no better explanation for the rise of Christianity than the truth of the resurrection. I may not be able to explain everything, but I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. People in a position to know that for a fact went to their deaths rather than recant that belief. No testimony could be more persuasive to me. I could see people dying for a belief that they did not know was a lie, but to die for a belief KNOWING it's a lie? That's just not credible."
I could see that. And I would challenge it, but at least I would have to admit it's a sound argument.
Again, neither of these women owes me an explanation for anything. But IF they were looking to persuade me, they did not.
Again, neither of these women owes me an explanation for anything. But IF they were looking to persuade me, they did not.
Then again, IF they just wanted to say what they said, more power to them. They didn't persuade me of anything either. However, why would ANYone demand they justify their belief? Maybe they just want to say what they wanted to say.
Religion despite the fundamentalist perspective we embraced for a(n apparently brief) time in our lives, my view is people are not persuaded by logic, except some of the time in American courts of law. And not even then are people (even judges/justices) convinced by facts absent emotional arguments.
I just don't give two hoots why any person claims to be a Christian. I DO believe, despite significant emotional events that cause adults to change their views dramatically (i.e. Apostle Paul), in the world today, and despite decreasing embrace of churches (as we understood the term before we even had heard the Greek word ekklesia), many people are Christian because that's how they were raised. IOW, cultural anthropology.
Then again, for people who still hold to the view that to be a "genuine" Christian, one must believe that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead), more power to them for their belief. And more peace to them by hopefully letting go of the need to convert others.
She's a critic of Christian fundamentalism as a prevailing political force in America today, right? She is a critic of the "toxic masculinity" embodied by political leaders who can just grab women by the *****. Her book is Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.
My understanding of what she is saying in this disjointed interview is that she is STILL a Christian in spite of all the ***** grabbing justified by so-called Christians; and she remains a Christian in spite of being personally attacked by right wing Christian fundamentalist evangelicals. She makes a distinction between mere "proclaimers of Christ" and "followers of Christ," implying that she is the latter.
Amid the backlash from her book, she says she questioned her own faith and identity as a Christian, but she had a "religious experience" and is now at peace with calling herself a Christian. She talks about becoming more tolerant of Christian traditions outside her own (Dutch Reformed). Though she was raised to look at all other denominations as wrong (sound familiar?), she now looks to learn from other traditions and even re-examine her own for errors.
She claims to confess the Nicene Creed. Someone earlier said if you don't confess the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, you aren't a Christian. Well, it sounds like she's covered, if that's a fundamental metric.
When asked what it means to be a Christian, she offered two points. One was community. I don't remember the other. I don't think she gave a strong answer here.
Sounds to me like she's a Christian, but it doesn't really matter to me. We agree on at least one thing, though: grabbing women by the ***** is not very Christ-like.
Sounds to me like she's a Christian, but it doesn't really matter to me. We agree on at least one thing, though: grabbing women by the ***** is not very Christ-like.
Sounds like it to me also. And yes, grabbing women by the vulva is not very Christlike.
You know, it's funny, when you go into something with a preconceived notion about what you WANT to get out of it, you miss what actually WAS said. Thank you, Nathan, for your assistance there. I was waiting for a discussion about doctrine and evidence and I totally missed the message about tolerance and faithfulness [what I would have called, in another time, the "stayed mind"].
Revisiting the question. To consolidate I would say it is because it makes me a better person in my opinion. It drives me towards virtue and away from vice.
Which is funny as it would be very similar to the answers I’d get asking some of my friends about why they are Moslem or Jewish or Buddhist.
I don’t think about any reasons such as it making me more special than my friends. So I’m not cut out to be the next Joel Olsteen.
Recommended Posts
Raf
I mean, I could see people saying:
"I'm still a Christian because I believe the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the best explanation for what we know happened in and near Jerusalem nearly 2000 years ago. Historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Even if we were to accept the premise that the gospels were not written by the men to whom they are attributed, I believe they are based on actual accounts of people in a position to know the truth or falsehood of what they were writing. There is no better explanation for the rise of Christianity than the truth of the resurrection. I may not be able to explain everything, but I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. People in a position to know that for a fact went to their deaths rather than recant that belief. No testimony could be more persuasive to me. I could see people dying for a belief that they did not know was a lie, but to die for a belief KNOWING it's a lie? That's just not credible."
I could see that. And I would challenge it, but at least I would have to admit it's a sound argument.
Again, neither of these women owes me an explanation for anything. But IF they were looking to persuade me, they did not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Then again, IF they just wanted to say what they said, more power to them. They didn't persuade me of anything either. However, why would ANYone demand they justify their belief? Maybe they just want to say what they wanted to say.
Religion despite the fundamentalist perspective we embraced for a(n apparently brief) time in our lives, my view is people are not persuaded by logic, except some of the time in American courts of law. And not even then are people (even judges/justices) convinced by facts absent emotional arguments.
I just don't give two hoots why any person claims to be a Christian. I DO believe, despite significant emotional events that cause adults to change their views dramatically (i.e. Apostle Paul), in the world today, and despite decreasing embrace of churches (as we understood the term before we even had heard the Greek word ekklesia), many people are Christian because that's how they were raised. IOW, cultural anthropology.
Then again, for people who still hold to the view that to be a "genuine" Christian, one must believe that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead), more power to them for their belief. And more peace to them by hopefully letting go of the need to convert others.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
She's a critic of Christian fundamentalism as a prevailing political force in America today, right? She is a critic of the "toxic masculinity" embodied by political leaders who can just grab women by the *****. Her book is Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.
My understanding of what she is saying in this disjointed interview is that she is STILL a Christian in spite of all the ***** grabbing justified by so-called Christians; and she remains a Christian in spite of being personally attacked by right wing Christian fundamentalist evangelicals. She makes a distinction between mere "proclaimers of Christ" and "followers of Christ," implying that she is the latter.
Amid the backlash from her book, she says she questioned her own faith and identity as a Christian, but she had a "religious experience" and is now at peace with calling herself a Christian. She talks about becoming more tolerant of Christian traditions outside her own (Dutch Reformed). Though she was raised to look at all other denominations as wrong (sound familiar?), she now looks to learn from other traditions and even re-examine her own for errors.
She claims to confess the Nicene Creed. Someone earlier said if you don't confess the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, you aren't a Christian. Well, it sounds like she's covered, if that's a fundamental metric.
When asked what it means to be a Christian, she offered two points. One was community. I don't remember the other. I don't think she gave a strong answer here.
Sounds to me like she's a Christian, but it doesn't really matter to me. We agree on at least one thing, though: grabbing women by the ***** is not very Christ-like.
Edited by Nathan_Jr***** = vagina
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Sounds like it to me also. And yes, grabbing women by the vulva is not very Christlike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You know, it's funny, when you go into something with a preconceived notion about what you WANT to get out of it, you miss what actually WAS said. Thank you, Nathan, for your assistance there. I was waiting for a discussion about doctrine and evidence and I totally missed the message about tolerance and faithfulness [what I would have called, in another time, the "stayed mind"].
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Revisiting the question. To consolidate I would say it is because it makes me a better person in my opinion. It drives me towards virtue and away from vice.
Which is funny as it would be very similar to the answers I’d get asking some of my friends about why they are Moslem or Jewish or Buddhist.
I don’t think about any reasons such as it making me more special than my friends. So I’m not cut out to be the next Joel Olsteen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.