I’m looking for some guidance and opinions on the topic of faith from everyone. I’m a Christian, and I’ve been mulling over some questions. I plan to ask my minister but I’d like to put it forth here first, because it really has been troubling me and I would like to hear everyone’s opinion on it, believer and non-believer.
Well here goes.
I’m really worried about everyone I love who’s not a Christian (those of you who aren’t of my faith and might be taking offense just wait a minute). There are many people I love whose souls are in jeopardy. To be saved means you must admit you’re a sinner to God and receive Our Messiah’s gift of salvation. And many of my friends and immediate family haven’t done this. It worries me to no end.
To nonbelievers, please understand that this is fact to me and I’m presenting it as such for guidance from those of similar faith. I don’t mean to try and exclude people of different or non-believer’s advice. In fact I’m mainly seeking it. This already isn’t coming off well, I feel like I’m categorizing people into groups and making it look like Christians are better then everyone, when that’s far from the case in a lot of occasions we can be worse, we’ve just been forgiven. I have a question for all of you at the end. I find this kind of thing hard to explain without coming off like I’m apologizing for my faith, which I would never do. I’m just trying to include everyone since this is the most sensible and respectful forum I’ve ever had the pleasure of visiting. People talk here, not to score points, not to antagonize each other but to have conversations about things that are important to them, and I value your opinions as much as anyone else, I’m not, and would never, speak down to anyone.
I don’t think it would be right to bring this up as a reason to become Christian however. It’s just not right to tell someone of God’s love through what could be taken as a threat. I pretty much know for a fact that many of my friends wouldn’t take well to me trying to explain why faith is important. Or people of much older age just seeing me as the baby I was when they first knew me rather then the adult I am now.
To my Brothers and Sisters in Christ my question is this. Should every Christian be an evangelist? Because I find myself devoid of words that can properly explain how I feel. Should I try to “lead through example”? Make my faith more visible and show how much it means to me? Or would this exclude my friends making them feel like they’re not a part of this, even though they are. I understand that they’re the ones who have to make the choice, that’s what makes it so meaningful, but still I worry that they may not regard it as an option. I don’t want to force anyone, and I don’t know if trying to guide someone to it lessens it.
To everyone else, is this intrusive? What would be the best way for someone to tell you about their faith? Should they address it directly? Make it apparent how much it means to them? I know many people view anyone voicing about “converting” is immediately dismissed. What would be the best way of expressing myself about this to someone?
This is why I’m so hesitant about writing about this, because there are so many ways people can misconstrue what I say, and everything I’m trying to get across can be misinterpreted completely and I can come off looking like a total jerk. I’m sorry if this gives offense I just don’t know any other way to figure out what to talk about and how to deal with talking about it, unless I actually do it.
I was considering posting this in the Ask OSC board, but I not sure if Mr. Card has the time to read this, since it really isn’t a question about him. I’d love to hear his input if he does happen by the thread though. I’d like some input from everyone. Thanks for reading, it means a lot. Well here goes I’m actually hitting the post button.
(PS: sorry if there are any grammatical errors or spelling I typed it as it came to me.)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
That's interesting. And just when didja receive the right to pass God's Judgement?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kreve, ignore aspectre. He's just like this. Wait it out and I bet you'll get some very interesting, very useful insights from some of our more thoughtful posters.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Your view is that the only way to salvation is through Christ. This is not a view that everyone shares, not even all Christians share it. To answer your question, I shall endevour to explain my philosophy of Pelagaian pluralism.
Pelegius, also spelt Pelagius, was a 4th century Celtic theologian who oposed the teachings of Augustine, his contempary. Pelegius denied the idea of orginal sin, and embracing free-will, saying that:
quote: 1. That Adam would have died even if he had not sin; 2. That the sin of Adam injured himself alone, not the human race; 3. That newborn children are in the same condition as Adam was before the Fall; corollary; that infants, though unbaptized, have eternal life; 4. That the whole human race does not die because of Adam's death or sin, nor will it rise again because of Christ's resurrection; 5. That the Old Testament Law, as well as the New Testament Gospel, gives entrance to heaven; and 6. That even before the coming of Christ there were men who were entirely without sin.
I don't really belive in points five or six. But, the essence of Pelagianism is that all humans are born good, and are capable of doing good. These ideas, can be percivied, rightly I belive, to say that the Church is not nescary. The idea that relgious leaders are not required, that the individual is capable of making his or her own destiny and achiveing enlightenment, is also central to Buddhism.
So, if the individual, rather than the relgion, is what is important, then all relgions practiced by those that are moral and just are valid. Therfore, there is no need for you to evanglise, in fact please don't. Relgion is deeply personal, and each individual has different spiritual needs.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
It depends on what your goal is. If you really do believe that everybody who isn't "saved" is going to Hell, then presumably your goal is to encourage people to be "saved". Therefore, simply saying "This is what I believe" and laying it out is not going to cut it. You're going to have to tell people why they should believe what you believe.
This will necessarily involve upsetting people. You can't get around it. It won't upset everybody, but it will bother enough people that you are going to have to learn to live with that kind of reaction. (By the by, if I am understanding your beliefs correctly, I am probably one of the people that would get snippy under these circumstances.)
On the other hand, if all you really want to do is tell people what you believe for the purpose of promoting understanding, then there are definitely ways of doing this without causing outrage. At least, you can do it when you are talking to reasonable people. I know of a few online forums, though, where the mere indication that you hold some kind of religious belief will invariably provoke outrage. This is not the case with most people, though.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Just tell them what a great and loving God he is, then tell them how if they don't bow down and admit he's real, they'll get sent to hell.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hmmm, I'm definitely more of the state your peice, if you feel you need to, but it's really between the other person and God. While as a Christian you are commanded to tell other people, via the great commission, you *can't* let yourself feel directly responsible for their souls, because you aren't. To say you are is to deny their own free will.
For example, my parents and the rest of my family are Evangelical Christians. I'm not. However I feel far more at peace with God now, than I ever did while I was practicing their faith. Are you to deny me my personal experience and tell me I'm going to Hell as a result? (My family has, done so. Trust me, it doesn't make one *want* to participate in their faith whatsoever.)
God is bigger than you are and he will sort everyone out correctly in the end (provided he exists) You have to have faith in His sovereignty as well as realizing that you can't deny someone else's free will.
AJ
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Your questions are valid, and through your protestations, you have conveyed that you are sincere in your quest.
Let me first state that I am an athiest, so that you may take my advice in that spirit.
Usually, the offence that I take in someone who wishes to convert me is that they often refer to absolutes. "This is the way it is and any other way is wrong," which, I believe is the thing that you wish to avoid. If you present your beliefs as what you believe in, not as an absolute, then you will find better acceptance to listen from those who do not share your beliefs, as you will be qualifying your statements from the start.
The idea that rejection of "God's Love" would cause me to burn in Hell, is not a valid reason for me. I do good merely to do good, because it is the right thing to do, here and now. For me, the responsibility is on my own shoulders, and I don't believe it should be anywhere else. This said, were I not an athiest, I would have no sin against me. However, the mere fact that I have rejected "God's Love" would condemn me to Hell in Christian faith. That does not seem logical in my view for the structure of an ethos.
You must be willing to listen to be heard. I think that is the key you may be looking for.
Posted by Kreve (Member # 8110) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: That's interesting. And just when didja receive the right to pass God's Judgement?
I'm not passing judgement on anything. In the end it's up to God (to me at least) to judge and I would never presume to pass judgement on anything. In fact the whole post is basically me saying how I'm having serious fears about judgement in general, when I know people I love and people I care for will be the one's being judged. ARG, reading over what I just wrote makes me seem like even more of a jerk, I can't seem to properly express what I'm trying to convey. I'm just going with what I have and believe. I don't WANT to believe that it's this black and white. I just want to take care of the people I love and as many people as I can and make sure everything turns out alright. I guess I should phrase things differently, I'm probably coming off as a huge arrogent jerk like I was afraid of. Guess that's a lesson in of itself. Sorry if I offended you, or somehow came off judgemental it really wasn't my intention to do so.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ignore Jebus...he's a resident curmudgeon...
Do you actually think that the God that created this universe thinks in only black and white? While he has some absolutes, surely he loves the colors and shades of grey in between as much as anything, because he created the possibility for them and there are tons of them in the Bible.
Did Rahab do the right thing sheltering the spies in Canaan even though she was out and out lieing to protect them?
AJ
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I like these words from the Sermon on the Mount "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Personally, I think the best way to tell others of your faith is to live a truly Christ-like life and to embrace goodness wherever it is found. I think that Christ is compassionate enough that he doesn't necessarilly put a time-table on one's opportunity to be saved. Whether people choose to do what is required to be saved is between themselves and Christ and cannot (nor should it) be judged by anyone else.
If people question you about your beliefs, certainly answer them, but I don't know that sharing your beliefs unsolicited would be beneficial. Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
::high fives aspectre::
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
*kicks aspectre and jebus*
For how careful and respectful the first post was, shame on you for jumping down his throat.
Kreve's comment about how great this forum was made me smile, but then reading the replies it just upsets me to have him instantly proven wrong.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Just lead by example. Don't just be a Christain, live it with your every action.... At least that is what I'd be more likely to respond to, being a bit of a heathen.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe they are here to serve as contrast.
----------
That was an excellent post, Kreve. I think that if you do your part to share what you can, your obligation has been filled. You can still be worried for them, but it is up to them to make their own choice.
Specifically, if the subject comes up or seems appropriate, you can talk about what you love about your choice. You can invite them to participate, at a number of different levels ranging from "What do you think of it?" to an invititation to come to church. If you're sincere in both your faith and your respect for them, I don't think you'll offend many people. Some will always be offended, but if doing this is important to you, that's going to have to be part of the price.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kreve, I appriciate your love and concern for those close to you who are not of your faith. Please take what I am about to say in that light...
I think the answer to your question is, how would you want an atheist, who thinks you are wasting your one and only chance at life, to talk to you about it? If she loved you and worried about the time you were spending in church bowing to a god she KNOWS doesn't exist. How would you want her to approach you?
Pix
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Respectful opening posts mean NO JOKING AROUND in that thread.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
1) Yes, I believe all Christians should be evangelists. The word evangel means “good news” and an evangelist is one who brings good news. Now you can disagree with me about this next part, but “you need to believe exactly as I do or you’re going to burn in hell” does not sound like good news to me. Maybe you need to think a little more about what exactly the message is that you’re trying to communicate. What is your good news?
2) The most important task of evangelism is, in my opinion, to be the kind of person that people who know you would like to be.
Posted by Bekenn (Member # 6602) on :
Step 1: Stop apologizing. Step 2: Ignore aspectre. Step 3: For OSC's view on this, go here. Step 4: Stop apologizing.
The questions you're having right now are very common for Christians. These issues all revolve around a central question:
What is necessary for salvation?
From Romans 3:
quote:Romans 3:21-24, 27-28 (NIV) But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
[...]
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
In the link above, Card writes (and I agree with him):
quote:After all, if you believe somebody's going to hell, isn't it at least polite to warn them?
It's equally important to keep one last thing in mind, which you mention in your post:
quote:they’re the ones who have to make the choice
So*: should all Christians be evangelists?
Consider for a moment the effect that would have on how we would then be seen by the rest of the world. Most people I encounter in life have already made firm decisions of faith, whether it be faith in God, Jesus, some other supreme beings, or faith in a complete lack of any of the above (which is also faith; the only people who lack faith are agnostics, because they do not believe what has not been proven). Ringing their doorbells, giving them pamphlets, and declaring that their immortal souls are in danger is, more often than not, counter-productive.
This is not because they cannot tolerate our beliefs, or because they cannot stand to have their own beliefs questioned, but simply because it is a complete and utter waste of their time -- just as it would be wasting our time for an atheist to try and convert you or me. They have already considered what evidence has come to them, and made their decision. Before that decision can be changed, they must decide to challenge it on their own. Only when someone is actively searching for a new perspective will he be open to considering anything you have to say.
So*, then: do you just sit down and shut up and keep it all to yourself?
Of course not. If these people are your friends, then they will care (or at least take interest) about the fact that this means something to you. Being Christian is simply another important (perhaps the most important) part of your life, so don't ever pretend it's not there. But neither should you push that belief on your friends. Be willing to talk about it, and don't shy away from discussion of it, and don't avoid mentioning things that happen at church, or neat points made during a sermon that you think might be of interest, or even the frictions that can develop inside a church environment. If it fits the conversation, it's fair game.
God uses each of us in different ways: some are called to preach, some to sing, some to mend roads and fix houses in the service of God. Leave the hard-core evangelising to those who feel that call, who are drawn towards the need for God and know what to do about it. If, some day, that is you, then I wish you luck. But there are plenty of other ways to serve God.
Edited to fix a quote block
[ June 01, 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Bekenn ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm impressed by Kreve and his question.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
at jebus (I've wanted to do that for a while)
-----
I'd just like to echo no. 6's point about absolutes. You are asking your friends and family to make a huge change in their worldviews (to use the cliché) simply on the strength of your assertions. Being told, "This is the way it is, and you have to change your life because of it," is a lot to swallow, whether it's true or not, whether you believe the premise or not. You might think about why exactly you believe as you do. Do you have more information than those who believe differently? Have you had experiences that they haven't? Be sure about why you believe, not just what you believe, and you might find some ways of helping those you care about find reasons of their own.
- An atheist's $0.02
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dana (dkw) is very wise. Her advice to think about what the good news actually is can be followed without diluting or changing the central message of Christianity.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Kreve, welcome to the forum.
Good answer, dkw. Living a life of example is the best way to convince someone of the righteousness of your beliefs.
Pelegius, your namesake is very interesting, I find I learn more from the heretics.
quote: To everyone else, is this intrusive? What would be the best way for someone to tell you about their faith? Should they address it directly? Make it apparent how much it means to them? I know many people view anyone voicing about “converting” is immediately dismissed. What would be the best way of expressing myself about this to someone?
Kreve, as an agnostic who has listened to many religious pitches opver the years, I would say it's not intrusive IF the person you are prosletyzing to is receptive to what you are saying. Listen to them, have a discusion instead of a monologue. If they aren't interested, they'll tell you. And then you can back off. An approach like that might be momentarily annoying to me, but I wouldn't be offended if the person preaching the Good News eased up when I expressed a lack of interest. Of course, sometimes I just love to argue, in the right mood.
You might offend some, but that's unavoidable. As long as you're polite you won't offend most. Speaking of the Good News:
quote: Puritans frequently came to Vagabond camps bearing the information that at the time of the creation of the universe--thousands of years ago!--certain of those present had been predestined by God to experience salvation. The rest of them were doomed to spend eternity burning in hellfire. This intelligence was called, by the Puritans, the Good News.
thoughts of Jack Shaftoe, "King of the Vagabonds," in Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson
Posted by Bekenn (Member # 6602) on :
Wow, this thread filled up fast; it was only up to Dag when I started my post....
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I was raised Episcopalian and attended 13 years of Catholic Schooling. My problem with religion in general, and with those two in particular, is that they make very little allowance for those that don't share their beliefs.
My line of thinking has always been this: Let's say two identical people are born on the same day. One in China, one in New Hampshire. Their lives are markedly similar in almost every way - they make some mistakes, but they learn from them, and they always strive to be better people. They treat others as they themselves would like to be treated. The major difference between them is that one believes that Jesus Christ was the Son Of God, who died for our sins, and one believes in the teachings of Buddha.
One goes to heaven and one goes to hell?
Or so Catholicism would have me believe.
I'm not interested in blindly following along. I was raised to ask questions, to inform myself and then make my own decisions.
And about religion, I've decided that I don't believe in a god who works in the way described above. I believe in God who judges people on their own merits, and who doesn't care how much of a christian you appear to be, only how much of one you really are in your heart. Words can lie. Actions speak the truth.
I saw too much lip service in my years of going to church. I saw backstabbing, money-grubbing, politically motivated bigots, among others. I also know people with unlimited compassion and kindness who are fervent atheists/agnostics.
I'm too logical a person to go with something that makes so little sense to me.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think that the non-christians you talk to will all fall somewhere on the "my mind is made up" scale. There are those that are looking for something to believe in, and just haven't found it yet, and there are those who have searched their hearts and minds, done all the research they could, debated it over and over again, and have come to the conclusion that the beliefs they hold are the one's that they are sticking with. How willing to listen to you the person is will probably depend on where they fall on the spectrum.
If a person says to you "these are my beliefs, they aren't going to change, please respect them", you need to accept that. Whether you remain friends with them after that is up to you. Until that point, here are some tips.
1) Be respectful. You've shown here that you are very well meaning and careful not to give offense. This can work wonders on having meaningful religious talks.
2) Do not insult their beliefs. Be it evolutionary theory, reincarnation, or transubstantiation, calling a belief silly is going to earn you a quick exit from rational discourse.
Tips for talking to athiests/agnostics/heathens...
1) Do not focus on the negative consequences for not believing. For example, warning them about hell. Non-believers do not believe in hell, and in fact its one of the things some of us have problems accepting about religion. We don't want to believe in hell. Most non-believers, however, want to believe in heaven.
2) Now I'm having trouble articulating what I mean with this one. What I am trying to get across is that while you believe your religion is "fact", the person you are talking to does not. Perhaps put "We believe" or "I believe" before some of your claims. A lot of us doubters are logic driven, and making factual claims like that can turn us off to what you are saying.
I could put more, but I am at work, and should probably be working .
[ June 01, 2005, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Kreve (Member # 8110) on :
Thanks for all the replies! I have a lot to think about and I'm still gathering my thoughts. I'll spend most of tonight making a massive post addressing each person's post. So many good points are being made and good advice being given from all viewpoints. I'll be typing in word for the next few hours gathering my thoughts into something coherent.
EDIT: Typo.
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
What a wonderful topic .
First off, as someone who was raised in a rigidly Catholic household, I have to say that the sense of "do it this way or go to hell" is probably what most repelled me away from my parents' faith and just Christianity in general. Therefore, I wouldn't suggest that for you. I would, however, suggest that you very calmy bring up the topic, perhaps by asking your friends to detail their own beliefs first, since a person who feels they have been or will be listened to is far more likely to listen themselves. If you think you will become overexcited or vehement, I would wait. Otherwise, I know that if a friend could calmy justify or even just explain their beliefs that I would be more than happy and interested to at least listen.
I am, however, probably in the same category as your friends in terms of salvation as you see it, though: my own beliefs are very simple - I believe in God and I am thankful for his presence. For me, that is truly enough and I have no wish to define my faith any further. Sometimes I see God as the Father of Jesus; other times I see God as simply an amazing power and vital force in life that maybe takes different forms depending on what is touching my heart at any moment. Morally, I feel that if I simply try to be the best version of myself I can and that I have some kind of faith, than that will be enough for God. I still attend church services, but it is now more out of habit and hoping to glean a little new food for thought than anything else.
So, some questions I would raise if you told me what you just wrote would be that I find it hard to believe that I would be sent to hell simply because I do not 100% accept Christ as the only way to heaven. Why would a supposedly merciful God punish me for that if I otherwise adhere to all Christian moral teachings? Why is Christ so essential to our salvation and resurrection from the dead in the first place? What happens if I believe in God but not necessarilly Christ and consistently lead an otherwise good life, but my neighbor is a Christian who only rarely observes the tenets of the faith? Those are just a few of the questions I would prepare yourself to hear and respond to calmly.
Don't get me wrong, there is something truly amazing and wonderful about deeply and truly held beliefs, and I have a great admiration for those who can take so much simply on faith. Those who are not willing to even consider or listen to another way of life, however, I am myself closed off to. That said, I applaud you for asking how to evangelize successfully and as tactfully as possible. I understand that acknowledging other religions can be difficult (after all, the whole idea behind faith is that you believe that something is just right) but be prepared to know and respect when someone is not going to change their mind. That said, I wish you only the best on this quest . Maybe if my parents had tried to be as tactful as you are then I wouldn't be such a heathen .
edit: I was only at tom's post when I started writing the above, so if any of it's repetitive you have my sincere apologies.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm reading a book right now that addresses this subject in a way that sheds a lot of personal light to me. It's called "Six Events, The Restoration Model for Solving Life's Problems". It's directed at Latter Day Saints, but I think what it says might be helpful in answering your question.
It says that people come to their faith and salvation in a given order, and it doesn't work to try to go about things in the wrong sequence.
The very first step is understanding that we are children of God, eternal beings, greatly beloved by Him, that we have a divine nature, unlimited potential, and that we each of us are of infinite worth. So the first thing you can do to bring others to God (regardless of what religion you are) is to remember constantly who they are, and who you are, and reflect it in the way you interact with them. If you love them unconditionally, no matter how they behave toward you, if you love them with the pure love of God, understanding that they are infinitely precious, listening with your whole being to their concerns and worries, to their wants and needs, if you can show them by loving service to them, by your expectations for them, that they are God's beloved children, then they will feel that. If you can deeply listen to them, trying to understand their point of view from their own perspective, if you can feel the things they feel, and if it's real and not a sham, then that's the foundation for everything else. Trying to teach people the gospel before they know who they are is, perhaps, putting things the wrong way round.
Good luck! Remember always that free agency is the very first principle of all. People's choices are sacred. Or, if you like, God put the right person in charge of each of our lives. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I had an interesting experience with a Baptist Church I attended for a time. I was not at all interested in convincing people to become Baptist, but I was interested in getting people to join this particular congregation because: 1) I liked the preacher 2) I was hoping the church would survive
So, I was willing to do a little door-to-door talking to people about it. What I found was:
- the likelihood of convincing someone to come to services was practically nil. - some people are looking for a church to attend and would openly listen and maybe stop by to see if they liked it. - the vast majority of people (at least in the area where I was) were already attending a church, or belonged to one even if they didn't attend. And so, not interested. - those who didn't belong to a church were, for the most part, not at all interested in religion or religious observance and wouldn't spare the time.
This was my experience whether I went alone or accompanied the pastor and just sat back and watched or participated only when asked.
Thus, it was amazing to me how people would come in from various drives we would have in the neighborhood and talk about all the souls they'd brought to Jesus that day. I mean, one guy came in claiming 16 people!!! And they would all come in to church next week. Of course they didn't. Or we'd go to follow-up and the contact information would be all wrong -- addresses of houses that weren't built yet, or a number that was two houses beyond where the block ended...that sort of thing.
As I studied the Bible more, and hung out with various people who I admired, I realized a couple of other things:
1) If someone is ready, they'll seek the Lord. That may not be true in places where no-one has ever heard of God, or Jesus, or whichever diety one is promoting. But here in the US, there aren't very many people who don't know about the availability of God's message in various forms.
2) The example is far more important than the prosyletizing. It's just a fact. If you want someone to know about your God, live an exemplary life and they'll want to know you. In knowing you, they'll come to know your God.
Live a crummy life and pound the pavement on Saturday to drum up recruits and all you get is people who learn to look the other way out of basic politeness.
As I've met and intercted with people who are REALLY INVOLVED in their churches, one of the things I've come to understand is how much need there is for internal evangelism. There are so many people INSIDE the churches for whom it hasn't really "clicked." They need the help. And they can bring in others if they are experiencing something good in their lives.
Churches do a lot of great things. But it's the people who do it. There are wonderful, active people who do things within the church because it's a multiplier. Their efforts coupled with others and more gets done.
Whether you think of it as saving souls or just helping fellow human beings in need...it's true that people being active within their church can accomplish a lot.
I'm not sure this really answers your question. But I think every person who has faith asks the same question. Know that I have this truth, what is expected of me? What am I supposed to do with it?
And I think far too many people think the first thing to do is share it. I think that's part of it. But really, the very first thing is to try to live it. Know it. Understand it yourself.
The better job you do of that, the better job you can do sharing it.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:And I think far too many people think the first thing to do is share it. I think that's part of it. But really, the very first thing is to try to live it. Know it. Understand it yourself.
I agree with this 100%. If you don't know what you believe and why, how can you even begin to tell people about it and to answer their questions?
HINT: "Well, my Pastor said that..." is generally not a good way to begin answers.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I don't have much to add to that which has already been expressed, except to say that my friend, who has been exploring Christianity, decided very recently that she was a heathen after all. When she told her Christian friend, the friend was heartbroken. The Christian friend called her in the middle of the night, terrified that she was going to hell.
My friend told her 'this is why I left.' She just couldn't wrap her mind around the idea that one had to be Christian in order to go to heaven. She still loves Jesus, but just realised that she could not accept this doctrine, for the very reasons why she loved his teachings - the idea of love and forgiveness, even for the worst sinners.
I'd love to know how someone would approach this issue without causing offence and alienating people. This thread is fascinating.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
God can save whomever God wants to.
How could it be otherwise?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Let me turn the question around, often a useful exercise in moral inquiries. As an atheist, I believe you are wasting much of your energy, many opportunities, and large parts of a finite existence on having faith. Should I, then, attempt to deconvert you? In other words, should atheists be evangelists?
To turn Card's quote around, "If you believe someone is doing themselves large amounts of harm without knowing it, isn't it polite to warn them?"
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I think that the idea that God would create a bunch of people knowing full well that they would end up in Hell, as Hell has been commonly described, is one of the most pernicious doctrines in the world, and one that is worthy of contempt. But that's just me.
Luckily, I don't think a lot of Christians actually believe that. I'm not crazy about a number of the alternatives, either, but they're not nearly as bad as the above.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To turn Card's quote around, "If you believe someone is doing themselves large amounts of harm without knowing it, isn't it polite to warn them?"
Well, not the way you do it. This person apparently cares about not being rude.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Tough love, perhaps? I've seen a lot of fundies shouting hellfire and brimstone at people, which is a bit rude. And in all honesty, I don't take it as a compliment when someone tells me "do as I say or go to hell", no matter how diffidently he puts it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I've seen a lot of fundies shouting hellfire and brimstone at people, which is a bit rude.
And I don't recall defending their actions, either.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: As I've met and intercted with people who are REALLY INVOLVED in their churches, one of the things I've come to understand is how much need there is for internal evangelism. There are so many people INSIDE the churches for whom it hasn't really "clicked." They need the help. And they can bring in others if they are experiencing something good in their lives.
Churches do a lot of great things. But it's the people who do it. There are wonderful, active people who do things within the church because it's a multiplier. Their efforts coupled with others and more gets done.
Whether you think of it as saving souls or just helping fellow human beings in need...it's true that people being active within their church can accomplish a lot.
The better job you do of that, the better job you can do sharing it.
Amen, Bob - very well expressed.
One of the things that has bothered me with religious institutions has been the bypassing of those within the community that needed that "evangalism" themselves - a helping hand, a listening ear, some non-judgemental friendship.
We really aren't very gentle with the bent and broken reeds within our midst . . .
The other thing our new seeker might consider is joining "interfaith" communities that work together to improve awareness and acceptance of different faiths and belief systems, and also usually work together doing a lot of good works in the community.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
A further thought occurs to me : The question does not have to be phrased in terms of faith and atheism. Suppose you really believe that the government is beaming thought-control beams from the GPS satellites - isn't it your moral duty to make people aware of it, and pass out the tinfoil hats? If you strongly believe that global climate change is imminent and catastrophic, should you not make people aware of it and support every action, no matter how minor, to avert the disaster? If you are utterly convinced that Jews are behind every economic ill of the day, might you not be justified in rousing people's ill-will against them?
I hope most people would disagree with the latter, at least. And yet, have we not seen in recent years, a Western government make war on the rather nebulously defined group of 'terrorists'? And has not this become, in (so far) rare cases, a synonym for 'vaguely Arabic-looking'? And this development seems to have support in a reasonably large segment of the population.
The upshot of all this, it seems to me, is that conviction, belief, faith if you like, is not enough. To feel justified in proselytising, you should have actual evidence, repeatable, demonstrable to anyone. Now I know Dagonee will disagree with me on what constitutes evidence, but again I would like to refer to the tinfoil-hat theorist. He has evidence too : He felt a lot better after he started wearing his hat. And, nice guy that he is, he wants you to feel better too.
The difficulty is, of course, that no religious belief has such proof! So I think my answer is, no, you should not evangelise.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, I see. You take a question about how to evangalize without trodding on people's rights and get to anti-semetic rabble rousing. Very well done, with a deft propagandist's hand, I might add. Small tiny changes from "polite warning" to actually passing out the hats, to supporting "every action" (presumably including banning abulances since you'd reduce emmissions and kill a few overpopulatin' humans) to actually rousing people's ill-will against Jews.
Bravo. Well done.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
At least, you shouldn't try to convince KoM. Obviously.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Hi, Kreve. Welcome to the forum!
Here's my perspective: try to understand the mindset of the people you are talking to. Keep in mind that some of them are not Christian because they have been burned somehow by Christianity or its followers. You need to be sensitive. This is your chance to demonstrate that some Christians actually care about non-believers, rather than seeing them merely as potential converts.
Realize that people may view the world very differently than you do. For example, my church had a Sunday school class based on a book that tells you how to convert people. Most of the "logical arguments" for Christianity would only be accepted by those who already have a Christian worldview.
Most people are happy to hear what you believe, as long as you are not pressuring them to accept your beliefs. If your beliefs make sense, people will be willing to accept them without you being pushy about it. I think that people will be the most open to listening when you are having an honest exchange of ideas, so listen to the other person as well. And hey, you might learn something valuable from them.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
I usually hate "converters", I have had many horrible experiences of people stopping me on the street asking " Can you help me for just one minute?". I stop but then have to listen to some person for half and hour going on about how I am going to hell because I am a whore, cheater, stealer.... etc etc, leaving me no opening to leave with out saying "F**k off and leave me alone!" . BUT the other day two mormon teenage boys came to my house and asked "Are you interested in learning about the mormon faith, because it is something that is very special to us and we would only like the opportunity to share that feeling with other people", when I said no, they said they respected that and went! I was left with a warm glow that there are some nice "converters" out there afterall. lol
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Our insidious plan is working... Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I really was doing my best to be polite! Surely fanatic anti-Semitism is an example of a belief without proof? And isn't that what faith means? I even included climate change, which I personally think is happening and is a bad thing! The point I was trying to make is, you should not argue for beliefs unless you have proofs that are convincing and repeatable. Personal testimony, no matter how sincere, just doesn't cut it, because there's always someone else with an equally sincere testimony in the opposite direction.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The last time Mormon missionaries came to my family's house, my brother and sister offered to share their thoughts on Catholicism with them. I think the conversation lasted about 30 minutes with each pair sharing about equally.
No one was converted either way, of course.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
KoM, inflaming anti-Semetic passions will have the result of depriving others of their ability to choose (namely, the Jewish people who end up being the victims of the resulting violence or discriminatory laws). Politely proselytizing wouldn't.
Even if one had evidence that 50% of the Jews were in on a conspiracy to control the world, one wouldn't be correct in inflaming anti-semetic passions to stop the plot.
Dagonee P.S., I hope it's clear I don't believe there is a Jewish conspiracy of any sort.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I kind of like the point of KoM's post, but there is a fine point of distinction. I'd say it's between "sharing your belief" and "acting on your belief"
If you go door to door and politely tell people about the mindrays and offer them a tinfoil hat, fine and good. If you break into their house and staple the tinfoil to their head, shame on you. That's illegal and hurtful.
If you say "Jews control global finances" to people you meet on the bus, that's protected as free speech and you have the right to share that opinion. If you beat up the Jew who sits next to you on the bus, shame on you. That's illegal and hurtful.
Some people can argue that the 2nd statement itself is hurtful on its own, but I still think someone has the right to say it. I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it, and all that.
The thread in general reminds me of this: There are 2 methodist ministers in my family. I am not christian. I can have a pleasant, rewarding conversation about religion with my sister. I cannot with my uncle. It has to do with my uncle's evangelism and "be saved or go to hell" attitude.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You shout your own brand of contempt, hellfire and brimstone too. You're just not as frothy about it.
Posted by Kreve (Member # 8110) on :
Simply put, here is the basic question I'm asking.
(note I've rewritten this question 9 times already)
Assume that hell does exist and that there is only one way to get into it, isn't this something I should worry about and keep in mind for the well being of my loved ones?
This question brings up a few others which I'd like to see discussed further.
1. Because this disturbs me does that mean that I'm now afraid of my own beliefs or afraid for those around me? Either way I don't think Christianity is something to be feared, it's a positive influence in my belief. It's when people try to use it to get what they want that things go awry.
2. Is it OK to pick and choose from the Bible what I beleive? Isn't that basically throwing away all respect I would have for myself and my beliefs? How would people take me seriously if I just pick and choose? "Yes, yes, this is true, but forget that other part, that part's crap." It would be interesting to go through history and see if there were any major changes (more then likely politically made) to the Bible for reasons of controling the masses into doing what the ruler/polition wanted. I'd like to believe God would prevent this from happening but Man is failible.
4. I heavily appreciate the "Stop appologizing" comments Bekenn, If I ever seem apologetic in my faith please let me know. I'm just trying to bring this subject up as delicately as possible wihtout alienating anyone. I've taken all your advice to heart
5. I'd still like to address more posts and thank people for supporting me in this endevor. Trying to carry on a civil discussion about religion is hard enough without bringing hell into the mix. This would have completely and utterly failed outright on ANY other forum.
And a few more points I'd like to make.
1. I'm not implying I would get my own TV show and start televangelizing. If I do try and introduce my beliefs into someone's life it will be at a time that I feel it might yeild a positive result for them. I don't want to push people further away.
2. I definately agree that before I should even TRY this I should study and self reflect further. All of you who voiced this are completely right, thanks
3. I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO GO TO HELL. This is the point of this discussion. I'm not saying that in any way. I'm taking an anti-going-to-hell stance and want the best for everyone.
4. I go to a church called The Vineyard, and a small Methodist church where everyone is pretty much family. Not sure if anyone has heard of the Vineyard churches. I just recently started attending. Basically it's a relatively youth oriented church where there's live (modern) music every service and it's a gathering of people coming together to celebrate their faith, and support each other as family, and accept any who want to join. We explain what our faith means to us and how it has positively affected our lives. This is what I feel most comfortable with and makes the most sense to me. I am in no way a fire and brimstone promoter. Christ preached love and understanding, not fear. If I am ever in the position to help someone I'd take them to this kind of enviroment.
So basically I'm-
Pro-Christ Anti-going-to-Hell Anti-Fire-and-Brimstone preaching Concerned about the well being of everyone's soul and wants bring people to God if I can.
Once again I am not preaching. I'm asking advice and inviting everyone's comments.
Edit- Spelling errors and basic editing. I'm sure I still have quite a number of run on sentances left.
[ June 01, 2005, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Kreve ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Kreve, have you talked to the minister at either of your churches yet? In particular about the going to hell part of all this? I believe that the Vineyard is a youth oriented outreach of the Methodist church, is your Vineyard congregation associated with your other congregation?
Posted by Kreve (Member # 8110) on :
I was planning on talking about it this sunday with both ministers. As far as I know the Vineyard congregation isn't at all associated with my other congregation, although people in both churches have friends in the other and sometimes frequent the other's congregation and have nothing but good things to say about eachother.
Posted by Icec0o1 (Member # 8157) on :
If you wouldn't consider losing your faith for your friends, don't expect/push them to lose theirs. If you don't believe in Jesus, that's not a lack of belief, it's a different set of beliefs.
I think religion should be a personal thing. I've heard it so many times and I completely agree; faith should be a personal relationship between you and God. Once it gets outside of that, I'm fairly against it.
I'm not that good with history, but would you say that the Crusades were justified in killing so many people with the hope of spreading Christianity? It's a tough question...
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I think most of evangelism doesn't work. Why? Because many times people who think of themselves as evangelists, are not really sharing Christianity. They are making threats. ie: making accusations about a person's character, telling them that they will go to hell, and so forth. In addition, many times they focus on strangers, or make those around them feel like they are being judged.
I think the best way to be an evangelist is to be a true Christian. Follow Christ's example. Be loving to those around you. Don't participate in behaviors that violate Christian morals, but don't criticize those that do. If someone you know is out at a bar and gets wasted, don't criticize them for being drunk, offer to give them a ride home so they don't have to worry about driving impaired. If someone is hurt because the boyfriend that they slept with dumped them, don't criticize them for having sex, give them support to deal with their pain. Let people know the love of Christ through your actions, not through your words.
As for the bible, I would read it...and read commentaries, as well as talking to your minister about questions you might have. It is not something that you should just pick and choose from to form your own version. It also is not something that has changed over the years. There are of course different translations, but if you have learned the languages you actually can still go back to the original Greek and Aramaic if you wish (many people still do).
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
I agree with what everyone said about figuring out other people's mindset. If you want to change them, then they have to be receptive. They have to want it.
First I should warn you, as others have about their lack of faith, that I'm an agnostic with heavy atheist tendencies.
With that in mind, if I wanted to convert someone I would show them how great my life is and what I enjoy about it. I would be so friggin' cheerful, so helpful, so nice, so optimistic, and so respectful that they would wonder what kind of antidepressants I was on and if they could get some. After being nice enough and helpful enough, they would probably ask me if they could do anything for me. Then I would say, "Come to church with me, and hang out with me for the day. I'd appreciate the company." Then I'd talk to the minister and some of the parishioners about who I was bringing over. The minister might mention the person during the service, the parishioners might come over to meet and greet the person, perhaps invite them to more functions.
After they're well folded into the community aspect of your faith, then you can slowly talk to them about God and your faith, watching for warning signs that what you're saying is too radical or "out there". If they start looking at the door a lot or giving you crazy looks, back off a bit and let them relax.
Of course, this wouldn't work with me because I have lots of non-christian communities around me all the time and we do help each other and provide support for one another. But I'm sure there are some lonely, depressed souls out there for you to salvage. I think church can definitely be a useful tool to bring people together and give them hope and community.
If you're trying to win people over to your faith from another faith with your fear that they're going to hell, then you better forget it.
Posted by Bekenn (Member # 6602) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kreve: Assume that hell does exist and that there is only one way to get into it, isn't this something I should worry about and keep in mind for the well being of my loved ones?
To my mind, absolutely. And it's precisely this point that I think OSC was trying to make in the quote I posted earlier: Sincere evangelism, whatever the merits of the particular methods used, has as its basis the noble desire to help others and should find its motivation in love.
Where most evangelists go wrong is in the failure to remember that love for another person must carry along with it a certain degree of respect -- including respect for that person's current beliefs, and most importantly, his right to choose what to believe and why.
Put another way: you are not responsible for anyone's salvation but your own. (And in your case and mine, we can't really even include our own in that one; our price was paid for by another.)
So*, yes, talk to them if you feel you must, but don't harass them. If they are not free to choose another path, then they're not really free to choose Christ, either.
(Incidentally, if you haven't read Shadow of the Giant yet, do; this very point about the freedom to leave a religion being essential to that religion's validity comes up several times.)
quote:This question brings up a few others which I'd like to see discussed further.
1. Because this disturbs me does that mean that I'm now afraid of my own beliefs or afraid for those around me?
The healthy response would be the latter. It's a manifestation of compassion.
quote:2. Is it OK to pick and choose from the Bible what I beleive? Isn't that basically throwing away all respect I would have for myself and my beliefs?
This is one of the more interesting questions when it comes to Christian belief, and there's certainly no consensus on it. Therefore, what I say should not be treated as gospel; it is only my own opinion, and disagreeing with me on a given point doesn't necessarily make you wrong. Nonetheless, I hope you find it of value:
The Bible is not a single work by any means. It is a collection of stories, histories, essays, poems, prophecies, allegories, and songs. Their collection into a single canon was a long and arduous process; a good reference for that appears here. (Note: that link contains a lot of information that I've only had time for a very casual glance at, so I can't speak for the veracity of all of its contents, but it seems more or less accurate.)
Anyway, an important thing to keep in mind about all of this is that the Bible is a collection that evolved over time before reaching the condition in which we find it today, and humans were involved in every step of the process. (Even today, there remain two accepted canons: the Catholic canon and the Protestant canon, for lack of better categories. Take a look at the Apocrypha for further reference.)
My general approach to this mish-mash is this: Anything presented as a history can more or less be taken at face value, some obvious exceptions being the Genesis creation accounts, which evolved from oral tradition. Genesis actually has two separate creation stories, one told in chapter 1, and the other starting at the second verse of chapter 2, and my own impression is that they were written down separately by at least two different authors and later collected together as part of Genesis.
Arrghh... I'm getting off-topic. Back on track:
As I said earlier, the Bible contains a lot of essays and allegories. Sometimes, the allegories are mistaken for histories (which in my mind is responsible for the wasteful and pointless conflicts we see today between "creationists" and "evolutionists" -- nothing in Genesis or elsewhere contradicts the evolutionary process, and the ongoing arguments only serve to drive people away from Christ). It's important to learn to distinguish between allegories and histories. Genesis 1 is an allegory; it shows, in broad strokes, the order in which things happened in terms that were comprehensible and fun for the people of the time, while also showing God's hand in the process. Judges is a history.
The gospels are also more or less histories, and are our best guides to who Christ is and what he did during his time here. Even the gospels aren't entirely consistent; reference the last words Jesus spoke on the cross as portrayed by each of them. The gospels are human accounts of a divine presence; as such, we can't expect them to be word-for-word accurate (somehow I doubt the disciples took pen to paper immediately every time Jesus said something: "And then, verily, Jesus said 'I must depart with thee, for nature is calling'), and their styles of presentation differ accordingly. When Matthew's gospel recounts Jesus presenting the parable of the mustard seed (starting at Matthew 13:31), I don't expect it to be word-for-word accurate, and it doesn't have to be, so long as all the important beats of the parable and its meaning remain. So when you read "And Jesus said," the words that follow are indeed what he said, but not necessarily precisely how he said it. (I suspect he was a bit longer-winded than the gospels give him credit for.)
Finally, we have those portions of the Bible which I term "essays." Primarily, these consist of the letters of Paul, most of which were written to give encouragement and guidance to the fledgling churches of the day. Some of the material here qualifies as history; that would include the recounting of the events on the road to Damascus, for instance. Much of the rest is simply Paul's take on what it means to be a Christian, along with his suggestions on how to run a church. Paul certainly had authority to speak on these matters, but there's no reason to believe he was perfect (he was human, after all), and his own biases are clearly present in many of his letters. While I happen to agree with Paul in most respects, I certainly believe it is possible to be a Christian without necessarily being a student of Paul. His letters serve as an excellent guide to the early church, and his insights are vast, but there's nothing saying his every opinion was perfect.
quote:4. I heavily appreciate the "Stop appologizing" comments Bekenn, If I ever seem apologetic in my faith please let me know.
I live to serve!
quote:1. I'm not implying I would get my own TV show and start televangelizing. If I do try and introduce my beliefs into someone's life it will be at a time that I feel it might yeild a positive result for them. I don't want to push people further away.
Good.
quote:2. I definately agree that before I should even TRY this I should study and self reflect further. All of you who voiced this are completely right, thanks
You're welcome!
I hope that at least some of this helps, or at the very least was interesting to read.
Posted by Kreve (Member # 8110) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icec0o1: I'm not that good with history, but would you say that the Crusades were justified in killing so many people with the hope of spreading Christianity? It's a tough question...
Here's where we get into the whole seeing orgainized religion as a bad thing and these discussions always turn out interesting. I'm of the belief (and history backs this) that people will do horrible things, with or without religion. It just so happens that,unfortunately, religious people in the past have proven very easy to control in great numbers and in great passion. Although this has also been done without religion involved, a quick and still fresh example would be Natzi Germany. Were the Crusades really about retaking the holy land, converting "heathans"* and benifiting the greater good? (As I'm sure some people might have thought they were) Or was there other modivation by those in a power position such as land, pride, wealth or the promise of more power? The end justifies the means, isn't how I view things, it's the mean that justifies the end. Through compassion you are shown compassion, through understanding you are understood. Being a good person makes the world one better for everyone including yourself.
* Ya know I've never been confortable with that word. It just seems so wrong and condesending calling people that as if they're not people just as valuble as you are.
[ June 02, 2005, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: Kreve ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The reason I asked about talking to your minister is that I was raised United Methodist, and while I am not an expert on the UM theology I don't think the whole "you must believe what we believe or your going to hell" is part of it. In fact, that is one of the problems I had with Christianity in general when I was younger, and I had some conversation with someone who was more studied than I, and had it resolved to my satisfaction. (At the time. It was long enough ago that I honestly can't remember what my satisfaction was.)
Anyway, naturally you can read and interpret the bible on your own, but it's also nice to hear the opinions of people who've spent a lot of time studying and discussing it, and reading the thoughts of people who've studied and discussed it over the last couple thousand years.
I'm glad you're planning on talking to your ministers, but I would suggest setting up a time during the week when you can get together and sit down and talk for a good long while, not just talking about it when you see them Sunday. I suspect that they will probably be able to give you some insight on the fate of your friends and family you don't manage to convert that will make you feel better about the whole thing, and reduce the 'fear' aspect of your motivation. Your church might be different, but in my experience fear was never a huge motivating factor in the Methodist church. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yes, please make an appointment to talk to the minister during the week. Sunday is a busy time and they might give you a less-than-satisfactory answer simply because they can't focus all their attention on you right at that moment.
Or, more likely, they'll just ask you to come in and spend some time talking about it.
Another piece of advice: If you have a choice, pick a minister who is seminary-trained. This is not a guarantee of a more thorough answer, mind you, but your question and its answer are getting into not just theology but the whole of human history and the history of philosophy about God. If you are interested in reading some great texts, a seminary graduate is going to be of help to you in that regard as well.
Just a thought. If your minister doesn't have that training, I wouldn't say DON'T talk to him or her. I'd just say don't stop there if you're interested in the scholarly discussion and the person you speak with isn't as well versed in it as you'd like.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Some thoughts:
quote: 1. Because this disturbs me does that mean that I'm now afraid of my own beliefs or afraid for those around me? Either way I don't think Christianity is something to be feared, it's a positive influence in my belief. It's when people try to use it to get what they want that things go awry.
Judging from the juxtaposition in this paragraph, I'd say the thing that might be bothering you is your own potential to misuse/abuse your beliefs. There's a certain amount of uncertainty built into any faith, and coming to faith as an adult means you also bring baggage with you from how you may have evaluated people of faith in the past.
If this becomes a serious concern for you, my best advice is to observe. Find people who you believe are living a good Christian life as you understand it. If you can build a relationship with them, perhaps you can grow to understand how they do it. In a way, it's sort of like choosing a mentor for yourself. Someone you admire. It's not necessarily a life-long relationship, but it can be. It's not necessarily a formal relationship, but it can be that too. And the reason for it is that people don't live that life unconsciously. So, if you are trying to get there, asking or watching someone who IS doing it is going to show you at least one successful way.
And don't pick the minister. IMHO, there's too much opportunity to say "well, sure, they get PAID to think about God all day, so of course they're the way they are." And then not apply the lessons to your own life. Find someone who works and struggles with the same life issues you do (job, family, etc.) and see if you can't learn a few things from them.
And, as you learn more, get new "mentors" as needed.
quote: 2. Is it OK to pick and choose from the Bible what I beleive? Isn't that basically throwing away all respect I would have for myself and my beliefs? How would people take me seriously if I just pick and choose? "Yes, yes, this is true, but forget that other part, that part's crap." It would be interesting to go through history and see if there were any major changes (more then likely politically made) to the Bible for reasons of controling the masses into doing what the ruler/polition wanted. I'd like to believe God would prevent this from happening but Man is failible.
Last part first -- there WERE "changes" to the Bible, but what the reasons were is open to debate. Some scholars do indeed believe that not including the "Gospel of Thomas" among the 27 canonical books of the New Testament was because it's awfully difficult to run a religion when everyone is told that they contain the divine within them (Elaine Pagels, for example). But really, the history of the determination of the canon is more complex than that. This is what made me think you might want to seek out a minister who is seminary trained to answer your questions, by the way.
Okay, the rest of this question -- anyone who says they DON'T pick and choose from the Bible in addressing specific questions is, at best, being disengenuous. But you asked whether it's "okay" to pick and choose what you believe.
Depends on which group you talk to. I am of the personal opinion that you can't make yourself believe something that you can't understand and agree with both spiritually and intellectually. Others will say that this is the very essence of faith -- to believe without understanding or agreeing.
I figure that God will forgive my reluctance even while marking me off for not being as faithful as I should be. I don't wish to spread this brand of faith to others, however, because it is (seems to me) a hard road to follow. You end up questioning everything all the time. And as you move through life, you also have to revisit the things you thought you knew. All the time.
I'm okay with that because I find it fascinating when I gain new insight.
Perhaps a better approach is to be gentle with yourself. Learn and believe the things you can now and provisionally don't shut out the other stuff. Just file it away for later consideration.
quote: 4. I heavily appreciate the "Stop appologizing" comments Bekenn, If I ever seem apologetic in my faith please let me know. I'm just trying to bring this subject up as delicately as possible wihtout alienating anyone. I've taken all your advice to heart [Smile]
Don't stop being delicate about it. Apologies aren't necessary, but discretion is usually good. You'll know when to be forceful if the need ever arises. Starting out as aggressive and forceful leaves you nowhere to go should you find someone who is interested in a reasonable discussion, no?
Also, the practice of being reasoned and "sober" in discussing religious views is something Christians should be noted for as a rule, not as an exception.
quote: 5. I'd still like to address more posts and thank people for supporting me in this endevor. Trying to carry on a civil discussion about religion is hard enough without bringing hell into the mix. This would have completely and utterly failed outright on ANY other forum.
Just don't bring up Purgatory and Limbo. We HATE that.
quote: And a few more points I'd like to make.
1. I'm not implying I would get my own TV show and start televangelizing. If I do try and introduce my beliefs into someone's life it will be at a time that I feel it might yeild a positive result for them. I don't want to push people further away.
What do you mean when you say "further?" What have you been up to young man?
Like I said, spend time integrating your beliefs into your own life and the rest will come a lot more naturally. Another way to ask this. Do you feel ready to become someone else's mentor in faith? I don't feel ready. And yet, we are serving as examples, even unknown to us as people watch and see what living this Christian life thing is all about.
quote: 2. I definately agree that before I should even TRY this I should study and self reflect further. All of you who voiced this are completely right, thanks [Smile]
You aren't alone. I don't expect to ever get beyond the need for this. I'm happy with this thought.
quote: 3. I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO GO TO HELL. This is the point of this discussion. I'm not saying that in any way. I'm taking an anti-going-to-hell stance and want the best for everyone.
Don't fixate on hell. Don't fixate on other people. How are YOU doing and what can you do to spread the good news?
Look. Nobody on Earth can tell you what Heaven is, or what Hell is. Our feeble human understanding of God is such that even if God talked directly to a person here on Earth, the result would still be confusion, analogy, parable, and open to interpretation.
But some parts of God's message to us are clear: - Love - Be kind - Share - Do good work - Don't judge others
Do all that and you don't have to worry about whether you are getting God's message across to those you worry most about. They'll see it.
quote: 4. I go to a church called The Vineyard, and a small Methodist church where everyone is pretty much family. Not sure if anyone has heard of the Vineyard churches. I just recently started attending. Basically it's a relatively youth oriented church where there's live (modern) music every service and it's a gathering of people coming together to celebrate their faith, and support each other as family, and accept any who want to join. We explain what our faith means to us and how it has positively affected our lives. This is what I feel most comfortable with and makes the most sense to me. I am in no way a fire and brimstone promoter. Christ preached love and understanding, not fear. If I am ever in the position to help someone I'd take them to this kind of enviroment.
I'm a HUGE proponent of finding a church where you are comfortable and feel moved. If it doesn't make sense to you, would you stay when the going gets tough? Trust in your spiritual family is a huge bonus. A group where you can bare your soul and not have it trampled is a nice thing.
My own search has led me into some odd places but the spirit was there so I stayed. Sometimes you have to move away (physically or mentally), so my advice is to be prepared to go into searching mode from time to time. It happens.
I've been in churches where I swear God just wasn't present. Or if God was there, it was in order to catch a good nap. You can feel it... or not.
Just don't give up. And take what you can with you so that the spirit of that community is with you even if you aren't there physically.
Enjoy!
PS: The views expressed here are my own and are by no means truly sanctioned by any particular sect or religion. I do not want to promote them to anyone else, but I also feel like it's important to be honest when people ask this type of question. In many people's view, I would be classed as backsliding, lapsed, a "baby Christian" or all sorts of things. Interestingly enough, I've never heard those terms from anyone I thought of as a mentor (secret or real). Could be selection bias on my part. Or it could be that it's pretty clear that anyone who would use those terms isn't really a good role model.
Hmm...have to think about that one.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You shout your own brand of contempt, hellfire and brimstone too. You're just not as frothy about it.
Well. never claimed to be perfect. Anyway, my brand of contempt is absolutely true. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Bekenn I suspect he was a bit longer-winded than the gospels give him credit for.
I sincerely hope he was a lot less long winded than the Gospel of John gives him credit for. I mean really, a three chapter long speech/prayer right after supper? The disciples would be
quote: Kreve isn't this something I should worry about and keep in mind for the well being of my loved ones?
It depends on what you mean by “worry.” Keep in mind, certainly. Obsess about, no. Somewhere in between those two? You need to find a balance that doesn’t leave you with “log in your own eye” syndrome. And at some point you just have to let go and trust that God loves your loved ones even more than you do.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No, KoM, it is true to you.
That is not the same thing at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Claiming that atheism is true is a statement of faith, King of Men.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Couple of points:
1) You have to realize, that every sane human being, when confronted with heaven and hell, thinks they are going to heaven. If you tell them they're not, they are not gonna believe you. That makes it hard to scare people into religion. If you can convince them that Hell really exists, they say, "No matter, I'm sure I'll go to Heaven anyway".
2) As far as the bible goes, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that it was written by men in a dead language two thousand years ago. I understand that the message is, for the most part, still intact. But imagine playing the game "telephone", but in about 6 different languages while trying to communicate a subtle message. It's inevitable that things are gonna get a little garbled.
So by all means, read it and learn the lessons it offers, but do not take everything in there literally! Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Couple of points: 2) As far as the bible goes, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that it was written by men in a dead language two thousand years ago. I understand that the message is, for the most part, still intact. But imagine playing the game "telephone", but in about 6 different languages while trying to communicate a subtle message. It's inevitable that things are gonna get a little garbled.
That is not exactly accurate...while ancient Greek is not commonly spoken, people do still know the language. It is not exactly like "telephone" because new translations go back to the original language. Translators don't look to the Latin or Old English translations to then make a new translation into more modern English.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Thanks for being open, Kreve.
I think the problem many of us have with evangelism is the same problem I have with inviting people to other things. I have a sense that the people would like what I'm talking about (Jesus, or a book I read, or an organization I like), and it would be helpful to them. I imagine the problem is that they've heard sales pitches before for things that were worthless -- every day of their lives, and every 10 minutes on the tube -- so they're resistant to trust me, although I'm trustworthy.
But I don't really think this is it. I think the issue is that I have a pushy side to myself, and they sense it. And I try to control it, so I end up saying something like, "This is really good stuff, and you need to hear my reasons for thinking so whether you want to or not . . . but I know you really don't want to so I'll just shut up now." Imagine if Coca-Cola advertised itself in such a way!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Assume that hell does exist and that there is only one way to get into it, isn't this something I should worry about and keep in mind for the well being of my loved ones?
I like what dkw says about keep in mind but don't obsess over.
I take great comfort in the sovereignty of God. I know that salvation is not mine to impart, and all I should do and can do is what I'm commanded to do in the scriptures. The actual "saving of souls" is not up to me and is indeed beyond my capability.
I know the pain of worrying over loved ones and friends who reject the gospel. I also believe as dkw has said that every one of us is responsible for doing our part to spread the good news. My responsibility is to do what I can to be in God's will, to live out the calling He's placed on my life as a wife and mother. I cannot do it perfectly, because I'm a fallen human, but I can do my best to be obedient and to live the type of life I should. The rest is up to God and that's a great comfort.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:That is not exactly accurate...while ancient Greek is not commonly spoken, people do still know the language. It is not exactly like "telephone" because new translations go back to the original language. Translators don't look to the Latin or Old English translations to then make a new translation into more modern English.
I realize that this is the most effective way to come up with a new translation, but you can't say that this is definitively the case for every translation. The original old testament was written in Koine, which, I probably don't need to remind you, doesn't exist anymore. By that I mean while there are quite a few scholars who claim to be able to read it, even their translations involve a lot of guesswork, interpreting words' meanings from context.
It's not a stretch to say that things being mistranslated is the rule, not the exception. But let's assume we could time travel back to when the prophets' wrote the original texts. They were writing what God told them to write, writing with divine intervention. So even initially, it was second-hand information.
Arguing the veracity of the bible is an exercise in futility, because it's unprovable either way.
Which is the point I made above. Read it, draw your own opinions, but don't bother arguing semantics about how accurate it is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
The original old testament was written in Koine, which, I probably don't need to remind you, doesn't exist anymore.
*blink* Excuse me? Please tell me you just misspoke, and meant New Testament?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: No, KoM, it is true to you.
There's a reason I used the grin smilie. Perhaps your irony detector needs adjustment?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
this is too cool a thread to fall to the 2nd page so soon.
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
Basically what a lot of people said: "I think the best way to be an evangelist is to be a true Christian."
And I think it's important if you do try to talk to your friends, make sure it's not YOU talking, it's something that God wants you to say to them.
That's why I like inviting people to church, and letting God do the rest.
I don't think everyone needs to stop talking about Hell, I just don't think it's the right thing to start off with. For instance if you're talking with a loved one instead of saying, "Yeah, you're going to hell if you don't accept Jesus." You might say, "That Jesus, boyyyy, he really loves ya" (Or something more serious yet still encouraging.)
It's good that you're worrying about your loved ones. God wants us to have a burden for lost people. Yay Kreve.
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
And to this: "Is it OK to pick and choose from the Bible what I beleive?"
I would say definately not.
But if there are certain things you're having trouble believing, or you have questions about, try this:
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."
Ask away.
Posted by memory_guilded (Member # 8092) on :
While I never understood a person's need to convert their friends- I will say that the most inoffensive way would be to show them what Christianity is through action. As an agnostic-leaning-toward-Christianity, I wasn't so much drawn to the religion because of it's promises of salvation, but because of it's philosophies. Kindness and compassion toward others, placing value in the mind and spirit as opposed to material things.
You should start out encouraging them to learn about Christianity because of it's a fantasic way of life. Because non-believers have a hard time entertaining the idea of an almighty God and a heaven and hell.
~M
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Is it OK to pick and choose from the Bible what I beleive?
I'm of the opinion that it's largely impossible not to. At the very least, you apply your own interpretation, which will be different from the interpretations of others. That, after all, is why we've had so many heretics, schisms, sects, and denominations. I try to be open to what the Bible says, while keeping in mind that it's a complex and many-layered book, and the obvious or traditional interpretation may not be the correct one.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
The original old testament was written in Koine, which, I probably don't need to remind you, doesn't exist anymore. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*blink* Excuse me? Please tell me you just misspoke, and meant New Testament?
Yes, I did. Thanks for catching that. I'm morally opposed to proofreading.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*pat pat* That's all right, dear. We'll conv-- uh, break you in -- soon enough. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
A good example only goes so far, unfortunately. There comes a point when you have to. . . well, ask a direct question. Like, "Will you come to church with me this Sunday? I think you'd enjoy it."
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
This has been one of the best religion threads in a good while.
Kudos to Kreve for best newbie thread recently.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I just caught this thread and I confess I don't have time to read the entire thing. But I just wanted to tell Kreve as a fellow Christian This is a topic I think we all struggle with.
Yes we are all called to witness to others, but how we do that is up to us.
I think it was St. Augustine that said" Share the Gospel at all times, even use words when you have to." Our actions speak much better for us than our words ever could.
Remember only God can save someone. You can not, but you can be used by God to this end, so be ready when he presents the opportunity.
Telling someone they are going to hell doesn't work. If you are a Christian out of fear then you have missed the point.
I may have some more comments later when I have time
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I think it was St. Augustine that said" Share the Gospel at all times, even use words when you have to."
Nope. St. Francis of Assisi. "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
First: I’m an atheist. Just thought I should get that out of the way.
Kreve:
quote:Assume that hell does exist and that there is only one way to get into it, isn't this something I should worry about and keep in mind for the well being of my loved ones?
Bluntly: No, it isn't. They are perfectly capable of coming to their own independent conclusions, and if we know anything at all about humans it's that two rational humans can draw entirely different conclusions from the same evidence. The best thing you can do for them, in my view, is let them find their own answers. If they come to you to talk about it, answer all of their questions honestly. Invite them to church if you like, but don't be offended if they say no.
I'm not surprised that most of the posters to this thread -- theists, the vast majority -- found your opening post respectful and openminded. I did not. I understand that you tried very hard to be respectful and openminded, and that's good, but your problem is right here:
quote:To nonbelievers, please understand that this is fact to me and I’m presenting it as such for guidance from those of similar faith.
The minute you say "this is fact to me," you're already talking down to everyone who doesn't share your beliefs, because you're saying that they are not open for debate. No matter how respectful your tone -- and it was very much so, you phrase everything very politely -- you're still being condescending. You're saying "my beliefs are not open to debtate, but because your beliefs are not my beliefs, your beliefs are open to debate. In fact, yours are outright wrong!" In my experience most theists do it without even being aware of it. I've mentioned this here on Hatrack before, but it's not something I expect will ever change.
I know you don't actually mean any condescention by it, but the condescention is still there. It's unintended, but it's inherent in what you say. Even if you don’t “present it as such” for the purposes of evangelizing to atheists and agnostics, you still believe it, and just like it has in your opening post, it will show in your words.
If you want to try to convince me that what I believe is not true, you must also be open to being convinced that what you believe is not true. From what you've said so far, you aren't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If you want to try to convince me that what I believe is not true, you must also be open to being convinced that what you believe is not true.
I don't agree with this. If you are Naog and have just seen the ocean lapping at the edge of the cliff, and you know that another couple feet and your village is going to be flooded, it is not necessary to say that you might be making it all up in order to warn people.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I do agree with almost all of Twinky’s post, but I don’t think it’s applicable to Kreve’s opening post. By “To nonbelievers, please understand that this is fact to me and I’m presenting it as such for guidance from those of similar faith” I understood him to be saying that he wasn’t interested in discussing his premises in this thread, but rather asking others who share those premises about the consequences, assuming that they’re true. It’s not condescending to non-theists, because it’s not addressed to them. If Kreve were to start a discussion with people who didn’t share his premises by telling his conversation partner that they weren’t open for discussion, that would be condescending.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:I think it was St. Augustine that said" Share the Gospel at all times, even use words when you have to."
Nope. St. Francis of Assisi. "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words."
Thanks for correcting my quote. I should have known better than to post something without checking.
Anyway, it’s a good philosophy.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
dkw, I'm aware of that, and I think I addressed it when I pointed out that even if he presents it differently when he is directly addressing nonbelievers, his internal view is still that he's the one with the absolute truth. That's going to colour everything he says to nonbelievers, no matter how polite toward us he might attempt to be.
kat, your analogy doesn't work. And even if my statement is not true for every single context in which it might conceivably be said, you haven't shown it to be at all inaccurate in this particular case.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think this is a fundamental difference in the way we think about it - I don't think that in order to talk about your beliefs, you have to preface it with "I might be making this up." To me, it looks like you are asking people to not completely believe what they currently completely believe.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Now see, I believe it’s possible to be 100% convinced that something is true, while still acknowledging the possibility that you might be wrong. I always figured that came more from my science/engineering background, though, since it seems to be a more common attitude there.
edit: that was addressed to Twinky.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's unintended, but it's inherent in what you say. Even if you don’t “present it as such” for the purposes of evangelizing to atheists and agnostics, you still believe it, and just like it has in your opening post, it will show in your words.
If you are an atheist and not an agnostic, then aren't you, too, saying that there are things that are fact to you, not open for debate? Aren't atheists really, deep down, condescending towards those who do believe in something, no matter how benign that condescencion might be?
How can someone not be just a little condescending when they believe that they have the Truth, and others do not? It's human nature, I think
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think you have to say it at the beginning of all conversations. It's always a possibility that someone's wrong, but we don't start scientific papers or the 9/11 report with "This may or may not be true."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
kat, I agree. See edit to my previous post.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Well I haven't read through every post, so I apologize if I state things already stated, etc.
I myself am a Christian, and in my personal view a devout one. I pray before every meal and pray throughout the course of the day. I go to church whenever my work allows me to do so. I attempt to perform as many good deeds as I can, to forgive every person who sins against me, etc.
The thing is I'm also a person who believes more in the thought behind a word then its literal definition. I don't think you need to accept Jesus himself into your heart etc. I believe that you simply are required to live out your life as a Christian, to be Christ like. That and if you read the bible and a little bit of history you would see him to be a much different individual. Jesus was not a conformist, He got angry at times, He was kind, forgiving, did not worry about the opinions of others and simply did the "right" thing.
The fact is that our conception of "hard core christian" or "bible thumpers" today is much different than this Christian concept. They are people who are on the verge of or are violent about their faith. They are people who will judge you and attempt to punish you for your so called sins. They tend to believe in very literal translations of the bible etc.
That and the whole idea behind Christian is that you are not perfect, that you have sinned and will continue to do so. The idea is to attempt to improve yourself and to try and win as many battles you can in the impossible fight against temptation. Christians have a wonderful, excellent, loving role model. I simply do not understand how so many Christians seem to miss this.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Also the Crusades were not started, and if you honestly look at the politics and economics of the situation you would understand even more, over religion. It was the Roman emperor ( Byzantine emperor) asking the Pope for some help against the Turks pressing against his borders. The pope saw this as a chance to breach the divide between Roman Catholics and the Orthodox and made up quite a firey speech and request for everyone to go to the holy lands and drive back the barbarians.
That and personally I believe that you shouldn't try to push anyone into your faith. If someone sees that you are succesful and good in life they will generally ask you what makes you different etc. In my opinion it makes much more sense to lead by example than to cry and call for converts etc. Plus to be honest it seems that today a lot of people are just converting people from one form of christianity to the next.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
There is a world of difference between believing I'm right and believing something is Absolutely True. I believe I'm right. That doesn't mean I am right. Kreve believes himself to be in possession of Absolute Truth.
I also think that it incumbent upon theists, as the overwhelming majority, to be particularly considerate in their dealings with nonbelievers. Yes, that means I cut KoM more slack than I cut Jay. (Added: Not much more, but more. )
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I also think that it incumbent upon theists, as the overwhelming majority, to be particularly considerate in their dealings with nonbelievers. Yes, that means I cut KoM more slack than I cut Jay.
Why?
When you speak to someone, he isn't responding with a collective mind. He is one person, and you are one person. If you offend or hurt him, you are offending and hurting an individual.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: He is one person, and you are one person.
Katie, this manages to be both true and untrue at the exact same time. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
kat, if "because there are more of you" doesn't cut it for you as a reason, I don't think I can elaborate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
To Tom: What do you mean?
-----
If it is what I think you mean, then both people are simultaneously disparate individuals engaged in a specific discussion while they are also representatives of their groups adding another dab of paint to the portait of society. I love the sweep of history and I believe that a million tiny interactions are what create the larger dialogue, but still - if you are nice to someone, they are happy. Theoretically, there could be ripples and they could pay it forward and all the world smiles, but it is just as likely that it's over. The butterfly's wings have fluttered for a second, and that's all that happened.
Same the other way. It could be that being rude to someone about their deepest-held beliefs when they mean nothing but kindness or indifference towards you will cause a thousand ripples and shift the grand balance of power, but more likely, that's the end. The only thing for certain is that an individual was hurt.
quote:if "because there are more of you" doesn't cut it for you as a reason, I don't think I can elaborate.
I'm sorry, twinky - it doesn't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It could be that being rude to someone about their deepest-held beliefs when they mean nothing but kindness or indifference towards you will cause a thousand ripples and shift the grand balance of power, but more likely, that's the end.
This is true. A million butterflies, each flapping in unison, can perhaps create enough breeze to stay the fall of a hammer. Perhaps even a single butterfly, under the right conditions, can do so.
But most of the time, the hammer -- the accumulated weight of the institutions and the impact the collective consciousness has upon its members -- smooshes the butterfly pretty easily.
We should always try to be the noble butterfly. But when someone fails, we should remember that, after all, it's a rare butterfly who avoids the hammer.
Charity is a grace for a reason: it's rare.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Everyone likes to think they are the butterfly. When you are rude to someone, you're the hammer.
It's like that experiment where they had some play the prisoners and other the guards, and then reversed roles. It's human nature to want to hit back. It doesn't make it okay.
The underdog is not intrinsically moral because he's outnumbered.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: The pope saw this as a chance to breach the divide between Roman Catholics and the Orthodox
Which is a secular objective in what way? Moreover, a large part of the reason the Turks were trying to expand was to push their religion into Europe.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I would disagree about that to a point, but it makes for a nice reason to tell the masses. That and at the time the Orthodox faith, pretty much byzantium, and the Roman catholic church were closer to political organizations than the faith groups of today.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Here's a quote I read today that I think is appropriate to this discussion. It's from an Epistle written by Ignatius (AD 30-107) to the Ephesian church. This quote comes from the longer extant version of the epistle, Chapter 15:
----- "It is better for a man to be silent and be a Christian, than to talk and not to be one. 'The Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power (I Cor. 4:20). Men 'believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth', the one 'unto righteousness,' the other 'unto salvation (Rom 10:10).'
"It is good to teach, if he who speaks also acts. For he who shall both 'do and teach, the same shall be great in the kingdom (Matt 5:19).'
"Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, first did and then taught, as Luke testifies, 'whose praise is in the Gospel through all the churches (II Cor. 8:18)'
"There is nothing which is hid from the Lord, but our very secrets are near to Him. Let us therefore do all things as those who have Him dwelling in us, that we may be His temples, and He may be in us as God.
"Let Christ speak in us, even as He did in Paul. Let the Holy Spirit teach us to speak the things of Christ in like manner as He did." -----
I'd say that's some fantastic advice.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
BF, you are completely underestimating the amount of faith medieval people had. If they had been atheists, they would make me look like - actually, I can't think of a poster that reasonable. These people believed. Now it's true that they didn't believe in quite the same god as modern Christians or Moslems do : none of your namby-pamby loving-kindness. But they made up for this by sheer conviction.
There were certainly other reasons than the purely religious for the Crusades; but it's like saying that there are other reasons than faith for going to church. Sure, the sense of community is nice. But if you didn't believe, would you be going there? If the kings and knights of England and France wanted lands for younger sons, why, there were fragmented kingdoms right next door, where they had ancient claims. Which is indeed why the Hundred Years' War was fought. Why should they go to all the trouble and expense of travelling to the Holy Land, when they had enemies much closer, with lands that would be much easier to administer once conquered? Land hunger just doesn't make sense as a motivation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:BF, you are completely underestimating the amount of faith medieval people had.
I think you might be overestimating it, KoM.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't think you have to say it at the beginning of all conversations. It's always a possibility that someone's wrong, but we don't start scientific papers or the 9/11 report with "This may or may not be true."
But that's because it is independently verifiable fact. Faith is not that way. Journalists, when talking about suspects who have been arrested for murder, say "alleged murderer" while the trial is ongoing because it has not been established that the suspect is the murderer. There has not been any court case to verify the existence of God beyond a "reasonable doubt". So there is every reason to put the disclaimer "I may be wrong about this" when beginning a conversation about faith in God.
On the other hand, people don't speak like journalists in everday life. Which might be your real point.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:But that's because it is independently verifiable fact. Faith is not that way.
I disagree.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
I'm sorry, but isn't there a reason they call it "faith" and not, I dunno, "FACT"?
There is a line between hypothesis and theory and fact. Even if you have circumstantial evidence of something, it does not make it fact. It does not exclude the theory from becoming fact in the future, though.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
It is possible to have Faith in Fact. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I hold that matters of Faith are verifiable, just usually not in means that those opposed to it are usually keen on trying.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Yes, you seem to be not getting the "independently" part.
Once something is proclaimed "fact", it is no longer called "faith". And this is really just a big game of semantics, so I'll stop now. Sorry for that brief interlude, everyone.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I just wonder who gets to 'proclaim fact'.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
I can think of one other thing that may be a fact to someone and not a fact to someones else. To a pregnant woman who wants to have a child, the life inside her is, in FACT, a "baby," but to certain pro-choicers, it's not, in FACT, a baby until it's reached a certain phase of development or is born.
So a fact to one person, especially if they warn you it's a fact to them, doesn't HAVE mean they think the other person's delusional or inferior. It's still a difference of opinion, and now you know one of the starting premises. I don't think that call for apology, nor for offense from the other side.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
If there's widespread disagreement on a "fact," then it is probably not a fact. I generally consider facts to be things that can be determined. Since the status of a fetus as baby/not baby is a matter of definitions, and not something that one can investigate, it is not a fact but an opinion.
Likewise, the existence or non-existence of God is not a fact, because it cannot really be determined objectively. Reality might be one way or the other, but we can't collectively be sure, since there could theoretically be a supernatural being who does not affect the natural world in any way. (You might argue that such a being might as well not exist, from our point of view, but that's another topic). It's possible the existence of a supernatural being could become a fact in the future, if said being decides to make it obvious. It is also possible that certain statements about supernatural beings are factually untrue ("God is sitting next to me, and is completely visible.")
"A unclouded sky during the daytime is blue" is a fact, because it can be objectively determined.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If there's widespread disagreement on a "fact," then it is probably not a fact.
Not necessarily. It just means that you can't agree that it is. 520 years ago, it was fact that the world was round, even though there was no concensus.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:"A unclouded sky during the daytime is blue" is a fact, because it can be objectively determined.
Some people are colour-blind, and some cultures do not distinguish between blue and green. "Radiates preferentially at high-visible wavelengths" might be better. [/nitpick]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I also think that it incumbent upon theists, as the overwhelming majority, to be particularly considerate in their dealings with nonbelievers. Yes, that means I cut KoM more slack than I cut Jay.
I disagree strongly with the idea that people should be held to different standards based on their group status. This is not the way things like tolerance and living together peacefully are achieved, I believe.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
520 years ago there was plenty of consensus that the world was round, just as there was 2000 years ago.
Columbus was arguing (incorrectly), that it was much, much smaller than the extremely accurate greek (and even more accurate later) measurements of its size, not that it was round instead of flat.
The ones opposing Columbus were much more right than he was (they, as he, just didn't realize there was a huge honkin' continent inbetween Europe and Asia).
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It is not condescending to say, "I believe my belief is true." It is, however, nonsense to say, "I don't believe my belief is true." If you don't think it's true, it's not your belief.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: 520 years ago there was plenty of consensus that the world was round, just as there was 2000 years ago.
While this is true, it is not very relevant to the definition of 'fact'.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, its just relevant to the notion that 520 years ago there wasn't consensus.
What's relevant to the definition of fact, though, is that the methods used to determine the world's spherical nature (and approximate size) were simple and easily duplicated (which they were, repeatedly).
Of course, there's also considerable difference between a scientific fact and an absolute fact.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Do we know of any absolute facts, apart from tautologies like "A or not-A"?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Nothing in this world is "absolute". It depends on how we define or describe what we experience. That definition usually comes about from a combination of direct experience and our relationship to another.
At a simple level, think of teaching a toddler about "hot". The toddler touches something that is hot, and there is a sensation which is unpleasant. The toddler may decide not to try that again - or not. But the toddler doesn't have a way of describing that experience that defines the sensation as "hot". That takes a relationship with another person who uses the word "hot" and most likely lots of other words to help drive home the idea that the item is "hot", hot things hurt, and touching hot things is a no-no.
But who's to say HOW the toddler would define or describe that experience without the relationship of another person to assign meaning?
I think this carries over into adult life on many levels.
IMHO.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I also think that it incumbent upon theists, as the overwhelming majority, to be particularly considerate in their dealings with nonbelievers. Yes, that means I cut KoM more slack than I cut Jay.
I disagree strongly with the idea that people should be held to different standards based on their group status. This is not the way things like tolerance and living together peacefully are achieved, I believe.
It's interesting that both you and kat feel that way given that people of your faith have been a persecuted minority for much of your faith's history. The kind of unconsciously dismissive attitude toward nonbelievers that I'm talking about could easily lead to something more overt. In the U.S., a number of people are arguing that it already is leading to more overt things (the row over "under God" and the Ten Commandments outside that courthouse are obvious contentious examples from recent memory).
The relevant moral principle, for me, is "with great power comes great responsibility." But we already knew that you're much more libertarian than I am, so it isn't exactly surprising that we disagree about this, too. Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I know in this age of moral relativism it is popular to say there are no absolutes. No Truth. This is not new. Pilate asked Christ "What is truth?" John 18:38. But I don't by into this.
Truth is truth. It is what has actually happened; it is reality. Just because you don't agree with something or think it didn't happen, doesn't mean it didn't. The truth doesn't change with your point of view. The statement “there is a God” is either true or it’s not, but it can’t be true for one person and not for another.
There are absolutes beyond basic facts. Just because you can’t prove something doesn’t mean it’s not true. It just means you can’t prove it. For example it is the absolute truth that I love my dog, but I can’t prove it in a lab.
Sorry it’s kind of late and I am kind of rambling.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Nothing in this world is "absolute".
Is this statement absolutely true?
If it is, then there is at least one absolute, and it is therefore false.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Kreve-
Let me tell you about my experiences with someone wanting to share their religion with me and how I reacted to what they said. I had and still have a very good friend who is Christian. We often talked about philosophical issues and I knew she was very strong in her faith so I asked her about it. She explained the basics of her religion to me and answered any questions I asked. She never once said she believed I was going to hell until I asked her if she thought I was. She said if I do not believe in Christ and ask forgiveness before I die then she believes I would go to hell. She was very open and nice about any question I had. She was never forceful or overly preachy in what she said to me. She was never pushy, just very nice and explained any questions with calm and kindness. It has been a few years since I started talking with her and I have not yet become a Christian. I think its just a matter of time because I feel very strongly about Christianity being true but I still have some last lingering doubts I would like to get rid of.
If you want to talk to relatives and friends about religion who are not Christian I would suggest that you let your faith be known but not in a pushy way. Once people know they will ask you about your religion, and when they ask you they will challenge what you say(if they are anything like me) At times I think I was downright offensive and hostile with her although I did not intend to be, but she showed me through example the type of person she was and the patience she had. I cannot stress enough how much her not being pushy was.
I never liked religion very much, I thought it was stupid but if someone needed it I did not fault them. I was always very positive and supportive of my religous friends but religion was not something for someone like me. I did not need religion because I could depend on myself. As I learn more about Christianity I still believe I can rely on myself, but things are different somehow as I see the truth of the Bible. I feel like someone else is there to help me.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B:
quote:Nothing in this world is "absolute".
Is this statement absolutely true?
If it is, then there is at least one absolute, and it is therefore false.
How can it be true or false when it is taken out of context to experience and relationship?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What is extra ironic is that I feel the same way you do about the 'under God' and the Ten Commandments at the courthouse, Twink
What I would say different from you is that it is incumbent upon people to be considerate and respectful in their dealings with other people who believe differently-but the risk for abuse and tragedy is greater when one side outnumbers the other side and the issues are especially passionate.
That quote is very relevant to me, as well . And not just because it's the philosophy of my favorite super-hero, either . No, I feel that way, too, but I don't think it is fair or particularly productive to hold people to that standard based on how other people who fill in their census form the same way behave.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Well part of the reason that they weren't looking at each other for land was the fact that the church had been attempting to stop infighting in Europe for a good long time. Remember that the reason we see the ancient knight as this rightous chivalric figure is the Church. The original rules of Chivalry were even drafted and distributed by the Catholic church.
Not to mention that Pope Urban II had banned fighting between the days of Sunday and Wensday, and that fighting involving ladies, Merchants, Monks, or Priests was banned on any day. England was under one power and France, besides the Normans, was broken up inbetween far too many families.
Also as a side note Peter the Hermit.. well he was a pretty crazy religious fanatic, and so were most of his followers. Not that he actually accomplished any martial good, he just did a great deal of thieving and didn't take kindly to the Jews. Peter thought whats to stop us from killing the enemies of christ at home, quite a few Bishops attempted to shelter and protect the Jews of their cities, some succesful some not.
Mostly from what I have gathered on the time the Crusades was a mix of social and economic problems of sorts in Europe and the desire of the Catholic church for christians to stop fighting each other. A letter from the Byzantine emperor gave the Pope a chance to kill all his birds with one stone. Better the Arabic Muslims to be their enemies than at home.
Anyhow this topic really isn't about the Crusades anyhow. Most religions have had their zealous moments.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Twinky, I understand where you're coming from. It is frustrating to be in a minority when the majority sometimes seems to not notice people like you even exist. Which is why I don't think it unreasonable for you to request that the majority make an extra effort to treat you with respect.
Kat, you're absolutely right about the minority needing to be respectful of the majority. I don't think Twinky was suggesting some sort of double standard. (Right, Twinky?) It's just that it's easy for the majority to forget that their viewpoint is not the only one, while the minority are constantly reminded of their status. It's easy for right-handers, for example, to design things without even realizing that some of us use our left hands to write or operate machinery. That doesn't mean that lefties get to be rude to right-handers, or forget to take their needs into account. However, right-handers generally tend to be less aware of the issue and are in a privileged position. Therefore I do think that it is incumbent on them to be a little more careful to respect the needs of left-handers. Their needs will be met simply because they're in the majority. Ours won't, unless we complain, or the right-handed majority starts paying more attention.
And there isn't even any social pressure against left-handers. I'd say that groups who are in the minority for religious reasons have it worse in some ways. But then, atheists generally don't have difficulties using those stupid half-desks, or operating can openers. Unless they're a left-handed atheist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And God help them if they are.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
I just thought that Twink basically saying that he treats non-believers differently than believers (and Tom saying way back that he outright thought believers were more "dishonest" than believers) was just as wrong as any believer saying that non-believers were evil/untrustworthy/inferior/other pejoratives.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom saying way back that he outright thought believers were more "dishonest" than believers
I'd accuse you of taking this out of context, but for the fact that you also garbled it beyond recognition. Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote: quote:Originally posted by Will B:
quote:Nothing in this world is "absolute".
Is this statement absolutely true?
If it is, then there is at least one absolute, and it is therefore false.
How can it be true or false when it is taken out of context to experience and relationship?
Context is not necessary to detect contradiction. That's a basic part of logic.
For example: "A and not A." This is false no matter what the context is. Embed it in War and Peace, or the EU Constitution, or your letter to an aunt, and it's still false.
It's also false no matter what A is. Examples:
Lassie was female and Lassie was not a female. Fish sometimes talk and fish never talk.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Will - go with me on this one. Have a little fun here. Formal logic was over a decade ago for me, and I just don't want to play A and not A, or A and B, or A~B therefore whatever in the heck it may be!
I am a working mom. My current reality is bounded by childrearing and the necessities thereof (i.e., work at office, work at home, take child here, take child there, etc.) - therefore, I speak in context and relationship. Not in symbols. I refuse.
And I stand by my assertion (absolutely - NOT) . . . I don't think you can reduce life down into symbols and have it be meaningful - it takes context and relationship. And since relationships vary so widely, and context means different things to each individual, there is really no defining something down into an absolute black or white or whatever it may be that you happen to want to define absolutely . . .
Besides, you may think you have defined something down into the nth degree one day, and a new experience might cause you to re-evaluate and redefine.
I'm babbling. And it's time to readjust the covers on the snoozing child, pick up some more dirty socks and towels, and ignore the dirty dishes.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
at jebus (I've wanted to do that for a while)![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
I really was doing my best to be polite! Surely fanatic anti-Semitism is an example of a belief without proof? And isn't that what faith means? I even included climate change, which I personally think is happening and is a bad thing! The point I was trying to make is, you should not argue for beliefs unless you have proofs that are convincing and repeatable. Personal testimony, no matter how sincere, just doesn't cut it, because there's always someone else with an equally sincere testimony in the opposite direction.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)