Christian Group Behavior (Episode 44)

[NH Baritone]

(Emery hasn't posted this here yet, so I thought I'd get the ball rolling.)

Emery & Scott discuss the lack of differences between the behavior and attitudes of Christians as a group and the behavior and attitudes of non-Christians. According to Emery, since one would expect to see evidence of Christian transformation, this lack of variance strongly serves as evidence against "God's transforming power." Scott counters with a number of alternative interpretations of the data, if you start from the assumption that God exists and exerts transforming power within the human beings.

So how correct was Emery's interpretation of the lack of group difference? How well does Scott's apologetic argument hold up under reasonable scrutiny?

[darkumbra]

Unconvincing to say the least:

IF Christian people decide to become better Christian people - THEN they become better Christian people.

Same thing is true for atheists.

IF people decide to become better people - THEN they become better people.

No difference.

[NH Baritone]

I was struck by Scott's assertion that God is not interested in rapid transformations. Looking at the Biblical evidence (e.g., disciples simply dropping their nets to follow Jesus, Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus, the miraculous healings, the instruction that if people don't want to hear the gospel to leave the city immediately, etc.), it seems that God is ONLY interested in rapid transformations. I know of no evidence in the Bible of slow transformations, probably because both in Biblical times & now, slow changes can be better explained via maturinġ.

[whoosanightowl]

I really feel for Scott because it seems he's straining to hang on to his faith by only a few loose few threads (been there, done that, not fun), and the logic he recognizes behind the problems is gnawing away at them one by one. Somehow I think it won't be long till he crosses over--too bad, he may have to find a "real job" after all, but he'd make a great counselor for people leaving Christianity and going through post traumatic stress syndrome!!

[NH Baritone]

I really feel for Scott because it seems he's straining to hang on to his faith by only a few loose few threads (been there, done that, not fun), and the logic he recognizes behind the problems is gnawing away at them one by one. Somehow I think it won't be long till he crosses over--too bad, he may have to find a "real job" after all, but he'd make a great counselor for people leaving Christianity and going through post traumatic stress syndrome!!

Yeah, Sue, I know. This is at least the second time he's responded with the "having to get a real job" comment when Emery asked him why he's still a Christian. I know he means it as a joke, but I cannot help but think he's speaking some of his own fears.

It's not really cushy to work as a pastor, but it has some advantages over other lines of work. Plus, he's convinced himself he's making a sacrifice for the sake of God, but perhaps his parishioners who fork over cash to pay his salary make the larger sacrifice.

[NH Baritone]

This episode ended with another discussion of homosexuality.

After listening, I emailed Scott the following questions about his comments. (He's in the midst of a family 4th celebration and promised to answer me later.) If he answers me via email faster than he answers here, I'll post his answers. Based on what they were saying, what do others think?

Is it your view that it is inconsistent with Christianity to believe that the Biblical statements regarding homosexuality (much like the statements on slavery) are culturally & temporally-bound opinions and do not fit with current understandings of human sexuality & sexual orientation?

To make it more personally relevant, in other words, by defining all homosexual activity as sin, are you indicating that by making love, all committed, monogamous gay couples are engaging in sinful behavior when they are doing the same thing that you do with your wife? Is there any expression of homosexual lovemaking that you believe is consistent with Christianity? If so, what, and why?

What rationale is there for the church to abdicate Jesus' frequent focus on love and interconnection by sequestering homosexual love into the category of sin rather than helping homosexuals to be the most loving people they can be, if they choose also to be Christian?

[spongebob]

I was struck by Scott's assertion that God is not interested in rapid transformations. Looking at the Biblical evidence (e.g., disciples simply dropping their nets to follow Jesus, Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus, the miraculous healings, the instruction that if people don't want to hear the gospel to leave the city immediately, etc.), it seems that God is ONLY interested in rapid transformations. I know of no evidence in the Bible of slow transformations, probably because both in Biblical times & now, slow changes can be better explained via maturinġ.

Ummm, can you say "special pleading"?

[JustJim]

To make it more personally relevant, in other words, by defining all homosexual activity as sin, are you indicating that by making love, all committed, monogamous gay couples are engaging in sinful behavior when they are doing the same thing that you do with your wife? Is there any expression of homosexual lovemaking that you believe is consistent with Christianity? If so, what, and why?

I'm waiting for someone to say that if they're "making love", it's okay, but if they're just having sex, it's a sin....

Jim

[spongebob]

On the whole I'm always encouraged by Scott's theology. He's one of the few Christians that I can seldom find fault with his application of Christianity.

[NH Baritone]

On the whole I'm always encouraged by Scott's theology. He's one of the few Christians that I can seldom find fault with his application of Christianity.

"Application" is an interesting term. When applied to a pork roast, a carving knife is useful and beneficial. When applied by Norman Bates from outside a shower, the same knife is horrific and murderous. Same tool, different hands.

I've given him questions to respond to, but there are few Christians who take the Bible as seriously as he does that can get to the point where they can embrace homosexual expression as non-sinful in any possible manifestation. He may surprise me, but I'm not holding my breath.

[mikedsjr]

Wow....and I didn't think it was a bad podcast. I get it shows the differences between different "groups*".

[whoosanightowl]

Mike wrote:

Wow....and I didn't think it was a bad podcast. I get it shows the differences between different "groups*".

Don't get me wrong, I didn't think it was a bad podcast either. I just don't see the strength of Scott's argument for his faith. "I believe because those around me believe" seems rather shallow, although I tend to think the majority of Christians are in the same boat he is.

[stickmangrit]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't think it was a bad podcast either. I just don't see the strength of Scott's argument for his faith. "I believe because those around me believe" seems rather shallow, although I tend to think the majority of Christians are in the same boat he is.

they typically are, but scott's the first i've ever heard to freely admit it.

[NH Baritone]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't think it was a bad podcast either. I just don't see the strength of Scott's argument for his faith. "I believe because those around me believe" seems rather shallow, although I tend to think the majority of Christians are in the same boat he is.

they typically are, but scott's the first i've ever heard to freely admit it.

I've heard others admit it, but most seem convinced that they have to "prove" God's existence separate from the faith community. The fact that there would be no god separate from the faith community doesn't occur to them. In A.A., the higher power is most often the group itself. The Fundamentalist Mormons live a life as if God supports their sequestered life-style, primarily because in their experience, their community says God does exactly that. Any deity is defined by the community that worships it, and it requires at least some rejection of both community and deity to become an atheist.

[whoosanightowl]

Stickman wrote:

they typically are, but scott's the first i've ever heard to freely admit it.

This is true, Scott seems extraordinarily humble and genuine in his beliefs, and I respect and admire him for it.