***QUOTE***
Comments:
Steve,
I take it by the mockery that you feel my statements were out of line.
Do you agree with Jenkins' method of counting Roman Catholics and Mormons as "Christians"? [I do, in case you were wondering.]
The question is important because if you do not include Roman Catholics, then Christianity still remains predominately white.
Also, I'm sure that you would agree that even if my statement is crap in contemporary times, it has not been so historically. Historical Protestant Christianity was extremely white and this would seem that God was electing an inordinate amount of white people.
# posted by exbeliever : 2/17/2006 5:51 PM
***END-QUOTE***
1.You are playing the game of identity politics. That’s essential to the Democrat party and its subsidiaries in the media, judiciary, and academia.
As a conservative, I reject the premise of identity politics.
2.Even if, for the sake of argument, election were racially discriminatory, discrimination is only wrong when it denies a party its just claims. When a party has a claim to equal rights. Sinners have no rightful claims on the mercy of God.
Remember, I’m a Calvinist. If there’s a problem here, it’s a problem for theological traditions which introduce human merit and freewill into salvation.
3.Not all racial discrimination is racist. I notice that most black churches hire black pastors. Is that racist?
4.Historical secular humanism was extremely white. Modern secular humanism isn’t much more colorful. Just mouse over to the author index at the Secular Web.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/author.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/author.html
I haven’t seen anything this lily white since Birth of a Nation.
5.Incidentally, why are you tacitly assuming that I’m white? That’s a shockingly prejudicial assumption on your part. It’s possible to be a black Calvinist.
http://www.theologicallycorrect.com/
http://www.cyrene.org/
http://www.blackpuritan.com/
http://www.reformedblacksofamerica.org/
There are beaucoup Korean Calvinists as well.
6.Race is a very fluid category. What race is Tiger Woods?
7.From a Reformed standpoint, the Catholic church is not all of a piece. I wouldn’t lump together the patristic church or medieval church with the Tridentine church or the church of Vatican II.
8.I believe a certain percentage of Catholics are saved. Even a fraction of a large absolute number is still a large number, relatively speaking.
9.The knowledge of salvation is not racially or geographically static. In OT times it was extremely Jewish and this would seem that God was electing an “inordinate” number of Semites.
Before the Muslim conquest, the Mideast was Christian. Then there’s the Abyssinian church.
For a historical overview of the intricate relationship between Judaism, Christianity, and the African subcontinent, cf. Africa & the Bible (Baker 2004) by the very un-white Christian scholar, Edwin Yamauchi.
10. Since more people are living now than the sum total of those living in distant to recent the past, the fact that the Christian center of gravity is shifting from away from the dwindling population centers of the N. Hemisphere to the populous regions of the S. Hemisphere will mean that in aggregate numbers, Christianity is going to be predominately non-Caucasian.
Already, China has a huge underground church. Not to mention Korea. Or large parts of Africa.
As a Calvinist in a very missionary minded family of Calvinists that spread the true Gospel to the ends of the earth... including Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Egypt, Guatemala, Brazil, etc... I can attest to the fact that God is not electing just white people... there are even Egyptian Calvinists in an underground church.
ReplyDeleteAt one point I wrote about Arminianism and Open-theism being offspring of satan... that did not go over well for someone thought I was saying that all Arminians and Open theists are unregenerate... when in fact I was stating the -ism of such man-made, man-centered beliefs are what I was talking about. How quickly people jump into twisting words and meanings.
And you should have seen the reaction to me accidently spelling Arminianism with an "e" instead of an "i".
A while ago there was an article on the largest churches in the world.
ReplyDeleteThe majority were in non-white areas and the majority were not Roman.
http://www.jesus.org.uk/dawn/2004/dawn36.html
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think that I am making some kind of argument here.
From the beginning, I said that I was "just pointing out a pretty scary 'slippery slope.'" I said that I was worried about the implication that OTHERS could draw from one of your statements.
If your god exists, he can elect anyone he damn well pleases. I really don't care and have nothing to say about it.
Judging by statistics and demographics, it seems that he prefers to elect primarily white Europeans and Americans.
Now, that statement is either true or false. You can prove that statement one way or another.
You seem to think that I am adding some kind of "identity politics" to my statement and implying, "if the statement is true, then your god is a racist and therefore must not exist."
That's never been my point. Perhaps he prefers hanging around white Europeans and Americans. What's that to me?
You wrote, "Incidentally, why are you tacitly assuming that I’m white?"
Can you quote examples of my "tacit assumption" of your race?
You wrote: "Remember, I’m a Calvinist."
But then you wrote: "Since more people are living now than the sum total of those living in distant to recent the past, the fact that the Christian center of gravity is shifting from away from the dwindling population centers of the N. Hemisphere to the populous regions of the S. Hemisphere will mean that in aggregate numbers, Christianity is going to be predominately non-Caucasian."
Wow, now that is a remarkable statement for a Calvinist to make! You have predicted that "Christianity is going to be predominately non-Caucasian"!
Tell me, how do you know that your god is going to start electing more non-Caucasians? MUST your god now start electing more non-Caucasians because recent trends show that "the Christian center of gravity is shifting from away from the dwindling population centers of the N. Hemisphere"? Could your god NOT decide to re-center everything again in a "whiter" region of the world tomorrow, or MUST he follow the trend you cite?
I have to say, that when I considered myself a Calvinist, I never claimed to know the ethnicity of the people God was going to elect in the future.
I'm curious if the other Calvinists on this blog agree that you can predict the various races of the people your god has yet to elect.
***
And just so you know, Steve. I blog because I enjoy dialogue. I don't like the idea of debating in order to "win" or "lose." I've been wrong on thousands of occassions. I've misread people, given poor arguments, missed the point, etc.
In my worldview, there is nothing "at stake" in these conversations. I'm a collection of atoms that stick together for a short span of time and then disperse. Nothing I say or do will have any universal significance.
What I am saying is that I just don't care enough to get passionate about any of this stuff.
I don't have an "agenda;" I don't care if I "win" an argument; I just don't care about anything except the process.
When I feel that someone is trying to "go to war" with me in a debate, I simply lose interest because it is just not worth it to me to get someone all riled up or to get riled up myself.
If you also enjoy the process of dialoguing with me, please tone it down a little. Don't read agendas into what I'm saying. Don't assume that I am trying to make you look bad.
Poor yourself a nice Porte, play some Beethoven in the background, just enjoy the conversation. ;-)
Oops!
ReplyDeletePoor = Pour
Judging by statistics and demographics, it seems that he prefers to elect primarily white Europeans and Americans.
ReplyDeleteWhat statistics? What demographics? Do you know of a certainty who is a Christian and who is not? Do you have the numbers on the churches in China? Korea? The African Continent? What about the pre-Reformation era? The Abyssinian Church? Christianity was in China within a few hundred years after its birth. The picture of Christianity reaching China duriing the age of European expansion is a historical fantasy, the same with India.
All we have here is an assertion without data.
Point: Discussing "statistics and demographics" with respect to election is jejune when you don't have statistics and demographics on election from which to work.
Wow, now that is a remarkable statement for a Calvinist to make! You have predicted that "Christianity is going to be predominately non-Caucasian"!
No, this is merely an observation based on data from missiologists. You're the one basing election on statistics to which you can't possibly have access.
Why is this an argument that falsifies the truth claims of Christianity or even Reformed theology? As Steve pointed out atheism, secularism, et.al. are just as white if not moreso. If the racial makeup of Christianity in some way falsifies Christianity, then it falsifies your own worldview as well.
If culture, geography, etc. affecting the way you think, feel, or believe constitutes probative evidence against Christianity, then why isn't it also probative evidence against your worldivew? Your own worldview is culturally, chronologically, and geographically bound as well.
gene,
ReplyDeleteFrom the various interactions I've had with you on this and other blogs, I wonder if you even read what I write before you start reacting. Your comments are rarely relevant to anything that has been said.
Case in point: "Why is this an argument that falsifies the truth claims of Christianity or even Reformed theology?"
The first sentences of my last comment said that I wasn't making any argument of the kind. I said, "If your god exists, he can elect anyone he damn well pleases. I really don't care and have nothing to say about it."
So, since you are suggesting that I am making exactly the argument that I said I'm not maiking, I have to either assume that you didn't read what I wrote, or that you don't understand what you read.
Furthermore, if you believe that world-wide and historically Christianity is not and has not been predominantly white European and American, then I leave you to that belief.
Steve introduced the discussion of statistics into this conversation, I followed.
You also said that Steve's prediction was "merely an observation."
An observation would be "According to statistics, Christianity is predominantly non-Caucasian."
A prediction would be, "Christianity is going to be predominately non-Caucasian."
gene, for whatever reason, you rub me the wrong way. You seem to me to be somewhat of a prick. [You may actually be a great person, but this is just how you seem to me.]
For the reasons I mentioned in my last comment to Steve, I won't be responding to any more of your comments to me on any blog.
If you want, you can claim that it's because your are just too wise and skillful a debater for me to handle and I have crumbled underneath your weighty intellect and powerful, relevant arguments. I won't object.
Have a great life.
From the various interactions I've had with you on this and other blogs, I wonder if you even read what I write before you start reacting. Your comments are rarely relevant to anything that has been said.
ReplyDeleteYou have interacted with me on one blog other than this one (Paul's). If you attempted to interact with me elsewhere, I am unaware of it. I am a contributor to this blog, so you're in my territory. Ergo, I am free to respond or not to respond to you as I please here.
The first sentences of my last comment said that I wasn't making any argument of the kind. I said, "If your god exists, he can elect anyone he damn well pleases. I really don't care and have nothing to say about it."
So, since you are suggesting that I am making exactly the argument that I said I'm not maiking, I have to either assume that you didn't read what I wrote, or that you don't understand what you read.
Then why make the comment at all? If you really didn't care, you wouldn't make the comment. So obviously, you care enough to make the comment. You say you have nothing to say about it, yet you said something about it. The very fact that you went out of your way to make the comment is an acknowledgment that you have something to say about it.
I understand perfectly well. You're equating election with geography then imputing that to Christianity by way of election to assert that Christianity is racist then stating your concern is for what others might think in a smug fashion. This is simply argument by way of innuendo. This is a standard argument from atheists. It's actually quite immature and unsophisticated, as is the argument you first used that appealed to God commanding genocide by way of citing the Amalekites. I'm merely pegging my responses to your statements.
gene, for whatever reason, you rub me the wrong way. You seem to me to be somewhat of a prick. [You may actually be a great person, but this is just how you seem to me.]
Ah, okay, so I guess I'm free to say that atheists affirm the murder of children. Atheists affirm the politics of social darwinism and mass genocide. Judging from the racial makeup of the secular web, atheists are racists. If that makes me "a prick" what does that make you since at least one of those is an argument that you used to attack Christian theism at Paul Manata's blog?
I've simply asked you questions here that you have not answered, and now, you're upset. This isn't due to my superior debating abilities; this is due to your unwillingness to interact with the responses offered. The point here is that if the objection you offered is indeed some sort of probative evidence against Christianity, it is *also* probative evidence against your own worldview, a fact you have continued to ignore.
Furthermore, if you believe that world-wide and historically Christianity is not and has not been predominantly white European and American, then I leave you to that belief.
What evidence to you have to the contrary? I am more than willing to examine it if you possess it. As I pointed out, Christianity was in China quite early, not long after the Council of Chalcedon. The first contact of which we know was by a Nestorian monk. There is some discussion as to the early Nestorian beliefs v. Chalcedon v. Cyril and others, so this is still generally regarded as Christianity's first contact with China. That monk became National Priest in China and churches existed throughout the land. Then there's the Abyssinian church, not to mention evidence of Christianity in India very early on. Add to that the massive spread of Christianity in SE Asia and Central Asia today. I have a friend in China teaching the Gospels and Jesus at a university at this very moment. The underground church there is growing faster than the church in the US. The Korean church is quite large. The African church is growing immensely. Prior to the rise of Islam, the Mideast was Christian.
Of course, this is just the visible church, so that would provide all by which we have any data. However, you're the one bringing this up vs. election to a group of Calvinists, so we have to wonder how this is even relevant as a complaint against Calvinism. God doesn't elect people on the basis of race, and nobody has a just claim on God's mercy at all. Your objection would be more validly applied to Arminian soteriology, not ours, as Steve noted. I'm not the one making irrelevant comments.
Steve introduced the discussion of statistics into this conversation, I followed.
You're apparently the one that can't follow an argument. You were the one who mentioned statisitics first.
Steve discussed social conditioning not being incompatible with Reformed theology and that the placement of the elect was providential.
Then you, not Steve, started discussing statistics, viz. Jenkins, which identify Christianity as predominantly white and Western, viz North American.
Then Steve started to get more detailed in response to you in his citations which were pegged to this. As he stated, he answered you on your own terms.
If you take issue with Steve's citation of statistics made after your own allusion, then why not engage in honest discussion and present contrary evidence? You instead mention statistics after a contrary fashion, but then you fail to provide them. Ergo, you're simply making an argument by way of assertion, not an argument by way of datum.
You're the one on a website called 'Debunking Christianity." One would think you would be able to engage this issues.
You don't or can't do this, so you pack up your toys and run off in a huff. If you don't have an agenda, why are you contributing to "Debunking Christianity?"
Exbeliever,
ReplyDeleteWhen you equate the number of the elect with geographical distribution, you are implicitly positing a statistical correlation. That connection is essential to your contention. Without it you have nothing.
When, in my satirical riposte, I cited Jenkins, I was simply refuting you on your own grounds. I made explicit what you made implicit, and I cited hard data to rebut your fallacious claim.
Gene and I, as well as other commenters, have gone on to introduce additional evidence to refute your claim.
Like Loftus, you flaunt your religious education, only to betray your basic ignorance of missiology and church history.