![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
badstarIt really hurts me to think that people feel that they need to feel deep hurt because I've rejected Christianity.
In a way, it's like it hurts me that people can't understand that I've got something that's just as wonderful for me...and I'd like to say that it hurts me that they can't see it like I do and have it for themselves...
...but if I've got something this great, but they've got something else so great that fills the same spot ib their life...then how can it hurt me?
It's like...I've got Hagen-Daazs ice cream, would you like some? Oh, you've got Ben and Jerry's? Cool! Well, uh...here's a picnic table, wanna share?
In a way, it's like it hurts me that people can't understand that I've got something that's just as wonderful for me...and I'd like to say that it hurts me that they can't see it like I do and have it for themselves...
...but if I've got something this great, but they've got something else so great that fills the same spot ib their life...then how can it hurt me?
It's like...I've got Hagen-Daazs ice cream, would you like some? Oh, you've got Ben and Jerry's? Cool! Well, uh...here's a picnic table, wanna share?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-04 02:31 am (UTC)The evangelist who rejects others in God's creation forget that in their rush to have all people forgiven for their sins, they in turn cannot use damnation to force their own version of salvation. But the true Christian knows that his actions of kindness and understanding matter, and not his preaching.
-- Christian with pagan Friends, aka Rich
no subject
Date: 2006-05-04 04:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-04 06:45 am (UTC)As such, yes we "true Christians" do care about another's religion- yet that has little if nothing to do with self-righteousness, and a lot to do with His will.
The evangelist who rejects others in God's creation forget that in their rush to have all people forgiven for their sins, they in turn cannot use damnation to force their own version of salvation.
Granted, I agree with this- certain methods do not uphold the principle of salvation through Christ very well, but this also has little to do with the original topic. Fire and brimstone speech is not the only way people evangelize, by the way.
But the true Christian knows that his actions of kindness and understanding matter, and not his preaching.
That is most assuredly FALSE. "Sweet-talk" and "coddling" with non-believers helps nobody, because NONE OF US are saved by works alone- believer or non, the blood of Christ- and whether or not people choose to be saved by it- is the only thing that matters. If you are unwilling to witness this fact to others, your indifference will be remembered when you face your own judgment.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-04 03:20 pm (UTC)As interpreted by the human beings who read the Bible. Which is, itself, an arbitrary collection of works, written by humans, the composition of which is also decided by--you guessed it--humans. (viz. the gospel of Thomas.) Claiming to know a deity's will implies some sort of communication with said deity. Until we can prove in some uncircular manner that a) a deity exists and b) that deity communicates with humans, any statement regarding "His will" is exactly the same as self-righteousness: claiming to know what we simply don't know.
Fire and brimstone speech is not the only way people evangelize, by the way.
Sure, there's the friend who gets you to church under the pretense of social interaction, and the folks who slip Bibles in hotel rooms, and the relative who expresses sadness at the fact that you're not "going home" with them when you die, and lest we not forget, loaded or edged weapons worked remarkably well for the Romans, Spanish, French, and British.
Plainly put, evangelization is the work of Paul, not Jesus--Jesus' message was directed solely at Jews, and historically, Judaism wasn't (and isn't) a proselytizing religion. It wasn't until Paul interpreted Jesus' words that the gentile market was opened.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-04 04:10 pm (UTC)The Bible is divinely inspired, not arbitrarily written, collected, or otherwise chosen by "mere" humans "acting alone" in their own interests; God was guiding their actions via the Holy Spirit, a real supernatural presence and part of the Holy Trinity, which lives inside each and every one of us. If you choose not to believe that, fine- but writing it off with your "practical, logical (and frankly cynical) outlook" on the subject does not at all move me or any of the others like me.
Until we can prove in some uncircular manner that a) a deity exists and b) that deity communicates with humans, any statement regarding "His will" is exactly the same as self-righteousness: claiming to know what we simply don't know.
This HAS been proven; Christ was crucified, died, was entombed, and was resurrected. Nothing and no one but God could accomplish this; it is not only proof that "a deity exists," it is proof that He exists! Everything prophesied from the Old Testament has happened too- which is more (albeit by this point, technically unnecessary) proof that He existed back then as well. From these truths- and pretty much these truths alone- everything else falls into place. It's well-documented and widely available to many peoples and laguages, and very much worth re-reading from time to time.
Sure, there's the friend who gets you to church under the pretense of social interaction, and the folks who slip Bibles in hotel rooms, and the relative who expresses sadness at the fact that you're not "going home" with them when you die, and lest we not forget, loaded or edged weapons worked remarkably well for the Romans, Spanish, French, and British.
STRAWMAN ALERT!!!! STRAWMAN ALERT!!! DEVIATE AND RE-ACQUIRE ORIGINAL COURSE OF DISCUSSION IMMEDIATELY!!!! MESSAGE ENDS
Plainly put, evangelization is the work of Paul, not Jesus--Jesus' message was directed solely at Jews, and historically, Judaism wasn't (and isn't) a proselytizing religion. It wasn't until Paul interpreted Jesus' words that the gentile market was opened.
Again...divinely inspired. Any other arguments of this nature will result in my smiling and shaking my head politely.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-04 04:13 pm (UTC):-D
no subject
Date: 2006-05-04 06:47 pm (UTC)Two words: prove it.
And, sorry, but statements like
This HAS been proven; Christ was crucified, died, was entombed, and was resurrected.
won't get you anywhere. You're just repeating your assertion.
If you choose not to believe that, fine- but writing it off with your "practical, logical (and frankly cynical) outlook" on the subject does not at all move me or any of the others like me.
I'm not sure my intent is to get you to disbelieve. I just want you to recognize that your position is based on circular reasoning: What makes the Bible true? God says so. What proves that God said so? The Bible.
And that's only if you choose to believe that there is one Bible, instead of the mass of translations, differing manuscrupts, excerpts, redactions, and editions that it actually represents. Related to my other post, how do you determine what's divinely inspired and what's not? Why is Thomas apocryphal, yet John (a fine example of anti-Jewish polemic if I've ever seen one) canon?
no subject
Date: 2006-05-05 09:34 am (UTC)Given the grounds of assumed disbelief you're forcing me to play on, I can't prove it any more than you can disprove it.
...your position is based on circular reasoning: What makes the Bible true? God says so. What proves that God said so? The Bible.
That's not my position at all! For one thing, places other than the Bible have recorded the same events depicted within it, Old Testament as well as New Testament; most importantly, there are many non-Biblical accounts that Jesus lived and was crucified, and that the body was never found (though the Bible does "fill in" that little mystery rather easily). Based on the "evidence" from both secular texts AND the Bible, the pieces are easy enough to put together from there.
...how do you determine what's divinely inspired and what's not? Why is Thomas apocryphal, yet John (a fine example of anti-Jewish polemic if I've ever seen one) canon?
Frankly, it varies from church to church and by denominations, etc. so I can't answer that. Good question, though.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-05 08:36 pm (UTC)I'm not forcing you to play on ground of assumed disbelief--I'm asking you to give actual evidence rather than repeating the traditional line. What's not fair is to assume your beliefs are true and then attempt to hold other people to them as well without being able to verify them. This is the hard one to swallow: faith is not a basis for truth, but only belief.
there are many non-Biblical accounts that Jesus lived and was crucified, and that the body was never found
Flavius Josephus does mention the existence of a man named Jesus, who people believed was resurrected. Please show me even a few more of the "many" non-Biblical accounts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrected which you claim exist.
Frankly, it varies from church to church and by denominations, etc. so I can't answer that. Good question, though.
Indeed, which is why it was asked. But as it's one of the central points in any argument of the truth of the resurrection, the burden rests on you to answer it. I hope you'll rise to meet the challenge.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-08 12:22 pm (UTC)Well, aside from that I never actually said there was an account of the resurrection itself...Yes, Flavius Josephus is one of the better-known sources, and there are more
For example, see:
The Archko Volume (haha, just kidding!)
Tacitus
Pliny the Younger
Eusebius of Caesarea
Justin Martyr
Philo of Alexandria
Tertullian
...as it's one of the central points in any argument of the truth of the resurrection, the burden rests on you to answer it.
Interestingly enough, the same could be said about any arguments against the truth of the resurrection; if you can't prove that it DIDN'T happen, why would I have cause to accept your claim over mine? =\
no subject
Date: 2006-05-05 03:03 am (UTC)Yes, but that is generally reference to Christians who have fallen into sin. Technically, she's no longer even Christian. However, Protestant Christians consider Crucifixes and Saints to be idolatry, dependning on strictness of interpretation. So, who's the greater sinner? The former Christian who honestly leaves the religion, or those with whom one side conisders the other of an untrue faith?
"That is most assuredly FALSE. "Sweet-talk" and "coddling" with non-believers helps nobody, because NONE OF US are saved by works alone- believer or non, the blood of Christ- and whether or not people choose to be saved by it- is the only thing that matters. If you are unwilling to witness this fact to others, your indifference will be remembered when you face your own judgment."
That is an article of Faith. I can no sooner prove that you or I is saved by belief in the Blood of Christ than anyone else can prove otherwise. I am perfectly willing to speak to anyone who wishes to hear, and in this ever-changing Universe of His Will, does this not, effectively qualify?
But I will not bear witness by simply preaching conviction. There's a million people out there with convictions about Christ, the Devil, Money, Beer, whatever. We've gotten to the point where "witness" isn't enough. I believe God is ready for us to move past the need for 'leaders', and move towards the plane of accepting our responsibilities without. The arguments, the Word, the Message of Jesus stands on its own merits. It is better that we all apply it in our daily lives, then lie before God about our faith or falsely beleive in a faith merely to gain redemption. Or, as my ardent Republican dad might put it: "Better an honest Democrat than a false Republican."
As to judgement after this life is over, I will bottow a line from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade:
Indiana: "Then we'll both die."
Guardian: "My soul is prepared. How's yours?"
-- Rich
no subject
Date: 2006-05-05 09:49 am (UTC)Oooh, oooh! That reminds me of one of my favorite Sun Tzu quotes: "The soldier who retreats 100 steps sneers at the one who retreats 500." Relate quote to argument as appropriate.
The arguments, the Word, the Message of Jesus stands on its own merits.
Well, I've got to admit that I completely agree with that- at least in regard to believers, anyway.
It is better that we all apply it in our daily lives, then lie before God about our faith or falsely beleive in a faith merely to gain redemption.
So, what- you're saying "just be a Christian, by yourself, alone, and don't bother trying to help or change anyone who's not," right? That's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one! That attitude is about as bad as indifference. You should go and read (or perhaps re-read) Matthew 25: 14-30, and get back to me when you're done. =\
no subject
Date: 2006-05-06 03:48 am (UTC)Doesn't quite apply here. In this case, Sun Tzu was not referencing a strategy, but rather a personal reflection on the nature of soldiery. After all, if the soldier who retreats 500 wins the battle and the solider who retreats only 100 is outflanked because the enemy has better position, how much is a sneer worth? I am merely referencing that I believe God values honesty more than creed.
"So, what- you're saying "just be a Christian, by yourself, alone, and don't bother trying to help or change anyone who's not," right?"
not at all, I agree that one's Christianity should be active and exemplary in its service. For example, at our Church, I have run the Stewardship committe for 3 years, ran the charity auction, and a few other items, including speaking after the Tsunami disaster to help raise $5000 for people in that area - many of whom aren't Christian.
The point in all this is that my attitude isn't lax. But I change the people around me with results - good works, yes, are testimony to my faith. If someone I know believes who did not before, then bonus, but I will not preach without a willing audience. Call it the old Eagle Scout in me: works *are* faith, they are inseparable. I know about faith alone in the Bible as clause, but my life is an example of religion in practice. But if the progenitor of this discussion never converts, and yet listens and is changed by what I say to do better things, then I say God will smile.
-- Rich
no subject
Date: 2006-05-08 12:05 pm (UTC)For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
I wouldn't be rationalizing against the Scripture, if I were you. =\