Evangelical Christians

Permit me to say something at the tail-end of this discussion....

Some time ago, I read a book on Personnel Management, written by a US professor whose name now escapes me. He made some very interesting, if disturbing, claims.

Apparently, as a part of a research project, they did a survey (two surveys, actually) in what he called "a typically mid-western town".

The first survey was overtly Christian. They used Christian terminology and symbols, etc, and asked questions like:

* Describe your personal values
* What is your motto for life, if you have one
* Do you think it is valid to "turn the other cheek"?
* How would you react if somebody were to insult you in front of others?

etc etc, you get the idea.

THEN, after a year or so, they went back to the SAME community (I'm not sure if they actually went to the same respondents) and asked them to fill in another questionnaire, this time ostensibly run by FORTUNE magazine and overtly business-like.

They asked basically the SAME questions, but couched in business jargon, e.g.
* What do you need to get ahead in life/business?
* Describe your strategy for success

etc etc

The results were nothing less than mind-boggling.

The first survey yielded typically "Christian" answers:

Forgive one another, Don't collect treasures on earth but in heaven, serve one another, love your neighbour etc etc

The second survey results were typically what one would expect from Donald Trump: Success comes from pushing through regardless, even when you have to step on others, "My rule for success is looking out for Number One", etc etc

The point made by the honourable professor was to give this advice to Personnel Managers: "You will probably have lots of Christians working in your company. BE AWARE of the fact that these people are often schizophrenic: they SAY they believe something, but scratch below the surface, and you will find something else. So in dealing with them, remember the buttons to push - they will react like everybody else in e.g. defending themselves and pushing their own rights, but they will vehemently deny that this is what motivates them."

This brings me to the OP: unfortunately, the basic premise cannot be denied: Evangelical Christians generally speaking display atributes NOT associated with Christ's teachings.

However, (as was also stated by some posters) this can obviously NOT be said of EVERY Evangelical Christian, and there are many that really display the said virtues, often unsung and unnoticed.

The conclusion that can be drawn from this is certainly NOT that ALL so-called Evangelicals are frauds, nor that Christ's teachings are unrealistic and/or impractial, but rather that there ARE wheat and tares growing together as we speak, and that NOT all so-called ECs will stand one day before the throne to get their reward, but they may wel be told: "Depart, you have had your reward already!"

Somebody else once told me that Christ suffered three humiliations during his life:
1 His illegitemate birth
2 His death as a common criminal
3 His embarrassing church



😳

Originally posted by CalJust
Permit me to say something at the tail-end of this discussion....

rec'd. Thanks for the thoughtful post.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Would you please take this discussion to another thread? It's off-topic for this one.

Er no ...I don't think so. I was responding to the concepts of the "new covenant" and the "law being written on our hearts".

Any discussion that talks about Christianity using these terms but does not discuss Jesus' death and the activity of the Holy Spirit is ...well...grossly incomplete.

It would be like discussing the history of boxing and leaving out Muhammed Ali

Originally posted by knightmeister
Er no ...I don't think so. I was responding to the concepts of the "new covenant" and the "law being written on our hearts".

Any discussion that talks about Christianity using these terms but does not discuss Jesus' death and the activity of the Holy Spirit is ...well...grossly incomplete.

It would be like discussing the history of boxing and leaving out Muhammed Ali

No, you were pursuing your usual agenda of following ThinkOfOne from thread to thread, popping up to nag him over and over and over again with this "But what about the Holy Spirit???" BS.

You don't give a crap what the thread topic is.

This is not a discussion about Christianity as a whole. It is a discussion of Jesus vs. Evangelical Christians on specific social/political issues. It doesn't have jack to do with the Holy Spirit.

It's like two people were discussing the Marquess of Queensberry Rules and you interrupted them with a comprehensive history of Muhammad Ali's career.

Bah, you won't listen. Go ahead and hijack the thread. It looks like my discussion with ToO is over, so it won't hurt anything anymore.

Originally posted by CalJust
Permit me to say something at the tail-end of this discussion....

Some time ago, I read a book on Personnel Management, written by a US professor whose name now escapes me. He made some very interesting, if disturbing, claims.

Apparently, as a part of a research project, they did a survey (two surveys, actually) in what he called "a typically mid-weste ...[text shortened]... birth
2 His death as a common criminal
3 His embarrassing church



😳

Congratulations for blowing past Zuckerman and getting to the heart of this issue. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm going to have to re-state my argument since you're apparently having trouble following it.

Jesus' claims:
1) You must follow the OT Law in its entirety, down to the least commandment. If you do not, you will be either demoted in, or denied entrance to, the kingdom of Heaven.
2) You must not follow certain OT Laws because they are incorrect entir ...[text shortened]... ng that Jesus lied about his position on certain OT laws. It is merely a logical possibility.

I'm going to have to re-state my argument since you're apparently having trouble following it.

Spare me.

You and I both know that we're currently on a side issue which I summarized as follows:
"...you agree that Jesus contradicted the OT, but you don't know if He saw the law differently from the OT...How can he both contradict the law and not see it differently?"

The above position which you hold is clearly untenable. So instead of continuing to try to avoid it, why don't you just admit it? It was bad enough for you to have put up an absurd "possibility" in an attempt to avoid admitting it like you did on your previous post But now you've stooped to avoiding it by not only trying to change the subject, but by pretending like the problem is that I'm having "trouble following" your argument. I expect to see those kind of antics from the likes of RC, KM, et al., but I'm surprised to see it from you.

The problem above isn't with Jesus. It's that YOUR above position is untenable. Just admit it already.

Originally posted by CalJust
Permit me to say something at the tail-end of this discussion....

Some time ago, I read a book on Personnel Management, written by a US professor whose name now escapes me. He made some very interesting, if disturbing, claims.

Apparently, as a part of a research project, they did a survey (two surveys, actually) in what he called "a typically mid-weste birth
2 His death as a common criminal
3 His embarrassing church



😳

In his article, Zuckerman summarized in part with the following:
"...there may very well simply be an underlying, all-too-human social-psychological process at root, one that probably plays itself out among all religious individuals: they see in their religion what they want to see, and deny or despise the rest. That is, religion is one big Rorschach test. People look at the content of their religious tradition -- its teachings, its creeds, its prophet's proclamations -- and they basically pick and choose what suits their own secular outlook. They see in their faith what they want to see as they live their daily lives, and simultaneously ignore the rest."

The above seems to be consistent with what you're saying.

From what I can tell, he sees the above from "religious individuals" on the whole, but it seems the poll statistics show that it is particularly pronounced amongst Evangelicals. I couldn't find statistics on Evangelicals on the whole, but as of 2007, 74% of white Evangelicals supported the death penalty. Seriously? Almost three out of every four white Evangelicals when the number should be zero. The hypocrisy amongst white Evangelicals is stunning.

However, (as was also stated by some posters) this can obviously NOT be said of EVERY Evangelical Christian, and there are many that really display the said virtues, often unsung and unnoticed.

You do understand that Zuckerman was not claiming "EVERY Evangelical Christian" Right? If you do, you must also realize that it's a red herring.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I'm going to have to re-state my argument since you're apparently having trouble following it.

Spare me.

You and I both know that we're currently on a side issue which I summarized as follows:
"...you agree that Jesus contradicted the OT, but you don't know if He saw the law differently from the OT...How can he both contradict the law and no t with Jesus. It's that YOUR above position is untenable. Just admit it already.[/b]

Let's recap.

You had agreed with me that IF Jesus was referring to OT law in Matt 5:17-20, then he clearly contradicted himself in Matt 5:38-39.

To resolve the contradiction, you claimed that Jesus was NOT referring to OT Law, but some 'law written elsewhere', perhaps the new 'law written on men's hearts' from Jer 31.

I gave 5 reasons why I think this theory is very dubious. You did not respond to any of them. You never resolved Jesus' self-contradiction. Instead, you attempted to obscure the issue by fabricating a 'contradiction' that I made and attacking my sincerity. [I would point out that the validity of my arguments does not change even if I was completely insincere, so your accusation is irrelevant.]

You're damn right that we're on a side issue. We're there because you are losing the debate on what Jesus meant by Law and Prophets in Matt 5:17-19 and thus wish to talk about something, anything, else. Despite this, I humored you and continued to answer your questions. Now, you've waxed hysterical about my supposed 'untenable position' even though I gave you a clearly valid logical possibility. May I remind you that 'untenable' means:

1. Being such that defense or maintenance is impossible: an untenable position.

(my emphasis)

I am unconcerned that you view this possibility as 'absurd'. We are already in the land of the absurd because we are trying to explain away an absurd self-contradiction by Jesus. All I need to defend my position is a possibility that is merely a logical one.

Imagine if I asked you to somehow read Newt Gingrich's mind and tell me what his actual position on the Individual Mandate for health insurance is. He used to be strongly in favor of it, now he calls it 'fundamentally wrong' and denies he supported it. This is what happens when people blatantly contradict themselves. You don't know what the hell they really believe, do you? You don't attack the people who point it out; you go after the guy who contradicted himself in the first place.

Yes, I am trying to change the subject. I'm trying to get us off this meaningless tangent and back to the substantive issue we were discussing, namely Jesus' apparent self-contradiction. Your lumping me in with other posters is another silly personal attack designed to obscure the real issue.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Let's recap.

You had agreed with me that IF Jesus was referring to OT law in Matt 5:17-20, then he clearly contradicted himself in Matt 5:38-39.

To resolve the contradiction, you claimed that Jesus was NOT referring to OT Law, but some 'law written elsewhere', perhaps the new 'law written on men's hearts' from Jer 31.

I gave 5 reasons why I thin s is another silly personal attack designed to obscure the real issue.

I went off on the tangent because I wanted to clarify something in my mind before responding to your "5 reasons".

I started off with this:
"Let me ask you this. Do you see what Jesus saw as the law as being something quite different from what the scribes and Pharisees saw as the law? As something quite different from the law of the OT?"

You had earlier agreed that Jesus contradicted the OT, so I figured you would just say, "Yes" and I'd have gone back to your "5 reasons". Instead you started spewing nonsense wherein you still claim that you believe that Jesus contradicted the OT, but at the same time don't know if Jesus saw the law as different from the law of the OT. The very fact that Jesus contradicted the law clearly indicates that Jesus saw the law as something different from the law of the OT. So far as I know there's no reason to believe that Jesus was lying other than YOUR claim that Jesus claimed that you must follow the OT Law in its entirety which is the bone of contention. So you can't use that as evidence to prop up other claims. Now if you have other evidence that Jesus was lying, I'd be willing to listen. If you don't believe Jesus was lying, then we're left with Jesus' contradiction of the OT indicating that He saw the law as something different from the OT.

BTW, I could have respected it if you had simply admitted it and asked to get off the tangent. But now all you're doing is piling on the BS as a way of continuing to avoid admitting it. And your doing so is not unlike the BS of RC, KM, et al.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I went off on the tangent because I wanted to clarify something in my mind before responding to your "5 reasons".

I started off with this:
"Let me ask you this. Do you see what Jesus saw as the law as being something quite different from what the scribes and Pharisees saw as the law? As something quite different from the law of the OT?"

You had ea ...[text shortened]... to avoid admitting it. And your doing so is not unlike the BS of RC, KM, et al.

I went off on the tangent because I wanted to clarify something in my mind before responding to your "5 reasons".

Well, I've answered all your questions, and I don't see how I can be any clearer. And I think you understood my answers, even if you may not like them or agree with them. So, let's move on.

The very fact that Jesus contradicted the law clearly indicates that Jesus saw the law as something different from the law of the OT.

No, it doesn't. Again, there is the possibility that he lied about it. Maybe he was the argumentative type and liked humiliating the scribes and Pharisees in debates. Maybe he preferred to say controversial things to draw attention to himself. I've actually gone easy on you by making the very modest claim that this is merely logically possible. I think it's quite plausible, actually.

So far as I know there's no reason to believe that Jesus was lying other than YOUR claim that Jesus claimed that you must follow the OT Law in its entirety which is the bone of contention.

I agree. I have not asserted that Jesus lied. All I have said is that it's possible that he lied. I find your utter refusal to accept this possibility very puzzling.

The problem here is that we're jumping ahead. The real reason you oppose my claim that it's possible that Jesus lied is because you don't accept my analysis of Matt 5:17-20. That is inescapably the core issue. If we cannot resolve it, there can be no further productive discussion on the subject.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]I went off on the tangent because I wanted to clarify something in my mind before responding to your "5 reasons".

Well, I've answered all your questions, and I don't see how I can be any clearer. And I think you understood my answers, even if you may not like them or agree with them. So, let's move on.

The very fact that Jesus contradicte ...[text shortened]... we cannot resolve it, there can be no further productive discussion on the subject.

I haven't been following this thread closely and it seems a long one now and I
would like to know what lie Jesus told without having to go back an reread
everything. Could you repeat what He said that you consider a lie?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]I went off on the tangent because I wanted to clarify something in my mind before responding to your "5 reasons".

Well, I've answered all your questions, and I don't see how I can be any clearer. And I think you understood my answers, even if you may not like them or agree with them. So, let's move on.

The very fact that Jesus contradicte we cannot resolve it, there can be no further productive discussion on the subject.

[/b]Why did you pick only certain statements out of my post instead of addressing it in its entirety?

Here I've whittled it down for you:

The very fact that Jesus contradicted the law clearly indicates that Jesus saw the law as something different from the law of the OT. So far as I know there's no reason to believe that Jesus was lying other than YOUR claim that Jesus claimed that you must follow the OT Law in its entirety which is the bone of contention. So you can't use that as evidence to prop up other claims. Now if you have other evidence that Jesus was lying, I'd be willing to listen. If you don't believe Jesus was lying, then we're left with Jesus' contradiction of the OT indicating that He saw the law as something different from the OT.

Please address it in good faith.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why did you pick only certain statements out of my post instead of addressing it in its entirety?

Here I've whittled it down for you:

The very fact that Jesus contradicted the law clearly indicates that Jesus saw the law as something different from the law of the OT. So far as I know there's no reason to believe that Jesus was lying other ...[text shortened]... the law as something different from the OT.

Please address it in good faith.[/b]

I have addressed it in good faith.

I'm done. Thanks for the discussion. Good luck to you in the future.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I haven't been following this thread closely and it seems a long one now and I
would like to know what lie Jesus told without having to go back an reread
everything. Could you repeat what He said that you consider a lie?

Jesus' claims:
1) You must follow the OT Law in its entirety, down to the least commandment. If you do not, you will be either demoted in, or denied entrance to, the kingdom of Heaven.
2) You must not follow certain OT Laws because they are incorrect entirely, or incorrectly worded/interpreted.

The 2 claims cannot both be true. Either Jesus knowingly lied about something, or he lacked the mental capacity to recognize the contradiction.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I have addressed it in good faith.

I'm done. Thanks for the discussion. Good luck to you in the future.

No, not in good faith.

Since you haven't presented any evidence that Jesus was lying, I'll assume that you have none. All you have is conjecture on your part. Simply insisting that "it's possible that [Jesus] lied" does not constitute evidence.

Hard to think of a situation where one couldn't claim that "it's possible" that a second party was lying. So evidently in SwissGambit-land all one need do to discount something someone said is to claim that "it's possible" that the person was lying.

Remakable. RC, KM, et al., have nothing on you.