Posted by Eliza on: 10.26.2006 /
Wow. I thought I was getting a sense of where this pastor’s, and this church’s, beliefs come from: Bible-based, literal, OK — I thought I knew what that meant. Hoooo boy did this topic toss me a big surprise. This is not what I’d read & heard about the Ten Commandments before. (Read on & see how it compares to your understanding of them…)
Here are the main points that I learned from class #4:
I missed the first 90 minutes, probably to the relief of the pastor & other students (I had an event to attend for work). I was there for the last 30 minutes, for the 4th and 5th commandments, and I asked one question, probably to their chagrin. The presentation in class left me scratching my head a bit, but then I watched some of the DVD of a prior taping of lesson 4 (they give these out at the classes; I just haven’t mentioned it before). Wow, what a jaw-dropper. I’ve read Exodus, and after this class read more about the Ten Commandments (not a topic that came up a lot in the Christian apologist literature I’d read), yet I’ve never heard anything like this interpretation before.
1. Meaning and purpose of the Ten Commandments
The title of this class topic on the DVD is: “The Ten Commandments (Part 1): How their meaning and purpose are misunderstood” (emphasis added). Well, there’s an early alert that something’s going to be different. Think for a moment on the “meaning and purpose” you know for the Ten Commandments. Here, to describe the view put forth in this class, are direct quotes from the pastor, from the DVD of a previously recorded version of this class (he repeated much of this in the closing of class, too):
“One of the primary purposes of the Ten Commandments is to make us feel bad about ourselves…because if you don’t feel bad about yourself, you don’t need Jesus.”
“The Ten Commandments…can make us feel guilty, or angry towards God. That’s normal.”
“Christianity is not for good people. (…’good’ from God’s perspective). If you’re a good person, you don’t need Jesus. If you know your Bible a little bit, you know that was the problem with the Pharisees.”
“The Ten Commandments says, you are a sinner. We’re all sinners. …God’s law, his intent, is to show us that we’re sinners.”
Romans 3:20 …through the law we become conscious of sin. “That’s going to be OK because we’re going to get the good news of the gospel.”
“The Law shows us our sin, the Gospel shows us our savior. God comforts us as the Gospel frees us from the condemnation of the law.”
“He [God] expects absolute perfection. I’ll show you that later.”
He brought in Luke 5:32 “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” He said the law was first written on man’s heart (Romans 2:15 “What the Law requires is written on their hearts”) but became blurred when man fell into sin, so then was written by God on the two tablets.
I can’t help but thinking, this is crushing people with one hand before offering them hope (& help up) with the other.
2. The Ten Commandments are numbered (divided) differently than I’d run into before.
I’d heard that the Catholic Church numbered the 10 commandments differently from Protestant churches, but I didn’t realize the Lutherans (at least this group) followed that different numbering, & didn’t know the particulars. The pastor commented in the DVD & in class that students should write the number of each commandment next to it in the text; I guess he runs into a lot of people who get it “wrong.” (In the DVD, he comments that a lot of Christians can’t name all 10 commandments, much less in order, and he asks if anyone has heard of a different numbering but when noone speaks up he doesn’t explain the numbering any further.)
In this lesson, the 1st commandment is “You shall have no other gods before me” (and includes “You shall not make for yourself any graven image…” – the 2nd commandment for other Protestants – except the text completely skips over the whole graven image commandment).
The 2nd commandment (3rd for other Protestants) is, “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.”
The 3rd commandment (4th for other Protestants) is, “Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy.” (The sentences which follow and expand on this are omitted by the text.)
The 4th commandment (5th for other Protestants) starts, “Honor your father and your mother.”
The 5th commandment (6th for other protestants) is, “You shall not murder.”
I’m not going to go through what the text says about the first 2 commandments, and I didn’t get through that hour of the DVD (too many interruptions at home). I’ll just mention that the text comments that swearing (to tell the truth) is permitted; I grew up hearing the Quaker view that it’s not (Matthew 5:34, 37 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God… 37 Let what you say be simply “Yes’ or “No’, anything more than this comes from evil). But there’s no point bringing that up in class!
3. The 3rd Commandment no longer applies.
There was a question of clarification at the end of the class, from another student — did the pastor really say the 3rd commandment is no longer required? Yes, he said, that’s right. The 3rd Commandment (Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, and the subsequent 2 sentences) was waived when Jesus came. The text quotes Matthew 12:8 (The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath) and Colossians 2:16-17 (Let no man make rules about what you eat or drink, or about the subject of holy days, or the new moon festival, or the Sabbath. All such things are only a shadow of things in the future; the reality is Christ. Good News for Modern Man translation). [A side note here: this is the first occasion on which the text has used that particular translation. After looking up a few other translations of Col 2:16-17, I can see why.] According to the text, from this we learn that the OT command was “Worship on the Sabbath”, the NT commandment is “Worship.” [Seems to me Mark 2:27 is pithy on this point: And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.' (Mark 2:28 is like Matthew 12:8)].
The text concludes the discussion of the 1st 3 commandments thus: “The first 3 commandments demand that each of us perfectly love God.”
4. The 4th and 5th commandments are more expansive in scope than they seem.
The 4th Commandment reads, “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.” The point made on this was that Christians should respect authority (the pastor said, “obey proper authority”) not only in the home but also in the church, school, work, and government. The only exception should be when the earthly authority is clearly going against God’s authority. (He gave an example of Christians not being allowed to congregate; see item #5, not commandment #5, below.) He cited Matthew 22:21 (Render unto Caesar…), Romans 13:1-7 (Let every person be subject to the governing authorities…), 1 Peter 2:13-18, esp. 17 (Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor). Specifically for the workplace, the pastor cited Ephesians 6:5 (Slaves, obey your earthly masters…) and said, “What we do, we modernize that, to employee and employer”. (I had to marvel at that, because we haven’t modernized anything else so far!)
The 5th Commandment reads, “You shall not murder.” (Not, “you shall not kill” – that’s a mistranslation, found in KJV & other old translations; I’d read about the translation issue before.) The pastor and text said this commandment forbids murder, suicide, and abortion, but according to the pastor, “we’ve all broken the 5th commandment“. That got the room silent, waiting to hear what he would say. (Explanation is 3 paragraphs down.) The text says “God has given the right to inflict the death penalty and to wage just wars to the government. Serving in the armed forces of the country is service rendered to God’s representative, and therefore to God.” The pastor read this and agreed, but pointed out “the government doesn’t have to have capital punishment, but it if wants to, it’s OK with God.” Here, he said kind of as an aside, “I’ll try not to get started on separation of church and state” (see item #5, not commandment #5, below). At some point in the capital punishment teaching, I raised my hand and asked, “but didn’t Jesus say, “Judge not, lest you be judged’, and in the case of the woman who committed adultery, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone’? How does that fit with the death penalty still being lawful?” and I was heartened to hear some grunts that sounded like agreement from the group of students sitting in front of me.
The pastor, though, responded promptly (his emphasis), “Oh, this is a common mistake people make. That applies to individuals, not the government.” (I don’t read it that way, but imo his interpretation holds water.) Then he went on & said he’d even heard Christian ministers getting that wrong, told of one time he heard a Christian minister say that on a TV program! Of all places!! [My first (silent) reaction was, if so many people get it wrong, including your peers, maybe there's reasonable basis for difference of opinion or interpretation! And my second (silent) reaction was to notice the pedagogical approach of immediately saying a student's suggested interpretation was a mistake and wrong - seems to me, this must be the approach you have to take if you are not willing for there to be any discussion on the point, not willing for the students to think there might be something there to think differently about. I can't imagine encountering that same reaction in any other classroom setting I've been in; even if someone said something ridiculous in medicine, the response would not be so swiftly squashing. In that setting, though, you could say, well let's talk about this, let's think about this, let's look it up...but here, that approach might just open up Pandora's box. IMO.]
Of course, the 5th commandment applies to abortion too. This church’s position is that the only time abortion is a possibility is when it’s the woman’s life versus the baby’s, then the decision is left up to the family. The pastor cited some scripture that seems to speak for early contact by God with life in the womb: Psalm 139:13-16 (esp 13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.) and Jeremiah 1:5 (Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you… that’s Jeremiah reporting the word of God). I hadn’t run into those verses before & found them interesting.
OK, now, how is it that we have all violated the 5th commandment? Well, it turns out it covers far more than literal murder. 1 John 3:15 says “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer” (again, Good News translation), so therefore any time someone hurts anyone else in any way (physically, or emotionally) or thinks poorly of someone else, or drives recklessly, or is not kind, or (according to the text) worries, then he has broken the 5th commandment. So, that means all of us.
5. The class could use a session to review the Bill of Rights (of the U.S. Constitution).
In discussion of the 4th commandment, the pastor gave an example of a situation in which Christians should follow God’s authority rather than the government’s. He said, “for example, if there were a law passed that Christians couldn’t gather, what would we do? Well, we would find a way to gather!” (Once again, you could hear a pin drop in the classroom, as if breaths were being held.) Now, maybe this seemed like a natural example to him, but it came across to me as unnecessarily fear-provoking. In the silence that followed, I imagined students imagining this coming to pass, and thinking it really could happen.
Um, no. The First amendment to the U.S. Constution reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Now, while the freedom to believe is absolute, the freedom to act on those beliefs can be abridged (and has been, in a few areas, including polygamy and the use of banned substances in religious practices). But a law forbidding Christians from congregating peaceably would violate the First Amendment on two accounts and would thus clearly be unconstitutional. (There’s more here on the Free Exercise of Religion and Freedom of Assembly clauses of the First Amendment.)
Second, in discussion of the same Commandment the pastor said, “Don’t get me started on separation of church and state.” It sounded like he thinks such separation is a bad idea…or, is carried out in a bad way. I didn’t ask. (I didn’t really want to know!) It’s quite possible that such separation offers more protection than limitation, even for religious groups. (What if there weren’t separation of church and state, but they were a minority denomination? Might that not be worse?)
In any case, these two comments, and the general idea in this church class that anyone who doesn’t believe the same way is wrong, and we’re all sinners, and some of us are spiritually dead, suggest to me that an absolute approach to right and wrong isn’t compatible with democracy, especially in a pluralistic society. This church & its members can be a (complaining) minority within such a democracy, but if they were the majority (or, at least, if people sharing this pastor’s beliefs were the majority) I imagine they’d make laws Biblical, in the way they interpret it, and everyone else can just go to Hades.
The pastor said, at the beginning of the DVD for this class, “People in general tend to be fairly ignorant of what’s in the Bible. Most people, probably even most Christians, can’t even say all Ten Commandments, much less in order.” That’s true for the First Amendment, much less the entire Bill of Rights (or the entire U.S. Constitution). And that was a scary thing, for me, to see demonstrated in this class session.
Comment by: Helen
1Eliza, I’m glad a DVD of a prior session was available so you could watch some of what you missed. Otherwise it might have been hard for you to follow the end of class, since what he said was new and surprising.
I think it’s fascinating that this surprised you. If what this pastor taught is how God wants all Christians to understand the Bible, which didn’t God make that obvious enough that someone smart and thoughtful like you would pick it up as you read the Bible for yourself? If you hadn’t read any of it then I could understand. But I’m fairly sure you posted somewhere that you’ve been reading the gospels recently. If the pastor is right, why didn’t Jesus more clearly explain that the ten commandments are just to make us feel bad?
On the other hand, your surprise illustrates something I thought you mentioned the pastor saying in Class #1 (but I can’t find it now) about how we can’t understand the Bible on our own. Again, my question is, why did God make it so hard to understand, if he wants everyone to understand it?
Anyway, I don’t know if the pastor would say he’s a ‘dispensationalist’ but I recommend you read Wikipedia’s entry about dispensationalism because it is all about how many Bible-believing Christians divide the Bible up and say that different parts of it apply differently to different people. So – “I take the Bible literally” does not mean “I think every command given in it is a law for me to keep”
Anyway, this teaching that “the commandments are to show you you can’t keep them [when they are conceptually extended, even if you might be able to obey what they literally say]” is a standard part of Bible-believing Christian teaching. As the pastor showed, there is some support for it in the New Testament. In fact Christians find support for it in place I think are a little dubious, such as when Jesus talked to the rich young man. They simplistically subvert that whole exchange into Jesus conveying the message to that man “You can’t keep the 10 commandments”. (Which, btw, handily gets Christians off the hook regarding Jesus telling the man to sell all he owns – because like the ten commandments, the point was not “Do it” but “Here’s a command hard enough that you’ll realize there are things you can’t do – thus proving you are an imperfect sinner who needs to be forgiven or you will end up in hell”)
This sounds like a reference to Matthew 9:10-13:
What the pastor said is what Christians generally understand this Bible passage to mean.
This is exactly why some people find President Bush and various extreme Christian candidates who have run in the past so scary. Because they are afraid of Christians who think this way getting enough power to overturn democracy and bring in this sort of ‘theocracy’.
It’s ironic because I think the rest of us value democracy and freedom and wouldn’t support the removal of the freedoms which allow us both to have religious gatherings and not to have them.
I think the book of Revelation is responsible for some of the alarmist things Christians say regarding a possible future of not being able to meet, since it does present a scenario in which ‘true believers’ will be incredibly persecuted. Hence Christians who believe that and who think such a time could be imminent, talk about the possibility of US Christians one day finding themselves denied the freedoms they now have to worship.
I hadn’t heard the interpretation of ‘Honor your father and mother’ that says it’s about honoring all authority. On the other hand the New Testament says “Honor all authority” in various places.
It’s interesting to me that the pastor gave an example of when to disobey but evidently no clear guidance of how to decide for oneself “This is the time to disobey”. That seems like something Christians would need to know.
To be fair he did set things up in the first class by saying this wasn’t going to be a ‘discussion’ but more of a presentation of what his church believes, right? And he has been open to being asked questions after class, right? But I think you’re quite right to question this approach.
Thanks again for a fascinating write-up, Eliza!
Comment by: Dan
2OK, so it’s slightly off topic, but this pastor’s attitude does remind me a little of a joke I read yesterday.
I found it in “How (not) to speak of God” by Peter Rollins. It goes like this:
A mystic, an evangelical pastor and a fundamentalist preacher die on the same day and awake to find themselves by the pearly gates. Upon reaching the gates they are promptly greeted by Peter, who informs them that before entering heaven they must be interviewed by Jesus concerning the state of their doctrine.
The first to be called forward is the mystic, who is quietly ushered into a room. Five hours later the mystic reappears with a smile, saying, “I thought I had got it all wrong.”
Then Peter signals to the evangelical pastor, who stands up and enters the room. After a full day has passed the pastor reappears with a frown and says to himself, “How could I have been so foolish!”
Finally Peter asks the fundamentalist to follow him. The fundamentalist picks up his well-worn Bible and walks into the room. A few days pass with no sign of the preacher, then finally the door swings open and Jesus himself appears, exclaiming, “How could I have got it all so wrong!”
Comment by: Helen
3LOL Dan :-)
Comment by: Paul
4Thank you again Eliza, a truly fascinating insight, including a loss of a commandment, not often we get a let off so that must be welcome, lol.
It’s interesting in the story of the rich young ruler, to which Helen referred, that after he tells Jesus he has kept all the commandments, Jesus doesn’t say YOU LIAR, what about those flat breads you stole, the time you screamed I hate you to your parents etc… no according to the story Jesus looks at the guy and loves him. Instead he says great, I’m glad you are successful and moral but there is something you lack – most of us would love to be successful, let alone moral, but for Jesus the thing he lacks is joining his Kingdom, rather than the guy profiting in a system of oppression, to help the poor rather than to constrain them…
I have been thinking about that story recently having heard a talk by Brian McLaren on it recently, which is here if you are interested.
My take on the extensions to the law that you mentioned, particularly on murder is because people take the laws and see how far they can bend them, see how much they can get away with. Hence Jesus saying in Matthew 5 you have heard it said you shall not murder BUT… in other words its not how much wiggle room we can have but whether we are using the commandments to guide our love and challenge our own selfishness/self interest.
I think there is a strong arguement that all the law does is highlight how much we wanna wiggle off the hook and in his letter to Galatians, St Paul does an excellent job of explaining why the law gives us a guilty conscience and either a blase or legalistic mindset versus Jesus and how is dynamic life/death/resurection gives us a life of freedom, grace and a response out of love rather than lawful fear.
Comment by: Helen
5Paul, you mentioned my favorite Bible verse:
I think only [the author of] Mark picked that up. If Peter was the source for Mark’s gospel, as tradition holds, then I think it’s interesting he noticed that detail.
Thanks for the link to Brian McLaren’s talk/your thoughts about it. I’ll be interested to read that.
I agree…I think there are great principles for living at the core of this. However I also think the great principles have been discovered by people who aren’t Christians. For example, I think the author of The Four Agreements (which I blogged about recently) notices similar things about what’s wrong with living by The Law.
Comment by: Stephan
6I attended a rather fundamentalist Christian college and the attitude of this pastor was prevalent there – “We’re right and anyone who disagrees with us is wrong.” I have little time for that. I intentionally took my theology classes from the one professor at the school who was more open minded. He presented all of the generally accepted theological schools of thought, then at test time expected you to be able to explain any one of them and why they have merit. Rather than teach you what to think, he wanted to teach you how to think. Needless to say he didn’t last long there.
Regarding the guilt thing, I think this can be very divisive, but I think the pastor has a point. I believe God’s goal is to save everyone, but that can only be accomplished by His grace. The law was created to show the need for grace. No one can live up to it perfectly. I don’t take this to me that we are all totally depraved and utterly worthless, just that we are not perfect. Jesus’ point about hatred being the same as killing (He made the same point about lusting being the same as adultery) was just to show those who thought themselves righteous that they really were not.
I think much of the point of the Old Testament, and the reason God waited before sending Jesus, was to show what didn’t work. Violence didn’t work. The law didn’t work. Theocracy didn’t work. Jesus was all about connecting with people one on one and showing grace. That works.
Comment by: Helen
7Stephan wrote:
Awesome!
I like that summary, Stephan. Thanks.
Comment by: Pastor David
8Eliza,
Thanks again for the wonderful insights. It is very enlightening to sit back and see how someone with your background hears things that many in the Lutheran tradition take for granted.
The background perspective of this pastor (although certainly not all of the particulars) is shaped by Martin Luther’s Small Catechism and Large Catechism. You can read the selections from the small catechism on the commandments here, and the selection from the large catechism is here (click on “larger catechism” to view it). It be helpful if you understood some of the background of this pastor’s perspective.
Also, as background material. Lutherans have a peculiar understanding of the relationship between law and gospel. “Gospel” in this context means anything about God’s promises and grace – whether found in the OT or the NT. Law is anything about God’s judgement and our sinfulness, whether found in the OT or NT.
Among the primary purposes of the Law, from a Lutheran perspective, is to show us our own sinfulness (as compared to the righteousness of God), so that we are prepared to receive the words of grace and forgiveness.
This is the background to the pastor’s comments about the purpose of the commandments (although his understanding of some of the meanings of the commandments leaves me scratching my head).
Comment by: Pastor David
9As to the numbering of the commandments:
This difference in numbering is very evident in the expressions that American Christianity has taken. Christianity in America is more shaped by the Calvinist tradition than anything else. By splitting with the older, catholic traditional numbering, the Calvinist tradition placed more emphasis on “graven images.” This is why American churches (with the exception of Lutheran/Roman/or Episcopal) have tended to have very little decoration, artwork, etc. In fact, this is historically why American Protestant churches shy away from crucifixes and use bare crosses (although most don’t realize that this is the reason).
As an interesting aside, thinking about the seperation of church and state as we talk about the ten commandments. Do people realize that most of the 10 Commandment monuments on courthouse lawns were purchased by MGM as a promotional gimmick for the Charlton Heston 10 Commandments movies? That they are not there because we are a “chistian nation,” but because we are suckers for a good marketing campaign?
Comment by: Julie Marie
10no way!
one by one the illusions bite the dust.
Comment by: Eliza
11Does anyone know, do the various politicians who say we should have the Ten Commandments up outside courthouse lawns (etc) want them as reminders of the ten key statements of law according to God, or as a more general reminder that we are all sinners & need Christ? In the news, I haven’t heard any discussion of this, & the assumption seems to be what I assumed – it would be to remind us of “the” 10 Biblical laws.
Comment by: Eliza
12Dan – thanks for sharing that joke!!
Comment by: Helen
13Eliza – yes, based on the theological use of the 10 commandments, as illustrated in the class you went to last week, wouldn’t it be clearer to post “You’re all SINNERS!” than posting the 10 commandments as if they are literally to be obeyed…
Comment by: David H
14Another common misconception about the meaning and purpose of 10 commandments involves their linkage to a covenant. In Exodus 20 Moses first mentions what have become known as the the 10 commandments. That mention is followed by 3 + chapters about how exactly to follow those rules. Then, in Ex. 24 there is a ceremony. As part of that is the following exchange.
I have wondered if the curious fixation many in the United States seem to have with establishing this country as a Christian nation is to make citizenship here a defacto acceptance of a covenant such as occurred above. Without that covenant people have no obligation to follow the 10 commandments.
While the biblical admonition against murder or killing may extend to abortion, that is only for people who have agreed to follow that rule. If you believe in absolute moral laws, then such a lack of covenant doesn’t change the essential rightness or wrongness of an act. However, the covenant was critical to God’s relationship with the Jews, according to the OT, and those laws were a significant part of that.
Under those circumstances it seems strange that American Christians would attempt to extend those laws not only into the fabric of U.S. justice but also into the foundation of their relationship with non-believers. Everyone may be a sinner, but only those who accept the Mosaic law are condemned by it.
Perhaps more important, from the standpoint of jurisprudence and Alabama judges, is that even if one accepts the 10 commandments as the foundation of U.S. laws they are only one brick in that wall. Laws in the country owe as much or more to a variety of other sources. So if they evolved (sorry, couldn’t stop myself) from the commandments, they had other progenitors as well.
Yet strangest of all in the twisted “Christian” story of the 10 commandments is those who seem to focus most on revering them and applying them to life are not in fact bound by them. People can debate what Jesus meant with the fullfilment of the Law and “jot and tittle” quotes. However, the clear message of grace is that those who are “saved” can break the commandments without facing an eternal penalty. They don’t even have to make sacrifices or follow a prescribed cleansing ceremony (if they are Protestant).
So while the 10 commandments are foundational for all of the Abrahamic religions, they have little application to Christian life and no required place in the lives of people outside those faiths.
Comment by: David H
15Eliza, the pastor at your class seemed dismayed that so few people knew all of the 10 commandments. However, a Christian only needs to know two (2).
Comment by: Karen
16The explanations you got correpond quite closely with the teaching I got across the spectrum of fundamentalist churches (a couple Lutheran, EV Free, Free Methodist, Calvary Chapel, Vineyard, Nazarene and a sprinkling of non-denominational).
Pastor David:
I had heard that, but I seriously doubt most people know about it. You have to read pretty deeply into the issue to find that interesting little tidbit. ;-)
Comment by: Siamang
17But replacing the “Blind Justice” statue with Ronald McDonald, that was too much.
Comment by: Siamang
18Helen and Eliza, I’m trying to get my brain around this idea…
Wait wait wait… Let me get this straight. So first God dictates the Ten Commandments to set up the laws for His chosen people. And for TWO THOUSAND YEARS people try and live by them and obey them the best they can, as a covanent with God… and then two thousand years later God says “sorry, I was punking you.
Isn’t two-thousand years a little long between set-up and punch-line?
I mean, to us, with the perspective of history, it’s just turning pages in a book. Okay, the setup happens in Exodus, then we turn to the Gospels and get the real meaning. No sweat. In fact, too easy. Handed to us on a platter.
But remember we’re talking about (traditionally speaking) two-thousand years of Jews basically living by unlivable laws given to them DIRECTLY by God… just as a, what, a setup for us to have it all easy and in two nice volumes of a book?
This is not the interpretation I have understood from Christianity. The interpretation I understand and can buy is this: God gave appropriate commandments for the time and culture of the ancient Jews. Eventually MAN changed, but not God, and man was ready and desperately needy of a new covanent.
This is an interpretation I’ve heard my whole life. This is what I find makes sense and is consonant with a loving and honest God.
But this interpretation is totally new to me. This is something altogether different. This is saying that God always intended Jesus (which I can understand), but that in order for Jesus to be able to have the correct impact, God had to enter into a usury covanent with 2000 years of the Jewish nation. A contract whose specifics He alone dictated.
Presumably these 2000 years of Jewish souls sought honestly to keep the laws of God. Were they laboring under a lie?
Stephan wrote:
But if you asked Joshua if the laws of God worked, he’d say “yes, absolutely.” If you asked Jews then or Jews now if the law works, they’ll agree that they work better than anything else. Because these were laws given to them directly by God, according to tradition and their beliefs.
God waited before sending Jesus? What about the souls that needed saving before Jesus? The ones who followed the Covanent as best they could, not believing that there was an entrapment clause hidden in the fine print that had an escape clause to be revealed in two millenium. A little late for those who died in 500 BC.
Is this really what happened?
.. So Samuel Moskowitz dies in 500 BC, goes to the pearly gates and God’s there waiting for him. Samuel says, “Oy vey, God, am I glad to be here. Heaven is so wonderful. I tell you, life is really really hard. I am looking forward to my wonderful afterlife, because life, let me tell you, is really really hard.”
Then God says, “Well, funny thing Samuel.. yeah, the reason life is really hard is that laws don’t work.”
Samuel says, “Well, sure, not the laws of man, but at least we had the laws of God, so that helped. At least those were perfect.”
Then God says, “Hmmm… how can I explain this, Sam… See, those don’t work either. It’s a little bit of a thing I’m working on… Long story short, those are not laws that any man can follow.”
Samuel is shocked. “But God, I endeavored to follow them to the best of my ability. Sure, the coveting bit IS really hard, and I may have snuck a peek at my neighbor’s wife once or twice… but.. they’re hard, but I tried my best!”
“I know, I know. They’re set up that way… to be hard. Impossible actually. As I said it’s a bit of a thing I’m working on. I set you up to fail so that people in the future can see how badly you all messed it up. Then I swoop in for the save and the hard-sell 2000 years later. Cool huh?”
Samuel is dumbfounded. He cannot speak.
“Oh, don’t worry,” says God. “You’ll still reside here in heaven. Welcome to paradise. Job well done!”
“Thank you, Lord.”
“Well, it’s the least I can do. I am the good one, after all.”
If God has a history of entering into covanents that are impossible to keep so that future generations might learn from what didn’t work, do we trust Him now?
Why?
Comment by: Helen
19Siamang, wait, there’s more…according to some Christian theology, in the future, God will have Jesus reign for 1000 years on the earth in perfect conditions just to prove that some people will rebel against his authority even in those conditions.
Now I think about it, quite a lot of theology seems to be about God proving he is right…hmmmm….
Comment by: Siamang
20I just wanted to emphasize that I’m not trying to ridicule this belief. I’m just highlighting the difference between this view, which is new to me, and my older understanding which to me makes more sense.
Comment by: Eliza
21Well, I for one am glad this is news to Siamang, too. I was starting to think I was the only person on earth who hadn’t realized there was so much more to the Ten Commandments!
David H said:
Y’know, I thought about asking a question (“to clarify”) about this at the end of class, but didn’t. That’s sure the way I understood it, from the gospels. But, first, I’d sauntered in 90 minutes late (& dressed up, not like usual), seemed kind of rude to ask something that might have already come up. Second, it’s become so clear that this pastor always has “the right answer” that fits perfectly with his belief system; no matter how tortuous the reasoning may seem to me, for him it seems to flow naturally and perfectly, & it’s getting a bit depressing to listen to it. (Where’s the questioning? The inquiry? The hard work? All under the bridge, hundreds of years ago, I guess.)
Comment by: Pastor David
22Eliza,
I too find much of what this pastor says frustrating, and I don’t feel like he represents the Christianity that I know, grew up with, and now preach. But …
This is something that I readily identify with. I have my times of questioning. I have times that the “party line” doesn’t quite do it for me, and times when I find myself questioning God, faith, and the church. I share this with you, and the others hear, because I feel like it can be heard for what it is in this setting — the real struggles of faith.
Howver, very often I do not share those struggles with my congregation. I allude to them at times, and if it seems appropriate, I may share it with an individual. But, in the task of preaching and teaching, I represent the church. My personal questioning and struggles are not what it is my role to offer to the congregation.
People very often (although certainly not always) come to the pastor – the church’s representative – looking for answers and certainty. Very often, people in the midst of the the maelstrom of the uncertainty of life are looking to a pastor for something to hold on to.
Add to that the fact that a pastor’s education and time spent in study gives him/her access to information that most lay persons do not have, and you wind up with the image of a person with “all the answers,” who never questions, doubts, and struggles.
For most pastors (at least those tha I have known), the struggles and questioning of the life of faith are something that are undertaken in a very solitary way (unless a pastor has a spiritual director).
Of course, once a pastor gets used to this image of being “the one who has all the answers” as a public persona, it gets hard to recognize when it is appropriate – even necessary – to share his or her own doubts and questions.
Comment by: Eliza
23Pastor David, thank you for describing this about a pastor’s role. I see your point, & how important it can be to project that sense of certainty. As an unchurched atheist, I can’t think of another situation in which I might run into a teacher whose parallel roles would necessitate this veiling of any uncertainties he or she might be feeling.
Comment by: ncxian
24Eliza, are there times as a physician when you don’t share your doubts and uncertainties with a patient? Do patients sometimes want answers and certainties and sometimes you decide that is what to give them?
Comment by: Helen
25In order not to take this comments section too far away from discussing Class #4 I’ve posted a new blog entry about whether we should communicate our doubts and uncertainties to others:
Should we communicate our doubts and uncertainties to others?
Comment by: Stephan
26Siamang, you lack eternal perspective in your analysis. When we meet God we will share that eternal perspective and will understand more fully what He intended all along. A few thousand years is nothing compared with infinity.
Comment by: Paul
27Thanks Helen, I think there is a fundamental ‘ness’ about the idea so I’m not surprised that other people have picked up/come up with the same idea and found interesting/creative/different ways of expressing it – gives a richer source of expression and learning to draw from/be inspired by :)
Comment by: Tim
28Eliza,
Thanks for this very insightful blog conversation! As a Lutheran Christian pastor I have learned:
*how arrogant we can be
*how stupid we come across when acting like we have all the answers
*how rude we are when we put down the questions and perspectives of others
*how ridiculous we appear when we fire off “facts” that are not facts
*how sad we must make Jesus when we try to “argue people” into the family over against “loving people” into the family
Bottom line: most of us are more “Jesus admirers” rather than “Jesus followers”. It takes one (me) to know one (your pastor friend). The only thing I can do is try to repent (= rethink, reconsider, turn around, reorient) from my old approach to followng Jesus.
I pray that you will continue to journey and explore and ask questions about the Mystery who has claimed many of us, despite our messy, ridiculous stumblings.
Peace, Duh-sciple Tim
Comment by: ncxian
29Duh-sciple Tim:
I love your signature. It makes me think of all the stories in the gospels about Jesus being thoroughly exasperated with his dense fellows. You are in good company!
Comment by: Helen
30Thanks for your comments, Tim!
Comment by: Rachel
31Eliza, here’s where I would have been writhing and moaning in my seat. That statement completely freaks me out!
As Karen pointed out on another thread, perceiving the group as an oppressed minority is a characteristic element of fundamentalism.
Comment by: Rachel
32I agree with your observation, Helen. But I would add that a particular interpretation of Revelation is responsible for those alarmist ideas. The literal, futurist interpretation is only one of several major interpretive views.
Comment by: benamin ady
33There’s been a bit of a conversation going on over at church rater about the questions related to the death penalty and war. I get very wierded out by the whole ‘fundamentalist’ take on government, death penalty, and war. I can’t figure out how national soveriegnty comes into it. The sect I grew up in was very pro death penalty and pro war. I just don’t see how these ideas are consistent with the life of J.C. I’m with Rachel–I know I couldn’t cope with the class. I’ve heard it said that the whole wierd interpretation of what constitutes “authority” and how Christians are to respond to authority is actually pagan. I guess I see authority as inherently flawed (that is, evil) and I don’t understand how one can use the 10 commandments to say on the one hand that the point is to show us we *can’t* do them, and on the other hand we are supposed to submit to ‘authority’ which of course means submitting to other people who *can’t* do them.
Comment by: Rachel
34The statement “Serving in the armed forces of the country is service rendered to God’s representative, and therefore to God” certainly does NOT reflect the understanding of the early church. For the first 300 years, followers of Jesus were almost universally pacifists. Some of the early Christians were martyred for refusing to serve in the Roman Army. One martyrdom account that has been preserved is of a young man named Maxmilian.
Maximilian from Numidia, a Christian, appeared before an African proconsul named Dion for induction into the army. Maximilian refused induction, however, stating simply, “I am not allowed to be a soldier, for I am a Christian.” Dion replied sharply, “Get into the service, or it will cost you your life.” Maximilian replied, “I do this age no war-service, but I do ‘war-service’ for my God.” No amount of threatening could budge him from his simple confession, “I am a Christian and I cannot do evil. . . .I shall not perish, but when I have forsaken this world, my soul shall live, with Christ my Lord. … I cannot fight, if I die; I am not a soldier of this world, but a soldier of God.”
Later he refused the royal badge that had the sign of the emperor on it, saying, “I do not accept your mark, for I already have the sign of Christ, my God… I do not accept the mark of this age, and if you impose it on me, I shall break it, for it is worth nothing.” The consul said, “You must serve or die.” Maximilian replied, “I am not a soldier of the world but of God. It is Christ whom we serve, all of us who are Christians.”
The outcome was that on March 12, 295, Maximilian was executed. Maximilian’s father returned home, “giving thanks to God that he had been able to bring such a present to the Lord.” Later, as a special honor, his body was brought to Carthage and buried near the tomb of Cyprian, a great leader in the church, who had also died as a martyr.
Comment by: Rachel
35Nearly all of the theologians of the early church taught that violence was wrong under any circumstances and that military service was imcompatible with following Christ.
“We, who were formerly slayers of one another, not only do not make war upon our enemies, but, for the sake of neither lying nor deceiving those who examine us, gladly die confessing Christ.” – Justin Martyr, 100 – 165 A.D.
“He who holds the sword must cast it away and that if one of the faithful becomes a soldier he must be rejected by the Church, for he has scorned God.” – Clement of Alexandria, aprox. 150-216 A.D.
“Under no circumstances should a true Christian draw the sword.” — Tertullian, 155-230 A.D.
“A person who has accepted the power of killing, or a soldier, may never be received [into the church] at all.” – Hippolytus, 170-236 A.D.
“We cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly.” – Athenagoras of Athen, aprox 180 A.D.
“You cannot demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests. We do not go forth as soldiers.” Origen of Alexandria, 185-254 A.D.
“When God prohibits killing, he not only forbids us to commit brigandage, which is not allowed even by the public laws, but he warns us not to do even those things which are legal among men. And so it will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier – for justice itself is his military service – nor to accuse anyone of a capital offense, because it makes no difference whether thou kill with a sword or with a word, since killing itself is forbidden. And so, in this commandment of God, no exception at all ought to be made to the rule that it is always wrong to kill a man, whom God has wished to be regarded as a sacrosanct creature…Thou shalt not kill… It is always unlawful to put a man to death.” – Lactantius of Bithynia, aprox 240-317 A.D.
Comment by: Siamang
36Wow, Rachel.
Thanks for sharing that. It’s kind of stunning.
Comment by: Rachel
37I agree, Siamang. It’s sad to see how far the American church has strayed because we chose to give our allegiance to the empire.
My favorite quote on the topic of nonviolence is this beautiful declaration from the great theologian Origen.
“We have come in accordance with the counsel of Jesus to cut down our arrogant swords of argument into plowshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer take swords against a nation, nor do we learn anymore to make war, having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our Lord.” – Origen of Alexandria, 185-254 A.D.
Comment by: Doreen
38Eliza, I wish I had half your patience….
Comment by: Pastor David
39Rachel is right on target with this one. For the first 200-300 years of Christianity, military service was not an option for Christians. Many people were denied baptism because they were soldiers, and baptized Christians were often forbidden to become soldiers.
Interestingly, one finds some very militaristic images in the theology and hymnody of that time period.
Comment by: David H
40It shouldn’t be surprising that the early refinements of just war theology came with the Catholic Church in the middle ages. Thomas Aquinas is credited with the logical construct behind just war. Aquinas was a child or royalty raised to be an academician/priest in a church that was still trying to be a primary power-broker in European politics. It shouldn’t be surprising that his convoluted rationale led to a conclusion that war could be justified as long as it a) requested or commanded by a “superior or lawful authority,” and b) only wage war to bring peace. (http://ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Texts/Aquinas/JustWar.html)
The theology or theory of just war began with St. Augustine, also an official of the Catholic Church, whose life and writings coincided with the barbarian invasions and ensuing collapse of the Roman Empire.
Augustine was also crucial in a dispute that led to the first organized killings of Christians by other Christians. A sect known as the Donatists had arisen after Christianity became the official religion of the Empire. The Donatists opposed reconciliation with Christians who had aided the Romans in oppression of the early Church. There were other differences between Donatists and the Catholic Church, but a key one had to do with separation of Church and State (with the Donatists calling for a great deal more separation than the Catholic Church). Augustine led the philosophical fight against what became known as a heresy. He believed adherents of the view needed to come under the discipline of both church and state. While reportedly against the use of force, Augustine supported repression of the belief. The official church eventually had the belief outlawed and its practice made punishable by death.
Like others of his time, Augustine also believed that people lacked the will and wisdom to govern themselves. He saw Adam and Eve as having too much pride and their pride having led them to attempt to govern themselves. He believed that people had to be governed by God through his representatives (http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch25.htm). Augustine was also a strong proponent of original sin, which he believed essentially robbed all people of the ability to be completely virtuous. To escape damming Jesus, he argued that sin was passed from parent to child via semen, thus letting the virgin-born off the hook.
An interesting group of ideas that all sort of dovetail into the concept that it is OK to kill anyone — even fellow Christians — as long as I am acting on the orders of some justified authority. The thing that strikes me most, however, is that this theology doesn’t particularly serve God. It does however serve individuals or governments seeking push their interests over those of another. If Augustine is right, people are essentially selfish and will (given the chance) choose to do the selfish thing more often than not, and governments and their leaders are people, then the lawful authority will often choose to do selfish things. If true, how can such authorities be trusted to wage war for unselfish reasons?
My personal belief is that while war may be a necessary tool for nations it is something that Christians should avoid (either in advocation or practice). There will always be plenty of people interested in fighting for what they believe or want. That will ensure a place for Christians in helping the wounded and bereft, a place they abandon if they are among the killers.
Comment by: Siamang
41Stephan wrote:
Stephan, I translate that as “God’s ways are not man’s ways.”
Which sounds to me awfully like “Humans can’t understand the words of preachers, they are merely meant to follow them.”
What I’m doing in my post is weighing my former interpretation of the new covenent against Eliza’s pastor’s (IMO) theologically radical opposing view: God as deciever of the Jews.
If we, indeed cannot apply the (admittedly non-infinite) capacity for human perspective to evaluate either conflicting view, how can we be expected to apply our brains at all to questions of theology? How can we discern which theological system to adhere to if we are admonished against applying human judgement to their starkly contradictory manifold claims?
Comment by: David H
42Siamang, I certainly believe God can and has done things I can’t understand (if a being exists with enough whatever to create time, the universe and all the rest, he/she/it has power and/or ability I can’t comprehend). However, the ineffable nature of God has certainly been used to stop a lot of thought on matters of faith. And that’s OK, St. Augustine might argue, ’cause our human hearts and brains can be trusted with such things. Better to leave them up to the authorities.
Comment by: Siamang
43Sure, absolutely there are things that God would be cabable of understanding that I would not.
But of course, I am limiting my logical inquiry to matters that other (presumably equally human) theologians have weighed in on and decided that they have the ability to speak for God on.
Eliza’s pastor, for instance, seems to have the understanding of God’s motives in writing the Decalogue. In the face of it, it does me well to compare his understanding of God’s motives with other (mere) humans who ascribe contradictory motives to God.
“Mysterious ways” here being code for “don’t question the good pastor, he knows more than you do!” ;-)
If I were shopping around for a religion, I’d probably steer clear of those who contended that God deceived the Jews by handing them a list of impossible commandments and intended the collapse of their society as an object lesson.
This interpretation causes greater problems theologically than it solves, IMO. It seems to spring wholecloth from a particularly literal reading of Christ’s statement that it is impossible to follow all the laws of Israel, and therefore people require forgiveness. I don’t think that statement is the same thing as saying that God puposefully made the Decalogue as an unfollowable set of commandments in order to shame people into needing Christ.
Sure, it builds up the saving quality of Christ, but at the cost of painting God as being at best disingenuous in His dealings with the Israelites. I doubt there is any deep scriptural justification for this view. Can anyone offer any?
Comment by: Helen
44Siamang wrote:
Excellent point, Siamang.
I’m familiar with the ‘we can’t understand God’s ways’ argument. I find it frustrating how it prevents Christians who hold to it being able to do any reasoned analysis of God’s words and deeds. They are by definition perfect, and if they ever seem otherwise, it’s because ‘we can’t understand God’s ways’.
Comment by: Siamang
45Isn’t reading the Bible an attempt to understand God’s ways?
If that’s an impossibility, why read the Bible?
I think it’s actually a middle position, “You are meant to understand and follow the interpretation the High Priests ordain, but don’t wander too far off the reservation on your own.”
“God’s ways are not man’s ways” doesn’t always seem to apply to those men with the fancy collars. It does seem an admonishment against questioning.
My response (which would not be appreciated, I’m sure) would be to assure the pastor that I’m not questioning God’s ways. I’m questioning whether our Pastor is a reliable diviner of God’s ways.
Comment by: Rachel
46And that is a perfectly reasonable and rational question to ask!
Comment by: David H
47Given what some of God’s followers have divined — Jim Jones, as just one example — I would say it is important to question them. My own perception is that many interpreters of scripture arrive to the interpretation that best meets their ends rather than the one that best meets a heavenly end.
Comment by: Stephan
48Siamang, let me elaborate. In your original post, you said:
There are several assumptions behind this (and the rest of your post).
1. Those who died before Jesus came cannot be saved.
2. 2000 years is a long time.
3. God’s only purpose in sending a savior was to get us to heaven.
4. Physical death is the end.
Let me address these one at a time.
1. I don’t believe this is true. I believe God can make that sacrifice retroactive to save anyone He wants.
2. You have said yourself that the time man has been on earth is not even a blip on the radar compared to the history of the universe. So you tell me – is 2000 years a long time?
3. Eternal salvation is only one reason Jesus came. I believe he also came to help us bring his create heaven on earth a little bit at a time. We are afforded a closer communion directly with God, making it a better relationship for Him and us.
4. I’m not sure the moment of death is the moment you either go to heaven or hell. I don’t find anything in the Bible that precludes a change of mind after that moment.
I’m not saying; Trust me, follow me, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I’m saying; free your mind from literal fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible.
It’s not pointless to try to understand God, and no one is saying it is (except agnostics). But it is impossible to understand God if you can’t get past your own prior assumptions.
Comment by: Pastor David
49My wife and I have a very close relationship. We met while we were in graduate school, and quickly went about learning everything we could about one another. We shared our stories and our passions, talked about our families and our upbringings, and worked to find a vision for a future that included the two of us together.
The we got married, and we learned how little we truly knew about one another. We started to learn the quirks of personality, the different ways of day-to-day living, and the reactions to a variety of situations.
And still every day I learn more. I believe that I know my wife – and she knows me – better than anyone else in the world. I could learn something new everyday, and still not know everything about her.
Is my wife unknownable? Yes and no. Yes, insofar as any person is. A person is complex, changing, dynamic, and cannot be pinned down into one of the many stereotypes and caricatures that we often try to make people fit into. But also no, infar as she shares herself with me, and I am open to learn about her from her.
I will never totally, completely, and exhaustively know my wife. But I strive everyday to know her better and more.
Comment by: Rachel
50Stephan, I don’t think agnostics would necessarily say that it is pointless to try and understand God. Agnostics are people who have not drawn a firm conclusion about the existence of God, often because they feel there is a lack of evidence to either confirm or deny it. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be open to seeking to understand God IF they found evidence that God may exist.
Comment by: Siamang
51Stephan,
To make a devil’s advocate argument, the assumptions I am making are not mine, they are the foundation of Eliza’s pastor’s stated beliefs. In the case of certain assumptions if I do not know Eliza’s pastor’s belief, I am using what I know of standard fundamentalist evangelical boilerplate. I am always, of course, open to people pointing out if I have possibly misunderstood the theological background of Eliza’s Pastor. I don’t think I have.
But in this discussion I am examining his beliefs to see where they logically lead.
To answer your points…
In my little dialogue I have God saving Samuel Moskowitz anyway. This is to acknowlege that God can save anyone He chooses.
Yes, within the span of human life, it IS, at least when compared with the span of time for us between when one can read Exodus and the Gospels. I was contrasting how easy we seem to have it from what others *who presumably to a fair judge should have had every opportunity to achieve salvation that we do.* They should have been able to trust God to give them good laws. That apparantly some people believe differently brings up the uncomfortable theological possibility that God is toying with us.
No, I absolutely don’t accept that I was making this presumption. Rather, I was presuming the exact opposite. I was presuming that God wants us to live this life well. Which is why it would be extremely troubling for my imaginary Samuel Moskowitz to have lived a life in 500BC under impossible-to-follow laws that were purposefully (intelligently?) designed to show the unworkability of life under biblical laws. I precisely assume that fealty to God should (in a theistic worldview) provide some measure of Earthly benefit. That following an intentionally flawed Decalogue presumably results in a sabotaged society is exactly the suspect theological position I am recoiling from.
In this aspect, I am assuming that this is the position of Eliza’s pastor, and so it is germaine to my analysis of his view.
That’s actually a whole seperate discussion. In this discussion I was merely attempting to study the idea of a purposefully flawed Decalogue as an internal criticism of Eliza’s Pastor’s theology.
Comment by: Siamang
52Raechel,
To clarify, there is one particular flavor of agnosticism which argues that the existance of God is unknowable.
So it’s not just the fence-sitters awaiting convincing evidence. There are people who assert that they are agnostic because for example, any action of God would be indistinguishable from any other natural law in the universe. So we, as beings of this universe would never be able to discern any difference between God and a naturalistic force like gravity.
Comment by: Siamang
53Hmm…
I wish I could edit. Let me elaborate one point further.
I am specifially illustrating that a God who sends a savior just to get us to heaven is not my starting point.
In my dialogue between Samuel Moskowitz and God, Samuel has lived a horrible, difficult and hard life in a society that was purposefully given a flawed Ten Commandments. He life a life of hell, but is given salvation at the end because he served God’s purpose to provide an object lesson for 21st Century readers of the digital e.Bible.
I am saying that despite God granting poor Mr. Moskowitz salvation as a (admittedly pretty darn good) consolation prize, nevertheless his life was hell because his society was a mess because they were following an unfollowable set of laws.
By that example, I am specifically saying that we as readers should find morally distasteful the interpretation of the Bible which ascribes Machiavellian intent to God when He wrote the Decalogue.
Comment by: Stephan
54Siamang, thanks for clarifying. If your attempt is to find holes in Eliza’s pastor’s theology that’s easy enough to do. I also have some fish in a barrel you can shoot.
Of course, I’m sure anyone could just as easily find holes in my theology, or anyone’s for that matter. None of us have all of it right. But I think we each have some of it right, and I am continuing to try to piece it together.
Comment by: Rachel
55Thanks for that explanation, Siamang. Though my worldview is theistic, I can see the logic behind the agnostic position you described. Can you also clarify for me the difference between an agnostic and an atheist?
Comment by: Siamang
56No problem Stephen. My reaction in this thread was to the specific things Eliza is encountering. Yes, by all means it does contrast quite starkly with the more liberal theology usually discussed here. You can see which one I prefer by the simple fact that I pitch my tent here. I said to Karen just this week that one of the great things about this conversation is that I feel like my opinion of Christians has greatly improved since, well, interacting with so many bright, thoughtful, well-spoken ones here. And that’s got to be much more healthy than stewing in my own juices.
Rachel wrote:
Sure Rachel…
The definition thing… hrmm.. This comes up a lot, and there’s no hard and fast answer.
Here’s two different sets of definitions. In general usage in the greater population, the definitions are so simple as to be simplistic:
Atheist: Someone who knows for sure there isn’t a God.
Agnostic: Someone who isn’t sure (preach at him harder!) ;-)
Now, within the atheist community, there’s a bit of a different point of view, obviously. There’s also kind of a philosophical jargon which defines these two prospects as being different kinds of questions.
Theist vs atheist: The position that a God exists vs. that a God doesn’t exits, or that a person is a worshipper or a non-worshipper.
Gnostic vs agnostic: The proposition that God’s existence or nonexistence is known or knowable.
So to define me, I am an agnostic atheist. I worship no god(s) because I am unconvinced of his/her/their existence.
Atheist is my present condition, agnostic is my reason for being in my present condition. Logically, someone could be a gnostic Atheist, convinced that they have proof against the existence of God. Someone could be an agnostic theist, unconvinced of God’s existence, but worshipping anyway, possibly with hope of being right.
So outside the atheist community, most people will say atheists make a faith statement that no god exists. But within the atheist community, we actually take a form of agnosticism as being perfectly consonant with atheism.
Atheists generally think that we should be able to define the term ourselves rather than have the term (and therefore our beliefs) defined for us by the theist majority, and we’re working to make our definition the one that goes by the little numeral 1 in the dictionary.
Comment by: Eliza
57To give an example of Siamang’s comments about what atheists might call themselves in different circles (from Wikipedia’s page on Agnosticism):
We agnostics/atheists might well ask: “what is the definition of God?” (or, shorter, “what is God?”)- since to approach the question “Does God exist?” requires some understanding of that thing/being whose existence is being questioned/discussed. Another question might be “what would constitute proof?” (or, shorter, “how do you know?”), and that seems to be where alot of the difference of perspective, opinion, belief, etc comes in. (In the case of one’s spouse, the first question seems easy to answer, but the second might still be open to debate.)
Anyway, that set of questions can lead one to an uncommonly used term, Ignosticism:
Comment by: Eliza
58Thank you, Rachel, David H, and Pastor David, and Benjamin Ady, for your illuminating comments on the Christian history of views about war participation (in ##33-40 above). It was fascinating, illuminating, and educational.
Comment by: Rachel
59Thanks for the explanation, Siamang and Eliza.
Absolutely! That is just basic fairness and respect. This dialogue has helped me to understand better the prejudice and misunderstanding that atheists face.