• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bible discussion thread

I think I meant it's important for them to conflate the two when they are trying to paint a picture about atheists.

Oh, I see -- faith on a spectrum, not faith versus non-faith.

Theists, when considering the tenets of atheism, inaccurately conflate a non-belief in GOD with a belief in evolution.
 
Just quoting this, not sure how it doesn't clear up the issue being discussed in the past few posts.

I am not saying that you are wrong and I am only saying that in the modern conversation between atheists and those of faith, your definitions of evolution and what its explains or doesn't explain isn't how either group approaches the issue. While scientists can say evolution hardly proves, disproves, or is even associated with the notion of God (and I agree with that), the general public, (atheists AND those of faith), don't take that view. The word "evolution" has taken on a much different meaning in the minds of the public (both atheists and not) and I am discussing these issues from that view point.
 
I am not saying that you are wrong and I am only saying that in the modern conversation between atheists and those of faith, your definitions of evolution and what its explains or doesn't explain isn't how either group approaches the issue. While scientists can say evolution hardly proves, disproves, or is even associated with the notion of God (and I agree with that), the general public, (atheists AND those of faith), don't take that view. The word "evolution" has taken on a much different meaning in the minds of the public (both atheists and not) and I am discussing these issues from that view point.

Townie and I are at least two atheists that approach the issue in said fashion.
 
And I think it's more fruitful to discuss things in precise terms than in vague generalities about how others approach things. I have tried not to generalize very much about ways in which Christians act or think on this thread, and I don't think it makes sense to characterize atheists or agnostics either.

I'm just an animal looking for a home and share the same space for a minute or two...
 
And I think it's more fruitful to discuss things in precise terms than in vague generalities about how others approach things. I have tried not to generalize very much about ways in which Christians act or think on this thread, and I don't think it makes sense to characterize atheists or agnostics either.

I'm just an animal looking for a home and share the same space for a minute or two...

Please don't think I was disparaging atheists or agnostics in my comments - I honestly wasn't trying to and apologize if it came off that way - I have far more frustrations with those of faith than I do atheists, particularly as it pertains to "evolution" and how the faith community understands it and discusses it and how incredibly threatened by it they are. Perhaps if they adhered to your definitions they would understand it more.
 
I'm easily offended about plenty of things (ask deacvision7), but my atheism is not one of them.
 
Rev and others, I struggle with the "fishers of men" narrative of evangelism. Not in spreading the message of deeds/works/love, but in spreading the message of Christ as savior. Any thoughts on that? I have heard so many times that deeds without faith is worthless from my Christian friends that it's become a point of frustration for me, because surely this is a selfish way of looking at things. The subtext there is deeds without faith is worthless for your own salvation. The deeds themselves, if they lead to goodness or love but are not done in service of God or the spreading of the Word, are still good, are they not?
 
Rev and others, I struggle with the "fishers of men" narrative of evangelism. Not in spreading the message of deeds/works/love, but in spreading the message of Christ as savior. Any thoughts on that? I have heard so many times that deeds without faith is worthless from my Christian friends that it's become a point of frustration for me, because surely this is a selfish way of looking at things. The subtext there is deeds without faith is worthless for your own salvation. The deeds themselves, if they lead to goodness or love but are not done in service of God or the spreading of the Word, are still good, are they not?

So evangelism.... yea, it's tough because it is so misunderstood. Mt 18:20 (the Great Commission- go, teach, baptize) is at the core of the ministry outlined by Jesus, but how that is done and understood can be a real struggle.

So deeds without faith is good stuff, great stuff even. Anyone who says otherwise is just ignorant (Luke 9:50- though I realize the "suspect" was still doing ministry in the name of Jesus, he clearly wasn't accepted by the disciples as "one of them.") Theologian Karl Rahner speaks of "anonymous Christians," which are essentially everyone who does good deeds. He says that even if they don't realize that they're doing God's work, they are. Now, I realize that can be problematic philosophy, but Rahner is considered an upper-echelon theologian.

In my worldview/theology, the most operative statement is Luke 17:21, the Kingdom of God is among you; it is a present reality, not the reward of afterlife. That being said, a good deed that builds the Kingdom is a good deed that builds the Kingdom, whether or not the doer realizes that they're building the KoG or not. So to answer your question, yes, a good deed is indeed a good deed.

I'm sure you know this, as you've been very knowledgeable thus far in this discussion, so forgive me if this is "basic," but evangelism comes from a Greek compound meaning good (eu) + news (angelion), which is the Biblical word for Gospel. Evangelism really is just sharing the good news. What people fight over is what that good news is. Some would say the good news is that God became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, others would say it is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins (which is really shallow and incomplete, but nevertheless, some hold this view. There is some truth in it, but it isn't the be all, end all), others would say it's the Resurrection. I'd say that's all part of the good news, but the good/best news is that the KoG is among us, and Jesus came to usher it in, teaching us how to live and thrive in it.

That being said, there is absolutely no good news in conversion by the sword, or diminishing the good deeds of Jews/Muslims/atheists because they are not done "in Jesus' name," nor is the message that "I'm saved but X group is going to hell." None of that is good news, so it's not proper evangelism.

And lastly, when you said "The subtext there is deeds without faith is worthless for your own salvation," my thought was "we really should have a conversation on this thread about what salvation means." I'm sure the conversation will eventually lead there, but for now, we're on evangelism.
 
Last edited:
Kind of a fascinating etymology with 'evangelism'. looks like quite literally εὐαγγέλιον which is latinised to Evangelium, originally in greek meant a reward given to a messenger for delivering good news. εὔ = "good", ἀγγέλλω = "I bring a message" so the way it has been transliterated since is simply "good news."
 
And yea, thanks as always for the write-ups, rev. Really good stuff.
 
It does seem that it's important then, to make a distinction between evangelism and proselytism, the first being closer to spreading good news, and the latter being more related to actual conversion. So some of the passages that deal with both evangelism and proselytism worth looking into:

Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Colossians 4:5-6 (seasoned with salt?)
Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

Ephesians 6:19-20 (ambassador in chains?)
Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.

Peter 3:15
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...
 
What I never agreed with is the evangelicals' concept of an egotistical God. I'll remember seeing Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson on Larry King in the days leading up to the execution of woman ax murderer. They steadfastly maintained that because she said the Jesus was her personal savior that she would absolutely get into heaven.

However, no matter how many good deeds Mother Teresa or anyone else did. No matter how others led their lives, none would get into heaven with saying those words.

That seems totally outrageous and the anti-thesis of a benevolent God, who is everyone's father. It's more like an egotistical, vengeful drill sergeant or bully.
 
Btw, rev, which version of the Bible do you prefer? I tend to go back and forth between NIV and KJV when pulling quotes online.

The one I have at home is a kids bible, which I've read every page of. Even in the kid version there is some REAL ASS SHIT that goes down.
 
Rev - what about how Paul (or maybe not Paul, depending on the authenticity of certain books) affected how evangelism is viewed/practiced?
 
What I never agreed with is the evangelicals' concept of an egotistical God. I'll remember seeing Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson on Larry King in the days leading up to the execution of woman ax murderer. They steadfastly maintained that because she said the Jesus was her personal savior that she would absolutely get into heaven.

However, no matter how many good deeds Mother Teresa or anyone else did. No matter how others led their lives, none would get into heaven with saying those words.

That seems totally outrageous and the anti-thesis of a benevolent God, who is everyone's father. It's more like an egotistical, vengeful drill sergeant or bully.

I'd need to have some sit down time to re-read some stuff and really formulate my thoughts, but this is exactly why I think this thread would have a great conversation around the concept of salvation. I'd certainly dangerous to ever claim to know for sure anything about God, but using apophatic theology, I'm confident saying that there is no sort of divine scale of justice where we're trying to add enough marbles to the "saved" side, and certainly there isn't a magic marble (Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior) that transcends all sorts of evils. But again, we're needing to rethink what salvation means, because really, it changes the whole conversation.

But RJ- I'm right with you, the concept of a personal Lord and Savior (understood egotistically) is anathema to Christianity.
 
Btw, rev, which version of the Bible do you prefer? I tend to go back and forth between NIV and KJV when pulling quotes online.

The one I have at home is a kids bible, which I've read every page of. Even in the kid version there is some REAL ASS SHIT that goes down.

Most of academia uses the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), which is also the default translation for most mainline protestants, including the Episcopal Church. So I tend to use that one. KJV certainly lacks some of the new (in the last 400 years) academic learnings. The Common English Bible is a good modern language translation, just completed within the last few years. When I preach, I often translate the passage(s) that I'm preaching on from the Hebrew and Greek.
 
Rev - what about how Paul (or maybe not Paul, depending on the authenticity of certain books) affected how evangelism is viewed/practiced?

Townie's earlier distinction between evangelism and proselytism is quite helpful (but I'll respond to that in another post). A lot of Paul (and the earlier followers of Jesus) is centered around the legitimacy of Christianity (see Acts). Evangelism, when done properly (and by that I mean authentic Christian living), should be attractive in that it brings people to it without even asking them to. Sort of like a very attractive woman in a bar, she doesn't need to do any attracting of others, it's just going to happen. The problem is when Christians try to make themselves look attractive it often doesn't work. So when people misunderstand Paul, they end up looking bad because they're not living the attractive sort of Christianity that Paul did.
 
This really is a very nice thread and topic. How do Christians deal with the fairly recent discovery of the so-called "gnostic texts", the Gospel of Thomas and the like? I am fascinated with this particular gospel. It has at first glance the feel of the synoptics, but it's emphasis is totally different.
 
Back
Top