Video: Yet another religious Apple-commercial parody
posted at 9:30 am on April 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Same idea as that “Christian vs. Christ-follower” series from December: buttoned-down dogma versus spiritual cool, this time with more vinegar directed at the PC/dork side. The ad comes from Living Spring Christian Fellowship in California, whose webpage introduces the spot this way:
I don’t know about you but religion kind of scares me. As a pastor, people assume that I am “religious”. However, religion carries all kinds of baggage with it. Religion flies planes into buildings. Religion creates institutions. Religion has caused a lot of problems in our world’s history.
They also believe the Bible isn’t so much infallible as “infallable”, so I wouldn’t take their aspersions on religion too much to heart.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Somebody needs to do something about those Mormons.
JasonG on April 3, 2007 at 9:36 AM
Religion–California style! I prefer mine to be the backwoods Tennessee type, thank-you very much.
robblefarian on April 3, 2007 at 9:37 AM
HEY APPLE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
B I T E M E !!!!!
seejanemom on April 3, 2007 at 9:39 AM
It’s not an Apple commercial, for God’s sake. It’s a church’s parody of an Apple commercial.
Allahpundit on April 3, 2007 at 9:40 AM
robblefarian…..
hey….grab your snake, you can ride shotgun….I’ll drive. We can be in Tennessee by nightfall.
seejanemom on April 3, 2007 at 9:40 AM
I GET IT, ALLAH….
seejanemom on April 3, 2007 at 9:40 AM
Southern Baptist? You guys still bring snakes to church?
JasonG on April 3, 2007 at 9:41 AM
IT WAS JUST A CHANCE TO SAY HOW MUCH I HATE MAC….sorry.
Are you a MAC SNOB, ALLAH? Say it isn’t so….
seejanemom on April 3, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Crap, seejanemom, you beat me to it.
JasonG on April 3, 2007 at 9:41 AM
JasonG…
EVERY SUNDAY….in the pages of our KJV Bibles, y’all!
seejanemom on April 3, 2007 at 9:42 AM
The “right people” hum?
Come-on Livingspring, show some balls and do one with a Muslim as “religious.” Cowards.
TheBigOldDog on April 3, 2007 at 9:43 AM
What do you bring?
/
LakeRuins on April 3, 2007 at 9:44 AM
The abiligatory Maddox Mac post:
One thing PC users can do that Mac users can’t…
TheBigOldDog on April 3, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Venom kits
JasonG on April 3, 2007 at 9:45 AM
That’s “obligatory” Man I wish you had a preview button…
TheBigOldDog on April 3, 2007 at 9:45 AM
I SOOoo ***HEART*** you , TheBigOldDog
seejanemom on April 3, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Twelve posts and this has spun out of control. That must be a record.
windbag on April 3, 2007 at 9:48 AM
DAMN, I love a sporty thread on a fresh Spring morning!
But alas, I have Liberals to harass at the health food store.
Be well, Airheads!
XOXOXOXOXOOXOXOXXOXO
seejanemom on April 3, 2007 at 9:51 AM
I can’t watch it. I’m done with Mac vs. PC parody ads.
It’s become the new “Brokeback” of the viral video world.
Slublog on April 3, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Christianity with a PR firm.
Watching the video, they certainly make “Religious” look like a freak, but they’re not showing him being fake. And “Authentic” doesn’t seem to live up to his name either. All he does is mock “Religious.”
Does anyone really expect Christians to treat others with respect when they can’t treat their own with respect?
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 9:53 AM
Hooray for not getting the fact that people hate the way someone advertises and still deciding to copy it for the same exact effect!
James on April 3, 2007 at 9:53 AM
Did anyone else note this unfortunate wording?
James on April 3, 2007 at 9:56 AM
My very thought….you gotta watch those Episcopalians as well. That many upper middle class white people–prima facie up to no good.
honora on April 3, 2007 at 9:58 AM
I live in Tennessee…with my MAC!!! HA! Anywho–I should have clarified–the best churches I’ve been to are the ones hidden away in the small communities. Wonderful, SMALL congregations and down-home love for all.
Sorry, never seen any snakes in church.
robblefarian on April 3, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Nope. Serbian Orhodox.
robblefarian on April 3, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Here goes my diatribe: religion also feeds and inoculates more people worldwide than any government sponsored organization. The largest amnesty organization in the world? The Catholic Church. My husband and his family have a charity in Kenya, (I’m very involved too) and thank God for all of the help we get from Catholic Charities. They have the infrastructure and the relationships to help us tremendously and thus many children from the Dandora slums can now eat, attend school, get good medical treatment and live in a safe place. My husbands family is Evangelical and their friends over there didn’t have such a great opinion of the Catholics until they saw how much they could and would do to help, (I’m Catholic - hubby is Evangelical. What a pair!)
foxforce91 on April 3, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Yeah, they made Religious look like a total dipwad. Worse, he looks like Charles Martin Smith.
But even accepting their premise, when the faith-testing moment comes, I think I’d rather be on Religious’ side than
Poser’s– er, Authentic’s.a4g on April 3, 2007 at 10:04 AM
What religion would that be? Certainly not the Religion of Peace™.
Matticus Finch on April 3, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Ah, only in California could you get religion, anarchy-style.
“Oh Dennis there’s some lovely Dogma over ‘ere.”
BohicaTwentyTwo on April 3, 2007 at 10:09 AM
I have studied practical theology (homiletics specifically) long enough that I now assume that these “flashy” parody ads and “relevant” sermon series are generally a cover for a preacher who can’t preach all that well. Sermon sucks? Jazz it up with a little “authenticity” and “relevance” - which too often looks like this.
Meh. I’m just so tired of this.
At least they believe that the Bible is not subject to falling…
lame.
nailinmyeye on April 3, 2007 at 10:11 AM
HAY GUYS ITS GONNA BE SO AWESOME ONCE WE GET RID OF STUPID RELIGION. THEN NOONE WILL FIGHT GOD WARS ANYMORE AND WE CAN ALL GO ON THE INTERNETS AMIRITE? RELIGION IS SO STUPID BECUASE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THEY CAN’T SEE. THAT’S NOT SMART AT ALL. I’M DIFFERENT BECUASE I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE, AND YOU CAN SEE ALL THE SCIENCES RIGHT?
Vincenzo on April 3, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Hmm, i had little “sarcasm” tags to be clear that isn’t my actual opinion. So consider this comment a clarification.
Vincenzo on April 3, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Like that militant Salvation Army. Chilling.
Pablo on April 3, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Doesn’t much matter.
If we treated our own with respect, then the complaint would be group-think and hegemony. When the Western world doesn’t even have the sense to realize that Western values come directly from a very dogmatic, very religious Christian world-view (see the Reformation and the fact that classical thought was preserved by the only peoples in the world that put a premium on reason –> Christians), then there isn’t much point in taking umbrage to what they say about modern Christianity.
This is the same world that thinks Hezzbollah is a group of misunderstood idealists and that James Dobson is a crazed fanatic. For being so enamored with rational thought, they seem wholly incapable of implementing it. I’ve given up trying to convince folks of the value of my dirty little religion, full of snake-handlers and mad mystics, and have instead decided to enjoy the fruits of my intellectual and spiritual forbears: Bunyan, Dostoevsky, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Gill, etc.
As someone once told me, things are getting back to normal. That is to say that Christians are beginning to live with real persecution on a day-to-day basis, while other religions, far more deserving of condemnation, are being given free reign to assert their dominance. We had a brief period of freedom here in the United States, but the door is being shut on that steadily and surely, if by increments. Christians have very little freedom elsewhere in the world and rarely evoke sympathy from the powers that be.
To be sure, Christians act like idiots from time to time, but I fail to see how it is their Christianity that induces such behavior, especially considering that the moral standards by which we judge such idiocy are so thoroughly Christian in origin.
spmat on April 3, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Great religion>>>very Crunchy Con>>>
and you are right, the most “faithful and unbending” (READ: No KARYOKE FOR CHRIST, as I call it)ARE indeed in the backwater.
And no…the only snake I have EVER seen in church was on a state flag…except that one time in West Virginia…
seejanemom on April 3, 2007 at 10:35 AM
That was my first though when I read the transcript. Don’t forget about those Presbyterians.
amerpundit on April 3, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Not to mention those bloodthirsty goons at Feed the Children.
Matticus Finch on April 3, 2007 at 10:43 AM
I think you are ignoring the contributions of the ancients, particularly the Greeks, who obviously pre-date Christ, as well as the Enlightment–this very evident in the writings of Jefferson and other Founders–wherein reason is the basis for authority and goverments.
honora on April 3, 2007 at 10:53 AM
*snerk* As a Mormon… I could say that what you should do about those dang Mormons is investigate and join.
*steps back from the oil just thrown on the blazing fire*
Vanceone on April 3, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Sadly, there aren’t any Serbian Orthodox churches IN Tennessee! But there is a pretty good Greek Orthodox church in Nashville. Also, we’ve seen a large influx of Egyptian Coptic Christians (wonderful people, BTW) here in Middle Tennessee. Last month we went to a local Gyro place and I noticed a few icons on the walls. But I also noticed the Egyptian names on the store license hung proudly on the wall. I inquired if they were Coptic Christian. Delighted, the woman said “yes! Are you Coptic Christian.” I told her no, I was Serbian Orthodox. She then asked where I went to church. I replied that I was a lax Christian and she said, “Shame on you! Why don’t you come to church with us, the Coptic Christians! We’d love to have you!”
I might just do it, too. Fantastic people.
robblefarian on April 3, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Traveled to SLC a few years back–what a wonderful place! Toured the sqare. Had a marvelous time in Utah, would love to return there.
robblefarian on April 3, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Religious = Republican
Authentic = Democrat
That’s what I took away from the video.
Enrique on April 3, 2007 at 11:33 AM
I am most certainly not. The works of the Greeks and Romans exist today because of the value place upon them by Christians after the fall of the Roman state. While bands of marauding brutes were busy burning and looting the libraries of the ancients, Christians were busy copying and preserving the ideas those libraries contained. They did so because theirs was the only major religion at that time that put any premium on reason and logic.
As to the Enlightenment, I fail to see how you can call it anti-Christian (or non-Christian) when its fundamental philosophical and moral tenet, that Man has unalienable rights endowed by his Creator, can claim no other forbear than the explosion of learning during the Reformation, which is a direct result of Christians endeavoring to unshackle themselves from repressive religious persecution at the hands of the State.
The printing press? A means to distribute religious tracts.
Science? A means to understand God’s creation, which is only understandable under the thoroughly Judeo-Christian idea that the creation is fully rational. The Greeks did not believe that the universe was rational, nor did the Romans. Their gods, certainly the ones that created reality, were arbitrary, capricious and prone to inconsistency. You could not expect causality in the real world; you could only expect it in the realm of the spirit or the mind (i.e. Platonism). Islam teaches outright that the creator, and therefore his creation, is non-rational, that Allah may do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Only the Judeo-Christian God has but one constraint upon Him: He cannot lie. No other religious world-view has such a profound axiomatic constraint, and it is this constraint that made (and makes) science possible.
Technology? A result of the Judeo-Christian ethic and view that the natural world is capable of being dominated through rational means.
Democracy? A result of a religion, the only religion in the world at the time, that deemed freedom essential to Man, as opposed to a privilege granted to a particular nation-state’s citizenry, which was the Greek and Roman model. Similarly, Christianity is the only religion that can, with any force, claim to invalidate slavery as a consequence of doctrinal application.
Yes, the Greeks were essential to the formalization of rational activity, but it wasn’t until the Christians made the leap of applying causality to Creation, which is a direct result of their religious world-view, that anything we now deem as Western culture could have existed. Everything that you would ascribe to the Enlightenment is simply a thoroughgoing extension of the axioms unique to a Judeo-Christian worldview.
Christ truly changed the world.
spmat on April 3, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Actually, too much reason can be a bad thing. The Greeks were so impressed with their reasoning ability they never bothered to go to a hill to verify Aristotle’s reasoning that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. The Muslim world preserved that reasoning and went beyond it and that’s why they are the scientific backwater that they are today. The barbarians in Europe didn’t have that benefit, so they out to the tower of Pisa and dropped two objects, and that’s part of how astronomy took over from astrology.
pedestrian on April 3, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Amen. They gave themselves away when “authentic” brought up politics in a mocking tone towards religious.
Their whole premise is flawed. Religious and Authentic are not mutually exclusive attributes. I would offer that one showed be both…..
Mallard T. Drake on April 3, 2007 at 12:09 PM
or one should be both
Mallard T. Drake on April 3, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Back during the “Jesus People” days, they had a saying that the Christian “army” was the only “army” that killed it own wounded.
Catseye on April 3, 2007 at 12:16 PM
If they don’t do that, arguably they are not Christians in the first place… maybe CINOs…..
Bradky on April 3, 2007 at 12:21 PM
I don’t understand the mentioning of all the different supposed denominations. The disciples of Jesus were not Catholic. Nor were they Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist or whatever else you can think up. They were disciples of Christ. Christ instructed them in the Great Commission to “go make disciples” not go make denominations. So either you follow the teachings of Christ or you do not. Simple as that.
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 12:22 PM
I do believe all these religious threads have Allah coming around!
PaisleyCow on April 3, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Curse you, Vance. Everyone, please ignore his post… that is the last thing I need now. Put down your torches and pitchforks.
spmat, good post. I whole-heartedly agree. I am tired of this multiculturalist approach that puts everything on the same level. Not everything is equal. Some things are better than others. Christianity vs. Islam? I’ll let you make up your own mind on that one.
Decoy256 on April 3, 2007 at 12:29 PM
So true and so horrible.
We’re supposed to be the body of Christ, but yet arms and feet are killing each other. We’re much more like the concubine who was killed, dismembered and mailed to the twelve tribes. It’s disgraceful at times.
I understand that when Christians mess up other Christians should be the first to denounce their actions, but this shouldn’t translate into denouncing the people.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Yes, but which teachings and to what degree? Christ was not a hippy. He said some pretty specific things in very specific ways. Paul, Peter and John, among others, said some equally specific things that different people have interpreted different ways.
I’m not saying that all these denominations are a consequence of equally correct interpretations of Scripture, but their existence does not invalidate their member’s inclusion into the Church (big “C”). Nor does it invalidate the necessity of religion, if religion is defined as the strict adherence to particular doctrines and teachings (as opposed to loosely defined platitudes).
It is easy to say “love thy neighbor,” but it is difficult to actually do that without knowing what it means to love. It is easy to say “love God,” but it is impossible to do that without knowing who and what God is. These definitions and principles are what make up doctrines; doctrines are what make up denominations. Throwing out doctrines for the sake of removing denominations is tantamount to destroying the reality of faith for the sake of maintaining the outward appearance of it.
spmat on April 3, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Osama Bin Laden is a very religious man.
Mojave Mark on April 3, 2007 at 1:29 PM
My bad, I misheard the video.
Religious and Autistic.
How come outta 5 major religions only one like to lop off body parts, beat women, and strap bombs to children? And they all live in a giant sand box.
Kini on April 3, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Moral equivalence mania!
PRCalDude on April 3, 2007 at 1:44 PM
spmat I disagree. Loving your neighbor and loving your God are commandments. They are not doctrines and not open to interpretation. Jesus gave plenty of examples. If you do not “know how to love” and you “don’t know who and what God is” then it is a moot point because you are not a Christian.
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 1:54 PM
More from the website. Does anybody here have any issues with this statement?
PRCalDude on April 3, 2007 at 2:02 PM
nope
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Really? No mention of sin, repentence, the person and work of Jesus. Just “God wants a relationship with us,” and “how it (the Bible) can give our life meaning.” That’s not the Christian God.
PRCalDude on April 3, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Well, that’s actually fairly accurate. Before becoming a Christian, sin isn’t half as important as getting into a relationship with God, who is Jesus. Once that relationship begins, God convicts us with the sin we need to deal with.
I really hate to disagree (especially if it means agreeing with the church who created this ad), but I think that’s exactly the Christian God.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Lookie here, they’ve done the 40 days of purpose!
PRCalDude on April 3, 2007 at 2:14 PM
I think you’ve got the ordo salutis well, out of order. Here: http://www.tulip.org/acc/sco/sco3.htm
PRCalDude on April 3, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Yes, loving God and loving your neighbor are commandments. Who your neighbor is and what God is are doctrines.
For example, most Christians believe in the triune God. Some Christians do not.
Jesus referred to “vain worship” (Mar 7:7), and Paul referred to “ignorant worship” (Act 17:23).
If we’re supposed to be accepting of all doctrines for the sake of homogeneity and inclusiveness, why then did John say this:
Indeed, why are we having this argument? Is it because one of us is not Christian and the other isn’t? I don’t think so. It’s because there are legitimate disagreements over significant doctrinal questions that, till Christ comes back, the earthly Church will simply have to suffer through.
You’re begging the question. You’re saying that Christians know what these things are because they are Christian, and they are Christian because they know what these things are.
The knowledge of the nature of God is something that is learned, as is the nature of His salvation. That’s why it’s called good news. Information isn’t news if you already know it. A revelation can only reveal something to someone that didn’t already know it.
spmat on April 3, 2007 at 2:32 PM
From your webpage:
Grace is something that cannot be earned by definition. Plus, if we argue that people cannot be free of sin without Christ, then clearly you must be a Christian to fully repent.
Honestly, as Paul said, all that matters is Christ crucified and raised. Christian is not so complex that it should take up a whole page to explain conversion.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 2:51 PM
It’s a reference to the scripture. “They who love not know not God, for God is love.” It’s not talking about the knowledge you get from study but the kind that is nearly innate. Christians have the spirit of God and from that should understand what love is unless they ignore that spirit.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 2:54 PM
I agree. That was for your own edification. The page AP linked didn’t mention Jesus (the only mediator between God and man), just “a relationship with God.” That’s a problem. Sinners can’t believe unless they first hear the Gospel. How will they hear if no one preaches to them?
PRCalDude on April 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that I am a disciple because I DO these things, not because I know what they are. Knowing something doesn’t mean anything. Many people know all about God and believe Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day yet they choose not to obey his teachings. It’s not what you know. It’s what you do.
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 2:57 PM
ok someone help me please. I have tried multiple times to put quotes in my posts and none of the buttons seem to work. If there is no preview and no instruction manual then how am I supposed to figure it out?
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Thanks, but I’m not looking for edification.
Jesus is God. So mentioning Jesus specifically is irrelevant.
And according to the Bible, everyone knows about God, the very specifics of know the name Jesus do not make one a Christian.
Afterall, the Bible says that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved, which implies that only those who call to God or Jesus will be saved. But since we know already that people like Elijah are already in heaven, speaking the exact name of Jesus is not necessary.
Many ask Christians how God could condemn someone who’s never heard of Jesus. Paul responded to that one.
Paul says that nature speaks for God, but since it clearly does not say “Jesus,” the implication is that the word “Jesus” and the knowledge of exactly who Jesus is, is not a necessary requirement to becoming a Christian.
Again, I don’t want to disagree with you, but Paul himself isn’t mentioning Jesus is the above scripture.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 3:18 PM
If you want to quote something, highlight it (as though you’re going to copy and paste) then press the quote button.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 3:18 PM
thank you
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 3:19 PM
You’re welcome.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 3:23 PM
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 3:23 PM
OK so highlighting and clicking quote doesn’t work.
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM
You only highlight the portion you want to quote.
bye
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Or if you’re struggling with that you can put (blockquote)(/blockquote) around what you what to quote. Only instead of using (), use
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 3:26 PM
I mean use instead of ( )
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 3:27 PM
i did that too and it doesn’t come up. I highlighted, clicked quote, and then added my comment. All it did was quote myself
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Dang. It’s making the brackets disappear. Basically, hit the comma key plus shift and the period key plus shift.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Try this. Hit the quote button, then type what you want quoted, then hit the quote button again.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 3:29 PM
LOL ok. For someone who has used computers for 15 years I sure feel like an idiot.
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 3:32 PM
ok getting closer lol. Preview? Anyone?
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 3:33 PM
In a way you’re right, but in the process of defining what you consider proper Christianity, you’ve alienated significant portions of Christianity (Catholics, Orthodox, all those sects that require specific liturgy).
In effect, you’ve done exactly what you denounce, which is what I’m saying. Any time you exactly define what it means to be a Christian, you’re defining a doctrine. You’re creating a classification that, if it has any meaning whatever, will necessarily exclude others who think of themselves as Christian.
Something cannot be nearly innate. It’s like being nearly pregnant.
That being said, I agree that the Holy Ghost is effectual to the mind of Man and is the means by which a man can love properly. I do not agree that this condition is sufficient to define true worship. It is necessary, to be sure, but not sufficient. The conditions are spirit and truth. Truth is something learned. Knowledge of the Scriptures is a prerequisite not only for pastors, but also for the flock. Denaturing truth such that all doctrines are acceptable only drains the spirit from a church, leaving a husk.
spmat on April 3, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Use <blockquote> and </blockquote> around what you want to quote.
spmat on April 3, 2007 at 3:39 PM
WHAT??? Have you read the REST of that chapter? (Roman’s 10:6-9) 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Where does it say that if you choose Not to call on Christ then you can still be saved? And by the way, Elijah was called up to heaven long before Christ died on the cross. So it is obvious that Jesus would not be mentioned because he had not yet been revealed to man.
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 3:45 PM
notice they don’t have the balls to make the religious guy Musilm.
wordwarp on April 3, 2007 at 3:55 PM
I wrote that only for lack of a better word, hoping you’d understand what I actually meant. But innate does apply in a since when it is applied with the words “born again.” So in that metaphorical since that Christians are born again, they are also born with that innate knowledge of God’s love.
Yes, I read the rest of it, the part that preceeded what I quoted. Even still, Paul also included that part I quoted, the part that explains that even those who have not heard of Jesus can still call on Him.
See, Paul isn’t hung up on semantics. It doesn’t matter what you call Christ so long as you call Him and accept Him.
So the Bible is lying when it says that everyone must call on the name of the Lord to be saved? The Bible doesn’t really mean everyone?
Obviously I’m not making myself clear. Jesus and God are the same. Therefore, even though Elijah did not realize that God would come to earth, he still called on Him.
Basically, we stupid humans don’t have to know everything in order to receive Christ. We don’t have to understand the Trinity. We don’t have to understand the crucifixion. And according to Paul, we don’t even have to know that the crucifixion ever occurred.
All we need to know can be seen within God’s own creation.
If you have another way to interpret that one, please, calmly, let me know.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Elijah had the promises that were revealed at the time, namely Genesis 3:15, the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Sinai covenant, the Davidic covenant, etc.
The character of God revealed within his creation is only enough to make men guilty before God, as pointed out in Romans 1 and 2. Special revelation, the knowledge of the person and work of Christ, is necessary for salvation. Every minute detail of this doesn’t need to be understood, but it should be sufficiently clear.
PRCalDude on April 3, 2007 at 4:21 PM
So you would claim, contrary to what Paul said in Romans, that those who have never heard of Jesus cannot ever become a Christian.
That’s not what I know of Christianity. Everything I know of Christianity teaches that we all have a choice. Otherwise, it’s just predestination, a lack of free will and a purposeless existence.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 4:26 PM
And what does that have to do with knowing Jesus? Satan knows about those promises as well.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 4:28 PM
The prophets and OT saints believe the revelation they had at the time. The revelation culminated in Christ. Paul never argued otherwise. If you don’t believe in Christ at this point, you’re dead in your sins.
PRCalDude on April 3, 2007 at 4:29 PM
You are also born with an innate knowledge of your mother’s love. In fact, you expect it, even demand it (quite loudly in my nephew’s case :) ). That doesn’t mean that you understand the love you feel or receive. It also doesn’t mean you understand how to show it properly.
It is the same with those born of the Spirit. It is the reason why the first principles of Christianity are referred to as milk. Eventually, we’re supposed to grow spiritually, through study, to the point when we can take meat. The creators of the video linked above would have us all suckling babes till we die.
Ignorant and saved is still ignorant, and it is wrong to induce and enforce ignorance because of a misguided quest for inclusiveness. It is better to seek after truth and live separately than to denature it for the sake of unity.
All I’m saying is that just because there’s more than one sect of Christianity doesn’t mean the Church is broken. As a good man once told me, “A rotten log can’t split.” It’s ok that we disagree, as long as we can disagree in the right spirit.
spmat on April 3, 2007 at 4:32 PM
And what is someone kept from becoming a Christian if their knowledge isn’t sufficient? And if so, what’s the standard for what is sufficient?
If we accept that God is an actually being then why is knowledge of a book important? If we can worship and commune with God, then He can teach us all that He deems sufficient.
The Bible says,
It doesn’t say that you’ll find Me when you read the Bible or hear someone tell you about what my kid did.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 4:32 PM
That has to be the most farfetched thing I have ever heard.
In this passage Paul is SPECIFICALLY addressing believers who had not heard of Jesus. He did NOT say “Oh, you never heard of Jesus? Oh, well that’s ok. Just keep believing in what you believe and you’ll be fine.”
calirighty on April 3, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Christ is more than His crucifixion.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 4:33 PM
I’m not saying that. I’m only quoting scripture.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Can you just address the scripture I quoted? I wasn’t being sarcastic when I asked.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 4:35 PM
And yes, he doesn’t say they can go on as they were, but he also doesn’t say that they were strangers to God without hearing about the Holy Spirit.
Esthier on April 3, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »