Faith

Author Drafts ‘9 Christian Cliches to Avoid’

Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:30pm by Billy Hallowell
Print »
Email »

Editor’s Note: The Blaze did not compose this list, nor are we endorsing it. We are merely reporting on it to spark conversation about some of the more debated social aspects of the Christian faith.

Last month, Christian speaker, author, writer and pastor Christian Piatt put together some fascinating — and, no doubt, contentious — advice lists for believers.

In a three-part series, Piatt provided dos and don’ts when it comes to cliches that he believes followers of Jesus should avoid. In the first part of the series, he outlined 10 such offenses; in the second set, he issued another 10. In the third and final list, the author and faith leader left readers with nine additional sayings to consider.

While Piatt claims that a handful of individuals labeled him an “apostate, atheist [and] anti-Christian” after viewing his first two posts, he said that the overwhelming response was supportive in nature. Piatt also warned that those throwing negative ideals and slurs his way ”are living into a stereotype of Christians as knee-jerk reactionary, judgmental people.”

Here are Piatt’s final nine cliches that he believes should be stricken from the “Christian lexicon,” should believers wish to more adequately and seamlessly reach others with their faith:

1) Christianity is the only way to God/Heaven. You may believe this with your whole heart, and I’m sure you have the scriptures at the ready to support it. But consider the possibility that either those you’re speaking with think differently about this, or if they haven’t put much thought into it, that what you’re saying feels like an ultimatum or a threat. Yes, there are texts to support a theology of exclusive salvation, but there also are some to support a more universalist notion of salvation (John 1:9 – “The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.”). And think about how such a statement might sound to someone who has lost a loved one who was not a Christian, at least by your standards of what that means. And theologically speaking, it opens up a whole Pandora’s Box in answering for the fate of all those who lived before Christ, who never hear about him, and so on.

2) When God closes a door, He opens a window. Like some other cliches, this implies that, when something unexpected (and usually bad) happens to you, God did it to you. I know it’s well-meaning, but it’s not helpful in some cases. What about someone who feels like the door has closed on them, and there is no other hope in sight? That persona may benefit more from a compassionate ear, a loving heart and a simple “what can I do to help”” much more than some phrase that may or may not have any basis in reality.

3) God helps those who help themselves. Let me be clear – THIS IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE. People treat it like it is, but it’s not. Benjamin Franklin penned this in the Farmers’ Almanac in 1757. Be very, very careful when quoting something you think is in the Bible. And even if it is, be very careful in how and why you quote it to/at people. People don’t need more reasons to resent or resist scripture; let’s not add things that aren’t even in there.

4) Perhaps God is (causing something negative) to get your attention/It is God’s way of telling you it is time for (fill in the blank). To me, this comes off as speaking on behalf of God. It seems to me that the better thing to say, if anything is “Is there any good that can come of this?” or “What wisdom can we find in this experience?” but better than this is – as I’ve said before – being quiet, being present and being compassionately loving. Let God speak for God.

5) There, but for the grace of God, go I. This suggests that the person who is the object of whatever misfortune you’re referring to is not the recipient of God’s grace. The thing is (at least as I understand it) grace isn’t grace if it’s selectively handed out like party favors. Relating to someone, and even sharing common experiences, or how you could see yourself in their similar situation is one thing. But making it sound like you’re not suffering because of God’s grace while they are is just unkind.

6) If you just have enough faith (fill in the blank) will happen for you. Talk about setting God up! Who are we to speak to what God will or will not do in others’ lives? Sure, if you have a story of personal experience to share, ask for permission to share it. But be aware that someone in the midst of struggle may not be in a place to hear it. But fulfilling promises like this is above our human pay grade. As my dad used to say, don’t write checks your butt can’t cash.

7) I don’t put God in a box. This actually is a favorite of many progressives. This comes off as pretty arrogant, in my opinion. You’re implying others put God in a box, and that your theological perspective is superior because you don’t. The problem is, anyone who believes in God puts God in a box. Yes, your box may be different than others’ boxes, but unless you share the “mind of God,” your understanding of God is some conscripted, dimly illuminated view of what God actually is, at best.

8) (Insert name) is a good, God-fearing Christian. First off, the phrase “God-fearing” is a real turn-off to many Christians and non-Christians alike. Though some understand God as a thing to be feared, a lot of folks simply do not relate to that image of God. And if you happen to be using the word “fear” as a synonym for “respect,” consider the likelihood that your audience probably hears “fear” as “fear.”

9) God is in control. This raises a very fundamental problem of Theodicy, which most Christians I’ve met who say this are not necessarily prepared to address. Theodicy is the dilemma between belief in an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful God with the existence of evil and/or suffering in the world. And the other problem is that, if you believe that human beings have free will (a central tenet of most Christian thought), it needs to be recognized that that, in itself, is a concession of control by God. And like other phrases I’ve mentioned about God’s role in daily life, be careful in tossing this one around. Telling someone who was raped, abused, tortured, neglected, etc. that God was in control during that experience likely is enough to incent that person to turn from the concept of God forever.

There you have it — the final list of grievances. What do you think? Do you agree with Piatt? Let us know in the comments section, below.

(H/T: Christian Piatt)

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (220)

Glibber
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:56pm
John 3:16 says something like, “for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him shall not persish but have everlasting life.” and earlier John talks about whoever hears the word that they have the power to become the children of God. So you as a sinner have to first hear the word from a person called by God, you recieve “the power,” (or come under conviction), and then you believe with all your heart in that word, which is the only begotten Son, Jesus the Christ. There is only one, strait and narrow way that leads to righteousness, but broad is the way and wide is the gate that leads to destruction. Where “Christians” fail is they forget the gospel is to WHOSOEVER.

When Paul spoke to the Greeks he used a statue of the unknown god as a stepping stone into their thoughts. He appealed to their reason. He didn’t hold a spear in his hand and say, “you will believe or else.” It was a freewill offering that they could choose to follow or not. Also Paul said something like when I was with the Jews I was like a Jew, when I was with the gentiles, I was as a gentile (paraphrasing). This example tells us that Christians need to understand there audience and how to deliver God’s word

Why do bad things happen to good people? Adam took a bite of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For us to have knowledge, we must experience them first. However, that doesn’t help a person in need. Just be a shoulder a
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:02pm
  It’s a free will offering…………wait, you don’t accept my free gift? Then to hell with you!
  Report Post »
- LeFaux Jew
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:16pm
  There are several gospels that christians teach.
  Report Post »
- TomSawyer
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:30pm
  ModerationIsBest, Your statement is correct. You have a choice and now is the best time to choose. So which is it?
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:31pm
  Piatt’s coming from a good place, I’m convinced. It’s useful to get us to reflect on phrases we take for granted, so that we can remember what we really should be meaning when we say them. And there is a place for helping good Christians remember their contexts better, and remember to communicate compassionate impulses with our fellow-sufferers rather than hand down condescending sermons.
  But his M.O. seems to be to find a way to turn every common Christian phrase (not even clichés, really) into the most monstrous twisted and arrogant interpretation possible, and then claiming that’s what everyone hears when we offer such phrases. I think those interpretations are much more rare than he lets on. I think most people recognize the good intentions of well intended phrases, however poorly one side-implication may apply. And in many cases, its the good intention that gets remembered anyway.
  Above all, letting God speak for God is a wonderful principle, as long as you also remember not to let a HUMAN (like Piatt, like me, or like anyone else) prevent you from opening your mouth when moved upon by the Spirit of God to be His mouthpiece. He CAN use us as His instruments.
  Report Post »
- SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:38pm
  I tend to lean away from this man’s teachings. While I can certainly reflect and think on things I find I disagree with him quite a bit about what scripture does and does not teach. Final point, always took the saying, “there but for the grace of God go I” was meant as a check against self religious pride that reminded us apart from God no matter what someone else does we are in ourselves no better. I think this teaching could be dangerous in that it seems to bow an awful alot to how other people would receive it. When I read the things Jesus said I don’t see that to be the case. Thanks….
  Report Post »
- trolltrainer
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:43pm
  moderationisbest,
  
  Exactly right! To put it another way, you are drowning. You are in the middle of the ocean, hundreds of miles from land. You may think you are a good swimmer, you may be doing just fine. Eventually though you will drown. Along comes a guy in a boat and he throws you a line. A lifeline. Will you grab it? If you do you will be saved, if not then you will surely drown.
  
  I am sorry if you do not like the choice, but that is the choice. God does not punish you, He punishes sin. You are sin. He gave you a way out.
  Report Post »
- janedough1
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:52pm
  Moderationisbest, that is the standard atheist argument. What most of you don’t understand, or don’t want to understand, is that there can be no heaven unless you keep evil (selfishness) out. If you put a lot of evil people in one place, they will make it hell. It really doesn’t matter if you put them all together, in which case they mistreat one another, or you isolate them from each other, in which case they suffer loneliness, people segregated from God is hell.
  
  Most atheists seem to define themselves as basically good people who don’t deserve to be “sent” to hell by God. The fact is, no one is good, not even basically good. Science gives it a different name, but sends the same message: all children are born selfish. They put the self above all else. That is the definition of evil. You cannot murder someone unless you make your SELF more important than their life. You cannot rape someone unless you make your SELF gratification more important their peace of mind and happiness. You cannot steal unless you make your SELF more important than another’s right to their property. SELF is the problem.
  
  God offers you a free gift. All of us DESERVE hell for our selfishness. That doesn’t mean that God created us selfish and then punishes us for being what we are. It means God created us with free will, and we consistently choose evil. You have a free gift in front of you. You can choose God instead of what you deserve. Which will it be?
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 7:00pm
  @TROLLTRAINER
  
  Your analogy between the boat and what Christianity requires is silly.
  
  By getting into the boat, I am them not required to worship the person in the boat. I am not then demanded to believe that the person in the boat is some kind of supernatural being and say that the person in the boat “died for me.”
  
  Also, in your analogy, if I don’t get in the boat, I just die.
  
  For Christianity, I don’t just die, I then go to an eternal plane of existence to suffer eternally.
  
  There is nothing moral about the teachings of Christianity.
  Report Post »
- trolltrainer
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 7:10pm
  moderationisbest,
  
  I am really sorry for your position on this. For the most part atheists do not much bother me, they are illogical and mostly stupid, though they believe otherwise. They get what they deserve…What we all deserve, really…But you are a sharp guy, I agree with you on most things.
  
  Thruth is, you may never see the truth, and that is too bad. I hope someday you do.
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 7:13pm
  @JANEDOUGH1
  
  It is evil to say that people are born deserving of an eternal punishment.
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 7:24pm
  @TROLLTRAINER
  
  The difference you.
  
  You are okay with me being tortured eternally You believe that because I don’t agree with you, that I’m going to an alternate plane of existence to suffer unending torture. What’s even worse, is that you believe that, despite no evidence to think that it is true.
  
  I am not okay with you being tortured eternally. I wouldn’t worship anything that would take a nice normal person who says, “no see, that person is really nice. They helped a lot of people in their life….but you see, they didn’t worship me, so yeah, they can go to hell.”
  
  I wouldn’t view that being as moral, righteous or just.
  
  Thankfully none of Christianity has given any evidence to think what is said in that book is actually true, but even if it was, I wouldn’t degrade myself to accept such evil as “holy” “righteous” “just” “loving”
  Report Post »
- caveman74
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 7:37pm
  moderationbest
  the analogy works fine, its not about the man throwing the rope, it is the rope. Athiests in this analogy are refusing to beleive that the rope is their salvation. They are shouting at the man in the boat (who would be God in this comparison) shouting “I can get in the boat on my own”. And God (man in boat) is not saying use my rope or I will hold you under water, he is simply saying the boat is to high above the water (the rightousness of heaven is to great for sinful man) I assure you the only way to get in is to pull yourself up by the rope (jesus). The book of revelations speaks of a pit of sulfur, but the rest of the bible says sin leads to death (not hell). You say the teachings of christianity are immoral, so what does that leave? The ultimate authority on morality must then be man….who rapes, murders, enslaves, steals,etc etc etc. I’m going to go with a God who tells me doing all those things will lead to death. Man is the last place I will look for moral acceptance, I have seen all to well what man is capable of
  Report Post »
- SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 7:53pm
  @ MOD….Hey freind hope you are doing well. While I can understand your difficulty with the doctrine of hell I think where you run aground is in your assumption that we are, by nature good. Now if you compare yourself to me you might be very right in your assessment. However, if you compare yourself to a holy and perfect God I think you would agree we all fall very short. No child needs to be taught to be selfish, or to lie, or to manipulate, or to hit. They do it by nature because we are corrupt in our natures. So it is not your “niceness to others” that God would be punishing it would be your refusal to accpet the very costly price and suffering his beloved Son paid to cleanse you/me of your/my sin. It’s the pride of man that refuses to repent of their sin and refuse to come into a relationship with him. It is the contempt of evil men for a God who confronts them in their evil even down to their thoughts and motives. It is the desire to be rid of the Creator’s standards and love. It is a hatred for that who has loved you too much to let evil have its way with your heart. Hell by its very definition is complete and utter seperation from any essence of God’s abiding presence so I am not sure why people object so much to the idea. God is simply giving you in the next life what you have proclaimed you desire in this life, complete separation from him. Thank you….
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 7:58pm
  @CAVEMAN74
  
  False, Christianity has yet to prove that there is a God, much less that their God is the correct one.
  
  The correct analogy would be
  
  I’m in the middle of the lake drowning and you say “hey, there is a guy in a boat next to you, grab the rope!” and I’m sitting here looking around not seeing a guy in the boat.
  
  I then say ,”What man in a boat?!” you say, “look, it’s a matter of faith. You must have faith that there is a man in a boat with a rope there. Only then can you actually grab the rope and be saved!”
  
  By Christian standards and what they teach about an almighty, all-knowing God, the analogy would continue as followed.
  
  “Oh and btw, that guy in the boat with the rope, is also the same guy who put you in the middle of the lake to drown. You see, the guy in the boat thinks you’re so evil that you deserve to drown, but you see, if you believe in him, he’s offering a rope to be safe from drowning. What a great guy right?”
  
  It’ is a weak analogy at best and a disingenuous one at worst.
  
  Murderers don’t ask to be called holy and just. Your God does.
  
  The God that your Bible teaches about is a psychopathic murderer who slays people at his whim.
  
  Your book teaches that people are born evil and deserving an eternal punishment but by only accepting that a human sacrifice was necessary on your behalf, can you be forgiven.
  
  To agree with that sentiment, it is my argument that you have sacrificed your humanity.
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 8:15pm
  @SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
  
  The main “sin” that God is punishing me for is the “sin” of Adam eating from the tree of knowledge.
  
  In original sin theory of Christianity, I am born guilty.
  
  It’s not a matter of someone being selfish, or a little immature, or manipulative(all of those things vary person to person and by age).
  
  Your God says, “because of what Adam did, I find you guilty.”
  
  In your religion, little babies are born worthy of eternal torture just for being born. That is not a moral teaching.
  
  Plus, it’s not moral to say, “oh, you’re a little selfish from time to time? TO HELL WITH YOU!”
  
  The difference is, Christianity views EVERYONE as evil and born worthy of eternal torture.
  
  I don’t think everyone is born evil and that the only way to “cleanse” this evilness is by accepting a human sacrifice on their behalf.
  
  Your God makes the rules. It was him who said that a blood sacrifice was necessary to “wipe away our sins.” Your God could have simply said, “okay you’re forgiven.” but no, the bloodthirsty God that is on display in the OT one ups himself by sending him, to be sacrificed to himself, to create a loophole for a system that he created.
  
  I’m sorry, but it’s utter nonsense and if anything, it surely isn’t moral.
  
  BTW, glad to see you’re okay after your surgery.
  Report Post »
- macpappy
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 8:54pm
  @MOD
  Mission accomplished, the silence is deadening. Logical argument wins out every time, but minds are never change. However,a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generatin grows up that is familiar with it.
  Report Post »
- SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 9:06pm
  @ MOD…Have you not sinned? You prove the idea of original sin everytime you sin. Dont like that idea. OK for the sake of our discussion take it away. Have you ever done wrong? Then you are guilty. While some may be more evil than others, all are still evil before a holy God so that really is an irrelevant point to the discussion in my view. So you think that you have not confirmed God’s judgement every day of your life? You think you would have decided differently than Adam? Jesus suffered for us but yet God calls us righteous if we but just trust in him, most have no problem with that at all. So you do not have to remain guilty if you by your own choice simply repent of your sin and trust in Christ. Little babies as indicated by David go to be with the Lord as they are not mentally capable of responding to the gospel of Jesus. So that is not a problem as I see it at all. Selfish from time to time? I’m selfish and self-loving every day! No one has to receive the consequences of their sin if they but simply believe. You keep wanting to place the blame on God for just judgments of the wickedness of man all the while minimizing that wickedness. I am disappointed in your final paragraph, you usually are more reasonable than that. We both know that was a straw man fallacy with quite a lot of misrepresentation in it. BTW I performed the surgery, I didn’t have surgery. Had to do an amputation of a gangrenous foot….Thank you…
  Report Post »
- SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 9:29pm
  @ MACPAPPY…What silence? MOD knows me well enough to know I have never backed away from any discussion or challenge. Tell ya what you give me your absolute best argument to support your presupposition that there is no God and we will debate it, agreed?
  Report Post »
- 1luckydad
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 9:30pm
  @moderation
  
  there are two kinds of people in this world sinners and repentent sinners no matter how good we think we are we are still sinners. you like me have free will, I choose to have faith and repent if you dont thats up to you
  Report Post »
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 11:16pm
  @Mod: You sir deserve a slow clap for your logic, thank you.
  
  Remember, if Jesus is the only way to salvation then how many people have through accident of birth been damned for all of eternity just because they were born to a culture that didn’t believe in Jesus? How do we know that Christianity has the right answer? Why isn’t it Hinduism or Taoism?
  
  I can’t with a clear conscience believe that a kind and loving god could create a system that would ensure that people who would never be exposed to the teachings he proclaimed to be the truth would suffer for eternity just because he decided where/when they would be born and would ensure that they never heard the word.
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 11:59pm
  @Montara,
  With no insult intended in the slightest, I‘ve always found that atheists like you probably wouldn’t be if you just didn’t try to confine the concept of God you think others have to your own limited imagination.
  Case in point: you proceed from the premise that God is just, and then condemn Him for not acting that way to your limited view. If you accepted the premise that God was the very essence of fairness, then the correct reasoning would instead be something more like “I’m not sure how He plans on pulling it all off, based on what I can see, but there MUST be some mechanism by which each soul will have equal opportunity to be judged on equal and fair criteria.”
  A God who can see past death into eternity has a way beyond the grave to bring those whose “accident of birth” (hint: there’s no accidents to an omniscient God) only TEMPORARILY put them in a situation of ignorance to the conditions for salvation. In the eternal scheme of things, IF God is a just God, there WILL be a way for all to have an equal opportunity for salvation.
  In other words, because your ideology makes you lack the imagination to handle such concepts as “eternal” and “beyond the grave”, you remain blind to the fact that the Christian position has a very solid internal logic.
  Attacking the logic of a belief system through a flawed understanding of its very nature doesn’t help your side very much, I’m afraid.
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 12:15am
  I realize I may be mud-wrestling with a pig here, but I see my students in literature making this mistake all the time, so I have to address Mod‘s dismissal of Trolltrainer’s excellent parable.
  Mod makes a couple of improper interpretive moves here in order to dismiss something he doesn’t even understand.
  1. Analogies, Allegories, Parables and the like are symbolic representations of something else, and therefore have boundaries of application. If you try to expand them beyond their intended scope, you end up inventing something they never intended and their symbolism falls apart. Trolltrainer has brilliantly allegorized Christ’s role from WITHIN an internal Christian narrative. Mod tries to apply it as if the ocean didn’t = hell, and the boat didn’t = salvation, and then confuses himself by trying to make it an allegory of original sin. That requires a separate analogy.
  2. Mod‘s other mistake is that he can’t stand a fair debate, and constantly moves the goalposts to suit his point, as illustrated by his inability to stay focused on the meaning of Trolltrainer’s symbols and then arguing against them. He first has to change what the symbols refer to, and THEN try to argue that this is what Trolltrainer meant all along.
  These are the logical errors, even before I get into the CONTENT of what he is saying.
  Atheists very rarely demonstrate understanding before launching into attacks based on their own misunderstanding. They’ll learn one day…
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 12:27am
  @SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
  
  If babies don‘t go to hell because they aren’t capable of mentally handling the gospel, then Jesus‘s sacrifice wasn’t for “everyone”.
  
  Therefore, the phrase, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” is a lie.
  
  The phrase didn’t say, “No one comes to the father except through me…..unless you’re not able to comprehend the gospel.”
  
  If we are born with original sin, yet babies can go be with God without accepting Jesus, then Jesus’s sacrifice is irrelevant and his teaching is wrong.
  
  What about mentally handicapped people who are unable to comprehend it? What about people who never get exposed to the word?
  
  The Bible clearly says that only through accepting Jesus as your lord and savior can you be forgiven of your sins. As far as I’ve seen, there have been no clear qualifiers that retract that statement.
  
  I think my argument is perfectly reasonable. Your God is capable of anything. He writes all of the rules. There is not some law that your God has to follow that says, “it has to be a human sacrifice to atone for humanities sin.”
  
  It was your God who said that he had to send himself to die on a cross for the sins of humanity.
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 12:30am
  @Mod,
  Christians believe God will give everyone an equal chance before judgment.
  We also believe it’s not merely a matter of “believing something different”, but a matter of the change of heart required for the natural inclinations of humankind to satisfy base desires to be overcome by love, and moral choices.
  We believe only Christ has provided not only a perfect example of this kind of love and morality, but that He offered Himself as an infinite intercessor to satisfy the demands of justice so that all debt for immoral behavior is now paid in full for everyone.
  You don’t have to believe it for it to be incontestable that belief in a higher power of love, mercy, and morality inspires the vast majority of its adherents to self-sacrifice, to philanthropy, and to justice on earth as well as positive liberty-loving citizens behaving responsibly in almost every respect.
  God isn’t vindictive, but rather rewards us all to the maximum He can for the good we do. It’s just that even if someone chooses mostly good even without belief in the Gospel, we’re all also guilty of at least one eternally damning thing. And by accepting Christ in His prescribed way, we begin a process of changing our natures to become more compatible with the eternal blessings He wants us to qualify for. It’s a very POSITIVE ENABLING message.
  And He also doesn’t condemn anyone to disbelief, but provides a way for all to choose salvation, even if not during this mortal life.
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 12:41am
  @Happy
  
  The only problem with analogies is that they usually aren’t applicable.
  
  Troll‘s comparison is shallow and isn’t representative of what Christianity really is. It is not merely a nice stranger throwing me a rope to keep me from drowning. To say that the connection is even remotely true is disingenuous. It is a “feel good” analogy, that doesn‘t take into account what you really have to accept when you’re a Christian. It is just another way that Christians(and other religious people) look at their religious beliefs through rose colored glasses, put a silver bow around the nice stuff and don’t mention the bad stuff.
  
  You also said, “. If you accepted the premise that God was the very essence of fairness”
  
  See, you proved my point. You aren‘t objectively looking at your God’s actions and seeing if they fit with what you think is right and wrong. As you said , “accept the premise that God is the very essence of fairness.” So what you’re essentially saying is, no matter what happens, God is good/fair, and any teaching/event that happens that I think is bad/unfair, MUST be wrong, because I’m going on the premise that God is fair.
  
  That’s a great way to justify that your premise is true.
  
  Good stuff = God is good, god is fair
  Bad stuff = Well God is good, so it can’t be bad, therefore God is good
  
  I’m sorry, but I just don’t go off of “premises” of something. I look at the evidence and weigh it to the best of my ability.
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 12:50am
  @Happy
  
  See, here’s the problem. You don’t speak for all of Christians. So when you say, “Christians believe God will give everyone an equal chance before judgment” I can find millions of Christians who don’t prescribe to that notion.
  
  Before you speak for an entire religion, you might want to quantify your statement with, “my form of Christianity believes……” because your form of Christianity is different then others. In a lot of people’s version of Christianity, the “judgement” solely comes down to whether or not you accepted Jesus as your lord and savior. There is no “judging” of actions, just whether or not you accepted Christ. I could be the nicest person ever, charitable, etc but because I didn’t accept Jesus, I go to hell.
  
  As Hippo said in another post(I’ think this is what he said), “anything done without faith is sin.” Therefore, I could feed the poor, but because I don’t do it in the name of Christ, it is a sin.
  
  The rest of your post is pretty meaningless to me because in your post above you said you go into everything with the premise is that God is the essence of fairness. That shows me that you, like almost every other religious person sees a completely loving and just God and NOTHING will convince you otherwise. You’re not interested in objectively looking at whether what your God says/does is right or not. You already know that everything he says/does is right.
  Report Post »
- In That Day
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 1:46am
  @ HappyStretchedThin,
  
  I am enjoying your comments. Be careful because you are in danger of being unable to communicate with American Christian Moderns if you write in the language of higher intellect, higher consciousness (which by the way, Glibber, is how God uses bad things happening to good people… to get them unstuck in rigid righteousness to the higher level of holy flexibility) and higher love…
  
  Why? Modern Christians seem to need pastors who do not have wider thoughtful context, deep historical understanding, or the ability to voice intelligent, poignant insights into the human condition.
  
  Lord knows I’ve tried, at http://www.inthatdayteachings.com .
  
  People seem to have lost the ability to be curious, which I find startling and bad. People are not open to higher ground, even though they know it was crucial for Moses at the burning bush.
  
  Folks won’t look at higher, more mature thought at In That Day Teachings, because they are intellectually lazy, as pastors desire their sheep to be.
  
  For example, a quick internet search of Christian Piatt reveals a book reviewer stating this pastor comes from left of center, in other words: a progressive liberal pastor that believes strongly in social justice (see his YouTube). Yet, who herein knew?
  
  Curiouser still that Beck’s “Blaze” would repeatedly promote this liberal’s work, since Beck in the past was against churchianity’s social justice progressivism.
  Report Post »
- Ballot_Box_Revolution
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 2:08am
  Most of you are pretty limited in your thinking. In the end it will come down to God believers, and Non-believers. Notice i didn’t say christian believers, or some other religion. Right now there are many things to fight about, we see Obama pushing this everywhere he can. Black vs white, rich vs poor, and the list goes on…but even when all these battles are fought with different religions being used to advance in different battles it will ultimately come down to who rules man? God? or privileged Men?
  
  Think about it…The base of most religions are the same when you take the politics out. Prayer, Meditation, Faith, Love, do onto others…All the same. And from wisdom I assume all of them work, because I have been fascinated with religion since I was young (became self taught). My family was Christian (but not die-hard), so that is the first religion I have known. Prayer has helped me many times. I lived on a Navajo Indian reservation from 3rd grade to the fifth grade. I got to know that culture, and it was good. I heard stories from old mountain people that were in my family about “old wives tales” I have used some of their advice, and had success with them, and while looking into wives tales I found out that those things were similar to witchcraft/wicca. I read books about wiccan religion, and seen that it was not as bad as I was made to believe (tried/worked). All these doors started opening for me and I was interested…faith, love, ritual/prayer are all a part of
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 2:13am
  Mod,
  You are making moral judgments of God. It’s morally wrong to send someone to hell for all eternity. What you don’t seem to realize atheism has the same problem.
  
  If atheism is true, the default position for morals would be the law of the jungle. Under atheism, there would be no objective moral values at all. Animals rape each other all the time in nature, why should humans be any different? Rape shouldn’t be right or wrong, it happens in nature all the time.
  
  If God is a dictator in the sky, why is that wrong? Atheist morality dictates that the strong survive and the weak die. God is clearly more evolved, smarter, and stronger than humans, why shouldn’t he be a giant dictator? That is how nature works….
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 2:46am
  @KStret
  
  The difference between us and less evolved life forms is that we have a higher intelligence than those animals.
  
  We are able to fully comprehend our thoughts and actions, and come to the conclusion that it’s not right to force someone else to have sex with you.
  
  We are able to come together and decide what we think is best to have a harmonious society.
  
  This act of using our intelligence is hindered when we have a set of people who claim to have everything about morality all figured out and what’s worse is that these people claim that these “truths” were revealed to them and have a supernatural backing.
  Report Post »
- jcldwl
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 5:22am
  “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the father except by me.” Jesus.
  Report Post »
- puck2113
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 8:17am
  A lot of what I hear and see the Christians today writing and saying really kind of honesty blows me away. First off they cannot even prove the bible. Secondly, the majority just jumps to how a person should live rather than sharing the Gospel. Paul said it best in Romans 15:3-4 “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” You can prove the bible, in the structure, in it’s ability to predict future events.
  Lets hit structure, understanding 7 is the number of completion:
  You have to write a genealogy I have stipulations though
  1. The number of words will be divisible by seven
  2. The number of letters of all those words will be divisible by seven
  3. The number of vowels will be divisible by seven
  4. The number of consonance will be divisible by seven
  5. The number of words that start with a vowel will be divisible by seven
  6. The number of words that start with a consonant will be divisible by seven
  7. The number of words that appear in only one form will be divisible by seven
  8. The number of words that appear in more than one form will be divisible by seven
  9. The number of words that are nouns will be divisible by seven
  10. The number of words that are not nouns will be divisible by seven
  Report Post »
- puck2113
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 8:22am
  11. The number of words that are compound nouns will be divisible by seven
  12. The number of male names will be divisible by seven
  13. The number of names that are not male names will be divisible by seven
  14. The number of letters of the female names will be divisible by seven
  15. The number of letters in the only city mentioned is seven
  16. Total number of names is divisible by seven
  17. The number of generations is divisible by seven.
  
  And there is more to this list. Now I want you to do this, but you have to write it in Greek. Greek like Hebrew has a thing called gametria. All letters have a numerical value. When you have written the genealogy, the gametrical value will also be divisible by 7. That is insane, to be a greek verb a word has to meet 5 specifications. And this is the first 17 verses of Mathew, the genealogy of Jesus Christ in the original greek.
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 9:05am
  @Inthatday,
  Thanks for the compliment. Not sure who you identify as ACM, but I’m actually only addressing atheists such as Mod here, because they claim logic and evidence disprove Christianity. With an audience that can handle meat, I’ll give meat. This is milk. I’m glad you looked into Piatt, though. Hallowell is doing a great job putting stuff out there from a wide variety of Christians with very little bias so that we can judge for ourselves, IMHO.
  @Mod
  Hold still and argue straight. I’m not going to let you move the goalposts.
  You want to concede that my “version” of God is more fair than the others, fine, but it‘s not my problem that you’re getting so confused with the differing doctrines about the nature of God, sin, and the test of mortality. My “version” is standard, biblical, and holds with a solid internal logic. You don’t have to agree with it because you stand on the outside unwilling to accept the first premise, but if the premise is accepted even you should agree the rest follows impeccably logically. But then, that’s just the point, isn’t it: accepting a premise is synonymous with having faith, which is what Christians claim to do.
  What’s logically out of bounds, then, isn’t what follows if the premise is accepted, it’s that you projecting: Christians are the ones that look at all the evidence; you’re the one who discards half of it because to allow it would mean accepting the first premise.
  cont…
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 9:21am
  @Mod
  You claim, for example, that Christians are oblivious to the bad things going on in the world around them, which, IF they accepted the premise that God was responsible for it all (which you claim they do, but are really severely twisting–that’s NOT what we actually believe), they’d have to admit their God was a cruel and heartless thug.
  But you’re the one discarding the rest of the idea without due consideration. God‘s actions aren’t limited to the mortal period you can observe. He has time to set things right in the eternities, even if He IS the one “in control”. If you want to argue that God is unjust, you can’t start by accepting the Christian idea of God to argue from, then changing the goalposts (your signature move, apparently), and accepting only PART of the idea of God. That would be falling prey to the apples vs. oranges logical fallacy.
  The fact is, you misrepresent God at every turn BEFORE attacking the idea of Him. Without misrepresentation, you’re left with no arguments.
  Case in point: God is omniscient, BUT He has allotted the mortal period as a testing space wherein humankind is FREE to DISOBEY him for a time. Within that logic, all the evil people do to each other is FULLY explained, and the vicissitudes of life are theorized as part of the test itself. The point is that justice will be rendered NOT during this life.
  p.s. I maintain Trolltrainer’s analogy holds for its purpose and only its purpose. Your poor interpretation is what’s wrong
  Report Post »
- SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 9:56am
  @ MOD….You are right about one thing. God does write the rules per se. However, You seem to ignore the fact that while God is merciful and loving he is also Just and wrathful. When we elevate one characteristic of God over others we end up with something less than God. Since He is holy and righteous and sovereign He cannot be defiled by sin or evil. The penalty for sin or evil (which is defined as hatred of God) is death or the shedding of blood as it is referred to in the word sometimes. So God had a “dilemma” he loves us and wants us to be redeemed and with him, but he is also Just and must punish sin or He ceases to be God. Satan knew this when he went after humanity in Genesis. The solution: God himself would take the place of man and receive the penalty in the person of Jesus Christ so that by faith in that action man might be saved and redeemed. It is quite an act of love toward those who have hated God with all their being and actions. As for your argument about the young or the mentally disabled (which is a very old argument) it is established Christian belief that in God’s wisdom he is able to judge justly and that each person will receive acocrding to their accountability before God. While the Bible does not explicitly say where young children go when they die in infancy, it seems to imply that they go to heaven. 2 Samuel 12:22 seems to indicate babies will go to heaven. Is 7:15 seems to speak of an age of accountability. Thank you….
  Report Post »
- SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 10:44am
  @ MOD…you keep saying how you can be real good and if you don’t believe in Jesus you still go to hell. That is right according to the word I read. What you fail to see is that no matter what you do you have failed to keep the greatest commandment, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul”. Yet you don’t even consider this evil because your presupposition is that God does not exist, however, if you are wrong and He does exist (which He does) then you have broken the greatest of all commandments, I believe you would have to agree with this if in fact he does exist. Even in the best of intentions even our righteous deeds are corrupted by the evil we do. For example, I love brownies, I love to eat really good brownies. However, if I mixed in just a little dog pooh, not much but some (assuming your a GREAT person who has only sinned a little, which is not true of any of us but for the sake of discussion) then I sure would not it it even if the brownie still had the same chocolate and sugar. It has been tainted corrupted by the pooh and so is unacceptable to me. In the same way no matter how good you are your evil taints you and your deeds rendering them unacceptable to a holy God. Thank you….
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 12:24pm
  @HAPPYSTRETCHEDTHIN
  
  The only reason you say I misinterpret God at every turn is because as you said……you go into everything with the premise that your God is the essence of fairness. Therefore, anything that I say that comes across as bad to you, must be a misinterpretation. Therefore, any argument that I have for you, that paints your God in the negative MUST be false.
  
  As I said, you created a great system in which your premise will always be proven true.
  
  @Hippo
  Yes but here’s the thing. Your God is supposedly all knowing, therefore he created humans knowing they were going to “sin.“ Your God then created the system for how ”sin” can be forgiven is by a blood sacrifice. Your God creates a bunch of humans knowing that they won‘t accept him and that they’re going to spend an eternity in hell.
  
  Yes, I would agree with you on the 10 commandments thing and here’s the issue.
  
  Someone who accepts Jesus and obeys the 10 commandments can sit on their butt for their whole life and do nothing, and go to Heaven
  Another person can be nice, do charitable work, feed the hungry, clothe the naked and be a benefit to humanity, but because they didn’t accept Jesus, they’re going to hell.
  
  Your God is jealous and an egomaniac and MUST be loved. He sounds so human(so man made) to me that it’s ridiculous.
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 1:47pm
  @Mod,
  From the outside, the logic appears tautological. I have never denied this. But that’s not the problem. The problem is that all truth affirms itself when tested, so that refusing to test a truth doesn’t make it untrue, just untested. You admit that I’ve created a logical system in which God is always proven just and true. You’re quite right, and that‘s only a problem if it isn’t actually true. And the only way to find out is to test the premise, which means acting like it might be true to see if it gets confirmed. This is the very ESSENCE of the SCIENTIFIC method atheists hold as the only path to truth anyway, so it shouldn’t be such a foreign concept to you.
  To be fair, I said you misinterpret explanations, but that you misCHARACTERIZE God. They’re different operations. It’s not merely that you misread God, it’s that you refuse delivery on even thinking about Him clearly and honestly.
  For example: it’s YOUR idea that God allows people to obey 10 commandments and then be lazy, yet still enter heaven. That’s NOT what Hippo or any other Biblical Christian believes. The contradiction you think you’ve found is your own fantasy. So rather than congratulate yourself on your intelligence at finding fault, you should investigate honestly and remember that this period of mortality is a test. Therein are all your pseudo-arguments on the “unfairness” of a loving God placing people in conditions where they could fail stand answered: we CAN ALL PASS the test.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 5:47pm
  Mod,
  You are not addressing what I said.
  
  “The difference between us and less evolved life forms is that we have a higher intelligence than those animals.”
  
  God would have higher intelligence than us, wouldn’t he? You comments are indicative of putting human intelligence on the same level as God’s intelligence.
  
  For example, if there was a story in the bible about God killing a starving German artist in Vienna, you would make a moral judgement of God’s actions. It was wrong to kill the starving German artist. You would not be aware that the starving artist would become a dictator and cause untold misery around the world.
  
  “We are able to fully comprehend our thoughts and actions, and come to the conclusion that it’s not right to force someone else to have sex with you.”
  
  Who is this we? Obviously, we don’t all agree on that because women are still raped. Rape occurs in nature all the time. If we are just more evolved chimps, why is rape morally wrong?
  
  “We are able to come together and decide what we think is best to have a harmonious society.”
  
  The Nazis all came together and decided what the best way to have a harmonious society too. If morals are rooted in nothing you cannot say that the Nazis version of a harmonious society is worse than a Jeffersonian Constitutional republic.
  
  Your next response will use human suffering as the barometer of what is right and wrong. Animals suffer all the time in nature, why should humans be any different?
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 5:49pm
  Cont. @ Mod
  
  “This act of using our intelligence is hindered when we have a set of people who claim to have everything about morality all figured out and what’s worse is that these people claim that these “truths” were revealed to them and have a supernatural backing.”
  
  This comment is a red herring. The subject is about objective moral values or absolute values. You are changing the subject. Once again, your view dictates the default position is the law of the jungle but you are making moral judgments. Atheism dictates moral relativism. Pointing out that the collective has decided what is permissible doesn’t solve that problem with morals. The collective can decide that rape is good by your own rationale once a society decides something is good, it is.
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 6:31pm
  @Happy
  
  So then what you‘re saying is that accepting Jesus as your lord and savior isn’t the only thing required to enter Heaven. Current Christianity creates a contradictory loop of theology that says, “All you need is Jesus to enter Heaven” while also being able to say “faith without works is dead.” What you are saying is that someone who repents and asks Jesus to be their lord and savior and obeys the 10 commandments, will still get further judged on their actions?
  
  Um, that isn’t what the scientific process does at all.
  
  You go into premise with the idea that your god is the essence of fairness. If you get evidence to the contrary, you then look for a way to fit that evidence into your premise. In this case, you aren’t trying to prove your premise false, all evidence you find fits into your premise. We both know that this isn’t how the scientific process works.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 7:00pm
  “You go into premise with the idea that your god is the essence of fairness.”
  
  Even if God isn’t fair, so what? Atheism dictates that the strong survive and the weak don’t. The strong impose their will on the weak. God is strong and we are weak. Is it fair, that one animal is stronger than another?The default position for atheism is the law of the jungle. Is that fair?
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 7:02pm
  @KSTRET
  
  I addressed the point clearly. You talked about absolute morality and if there are no absolutes, that it would just be the “law of the jungle.” I said, what is different is that we are evolved and higher intelligence to discern what we will and won’t allow as a society.
  
  Well, since I think a God does exist, I would say that yes humans are more intelligent then a non-existent being.
  
  Let’s look at the mutilation of the genitals among children. We live in a society that says it’s okay to mutilate the genitals of a newborn baby boy, but not that of a girl. Why? What’s the difference? They are both forcefully altering the genitals of the child. If in the future, our society decides to not allow male genital mutilation, does it then become a moral absolute?
  
  Moral absolutes are defined after the fact and as you would have to agree, by a gathering of like minded individuals and deciding what we will and won’t allow. Surely because you believe something is a moral absolute, doesn’t then make it a moral absolute, ESPECIALLY if society on a whole thinks differently right?
  
  The only way morality can be defined is by humans and since times change, morality changes.
  
  There are likely tons of things now that are accepted/not accepted, that will not be accepted/or deemed acceptable.
  
  That doesn’t mean that they then become morally right/wrong.
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 7:35pm
  @KSTRET
  
  Why does it seem like you keep comparing Atheism to evolution?
  
  They are two different things.
  
  Atheism is just a rejection of a claim that a God exists
  
  Evolution is a model for how common day man came to be.
  
  Just because we came about through evolution by natural selection, doesn’t mean we as humans are then pigeon-holed into using that model to determine how we value human life(again, it goes to our higher form of intelligence).
  
  For instance
  
  You could have a guy who is 6′10 350lbs who values using his words to communicate ideas vs just using his physical prowess to get what he wants.
  
  We as humans(who as I have to keep repeating, are more intelligent) are then able to say, “wow, just because that guy is bigger doesn’t mean he is necessarily correct).
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 7:42pm
  Cont.
  “The only way morality can be defined is by humans and since times change, morality changes. ”
  
  If that is what you belief, it means morals are completely subjective and arbitrary. You have to be a moral relativist but you do not act like a moral relativist. You make moral judgements.That is a self contradictory position.
  
  “That doesn’t mean that they then become morally right/wrong.”
  
  You are misunderstanding the definition of objective moral values and moral absolutes. Once again, an objective moral value is something that is right or right regardless of how the culture views it.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 7:49pm
  Mod,”
  Why does it seem like you keep comparing Atheism to evolution?”
  
  Because you are misunderstanding what I am saying. The subject is morals. If atheism is true the default position is the law of the jungle. The default position is moral relativism. Morals are not rooted in nothing.
  
  You are attempting to root moral in the cultural collective. When you do that you cannot tell me why something is right or wrong. The answer is to that question the culture deems something permissible. If a culture deems murdering babies for fun is permissible, it is. If that is what you believe you should not make moral judgements.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 7:57pm
  “We as humans(who as I have to keep repeating, are more intelligent) are then able to say, “wow, just because that guy is bigger doesn’t mean he is necessarily correct).”
  
  He can also gather together a group of people who are bigger and stronger and kick the crap or kill all the people who disagree with him. What is that wrong?
  
  If you are saying that the people who believe it is wrong to impose your will on someone because they are weaker are more evolved or more intelligent, you are affirming that objective moral values are real. You are just using the term ‘more evolved’ or ‘more intelligent in replace of OMV.
  
  Unfortunately, you still have the problem of OMV being rooted in nothing and are completely arbitrary. Who seez that using your strength to impose your will is wrong? I say it’s right.
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 8:16pm
  @Mod,
  You have accurately described an apparent “contradiction” WITHIN Christianity that forms the basis for a huge debate WITHIN Christianity. It’s mostly semantics, but for someone who doesn’t believe the common premises of EITHER SIDE of the debate to claim Christianity is self-contradictory, is disingenuous. Both sides find interpretations of the Bible which confirm their internally logical way of reconciling the other side’s verses. That admission made, I still submit that correct analysis can only conclude that judgment is based on actions, one of which MUST include accepting Christ in the way He requires, and that everyone will get maximum reward for everything they do good no matter their access to Christianity in mortality.
  On the scientific process. You’re twisting before attacking AGAIN. YOU’RE the one fabricating the idea that Christians refuse delivery on evidence. When we honestly and sincerely act like Christ is our Savior, that HYPOTHESIS (NOT premise) comes back confirmed, so we continue seeking further confirmation by continuing the experiment.
  What YOU fabricate as “evidence” to the contrary already falls well within the CONTEXT of our experiment, so only from the OUTSIDE does it appear contradictory.
  When you’re honest about what the test parameters are, you can no longer claim that Christians stupidly reason only in self-fulfilling prophecies. Instead, your own reasoning is revealed as continuous fallacies of category mixing.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 8:30pm
  Mod,
  “Just because we came about through evolution by natural selection, doesn’t mean we as humans are then pigeon-holed into using that model to determine how we value human life(again, it goes to our higher form of intelligence).”
  
  Atheism dictates that evolution is true. Evolution is the only game in town for atheists. If atheism is true the default position for morals is moral relativism. When you make a moral judgment you are saying morals do not exist but it’s wrong to steal. That doesn’t make any sense.
  
  It’s wrong to do X, but X doesn’t exist.
  
  That is a logically incoherent position.
  
  When you use the term “evolution” in the context or morals you are affirming that objective moral values are real. To say an American Jeffersonian Constitutional republic is more evolved than Nazi fascism, is affirming that objective moral values are true. You are saying the same thing as an American Jeffersonian Constitutional republic is objectively morally better than Nazi fascism.
  
  You still are the problem or morals being rooted in nothing.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 8:31pm
  Mod,
  “Just because we came about through evolution by natural selection, doesn’t mean we as humans are then pigeon-holed into using that model to determine how we value human life(again, it goes to our higher form of intelligence).”
  
  Atheism dictates that evolution is true. Evolution is the only game in town for atheists. If atheism is true the default position for morals is moral relativism. When you make a moral judgment you are saying morals do not exist but it’s wrong to steal. That doesn’t make any sense.
  
  It’s wrong to do X, but X doesn’t exist.
  
  That is a logically incoherent position.
  
  When you use the term “evolution” in the context or morals you are affirming that objective moral values are real. To say an American Jeffersonian Constitutional republic is more evolved than Nazi fascism, is affirming that objective moral values are true. You are saying the same thing as an American Jeffersonian Constitutional republic is objectively morally better than Nazi fascism.
  
  You still have the problem or morals being rooted in nothing.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 8:39pm
  Mod,
  “When you’re honest about what the test parameters are, you can no longer claim that Christians stupidly reason only in self-fulfilling prophecies.’
  
  Let me piggy back on Happy’s point. If Christians are incredibly stupid and just take everything on faith without any evidence, you must have an alternative theory on Jesus. You must have looked at the historic data and made a reasoned alternative hypothesis on who Jesus was. What is your alternative hypothesis?
  
  If it is stupid to assert it is true that God exists without any evidence, it must be equally stupid to assert it is true that God doesn’t exist without any evidence. What is your evidence in favor of atheism?
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 10:55pm
  @Happy
  
  “Both sides find interpretations of the Bible which confirm their internally logical way of reconciling the other side’s verses. ”
  
  So much for an inerrant and literal word of God.
  
  “When we honestly and sincerely act like Christ is our Savior, that HYPOTHESIS (NOT premise) comes back confirmed, so we continue seeking further confirmation by continuing the experiment.”
  
  That is not what we’re talking about here. We are talking about you claiming that your “premise” is that God is the essence of fairness, and then compared your premise to the scientific process. I also didn’t say you refuse evidence. I said, ” If you get evidence to the contrary, you then look for a way to fit that evidence into your premise”
  
  The difference is, the scientific process is trying to determine whether or not something is true. If evidence is supported to the contrary, then they don’t try to fit that evidence into their premise.
  
  Given by your own statement, you aren’t trying to prove Christianity is true. You’ve already determined it to be true and thus must make the evidence contrary fit into your model.
  
  You can say that I “fabricate” evidence all you want, I just find it ironic that this whole chain of posts started off with a Christian saying, “Exactly right! ” in how I described Christianity(one of the MANY ways it can be described).
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 11:14pm
  @Kstret
  
  I understand what you’re saying, but that’s exactly my point. Just because we‘ve evolved from natural selection doesn’t mean that our higher intellect can’t make choices.
  
  “Right” and “Wrong” are a way to describe actions. It’s why nowadays when someone says, “Oh man you’re bad!” some people might say, “wait, good bad or bad bad?”
  
  Because morality is relative, you will always have people who agree/disagree. With moral absolutes you’re arguing with an ideal that can never come to fruition. There are still people who want to enslave other people. There are still people who don’t like other people solely because of the color of their skin.
  
  Hopefully there are enough people who individually feel that we can’t allow those things.
  
  Obviously here I am talking about how I view the world.
  
  “If you are saying that the people who believe it is wrong to impose your will on someone because they are weaker are more evolved or more intelligent, you are affirming that objective moral values are real. ”
  
  So what makes something an absolute moral value? Majority opinion?
  
  “Who seez that using your strength to impose your will is wrong? I say it’s right.” You say it’s right, and that’s your choice and it has been used before and will be used again.
  
  I say that for me it‘s wrong and wouldn’t do that.
  
  That’s what makes us different :)
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:26am
  @KStret
  
  Forgot to address your other points.
  
  Who was Jesus? I don’t know. There are no contemporary accounts of him outside of the Bible. It could possibly be he was a Jewish Rabbi who really thought he was a messiah. He could have been a deluded individual. He could have been a con man.
  
  Some of the stories about him could be true at a simple level and then as they were passed on they turned into something more supernatural.
  
  My evidence in favor of Atheism? I’m rejecting your claim, but I’ll humor you.
  
  I look at the individual people of each religion and see how they all reject the existence of other religion’s Gods. I look at how we view the Gods of before Judaism and now prescribe to the notion that they never really existed. I then come to the conclusion that I think it’s more likely that no God exists.
  
  I look at the hypocrisy that I see in religions around the world.
  That they can say, “God is good” when something good happens then utter ,”God is mysterious.“ or ”Who are we to know God’s will?” when something bad happens. If God is always good, then the only correct response when 10,000 kids are wiped out in a Tsunami would be “God is good”
  
  I look at how made man and thought up the stories are in the Bible, Quran, etc are. I look at how an all powerful being could come across seeming so human(jealously, demanding love, etc)
  
  I could go on, but those aren’t evidence for a God not existing, just why I don’t think one d
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 12:32am
  @KStret
  
  I‘m not saying that i don’t think evolution occurred. I’m saying that evolution by natural selection is only a model for how humans came to be. It is therefore not a system of morality.
  
  I understand that Atheism is moral relativism, which is why I am saying morality is relative. I”m not sure of your point here.
  
  I can personally saying that “I think stealing is wrong” while also saying “moral absolutes don’t exist.”
  
  The idea of moral absolutes would have to extend beyond the viewpoint of one person.
  
  Again, what makes a moral, an absolute one? Because a majority of people prescribe it as one? That would be just as relative as anything else because soon people could simply say that it’s not a moral absolute and suddenly be in favor of it.
  
  Morality changes from person to person, from family to family, from generation to generation. We come together as a society and decide what we will and won’t allow. There is nothing absolute about the way we live our lives in terms of morality. There are a bunch of shades of grey that are filled in and those shades change over time depending on how we are raised and what kind of society we want to live in.
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 9:21am
  @Mod,
  “That‘s not what we’re talking about here”
  Wow, you have BOTH a penchant for distortion AND a short memory.
  That’s EXACTLY what we were talking about. You‘ve just forgotten that we’ve established some parameters for the experiment, one of them being that it‘s out of bounds to test one eternal aspect of God’s nature as if it were in a vacuum, limit your evidence to mortality (which is inadequately to the claim of that aspect’s eternal nature), and then refuse delivery on any and all explanatory context (the THEORY we’re testing!), insisting that your work is finished and the experiment failed upon the first outlying data point.
  It‘s your experiment DESIGN that’s flawed, not the evidence proving your hypothesis wrong. Your hypothesis is dishonest in the first place, based on all kinds of fallacy. Your experiment would be like mixing flour, eggs and yeast, baking, eating, and then declaring: “YUP, just as I thought: cakes are NOT sweet”. (Hint, it was YOU who forgot the sugar).
  Christians don’t fraudulently scramble to fit disproving evidence back into their theory. The context of their theory already predicts what you’ve falsely been calling “contrary evidence”. It’s YOU who are mislabeling, and then attempting to reason. Get your categories right first, and an honest experiment can begin.
  Christians ALSO want to know IF it’s true that God has the nature He says He does, and the fact that it gets confirmed AS true, doesn’t trouble them.
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:08pm
  @Happy
  
  Note, I was saying “that‘s not what we’re talking about” to you saying, ““When we honestly and sincerely act like Christ is our Savior, that HYPOTHESIS (NOT premise) comes back confirmed, so we continue seeking further confirmation by continuing the experiment.””
  
  That wasn’t the original hypothesis, it was saying that your God is the essence of fairness. That‘s why I said it’s not what we’re talking about.
  
  You are then trying to make a connection that anybody who goes in with the notion that Christ is your savior, must come to the same conclusion you did. If they don’t, well then they didn’t follow the experiment correctly.
  
  I don’t know of any single Christian that goes into every aspect with the “hypothesis” that God is the essence of fairness. They go into everything KNOWING that God is the essence of fairness and all evidence must fit that. That isn’t the scientific process. You say Christians don’t do this, but I constantly see Christians who do.
  
  It’s why when they come across something that seems unfair, they go from saying, “God is good” to “God is mysterious.“ I constantly hear ”God is good” after someone gets a pleasant gift. I have never heard someone say, “God is good” after someone dies. If God is always good, the only response should be “God is good.”
  
  I won’t get into Christianity(religion) denying science because it was against their belief, only to later accept it as “always being a part of the
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:21pm
  Sorry all. I misposted. Here’s the thread that was intended for: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-difficult-but-necessary-letter-shocking-letter-from-a-father-disowning-his-gay-son-goes-viral/#comment-3877726
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:34pm
  @HAPPYSTRETCHEDTHIN
  
  You personally may go into everything with the “hypothesis” that your God is the essence of fairness. That would then assume that you’re actually testing to see if that hypothesis is true.
  
  I know tons of Christians who don’t think that way, and I think if you were honest with yourself, you would say you go into everything KNOWING that God is the essence of fairness. That would make your entire hypothesis, and any subsequent testing you did irrelevant because you aren’t objectively trying to see if your hypothesis is true or not. This whole chat is about you saying your premise is the same as using the scientific method.
  
  You have a very certain viewpoint of Christianity, one that is different then many other Christians in the world. I feel like I could have a discussion with 5 different Christians, and get 5 different viewpoints on Jesus and the afterlife.
  
  I have had discussions with Pastors, and when I really press them on something, I hear what I view are irrational justifications. A friend who is a Pastor(a calvinists) once told me that he thinks there will be a great awakening and that most everyone would turn to Jesus(in response to me asking why God would create people knowing they would go to hell). He then used God telling Abraham that his “descendants would as numerous as the stars in the sky”, as the rationalization for an awakening(forgetting that the way is supposedly narrow).
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 1:35pm
  @Mod
  Stay focused bro. the goalposts haven’t moved, you‘ve just forgotten they’re not where you think they should be (as a result of your own faulty thinking).
  the Christian God’s fairness IS the original experiment, and is only testable via acting as if Christ is the Savior because otherwise the experimental design is flawed as demonstrated (not going through it all again here, scroll up and read without twisting).
  there‘s nothing unscientific about asking someone who claims to get different conclusions from the same evidence to review their experiment’s design. The only fraud here is that you claim we refuse delivery on contrary evidence. You’re the one who defines the evidence as contradictory (as explained earlier, scroll up, read without twisting).
  It‘s also not uncommon for scientists to get evidence they can’t yet explain with their current theory, so they revisit the theory and attempt to explain the new phenomena. You’re misreading your Christian acquaintances (as you do with everything else religion-based). They’re not disengaging their brains with the phrase “God is mysterious”, they’re admitting the need for more understanding, and curiosity to design more experiments about Him.
  p.s. I said God is good when my grandma died a few weeks ago, because I have a good idea what is awaiting her soul.
  p.p.s. Denial of science is abuse of Christian principles, not caused by them. Always has been. The Church =/= the principles it teaches.
  Report Post »
- HappyStretchedThin
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:08pm
  @ Mod,
  Look. There ARE debates within Christianity, but I’m not the one attacking it from the outside as if it were all one thing I could attack. You get 5 different versions of Christianity from 5 different versions of it, then the problem is that YOU‘RE the one treating them as monolithic and then complaining there’s internal division. My version maintains there’s only one true version , but recognizes all other versions think the same so we agree to agree where we agree. Your problem is you disingenuously refuse to entertain ANY ONE of their internal logic to test its truth, and then claim they’re all equally wrong.
  Also, I‘ve given God plenty of chances to prove He’s unfair, and when I’m honest with myself, He’s just never been. Which is exactly predicted by the theory, and is therefore no surprise. If you test whether an apple seed produces apples, you shouldn’t be surprised at the pies you can make. Your problem is that you won’t entertain the idea that it CAN be true that God is fair. Be honest.
  p.s. when you soften your dogmatism to phrases like “what I view are irrational justifications”, the “what I view” part gives me hope for your future objectivity. Cheers. On to newer threads for me.
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 2:50pm
  @HAPPYSTRETCHEDTHIN
  
  “The only fraud here is that you claim we refuse delivery on contrary evidence.”
  
  That‘s the second time you’ve accused me of that, which I don‘t think I’ve ever done. I’ve claimed that you use contradictory evidence and fit it into your premise. You therefore aren’t refusing contradictory evidence, you are accepting it but you fit it into your model to support your premise/hypothesis.
  
  “They’re not disengaging their brains with the phrase “God is mysterious”, they’re admitting the need for more understanding, and curiosity to design more experiments about Him.”
  
  I’ve never seen someone say, “God is mysterious” and then look deeper into why the bad event supposedly happened.
  
  “Also, I‘ve given God plenty of chances to prove He’s unfair, and when I’m honest with myself, He’s just never been. Which is exactly predicted by the theory, and is therefore no surprise. ”
  
  How exactly? Have you actually thought about why things had to happen the way they did? Have you ever questioned what your God does? Have you ever looked at something WITHOUT the premise that he is the essence of fairness?
  
  “p.s. when you soften your dogmatism to phrases like “what I view are irrational justifications”, the “what I view” part gives me hope for your future objectivity”
  
  I’ve never stated anything about my views as fact as it would be silly to do so.
  
  Sorry for the loss of your Grandma.
  
  Be well.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 7:18pm
  Mod
  “I‘m not saying that i don’t think evolution occurred. I’m saying that evolution by natural selection is only a model for how humans came to be.”
  
  Since evolution is the model for how humans came to be, that has ramifications for morals. Once again, if you believe that evolution explains everything, the default position for morals is the law of the jungle. Evolution dictates that. You have affirmed you believe this.
  
  “I understand that Atheism is moral relativism, which is why I am saying morality is relative. I”m not sure of your point here…….I can personally saying that “I think stealing is wrong” while also saying “moral absolutes don’t exist.”
  
  You are misunderstanding moral relativism. It doesn’t mean that morals are whatever the culture dictates. It means morals are completely arbitrary, therefore a person believes that morals are all relative. That is to say, they don’t believe in the concept of right and wrong. You are saying that you don‘t believe right and wrong exists but it’s wrong to steal. That is self contradictory.
  
  “The idea of moral absolutes would have to extend beyond the viewpoint of one person.”
  
  In other words, the collective decides what is right or wrong. If the collective decides that eradicating the Jewish race is good, you shouldn’t have a problem with that.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 7:20pm
  Cont@Mod
  Your response to that point will be to argue that the people who believe that it is wrong to eradicate the Jewish race are more evolved. When you say one view point is more evolved than another, you are affirming that objective moral values are true.
  
  The problem is you believe morals are illusionary and the people who want to eradicate the Jewish race can also claim they are more evolved than the people who believe it’s wrong. Morals are completely subjective., therefore, you cannot say one view is better than the other.
  
  “Again, what makes a moral, an absolute one? Because a majority of people prescribe it as one?”
  
  Despite being told the definition of an objective moral values, you still are misunderstanding the concept. An objective moral value is something that is right or wrong regardless of the culture. It is objectively wrong to murder babies for fun even if the culture deems it permissible. You can not say that and if you do you are contradicting yourself.
  
  “We come together as a society and decide what we will and won’t allow. ”
  
  The Nazis came together and decided what they would and would not allow. You don’t have a problem with that, is that correct?
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:17pm
  Mod,
  “Who was Jesus? I don’t know. There are no contemporary accounts of him outside of the Bible”
  
  That is completely False.
  
  “It could possibly be he was a Jewish Rabbi who really thought he was a messiah. He could have been a deluded individual. He could have been a con man.”
  
  You accused Christians of being stupid because they were taking Christianity on faith and no evidence. Yet, your response to my questions are indicative of someone who hasn’t bothered to look at the evidence before making up your mind.
  
  “Some of the stories about him could be true at a simple level and then as they were passed on they turned into something more supernatural.”
  
  That isn’t accurate either. The church started after Pentecost, which was 50 days after Jesus’ Crucifixion. Even scholars that are not Christians concede that the apostles believed that Jesus was resurrected.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:20pm
  “My evidence in favor of Atheism? I’m rejecting your claim,”
  
  There is no other example that you would accept someone making the claim they do not have a burden of proof. You are not just rejecting my claim that God exists.You are accepting the claim that God doesn’t exist.You do have an explanatory burden.
  
  “I look at the individual people of each religion and see how they all reject the existence of other religion’s Gods.”
  
  There could be a God and each religion could be wrong.
  
  “I look at how we view the Gods of before Judaism and now prescribe to the notion that they never really existed. I then come to the conclusion that I think it’s more likely that no God exists.”
  
  This is not evidence.
  
  ” If God is always good, then the only correct response when 10,000 kids are wiped out in a Tsunami would be “God is good””
  
  In other words, because bad things happen that means there is no God. If God did exist bad things wouldn’t happen. People would be incapable of doing bad things. This would make God a dictator. This view dictates that humans can’t have free will.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 9, 2012 at 8:22pm
  “I look at how made man and thought up the stories are in the Bible, Quran, etc are. ”
  
  You haven’t bothered to look at the bible. You don’t have a alternative hypothesis of Jesus and you are basing your opinion on things that are not true.
  
  One one hand, you are claiming that Christians are stupid because they didn’t base their opinion on evidence, which is not true, but on the hand, you are not basing your opinion on evidence either. You don’t have any evidence in favor of atheism but you are an atheist. By your own rationale you should be calling yourself stupid.
  Report Post »
- Godfixated
  Posted on August 11, 2012 at 4:58pm
  What’s sad that most of these “cliches” can easily be found and supporter in scripture. So, apparently, the Word is cliche. Just take the cliche, “When God closes a door, He opens a window.” This is a somewhat paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 10:13, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” After reading this article, I wrote a pretty in depth Biblical answer to it on my blog. If you would like to read it, the link is as follows:
  
  http://godfixated.blog.com/2012/08/10/cliches-of-christian-universalism/
  Report Post »
jlastc
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:53pm
A provocative list, but unfortunately, the writer has a limited grasp of scripture and logic.

1. Heresy? Jesus himself said “I am the way, the truth and the life. NO MAN comes to the father but through me.” So what’s the argument? Is the writer for universalism, or does he believe Islam is as valid as Christianity? Or does he believe that this is unknowable?

2. No, “When God closes a door, He opens a window” means he will find a place for you to stand. That if you face disappointment, God has not abandoned you. He is “working all things together for good.“ It does NOT mean God ”did it to you.” I too have a problem with this phrase but get the meaning right.
3. Duh.
4. That’s reasonable, provided you don‘t believe anyone can speak into another person’s life. That since we should let God be God, we should refrain from giving ANY wisdom or insight. This basically denies the validity of counselors, teachers and prophets.

5. False reading. “There, but for the grace of God, go I” does refers to disappointment, but not meaning the person” is not the recipient of God’s grace.” It expresses the belief that sin carries real temporal consequences. Rather than assuming that we’re all in a state of perpetual bliss except for sinners who screw things up, life is a state of natural depravity and God’s grace prevents some of us sinners from our reasonable consequences. It suggests that we are subject to the same impulses as others who have fallen, so
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
TomSawyer
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:49pm
Why is The Blaze posting these anti-Christian ideas? He writes: “I’m sure you have the scriptures at the ready to support it.” Yes we do. What do you have? You have a human centric value system that is directly arguing against the scripture. Christian Piatt is arguing against Christianity in a clever way.
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
brussell16
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:45pm
“For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.”
I Timothy 2:5 (emphasis added)
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- TMink
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:00pm
  Good quote pal. Another one is that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. This guy is not a Bible believing Christian, he is Christian-like, someone who wants to accept the moral teaching of Christ without accepting the difficult things Christ said.
  
  He needs our prayers, as well as our rebuke.
  
  Trey
  Report Post »
BIgWheeler
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:45pm
Once again everyone fails to see the point this man is making. He’s not commenting on the truth or fiction of any of these points. He’s trying to help people share their faith without sounding like a dick. Judging by the comments, this is something that would benifit most of you.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- nzkiwi
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:32pm
  I was with you right up until the last sentence.
  
  As a side note, I had to smile at the “Editors note”, which Mr Hallowell used to scramble out of the way of the expected pie-throwing.
  
  It reminds me of a story about the SAS in North Africa (WW2).
  
  The SAS were attacking one of Rommel’s airfields in a night raid. One of them opened up the door to the officer’s mess and tossed in a grenade saying “Here, catch” and then slammed the door shut. (Apparently an astonished officer did, in fact, catch it.)
  
  Anyway…
  Report Post »
- trolltrainer
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:48pm
  When you water down Christian doctrine because you are afraid it might offend someone than YOU are being the dick! It is our job to preach THE GOSPEL, not worry about who accepts it or doesn’t!!! That is the mistake way too many Christians make. It is the Holy Spirit that opens their eyes, not us!
  
  This man means well…They all do…But the fact is he is doing Christ a great disservice by allowing people to believe things other than what Scripture makes blatantly clear.
  Report Post »
- DWilliams08
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 7:59pm
  Excellent summation.
  Report Post »
- TomSawyer
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 8:37pm
  We are not missing the point. His suggestions are implying something that is antithetical to the Bible. For example: “Christianity is the only way to God/Heaven. ” is the opposite of Jesus’ own words:
  
  “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
  
  There is no room for any interpretation and it is fundamental to Christianity.
  Report Post »
brussell16
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:30pm
“. . . there are also some [texts] to support a more universalist notion of salvation . . .”
I’m sorry, but that statement is decidedly un-Christian. THIS IS THE REASON for the history of Christian martyrdom, and it is why the flesh and the Holy Spirit are incompatible. You cannot make that statement and proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord!
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- LeFaux Jew
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:14pm
  Not really…Jesus’s God, is the Saviour of mankind.
  Some Christians just haven’t figured this out yet, so they try to take their personal version of God the fearful mean Old Testament God, and convince people that the new improved Roman version is what they have to believe in through one of the multitude of salvation formulas they have come up with over the centuries.
  Report Post »
MatthewChapter24
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:30pm
I sure wish people would stop saying, “My bad.”
It makes adults sound like immature teens.
At least *try* to sound a little intelligent by using the Latin version: Mea culpa (LOL)
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- DWilliams08
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 8:08pm
  Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina.
  Report Post »
rsanchez1
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:27pm
Typical Progressive Protestant. Protestantism in America has been poisoned and the result is you get “resentment” of the Word of God from so-called “pastors”.
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
steve61lindsey
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:21pm
Well isn’t special!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewQzi4RhGQ&feature=related
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
thibx
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:14pm
JESUS is the only way, if you don‘t have him you an’t going. simple
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
emilyhasbooks
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:10pm
I wholeheartedly agree & welcome his thoughtfulness. More reflection like this would help all groups.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- thibx
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:16pm
  weird
  Report Post »
riseandshine
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:04pm
How about the cliche….“to each his own” ?.
Log in to Reply Reply
john vincent
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:04pm
Mr Platt has gone on record stating it is wrong to tell a person ‘Christ died for your sins….‘ What else can he now say to ’right the shipwreck of faith’ that he trafficks in?? It appears he is in opposition with that great man Paul, once Saul of Tarsus, who said ‘Christ died for our sins…according to the scriptures.’ It was not according to Paul, Peter, David, Moses, JOshua, Ezekiel, Adam, Nehemiah, Ezra, no it was ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES.

So a new top ten/nine list designed for one purpose: to take the edge off GOd’s word (which is sharper than any two edged sword) and to soften the needed blow of conviction. Now Mr Platt, I would also like to add:
that ‘He was buried, according to the scriptures…..
and that He rose again, according to the scriptures.’

Does this make me harsh, cruel, unloving, or just plain truthful?
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- steve61lindsey
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:18pm
  I agree John. Jesus said that the only way to God was through him. You may not lead with that fact, but it is absolutely essential.
  
  IMO, the biggest problem in the US is that sin (wrong) has now become right. Paul warned the church at Cornith, “9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
  
  So the bad news is that we are all sinners and God hates sin. But the good news is that God loves us and has established a way to save those who obey Him.
  Report Post »
- bartleby2012
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:00pm
  I read all 29 of the “cliches” when this series first appeared and the more I read the more I got the feeling that Mr. Piatt is just uncomfortable with scripture. And that he has a remarkably shallow understanding of scripture, especially the “good news” of the new testament. Come on man, you call yourself a Christian:
  
  ” That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” 2 Cor. 12:10
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:06pm
  @BARTLEBY2012
  
  This is your theology
  
  God, “Hey, I created you guys knowing that you’re going to sin. There is this really hot place that sinners go, and you don’t want to go there. Great news, you don’t have to go there! Just believe a human sacrifice was necessary for the sins I knew you were going to commit before I created you, and tada, no hot place for you to go to!”
  
  Absolute nonsense.
  Report Post »
- john vincent
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 8:07pm
  modern
  u posted to bartl.
  -u said it was HIS theology, when in fact,
  your description of GOd and His ways is
  YOUR theology. You have actually reasoned GOd out of the equation and ascribed His virtues in a way that is further defamatory-
  
  His ways are certainly not as you describe.
  And to be fair, I have examined your posts in this thread, and they bear one common theme:
  You neither know GOd nor His ways, but I’m sure you know that.
  Report Post »
- calypsocoral
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 1:54pm
  @ John Vincent
  “Does this make me harsh, cruel, unloving, or just plain truthful?”
  
  Arrogant, self-righteous, dogmatic, and know-it-all is more like it.
  
  Mr. Piatt didn‘t say that Christ didn’t die for your sins– what he said was that it is not a useful thing to say to a non-believer if you are trying to be a witness for Christ.
  
  Some of you really need to get out of your Bible-Belt Bubble and come up to the Northeast, where the culture is downright hostile to Christianity. It’s an eye-opener, and it forces you to learn to be an effective witness.
  
  So for those of you who refute Christian Piatt’s cliches, I ask you– how many non-believers have found Christ through you?
  Report Post »
jman-6
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:00pm
If this guy is ordained he should repent immediately and then publicly admit this by an apology! If he is so self-righteous as to defend his current position then he should be stripped of his ordination and other credentials. This nonsense should not even be put on the Blaze as its not good for discussion among Christians. As 1Timothy 4:7 says and Im paraphrasing “refuse participating in profane fables and myths that are nothing more than vain ungodly babblings as they are unprofitable to godliness!” I am pleading with The Blaze to use better judgement in running stories to spark conversation by at least vetting them with real biblical facts not some nonsense lacking any factual basis!!
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:06pm
  ” “refuse participating in profane fables and myths that are nothing more than vain ungodly babblings as they are unprofitable to godliness!” ”
  
  I read that as, “never question what you’ve been taught, as it has a chance of being proven untrue.”
  Report Post »
- jman-6
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:30pm
  Sorry your comprehension skills are that low. It re-enforces the fact that the bible is “The Infallible, Inerrant, Word of GOD!” translation the bible contains the TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, an NOTHING but the TRUTH so HELP ME GOD! Therefore dont take part in conversations that are contrary to the WORD of GOD! GOD is not the author of confusion SATAN is!! Hope this helps you out my friend, unless you seek not the TRUTH!! GOD SPEED
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:47pm
  There are many instances in where the Bible doesn’t tell the truth.
  
  Genesis account for creation is self contradictory
  Noah’s flood is a blatant lie
  Need I go on?
  
  What else you got?
  Report Post »
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 10:12pm
  http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/false.html
  Report Post »
- SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 10:34pm
  @ MOD…you seem very irritable today. The spirit of your posts seem different than usual. Typically your are not so outright insulting in your discussions with people of differing opinions. Everything OK?
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 1:12am
  @SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
  
  I get annoyed when people assert things are true with no evidence and then use stupidity to back up why they are asserting something is true.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 2:02am
  Mod,
  “I get annoyed when people assert things are true with no evidence and then use stupidity to back up why they are asserting something is true.”
  
  Tell me about it! Could you imagine if someone believed that atheism was true with no evidence and then used ……..
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 2:50am
  @KSTRET
  
  If you‘ve read anything I’ve said on here, I’ve never used the word “believe” to describe any view point I have on the world.
  
  I have given reasons why I think there is no God, but I surely haven’t asserted that I KNOW there is no God. I fully admit that while I haven’t seen evidence to support the claim that a God exists, and thus don’t think a God exists, that I can‘t be certain that one doesn’t exist. I also don‘t think you’re deserving an eternal punishment for not agreeing with me.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 6:18pm
  Mod,
  “If you‘ve read anything I’ve said on here, I’ve never used the word “believe” to describe any view point I have on the world.”
  
  We have had this discussion before. You couldn’t address my criticism then and now you are repeating exact same point.You are playing games with semantics. It doesn‘t matter if you used the exact word ’belief’ or not. You are constantly comparing God to fictitious creatures that no one in their right mind believes in. It doesn‘t matter if you used the exact word ’belief’ or not. You don’t believe in God. That is the definition of atheism.
  
  “I have given reasons why I think there is no God, but I surely haven’t asserted that I KNOW there is no God.”
  
  By comparing God to a fictitious creature, you are asserting that you know or are pretty close to knowing that God doesn’t exist.
  
  “I fully admit that while I haven’t seen evidence to support the claim that a God exists, and thus don’t think a God exists, that I can‘t be certain that one doesn’t exist.”
  
  Once again, an absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence. If you want the claim that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, make the case. You can’t do it, and all you are doing is repeating a catch phrase that is totally illogical.
  Report Post »
- KStret
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 6:22pm
  Cont.@MOD
  Secondly, you keep using the Richard Dawkins equitation technique:
  
  I don‘t know if God exists just like I don’t know if a winged monkey will fly out of my backside.
  
  You are saying that you do know God doesn’t exist because you do know that a winged monkey is not going to fly out of your backside. You don’t believe that a winged monkey is going to fly out of your backside. Nor do you believe that there is a tiny remote possibility that a winged monkey will fly out of your backside.
  
  By comparing the possibility that God might exist to the possibility that a winged monkey might fly out of your backside, you are saying that you believe that there is not even a remote tiny possibility that God exists even though you said you don’t know. Richard Dawkins is simply being disingenuous and you are parroting him.
  
  “I also don‘t think you’re deserving an eternal punishment for not agreeing with me.”
  
  You are putting yourself on God’s level.
  
  “when people assert things are true with no evidence”
  
  If it is stupid to assert it is true that God exists without any evidence, it must be equally stupid to assert it is true that God doesn’t exist without any evidence too. What is your evidence in favor of atheism?
  Report Post »
makeemstop
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:58pm
I don’t agree with #1 at all… especially if you read the entire chapter (in context). Pulling this snippet out and redefining the intent is wrong.

2 verses later, John 1:12 says “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God”.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- Docrow
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:11pm
  yup!
  Report Post »
- Mutiny
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:17pm
  Very true. Not all humans are the children of God. We are adopted children after we accept Jesus Christ died for our sins. Jesus Christ of the Bible is the only way to Heaven. There are many faiths that believe just being a good person or their god is the same god just with a different name who will be sadly mistaken.
  Report Post »
DEFCON4
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:58pm
Sounds like the Pastor has the Politically Correct Virus !
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- kickagrandma
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:08pm
  YES!
  
  Far too many preach without courage and without truth. Don’t know who they think they are fooling, but the ONE IN WHOSE NAME they preach is not pleased with the lies.
  
  PRAY FOR DISCERNMENT for people in churches who in way too many cases are being led astray.
  
  PRAY FOR EARS TO HEAR AND EYES TO SEE THE TRUTH OF GOD, not man’s best guesses.
  
  PRAY FOR BOLDNESS AND COURAGE FOR CHRIST-FOLLOWERS.
  Report Post »
- DEFCON4
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:50pm
  Amen, Grandma. True preaching comes from one’s Heart. This p/c baloney must stop! GOD Bless…
  Report Post »
gbfreak
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:55pm
This is a wimps guide to the Christain Faith….like a PC Bible….the sanitation of our beliefs. The only one that I might agree with is God helps those who help themselves – since it’s not really a reference. I tend to believe more like…God doesn’t give us more than we can handle!
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:01pm
  “the bible for dummies”?
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:04pm
  “God doesn’t give us more than we can handle.”
  
  I don’t think that was ever explicitly stated in the Bible.
  
  Another “feel good” Christian phrase?
  Report Post »
- jayhague
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:28pm
  GBFREAK,
  
  Funny you should bring up that phrase “God doesn‘t give us anything we can’t handle,” because I just wrote a blog post about that. I’m a father of an autistic son, and many people use that phrase to make people like me feel better. But it’s not in the bible. It’s a misquote of 1 Cor 10:13, which is talking about sin and temptation. Here’s the article, if you’re interested, although you might disagree…
  
  http://jasonhague.com/2012/08/06/fighting-autism-with-lame-theology/
  Report Post »
- rlmeals
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 3:43pm
  Here is the verse: “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”
  
  It’s basically the same principle, we’ve just shortened it down to a common phrase. Same thing as with “spare the rod spoil the child.” That’s not in the bible either, but Proverbs tells us he that spares the rod of discipline hates his child. So really, it’s the same principle. It’s just a technicality when people say, “That’s not in the bible!”
  Report Post »
searching for the Truth
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:53pm
I‘ve heard the Lord’s voice twice in my life – the first came partly from fear, and the second out of love for Him.
Log in to ReplyReply
- God_Is_Not
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 9:29pm
  You might want to get checked out. In the meantime, you should stay away from elementary schools and sharp objects.
  Report Post »
- searching for the Truth
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 10:35pm
  I kept my kids safe – home schooled – away from the likes of people like you.
  Report Post »
kickagrandma
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:51pm
MAYBE, this man is very young.

I hope this man is NOT in the position of a CHRISTIAN pastor (see answer to Number 1). he may very well be like jimwallis or jeremiahwrong or even jeloosteen. he appears to be well meaning, but deceived. Belief in JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN. All else pales in comparison to this answer and nothing else matters.
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
searching for the Truth
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:49pm
One has to repent – knowing wrong has to come in somewhere, or one gets nowhere.
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
JTOWN21
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:48pm
Christianity = Christ. You lost me on point one. Jesus is the ONLY way. Stop being luke warm about this and professs Christ as Savior.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- Exrepublisheep
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:07pm
  Hia argument isn’t against your point, it’s just how perhaps to present your belief “should believers wish to more adequately and seamlessly reach others with their faith.“ Too many ”Christians” use Jesus as a battering ram to belittle others whenever there’s a disagreement. Is there a bigger threat than “You’re going to burn in hell forever”? The authors point is to present Christianity as as a better way of life and a way to peace and happiness, not to present like a muslim, my way or eternal hell for you…
  Report Post »
- Wilbur D Pig
  Posted on August 8, 2012 at 5:59am
  Excellent point EXREP. Christ wants others to hear the message, but even He moderated his message so as to appeal to various audiences (parables, anyone?). If you treat everyone with the forcefulness that He used on the Pharisees and Sadducees, you will lose them not because they rejected the message, but because they rejected the way the messenger delivered it. Then someday, many people will stand before Him and say they preached of Him, but then they’ll realize they did not preach LIKE Him. Do you honestly think Christ would walk around with a sign that says, “GOD HATES ****”? All the author is trying to do is explain that in order to appeal to some people; you must be cognizant of the manner in which you present it. Otherwise you appear to be a cook and you have failed the Savior in sharing His gospel.
  Report Post »
searching for the Truth
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:47pm
Billy. God’s Word is the Unadulterated Truth – unless one first fears Him ( as one would fear their father ) , then Wisdom from Him is not given – simple logic – written Word .
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
rlmeals
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:47pm
I refrained from commenting on the last two stories about this guy, but I can’t hold my tongue any longer. I’m not going to argue each point; I’m just going to say that there are many false prophets, many who will call themselves Christians yet teach false doctrine, and many who will mislead us. This guy is one of them. Nuff said.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- DimmuBorgir
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:54pm
  I completely agree
  Report Post »
- gbfreak
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:59pm
  Leftest politically correct bull crap.
  Report Post »
DimmuBorgir
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:45pm
I do not like these lists. I don’t need someone to tell me how I profess my beliefs. Especially when it’s a list of ways to be a Christian, just not too much
Report Post » Log in to Reply Reply
woodyl1011fl
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:44pm
Pastor Piatt, the Scriptures address the truth related to each of your statements and can be presented in loving way. Your suggestions give the impression that God’s word is not to be considered in the Gospel presentation.
Report Post » Log in to ReplyReply
- DimmuBorgir
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:47pm
  I agree, he points to scripture and then says to ignore it
  Report Post »
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 4:58pm
  He actually says the exact opposite in one of his points
  
  I see and hear Christians go around saying a lot of “feel good” phrases that aren’t backed up in the Bible.
  Report Post »
- TomSawyer
  Posted on August 7, 2012 at 5:55pm
  I agree too.
  
  “Christianity is the only way to God/Heaven. ” This is what Jesus said when he said:”"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
  
  I find TheBlaze helping this guy twist Christianity very disturbing. If they post this guys twisted view of Christianity one more time I will never come back to TheBlaze web site again.
  Report Post »

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.