Re: Why Christians Are Viewed Poorly

Let's also not forget this: as much as Christians can do and say dumb
things, and as much as popular evangelical Christianity can be dumb about
science issues and politics sometimes, and as much as Christians can be
hypocritical, Christians always have been, and always will be (until the
Kingdom in fullness comes), despised, rejected and persecuted by the world,
simply because we love Jesus and the world rejects him. If there's a theme
that runs clearly through the entire New Testament, it's the theme of
remaining united and standing firm through the inevitable scorn of a world
that rejects Christ. We do need to examine ourselves to see where we cause
our own problems, but we also need to remember that persecution will come
even as we tell the truth properly and in love.

On 5/21/06, gordon brown <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> One factor shaping the general impression that people have of conservative
> Christians is that many of them may get their input from the various news
> media. What sort of events are likely to make the headlines? Agreeing with
> science is much less likely to be deemed newsworthy than disputing it.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
>
> On Sat, 20 May 2006, Rich Blinne wrote:
>
> > Why are Christians and specifically conservative Christians viewed
> > poorly by society in general and secular scientists in particular?
> > Let's look at a stereotype for a moment, namely conservative
> > Christians are not interested in the truth. We know that this is
> > untrue but how do we undo this misperception?
> >
> > Janice and I have been arguing about something that is at best off
> > topic and at worst of no import. But, we can learn something important
> > by looking at how the argument degenerated. This will give us a clue
> > why we are not viewed well. I want to make this to be not about Janice
> > or me but rather about the structure of the argument used today. Thus,
> > I would like to depersonalize this and replace Janice and me with a
> > secular scientist who though an unbeliever tries to be scrupulous in
> > being honest and a conservative Christian who wants to represent
> > Christianity in its best possible light. Let's also change the
> > argument a bit. Let's say we are arguing about the belief that
> > conservative Christians block scientific progress. The conservative
> > Christian doesn't want to block science and wants to refute this bum
> > accusation. If this argument proceeded like it did between Janice and
> > me it might look something like this:
> >
> > Secular Scientist: I don't want to indict specific Christians but I
> > have seen a tendency amongst them to block science. I see all this ID
> > and YEC all around me being supported by conservative Christians. Yet,
> > I don't want to falsely accuse individuals by giving specific
> > examples.
> >
> > Conservative Christian: You must provide names and dates because you
> > are being too vague. When have you seen Christians actually blocking
> > science? Just because people believe ID and YEC doesn't mean they are
> > blocking science. That's why you need to be more specific. As you say,
> > you don't want to falsely accuse people.
> >
> > SS: Fair enough. Here's an example...
> >
> > CC: Didn't you just say it was WRONG to give a specific example?
> >
> > SS: (Spit takes his coffee) Didn't you just say I MUST give a specific
> > example? Please leave.
> >
> > The secular scientist returns to his office convinced that the
> > stereotype that Christians are not interested in the truth is true. If
> > giving an example was indeed wrong why would a Christian who claims to
> > value righteousness lead him into sin? If it is not wrong, why did the
> > Christian ask him a no-win, complex question? He mutters to himself,
> > "Bah, stupid Christians. Why did I give them the time of day anyway?"
> >
>
Received on Sun May 21 20:55:36 2006