Occasionally I take an opportunity to engage people on social media who are putting out posts that somehow misrepresent the Christian message. The meme above is one such misrepresentation that landed on my Facebook page, and which I felt needed to be responded to.
The message in this meme is trying to portray Jesus as a person who, back in His day, was a social justice warrior. Essentially what many “liberal Christians” have done is to superimpose modern political and economic theory over the Bible, then interpret the biblical message through that lens. They attempt to make the case that Jesus’ purpose on earth was to help the disenfranchised of His day overcome the political and economic oppression they were experiencing in order to free them from their oppressors. Using that as a starting point, this meme is designed to put down biblical Christians that they claim are being hypocritical. They believe biblical Christians are hypocrites because they worship Jesus on Sunday (the one they interpret to be the “social justice warrior,” then live the rest of their lives standing against the social justice principles they believe Jesus was for.
The theological basis for this kind of “liberal Christianity” is found in naturalistic belief – the belief that the natural universe is all that exists. There are various expressions of naturalistic belief, most of them completely atheistic. In the discussion below, there actually are some who jump in advocating Atheism.
However, the meme that began this interaction represents individuals, in fact in some cases entire denominations, who don’t claim to be Atheists, but who do base their understanding of Christianity on atheistic Naturalism. These are people who adhere to some form of liberal Christianity – most identifying with the social justice movement.
The social justice movement essentially takes Marxist philosophy and attempts to superimpose it over the teachings of the Bible. With that as a starting point, these liberal Christians interpret reality (including the teachings of the Bible) through a lens that understands “God” to be something different from the personal God found in the Bible. Some of these folks interpret “God” to be simply a moral principle that they use to promote their temporal political and economic agenda. Others see Him as some kind of benevolent power whose purpose is expressed in the world through those who help “the oppressed” overcome their political and economic oppressors.
At this point, it is essential to state unequivocally that Jesus was NOT a social justice warrior, and that His mission on earth was NOT to help the “politically and economically oppressed” to overcome their oppressors. The entire New Testament is VERY clear that His purpose in coming to earth was to die on the cross as an atoning sacrifice for sin to free people from their spiritual bondage.
In spite of the clear teaching of the New Testament on this subject, there are entire swaths of self-identified Christians who have become convinced of the modern liberal theological view that Jesus’ purpose on earth was to promote social justice. Beyond that, you need to be aware that people who promote this belief in public are not simply expressing what they consider to be a Christian point of view, but are actually attempting to share a witness to you, and others, for the purpose of converting you to this heretical expression of religious belief. On a personal level, when I see people promoting this false gospel, I see people who are in need of understanding the true gospel, and often have an urge to engage and share with them the true gospel message.
This liberal form of “Christian” expression did not exist in New Testament times. There were other false beliefs, such as Gnosticism and Jewish legalism, that did exist, and were specifically dealt with by some of the New Testament writers. Had the modern naturalistic beliefs that we are dealing with here existed in that day, no doubt, there would be specific teachings in the New Testament about it, too. But a false teaching is a false teaching no matter what era it emerges, and by understanding the true message of the gospel we can know false beliefs when we see them and share the truth.
This Facebook discussion was one such opportunity. As you read this, you will see that I am, for the most part, pretty much alone in going up against a number of people who didn’t want to hear the true gospel message. The reason I am posting this here for you is that I feel pretty confident that you, too, periodically come across this kind of false witness. It is my hope that by reading the conversation below, you will gain both insight and courage to share the gospel message with people who desperately need the truth.
Note: Remember, this is a Facebook discussion, so sometimes the conversation gets a little bit uneven. It took place over the course of better than a week, and people were going in and out of the discussion based on their own schedules. There are places where someone (including myself) will be out of the conversation for a while, then later reenter and address posts that were made previously. That is to be completely expected.
Additionally, you will note as you read that there are places where one conversation ends and another begins. These represent different strings and thus different conversations. There were some other threads in this conversation that were not included because they did not involve me.
With that explanation, below is the conversation.
Freddy Davis
This meme does not represent Christian theology, and Jesus was not a liberal in the sense that this meme represents Him to be. It is just a lie.
RWE
Freddy Davis – You might want to invest in one of those red-letter Bibles in order to only read what Jesus actually said. Because he was a liberal.
Freddy Davis
You might actually want to read the Bible.
RWE
Freddy Davis – Had I not read the Bible, how would I know about the red letters?
RWE
Freddy Davis – Zing.
RWE
Christian theology was authored by a bunch of men throughout history who deliberately shaped it into what they wanted it to be, including a whole philosophy dedicated to rationalizing the more ridiculous and in untenable aspects of its dogma.
MP
RWE – and Jesus wrote none of it….including the red letters. Translations and interpretations and dead kings decided what was important.
RWE
MP – Exactly.
Freddy Davis
RWE – Actually, there are only certain printed editions of the Bible that contain red letters. That said, it is quite possible to open one of them and see the text without reading it.
But the real reason for my comment was that what you said does not reflect the content of the text. Reading some of your other comments makes me even more sure you have not read it.
Biblical theology is derived directly from the text of the Bible itself, and not from the preferred desires of “men in history.” You are the one who seems to be promoting a philosophy dedicated to rationalizing a personal agenda. What do you consider untenable and ridiculous? If you are going to go that route, you need to back it up. Simply making false statements is a meaningless exercise.
Freddy Davis
MP – What is your point … that “Jesus wrote none of it?” Are you saying that since Jesus didn’t actually put pen to ink that it is not true? The gospels were written by eye-witnesses and people who got their information from eye-witnesses – people who actually traveled with and spent extended time with Jesus. Your reference to “translations and interpretations and dead kings” does not make any sense. Perhaps you would like to elaborate.
RWE
Freddy Davis – That isn’t true in any provable sense. There are no birth or death records of the authors of the gospels. There are no documents—no personal letters from the Apostles to each other or to any others. There are no confirming accounts of Jesus and the Apostles in the accounts of other historians of the time whose works have survived, other than passing mention with no real details. There are no letters or documents from those who are claimed to be witnesses for corroboration. The Bible was copied and recopied by scribes from an oral tradition and it is thought by Biblical scholars that some of the gospels were based on a gospel that isn’t even included in the Bible—Q. So we really don’t know what is based on fact and what is based on legend.
Freddy Davis
RWE – That is a typical approach of various forms of naturalistic theology, but is, itself not a verifiable way of looking at it. Rather than begin with the text, they begin with naturalistic philosophy and demand that proof be given using naturalistic proofs. The only problem is, Naturalism itself cannot be verified by the very proofs it demands of others.
First, the very idea of the existence of Q is not verified or verifiable. It is a theory without a basis.
Second, Birth and death records and the various other documentation you have mentioned are not the only way to verify authenticity. There are records of later generations of Christians who, in their writings, verified the authenticity of the various writings that were acknowledged by the believers of that time to be authentic and authoritative. Your assertion about not knowing what is fact and what is legend is an assumption (theory) you can’t back up.
Your entire argument is pure speculation.
RWE
Freddy Davis – LOL that is hilarious. You basically just said facts are unnecessary is determining reality. Good one.
MP
Freddy Davis – oh where to begin. Even the earliest of scribes changed meanings from original scrolls. As you are no doubt aware, the first council of Nicaea, called by Constantine, culled and modified many earlier writings (hundreds of passages and authors) and letters and translations. These men, 300+ years after death of Jesus, began to define Christianity and pick and choose what writings followers would see….excluding much and adding their subtle and not so subtle personal beliefs. Then we have ol King James and every other translation.
RWE
Freddy Davis – Works by authors who were not living at the time verify what wasn’t written. Right.
RWE
Freddy Davis – And when you talk about “naturalism”, aren’t you talking about physics? Pretty damn sure physics, based on mathematics, is established as verifiable science. But if you don’t think gravity has been proven, try jumping off the roof with no aids and see if you go up or down.
Freddy Davis
RWE – Naturalism is the philosophical belief that the natural universe is all that exists. Your assumptions about my beliefs are completely off base.
RWE
Freddy Davis – I know what naturalism is. I guess my comment soared right over your head.
Freddy Davis
RWE – If you were trying to equate science with Naturalism, your comment is simply false. Science and Naturalism are not the same.
RWE
Freddy Davis – No one suggested science and naturalism were the same. They are, however, more closely connected than Christianity and science—and most other religions based on myths. Naturalism is based on science. The term, “science”, itself, is based on the scientific method—a way of testing observations. You are trying to delegitimize a philosophy by disconnecting from science and scientific observations and method upon which it is based. Which is a Straw man fallacy.
Freddy Davis
RWE – Your statement is simply false on its face. Christianity is completely in agreement with the belief that the natural universe is governed by fixed laws of nature. The difference is, we also believe that there is something that exists outside of the natural universe.
The problem is actually yours, not mine. Your approach is an assertion that the natural universe is all that exists. That is a faith point of view that cannot be demonstrated at all by science. Your beliefs regarding a naturalistic worldview are religious in nature.
RWE
Freddy Davis – Having a worldview based on scientific observation is not a faith nor a religion. It is actually a lack of both. Yours is an old gambit to equate science-based world views with religious-based world views and it is both backwards and false.
RWE
Freddy Davis – To endorse that approach means you must believe and have faith in EVERY SINGLE RELIGION EVER ideated. You must worship every deity, particularly those in all major religions across the world because none of them have been proven false, by your own logic (or the logic handed to you by theologians and Pascal).
RWE
Freddy Davis – My philosophy—which, BTW, I term as Secular Humanism as the most apt label—means I believe or have faith in what has been proven to be true—the earth is likely to continue to revolve around the sun until the sun goes nova, if I step off a high bridge with no tether I am most likely to plunge downward and etc. So far, the hypothesis that a God or supernatural creative power exists has yet to be proven and to believe one does is the very definition of faith. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1
Freddy Davis
RWE – You don’t seem to realize that Secular Humanism is a religious belief. It is based on faith in naturalistic presuppositions. There is no such thing as a “lack of belief.” Your naturalistic beliefs are just as much a religious belief as any other religion. Based on what you have said, you will only believe what can be demonstrated by science, yet the most basic beliefs that Secular Humanism (as well as all other naturalistic religions) is built upon cannot be demonstrated by science. Your entire argument collapses based on your own requirements. If you want to win this one, prove, using science, that the natural universe is all that exists.
RWE
Freddy Davis – I don’t have to. Instead, I would have to prove that the natural universe is NOT all that exists. It is not incumbent on ANYONE to prove a negative. It is incumbent on the supporter of an unlikely claim to PROVE THE POSITIVE. Prove to me that the presumed mythical creature, a winged unicorn—a horse with a single horn and wings—does NOT exist.
RWE
Freddy Davis – And you wimped out on my claim you now need to worship every single other deity in all other religions as laid out by the traditions of those religions because you cannot prove any of them false.
Freddy Davis
But that is the positive of all naturalistic belief systems – the the natural universe is all that exists. I have not asked you to prove a negative. Here, let me make it a little easier for you. Based on actual scientific proof:
1. What is the origin of all of the natural material that exists in the natural universe?
2. What is the origin of life?
3. What accounts for the variety of life forms that exist on earth?
4. How did consciousness (as well as self-consciousness in humans) come to exist?
PDH
Then you have no knowledge of who Jesus was and is.
How about read the Bible.
HCM
PDH – evangelist and conservatives dont read the bible they just believe what they are told it means to fit the narrative of classism
Freddy Davis
PDH – Actually I do have knowledge of the Bible and who Jesus was. You seem to advocate cherry picking verses and interpreting them based on a non-biblical philosophy. I would be very interested in knowing where specifically you find backing for what is in the meme. I’m definitely up for this discussion.
Freddy Davis
HCM – The very idea of classism is based on a non-biblical worldview. You are obviously starting from a point of view that doesn’t even represent biblical teachings. I would be interested to know from you, as well, where specifically you find backing for the message in this meme.
PL
Freddy Davis – Do you really believe that Jesus Christ would treat immigrants, asylum seekers, children accompanied by their parents with ruthlessness and cruelty?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ would be in favor of destroying the natural world so that wealth could be accumulated by the very few richest people in the world?
Do you really believe that Jesus Christ would EVER support policies that denied human beings the ability to have care for their bodies based on their inability to pay?
Can you really tell me that Jesus Christ would have been in favor of the capitalistic theft of the labor of others, abuse of others for personal wealth or in ANY way support a system where laws have to be in place to protect its own children from be wasted in factories?
This country must face its own self in the mirror. This is not a country that Christ would actually be proud of. There isn’t much interest in truly reflecting the heart of Christ. Any comparison is complete smoke, mirrors and flat out lies.
HCM
Freddy Davis – naw imma turn the other cheek. because all those “non-biblical” southern baptist ex-slave owners that pushed segregation and Jim Crow and donned pointy hoods while burning crosses…they didn’t believe in classism, racism, or misogyny, right?
RWE
PL – Well put.
Freddy Davis
PL – You really make me wonder whether or not you have even read the Bible. Do you know what Jesus’ mission on earth was … why he intentionally came to earth from his position as a member of the godhead in heaven? It was not to promote a political agenda. In fact, he was VERY specific in asserting that. Even more specifically, he did not base his ministry on a socialist political agenda – particularly the one you have outlined in your reply above. Jesus’ interest was in providing people a means for attaining eternal life based on a personal relationship with God. Your focus on political matters, particularly one with a Socialist bent, was about as far away from Jesus’ ministry and purpose as one can get.
Beyond that, though, you have made assertions about various issues that assume the only fair and right way to deal with them are using a Socialist paradigm. That is simply not true. In fact, all of the places where Socialism has been tried have resulted in MORE income inequality (where only those in power have money and perks), MORE poverty, MORE political and religious oppression, and MORE injustice than America has ever seen in its existence. I lived in Latvia for 5 years shortly after the Iron Curtain fell and heard, first hand, the stories of oppression, and saw first hand the ravaging effects of that political system. Your assertions above are simply false from start to finish.
Freddy Davis
HCM – The generalizations you have made are meaningless. Pointing out the wrongs of certain people in history says nothing about the actual teachings of the Bible, nor about people who claim to be Christians in today’s world. Beyond that, the vast majority of people who lived in the south pre-civil war were not slave owners, nor were they members of the KKK. What about Antifa and BLM, and those who support them? Are you as indignant about their evil and bigotry as you are about your political enemies, or is this just a political thing for you?
Freddy Davis
RWE – Actually, a VERY poor argument.
PL
Freddy Davis – Do you really believe that treating people with kindness is a political issue? You either believe that kindness, honesty and conscience has a place in our treatment of other human beings or you don’t.
HCM
Freddy Davis – I think you might have missed the object of the meme? and I brought up Southern Baptist because they are the largest denomination of Christian Evangelicals and vote overwhelmingly for Conservatives, denounce Liberalism, and consistently evoke the lords name to defend the horrible shit they do
Freddy Davis
PL – I absolutely believe that people ought to be treated with kindness. However, you have defined a specific way that the “kindness” has to be expressed based on a Socialist political agenda. That is NOT a biblical concept. There is more than one way to demonstrate kindness. You seem to think that it is accomplished through a political philosophy. It is not.
Freddy Davis
HCM – I absolutely understand the object of the meme and it is a false assertion. Modern Liberalism is based on naturalistic philosophy – which is atheistic to the core. It promotes the priority of the collective over that of the individual, and it looks to government to enforce its dictates. There is nothing Christian about it. I guess you have chosen to ignore all of the evil that has been committed in the name of “Liberalism.”
PL
Freddy Davis – How do you suggest that a “Christian nation” actually reflect Christian values, other than its government’s treatment of its own people and others?
If Christ came for the salvation of humanity, what value can that possibly have, if not in the way we treat others? His message is not in some hocus pocus, just say the words and you are done, but in action of heart, love, repentance and kindness.
Freddy Davis
A Christian nation? What in the world do you mean by that?
The salvation Christ came to provide is spiritual, not material. The good and right actions Christians take in life are an expression of Christ’s salvation, not the salvation itself. Without an inner conversion, no one is able to express the true love of God in life. Salvation is an individual event, not a governmental one. No government can fulfill the ultimate purpose of God, and a Socialist government will not even know what that is. Again, you seem to think that Socialist solutions can accomplish God’s ultimate purpose. They cannot.
PL
Freddy Davis – I think it is pretty obvious what I mean when I say “Christian nation.” How can you possibly claim that treating other human beings poorly is a reflection of salvation?
Christ says to “love thy neighbor.” How can that possibly be interpreted as an invitation to treat others with cruelty?
It seems to me that you obsess over the word “socialism,” without really understanding what it is.
Freddy Davis
It is not obvious what you mean when you say Christian nation. Your meaning is diametrically opposed to what it used to mean in America. And where do you get the idea that I think it is okay to treat other human beings badly? Just because I don’t agree with a Socialist approach to dealing with people does not mean what you are implying. There is more than one way to promote justice, righteousness, and love. Just because I oppose your way (which ultimately causes injustice, and destroys people’s lives) does not mean that I am against the goals you have mentioned.
Obsess over Socialism? You don’t seem to understand. I was only trying to help you understand where your problem policies come from. Socialism is simply one expression of a naturalistic worldview, and Naturalism is inherently atheistic. In it, morality is relative and there is no objective authority source. You end up with the law of the jungle. In the case of Socialism (and all other naturalistic expressions of government) it is the government that ultimately sets the moral rules. I believe that approach ultimately puts people in bondage and poverty. It is not a Christian expression in any sense.
HCM
<Liberalism…promotes the priority of the collective over that of the individual>
sounds like Jesus to me— “But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?” [1 John 3:17 KJV]
Freddy Davis
That is not a collectivist expression, but an individual one. It is not the government that is being addressed in that verse, but individual Christians. You are interpreting it wrong.
But:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. [John 3:16 NASB]
HCM
Liberalism also supports individual prosperity within a collective system. as long as all have an equal opportunity to prosper. unlike modern conservatism and libertarianism that preaches “I got mine, you worry about yours.”
Freddy Davis
HCM – Equal opportunity is not a natural expression of a collectivist system, it goes for equality of outcome – and equal opportunity to prosper NEVER happens in that kind of system.
HCM
Freddy Davis your strawman is made of straw
Freddy Davis
HCM – I have no idea what strawman you are talking about. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me.
HCM
Freddy Davis – your argument that the concept of the individual is not at all what this meme is stating. if a jesus figure came along today, the conservative evangelicals would blast him for being a liberal democratic socialist and you know this. stop trying to justify your original comment, its dumb
Freddy Davis
HCM – That is absolutely not true. You have totally missed the entire thrust of Jesus’ agenda. It had NOTHING to do with anything that modern liberal democratic socialists are working toward.
MP
At the end of the day….this meme makes sense. Tho Jesus would probably be considered a socialist (gasp…..oh the horror)
PL
MP – Totally.
Freddy Davis
MP – No, Jesus would have never been involved with a Socialist political movement. His mission on earth was of an entirely different order. The meme contains no truth whatsoever.
PL
Freddy Davis – Wow. I have no idea what place Jesus has in your heart and from the sounds of it, He wouldn’t know either.
PDH
Freddy Davis – This is in the friendly discourse: Then why did the radical, apocalyptic sect within the Judaism of the time had Jesus closely associated with them. Jesus’s message was enough similar to the terrorists, rebellion sect that there was a close relationship. My apologies. I can’t remember the name of their movement.
2. In addition, in reading the Gospels, JESUS was calling for the radical restructuring of society.
For examples:
A. The early Church shared all things. One couple held back; they dropped dead upon discovery.
B. The Sermon on the Mount has a vision of an entirely society. Radical change, like not in any era or religion (in the broadest meaning). Some claim that Christianity is not a religion. They are mistaken, seeking to ascribe “ the truth” as beyond religion. Every religion considers itself the truth.
I’m going to post this now. I’ve lost way too much texts over the decade.
Freddy Davis
PL – What? Your comment seems to indicate that you have no idea what Jesus’ purpose for coming to earth was for. Do you believe that a person can obtain eternal life without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ based on his substitutionary sacrificial death on the cross and resurrection from the dead? Do you even believe that Jesus died on the cross to provide mankind with a way to have his sin forgiven and obtain eternal life? That is the message of the New Testament.
PDH
More later. Gotta attend to another aspect of my life.
PDH
Freddy Davis – Ok. I’m back:
All that you wrote about Jesus as the Sacramental Sacrifice makes little sense in the Post-Age of Reason, the Enlightenment Age.
All the sacrifices. All the blood sacrifices. The substitution for sacrifices. These behaviors are from a very different culture. To the modern mind, the notions are meaningless. So much of Torah is antiquated. Is baffling. Is bizarre. Is sexist. Is oppressive, as it legitimize slavery.
And worst of all, repeated genocide. The genocide of the Cananites being the first and the worst. Every man, woman, child and domesticated animal.
As Dr. Richard L Rubenstein wrote about the lack of love and justice due to The Holocaust, the same argument can be made about these earlier genocides.
What kind of God? An obscene one. One with the blood of millions on God’s hands. Yet God denies all responsibility. God ordered the Israelite to commit genocide. And then the prophets followed up with complaints that the job was unfinished. Too many Israelite devotees to Baal and other Gods and Goddesses.
PL
Freddy Davis – I cannot imagine that Jesus Christ would say that there is any point to salvation, if it did not change our hearts. The acceptance of Christ in our hearts has to mean more than just words. I don’t know how you can argue with this.
PDH
One can still love Jesus AND condemn God for God’s sins against us.
Freddy Davis
PDH – God has not sinned against us. You are advocating for some kind of belief that has no connection with Christianity.
Freddy Davis
PL – I am not arguing with it. I am saying that your approach to understanding the very concept of salvation is not based in biblical theology. You are advocating for something Jesus never did. A personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ does change people’s hearts, and it will be expressed in the lives of the individuals who enter into that relationship. But again, biblical salvation is an individual expression, not a collectivist one. You are advocating for collectivism and conflating that with Christian salvation, and it is simply not true.
PL
Freddy Davis – Wow. If people’s hearts are changed, what do you think that they are changed to? Society is a collection of people. If the majority of those people speak about how saved they are, but act with malice, it doesn’t matter what they say they believe. What they actually are is what matters.
I would rather live with people who treat others with kindness and respect, regardless of what they believe, rather than to live with people who “talk the talk” and have literally no respect for their fellow man.
Christianity is nothing but a bunch of words strung together unless we really and truly live by a philosophy of “what would Jesus Christ DO?” It should be the highest level of humanity.
Freddy Davis
I agree. But that is an individual expression, not a collectivist one. You are conflating the two and the result is that people’s lives get destroyed. You don’t seem to believe (or maybe you don’t understand) the biblical teaching about the nature of man. A government cannot do what you have described.
PL
Freddy Davis – A government that is trying to claim a status of being Christian would certainly try, collectively. The United States cannot have it both ways. Either we do what is required and become a better example of the fruition of the teachings of Christ, or we stop making the claim.
I believe, that a government that wants to reflect the heart of Jesus Christ, will do the things that I first mentioned, and many other things. There is nothing politically expedient, one way or the other way, about caring for our children, for our environment, for our neighbors. Those ARE completely what Jesus Christ spoke of. It is what we are, or it isn’t.
MP
PL – regarding society.. how about we toss out religion and live within the global teachings of being moral, kind, generous, and good people…..I would hope we, in the US, are not striving to become a “Christian nation.”
PL
MP – True Christianity could be a beautiful thing. It just is rarely actually practiced. Certainly not in this country at this time.
But I like to dream of it.
MP
PL – many will say the same about their religion.
PL
MP – That is the thing, isn’t it? The true test of “following “ or actually “being.” Religion is of absolutely no use whatsoever if people cannot make the adjustment of heart that encourages unity, love and peace. They all speak of these, but cause more harm than good if the best they do is offer more division.
Freddy Davis
PL – First of all, who is making the claim? But beyond that, a government cannot do what you are advocating. A government does not have a will. It is people who do that. So what people get to decide what policies go into effect? Are you saying we should become a theocracy with government bureaucrats deciding what is Christian and what is not? Your approach does not make any sense.
But your main problem is that you don’t seem to have any idea what Christianity is all about. Doing good deeds and helping people is not Christianity. Those things are an expression of the lives of INDIVIDUAL believers. Here is the foundational basis of the Christian faith:
1. What is the nature of ultimate reality?
For a Christian, ultimate reality is expressed as the God of the Bible. He is the Creator and Sustainer of the material universe. He is holy, just, and love. For His own purposes, God created mankind for fellowship with Himself. In eternity, human beings will either live in the presence of God or outside of His presence.
2. What is the nature of a human being?
Christians understand human beings to be persons created in the image of God, but who are tainted by sin because of the Fall. This has caused individual humans to be separated from God because He cannot dwell in the presence of unholiness.
3. What is salvation and how do you achieve it?
Salvation, for Christians, is the means by which the problem of separation from God is fixed. It was accomplished by the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross and His resurrection. It is specifically applied to individual human beings as they acknowledge their sinfulness and invite Christ into their lives.
You are trying to make it into something else. What you are advocating is not Christianity.
Freddy Davis
MP – It is impossible to toss out “religion” the way you are defining it. The particular values that a society expresses are an expression of some faith system – no matter what they are. Moral, kind, generous, and good based on whose definition?
PL
Freddy Davis – When I was a missionary, people in this country attacked my idealism frequently. My heart, my conscience, directs me from the inside out. If everyone were like me, the world would be better, I do not doubt that.
PL
Freddy Davis – So now you do believe that a faith system matters?
MP
PL – I think it’s fair to say the same can be said for modern day “Christianity.” Being a person that lives a life of unity, love and peace has nothing to do with which religion they ascribe to…indeed it’s often successfully carried out by those who ascribe to no religion.
PL
MP – What you say is true and that is really a sad thing. Sometimes I feel so close to Christ that I feel the warmth of his skin and the power of his idealism in my very guts. These things have given me the strength to stand in protest of the many revolting things that my government does in my name, particularly against children. I cannot tolerate so very much of it. Nobody should, most certainly those who profess to have a spiritual connection to the guy who truly gave it all.
MP
PL – I honor and respect your belief and commitment. I oppose the naming of one religion over another. I work with atheists who have the passion and love that you speak of. I do community work with baptists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists. I was on a Habitat build recently with Rastafarians committed to love and sharing within the community, I just believe it’s not all about what we call faith as how we live life.
PL
MP – I too can be with anyone and enjoy their personalities. It is awesome! I am fascinated by people, but I had a long row to hoe to get free. My father was a White supremacist. He was a very angry man, a Holocaust denier, so I grew up in an environment of absolutely no tolerance. I knew that his perspective was deeply flawed, so it was a tricky situation for a vulnerable and sensitive child.
Love must rule over the base emotions that creates people like my father. If religion doesn’t bring us together, it serves no purpose. So bring on the atheists!
MP
PL – I wasn’t speaking of personalities….I was speaking of the value of a myriad of faiths/beliefs. You have done a lot of work to get to where you are comfortable with your beliefs. I am happy for you.
Religion does not define the value of a person. My belief is it has done more harm than good….but that’s me.
PL
MP – I completely accept that and I could not agree more. A person’s value has nothing to do with their religion. It is always so interesting to hear how people come to the belief that they have, whatever it is.
PDH
I’m still in, but taking a break.
PDH
As Paul wrote (pretty sure Paul) that there must be evidence of the fruits of the Spirit.
PDH
Otherwise most likely a faker, like Trump. Notice not even the shadow of the fruits of the Spirit in the past four to five years. Not even one banana. Or a miniature banana. Or a microscopic banana.
PDH
Freddy Davis – In your opinion God has not sinned against us. I don’t know how long you’ve been wrestling with God over such matters.
In my considered opinion, with 50 years of wrestling and evaluating the question, God has sinned against us, and greatly so.
As another example, God could have dispatched Satan long before our species emerged. Since Satan is our chief antagonist, including, as I understand Satan, disease, The Black Plague of 1348, which killed about 1/3 to 1/2 of Western Europe.
“Acts of God,” which I take quite literally. Earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanoes, floods, famine, etc. Where does “the buck stop”? At the feet of God. Not Satan, ultimately. God can throw Satan in prison for eternity. Not done according to the biblical tradition.
PDH
Freddy Davis – Essentially the ONLY ALLEGEDLY HISTORICAL record of Jesus is the Gospels and a few verses by Paul or his followers. Since the Gospels conflict with each other, contradict each other, etc., it is essentially impossible to reconstruct a detailed, accurate. narrative. We have fragments of his some thirty years alive.
Huge parts of his life is unknowable. Why? Something to hide?
Perhaps Jesus had a love interest. Not meaning Platonic love. Nor agape love. I’m not speculating a sexual relationship.
In those times, capital punishment applied to about thirty offenses. About half theological and half our interactions with fellow human beings. The different versions of the Ten Commandments illustrate this. Torah delineates the rest.
Stoning to death is the most frequent method. However there must be at least two eyewitnesses. And they must throw the first stones. EYEWITNESSES.
As an aside, the following demonstrates how the patriarchy reinforced the social and political structures of meaning. A mother of a male infant is unclean for a week. A female, the mother is unclean for two weeks.
PDH
WWJD?
PDH
Our goal in Christianity is to love one another, love God, and do what you would want others to do to / for you.
Yet we are so deeply flawed, we only approximate.
MS
Here we go! Jesus was a master of a secret gnostic knowledge of how to direct our attention inward these meditation methods were shown to those who could understand their value and promised to practice .” Be still, and know that I am God”, “When you pray, go into the closet and shut the door.”[ the closet of your body and the doors of your senses]” If thine eye be made single……” “gaze steadily into the center of your forehead and you shall see light” tibetan book of the dead” Of course seeing light and being light are two different things, “ When the meditation and the meditator becomes one, the journey is complete.” Sufi saying. Paul got zapped so did Rasputin, his sister said that he was out digging potatoes as a young man and was blinded by a light, That doesn’t mean they understood the experience. Pauls version of things came down to us because Constantine put the power of Rome behind him and destroyed the other 500 or so christian sects that existed at the time including the Gnostics in Egypt . Anyway, the golden rule still applies, It’s just that heaven is a place, and to get there you have to go there, and know how to go there, and it’s inside you.
Freddy Davis
PL – You didn’t mention where or when you were a missionary or what you are talking about regarding your “idealism.” Were you criticized because you were sharing with people how they could know a personal, eternal relationship with Christ? Wait, that couldn’t be it because you agreed with MP that a person’s religious beliefs don’t matter when it comes to fulfilling the most important mandate. What that means is that what you consider to be man’s most important mandate is different from what the Bible teaches. The Bible is very clear that entering into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is the only way a person can get connected with God. If you, or others in this conversation, believe there is a different way, then your beliefs are based on some other philosophical foundation. You seem to think that doing good works is the goal of the Christian faith. It is not! The goal is a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Jesus was very clear about that, and much of the rest of the New Testament deals specifically with that point. The good works Christians do are an expression of their faith in Christ (their salvation), not the source of it.
The truth is, there are many people who live a good moral life, based on the moral teachings of the Bible, who do not know God. Along with that, there are many people who self-identify as Christians who do not believe the teachings of the Bible as it relates to how a person actually becomes a Christian.
When I was a missionary, I had people reject my message, but not because of my “idealism” (whatever that means to you), but because they chose to believe something else. It is a person’s belief in Christ that connects them to God, and nothing else. If you believe something else, your belief comes from some other place than the Bible.
Freddy Davis
MP – You don’t seem to understand that there is no such thing as people who subscribe to “no religion.” EVERYONE, without exception, follows some faith system. They may not know how to identify it, or their understanding of what a faith system is may be lacking, but they have one just the same. That being the case, there is no such thing as a neutral point of view. If you don’t believe in Christ, then you still do believe in something that orders your beliefs, values, and morality. And whatever that is either reflects reality or it does not.
There is such a thing as eternity and God has revealed to us in the Bible what we need to know to tap into eternal life. Any other belief people have concerning that will not lead them to God.
Freddy Davis
PDH – I find it very interesting that you have put yourself in a position as a judge of God. I am very interested to know where your beliefs and values came from that puts you in a postion to judge Him. Did you make them up yourself, get them from some philosophy book, or where?
You seem to have a very strange understanding about who God is and what he is responsible for. Do you believe free will is a bad thing? Do you really believe it would be better for us, as human beings, to be robots incapable of choosing our own course in life? If God gave into your complaints about Him, he would have had to do that to humanity.
I also find it very interesting that you have chosen to speculate the way you have about Jesus’ life. Many Atheists complain that Christians propose a “God of the gaps,” but here you are proposing a “Jesus of the gaps.” You have just speculated about his life with no evidence whatsoever. Based on your misstatements about it, I wonder if you have ever even taken the time to actually read the Bible. Your theology is all over the place, but is certainly not biblical. All you have done is to cherry pick verses and impose on them your beliefs that are based on some different philosophical foundation. You simply can’t legitimately do hermeneutics that way.
And, our goal in Christianity is NOT “to love one another, love God, and do what you would want others to do to / for you.” That is merely an expression of the goal. The actual goal is to know God in a personal relationship. Anything other than that is not biblical theology.
Freddy Davis
MS – Have you ever studied Christian history? Have you ever studied Gnosticism? Have you actually read the Bible? In your one post you have made so many false statements about all three that one has to wonder if you have any idea what you are talking about. Virtually none of what you said is true.
MS
Yes, yes, and yes. not that it matters if I can’t feel the bliss.
Freddy Davis
MS – Perhaps it doesn’t matter if facts mean nothing to you. As I said before, virtually none of what you said about Christian history, Gnosticism, or the teaching of the Bible is factually correct.
MS
John never said, “If thine eye be made single,thy whole body shall be full of light”? Marcius believed in two gods, The old testament vengeful god and the new loving and forgiving God, and a sacrifice had to be made to appease the old God. The Ebonites believed Jesus was the Savior but you had to be jewish to be Christian, And the Gnostics did have a secret initiation.
Freddy Davis
MS – Perhaps you don’t realize that a nice chunk of the New Testament was written specifically to combat an incipient Gnosticism that was emerging in the early church. The entire epistle of 1 John was written for that purpose, and it was addressed strongly in the book of Colossians, as well. Other heretical beliefs are also addressed in much of Paul’s writings. Your interpretation of the nature of God as expressed in the Old Testament seems to be lacking, as well. I don’t know where you got your theological beliefs, but they do not relate to what is taught in the Bible.
MP
Freddy Davis – we agree to disagree. People may have belief systems, but not necessarily faith systems. Again……men wrote the book Christianity subscribes to. Men. And they’ve changed it, inserted personal dogma, cherry picked who and what is/could be the savior. Murdered millions over the centuries to prove their point (yet wish to be seen as a pro life belief.) It doesn’t work for me. Be well….take care….
Freddy Davis
MP – A belief system is a faith system.
God used men to write the Bible. Your other comments are a truly mixed bag of generalizations that are impossible to respond to because I don’t know specifically what you are talking about. God is real, he has revealed himself, and you can actually know him if you ever became willing. You, too, take care.
MS
Freddy Davis
Freddy Davis
MS
JF
This whole thread makes me grateful to be an atheist
Freddy Davis
JF – So what makes you think Atheism reflects reality?
JF
Freddy Davis – science
Freddy Davis
JF – Science is a methodology, not a belief system. Christians believe in the scientific method at least as much as any Naturalist. You see, your belief is not in science but in the presuppositions of a naturalistic worldview — which, by the way, is a religious point of view.
JF
Freddy Davis – science has proven there is no afterlife. Fact. No one can prove there is. Fact. It’s simple.
Freddy Davis
JF – Oh really? Could you please refer me to the scientific study that proved it? I have not seen that one.
JF
Freddy – There Is No Life after Death: Scientist Insists Afterlife Is IMPOSSIBLE [This is the headline of an article.] – EXPRESS.CO.UK https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/848991/life-after-death-what-happens-when-you-die-quantum-physics/amp?fbclid=IwAR2LQ18e2P_q1FoF4XTR6oAoGODwGKOvLtSg7sw1PDvky44avg5XAf3mNlE
Freddy Davis
JF – You don’t realize, I guess, that Greyson did not do a scientific study that demonstrated there is no life after death. Science can only deal with things that exist as part of the natural world, and an afterlife exists outside of that. All he did was draw a conclusion based on naturalistic philosophy. In other words, his conclusion was a religious statement, not a scientific one. If you want to go that route, you will have to prove Naturalism is true (using naturalistic presuppositions). Good luck with that.
In most cases, in these kinds of interactions, there comes a place where people realize that their arguments do not hold up. In some cases they have, themselves, only been repeating talking points that they have heard and do not personally have any knowledge of the implications of what they are saying, so can’t respond further. In other cases, they have never thought through the implications of their positions, so when someone responds in a way that makes them think about it, they realize the emptiness of their position. Very rarely will anyone ever admit it, so they just drop out of the conversation – which is what happened in these cases.
In any event, it is my prayer that as you have read these conversations, you have gained insights into some of the beliefs that are common in the world these days. Beyond that, I hope that you have gained some personal insight into how you can respond to those in your world who do not hold a biblical worldview.
© 2021 Freddy Davis