The_Sage <The_Sage@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
> I frequently point out to people how morally disgraceful the past and
> present history of Christians are. I like to mention people like Jim
> Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, and Oral Roberts. I'm told, "Don't look at the
> people, look at the example that Christ set instead. Besides, any ol'
> devil can say he's a Christian". But isn't Christ supposed to change
> people? Aren't they supposed to be "new creatures in Christ"? What's
> so new about them? Where are all the changed people then? Where's the
> proof that God or Christ are real then?
I suppose an obvious answer to this would be that, from their point of
view, the Christian has to actively want and allow God to change them.
Many who call themselves Christians do so for reasons other than a genuine
desire to follow Jesus' example. Some think it will raise their social
standing (and in some communities it may well). Others seek to wield the
authority of the pulpit - just count the number of 'reverends' and
'pastors' who've wandered through Usenet over the years making demands for
obedience. Many are in it for the most simple of reasons: money.
Much as it pains me to credit one of those latter category - a
televangelist - with any sense or honesty whatsoever, I think the point of
"any ol' devil can say he's a Christian" is probably well made.
Televangelists themselves are a great example. There're no entrance exams
for Christianity; nothing to make sure you've the right motivation. I
suspect that, assuming His reality, if God was supposed to change people
whether they wanted Him to or not we'd all presumably be Christians.
|
