Are Christians harmless? (page 21)

William Penwell

LT,

Will:Are all who go to church on Sunday Christians?
Did Paul believe taht all who went to the Synagogue on Saturday were "Israelite"?

I guess you answered my question. So you if you have a choice between one fellow that calls himself a Christian and another fellow that is a good person and treats other human beings with respect but isn't a Christian, who would you consider a better person? I have learned over the years to get past the religious, ethnic, sexual orientation labels and look at people as to how they treat me as an individual. Like I told this Christian friend of mine, if you claim to be a Christian than let God be the judge not you.

Will

LittleToe

Will:

if you claim to be a Christian than let God be the judge not you.

Works for me

Gumby:
That sounds fun.
I'll see if Rachel can find us one

I guess if you can do the apologist thing, I can do the antagonist thing - hehehe:

"You do know that lots of people go to church EXACTLY because of pressure, doncha?"

Ok, ok, I know that was a poor attempt at antagonism, but I've not had much practice, so give a guy a break, will ya

Deputy Dog

Gumby

Here's the deal..............if believers can live a happy, good, healthy life, and take this to the grave with them..........should a non-believer try to mess all that up.....or leave well enough alone?

1Co 15:19

If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

D Dog

gumby

1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

Do you think most people without Christ at all, are all miserable people? Gumby

Deputy Dog

Gumby What I think Paul is saying here is, If Christ only does us good in this life, believers / Christians (we) " are of all men most miserable." So if it's not true, you should try to tell us (do us a favor). D Dog

Narkissos

1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

One of my favorite features in Paul is that type of sharp comments, which the author means to be ab absurdo arguments but are often the very best points he -- unwittingly -- makes. Often they take the form of rhetorical questions -- which he himself cannot really answer but peremptorily dismisses as impossible and actually refuses to address (by formulae such as mè genoito, "by no means").

The epistle to the Romans is a feast:

What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written,
"So that you may be justified in your words,
and prevail in your judging."
But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), "Let us do evil so that good may come"? Their condemnation is deserved!

Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means!

Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means!

Did what is good, then, bring death to me? By no means!

Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!

has God rejected his people? By no means!

My guess is that the author is constantly struggling against the logical thrust of his (Gnostic-like) source of inspiration. And that this is also the case in 1 Corinthians 15, where he tries hard to maintain a "realistic", futuristic eschatology against the logic of "present experience" which is the core of his belief, going as far as declaring the latter worthless is the former is not true.

From a post-christian standpoint this line of thinking is fascinating...

myauntfanny

Narkissos

I don't quite get your point, can you spell it out? Are you saying that Paul was making all the logical arguments against Christianity and then, unable to refute them, simply dismissed them?

Also, I've never heard the term post-christian, how do you define it?

Narkissos

MAF,

Sorry for being obscure...

"Christianity" is not really at stake, as it was still in the making when those words were written (and the so-called Pauline writings were going to be a big part of the process).

What I meant is that these "rhetorical questions" are actually the deepest criticism levelled at Jewish monotheism from a definite standpoint, which I might provisionally call "early gnosticism".

Such as: how can the one and same "God" be really creator, in the highest sense of the term (i.e., the forger of everyone's destiny, according to the potter comparison), and judge? How can he be both the righteous lawgiver and savior of anyone?

The questions actually tend to a solution where the "Savior" is not thought of as a creator, judge or lawgiver anymore...

Something similar happens in 1 Corinthians: if we presently experience a "spiritual" resurrection which connects us with "God", "eternity" or whatever, what need is there for a "real resurrection" in the future? Saying that the former proves the latter, as Paul does, is logically desperate (btw, the argument will be completely dropped in Romans).

The questions are good. The answers are nonexistent or pathetic IMO, just because the author does not want to go too far along these lines. But he does open boxes which are very difficult to close...

By "post-christian" I mean acknowledging the inheritance of Christianity without being able to share its common beliefs any longer... a very common status nowadays I guess...

ozziepost

I've never heard the term post-christian, how do you define it?

My guess is that it's wishful thinking!

Narkissos

Ozzie,

One minute too late makes you a post-post-Christian!

Are Christians harmless?

Share this