Now here's a question I often ask myself when taken out of my little private comfortable bubble and have sustained contact with people 'out there' (aarrghh!):frankly, what positive difference is my faith making in my life? What could I point to in my life, to someone who doesn't share my faith, and say, see this, and persuade them to look into it?
For starters, I'm even struggling to find a descriptive term I'm happy with just now to describe 'people who don't share my faith' that they'd be happy with too. Is there one? 'Non-Christian': who wants to be defined by a negative? 'Unbeliever': again, a negative... terms which I guess can be helpful in discussion amongst Christians but can't sound great outside the circle. Terms of exclusion. 'Heathen' could only be used humorously. Help! If I call myself a Christian, what could someone who's not call themselves? I'm identifying myself with a particular set of beliefs. Some can say they are atheists or agnostics or other things... What would most people say? I've run out of ideas. And got diverted from my original question. Come back to it.
Heard on radio: 'I just got my dog put down'. 'Was it mad?' 'Well, it wasn't pleased'. Radio 2. Can't take the blame.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
8 comments:
Interesting questions Bruce. Firstly, there is nothing that you could possibly have in your life that some non believer hasn't already got, so testimonies dont impress me at all. On a personal note, when we discuss evidence of god's existence, you tell me that's not how it works. That seems inconsistent. It also seems strange that christians seem to think that god reveals himself in the most indirect means possible, yet you are looking to have something in your life that is concrete to show to others.
Is this something you worry about?
My anti testimony is that faith only ever brought me grief: not a single day of Joy in two years. I feel much more content now. I heartily endorse dropping your faith :-)
I dont mind what you call us. I'm happy with the in your face atheist tag. I do think "bright" is a bit namby pamby and elitist. Why dont you just be honest and refer to us as those who are headed off to hell :-)
BTW my dog has no nose
Billy
Can he smell bait?
(or was that another punchline?)
I would suggest that "thinking atheists" who have spent time deciding on whether they believe in God or not are actually a small minority of the people who actually don't openly agree with the core doctrines of the Christian faith. In the same way that people who are Christians in the "love Jesus as Lord and Saviour" sense are far fewer than those who tick the "christian" box in the national register.
Rarely will you find two people who believe exactly the same thing about everything, and with a system of beliefs as multi-faceted as Christianity, one person who calls themselves a Christian is going to be very different from another, even within the same church.
It's like asking a Christian whether they are Calvinist or Arminian in their understanding of the nature of election. Most have not thought about it enough to have a cemented opinion.
What about "undecided"? Floater, or drifter maybe. Pagan? :)
If we were being politically correct, we would say "a person who..." because first and foremost they are a person, and their actions or beliefs come second.
Maybe "people who are not Christians" or "people who wouldn't admit to having a personal relationship with Jesus".It's a bit of a mouthful though.
I don't think I would be offended by a Jewish blogger talking about "non-Jews" if his rhetoric didn't suggest that I was being hated for being in this category.
It's the words you use to talk about "non-Christians", and not the term itself which will be taken as judgemental. As Billy highlights above, there's no point trying to use language that suggests a tension does not exist between those who believe extremely different things about the world around them.
Have a good week sir.
Didn't Jesus use "sheep" and "goats"?
My Pastor refers to people who aren't Christians as being "unchurched".
I'm not sure it's the best descriptor because the word suggests to me that the people have never been in contact with any sort of church.
There are truckloads of people out there who grew up going to church, but for whatever reason are no longer part of it. To me, they wouldn't really fit the description of "unchurched".
I dunno. It's a tricky one, but I agree with Beat Attitude. The words you choose to put around the descriptor and the tone of your voice are the things that will offend or not.
Didn't Jesus use "sheep" and "goats"?
Yes, I dont think Jesus was that great a teacher. Atheists often use the term sheep in an unflattering way to label believers. I suppose goats do have a mind of their own.
If you really are wanting to build bridges though, I wouldnt recommend that you use either term.
It is strange that we get the "negative" term. Maybe we should call the religious Arationalists? :-)
Billy
Curios lalalian how you found my blog - through Gadget Vicar's? Appreciate your comments.
Will try and come back to others of yours Billy.
On the sheep and goats idea, a friend the other day talked about people either being sheep or goats in the workplace. Sheep being natural followers/employees, goats employers/leaders.
Hi. I think I found you through Simon Varwell.
Post a Comment