I spent several years convincing Christians to give up their religious beliefs. I felt that most Christians had absolutely terrible reasons for believing, and I loved challenging them to defend their reasons. Much later, it began to dawn on me that the reasons they eventually accepted for being atheist were just as bad as the reasons they previously had for being Christian.
One of the really dumb reasons that is used by both sides is the idea that Christianity is a “security blanket”. Often, you’ll see Christians trying to sell Christianity as if it will get you a job, a new bicycle, and provide smooth, happy sailing for the rest of your life. Atheists likewise argue that Christianity is an escapist delusion that panders to people’s desires for security and happiness. One side says that Christianity is exactly what you want, while the other says that Christianity is deceiving you by telling you what you want to hear.
Does Christianity really tell people what they want to hear? Christ says, “Give all of your money to the poor”. He says, “Turn the other cheek”. He says, “Deny yourself and take up your cross daily and follow me.” He says, “You will be persecuted”. “You will suffer”.
This theme of self-denial and suffering is pervasive. It’s not some edge case; it is Christianity. The greatest role models of Christianity are people who gave up everything and suffered humiliating martyrdom with no reward in the world.
Yeah, that’s exactly the kind of security blanket people want.
(1) I think Jesus was exactly wrong on his economic policies.
(2) The vast majority of Christians come to Christianity and remain in it for comfort of having a tribe, morals for their children, community status, or doing what is expected. Few come to give everything to the poor expecting the son of man to come any day — as Jesus taught.
So, you can’t argue about “What is Christianity” — instead, I think you have to discuss all the varieties of Christianities.
Hi Sabio,
(1) When did Christ ever propose any economics policies? He wanted nothing to do with economics or politics.
(2) As we’ve discussed before, the definition of “Christian” is not something we can pick and choose. Christianity is a creedal religion, and depends upon a scriptural canon. If you can find a “variety of Christianity” that credibly argues from scripture or creed for the “security blanket” theory, please let me know.
If you have met people who claim that the best reason to be Christian is because:
A) Seminary gives me job security, and all my friends are Christian
B) It’ll help my kids learn morals
C) It keeps my mom and dad happy
Those people are not Christians. It’s that simple. Anyone who is going to argue otherwise needs to provide scriptural backing or appeal to the creeds.
Luke 14:26: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”
(1) So, if someone does not agree with your favorite creed, they are not a Christian? They can call themselves such, but they are fake, right?
(2) If someone does not live up to the teachings of Jesus, then they are not a Christian either, right? (Like if a big motivator is to give their kids morals)
Just curious about your Christianity. (smile)
“So, if someone does not agree with your favorite creed, they are not a Christian? They can call themselves such, but they are fake, right?”
I don’t think that’s a fair portrayal of my position.
When I was an atheist, I demanded that atheists be coherent and consistent — for example, an “atheist who believes in guardian angels” makes no sense to me, nor does an “atheist pagan” (I’ve met both). Words mean things, and “atheist” means that you don’t believe in gods.
Likewise, someone claiming to be a “Christian” should use the same definition that historical tradition has used (as memorialized in the various creeds), or should rely heavily on what Christ is reported to have actually said. I don’t have a favorite creed yet, BTW.
You’re a reasonable guy; I’m sure you agree that not everyone claiming to be Christian is being accurate.
“If someone does not live up to the teachings of Jesus, then they are not a Christian either, right? (Like if a big motivator is to give their kids morals)”
Nobody lives up to the teachings of Christ, even after becoming Christian, or even after being “saved” (two different things, as I’ve explained earlier). The fact that Christians are often ignorant, pompous, or prideful does not turn these nasty character flaws into Christian virtues, and very few Christians would argue otherwise.
Specifically regarding those who adopt the superficial subculture of Christianity in order to “give kids morals”, “get seminary jobs”, or “impress mom and dad”, I think the story of Simon Magus is very instructive.
First, when I am asking questions, I am not “making a portrayal”.
Many churches do not belief in holding to any given creed. Only some Christians hold to creeds — and there are several contrary variations.
I am glad you see me as reasonable. I think that anyone who considers themselves Christian, is Christian in one sense of the word. Someone who considers Jesus as a model for their life is a Christian in another sense of the word. I can keep piling on various doctrines hereafter and I would still consider them all Christians too.
For instance, do you have strict requirements for what you consider a Buddhist or a Confucian?
You use the word as doctrinal test, I use it descriptively. You said, “Words mean things” , I say, “Words mean many things — they are used many ways” People want to tell us what words mean, but words are simply a contract between two people used to communicate.
Let’s just tackle this first, if we can.
[...] didn’t promise earthly security. He promised persecution, conflict, ridicule, and suffering. It’s very tempting for parents to manipulate their children into belief, by making parental [...]
Hi Sabio,
You’re right that communication requires people to agree on the meaning of a word. Have I been unclear about the definition of “Christian” I’m using, or about the reasons for using that definition? Is there something about that definition which makes it impossible for you to communicate?
Perhaps I was mistaken, I thought your definition of “Christian” was ‘someone who confesses the ________ creed’.
Why don’t you come out and tell me how you use the word or tell me the various ways you use the word, since many of your posts are about what a Christian is and isn’t.
Oh, OK, I see.
My point about the creeds wasn’t to defend a specific creed. The issue is that 1.8 billion of the world’s Christians define the word “Christian” by one creed or another. Creeds exist specifically to define membership in the label of “Christian” (or any other creedal religion, like Islam)
Judaism traditionally defined membership by birth and practice. Christianity dropped the birth test and abandoned “legalism”, so membership needed to be defined a different way. The creeds are purely about defining membership; not about declaring who gets “saved”.
If someone uses the word “Christian” in a way that contradicts every creed used by all 1.8 billion Christians, they’re not really using the word carefully. This should be pretty uncontroversial, IMO.
Bodily resurrection falls into this category — even the world’s 14 million Mormons take a hard stance on this.
BTW, I’m not on some crusade to get everyone to use “one true definition”. If someone uses the word “Christian” in a way that contradicts the creeds professed by 1.8 billion of the world’s Christians, I might politely point out that they’re not using a mainstream definition. But as long as we’re clear on what we’re saying, we can communicate.
Yeah, I have often called most forms of Christianity a “believism” meaning that what they believe (Latin: creed) is central to their religion. But indeed, there are many sects who play this down. As you mention, some sect emphasize orthopraxy far over orthodoxy — those are my favorite kind of Christians.