I ended up meeting with the preacher on Tuesday; we went to a coffee shop, had some good coffee, and talked. It went well enough: he was respectful of me being doubtful (to put it mildly) about the Christian faith, and had no problems with me being honest about my thoughts on the matter.
I did pose some questions which he wasn’t able to answer adequately, at least in my opinion, but I sort of expected that. For example:
1. What happens to good people who live their lives in a “good way”, but do not accept Christ, etc.? (Say, the Dalai Lama, for example.) His response was that the scriptures say that Christ is the only real way to God, but furthermore, God would judge each person by their own unique features, etc. That seemed a bit of a cop out to me, but he at least made an attempt. What that would mean for all of the great Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. in the world, I’m not sure.
2. I brought up that Jesus fit the “hero mold” exceptionally well, which made me doubt the historicity of the figure. He said the scriptures state that Jesus was indeed a historical figure and everything in the Bible really happened.
The second question highlighted what I see as a major problem with trying to talk about such things with Christians: they take the Bible as fact, as a perfect historical source, if you will – which just isn’t the case.
He did not, as some of you expected, try to convert me. (Truth be told, I expected it, too, at least slightly.) I stated a few times that I was not, in any sense of the word, Christian, and he said that was fine, that he understood, etc. While I did get the sense that he hoped he was answering the questions in a way that might help “sway me”, he didn’t, in any fashion, come out right and say, “You should become Christian!”, or any such thing. All in all, while I don’t agree with his beliefs, the discussion was enjoyable. He was respectful, I was respectful, and the coffee was excellent.
Comments 5
Given this topic (and obviously the one before), you may be interested in reading the following articles by Nathan Calhoun:
Larry Spaulding
What I Don’t Believe on Hell, Salvation and Death
I’ve been at a point in my own life where what Christianity (specifically the Evangelical Christianity of the American south) preaches and what I believe seem to conflict more often than not. While I attempted to be a Christian I always hated associating myself with most people who called themselves Christians because of what they insisted on teaching on subjects such as:
hell (EVERLASTING, FIRE AND AGONY from an all loving, merciful God, Amen)
salvation (only through Jesus, everyone else, burn in Hell; Oh, and we love you, Amen)
politics (IF YOU VOTE DEMOCRAT YOU VOTE FOR THE MURDER OF BABIES AND GAY BUTTSECKS AND WILL BURN IN HELL FOREVER AND EVER, Amen)
science (This is how God says he did it, so he must mean it exactly like this. AND IF YOU BELIEVE IN EVIL-UTION OR GLOBAL WARMING YOU’LL BURN IN HELL FOR EVER AND EVER, Amen)
tolerance (If we can’t pray in schools, that’s secular oppression, but don’t you DARE recognize that heathen Hindu BECAUSE THIS IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY AND IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT YOU’RE A TERRORIST TRAITOR!! (and will burn in hell for ever and ever, Amen)
Need I go on?
Anyway, I find that while I enjoy theological discussions (love them, in fact) it’s almost impossible to hold one unless the person isn’t easily offended. Most people, though they fancy themselves rational, wouldn’t dare question the Bible because IF YOU DO YOU’LL BURN IN HELL FOR EVER AND EVER, Amen.
Anyway, congrats with the Pastor there. Nice that you could hold such conversation.
Posted 16 Aug 2007 at 9:32 am ¶“The second question highlighted what I see as a major problem with trying to talk about such things with Christians: they take the Bible as fact, as a perfect historical source, if you will – which just isn’t the case.”
Boy, that reminds me of my youth. I remember seeing some TV special at a young age which was exploring the real possibility of various Bible stories, which I thought was weird. I mean, the Bible said it happened, didn’t it? It was an eye opener, though, and I understand how people who didn’t have such moments of question can go on accepting it without reservation in the right conditions.
Posted 16 Aug 2007 at 12:36 pm ¶Gnorb: Thx for the links. I’ll check ‘em out.
Joshua: Yeah, if one isn’t exposed to other possibilities, it’s easy to continue believing something, even if it doesn’t make.. well, much sense at all.
Posted 17 Aug 2007 at 2:19 pm ¶According to Judaism, you don’t have to convert anyone, because as long as they obey the Noachide Laws (7 commandments given to Noah after the flood, a non-Jew, which were pretty much just the moral commandments, i.e., Thou Shalt not Kill, Steal, etc.), God will be happy with them. So, be a good person and you have nothing to worry about. I like this idea, because it seems less arrogant than the whole evangelism thing. I never had a Jew knock on my door to tell me about the Lord. Of course, that could also explain why there are so few Jews around today, too. That, plus they’re always getting killed by Christian and Muslim evangelists in the name of God.
Posted 17 Aug 2007 at 3:44 pm ¶“His response was that the scriptures say that Christ is the only real way to God, but furthermore, God would judge each person by their own unique features, etc.”
This seems like a bit of a contradiction to me. If belief in Jesus as savior is necessary to prevent eternal damnation, then any amount of personal virtue had by a non-Christian is rendered worthless. Did he mean to say that “unique features” were considered for Christians, i.e. determining whether you are a bad Christian or a good Christian?
This is a point which has often confused me, the way that “Jesus is the only way” thinking completely devalues virtue. If, say, a Hindu is reverent of his or her mother and father, if a Muslim gives generously to the poor, if a Buddhist abstains from killing, it is all for naught. The saints of other religions, though being on par with Christian saints, and outdoing the vast majority of Christians in terms of leading lives of love and piety, would nevertheless be condemned to hell. Isn’t there something wrong with that?
Posted 02 Sep 2007 at 7:45 pm ¶Post a Comment