Michael Patton (President of Credo House) has written a series of 21 articles called, “…and other stupid statements”. Obviously the title is meant to provoke curiosity. But the issue of credibility is one that Christians are well aware of. The Bible, after all, is full of miraculous events and people.
But there are some things Christians say that Michael believes are “stupid statements”.
The reactions to Michael’s articles have been quite varied.
After reading some of these articles you may even find yourself saying:
- What could he possibly mean by that!
- I’ve said that before!
- I’ve heard that so many times and it always annoyed me!
- What the big deal with that?
- Who cares?
Whatever your reaction is, we hope that you’ll find one that piques your interest.
21 Things Christians Say that Hurt Their Credibility
- You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible
- You can’t out-give God.
- Christianity is dependent on your character witness.
- Good question. I will find the answer and get back to you.
- If the Bible is not inerrant, then Christianity is false.
- If there are modern day prophets, then the canon is still open.
- God comes before my wife.
- I don’t want to know about God, I just want to know him.
- Everyone who disagrees with me is a liar.
- In heaven, we will be bowing down before the thrown of God 24/7
- Nothing could be further from the truth.
- When we get to heaven we will be timeless.
- All sins are equal in God’s sight.
- The Bible says it, therefore it’s true.
- The trinity is like 3-in–1 shampoo.
- One white lie will send you to hell for all eternity.
- I was going to preach this, but the Holy Spirit led me to this.
- Belief is no good without practice (Part 1)
- Belief is no good without practice (Part 2)
- Belief is no good without practice (Part 3)
- You ask me how I know he lives…he lives within my heart.
9 replies to "21 Things Christians Say That Hurt Their Credibility"
Man…you are good!
I can probably come up with 1, 021 goofy things that Christians say.
And I’ve probably said 800 or so of them, myself.
While I would agree with a lot of what Michael has set forth in this provocatively-named series, I would caution against the lack of distinction between a particular view one takes and their reasoning for doing so.
On more than one occasion, I’ve found myself agreeing with Michael’s critique of a particular argument to support a given view while disagreeing with him in his conclusions. This is akin to a straw-man argument, but that logical fallacy is generally characterized by one who intentionally sets forth the weakest argument in support of an opposing view where I wouldn’t ascribe this as Michael’s motive in the cases I recall.
So, I would caution your readers to understand the list presented in this article as being conclusions that are generally not well-grounded in reason and evidence rather than the positions represented being incorrect in-and-of themselves.
Here is something you have done to hurt your credibility: It seems you quoted part of a comment I made and labeled me an atheist, while you failed to answer my question. P.S. I have decided to unfriend all the conspiracy theorists on FB, as I believe I have been patient long enough and I’ve had enough.
This was my reply to a mailing you sent out; I don’t know if you receive return emails from your list emails.
Michael,
I am not an atheist. This is an example of the sort of response I have encountered. I suspect it has something to do with the us vs. them, and in vs.
out attitude. Since you are educated, I would expect better of you.
Once I pointed out how ridiculous Ken Ham was, as well as being a bully, and I was also labeled an atheist. Another time I made some negative comments about
then President Bush, and was called, “liberal,” “Kerryite,” etc.
I was also called an atheist by, “(poor) Evidence against Atheism,” when I argued that the claim that some 4-year old went to heaven wasn’t exactly quality evidence, and also by, “Educated and Intelligent Christians,” when I pointed out how few there were. I got blocked by both groups.
So, Michael, have you thought about why you called me an atheist when I never identified myself as such and you didn’t bother to ask me? Do Calvinists such
as yourself have a problem with critical thinking, as well as research?
I understand you may want to use a quote to promote your blog and make yourself appear superior to your posters, whether they be atheist/agnostic or just not
your brand of theist. But I don’t believe it is honest or ethical, and based upon what you have said, I would expect better.
“Whatever your reaction is”
Not that positive…since don’t have time to read supporting posts, and others may not either that might keep one from misunderstanding….so comment for now is…
a few Things Christians DON’T Say that Hurt Their Credibility
Christianity is dependent on your character witness. John 17:23
God comes before my wife. Matt 22:36-38
In heaven, we will be bowing down before the thrown of God 24/7 Ps 84:4
Nothing could be further from the truth. John 8:44
The Bible says it, therefore it’s true. 2 Tim 3:16
One white lie will send you to hell for all eternity. Romans 6:23
I was going to preach this, but the Holy Spirit led me to this. Rom 8:14
Belief is no good without practice x 3 James 2:19
You ask me how I know he lives…he lives within my heart. John 15:26
The previous comment providing a list of things Christians don’t say that hurt their credibility illustrates why I attempted to caution future readers in my first comment. If only we could all sit around in the Credo House coffee shop and discuss these things together …
In my estimation, the titles of these articles were intended to be provocative and moreover don’t uniformly use the same style of provocation. In some cases, I believe the titles use hyperbole while in others it seems a more literal meaning is intended. One really has to engage each article separately to understand the argument being made.
Overall, though, I do think the title choices for this post as well as the series are in poor taste.
I didn’t read all the lists about the ones I read I agree with
You made very interesting good points, especially on the all sins are not equal which I never bought either.
Let me be blunt and concise. The entire series linked in this post is not only stupid, but rather convoluted and prideful. In each case that I have read, there is a simple definitional problem that could have been addressed charitably, clearing up terms without applying “stupid” to any of the sayings. For example, “In heaven we will be timeless” is simply an imprecise choice of words. The person obviously means that we will no longer age, be mortal, die. “In heaven we will no longer age as we mortals do now” is a simple correction of the wording, without the pompous belaboring of the point. Ditto for the other entries in the series.
Let me suggest a 22nd thing.
Saying that saying “Good question. I will find out the answer and get back to you” is a stupid thing to say which damages your credibility, is a stupid thing to say, which has damaged your credibility.
This is a pretty silly article. The meaning of most of these statements depends on context. Click on some of them and the author goes on to say, (paraphrasing) “Well, if you say it like this, that’s not what I mean, but if you say it in this other context, then you should never say it”. Kind of useless.