Christians: More Like Jesus or Pharisees? (disciples, churches, atheist, priests)

[Hyker]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

These inventories are developed painstakingly from hundreds of questions on multiple participants using various methodologies to reveal the ones most characteristic of the various attitudes and behaviors of interest.

Hello MysticPhD.

I will not dispute that per se, but I will argue that the assignment of "various attitudes and behaviors of interest" into broad categories of "Christ-like" or "Pharisee-like" represents a judgment call by the designers of the survey such that you have to accept their definitions of those two terms in order for the results to have any meaning.

That is to say, if I am willing to accept their definitions of "Christ-like" and "Pharisee-like" before considering the data from the survey, then the results are relevant. Conversely, if I do not accept their definitions, then the survey is meaningless no matter how well it was constructed. The very act of dividing attitudes and behaviors into these categories is a reflection values held by those conducting the survey and open to debate; there is no broadly accepted definition of the terms.

While I understand their intention, I do not accept the definitions of "Christ-like" and "Pharisee-like" that they propose simply because I consider them an oversimplification of the issue. Regardless of how "good" the questions are, I don't see twenty questions as enough to quantify such complex terms.

Thanks.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Priscilla Martin

From the link provided to the study I found the following questionable methodology. Part of the survey was designed to measure Christ-likeness and Pharisee-likeness. Even the designer(s) admitted,



Attitudinal and affective surveys are tricky. The Barna Group are well established pros though. My main concerns are that it was a telephone interview survey which poses problems on several levels. Also, some of the questions. I'm not going to analyze each question, but the word choice and question placement is interesting. I'm not convinced they entirely measure what they were designed to measure.

Actions like Jesus:

• I listen to others to learn their story before telling them about my faith.
• In recent years, I have influenced multiple people to consider following Christ.
• I regularly choose to have meals with people with very different faith or morals from me.
• I try to discover the needs of non-Christians rather than waiting for them to come to me.
• I am personally spending time with non-believers to help them follow Jesus.

Attitudes like Jesus:

• I see God-given value in every person, regardless of their past or present condition.
• I believe God is for everyone.
• I see God working in people’s lives, even when they are not following him.
• It is more important to help people know God is for them than to make sure they know they are sinners.
• I feel compassion for people who are not following God and doing immoral things.

The 10 statements used to assess self-righteousness (like the Pharisees), included the following research items:

Self-Righteous Actions:

• I tell others the most important thing in my life is following God’s rules.
• I don’t talk about my sins or struggles. That’s between me and God.
• I try to avoid spending time with people who are openly gay or lesbian.
• I like to point out those who do not have the right theology or doctrine.
• I prefer to serve people who attend my church rather than those outside the church.

Self-Righteous Attitudes:

• I find it hard to be friends with people who seem to constantly do the wrong things.
• It’s not my responsibility to help people who won’t help themselves.
• I feel grateful to be a Christian when I see other people’s failures and flaws.
• I believe we should stand against those who are opposed to Christian values.
• People who follow God’s rules are better than those who do not.

I don't really see how Jesus wasn't the blue and I feel iffy on the purple.

Of course I could be mistaking Paul's doctrines and personal opinion's for Jesus' in the actual Gospels, but I think Jesus was was:

0. Jesus didn't listen to all of his followers personal stories, since there were supposedly many, I'm sure he preached to them without having to listen to their individual stories. What need would there be for that anyway if your teachings are true? It's sort of sly to model your discourse based on other people's biases.
1. telling people to love God first and then their neighbors (because TNK-God tells them to love their neighbors, whatever that's supposed to mean)
2. Jesus was a very private individual, and Christians don't believe he sinned even though he was "fully" human. But I also think he mentioned about keeping prayer private and not being like the hypocrites in the street.
3. Jesus corrected the "viperous" Pharasees and others on how to follow the Laws and understand God correctly.
4. Jesus at first preferred to not serve the gentile, likely-pagan, women. Viewing his service as food for the children of Israel and not Canaanite dogs, but when she humbled herself as indeed a dog compared to Jews (his Church) and having faith/desperation in his power, he served her. and also Jesus wasn't serving the Pharasees or the Roman Empire.
5. Jesus blamed not healing some people to their lack of faith, and not out of his own lack of power. So people had to ultimately help themselves first (by believing that he cured them) for him to seem like he cured them.
6. Jesus pointed out the failures and faults of the "lost sheep of Israel" and likely felt grateful to be more Godly then them and have the right doctrines.
7. Jesus stood against the wrong teachings that opposed his values.
8. Jesus stood against those that didn't follow God's rule and tried to get others to follow God's rules properly. If there was no difference, then I wouldn't see the point in his attempts.

[Hyker]

LuminousTruth demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. These are terms for which there is no broad consensus.

Thanks.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Hyker

Hello MysticPhD.

I will not dispute that per se, but I will argue that the assignment of "various attitudes and behaviors of interest" into broad categories of "Christ-like" or "Pharisee-like" represents a judgment call by the designers of the survey such that you have to accept their definitions of those two terms in order for the results to have any meaning.
That is to say, if I am willing to accept their definitions of "Christ-like" and "Pharisee-like" before considering the data from the survey, then the results are relevant. Conversely, if I do not accept their definitions, then the survey is meaningless no matter how well it was constructed. The very act of dividing attitudes and behaviors into these categories is a reflection values held by those conducting the survey and open to debate; there is no broadly accepted definition of the terms.

My objective is to clarify the assertions about the science . . . not dispute anyone's self-perceptions. For example, it is NOT true that you have to accept the definitions of the terms for the results to have any meaning. Of course they have meaning given the rigor employed to acquire them and test their reliability and validity. You dispute the meaning they have been assigned based on your self-perceptions and desire to believe you are Christ-like as a Christian. You are using what your dogma has taught you about Christ. I suspect the surveyors were using a widely sampled consensus of a doctrinally neutral assay of undisputed Christ-like qualities and Pharisaic qualities. Of course there will be doctrinal disagreements. Most Christians consider themselves good Christians with Christ-like qualities (or at least what they consider them to be) . . . despite the fact that they will differ greatly amongst them. That is why science goes to such pains to sample out the differences and develop error terms to quantify them.

While I understand their intention, I do not accept the definitions of "Christ-like" and "Pharisee-like" that they propose simply because I consider them an oversimplification of the issue. Regardless of how "good" the questions are, I don't see twenty questions as enough to quantify such complex terms.

This is another widely held misconception about science and sampling. The number of questions necessary for sufficient reliability and validity is carefully established using the divergence in measurements across multiple samplings. For example, if everyone in a population is identical on the thing being measured a sample of one would be sufficient. Since they typically vary widely, the variance is measured and statistically accounted for in determining the sample size needed . . . or in this case the number of questions needed.

[Hyker]

I suspect the surveyors were using a widely sampled consensus of a doctrinally neutral assay of undisputed Christ-like qualities and Pharisaic qualities. Of course there will be doctrinal disagreements...That is why science goes to such pains to sample out the differences and develop error terms to quantify them.

This may or may not be the case. You suspect that it is, and that may be true. All that was said in the linked article was "The statements are based on the biblical record given in the Gospels and in the Epistles and our team worked closely with a leading pastor, John Burke, to develop the survey questions." This leads me to suspect that Pastor John Burke's personal values (whoever he is) played a significant role in the development of the questions and stands as a confounding variable. Having been a professional in this field, can you suggest how we might gather more information in a manner that is not unduly arduous? I doubt that either of us want to travel to the Barna Group headquarters to settle a dispute over the internet.

This is another widely held misconception about science and sampling. The number of questions necessary for sufficient reliability and validity is carefully established using the divergence in measurements across multiple samplings. For example, if everyone in a population is identical on the thing being measured a sample of one would be sufficient. Since they typically vary widely, the variance is measured and statistically accounted for in determining the sample size needed . . . or in this case the number of questions needed.

Does a sufficiently broad distribution and repeatable results necessarily ensure that you are measuring what you intend to measure? The designer of this survey also said in the linked article "Obviously, survey research, by itself, cannot fully measure someone’s ‘Christ-likeness’ or ‘Pharisee-likeness." I am in agreement with him on this point.

But again the root of my problem with this study is ultimately a philosophical one - can one apply reductionism to a quality such as "Christ-like." My concern in this respect is not limited to religious matters, but other subjective qualities as well. Could you conduct a survey to determine if something "beautiful?" If your survey shows that Object X is "beautiful," does that necessarily make it "beautiful?" In this respect it isn't a matter of how well the survey is constructed, but whether a survey is capable of answer the question that we're asking. A majority of Americans would say that they believe in god...does that make god real?

You dispute the meaning they have been assigned based on your self-perceptions and desire to believe you are Christ-like as a Christian. You are using what your dogma has taught you about Christ.

I find it ironic that this statement is imbedded in a conversation about appropriately gathering data and drawing sound conclusions. I would very much like to know what evidence you have for this assertion...or better yet - and I say this honestly and with all due respect to you - I would prefer it if you simply apologized for making assumptions about me so that we can focus on the relevant matters.

Thanks.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Hyker

This may or may not be the case. You suspect that it is, and that may be true. All that was said in the linked article was "The statements are based on the biblical record given in the Gospels and in the Epistles and our team worked closely with a leading pastor, John Burke, to develop the survey questions." This leads me to suspect that Pastor John Burke's personal values (whoever he is) played a significant role in the development of the questions and stands as a confounding variable. Having been a professional in this field, can you suggest how we might gather more information in a manner that is not unduly arduous? I doubt that either of us want to travel to the Barna Group headquarters to settle a dispute over the internet.

This will remain an area of dispute between us. If they are truly professionals . . . I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Does a sufficiently broad distribution and repeatable results necessarily ensure that you are measuring what you intend to measure? The designer of this survey also said in the linked article "Obviously, survey research, by itself, cannot fully measure someone’s ‘Christ-likeness’ or ‘Pharisee-likeness." I am in agreement with him on this point.

This is a straw man. We cannot fully measure many things . . . but we can measure sufficiently for all intents and purposes.

But again the root of my problem with this study is ultimately a philosophical one - can one apply reductionism to a quality such as "Christ-like." My concern in this respect is not limited to religious matters, but other subjective qualities as well. Could you conduct a survey to determine if something "beautiful?" If your survey shows that Object X is "beautiful," does that necessarily make it "beautiful?" In this respect it isn't a matter of how well the survey is constructed, but whether a survey is capable of answer the question that we're asking.

In matters of subjective attitudes and self-reported behaviors science is limited . . . but not impotent. Predicting to any specific individual is a task probably beyond our reach . . . unless the individual is a significant extreme from the population. But to answer global population questions regarding the average or median positions of population groups . . . we can be quite accurate. IOW . . . we can tell you what percentage of the male population could be characterized as an "Archie Bunker type" fairly accurately with measurable error. But we would not be able to determine which specific individual could be.

A majority of Americans would say that they believe in god...does that make god real?

Non-sequitur.

I find it ironic that this statement is imbedded in a conversation about appropriately gathering data and drawing sound conclusions. I would very much like to know what evidence you have for this assertion...or better yet - and I say this honestly and with all due respect to you - I would prefer it if you simply apologized for making assumptions about me so that we can focus on the relevant matters.
Thanks.

You are quite right. I apologize for the presumption. It is a bad habit from debating with fundies who are quite predictable.

[Hyker]

This will remain an area of dispute between us. If they are truly professionals . . . I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Agree to disagree. I remain skeptical.

This is a straw man. We cannot fully measure many things . . . but we can measure sufficiently for all intents and purposes.

I think "straw man" is strong language, but point taken. The question here is whether their measure is "sufficient for all intents and purposes."

In matters of subjective attitudes and self-reported behaviors science is limited . . . but not impotent. Predicting to any specific individual is a task probably beyond our reach . . . unless the individual is a significant extreme from the population. But to answer global population questions regarding the average or median positions of population groups . . . we can be quite accurate. IOW . . . we can tell you what percentage of the male population could be characterized as an "Archie Bunker type" fairly accurately with measurable error.

And this speaks to my point. I would consider "Archie Bunker type" much easier to define objectively than "Christ-like." I also suspect (without proof) that it would be much easier to construct a consensus of what it meant to be an "Archie Bunker type"

Non-sequitur.

The point being that some things are not subject to relativism, even when some consensus is held.

You are quite right. I apologize for the presumption.

Appreciated. Regardless of our difference of opinion, you are a gentleman, sir.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Hyker

Agree to disagree. I remain skeptical.
I think "straw man" is strong language, but point taken. The question here is whether their measure is "sufficient for all intents and purposes."
And this speaks to my point. I would consider "Archie Bunker type" much easier to define objectively than "Christ-like." I also suspect (without proof) that it would be much easier to construct a consensus of what it meant to be an "Archie Bunker type"

Oh I think Jesus Christ is unique enough a character to not present a problem in constructing a consensus of KEY attributes that would be specific to Him. As I said . . . the variance would wash out in the error terms as the essential attributes emerged.

Appreciated. Regardless of our difference of opinion, you are a gentleman, sir.

Your demeanor and tone in this discussion is appreciated as well, sir. It is beyond the norm here in many ways.

[SeekerSA]

To determine "christ like" attributes solely from the gospel account is indeed a matter of confirmation bias and cherry picking.

Take the sword for instance. Peter lops off an ear and is informed that jesus is able to call on a legion of angels. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. They go some place and are instructed to buy swords for protection.

Most have the bias that being christlike means we should turn the other cheek, go the extra mile and so on. Or is it?

If we cannot determine if swords are good or bad thing, needed or not, how is one to glean off what the christlike attributes are?

Matthew 23 give us a hint of what pharisees may have been like based on the made up story, the testing of jesus by the pharasees of the adulterous woman (a known addition) gives a hint that the reaction of "ye who are w/o sin cast the first stone" negates the laws allegedly co-authored by none other than jesus himself yet elsewhere laws are embraced.

We have accounts of jesus fleeing in fear of his life as the pharisees sought to stone him then has a 180 degree change in heart and allows himself to be arrested.

The only christlike attribute we really can discern is that (if any of this is real) he was one that liked moving the goalposts to suit the occasion. Funny how that tends to be what christians do most of the time.

The temple rant should give us the idea that he was not into money changers. Imagine if a stranger entered a church and after the offering and went and tipped the offering table? I am sure an usher would hastily escort said person out of the "sanctuary".

The word christ is not synonymous with jesus. Christ refers to a messiah that was supposed to set the records straight and redeem the populace. Looking at how history transpired, that too was a failed quest. Fallible man remains fallible.

Lastly, the concept of charity is not clearly defined. It seems that charity was part of the mission yet we are told, we shall always have the poor and he was to be the preferred focus and NOT the poor.

It only makes sense if you live in an alternate reality where the "rules" constantly change.

[Glacierx]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

Take the sword for instance. Peter lops off an ear and is informed that jesus is able to call on a legion of angels. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. They go some place and are instructed to buy swords for protection.

Ever heard of The Byrds?