Unsettling Christian bumper sticker

[Josh]

Take a look at this:



Does this strike anybody else as... not right?

I can't quite put my finger on why this bothers me. Perhaps it is because I suspect it would merely confuse and alienate the unsaved rather than make them more receptive to the Gospel. Perhaps it's because "smile" is a foolish cliche, whereas the blood of Jesus is of the utmost profundity. Or perhaps I'm just fed up with Christianese.

[oneafroboy]

I'm never a big fan of these, because it turns the Gospel into a bunch of slogans and catch-phrases, which I find to be ultimately blasphemous.

I think (and maybe I'm reading into it) it gives the false impression that if you become a Christian, you'll be automatically more happier. The truth is that Christ gives us life to the fullest--meaning both are highs *and* lows will be higher and lower. We are given joy and peace, but we also begin to struggle with the sin that marks and marrs our lives.

Jesus is not a marketing tool!  Contemporary Christian culture needs to behold the cross with more gravity!  :angry:  

[dgp11776]

Looks to me like two bumper stickers on a crowded bumper.

[Josh]

Jesus is not a marketing tool!

Actually, that's really what first stirred my passionate hatred for CCM. Using Jesus to sell records to Christians just isn't cool, kids.

But then, we have a whole 'nother thread about THAT already...

[bloop]

The Jesus fish vs. Darwin fish battles on bumper stickers annoy me.  It's like it's saying "yeah we're anti-intellectual.  What of it?"

[Jrodder]

The Jesus fish vs. Darwin fish battles on bumper stickers annoy me.  It's like it's saying "yeah we're anti-intellectual.  What of it?"

How is that? First there was the Jesus fish. Evolutionists mocked it with the Darwinian fish. Christians responded with the Truth fish eating the Darwin fish, which I think was kind of silly, but the point was valid. God's truth always triumphs in the end over man's intellectualism.

[Jrodder]

Jesus is not a marketing tool!  Contemporary Christian culture needs to behold the cross with more gravity!  :angry:

I wholeheartedly agree with that, but I don't think all bumper stickers, t-shirts, and keychains are guilty of being marketing ploys. Call me naive (I prefer unjaded), but I believe that many of them were honestly designed as tools to share the Truth with people, not just make money off of christians. Now, I didn't say the execution of these intentions was without fault. Some "catch-phrases" and bumper stickers are just awful and probably do nothing to further the cause. But that doesn't make them evil.

As far as the example Josh provided...I don't get it. It's just...odd.

[ash]

i don't like it. It brings new meaning to "cheap." It looks like someone was out to make a quick buck at the gullible Christian's expense...  

[bloop]

How is that? First there was the Jesus fish. Evolutionists mocked it with the Darwinian fish. Christians responded with the Truth fish eating the Darwin fish, which I think was kind of silly, but the point was valid. God's truth always triumphs in the end over man's intellectualism.

Oh, I'm not saying that the Darwin folks weren't being abrasive and over-the-top (not to mention taking on something of great spritual depth that they simply don't yet understand), but where does it end.  What next, the DARWIN fish eating the TRUTH fish eating the DARWIN fish?   Then the greek letter fish will eat them all - then Nemo will eat that?

We'll end up with a pretty funny picture after a while, and it does send the message to non-Christians that Christians are anti-scientific whether we really are or not.  Your last sentence is an anti-intellectual one based more in post 18th century Christian anti-intellectualism to appeal to the blue collar masses than long-held Christian doctrine.  The Christian community should have been above that and just laughed off the ill-conceived DARWIN fish.

(Of course, this is coming from someone that doesn't think that evolutionary theory necessarily negates Christian beliefs)

[iota]

The Darwinians started it!!!!!!!!

We're going to finish it!!!!!!!



Has anybody seen the Buddha fish?   It's huge.

I have a Jesus fish on my car, just because I think it's a great symbol...what with the whole line in the sand thing and how Christians used to identify each other.  

[bloop]

The Darwinians started it!!!!!!!!

We're going to finish it!!!!!!!

Exactly.  It's infantile on both sides.

I like the blank fish and the Greek letter fish myself - eating nothing at least until they make a deal with goldfish flake manufacturers.

[Jrodder]

Your last sentence is an anti-intellectual one based more in post 18th century Christian anti-intellectualism to appeal to the blue collar masses than long-held Christian doctrine.

It is? Funny, I didn't realize that. I just thought that it was a universal truth unrelated to time or place.

Look, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with intellectualism. You know from our many conversations over at CMCentral that I see the value in intellectual thought and debate. But if it comes down to believing man's ideas or believing God, I'm going with God. It's that simple. Science can tell me one thing, but if it contradicts scripture, I'm not going to question scripture, I'm going to question science. Because of that, modern society will label me an "anti-intellectual"...the catch is that to be their kind of intellectual, you must have more faith in man than in God.

 

[bloop]

After doing an image search:

"Honk if you love Jesus"
needless honking unsettles me


seems flippant.  I mean, the dude is running excitedly while carrying a cross.  Here I thought it was difficult.


reds fade faster than blacks

an non-Christian one that annoys me:

Then what exactly are you?

[Josh]

This may be the first time I've ever said this, but I agree with Jrodder's last post.    

[Josh]

Then what exactly are you?

What, indeed? That sticker has symbols from Judaism, Eastern mysticism, and Satanism. I don't get it.

[bloop]

It is? Funny, I didn't realize that. I just thought that it was a universal truth unrelated to time or place.

It's really rooted in reaction to 18th century scientific ideas as opposed to coming up with a good counter argument or, God-forbid, looking deeply into whether those ideas really contradict with basic Christian theology.  If scientific theory disagrees with a literal interpretation of the Bible, I'm likely to weigh both against each other after I check whether they really conflict or not.  I don't assume the Bible to be written by non-humans, either.  I have faith that man has never been God.  It's simply a fallacy, and an avoidance of all things intellectual, to appeal to authority in that way, logically-speaking.

[Jrodder]

This may be the first time I've ever said this, but I agree with Jrodder's last post.  

Ouch.  =D

Hey, just for the record, I agree with many things you say, Josh. But it's more fun to voice my disagreements.

[Josh]

Ouch.  =D

Hey, just for the record, I agree with many things you say, Josh. But it's more fun to voice my disagreements.

Yeah, I'd say the same. Even though we disagree on some things, I think you're a smart, thoughtful guy.

That last post was all in jest. We're cool.    

[bloop]

More that bother me (it's kind of fun finding these):

"Atheists are Beyond Belief"
I'm honestly not sure if this is pro or anti-Christian

"CAUTION!  Non-exposure to the Son will cause burning"
not sure I like the fire insurance conversion attempt

"Don't make me come down there! -- God"
implies He isn't present

"Experience Life At No Cost! Call 1-800-MEET-God"
what will one get if they really call this number?

"For all you do, His blood's for you!"
a Budweiser send-up.  I'm kind of uncomfortable with that.

"The Big Bang theory: And God said 'Pulleth my Finger'"
gross!

[Jrodder]

It's really rooted in reaction to 18th century scientific ideas as opposed to coming up with a good counter argument or, God-forbid, looking deeply into whether those ideas really contradict with basic Christian theology.  If scientific theory disagrees with a literal interpretation of the Bible, I'm likely to weigh both against each other after I check whether they really conflict or not.  I don't assume the Bible to be written by non-humans, either.  I have faith that man has never been God.  It's simply a fallacy, and an avoidance of all things intellectual, to appeal to authority in that way, logically-speaking.

I totally see where you're coming from. I still think you're misinterpreting my point. Let me put it another way: I would call myself a Biblical intellectual. That being, one who believes in applying knowledge and wisdom when interpreting the Bible, but also believing that it is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. If I am certain that the Bible is telling me one thing, and secular science tries to tell me something else, I am not going to try to make the Bible fit with secular science. I'm not going to interpret passages of scripture literally or figuratively based on which interpretation would fit man's ideas better. I can say that without fear of being ignorant, because I know that science is always changing and adapting to the knowledge that man gains (and the interpretations of that knowledge), but God's word is unchanging and always true.

For example: say someone tells me that the creation account in Genesis is largely figurative, because we know that evolution took millions of years, not a mere 7 days. Now my interpretation of Genesis depends on what secular science tell me; instead it should depend on what the Bible actually says, which can be interpreted literally because language history shows that the Hebrew word for "day" there is never used in a figurative context. So either the Bible is lying, or evolutionary theory is wrong. Gotta go with the Bible.

[Harenil]

There are rarely any I agree with. I think this one is pretty good though:

Big Bang Theory:
God said it, and BANG it happened!

 

[Josh]

"CAUTION! Non-exposure to the Son will cause burning"
not sure I like the fire insurance conversion attempt

Fire and brimstone. Bullying people isn't the best way to show them the love of Christ, now is it?

"Don't make me come down there! -- God"
implies He isn't present

Plus, it's just plain blasphemous... God never actually SAID that, now did He?

"The Big Bang theory: And God said 'Pulleth my Finger'"
gross!

Irreverent and crass. This person is just asking to be struck by lightning. (And they totally deserve it).

[Jrodder]

"CAUTION! Non-exposure to the Son will cause burning"
not sure I like the fire insurance conversion attempt

There's nothing funny about hell, but I do find that kind of humorous. It's clever.

"Atheists are Beyond Belief"
I'm honestly not sure if this is pro or anti-Christian

No kidding. Lame attempt at humor.

"Experience Life At No Cost! Call 1-800-MEET-God"
what will one get if they really call this number?

Reminds me of the Bruce Almighty fiasco.

"For all you do, His blood's for you!"
a Budweiser send-up. I'm kind of uncomfortable with that.

That's tacky. Where are you finding these things?


 

[bloop]

I approach things completely differently simply because I don't assume the Bible inerrant or necessarily literal, so of course we aren't going to see eye to eye on this, but this isn't the thread for this kind of argument, nor is it a terribly good place for an evolution/Creation/theistic evolution debate, so I'll leave it at that.

I agree with Josh that the God quotes are somewhat blasphemous.  The bad news about that last comment is that a person is pretty safe in a car during a lightning storm.

To answr your question on where I'm finding these, I'm just Googling it up.

[bethany]

"Experience Life At No Cost! Call 1-800-MEET-God"
what will one get if they really call this number?

 

Wonder no more; you'll reach the voice-mail menu of AngelFire Resort.

[glatisant]

I agree with dgp that it looks like two bumper stickers unfortituously stuck next to each other, or at least I prefer to think of it that way.  Taken on their own, neither is offensive to me (though I'm not a "smile" person, either).  They just don't belong together (and it can be argued that one of them does not belong on a car rear bumper).

I don't think all bumper stickers, t-shirts, and keychains are guilty of being marketing ploys. Call me naive (I prefer unjaded), but I believe that many of them were honestly designed as tools to share the Truth with people, not just make money off of christians. Now, I didn't say the execution of these intentions was without fault. Some "catch-phrases" and bumper stickers are just awful and probably do nothing to further the cause. But that doesn't make them evil.

It's the larger mindset behind their creation and consumption that bother me, not necessarily the merchandises themselves.  The most effective tool to communicate the Gospel is through interpersonal relationships--life changing life.  All too often, the Church tries to subsitute this or dress it up through other means (The Passion of the Christ, WWJD bracelets, Hero!, etc), either from laziness (i.e. "I'm wearing this T-shirt, ergo, I am a witness for Christ") or lack of faith in the Gospel unadorned (i.e. the megachurch-complete-with-IMAX theatre approach), I don't know.  I believe that art and intellectual debate may also be powerful in drawing/awakening seekers, but they can't stand alone without the witness of real life changes.  But many times the Christian market fails to attain even that--we settle for cheap knockoffs instead of real art or intellectual engagement.
I can see how these catchphrases (the theologically sound ones, at any rate) may be encouraging to certain Christians.  We're all inspired by different things at different stages of our spiritual walks, and "Nothing but the blood of Jesus," taken as a statement and not as a a cliche, is quite profound, if you think about it.  So I'm not saying that we should destroy them all (just most of them, especially the ones in the vein of what bloop posted ).  But the broader mindset has to change.

[Vlad!]

Two semesters ago in my UNIX class, the GTA (graduate teacher's aide) who taught the class always wore a Christian t-shirt. It was a different one each time, but usually it was fairly subtle and tasteful--a cross with the word Jesus beneath it, or some pithy platitude that wasn't trying to be clever or in-your-face. Some of the students mocked him (behind his back, of course--openly mocking the person who assigns the grades isn't a good plan), and others just smiled concencendingly. But I sort of liked it. I've never been a big fan of Christian merchandising myself, since it seems to be yet another 'mirror culture' approach at creating a Christian alternative to slogan t-shirts, but in that class I saw it as sort of an equivalent to the 'line in the sand' that the icthus represents: a sign saying "your beliefs will not be mocked by me" or "Christians are welcome here." When I look around in class and see people wearing Campus Crusade or Young Life t-shirts, it seems nice. They will know we a Christians by our fruits, not our t-shirts, but I've sort of mellowed to them as of late.

As for intellectualism versus Christianity, it's something I've been struggling with more and more. This last Sunday, for example, the sermon was primarily focused on election. Specifically, God's soverignty over who will believe. There are many places in the Bible where the simplest or most basic reading does indeed imply this or even say it right out. However, there are other places in the Bible that very strongly suggest or state otherwise. The intellectual would suspect a contradiction or a fallacy, but the believer is told that the Bible is inerrant and consistent.

Jrodder said:

But if it comes down to believing man's ideas or believing God, I'm going with God. It's that simple. Science can tell me one thing, but if it contradicts scripture, I'm not going to question scripture, I'm going to question science.

That sounds good, of course, but what about the Catholic Apologetic Institute that we were so roundly mocking earlier? They claim that the earth is the immoble center of the universe and everything revolves around it. They cite as proof the examples where the Bible says "the sun rose in the sky" or "the sun stood still in the sky." They even offered a $1000 prize to anyone who could prove the earth orbited the sun. I tried, and though I think my attempt was a decent one, they rejected it. Not because of any problems with physics, math, or logic in my reply but because they believe the Bible over anything that science can "prove." The Flat Earth Society is somewhat the same way.

What if I were born in a different culture and became a Moslem or Buddhist? Maybe I would feel the same devotion to my native faith that I feel to Christianity, being born in America. And then what if you attempted to convert me, and I took the approach you are taking? All your logic, your empirical examples, and your testimony would fall on deaf ears: no matter what anything else says or what examples can be produced to the contrary, I am believing what the sacred writings and teachings of my faith say. Taken to its logical extent, even if God Himself appeared in all His glory, revealing Himself to me even more definitively than to Paul, I would not believe: why should I take the evidence of my own fallible eyes and ears over that of the infallible scriptures? I prefer to take an approach with eyes--and mind--open.

[Jrodder]

As for intellectualism versus Christianity, it's something I've been struggling with more and more. This last Sunday, for example, the sermon was primarily focused on election. Specifically, God's soverignty over who will believe. There are many places in the Bible where the simplest or most basic reading does indeed imply this or even say it right out. However, there are other places in the Bible that very strongly suggest or state otherwise. The intellectual would suspect a contradiction or a fallacy, but the believer is told that the Bible is inerrant and consistent.

Do you know how many people have tried down through history to disprove the Bible, to show that it is historically and logically inaccurate? Do you know how many have succeeded? If the Bible was rife with provable inconsistencies, that would be one thing. But show me one specific example of the Bible contradicting itself. I don't know what you are referring to about God's sovereignty.

That sounds good, of course, but what about the Catholic Apologetic Institute that we were so roundly mocking earlier? They claim that the earth is the immoble center of the universe and everything revolves around it. They cite as proof the examples where the Bible says "the sun rose in the sky" or "the sun stood still in the sky." They even offered a $1000 prize to anyone who could prove the earth orbited the sun. I tried, and though I think my attempt was a decent one, they rejected it. Not because of any problems with physics, math, or logic in my reply but because they believe the Bible over anything that science can "prove." The Flat Earth Society is somewhat the same way.

Remember, I said by definition, a biblical intellectual is one who studies the Bible thoroughly and logically and goes from there. In other words, using one's God-given intellectual abilities to understand what the Bible really means, without letting secular thinking interfere and cause him to search for a conclusion that matches secular thought. The conclusion that the Catholic Apologetic Institute has come to is not logically sound. We still say "the sun rises in the East", but that doesn't prove that the sun actually rises, or that the person saying that thinks it does. It's merely a way of describing something.

That example is not comparable to a Biblical view of creationism.

What if I were born in a different culture and became a Moslem or Buddhist? Maybe I would feel the same devotion to my native faith that I feel to Christianity, being born in America. And then what if you attempted to convert me, and I took the approach you are taking? All your logic, your empirical examples, and your testimony would fall on deaf ears: no matter what anything else says or what examples can be produced to the contrary, I am believing what the sacred writings and teachings of my faith say. Taken to its logical extent, even if God Himself appeared in all His glory, revealing Himself to me even more definitively than to Paul, I would not believe: why should I take the evidence of my own fallible eyes and ears over that of the infallible scriptures? I prefer to take an approach with eyes--and mind--open.

Here's the thing: the Bible is logical. It does make sense. However, that doesn't mean we can understand everything in it, I'll be the first to admit that. But if we are contantly trying to figure out everything logically and placing undue emphasis on making everything make perfect sense to us, we lose focus of the most important thing - our faith. Jesus said we are to be child-like in our faith...believing because He told us to. That's very hard for us so-called "intellectuals" to come to grips with. But it is in this collision of faith and understanding that we truly understand what we must know. Faith and logic can coexist, but we must recognize that one supercedes the other...at the end of logic, one will always need faith. Science is proof of that. Theory after theory builds upon logic, but also faith in previous theories and rules. You can only figure out so much before you realize that you'll never know and understand everything...you gotta have faith to be complete.

 

[Vlad!]

I should really be awake when posting these long, rambling, and potentially controversial things. But now that I've gotten myself into this, I may as well take it from the top XD.

Do you know how many people have tried down through history to disprove the Bible, to show that it is historically and logically inaccurate? Do you know how many have succeeded? If the Bible was rife with provable inconsistencies, that would be one thing. But show me one specific example of the Bible contradicting itself. I don't know what you are referring to about God's sovereignty.

I'm not trying to disprove the Bible. I'm not even trying to make the argument that the Bible is truly inconsistent. I just provided an example where the intellectual might suspect a contradiction. By sovereignty, I mean election: God choosing those whom He will save and (either explicitly or through omission) also choosing those He will condemn. I don't quite believe this myself, but there are many verses that seem to support this, and do so unambiguously enough that, at least in the English translation, you have to play some semantic games to even get close to arguing around it. Yet does this not conflict with the ideas of justice, free will, and human choice? If I decided to ban half the users of the phorum based on essentially random selection, and my only justification was "who are you to argue with a phorum administrator?" that would be pretty dodgy.

Remember, I said by definition, a biblical intellectual is one who studies the Bible thoroughly and logically and goes from there. In other words, using one's God-given intellectual abilities to understand what the Bible really means, without letting secular thinking interfere and cause him to search for a conclusion that matches secular thought. The conclusion that the Catholic Apologetic Institute has come to is not logically sound. We still say "the sun rises in the East", but that doesn't prove that the sun actually rises, or that the person saying that thinks it does. It's merely a way of describing something.

You should stop by their page sometime (I don't have it offhand, but you can search the board for the 'geocentricism' thread if you really want it). They don't take an eyes-closed approach to it: they cite Mach's Principle and provide a formidable enough array of mathematical and physical 'proof' that your average non-scientist or non-mathematician may decide it's best to not deal with it. So they're not totally flat-earthean. But in my correspondence with them, they simply say the same thing you do: that when scientific evidence and the Bible conflict, they're going with the Bible. I (and others) have tried to convince them to see (as you say) that the authors of the books in question are using what scholars like to call phenomenological language. But they argue for the simplest reading, much like you and bloop discuss in Genesis.

Here's the thing: the Bible is logical. It does make sense. However, that doesn't mean we can understand everything in it, I'll be the first to admit that. But if we are contantly trying to figure out everything logically and placing undue emphasis on making everything make perfect sense to us, we lose focus of the most important thing - our faith. Jesus said we are to be child-like in our faith...believing because He told us to. That's very hard for us so-called "intellectuals" to come to grips with. But it is in this collision of faith and understanding that we truly understand what we must know. Faith and logic can coexist, but we must recognize that one supercedes the other...at the end of logic, one will always need faith. Science is proof of that. Theory after theory builds upon logic, but also faith in previous theories and rules. You can only figure out so much before you realize that you'll never know and understand everything...you gotta have faith to be complete.

You're right--it's very hard. I don't know if I can bring myself to believe everything 'just because he tells me to.' After all, if the Bible is true then there must be physical evidence to bear this out. Maybe not in the case I described at the beginning of the post, since that's a spiritual rather than a physical issue, but if God is truly consistent in what He says and does then that should be reconcilable as well.