The good atheist

[my_little_pony]

I said:

Look at C4E's comments. [paraphrasing here:] He said it didn't matter if the spirit of what I was saying is consistent with the scripture. If I didn't use the exact same words, then it's wrong. Sounds like old-bottle thinking. That's not meant to be an insult, but just an observation which I feel is relevant.

You replied:

You are incorrect in either instance to infer what you did to any of my posts.

And then in the same post, a few lines later:

By the way I prefer old wine skin type of thinking.

You are correct, C4E. I do not understand most of what you say. Earlier you said that if the the point I made is the same as what's in the Bible then why would I change it. I responded by commenting that if the point is the same, then it is not changed. A lot of what you say just sounds like a mess of contradictions.

Again, I'm not trying to insult you, but that's just how it comes across to me. If you know that I'm not understanding you, maybe you could try rephrasing your point?

 

[will]

Hmm, I disagree. A lot of focus has been put on to the Samaritan/atheist substitution, but what about the priest and the levite? Aside from the fact that no one seemed to have a problem with me changing those two words (possibly because it was a change that did no conflict with people's understanding of who the "good guys" are), they VERY MUCH represent a "spiritual condition".

So we have three people in the story. Two of them are obviously meant to be the good guys and one of them is a spiritual unknown. Maybe he has some spirituality, but then again, maybe not, too.

The two spiritual guys, whom we would normally think of as the good guys BECAUSE of their spirituality chose to ignore their duty.

The guy we would normally not think of as the good guy BECAUSE of his LACK of spirituality chose to show love.

The priest and the Levite are there to represent what's considered good and worthy to the Jews at the time. Not to God, that's a big distinction.

I am perfectly okay with your substituting the priest and Levite with Christians today. But you have to ask the question, which Christians are we talking about?

You realize that those who profess to be Christians could be an immature or a mature one in regards to their spiritual condition (or more accurately, their relationship with the Lord).

1. Immature Christians, or as the apostle Paul call them "carnal" Christians, would behave like the priest and the Levite in the parable because they have not yet develop a strong relationship with God through the Lord and by the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures. Their motifs for action is not unlike an Atheist. Self, not God. But unlike the Atheists, these immature Christians have the potential to become mature, if they are willing to do what was prescribed in the Scriptures.

And to make matters worse, Immature Christians can have the title of Pastor, Church leader, Priest, Bible teacher/preacher, and TV Evangelists.

2. Mature Christians would behave like the Samaritan, because their perspective have been altered to be more attuned to God's by the work of the Holy Spirit (not the person). And by their applications of the Scriptures, they would know what it meant "to love thy neighbor as thyself" given the situation.

Don't miss the point that Samaritans had no love for Jews either. But this man was able to see past his own prejudices, which reflects the altered perspective similar to what a mature believer would have.

And to drive the point further, the Lord used the social status of the Samaritan to illustrate our (human) inability to look at someone's heart, unlike God. So you can substitute the Samaritan with any man-made social status that we see today. racial, economy classes, pecking-order, level of authority, outcasts vs inner-circle, royalty vs peasants, etc.

... but not Atheists. Why? because once again, Atheists rejects God by their own volition. And that goes directly against the first part of the Greatest Commandment that this parable is framed with.

The point of the story is that talk is cheap. What God is looking for are people who are willing to show love and not just talk about love.

That is but one of the points. I start to sound like a broken record but what was the context of that parable? The Lord was answering a direct question on how to apply the Great Commandment. And the Great Commandment first and foremost talks about the love for God, the love for thy neighbor is the second part. These two cannot be separated, can they?

In other words, you cannot disembody the parable just for the sake of showcasing the behavior of *some* Christians (again, which one?) and exalting the position of those who reject God.

 

[will]

This line was meant to be at the end of my previous post.

To say that the loving kindness of an atheist is actually only selfishness, because that person is an atheist, appears to be taking the role of God. I believe it is the spiritual superiority that this comment from will suggests, that the parable of the GS is dealing with. It is in fact, ironic.

You don't agree that a person who has been saved by God's Grace through Jesus Christ, who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God Himself is spiritually superior to those who rejected the very idea of God?

Don't confuse "spiritually superior" and "morally superior."

Am I superior morally to some Atheists? no, not by a long shot. I've known personally very moral Atheists whose actions shamed (as in humbled, not embarrassed) me as a Christian.

But am I superior spiritually? yes. Not because of anything that I've done, but because I accepted in desperation that without a savior, I am already condemned. Therefore God's Holy Spirit indwelt me, and this Spirit, is superior to anything in this world and beyond! Thus written in the Scripture, and believed it I do.

What then?

That means I need to tell my morally superior Atheist friends that God loved them enough to send His Son, the only one who can save them.
Talk about a difficult conversation.

 

[jiggyfly]

Let's pretend that it's your birthday, and I know you like fruit. I buy apples, bananas, oranges, strawberries, plums, and grapes to make a fruit basket for you.

Let's also pretend that you like tomatoes. I take away the plums and instead I put tomatoes in to surprise you.

Have I misrepresented the fruit basket?

Are you aware that the word "good" is not used in the scripture? And yet, the story is commonly called The good Samaritan. Isn't that an errant translation? Shouldn't anyone who wants to use the phrase "Good Samaritan" also clarify, each time they use it, that they are paraphrasing so that other people don't get confused? Someone may be conned into believing that the wording of the scripture actually uses the word "good" to describe the situation and then later lose their faith when they find out that they've been believing an "errant translation" all along.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? The reason is because, whether the word "good" is found in the scripture or not, it is CONSISTENT with what the scripture says, so no one has a problem inserting it. See, our faith isn't in words on paper. It's in the spirit communicating through those words and I think the spirit becomes stifled when we push it aside in favor of the ink on the page.

Jesus mentioned this hard, inflexible attitude by comparing it to old wine bottles. God can't fill them up with something new because they will crack. He is looking for soft, flexible wine skins who are able to see things from new and different perspectives, willing to flow with the spirit.

But there is no way you can say that "Samaritan" means atheist. Therefore you were errant and misrepresented what was originally written.

Look at C4E's comments. [paraphrasing here:] He said it didn't matter if the spirit of what I was saying is consistent with the scripture. If I didn't use the exact same words, then it's wrong. Sounds like old-bottle thinking. That's not meant to be an insult, but just an observation which I feel is relevant.

Anyway, I look forward to more fruitful discussion. Oh, btw I posted this topic here because I saw some other comments on another thread in this section about atheists, so that's why. I think it's relevant, especially the "church" section of the title.

From now on if you want to tell your stories put it in the proper forum category so I won't have to. thanks

 

[Christ4Ever]

You are correct, C4E. I do not understand most of what you say. Earlier you said that if the the point I made is the same as what's in the Bible then why would I change it. I responded by commenting that if the point is the same, then it is not changed. A lot of what you say just sounds like a mess of contradictions.

Again, I'm not trying to insult you, but that's just how it comes across to me. If you know that I'm not understanding you, maybe you could try rephrasing your point?

I was trying to make no points, just looking for clarification of purpose on your part. Just two questions.

What was the purpose of your original post?

Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?

 

[my_little_pony]

From now on if you want to tell your stories put it in the proper forum category so I won't have to. thanks

Hi Jiggy. Sorry about that. Some of the topic headings seem to me to have a lot of overlap so it's not always clear where a topic should go, but I agree that ethics and morality is a good category for this topic. Thanks for moving it.

But there is no way you can say that "Samaritan" means atheist.

I don't think I'm trying to say that at all, anymore than I'd be trying to say that a tomato is a plumb if I changed one for the other.

You don't agree that a person who has been saved by God's Grace through Jesus Christ, who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God Himself is spiritually superior to those who rejected the very idea of God?

Not if it means putting down the loving spirit of someone else because they don't profess the same theology I do.

Can you explain what you mean by "rejected the very idea of God"?

See, I don't think atheists who show genuine love towards others are "rejecting the very idea of God". For you to believe that means you believe there is some other source of love out there besides God.

In the Gospels Jesus said "this people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me". Well, the opposite is also true "This people dishonor me with their lips, but their heart is close to me".

I am not defending an atheist's lack of belief in God. I am, however, defending loving kindness. Who is it who has that verse about how Jesus will not snuff out a tiny spark as their signature? I've seen it around before but now I can't remember the name. Anyway, it's relevant to this.

That means I need to tell my morally superior Atheist friends that God loved them enough to send His Son, the only one who can save them.
Talk about a difficult conversation.

I believe that at least some of that difficulty is probably because you are telling them contradictory things. On the one hand you tell them they need to accept the God of love and on the other hand you tell them their loving actions are really just selfishness. It makes no sense and will only serve to confuse them even more.

In john 7 Jesus said this:
JN 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.



It sounds like Jesus himself is allowing a bit of room here for people to experiment with HOW they accept him. In other words, there is no fixed formula for how one "comes to the lord". Some people may only need to hear a relevant sermon and they are ready. Others may not put much faith in beautiful words or something they cannot see. They want action. They want to see it work, first. Well, that's okay, too, since the Kingdom of Heaven is very much about one action on it's principles.

Maybe, if we really want to convert atheists, is to encourage them to try the teachings of Jesus, as opposed to confessing his name or whatever it is people are teachings these days.

Obviously, though, if we come right and say, "hey you should obey Jesus if you want to know God" it will turn them off straight away. However, if we have confidence in the principles of the Kingdom of Heaven, then we don't need religious jargon to make a point. We can just relate to atheists in practical terms of loving one another and if we really are promoting the kind of actions JESUS told us to do, (not some church or traditional doctrine) then we will probably be doing more to fan that little spark inside them than all the "do you believe Jesus came in the flesh" interrogations in the world.

 

[will]

I believe that at least some of that difficulty is probably because you are telling them contradictory things. On the one hand you tell them they need to accept the God of love and on the other hand you tell them their loving actions are really just selfishness. It makes no sense and will only serve to confuse them even more.

Not at all.
First, please don't misunderstand what I said, which is not what you wrote above.

An Atheist's loving kindness is not mere selfishness, but he has not other being to attribute it to other than himself ultimately. And when things don't add up in a *severe* and bad way, he (the Atheist) will not have someone to rely, trust, and depend on. Again, immature or carnal Christians fall into this predicament also, not just Atheists.

In contrast,a mature Christian attributes anything good or bad to God. Therefore freeing himself from the expectation to be perfect, and the guilt caused by past actions. And he has a real and strong relationship with God to carry him through rough waters of life.

Do you understand the distinction I am making here? if not, you'd continue with the assumption that I look down on those who are Atheists because I am somehow smarter or better than they are.

Secondly, regardless their spiritual condition, a person need to know that their loving actions is not a way for them to enter heaven.

Lastly, the aforementioned conversation is difficult (for me) because I am still afraid of losing my friends because of it, or because I still care about what they would think of me when they found out that I believe in Jesus Christ. Not because it is contradictory or because it is a difficult concept.

Obviously, though, if we come right and say, "hey you should obey Jesus if you want to know God" it will turn them off straight away. However, if we have confidence in the principles of the Kingdom of Heaven, then we don't need religious jargon to make a point. We can just relate to atheists in practical terms of loving one another and if we really are promoting the kind of actions JESUS told us to do, (not some church or traditional doctrine) then we will probably be doing more to fan that little spark inside them than all the "do you believe Jesus came in the flesh" interrogations in the world.

I agree with the lack of usefulness of "religious jargons"
The message of the Gospel is actually surprisingly conveyable using practical concepts.

Just one point however, we are not responsible for the impact of the Gospel (little sparks or otherwise). Just as we are not charged to convert anyone to anything they don't want to believe. We are to proclaim the Good News, and make disciples from those who have chosen to believe.

 

[SpiritLedEd]

But there is no way you can say that "Samaritan" means atheist. Therefore you were errant and misrepresented what was originally written.

Remember that in the Good Samaritan parable, Jesus was speaking to a prideful expert in the Mosaic Law and that this man as well as the priest and Levite in the parable were legalistic practitioners of Judaism. The whole point of the parable was to say that legalistic religiousity is not God's will for our lives and does not bring salvation. Atheism was not on the Lord's mind when He spoke this parable and when you, My_Little_Pony, attempted your paraphrase, you ripped the parable out of Jesus' intended context, which is not right.

SLE

 

[my_little_pony]

An Atheist's loving kindness is not mere selfishness, but he has not other being to attribute it to other than himself ultimately. And when things don't add up in a *severe* and bad way, he (the Atheist) will not have someone to rely, trust, and depend on.

But that's not a judgment for you to make.

you'd continue with the assumption that I look down on those who are Atheists because I am somehow smarter or better than they are.

Not that you are smarter or better, but that your love is better. The love you show is somehow better than the love an atheist shows, because you believe it is whereas the atheist does not believe it is. I doubt God will make that distinction. Love is love.

Secondly, regardless their spiritual condition, a person need to know that their loving actions is not a way for them to enter heaven.

The way to enter Heaven is up to God. It never ceases to amaze me how people think they can nail God down on this. If people don't follow some formula then they can't get into Heaven, and since you've worked out the formula based on what you read in "god's word" then God himself could not say otherwise.

When it comes to getting into Heaven, I think we should let God be the judge of that. What *I* am talking about is the qualities that God is looking for. Jesus illustrated that in the GS parable.

Lastly, the aforementioned conversation is difficult (for me) because I am still afraid of losing my friends because of it, or because I still care about what they would think of me when they found out that I believe in Jesus Christ. Not because it is contradictory or because it is a difficult concept.

That's why I'm suggesting you set the formula aside for awhile and try a different approach based on practical loving qualities. All love comes from God.

Sure, it would be fantastic if an atheist would Give God the credit he deserves, but in a situation where you KNOW talk of God and Jesus is just going to offend someone, why not try it from a different angle?

Look at the GS parable again. It's not about theology. That's the whole point. It's about helping one another and showing love. Those are the qualities God is looking for.

-------------------
Hi SLE,

The whole point of the parable was to say that legalistic religiousity is not God's will for our lives and does not bring salvation.

Atheism was not on the Lord's mind when He spoke this parable

You really don't see any contradiction here?

Anyway, perhaps prostitution, or drunkenness, or robbery, or corporate business wasn't on the Lord's mind, either, and yet, the point would be the same if we substituted any one of those into the equation.

The bottom line is about our ACTIONS. SHOWING love. That's what the GS did.

Consider the parable of the sheep and the goats from Matthew 25 .

According to Jesus, the sheep didn't even know they were helping God, and yet God still rewarded them because they showed love.