Are you offended by evangelism?
Last week Pope Benedict announced the setting up of a new Pontifical Council for the promotion of New Evangelisation in countries where he says progressive secularization is eclipsing "the sense of God."
But who is listening? And, anyway, is there really an imperative on Christians to convert their fellow humans or, for that matter for Jews, Muslims, or humanists, to be persuaders for their beliefs? Some say those who try to convert others are insulting their neighbours, or threatening them with divine judgment if they refuse to tow a particular theological line. Is evangelism, then, a form of religious abuse? I'll be debating the rights and wrongs of evangelism tomorrow on Sunday Sequence with Catholic Bishop Donal McKeown, Brian McClinton, editor of Humanism Ireland magazine, and the Jewish scholar Geoffrey Alderman.
What's been your experience of evangelism? Is it a healthy or unhealthy feature of religious life in the 21st century?
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Bible bashers make me sick. Christian, Muslim, whatever. All brainwashed by backward superstition.
Complain about this comment
Is the guy with the megaphone saying, "Don't evangelise me."?
Complain about this comment
As much as I disagree with the fundamentals of most religions and am certainly offended by the hardliners of any religion, one of the last commandmants given to the early christians (according to certain texts anyway) is to spread the word, so I'd be dubious of any christian who doesn't evangelise. It's supposed to be a major part of their religion.
So, I'm not offended by evangelism, it gives me a chance to debate with them, to test the sincerity of their beliefs, and whilst they might be trying to convert me, I'll certainly do my best to un-convert them.
Complain about this comment
Evangelism is a form of abuse - imposing one's beliefs on another and telling them this is what they must believe/accept etc and usually involves some sort of threat of punishment/damnation if one does not follow their way. I can feel anger that people are peddling erroneous ideas about God - that do not come from love but from fear and only serve to perpetuate the separation from love - and for me that is evil. I understand they think they are doing the will of God and think they are trying to 'save' people - but for me neither of those things are fulfilled by evangelism as it stands today. (My anger of course just reflects my own stuff re evangelism and shows me I have some work to do there!)
There is a difference between presenting and preaching - people can be presented with wisdom teachings etc and left to make up their own minds/hearts about whether to live according to it or not whereas preaching is saying you have to do it this way etc
Live and let live and of course that includes evangelicals.
Complain about this comment
Offensive is perhaps not the first word I would think of. I'd say irritating or seriously annoying.
Though it can be interesting too. Like Natman I do like to turn things around when the opportunity arises. Some months ago I had a Jehovas Witness at the door. I had a polite conversation with her for about 20-25 minutes. She had a little girl with her, I presume her daughter. I started pointing out what a loads of errors are in the bible, what disgusting 'morality' it promotes etc. How science can give us almost infinitely better answers. And how calling an old book holy tends to turn that book into an impediment for further learning and thinking, as learning and thinking would make people realise what nonsense that book is. She tried to counter the science bit by pointing to how a Hebrew word used to describe the earth n the bible could be taken to mean 'sphere'. So I brought up other parts of the bible that clearly suggest the earth is flat, like it having 4 corners, etc. And asked if she knew those bits of the bible. She said she obviously did. So I went on to ask her if she didn't feel bad being a bit dishonest in the service of christianity, pretending that the errors she knows are there don't exist. At that point, as it became very clear how bad things were going for her, she sent away the little girl to do something by herself for a while.
So she new she was being dishonest for jesus, but that didn't hold her back from going door to door of course. Or from indoctrinating her daughter, shielding her from anything that would open her eyes. That is perhaps an offensive side to it.
Complain about this comment
Hi Will,
On "Evangelism as Religious Abuse", I think it's undoubtedly the case that such is a fair charicature of what lots of "Evangelists" do. But I wonder whether this isn't because they're misinterpreting their task.
From what encounters I've had in cafes and at home with evangelists, they approach their role as a kind of sales-person. They're trying to get you to buy in to their assertions, to sell you a personal solution to your problems and existential anxieties.
That implies the following: whatever it is they're trying to share is something that is passed from person to person, and _not_, fundamentally, about something that can only be given by God. What they're sharing is "their God", and I can't help but think that doing so is a great disservice to whatever God actually underlies their assertions.
If they're being true to their Word, Christians ought replace the current notion of evangelism with the notion of Invitation. Approaching us as customers of your godly enterprise can only ever sell us "your God", but letting us know where your group is meeting, what kinds of questions you're all interested in, what books you're all reading and why you think we might enjoy coming along is shorter, less impositional, requires less unquestioning loyalty and, I suspect, would be a lot more successful in introducing new voices to the Christian Discussion.
Of course, the problem with that is the total rethink of the role of Church, moving from Congregation as an enclosed membership to a boundaryless part of the broader community. I don't see the institutional Church rushing to embrace this idea, especially not in Northern Ireland (where the fundamentally enchurched nature of communities sees a shift in the status quo largely unforthcoming), but it's not for nothing that post-Christian groups and the like are starting to gain momentum, doing amongst themselves what, I think, they see as lacking in the institutions they're moving away from.
Complain about this comment
ps to answer the question: evangelism is unhealthy - esp if it brings up anger/frustration/emotional responses etc!! Hence best avoided. Also taking religious advice from an evangelical is to be avoided as it will be false and not based on Truth about God in my view - as if it was based on Truth they would not be evangelising!! So again - best avoided.
Complain about this comment
In life, you will regrettably from time to time offend someone. This you can almost guarantee. For some the actual idea of having a religious belief in the first place is a ridiculous one let alone promoting or pushing it into the public domain. We have all heard the phrase I do not mind him having a religion but pushing it down my throat is just unacceptable. I give the human being more credence however, I think if we wish to be evangelised we can quite easily be, if we choose not to be we can also reject the offer, walk away, turn off or whatever. I do think there are many suggestions in several religious belief texts and understanding which suggest at least for their followers to go out, preach the good news, convert, and talk about the scenarios. I suppose also the possible damnation fire which might decent if you do not repent is part of this for some. All of these are fine if they are seen as an honest attempt by individuals to promote their own belief or church. They are just views. That’s how religion grew in the first place. I do not see how we should easily feel abused by it. Sadly we have entered an age where religion and the word abuse have all too often ended up in the same sentence. All Christian religions for example have darker histories of many more extreme methods incorporated to press their views but that’s another debate. In any case I don’t mind giving everyone a fair hearing. Live and let live.
Complain about this comment
Response to "Evangelism is a form of abuse - imposing one's beliefs on another..."
On the contrary, evangelism is a form of persuasion. It's about trying to convince another person to believe what you do. Nothing wrong with that whatever.
Complain about this comment
kierantherock: it is abusive to be imposing on another -whether that is evangelising religion or imposing one's views on another topic. There is a difference between sharing one's views in an unimposing way with people who are interested or who have opted to listen and forcing one's views on people who are not interested. It comes down to the energy it is said with - one leaves you alone to make up your own mind and the other endeavours to force you to accept what they are saying.
Perhaps the best form of 'evangelising' if you want to use that word is by someone setting an example by how they live their life - 'by their fruits ye shall know them' . It's not the words that come out of their mouth but their whole life and lifestyle, how they treat others etc. That I can accept as a true form of evangelising - there is no imposing, just someone being the example of change they wish to see rather than telling others this is what they have to do, people are free to follow their example or not, to ask them what they are doing etc if they so choose.
Complain about this comment
John Wright: why should someone believe what you do? (and don't tell me to avoid hell /damnation or all those things that don't exist and have nothing to do with God) All people have the wisdom within them and are free to make their own choices and lead their own lives - live and let live. It is how it is said, not just what is said that makes it abusive.
Complain about this comment
How come the discussion on evangelism on today's programme didn't include an evangelical?
Complain about this comment
Pastor Philip,
Maybe they are too offensive.
John Wright,
"on the contrary, evangelism is a form of persuasion. It's about trying to convince another person to believe what you do. Nothing wrong with that whatever."
So you believe that it is fine for someone to try to persuade me that I am an abomination or disordered, cause me psychological harm and maybe even kill myself because I do not meet the standards they evangelise.
You might see this as an over the top response, but if you actually look at the suicide rates in N.Ireland and the causal factors you might think differently. Evangelists have a lot of damage to answer for.
It is not the evangelism which is the problem, it is what they evangelise which is offensive or damaging.
Complain about this comment
Dave, on your "It is not the evangelism which is the problem, it is what they evangelise which is offensive or damaging."
The ostracising element of much of evangelists' doctrines is part-and-parcel of the methodology of evangelism itself. In fact, it is implicit within the very notion of "conversion". Whether this is about anti-secularisation, anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion or whatever else, the point is that if you did not believe in an "us and them" analysis of the world, you wouldn't be out insisting on the expansion and promotion of the "us" side of that division.
_All_ evangelism, characterised as it has been so far, amounts to treating others as excluded, even if in the attempt to overcome that exclusion. That the particular others you're thinking of are subject to the form of evangelism you're familiar with does not imply that the particulars of those forms are what's to blame. The issue is with the core presumption - that the wall between right and wrong is sacred, and that the speaker is on one side of it. What that wall is built of, and where it is, is irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As Christians part of our duty is proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ. This morning in our church our minister read from John Chapter 1 where Lord called his 1st disiples. The early disciples and apostles boldly evangelised and we as Christians are called to do the same. If I lived in a Muslim country I would't have the same amount of religion freeedom as I do have living in Northern Ireland.
Complain about this comment
I believe that in this country there a lot of Christians who don't want to offend non Christians and keep silent about their faith. The fact is that once a person receives Jesus Christ as their Saviour it's their duty to proclaim the gospel. We are not all called to be preachers, but we can proclaim by trying to live our lives in a such a way where our Christian faith comes through. Some people are good at preaching a sermon, but it's easy to talk the talk, Christians must walk the walk by their actions in everyday life.
Complain about this comment
Eunice:
"why should someone believe what you do? ... It is how it is said, not just what is said that makes it abusive."
You're throwing around the word 'abuse' a little too lightly, if you ask me. Nobody is being forced to believe what I do. But I'm going to use all my persuasive means to try to get them to. Perhaps if you think some of the means used by evangelists are "abusive" you can give me a few examples of such means. But if I were a car salesman I might say, "You need this car, it'll feel so good to drive around in it, it'll even change your life!" It's up to you to decide whether I'm right, or whether I'm just trying everything to get you to buy the car.
-----------
Dave:
"So you believe that it is fine for someone to try to persuade me that I am an abomination or disordered, cause me psychological harm and maybe even kill myself because I do not meet the standards they evangelise."
I assume you're talking about what an evangelist of a certain sort might say about homosexuality. Well, you've presented a terribly extreme example, and in such cases I think you may have a hard time making the case that the evangelist is solely to blame. What happened was that the gay person bought the story that they are an abomination. The evangelist was merely telling people what they believe is true. But, out of all the competing information about homosexuality, the vast majority of which - and all credible sources which - is supportive and factual, our friend decided to listen to the evangelist, and believe him, and act upon his words in such an extreme way. The evangelist merely offered repentance; our friend decided to take his life. How can we pin that on the evangelist? Our friend may just as easily have watched a movie about how difficult life can be for a gay teen and done the same thing.
Except in rare cases, the general principle ought to be that deciding who to listen to and why, separating fact from fiction and figuring out who is telling the truth falls upon each of us individually.
All kinds of information exists. I guy at a bar might tell me that my irritable bowel syndrome is likely to come back and kill me slowly, like what happened to his grandmother, and I might buy it, and I might fail to check the truth value of the claim, and then kill myself in the belief that I'm facing a horrible end anyway. Would that be the fault of our unwitting peddler of doom? Of course not... I failed to reality-check my life.
All kinds of worldview are available to buy into. If I let it all offend me, I'd spend my life being offended. No, it's called diversity, and at the rights level it's called free speech. Choose wisely who you let influence you, stop being offended at everyone, understand that others think differently than you do, and try to be persuasive yourself. :)
Complain about this comment
John, your use of language there appears to be an excellent demonstration of my earlier contention that evangelism is about sales. Would the suggestion that the purchase of "worldview" is of a kin with Indulgence, and detracts from the Glory of God, be at all hostile to your position?
Complain about this comment
Also, I should point out that "Caveat Emptor" is not a universally accepted principle, whether one trades in Truth, Worldview, Concept or Material.
Complain about this comment
John: When I say it is abusive I mean that energetically it is harming to impose upon another - irrespective of whether I actually feel it as abusive. To my understanding in everything we do say think we either harm or heal with no neutral. Evangelism is imposing and thus harming and thus abusive.
TullyCB: I understand you believe that it is your duty based on the teachings you have had - but what if those teachings are flawed??
If you just did the last part of post 17 and * Christians must walk the walk by their actions in everyday life.* that would probably be much better form of evangelising than any sort of preaching - provided the walk was being walked in truth of course - with love for all irrespective of religion, creed, colour sexual orientation etc
Complain about this comment
Paul R: "evangelism is about sales"
Absolutely. It's about persuasion. What's immoral about that? If it doesn't make sense to buy, don't buy it!
Complain about this comment
One of the last things Jesus Christ told His followers to do was to spread the good news ('gospel')about Him across the world. (see Matthew 28 and Mark 16) It is therefore reasonable to say that any Christian worthy of the name should do so enthusiastically and without apology.
John Stott has said: 'We evangelise.....because we have been told to; evangelistic inactivity is disobedience.'
Besides, Christian people have had their lives changed by faith in the Saviour Who died on the Cross, so - even on the basis both of gratitude for what He has done and of sharing that good news with someone else - there is an inner compulsion to pass the message on.
Christian love for other people should surely do no less!
Complain about this comment
I agree with an earlier comment: I find evangelism more irritating than offensive, but I believe that it can cause immense harm. The point made by the Humanist representative that religious evangelism in education exploits vulnerable children is one with which I agree. The Jewish scholar emphasised parents' rights to have religious schooling for their offspring and drew a comparison with parents' wishes to inoculate their children against dangerous diseases such as diphtheria and rubella. Did he mean that children of different religions should be educated separately and that it would be dangerous if they mixed?
Complain about this comment
To consider evangelism as 'sales' is a bit misleading, if all christians truely believed in the outcome of not believing, they should all be out there, desperately trying to save as many people from the utter torment of everlasting hell. The fact so many don't is testament to the power of the human mind to ignore that which it finds distasteful.
I agree with PastorPhillip though (gosh horror), it is a duty of christians to evangelise, as irritating as I find it. However, it should be banned to teach it to children. I would avoid mentioning any religious opinions to anyone below the age of 16, only then can they make an intelligent choice.
Complain about this comment
pastorphilip,
would you then accept that your views and actions are offensive to those who do not accept your views, and your evangelising will by necessity get you into conflict. Maybe instead of complaining about the consequences of your beliefs you should simply accept them.
Would you accept your children, if you have any, being brought up as Muslim, after all do they not have the same inner compunction and damnation for non belief, by your comments above they have as much right to brainwash your kids as you have..
John Wright is obviously one of those people who has never been conned and thinks that all people who have been conned are guilty of stupidity. He is lucky he does not have to deal with the aftermath of religious conversions or the problems caused by devout beliefs. He might realise that belief is not the same as buying a car.
Why are we not capable of deciding how we vote or get married until we are older but decisions about religion are fine from day one. Maybe the religious have stacked the deck again, or is that being too cynical.
Complain about this comment
Re children : they don't need religion as it is today in the world and many see right through it - what is appropriate is for them to be shown by example and also taught/demonstrated in the ways of love and to know that is what they are and how to make choices from there.
Complain about this comment
The preaching of the Gospel is offensive to many because it gets to the heart of man's problem and that is sin.
Complain about this comment
John, "Absolutely. It's about persuasion. What's immoral about that?"
Nothing "immoral" about it. And if Christianity were a set of practices, stories and rules that were supposed to improve peoples' lot, then that would be that, and there would be no problem with the way sales-based evangelism operated.
But by demonstration, Christ's temple isn't a market-place. Even if in keeping with the letter, evangelism as practiced violates its spirit by peddling its promise of salvation in exchange for the earthly service of its target market. God oughtn't be an incidental part of what the Church does, merely the mechanism by which its promises are supposedly met.
In treating God as it does, evangelism is rather like the child who thinks of their Dad as their source of pocket money. Not necessarily immoral, but disrespectful, and certainly not someone you'd want to take financial advice from.
Complain about this comment
Brian (#28)
Could you elaborate on how someone who doesn't believe in a divinely mandated sin could possibly find it offensive?
That's the equivalent of telling someone who doesn't care about football that Chelsea (or any other team) shouldn't play in blue as it clashes with the green grass. It's pointless and a waste of time.
Complain about this comment
PaulR, hi.
I have to say, I’m intrigued by your comments; you write, though, as if you are not a Christian (am I misreading you, it's just that you don’t seem to be writing as ‘one of the group’ #6) yet your comments appear to highlight, most clearly, one of the major issues facing the church in the contemporary world. I’m not sure how much agreement there’d be between us but I’ve been trying to raise some of these issues (within the church) for quite some time now; however, as you say in #6, “I don't see the institutional Church rushing to embrace this idea.”
So I’m curious, what’s driving your comments?
Complain about this comment
Humanist missionaries offend me
Complain about this comment
It's ok Natman...You don't believe in God...You don't believe in sin.
If you believe that man is the ultimate source of intelligence and
wisdom then prove it!
Complain about this comment
Brian (#33)
As the one putting forwards the claim for the existance of a supernatural being and sin, you are the one who has to prove yourself.
I cannot prove a negative, as you well know. I could point at an empty patch of the ground and say "There, nothing is there, therefore there is no god!", but that wouldn't be proof of anything.
Ultimately, because what I say doesn't require faith, belief or anything other than our mere existance, the burden of proof is on the believer. The fact the we are here, alive and thriving, and able to ask these questions is all the evidence I need to assert my point.
If you believe that Odin/Zeus/YHWH/Shiva/[insert name of chosen deity] is the ultimate source of intelligence and wisdom, then you prove it.
Complain about this comment
Why the rejection of the salesman analogy? We live in a world of competing beliefs, and most groups representing such beliefs want more members. So, they sell.
"John Wright is obviously one of those people who has never been conned and thinks that all people who have been conned are guilty of stupidity. He is lucky he does not have to deal with the aftermath of religious conversions or the problems caused by devout beliefs. He might realise that belief is not the same as buying a car."
I am one of those people who try to learn from experience (which, on this topic, is fairly extensive). Some religious belief is good for the believer, at least for a while. Some other 'religion' manifests negatively. I guess I don't get outraged at the existence of this myriad beliefs; I'd rather educate people and encourage learning from experience.
"evangelism is rather like the child who thinks of their Dad as their source of pocket money. Not necessarily immoral, but disrespectful, and certainly not someone you'd want to take financial advice from."
Well that may depend on the 'evangelist'. I wouldn't generalise so we think all evangelists are snake-oil salesmen. Many believe sincerely that their goods would greatly benefit the people they're preaching to, and even change their lives around for the better... and ALL believe their message is true.
But, as with any sales pitch, individuals are responsible for weighing truth and deciding what makes sense themselves. Reason is the ultimate authority.
Complain about this comment
Doyler79 (post 32):
Gee whizz. I didn’t realise you are so easily offended, which is not what you were suggesting on the Galileo thread, where you informed us that “you had a life”.
If we think that we are ‘enlightened’, whether by religion, Humanism or whatever, we will naturally try to persuade others to see the light too. As I said on the programme, I suppose Humanists are evangelists in the sense that we want to spread the good news that life can be lived free of superstition, fear and guilt and that there is a joy in discovering the truth and thinking for yourself rather being told what to think by others.
So it probably depends at least partly on the methods used to evangelise. What I said was that if you look at the history of Christianity, you will find that compulsion, indoctrination, moral blackmail and emotional manipulation have all been common features of evangelism. Christian evangelism has been humanised as societies have become more secular. Compulsion doesn’t happen on an institutional level but still often does on an individual family level. And many of the other dubious strategies are still around.
Indoctrination still goes on, especially of children, even though international conventions state that it is wrong. Ireland, north and south, is one of the worst places for child indoctrination, with the main churches still exercising undue influence on state-funded education. The NI RE syllabus, for example, is more narrowly focused on Christianity alone than in any other part of the UK. This is evangelism of the wrong kind.
Moreover, moral blackmail and emotional manipulation are still present in much evangelistic Christianity. Again, secular values have lessened the impact of threats: believe in this or else you are damned, and the earth will open and sawllow you up etc. Christians seem to be abandoning the idea of hell. And certainly Humanists don’t issue such threats. Nor do we say that there is something wrong with you if you don’t agree with us. You take our ideas, or you leave them. We believe in live and let live.
Emotional manipulation is one of the worst forms of evangelism. Humanists do not appeal to people’s emotions but to their rationality. It is reason, science, scepticism and the spirit of critical inquiry, above all, upon which civilsed society is based. These are the values that Humanists try to sell.
Love and compassion are of course important as well. And if Christians are promoting them, then we are at one with them. But we part company when they try to sell a dogma and the notion of saviours upon others, especially young people, who tend to be impressionable. There is a lot of that evangelism about in NI and I find it pernicious.
Complain about this comment
Humanist missionaries offend me
I have to say that Brian (McClinton)has never tried to evangelise any time I've met him.
I agree with Brian Thomas re. post 28 though.
Complain about this comment
McClinton, I didn't read your reply (just control f for doyler) but humanism is a waste of time. Anti-humanism is much more rationale.
Humanists are the new bigots- Did you enjoy your parade today?
Complain about this comment
Doyler:
I presume you are referring to an Orange parade, though you could mean almost anything since you insist in talking in riddles. I wouldn't be seen dead in an Orange parade, which proves that you know nothing about Humanism and even less about me.
Complain about this comment
2MP, "I’m curious, what’s driving your comments?"
I suppose I see in Christ the sort of person the world needs more of; someone prepared to challenge the authority of those who would exploit the need for faith and hope, tread on the vulnerable and cast shame on the "unclean", and do so on their own terms. I don't think I have the authority to call myself a disciple of his, nor to speak on his behalf, but while I may doubt much in this world, I'm certain that he's being woefully misrepresented, and I'd like to do what I can in rectifying that.
Complain about this comment
you only stopped going in 2007
we all know who the "humanists" are- have you ever put your life on the line to ensure children get to school, have access to water, healthcare provisions etc?
Tinpot group, tinpot -ism
regards
Complain about this comment
Paul
Thanks for your reply; I was intrigued... now you have me hooked!! :-) Why? Well, I’ve been reading what you are saying over a number of threads and it has a different tone to much of what I read on here.
At times, when I read comments like:
“But by demonstration, Christ's temple isn't a market-place.” , or, “evangelism as practiced violates its spirit by peddling its promise of salvation in exchange for the earthly service of its target market.” #29 (this thread)
or
“They're trying to get you to buy in to their assertions, to sell you a personal solution to your problems and existential anxieties.” #6 (this thread)
and then
“But it is idolatrous to identify the creed with God,” or “Choose your peers as you see fit, but God chooses you,” (PCUSA thread)
- I find they *sound* (or at least could be understood as being quite Reformed, I choose the word quite deliberately, using it instead of Evangelical)
You also write, “The ostracising element of much of evangelists' doctrines is part-and-parcel of the methodology of evangelism itself. “ # 14 (this thread)
and
“...requires less unquestioning loyalty and, I suspect, would be a lot more successful in introducing new voices to the Christian Discussion.” #6 (this thread)
and you’re sounding much more ‘Emergent’.
Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not concerned that you fit into a particular box, it’s just that what you are saying isn’t said much on here so you’ve managed to get me listening.
So here’s a comment and question. I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea of (Christian) ‘evangelism’ as ‘sales’ or 'ostracising' and one of the reasons I think it happens is because Christians have forgotten what the ‘Church’ is, any thoughts?
Complain about this comment
@brianmcclinton (36)
Imagine for a moment a Christian who sincerely believes that God has created all of us, that we have fallen into rebellion and sin, that this will result in death and hell, that Jesus died and rose to make it possible to live instead and that following him as Lord and Saviour is necessary to have eternal life.
What should such a person do with their sincerely held belief? If they keep quiet, are they being loving? If they talk about hell and sin, along with heaven and grace, are they simply telling the truth (as far as they understand it) or committing a terrible wrong?
I would hope that a sincere Christian would not resort to any sort of manipulation or blackmail - that is not authentic evangelism as far as I understand it - but I don't see that simply stating the facts of the gospel necessarily amounts to these things.
At what point does sharing sincerely held beliefs with others about to being pernicious? At what point does telling people about a matter of life and death become pernicious? And this perniciousness you speak of - is it an objective thing that can be said to be true of the evangelist and their message, or is it a subjective thing, a response that you yourself are making, but has no bearing on how anyone else should respond?
Complain about this comment
It might come as a shock to some who follow these threads, but I agree with a lot of what Jonathan Boyd says in #43.
I don't believe in a god, or sin, hell or an afterlife, but if you do, if you subscribe to the concepts that define Christianity, you should evangelise, you should be out there, if not trying to convince people of your faith, then at least making people aware of what you believe and what you believe will happen to them if they don't.
Now, I might only be saying that to encourage people to expose their (in my view) delusional fallacies to exposure, and so hasten the demise of such dogmatic creeds, but it doesn't take away any of the urgency christians should have towards evangelism.
I might not agree with religion, but I have a lot more respect for people who uphold their beliefs than those who hide away and pretend to be 'normal'.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan:
Read my post again. Nowhere did I state that it was wrong per se of Christians to evangelise. Indeed, I said that Humanists also evangelise, in the sense that we too seek to spread the good news, i.e. that we can be free of supersitition and feel the joy of freethought.
I certainly don't object to people sharing sincerely held beliefs. My complaint is largely about the METHODS that many Christians have used, which seems to be your complaint too!
If someone wants to communicate the message of your first paragraph, then let them do so but without IMPOSING it on others, especially their children. International conventions state that children have a right not to be indoctrinated. It seems to me that too many parents in NI treat children as their possessions rather than individuals with their own rights. A 'fair' Christian parent would tell their child that this is what they believe but make it clear that there are other beliefs and opinions as well and that the child should find out about them too so that they can make up their own mind. It IS child abuse to impose your own beliefs on your children. Hence the BHA campaign: "Please don't label me; let me grow up and choose for myself".
The fact that 50% of our children are Catholic and 50% are Protestant is almost entirely the product of their upbringing, which is a very bad state of affairs. It also indicates the effectiveness of the indoctrination.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan Boyd: *that we have fallen into rebellion and sin, that this will result in death and hell, that Jesus died and rose to make it possible to live instead and that following him as Lord and Saviour is necessary to have eternal life.
If they talk about hell and sin, along with heaven and grace, are they simply telling the truth (as far as they understand it) or committing a terrible wrong?*
Jonathan whilst I understand these are sincerely held beliefs of many Christians and that you feel they are the truth and that you feel it is your duty as a Christian to tell others about this Truth - in my view it is 'committing a terrible wrong' as you put it. For me these things are false and harming to the human being, not healing. They are disempowering. They weigh down the heart of the Christian with guilt, that he is a sinner - when this is simply not true. This has consequences on the physical health as well. These understandings come from fear - fear of going to hell, being condemned etc instead of love. To know God is to know that God never condemns and never sends anyone to hell for hell does not exist. God is love, God is fire - that internal flame that is eternal in all of us - the heavens are full of fire for that is God - (this is in Christian mystical writings like Bonaventure and John of the Cross and is also in the bible) . So what force then would want to keep you away from fire, to tell you it is the last place you want to go? A force of evil that wants to keep you separate from your true nature, that is fire, that is love. By knowing this and making choices aligned with one's true nature one 'saves' oneself and experiences more love, joy and harmony in life - this is healing, this is empowering to the individual and enables one to serve with that love - this is in my view and my experience.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan Boyd
"At what point does telling people about a matter of life and death become pernicious?"
Iris
I think the problem comes when the person of belief tries to impose their values on others either through the law or by denigrating them or what they do.
When Iris says that the duty of government is to uphold gods law, and she is not alone in her party believing that, then evangelism has gone too far.
When an evangelist tries to denigrate someone by telling them they are flawed, when they are not, and sell them a cure which does not work and will damage them, then evangelism has gone too far.
When evangelists try to subvert science by manipulating politics in the guise of human rights, they have gone too far. If they want to refute science then use science to do it not legislation.
When evangelists try to forcibly remove the clerical collar of another christian because they do not agree with them then they have gone too far.
When evangelists whip up a storm of religious hate against a group of people and try to have the death sentence brought in for them then they have gone too far.
Generally evangelists have gone too far when they forget that people have a right not to believe what they believe and to be free from their values.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for your comments, 2MP. I'm not sure to what extent our conversation should happen in this thread, but I'll make a note or two to ease your curiosity for now.
"I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea of (Christian) ‘evangelism’ as ‘sales’ or 'ostracising' and one of the reasons I think it happens is because Christians have forgotten what the ‘Church’ is, any thoughts?"
'Church', of course, has a very particular meaning as the body of Christ. In view of this, The Church, as a set of loosely connected institutions, can sometimes seem poorly named, being as it is driven less towards the work of healing, whether of individuals or societies, and more towards a programme of influence, lobby, the representation of conservative interests and a member's club for a clique of people looking for a kind of comfortable homogeneity.
There is a need in this world for healing, that much is clear, and there is a duty on the part of the Church to rise to that challenge. Christ did not sit around in lecture halls debating the finer details of a theological narrative, letting the sicknesses of his world fester. But is the ailment Sin? That depends. If we view Sin as the refusal to kowtow to the command of an organisation or institution of Law, then certainly not.
Sin, I think, is a kind of psychological wounding. It is how we, as humans, have learned to harm others as a result of harm done upon ourselves. To posit that all of this harm might have an initial cause resonates with people, but whatever its origin, its influence is broken through reparation, forgiveness and self-reform. It's in this sense that the pro-active reversal of the influence of Sin has always been, and will always be, in the spirit of Christ's philosophy.
But as to what constitutes Sin, and how we ought proceed in this reform, such knowledge is impossible for human faculties to ever perfectly account for. What can any one system of belief and theory do in terms of helping every human being overcome the influence sin has had on them? The world of the Roman Empire knew nothing about the technology, the environmental challenges and the economic realities of today's world, and how these might drive humanity to cause harm.
The "sales" approach is putting a "thing" at the core of the Church. "Christianity" is a set of instructions inspired by Christ, with the promise of the life eternal as its hook. But that wasn't Christ's essential point with respect to outreach. The idea of Christ was methodological - God, not tradition or a set of teachings, and our love of God and Neighbour, rather than our need to belong, are what drive our actions.
Of course, what's shocking about this idea is that it's in no way new. The reformation was about precisely this point. That we've "forgotten" what the Church is supposed to be would be very awkward given that precisely this idea is supposed to be central to the very existence of Protestantism. Except, of course, that the splintered and fragmented nature of the Protestant church suggests that the strategy of Sectarianism is an inappropriate implementation. Perhaps it's time we looked again at the form the opposition to Catholicism took, and wonder whether we couldn't better channel our criticisms constructively than destructively.
Complain about this comment
@brianmcclinton (45)
Read my post again. Nowhere did I accuse of you saying it was wrong for Christians to evangelise. Rather I was trying to understand what you consider acceptable or unacceptable in evangelism and what your basis for differentiating between the two is.
I'll repeat the relevant questions again:
At what point does sharing sincerely held beliefs with others amount to being pernicious? At what point does telling people about a matter of life and death become pernicious? And this perniciousness you speak of - is it an objective thing that can be said to be true of the evangelist and their message, or is it a subjective thing, a response that you yourself are making, but has no bearing on how anyone else should respond?
Regarding children, at what point do you take away the right of a parent to bring up their child in the best way they see fit? I'm not yet a father, but I want my children to grow up knowing Jesus because I think that will honour God and be the best thing for them. What right to you have to say that I'm wrong to do that? Wouldn't a government edict banning sharing faith with your own children be as tyrannical as a theocratic edict forcing atheist parents to send these children to Sunday school? How do you decide what parents are allowed to tell their children? What gives one worldview the right to impose itself on others in the way you propose a sequel worldview impose itself on Christians (and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and so on)?
The BHA campaign was absurdly illogical. There's no such thing as a context free upbringing, I seriously doubt that any of the campaign's leaders refrain from giving their own children a secular humanist upbringing and the ideal of a context-free upbringing has never been objectively demonstrated to be a good thing for children.
@Eunice (46)
Eunice, I respect the way you wear your heart on your sleeve and openly and honestly state your beliefs. That's commendable in an age where we're encouraged to keep beliefs private. In the same spirit therefore, let me say this: Jesus Christ said that he was the Son of God. If he was right when he said that, then what you say is wholly mistaken and leads people away from the truth - something you seem concerned about. If Jesus wasn't the Son of God then he was a charlatan, a liar, a dangerous man whose words weren't loving but deceitful and tinged with madness. Why you'd listen to anything a man like that would say, I don't know. Now if you think that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, don't you think that his ability to define and articulate love will be greater than our own since he'll be in more touch with the truth? If so, then why not look at how he defines it?
@Dave (47)
Don't laws by definition impose values? Are you saying you don't think we should have any laws? Or did you intend more nuance than you articulated? Regardless, it's something of a distraction since the making of laws isn't evangelism.
From what you say about denigration, it would seem that you see Christian evangelism as wrong because you see it as a lie. That's all well and ooh for you, but plenty of people believe it's the truth and doubtless there are many things you sincerely say which explicitly or implicitly denigrate others who may well think that you're spreading a lie. When different worldviews and beliefs interact therefore, how do you say what is good or bad evangelism? If you say something I think is wrong and I feel offended, does that make you a bad evangelist? Is this a subjective issue or is there an objective truth you measure people's statements against?
The rest of what you say doesn't seem to really address the question I asked or if it does, it does so only tangentially. Saying that telling someone about a matter of life and death is pernicious if it involves forcibly removing their clothing is about as relevant as saying it is pernicious when it involves burying them alive in a mountain of cabbage. Burying them is wrong in itself, but isn't part of the act of proclamation or the content of the message being proclaimed.
@PaulR (48)
I'm curious about where you get your ideas from. Is it personal philosophy, an examination of scripture, a combination of the two or something else entirely? For instance, how do you set about defining sin and what role does a God-given biblical definition have?
Complain about this comment
Jonathan: for me Jesus was a Son of God who embodied the love of God and provides a template or example for the rest of us. In my view, each human being is a Son of God - the same as Jesus. The difference is he knew it, claimed it, lived it and had evolved more than we have as a result of his own choices (including previous lives but I expect you will not agree with reincarnation -and that's fine - you don't need to for this point). It is our own ignorance and lack of awareness regarding our true nature and potential and how to live according to that true nature that keeps us stuck as seemingly lesser than he - but we are not. God loves all equally - he cannot have a special son or one. I understand this may seem far out given the state of humanity and man's inhumanity to man - but for me this again results from our own lovelessness that is then projected onto others and ties in with Paul R point on sin.
Paul R:
You say * Sin, I think, is a kind of psychological wounding. It is how we, as humans, have learned to harm others as a result of harm done upon ourselves. To posit that all of this harm might have an initial cause resonates with people, but whatever its origin, its influence is broken through reparation, forgiveness and self-reform. It's in this sense that the pro-active reversal of the influence of Sin has always been, and will always be, in the spirit of Christ's philosophy.*
I would propose a variation on your take. Saying that we harm because of the harm done to us - means you are blaming someone else for why you harm. ie. it was done to you - hence you do it to another.
For me, it starts and ends with the self. I imagine you are aware that the original word for sin was hamartia - meaning to miss the mark. For me, our true nature is love, so when we act/speak/thing from that which is not love - we are 'missing the mark' ( what is called sin in christianity). However, this is part and parcel of the human condition - we all do this every day in many ways. It is not something that is punished but there are consequences due to the laws of cause and effect. It is our own lovelessness that gets projected on to others and in the emptiness of love evil can work through us. Someone who is love full - could not abuse or harm another. So to heal - is to know who you are (love) and make choices that are self-loving, self healing. This builds more love in the body and the more love-full we are - the less we harm self and other.
Complain about this comment
Paul #48
Another interesting reply, as is your most recent one on the PCUSA thread.
Having initially said in my post 31 that you were “most clearly” highlighting one of the major issues facing the church, I am now less sure of that clarity.
I think, too, that this thread is a perfectly useful forum for this conversation, because you are evangelising. Perhaps you haven’t thought of it that way, but that is what you are doing.
There are quite a few things which you are saying that I can relate to and agree with, for example, “Christ did not sit around in lecture halls debating the finer details of a theological narrative, letting the sicknesses of his world fester.” No, he didn’t, but that does not mean that there was *no* theological narrative, and interestingly you go on to write such a narrative of your own.
For example, you define ‘sin’, ‘Christianity’, ‘The Reformation’; now at this point I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your views, I’m more interested in what they are, or perhaps I should say, what they *mean*.
For example, on the PCUSA thread (and in the context of theological narrative and evangelism [story telling] it is I think reasonable to refer to it) you say, “And this (truth in Christ beyond a figurehead) is lost when Christianity's practice is dictated by Hermeneutics.” which sounds all well and good, Jesus is, if course, more than our interpretation, but, generally speaking, it is by the ‘written word’ that we know the ‘Word’, not exhaustively, but truly. It is one thing to say that we must not be idolatrous about our creeds, or that we must not worship our institutional interpretation of the bible, or that ‘without works faith is dead’, it is quite another to say (and you seem to come close) that our ‘Hermeneutics’ is hiding God. We *all* do it, interpret, there is no escaping this. We either know the Word through the written word or by some other means.
The failure of our Christian philosophy does not necessitate the tension between ‘word’ and ‘Word’ that your comments seem to suggest.
But there’s certainly room for a conversation here. So I'll ask you a question you suggested back in post 6 - what books are you reading?
Complain about this comment
2MP: We either know the Word through the written word or by some other means.
The written word can only go so far - it provides knowledge, understanding but not necessarily true knowing. So my vote is 'by some other means' . You'll have read enough of my posts to know what that is!! haha :-)
Complain about this comment
Jonathan (49):
You are NOT listening. I said it was wrong to evangelise by using: (a) compulson - believe this or else you will be imprisoned, tortured, burnt at the stake, forced to recant, censored etc. etc.; (b) indoctrination - inculcating ideas and attitudes through rote learning, engagement in routines and rituals, emotionally charged presentations, preventing critical investigation, presenting only one viewpoint as if it were obviously true etc; (c) moral blackmail - you are deficient or evil if you don’t accept what I say and/or you are doomed to hell etc; (d) emotional manipulation - appeals to desire for easy, pleasant answers, preying on hopes and fears, surrender of individuality to the collective, incontrollable hysteria, rather than the use of reason, open debate etc.
All these methods are pernicious because they deny people the right to choose freely for themselves.
If Christians try to persuade in an open manner using reason, then I have no objection. Indeed, as Natman has suggested that is a challenge secularists welcome.
I think you will find much of the rest of your posting to me is self-contradictory. You say you want to bring up children ‘knowing Jesus’. What about also knowing Buddha? And Confucius? And Socrates? As you say, what gives ONE worldview (Christian or otherwise) to impose itself on others?
Humanists do not seek to impose one worldview. We believe that children should be informed about a range of worldviews, including Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and Humanism, so that they can make up their own minds. They should approach Humanism critically and sceptically, as all the others.
You say there is no such thing as a context-free upbringing. I think this is to some extent correct, especially in NI, but I also think it is the moral duty of a parent to widen their children’s horizons, not restrict them. It is certainly the moral duty of a school to do so. It can and should counter the parental context that you talk about, not merely reinforce it.
Having said that, parents in the real world are increasingly sceptical, yet open-minded, and have no problems with telling their children about the breadth of philosophies out there and letting them find their own truth (but then, Jonathan, we live in dear o’l norn iron where the Lord still looks down upon us from on high and wants to help us find 'the truth' because we cannot be trusted with freedom of thought, can we?).
Complain about this comment
SINFUL men just can't take hearing the TRUTH, maybe when they are being sent to the Lake of FIRE, they will be sorry then and only then, that they complained, but it's too late, seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon Him while he maybe near?.
Complain about this comment
Brian Mc C - I agree with your post 53.
I would also add Re the upbringing - I agree all upbringings are influenced by many many factors (not context free as it was put) - and even if you fill a child's head with knowledge about all these philosophies the child will adopt ways of being based on the experiences they have and how they are treated by the parents and relatives etc before he/she can even understand the word philosophy. So I propose that living and demonstrating the ways of true love to the child would be more influential than any book/knowledge/philosophy.
Complain about this comment
Holy mackerel - I go away to Donegal for a few days, and I return to THIS mess of pottage! Well done, people - nice work. Things seem to be ticking over perfectly adequately here, but I suppose I ought to fire in a few little thoughts from Helio, simply to satisfy my innate narcissism that *someone* reads my posts, even if it is just one of the mod-bots (hi guys!), or Will, trying to see if I'm slagging of that decerebrate cabbagemonger Al Plantinga again.
Aaaaaaaanywaaaaay, here goes. I welcome evangelism. It is, for me, an opportunity. I have no problem with someone coming up to me, sticking a poorly-printed (and breathtakingly inane, as they all are) tract about Billy's tuberculosis or the godly fisherman or some similar infantile twaddle in my hand, because that is my licence to turn from the passive live-and-let-live mild-mannered Heliopolitan into AtheistMan, the donkey-slaying pixie-vanquishing creationist-trampling superhero, who knows his bible far better than any of these bibbling morons you meet door-to-door or at impromptu "gospel" rallies on Bangor promenade (I know, because I have actually BEEN one of these bibbling morons).
I find the Mormons to be the most amusing fodder, but JWs and even regular Presbyterians are interesting too. One reason is that they often come around in pairs - one more senior and one junior. So I do my arguing with the senior one, and exchange knowing winks with the junior one - the audience. I'm not trying to win a battle - just plant a seed. And those seeds bear fruit. When people realise that the bible does NOT say what they have been told in Sunday School; when they realise that it is riddled with mistakes and outright falsehoods; when they realise that their pastors, priests and ministers are either supremely ignorant about the natural world and ancient history, or they lie or confabulate to cover it up; when they realise that morality comes from our interactions with those around us, and NOT from some made-up space pixie; when they realise that "theology" is the *drag* queen of the sciences; when they realise that they have been taken for a ride by people who are dumb as a box of rocks, and although well-intentioned, lack the moral scruple to actually examine their own "sincerely held beliefs" (not a plus in my book - sincerity is so often the cloak of the buffoon); when they see that the whole vast panoply that "faith" brings them is but a series of rabid imaginings and encrustations from a more ignorant past, and that the wonders of science and freethought are far more enlightening, ennobling and emboldening than any writings of the ancients, unable as they were to stand on the shoulders of midgets, let alone giants - THEN we see a little light dawning - slow at first, but brightening gradually until the pure sun shines through, and the old dismal darkness is dispelled by the warm rays of reason.
I am delighted to say that I have seen this happen many times, and it is so welcome, that I simply love evangelism. It really is the undoing of the simplistic nonsense that is evangelical Christianity. Its Achilles heel, if you will.
I can has self-wurf nao?
Complain about this comment
@Eunice #55 - Actually, I couldn't agree more. Well said, O ditsy one! ;-)
Complain about this comment
Helio
Get the old batteries recharged in Donegal?
Chakras back in line?
Complain about this comment
@brianmcclinton (53)
I see my the auto-correct has gone and mangled a couple of words, so I apologise for any confusion that has called (for instance 'secular' becoming 'sequel').
You've spoken with a lot more clarity in your most recent post, which I appreciate, though I think your definition of indoctrination lacks nuance. Are all routines or rituals bad? Is presenting only one viewpoint as true bad if you believe that it is the only true viewpoint?
For instance, if a child asks a question about the world, I fail to see the value in giving them a range of answers , only one of which you believe to be true. I fail to see how it is moral to confuse and mislead a child when you can tell them the truth. There is value in understanding what others believe, but why would I want my children (if I was a parent) to believe a lie?
I also fail to see the self-contradiction you accuse me of. I think it's wrong for followers of one worldview to deny parents of another worldview the right to bring their children up in their worldview. I also think it's naive to say that children should be presented with a range of worldviews. After all there are near countless different views out there, but limited time, so choices have to made about which ones to present. If there are grounds to exclude some views because they are of no benefit, does it not follow that there might be grounds to exclude all but the one you believe to be true?
I can't help but wonder if the secular humanist attitude here is limited in its perspective by lack of belief in an afterlife. If we only have one life to live and enjoy living it by whatever worldview we choose, then what does it really matter what we believe? On the other hand, if there is an afterlife, then your choice of worldview, regardless of the happiness or success it brings in this life, may have serious repercussions in the next. Similarly a lack of devotion or sense of responsibility to a deity may be a limiting factor. If you are not accountable to anyone for what you teach to your children, then of course you'll be a lot happier to expose your child to multiple worldviews. On the other hand if you wish to honour God and feel a sense of responsibility to bring your child up worshipping God, then things are going to be entirely different. Jesus had few hards to say about those who teach children, but what he did say was unequivocally condemnatory towards those who mislead them.
Ultimately, I think that the moral duty of a parent is to do good for their child. Within a Christian context, that means telling them that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour and that any other view of him is wrong. Nothing wrong with saying that other worldviews exist, but it's always going to have to be with the caveat that they are idolatrous, wrong and harmful. to do otherwise would be harmful for the child and dishonour God.
Complain about this comment
Helio:
Good to see that the clear air of Donegal has blown away the cobwebs. A nice counterblast, but I think you are interpreting evangelism too simplistically. In other, more insidious forms - compulsion, indoctrination, emotional manipulation and moral blackmail, for example - it is far more dangerous. Most of us can cope with the tract man and the megaphone preacher, but Bruno and Galileo couldn't cope with the Inquisition, Joyce couldn't cope with the censorship, young people often can't recover from the invitation to hysteria, and there are still those who quake at the prospect of the flames of hell.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
brianmcclinton,
I tried to express something similar to Jonathon, but it wasn't nuanced enough for him. I really wish he could understand the damage evangelism, particularly in its worst forms, can do. I regard some levels of indoctrination as psychological abuse.
Helio, I realise it might be an intellectual game for you, and please do enjoy it, I do too, but please never let them get away with it, there are not enough of us mopping up after them.
Complain about this comment
Brian- "moral blackmail - you are deficient or evil if you don’t accept what I say and/or you are doomed to hell etc; (d) emotional manipulation ... appeals to desire for easy, pleasant answers, preying on hopes and fears ... are pernicious because they deny people the right to choose freely for themselves."
I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that moral blackmail or emotional manipulation denies people the right to choose freely for themselves. I agree, there are dirty tactics, but by casting such a wide net you may be regarding most of the things people believe as outside of their free choosing!
An appeal to an easy, pleasant answer, for example, is clearly misguided and misleading, but the hearer still has the right (and, I say, the duty) to examine what they're being told and choose truth themselves. That's what you and I did. I think it's just a tad insulting to assume that we're smarter than the unwashed masses, or that people are generally incapable of distinguishing freely between credible and ridiculous claims.
I would agree with you that people often do not choose the right belief, and often act irrationally, but I wouldn't put that at the feet of the evangelist who uses music to create a receptive mood in their audience; I'd put it back at the feet of the people for willfully detaching their anchor on truth and allowing themselves to be swept away by idiocy.
If someone tells a person that they're doomed to a lake of fire if they don't repent -- good old-fashioned Northern Ireland street evangelism -style -- it's entirely the responsibility of the individual to consult their sense of reason in deciding whether to believe it. Don't you think?
Complain about this comment
Jonathan- "if a child asks a question about the world, I fail to see the value in giving them a range of answers, only one of which you believe to be true. I fail to see how it is moral to confuse and mislead a child when you can tell them the truth."
There are many questions I can't answer with an adequate degree of certainty. If my child asks me, "What happens after we die?", I can't tell them "You go to heaven if you're a Christian and hell if you're not." The truth of the matter is that nobody knows what happens after we die, because nobody comes back from death. I may believe a certain thing on faith, but that can't be represented as 'truth'.
Generally, to borrow from another controversial subject, I'll "teach the debate" to my 7 year-old. If he asks about a subject upon which reasonable people are generally divided, I'll tell him "Some people think X.... others say Y... but nobody knows for sure." Is that wrong? Of course I can't tell him about every single worldview, but I'll hit a few big ones and generally represent that nobody knows. A healthy "I don't know" could change the world.
Wouldn't I be doing him a huge disservice to teach him only what I think is true as though it's the only opinion on the matter? My job is not to tell my child what he should believe; that will stunt his intellectual growth, discourage free thought, lower the value he ascribes to reason, and encourage rebellion eventually anyway once he realizes he was being taught my beliefs as though they were universally-held truths.
My job is to educate him so that he's equipped someday to establish beliefs for himself. Anything less bothers me greatly, perhaps in the vein of Dawkins' aversion to children being called "Christian" or "Muslim". There are no Christian children (below a certain age). There are only the indoctrinated.... and that IS abusive.
Complain about this comment
Helio : Welcome back! I'm still choking on my breakfast at your confession to having once been a 'bibbling moron' peddling your wares on the street! We all have a past I suppose! THough tis no wonder you are so anti -God/ atheist now - for me now that is one of the very real and true damages of evangelism. People get turned off for life. I know you will say it is different for you - using reason etc etc
Complain about this comment
@John Wright (64)
You may not be able to answer certain questions with any certainty, but there are plenty of people who have sufficient conviction and assurance to do so. Why shouldn't they tell their children the truth that they are convicted/assured of?
Incidentally, given that we're talking about evangelism rather than the broader subject of discipleship, I've been assuming that we're talking about sharing the good news of salvation, rather than less central things like beliefs about creation.
Complain about this comment
Eunice, I am not anti-god; I am anti people saying stupid things that have no basis in reality. I am pro challenging people to think outside the box (and the book).
Brian, fair point. Letting people know that atheism is acceptable and rational provides one escape route from the intellectual chastity belt that is religious indoctrination. Some irony there :-)
Complain about this comment
Helio: goodness - what's happening - now I agree with you! Just how far outside the box are you prepared to go though??!! haha :-)
Jonathan: I do understand you feel very committed to your version of Truth - thing is - that for many people it is not Truth but is actually the opposite and is false and is harming and has consequences. NOw if you wanted to keep that to yourself that's fine - that's your choice. Problem is when it gets imposed onto other people who then also get harmed by it. The proof of the pudding as they say is in the eating - 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. FOr me, that is someone who is loving and non-judgmental of others, who is not emotional/hot tempered/angry etc etc, who treats and sees all others as equal to them - no-one higher and no-one lower, who is gentle and endeavours to serve with that gentleness and love in all that they do and who lives with a high degree of integrity and responsibility for themselves and allows others to live and make their own choices without imposing their way onto them. Who teaches by example, by how they live, not by words or dogmas or doctrines or empty meaningless promises/statements that have no bearing in reality. The marker of truth is the body and truth can be felt and known by the inner heart - we each have the wisdom within us that is wiser than any book (and ok it can take a while/practice for us to re-connect to that) 'be a lamp unto oneself'. So if evangelical Christians lived lives of love, joy and harmony and vitality and well-being, with the qualities I mentioned above then ok - I would be interested to know what you were doing and how you are living and what could I learn from it. But my experience is otherwise - I have found them to be very judgmental and quick to condemn, criticise and preach to others ... and underneath that they are quite angry and that gets projected onto others. This is not an example nor a 'Truth' that I want to follow given these outcomes.
Complain about this comment
With reference to comment #66, one of the reasons I am happy to have someone to evengelise to me is that, as Jonathan has said, it's about sharing the good news of salvation, and not a debate about core christian principles. The assumption on the part of the evangelist is that the victim/target/sinner already has a base belief in god, sin and the need for salvation. I feel it's my role to challange that presumption, as someone who doesn't hold to any of those core values. Too many christians plod through life without thinking too deeply about the fundamentals of their belief, and just how much it's based on faith. I enjoy the challenge of confronting them about that.
The outcome of the discussion is one of two things; either the Christian gets the chance to reaffirm their beliefs in their faith by justifying it to someone with very different opinons thus strengthening their convictions, or I manage to convince someone that their faith is based on uncertain grounds and I've opened their eyes to a different perspective. In either situation, someone 'wins'.
I think there should be more atheist 'evangelists'; stopping people on the street and telling them that there is no god, that they're not a sinner so there's no one to blame for the bad things and to be good to themselves and others, because this is the only chance you'll get.
Complain about this comment
Hi Eunice, I read your post...as you laughingly told me to.
Then after I read it, I laughed even more.
You do have one or two good points but the rest is opposed to Biblical teaching.
I don't whether you've thought it up or read someone elses thinking but you're way off truth.
Complain about this comment
@Natman (69)
I wouldn't mind running into an atheist evangelist, precisely for the reasons you wouldn't mind running into a Christian one. I'm all for others starting conversations about God - makes my life a bit easier if I don't have to make the opening myself. We seem to have lost out on the idea of debate in the public square where different worldviews, philosophies and religions can debate and persuade the public.
@Eunice (68)
'I do understand you feel very committed to your version of Truth - thing is - that for many people it is not Truth but is actually the opposite and is false and is harming and has consequences.'
The thing is Eunice, it can't be true to me and false to someone else. The facts are either true, in which I'm right while someone else is wrong, or the facts are false, in which case I' wrong and the other person is right. If Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died to pay for our sins and rose to give us eternal life, then the consequences for belief and the harm that comes from unbelief are fixed on those facts, not on whether someone thinks they are true or not.
I sympathise with your reaction to evangelicals. We're not very good at living out what we believe. On the other hand, very few people are any good at consistently living out the positive things that they believe. I also think that you've swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction by saying that actions are all that matters and beliefs count for nothing. Thinking particularly of evangelism, aren't words necessary to communicate the significance of actions? As a Christian, I believe that faith must be accompanied by good works, otherwise it's a death faith and not really faith at all. But I also believe that non-Christians can do plenty of good things, so simply being good doesn't necessarily distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian. It's pretty hard to communicate to people that good works can't save them from the consequences of their rebellion against God and that only faith in Jesus Christ can do that without using words. Similarly, I fail to see how you could articulate your philosophy about love and energy simply by actions.
Complain about this comment
More good stuff, 2manypeters.
I accept your suggestion that I might be evangelising, though note that as I do not adhere to any particular tradition or "system" of thinking, it would be difficult to explain what, exactly, I was evangelising. There's not much in the way of coherence in terms of how I address the questions involved here, which I think is a necessary part of the process of growth. Much of what I have to say is in tension with itself because it's still being worked on, and I think talking about it with people is good in learning where perhaps the tension is in greatest need of resolution. I also express lots of what I'm thinking in the form of instruction or principle; this is to be read as a quirk of the mode of expression, and I don't want anyone to think I'm insisting on something as a matter of public correctness (unless I explicitly say so, of course).
To deal with Jonathan's question as well here, my project is an ongoing attempt to take the resonant ideas of the Emergent school and strip them of the implicit postmodernity they deploy. Don Miller's books probably influenced me quite a bit with respect to the idea of Christianity as Action over System and of God as Person over Notion, and Brian McLaren and Phyllis Tickle's views on the role of community and culture in relation to it are just as relevant.
But the problem of normativity is something that has always struck me as worrying in this idea; if my relationship with God is something that only the two of us have access to, then what's to say it's really God, as opposed to something similarly radiant, knowledgable and terrifying merely pretending to be so?
This, of course, must be where the idea of a living Scripture must come back into play, and in this respect, I think I borrow more from secular Analytic philosophers than I do from Church tradition. It's just not good enough to see an account of God as something static and timeless. We need an account, yes, because we need to be held to account so that our fellows can determine when we're engaged in something damaging, and when our trust is too much in the cultural phantoms that we mistakenly put in God's place from time to time.
But this account can't be rigid. It has to be able to reflect change in the evidence of what we're accounting for, as we ourselves grow and acquire new information, and so too must our constructed theories of meaning. We Aren't Infallible. We make mistakes, and our presumptions, understandings and theories are always only at best partial. The process of shifting our theory to match the evidence is necessitated by the limitation of cognition.
This isn't disrespect. It's just a reflection of the weakness of the human form that we've got to accept as part of our relationships with God. And in accepting that, rather than trying to hide it, our relationship becomes much more open.
The question of the validity of Hermeneutics now becomes salient, though I suppose my point was, as always, a little too dramatic. The problem is that there is a danger, as in all relationships, of fetishising the Other. Which do I love; God, or the idea of God? My thought is that a certain kind of scriptural tradition is presented with God, but then, having absorbed His/Her/Its image, focuses on the image, forgetting that God goes on even after the moment depicted has been passed. What kind of relationship is it that only loves the other for what they've done for me?
The image isn't the subject of my affection. Not even the collection of stories about our time together, our joint accomplishments or a history of our relationship are what love is. The image is for reminding you when you're separated from each other, for showing your friends or for pinning up on your wall. Those things are outward signs, and that's it (though obviously such outward expression flows from a healthy relationship). So yes, interpret, and acknowledge the need for the publicity of that interpretation, but don't think of the interpretation as the basis of the relationship, as Fundamentalism is explicitly trying to do. The interpretation is posterior.
(Incidentally, deep in dissertation work as I am, my reading for the moment is constrained to the Philosophy of Language, but I can certainly pass on tips on Constructivism if anyone's interested)
Complain about this comment
@Jonathan,
If Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died to pay for our sins and rose to give us eternal life, then the consequences for belief and the harm that comes from unbelief are fixed on those facts, not on whether someone thinks they are true or not.
That is a very very big if.
Most people regard those "facts" as untrue and inconsistent with history, science, philosophy, and even the very notion of a god who could be described as "intelligent".
I might just as easily counter that if Kevin is an invisible fruitbat who imparts the secrets of eternal life and humanity's happiness to me when no-one else is around, and only those who believe me will partake of that happiness, then similarly the consequences for belief and the harm that comes from unbelief are fixed on those facts, not on whether someone thinks they are true or not.
Jesus (assuming he existed) was a messianic pretender who was executed by the Romans for challenging their authority, and that is pretty much it. Poor dead Jesus.
Complain about this comment
Brian T: I may be far from your understanding of Truth but that is not the same as being far from Truth. In post 68 I explain some of my reasons for why I know that the evangelical version of Truth is not actually Truth and in addition I would include my own lived experience and transformation. You seem to have made an idol out of the bible - if it's not in the bible it can't be true and all that is true is in the bible - according to you. Rather than repeat rote messages based on biblical indoctrination why not suspend that for a few moments and ask your own heart - is this consistent with a God that is all loving?? Would an all loving God punish?? That does not mean love cannot be firm/strong/disciplined nor is it a push over or permit evil.
Jonathan:**If Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died to pay for our sins and rose to give us eternal life, then the consequences for belief and the harm that comes from unbelief are fixed on those facts, not on whether someone thinks they are true or not.**
The first part is right the latter part after God is wrong in my view. Jesus Christ is a Son of God and so are you and everyone else as I understand and experience it. We can only be 'saved' from the suffering of this world by living as he lived - according to the ways of love and grounded in the truth that he was and we are love. Because everything we do/say and think has a consequence - it is better for us to live according to our true nature and to be in harmony with that - not resisting and fighting it as we do.
The Christian and non-christian who do good works are both coming from their own heart - there have been plenty of Christians who have done very bad things so it's not about the teachings/words per se but what is in a person's heart.
Actions speak louder than words! And if you/we are going to use words they should be (as much as possible but without perfection) congruent with the actions of the person that is speaking them. I right alot on here about love and I endeavour to live from what I know - but I also know I'm not perfect and I make mistakes or react to things and act/speak in ways that are not loving all of the time - but I am aware of that and I endeavour to correct it. But if I was writing about love and joy and then going around being angry or abusive on a regular/daily basis and not addressing that then of course there is no congruence and no integrity.
For me it's not about faith in Jesus CHrist - it's about knowing that I am a son of God the same as him and having faith in myself to make the changes and live according to the ways of love by dealing with all the stuff that feeds the opposite of that - the self-loathing, the self denigration, the self-disregard borne out of false misbeliefs and misperceptions about myself. I am not unique - these things are common to the human condition - many, dare I say everybody, carries (often unconsciously) false beliefs about not being good enough, being bad, unworthy, unlovable etc which are just reinforced by the 'sinner' label of Christianity. Hence why for me this form of teaching is evil - it promotes separation from one's true essence that is pure love.
How could God make you any less than love??? You are made from love,with love, in the image and likeness of love. Hence why for me religion (and particularly fundamentalist evangelical forms of it) as it stands to day has alot to answer for. It either keeps people believing these false beliefs and misperceptions or turns them away from God and the Truth of their true nature, in my view.
Complain about this comment
@PaulR (71)
Paul, I've done a bit of reading on the emerging church and find myself in two minds about it. On the one hand there seems to be a lot of good work going on in terms of highlighting some of the current weakness of the church and asking plenty of good questions. On the other hand, the answers a lot of emergent-types reach seem to owe a lot more to human philosophy or personal desires than to anything God has said about the issue. There also seem to be a lot of false dichotomies presented or a desire to be contrary for the sake of being subversive.
Take for example Christianity as Action/System. Christians believe things and do things. We call the system of beliefs 'Christianity' and the things people do 'good works' or something along those lines. Talking about Christianity as Action or System seems to be just abusing language. The concern behind this, that Christians aren't sufficiently engaged in good works/acts of mercy/social action/kingdom living is a valid one, but the way emergents often frame the issue and the answer they present s a wild and dangerous overreaction that unbalances things in the opposite direction.
Or take the idea of haven an account of God versus being held to account. Why are these things placed in opposition? Why can't God give a timeless account of himself that is relevant to every age and culture? Why would believing that he has done so prevent anyone from being held to account? Indeed, isn't some sort of account of God necessary in order to provide a standard to which people can be held to account. The alternative is for accountability to be reckoned against a human standard in which case you've got secular humanism, not Christianity.
Or take the idea that hat we're infallible, therefore we must be idling to change. Certainly within the reformed tradition, that's a major point. The church reformed and always reforming. But Change doesn't occur for change's sake. There are some things we can be reasonably certain about and aren't terribly likely to be proved wrong. Some things in the Bible are abundantly clear and obvious. Or to take an example from another field, science is always provisional and ready to be overturned when a better theory comes along, but there are some things that work so well that they're unlikely to be modified or if they are, it won't be to a major extent e.g. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism or the laws of thermodynamics. Within the emerging/emergent movement, there seems to be this idea that everything should be up for grabs or that certainty is a bad thing when in fact God has blessed us with many things we can be sure of and many things which can give us assurance. How awful would it be if we couldn't be sure of his love? How difficult would it have been for the Israelites to trust him if they didn't have the certainty of looking back to his work in the Exodus? What hope is there for a Christian if they can't be sure of the resurrection?
Or take the idea of only loving God for what he has done for me. Isn't that something of a cliché and caricature? I can't think of any mainline denomination or major evangelical group that would encourage that sort of thinking. Within the reformed camp, what is the famous answer to the question 'What is the chief end of man?' - to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Again there's a valid concern here that God is being demeaned and diminished rather than enjoyed for his infinite majesty, but the response is so divergent from reality that it's of little value.
To be honest, a lot of emergent talk just comes across as philosophical naval-gazing, subversive rebellion for the sake of being different and elevation of human philosophy over God-revealed truth.
Complain about this comment
@Helio (73)
That's rather my point. The consequences have more to do with the truth of the statement than whether I believe that they are true. If they are false, then Christians are to be pitied. If they are true, then non-Christians need to repent. Whether Eunice, you or I or anyone else thinks that they're true or not doesn't change that.
Complain about this comment
Kevin's a fruitbat?
Gonny, who'd have thought.
I'd him down as a Koala Bear with a fondness for porridge! ;-)
Three cousins who live in the woods and all that!
Complain about this comment
I'm curious Eunice, why do you care about Jesus? If we're all sons of god, then what's special about him? He claimed to be the only way to the Father, that there was something unique about him that we don't have. Was he right? Was he mistaken? Was he lying?
Complain about this comment
Jonathan: I disagree that he gave the message that he was unique and had something that we don't have or can't do - 'these things and more you shall do' and more that for me reflect he saw all as equal - eg the master and servant etc. Re the claim to be the only way comes down to interpretation and understanding. I gather that you see Jesus the person as 'the way' and that that was what he was claiming. Whereas my understanding is that Christ is the way - and Christ is the light and love of God - something that each person can embody if they so choose and make loving choices accordingly. Christ is not exclusive to Jesus - he was however, the first person to embody that on earth that we know of and thus made it possible for the rest of us. The buddha grounded the understandings at a mental level but Jesus embodied them.
He says this (I am the way) in John where there are a number of "I am' statements - I am the light etc .....I am statements are statements of being - and these are common to all people as it is our fundamental being and common to being human. We could each say - I am the light - because we are energetic beings of light - the thing is we don't choose to live according to that - so we dampen our light, become more dense. For me Jesus provides an example/template of someone who knew who he was and lived according to that truth, he embodied the love and light of God and had mastered life on earth - to know he was in/on the earth but not of the earth. We can each know this for ourselves and master life on earth as he did by making choices aligned with our true nature: love.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan #66- You ask why people with the conviction and assurance to answer questions about the afterlife etc. with certainty shouldn't tell their children the truth they're convicted of. I think the answer is that there's a category difference between things that are universally agreed-upon truths in the enlightened world, like the sciences, for example, and religious belief which is subjectively held. The category of 'truth' I teach my child unequivocally is that derived from collective human reason. The category I "teach the debate" rather than teach as 'truth' is that derived from human faith. I think that's a worthwhile distinction, don't you?
Complain about this comment
Paul
I'm pretty much with Jonathan on this one.
The emergent experience has raised a number of valid issues about faith and creeds and action and community. There's a lot to learn from their conversation in this regard, particularly for the institutional church. But their concerns are not new, church history is full of communities of Christians exploring faith and action and community.
Part of our problem is that NI is so obviously biased towards a 'sell and sign up' approach to faith that when Christians (and let's face it, most Emergent types are already (evangelical) Christians or have had some kind of Christian background) hear about 'community' or 'social action' or 'growing into faith' rather than signing up and repeating some kind of mantra as if it was a magic spell then they think it's new - it isn't.
So I have a lot of time for a lot of what you have said, boundary-less churches and the like, but all that is already in the bible.
I can agree too with Eunice that how we live is important, that her experience is that she has found (Christians) to be very judgmental and quick to condemn, criticise and preach to others... and perhaps part of the problem is as you have defined it, that signing up to a form of words becomes the all. It can promote a kind of thinking which goes something like, 'God wants me to believe, I have believed, God is impressed with me cos I'm a good boy, now if only you'd do what I have done'....
But that is a caricature, a very popular and sincerely believed one, but a caricature none the less.
In terms of 'evangelism' then, it might be interesting to impose a self ban for a while, force Christians to demonstrate their faith in another way... act in such a way which provokes people to ask, why do you live as you live.
Interesting, some of the Atheists are happy with 'evangelism', some of the Christians recognise it's limits.
Complain about this comment
2MP: *In terms of 'evangelism' then, it might be interesting to impose a self ban for a while, force Christians to demonstrate their faith in another way... act in such a way which provokes people to ask, why do you live as you live.*
I agree wholeheartedly with you 2MP. Comes back to the 'by their fruits ye shall know them' . Yes this includes service but also it is how they are in themselves - are they joyful, playful, vital or full of sadness/anger/being critical etc There is a risk that some people interpret it as deeds only for others irrespective of how the person lives themselves and that is erroneous in my view. One flows out of the other - true self love cannot but mean love for the other. BTW re Christians -in above post I was referring to my experience of fundamentalist/evangelical christians rather than all christians - as I have experience of those who are not like that as well. I also accept it is a generalisation and I am happy to find otherwise!
Complain about this comment
Jonathan, thanks for your comments, particularly RE: "On the other hand, the answers a lot of emergent-types reach seem to owe a lot more to human philosophy or personal desires than to anything God has said about the issue."
I think this gets right to the core of the issue by highlighting the two seemingly opposed poles of discussion. The first is the problem of overphilosophising, and the second is the question of Biblical Authority.
I imagine my response to these issues could be rather predictable, but my belief is that neither ought be held as themselves of like authority with God, being fundamentally artifacts transcribed by man of an image of God. Can God reliably inform humanity of Him/Her/Itself? Sure. Can Man reliably write it down? Of course not. Why not, if the Spirit is at work? Because Language is Secular. It's the difference between (W)ord and (w)ord, as we were discussing earlier. Divinity informs and composes the former, but the latter is all Man. Vocabulary, grammar and logic are learned in response to other human beings, and the systems we learn have been built and continue to be taught to facilitate participation in society. No amount of spiritual influence can have language do something other than it's capable of handling, and the only way of working God into it is to twist logic, to be prepared to use nonsense constructs and alien words.
Of course, that brings up the following point: What, really, am I doing talking about this? The answer, of course, is that I'm getting rather muddled, vague and incoherent. I can but hope that in demonstrating the struggle against language, I'm demonstrating that demonstrating avoids the problems of struggling against language.
Maybe that, then, is the key. Show, rather than tell. I dunno, I've kinda lost the plot now. Too much language game.
Anyway, the point is this: if you view the Bible as a kind of Code, a set of symbols you can manipulate to get answers out of it, then all you're going to get is a human construction. Even if you think of it as divinely inspired, if in practice the use you make of it is as a manual, it's just a thing.
If the bible has value, it's in its demonstrative character. The Example is what matters, because even if laws shift with the seas of language, the example remains as clear as day.
Complain about this comment
PaulR : in a rather long way that sounds a bit along the same lines as 2MP and myself re : example. Words are not enough. It is perhaps the life lived, the example set, the congruence between word/action/presence/motivation/agenda.
For me, evangelicals do not present an example I would aspire to follow. For me, their words are empty of the true fullness of love of knowing God but instead come from fear - and so great is that fear they feel the need to persuade others to do as they do, to believe what they believe and I realise they feel this is in other people's best interest - even though it is not in reality. I have met people who have left the evangelical tradition and I recall how all of them talked about the woundedness they experienced through that tradition and the healing that was required after leaving that tradition. Hopefully, more will awaken to the harm that it does to them, their families and those they endeavour to convert or persuade to join their belief system.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan (59):
Some of the points you make here have been well answered by Eunice, whose difficulty with some forms of negative Christian behaviour I can well understand.
I want to pick up on this question, though. You ask: “Are all routines or rituals bad? No, of course not, but I was specifically referring to those used as a form of indoctrination.
Let us be clear what religious indoctrination is. It is essentially promoting a one-sided opinion as being truthful, without allowing access to other ideas and with no reservation in calling it, unjustifiably, the ‘truth' (as you did in your posting). It aims to ensure that the indoctrinated person does not question or critically examine the doctrine they have inculcated. The NI RE syllabus is a good example. It focus almost exclusively on Christianity, yet it is the only subject in which children directly learn about philosophies of life. How unfair to the child is that? RE should be replaced by Philosophy, which include both religious and secular worldviews.
Other examples of religious indoctrination include subjecting children to routines such as reciting the catechism or periodical singing which serves to cause euphoria and suggestibility, and to initiation rituals such as confirmation at impressionable ages before they are able critically to assess the event.
Love bombing preys on the credulity and need for affection of the young. 'Happy clappy', holding hands, hugging each other and ‘bonding’, mixed with the preaching of a charismatic leader, are all used to tie the person to membership and participation in the group.
The use of incense and candles, chants, prayers, recitations of rosaries, masses, saints, miracles, the wearing of medals, visits to shrines and a whole plethora of mumbo jumbo are all designed, at least in part to weaken resistance and increase suggestibility.
Frankly, much of this is child abuse of the worst kind. It is the opposite of leading the child's mind out to a critical awareness and scrutiny of ALL ideologies, philosophies and ways of life.
Complain about this comment
2MP, couple of quick thoughts:
"But their concerns are not new, church history is full of communities of Christians exploring faith and action and community."
Sure. Such is an ongoing discussion. And I'm rather skeptical about the role of Community, if one thinks of it as an enclosed group. Perhaps a more interesting notion is Multitude. More can be done being out among the throng than stuck behind a closed door. Engaging in a dialectic with Christianity more broadly is far more productive than drawing yet another line between Us and Them.
"But that is a caricature, a very popular and sincerely believed one, but a caricature none the less."
Well, perhaps. Dramatic flourish again. Apologies. But the use of the letter of scripture to justify political point-scoring, which most assuredly is not just caricature, is still a sore nerve; perhaps because, in fact, it serves as a reminder that the twisting of words happens so easily.
I hope you don't mind, but I'll be getting off my pedestal here. It's been good to air some of that out, and your comments and criticisms are useful, but I think the quality of my representation is diminishing somewhat.
Complain about this comment
BrianMcC *Love bombing preys on the credulity and need for affection of the young. 'Happy clappy', holding hands, hugging each other and ‘bonding’, mixed with the preaching of a charismatic leader, are all used to tie the person to membership and participation in the group. *
I hadn't heard the phrase 'love bombing' before! Then when I read what it is - well ....it is far from love, as you also recognise.
Complain about this comment
Eunice...The Bible 'is' the word of God.
You have failed to tell me what you use as your source of supposed enlightenment.
You are right in saying that God is a God of love...but He is also a God of justice and he punishes sin.
The chaos and disorder in the world reflects the sin of mankind.
The only thing that man loves is himself...he craves all sorts of things in a search to satisfy himself...power...money...sex.
Amazingly enough, God still loves mankind, that's why he punished Jesus on the cross instead of us.
For those who trust Jesus as their Saviour there is salvation but for those who don't there is judgement.
Complain about this comment
I just did some research on the GOD Channel and to be honest I am amazed at what they show.
The show was by a guy called Creflo Dollar (apt name I think) on the Creflo Dollar Ministries.
He spent 20 minutes explaining that depression is caused by not thinking about god the right way and to cure it you need to think about god in the right way, talk to your depression and keep saying (in a loud voice in the bathroom for some reason) "I have faith in god !!!".
He also explained that if you quote scripture at your pain you would confuse it and it would run away and you replace your physical pain with the scriptural words so it could not return.
He had a 4 step plan to curing depression. He only had time to tell us three of them but fortunately the whole set is available on CD for a "Love Gift" and for another "Love Gift" of at least $65 we could also learn how to combat stress through reading the bible. He also had time to mention some of his books, presumably also available for a "Love Gift".
Evangelism at its best. What he has basically done is steal the ideas from positive thinking guru's and dressed them up in an evangelical belief. The difference is that few positive thinking gurus would try to meddle in such serious areas as depression and pain management which are difficult enough for psychologists and doctors to treat.
My question is this, is this type of evangelism a good thing or not, how close is it to the teachings of christ, and is it a positive image of the church to non believers?.
Complain about this comment
Dave
The answers to your questions:
Not.
Not at all.
No.
However, like John said, it's a free country and we should all use our brains.
Complain about this comment
Responses to lots of people in this post:
Eunice, John Wright, PaulR, brianmcclinton, Brian Thomas and Dave.
@Eunice (79)
I don't think you're using the word 'Christ' in any recognised form here. Christ is simply the Greek for the Hebrew word Messiah, which means 'anointed one'. The role of Messiah is laid out in the Old Testament and finds its fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth. To talk about about Christ in another way is to give the word an entirely different meaning - to the extent that you'd be better off using another word. It's a bit like me saying that I ride a bike to work, then explaining that it's an enclosed petrol-driven vehicle with four wheels. As for bringing in Buddha, in what way does Christ's death on behalf of sinners embody any of Buddha's teachings? Take for example the gospel of Mark. It keeps referring to Jesus being on the way to Jerusalem, on the way to the cross. The crucial turning point comes in Mark 8 where Peter finally identifies Jesus as the Christ and in response Jesus goes on to teach the disciples that he must be rejected, killed and rise again. It's the point in Mark's gospel where everything changes and it all hinges on the mission of the Christ being revealed as one of death and resurrection. Later in Mark 10:45 Jesus says that his mission is to serve by giving his life as a ransom for many. I don't see where Buddha comes into any of that.
I don't think you've understood Jesus correctly with regard to equality and uniqueness either. Just because he said that the disciples would see and do many wonders similar to what he did doesn't mean that they would be the same as him in other ways. We are not the sum of our actions. Even if we were, doing some actions the same as another person isn't the same as doing all actions the same. For instance in John's gospel Jesus says that he is the way to the Father, that in him people can see the Father. Not in anyone else, just in him. That's a claim to uniqueness surely? John's prologue where the language about light that you love is most concentrated makes his uniqueness pretty clear. He's describing a momentous, special event and calls Jesus the One and Only, who came from the Father. He's not a son of god, but the Son of God.
Let me put it this way Eunice: have you ever seen God? Have you stood at the Father's side? Do you plan on rising from the dead?
@John Wright (80)
Why should truth be decided by popular consensus? Shouldn't the worth of evidence be more important in weighing truth that the number of people who believe?
@PaulR (83)
I realise that I probably come across a little blunt at times in the way I say things, so I'm thankful that you're engaging so diligently in discussion here. Looks like we can agree on what the core issues are, which is great.
Regarding language, I can't help but feel a sense of irony. I detect a great eagerness in what you write to not limit God or put him in a box. That's a fairly common element in much emerging/ent thinking as I understand it and something we sometimes lack in more institutional churches. However, aren't you limiting God's ability to communicate? We both agree that he can reliably inform humanity of himself. Couldn't he also guide people by the Spirit so that what they record is reliable? Okay, language is a finite, limited construct that is incapable of fully expressing the infinite, but within its limitations it can still say things that are reliably true. It can't comprehensively describe God or his acts, but it can describe sufficiently and adequately for the purpose of bringing people to saving faith and showing them how to live a life of discipleship (with the Spirit regenerating and sanctifying, as well as illuminating). The Bible records times when God speaks to people - isn't that an indication that he finds value and adequate reliability in language? Wasn't Jesus quite happy to teach with words? I don't see where any twist of logic is required for words to handle what we need to know about God.
I must confess that I'm confused about your distinction between using the Bible as a manual and following it as 'The Example'. At the end of the day, don't both involve reading words and taking meaning from them? I'm not sure how your treatment of language lends itself better to treating the Bible as The Example rather than a manual. How does the Bible function as any sort of example if you're confused about the language?
Not that I really get the manual issue itself. Again, it sounds like a caricature of what goes wrong with some Christians, but isn't really encouraged by the kinds of churches I've spoken of. Again coming from a Presbyterian perspective, I can't think of anything in the PCI Code, the Westminster Standards, the writings of John Calvin etc. that would encourage anyone to see the Bible simply as a manual. Preachers might occasionally use that as an illustration, but illustrations are fairly limited things and you can't take too much from them. If someone says that the Bible is like a manual, I wouldn't assume that they mean it is nothing but a manual or even primarily a manual, but rather that we can understand some of the functions of the Bible if we know what manuals are for i.e. the Bible has something to say about how people were designed to function.
@brianmcclinton (85)
Isn't your ritual answer somewhat circular?
You say: indoctrination involves engagement in routines and rituals
I ask: are all routines and rituals bad [i.e. how do we distinguish which are indoctrination]
You say: those used as a form of indoctrination are bad
'Let us be clear what religious indoctrination is. It is essentially promoting a one-sided opinion as being truthful, without allowing access to other ideas and with no reservation in calling it, unjustifiably, the ‘truth''
Promoting a one-sided opinion as being truthful - don't see what is bad about this in of itself. Repeating a fact by itself isn't indoctrination, so I'm assuming this isn't the core issue.
without allowing access to other ideas - this seems like more of an issue. Are you distinguishing here between allowing someone access to other ideas without actually putting them foreword, and actively presenting someone with a range of options?
and with no reservation in calling it, unjustifiably, the 'truth' - how do you determine what is justified? Who tells a parent what they are justified in presenting as the truth?
To be honest, I wish there was more catechising of children so that they would grow up better educated about the Christian faith. Catechisms aren't designed as a tool for brainwashing, they're a method of teaching. If people are saying things simply because they've learned a response rather than because they sincerely believe them, then that's of limited vale and I would hope that any minister/you worker etc. would impress that upon people. And if children enjoy singing praises to God, then that's great too. They're not being encouraged to sing so that euphoria will prevent them from singing, which is a crucial difference. As for confirmation, that doesn't happen until teenage years by which point people need to start being accountable for their decisions. Every minister I've ever known has impressed upon young people the need for confirmation to be a personal decision of faith rather than a blind ritual or peer pressure issue.
A lot of other stuff you mention I'm interested in addressing because it's largely a part of other religious traditions.
You're also rather hyperbolic with regard to 'child abuse of the worst kind.' I'm pretty sure that we've read about that in other threads in the past few months and comparing catechising to paedophilia just shows an utter lack of perspective.
@Brian Thomas (88)
Amen.
@Dave (89)
I'm pretty sure that a lot of the God channel is evangelism at its worst and it's a sad indictment of the level of discernment many people have that it's so big.
Complain about this comment
Brian T: it will hardly surprise you - but I totally disagree with you!
*The only thing that man loves is himself...he craves all sorts of things in a search to satisfy himself...power...money...sex.*
Searching for all of these things are borne out of our lovelessness not self-love. WIth true self-love, knowing that you are love - you do not need any of these things for true love is needless, it just is, and because it does not need it just serves. The type of self-love you are referring to is not true self-love, but instead comes from the emptiness inside, the lack of true love, that we then seek outer things to fill that hole, that emptiness, that lovelessness. It is our lovelessness (in your terminology sin) that causes the harm and chaos in the world and feeds man's inhumanity to man. However, this lovelessness is not punished by God, far from it. It has consequences for us due to the laws of cause and effect - and so we suffer the consequences of our own lovelessness over aeons. All of this is always working towards healing and towards awakening us to our true nature. And all of the time we are held in the utmost love by God. God did not punish Jesus (he was killed by men) and God does not judge (love cannot be love if it judges) and we save ourselves by living according to the ways of love. These are not empty words but based on my experience. Re my sources - I have read widely in different traditions and have understandings based on Ageless Wisdom teachings and esoteric philosophy (esoteric meaning coming from within) - where the emphasis is coming to know truth for oneself by one's own inner heart and putting the teachings into practice. Much of my understanding is informed by my lived experience.
Jonathan:
I know some of my understandings are very different to how they are in traditional Christianity - but understandings evolve as man has evolved. Medicine/science etc is not the same today as it was 2000 yrs ago and neither are the spiritual understandings. That does not mean truth has changed - just that our ability to understand Truth has changed as we have evolved and it will continue to do so. My understanding of Christ is based on the energetic understanding of what Christ is. We come from very different perspectives and understandings of what the bible is and is not, who Jesus is, who we are, what sin is and who God is and those 2 different understandings will never agree. I have perspectives and understandings that encompass more than the bible and are informed by my own lived experience. At the same time I respect your right to continue down whatever path works for you - I know that your path does not work for me and I have a path that does work for me and has transformed my life and myself and continues to do so.
*For instance in John's gospel Jesus says that he is the way to the Father, that in him people can see the Father. Not in anyone else, just in him. That's a claim to uniqueness surely?*
The kingdom of God is within each person -it is possible to see God in each person (although we have all been very good at keeping it covered!) In his day - Jesus would have embodied the love of God more than any other person so he may have appeared to be unique, to be 'the one' at that time - but this is something that we can all do if we make choices according to love.
So you say *Let me put it this way Eunice: have you ever seen God? Have you stood at the Father's side? Do you plan on rising from the dead?*
I see God every day, God is with me every day and my body will not rise from the dead (and to my understanding neither did Jesus body) but my spirit/soul will continue and my spirit will reincarnate into another body on my return journey to God/to soul - and it is my choices that influence that. For me the spiritual journey is the return of the human spirit to the one soul that it separated from.
I have written some simple verses that convey some of my journey and one of them called 'Awakening to Union' would convey the answers to your questions perhaps better than I have here.....but I can't put it on the blog at the moment! :-)
Complain about this comment
To all those who are talking about God and Jesus and quoting from the bible;
If someone was to approach you and begin to try to evangelise, but instead of using those terms mentioned, they used terms like 'Odin', 'Zeus', 'Persus' and 'magic' and quoted from the Nibelungenlied or the Odessey, you would most probably consider them misguided at best, crazy at worse.
What makes your religion, your terms and beliefs any more acceptable to preach about?
To someone like me, they're -exactly- the same. They all claim divine authority, they all insist on faith for that first initial step of acceptance and they're all just as implausible.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan Boyd,
Unfortunately this is the face of the evangelical protestant church which most people recognise and there are a lot of non discerning people filling up their megachurches and buying their products. Indulgences they used to be called I think.
They use techniques gleaned from the psychology of behaviour modification and double glazing salesmen to preach their ideas and sell their products. In marketing terms it is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). For people who are vulnerable these are hard to resist. They are designed to bypass discernment.
Why does the rest of the christian church not disown them if they believe they are not acting as true christians or are "evangelism at its worst". Seems to me that the nutters are ruling the asylum.
Christians and non christians are perfectly entitled to have reasoned debate, and disagree with each other, and believe what they like, but this is not reasoned debate This is brainwashing and manipulation in order to make certain people rich and powerful. The god and christ I learned about in school are just a cynical tool of this form of christianity.
In NI the same techniques are used, albeit I think with better intentions (however misguided), that does not excuse their use or excuse evangelicals from the guilt of the results of their actions. Homophobia is worse in NI as a direct result of the preaching of the church of which evangelicals are the loudest voice. Suicide rates in NI are higher, particularly amongst young men, due in significant part to unresolved sexual orientation issues between what the family and church believe and teach and the inner fixed orientation of the victim. That is not the fault of the homosexual who has to suffer it, it is the fault of the church which obsessively preaches hatred, prejudice and bigotry. I understand you say that it is your god who says these things, that just makes him prejudiced and bigoted. It also makes him a sadist to create people who are under death sentence from the moment they first are attracted to someone. Good role model !!!
Several times on this thread it has been said that people should make their own decisions about what they are being told and take responsibility for it. Take religion out of it, do you believe that all victims of conmen are simply stupid or that the con men are actually good at understanding how to fool people. If you believe the former why have criminal penalties for conmen if they share no part in the guilt it is the victims own fault.
What if it was another religion converting large parts of the protestant faith, would you just shrug your shoulders and say, its their own fault for believing it. If they create a culture of hate against you will you say awwh bless, they are just not very discerning. If they close your church down as an abomination against their lord and bring in the death penalty for your worship. If they only teach their faith in schools, compulsorily to all children and all other faiths are airbrushed out will you say tut tut !!, or maybe you will already be one of them or dead if you cannot be discreet about your beliefs.
You might think, wow that's a bit of a stretch but from where I sit this is the natural progression evangelical christians would follow if they had the chance. The template is in Africa, they go in, radicalise the population and when things become too extreme they are nowhere to be seen. They don't really condemn the extremes and find ways to excuse it or some biblical references which support it.
I have heard an American Evangelist say that the death penalty for gays in Uganda may seem a bit extreme, but homosexuality is an abomination so we may have to accept that bit (death penalty) in order to have the rest of the laws to criminalise homosexuality and its supporters in order to wipe it (homosexuals) out.
Not very loving towards sinners, and not very understanding of Human Rights.
Complain about this comment
In answer to this question
'What makes your religion, your terms and beliefs any more acceptable to preach about?'
The answer to that is...because Jesus Christ rose from the dead....He is alive!
Eunice..yet again I would ask where you get your attain all of this false teaching...it is most definetely wrong!
Complain about this comment
@Dave (94)
'Unfortunately this is the face of the evangelical protestant church which most people recognise'
Really? How many people actually watch the God channel?
'there are a lot of non discerning people filling up their megachurches and buying their products'
Sadly yes.
'Why does the rest of the christian church not disown them if they believe they are not acting as true christians or are "evangelism at its worst"'
They frequently are disowned. Take somebody like Joel Osteen and you'll find plenty of negative commentary about him, his church and his methods.
'Seems to me that the nutters are ruling the asylum.'
Who is running what? Let's take the Norther Ireland context - what churches are being run by God channel nutters? I can see Whitewell being put in that category, but it's an independent church that a lot of mainline churches would have reservations about. Certainly within PCI I hear far more criticism of altar call methods than commendation.
'Christians and non christians are perfectly entitled to have reasoned debate, and disagree with each other, and believe what they like, but this is not reasoned debate This is brainwashing and manipulation in order to make certain people rich and powerful.'
I agree that many of the televangelists try to brainwash people or swindle them out of money and I'm appalled at it. I don't think anyone here would argue with you on that point.
'In NI the same techniques are used, albeit I think with better intentions (however misguided)'
Where, when, how, by whom?
'Homophobia is worse in NI as a direct result of the preaching of the church of which evangelicals are the loudest voice. Suicide rates in NI are higher, particularly amongst young men, due in significant part to unresolved sexual orientation issues between what the family and church believe and teach and the inner fixed orientation of the victim.'
Evidence?
'That is not the fault of the homosexual who has to suffer it, it is the fault of the church which obsessively preaches hatred, prejudice and bigotry.'
If I preach that adultery is wrong, does that make be bigoted against adulterers? Is it possible to see an action as immoral without hating the people who commit those acts. Put another way, you say that the kind of evangelism that evangelicals do is wrong and that we preach wrong things. Does that make you a bigot against evangelicals?
'It also makes him a sadist to create people who are under death sentence from the moment they first are attracted to someone. Good role model !!!'
Without receiving gar from Jesus Christ, everyone has a death sentence over them. And whatever they've done wrong, anyone can be forgiven and receive eternal life instead. Homosexual activity isn't any more special than say adultery. Neither is it any more of a temptation than heterosexual fornication, nor or homosexuals lesser beings with lower will power.
'Take religion out of it, do you believe that all victims of conmen are simply stupid or that the con men are actually good at understanding how to fool people.'
I think that con men are good at fooling people, but I don't think that evangelists are necessarily con men or that they use the same methods.
'What if it was another religion converting large parts of the protestant faith, would you just shrug your shoulders and say, its their own fault for believing it.'
My point was that by the time people are teenagers they should have some ability to make decisions for themselves, therefore they have a degree of accountability for their actions. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here or what parallel it has with the situation here in NI.
'You might think, wow that's a bit of a stretch but from where I sit this is the natural progression evangelical christians would follow if they had the chance.'
Well why don't you just go ahead and make that case, because I don't see the evidence for it. There are some evangelicals who are all for legislating biblical morality, but that isn't the defining feature of evangelicalism and plenty would take an entirely different view. Being in favour of evangelism is not equivalent to wanting to legislate biblical morality.
'They don't really condemn the extremes and find ways to excuse it or some biblical references which support it.'
That's all very vague and nebulous.
'I have heard an American Evangelist say that the death penalty for gays in Uganda may seem a bit extreme, but homosexuality is an abomination so we may have to accept that bit (death penalty) in order to have the rest of the laws to criminalise homosexuality and its supporters in order to wipe it (homosexuals) out.
Not very loving towards sinners, and not very understanding of Human Rights.'
What's your point? That some evangelicals are Bad People? What a surprise, so are some Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and so on. What is its relevance to the issue of evangelism?
Complain about this comment
@Eunice (92)
We're not simply talking about different understandings here which can 'evolve'. We're talking about simple straightforward definitions. And not all understandings evolve. Some are actually pretty reliable. We're not going to discover in a hundred years that gravity actually pushes things apart and it's actually an electro-static force that holds us onto the earth.
What do you mean by an energetic understanding of Christ? What does 'an energetic understanding' have to do with the Judaeo-Christian concept of Messiah? Why do you insist on using terms with fairly well established meanings and imparting them with completely new meaning? Wouldn't it make more sense to use a different term?
You say that your understanding encompasses more than the Bible, but I honest don't see how it includes the Bible to begin with, other than borrowing some terms.
How can Jesus be unique if we can all be like him? That's nonsensical. How can he be the embodiment of what you call love when he did things that you call unloving? I still don't understand why you keep talking about Jesus as if he believed the same thing you do when he patently didn't and acted in ways that illustrate a totally different understanding of love.
If you've seen God, then what does he look like? How do you know God is with you? Why do you believe in reincarnation when Jesus spoke of resurrection? Do you think Jesus was wrong?
@Natman (93)
The placing of Christianity's events within real history makes it rather different to mythologies. There are fundamentally different claims being made and different evidence offered.
As for what makes it acceptable to preach about, I think that everyone, including anyone who thinks that Odin is real, should be free to evangelise, so I don't think that my beliefs are any more acceptable in that sense.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan (#97),
I think Greek and Norse mythologies have as much bearing on 'real' history as the Abrahamic mythology. A good example is that our days of the week are based on Norse and Greek gods.
The evidence is identical - a collection of books, written a long time ago by many different authors, based on oral traditions and re-interpreted over the ages.
We could extend this discussion to include the Hindu pantheon if you wish, they still have a lot modern believers if that is a pre-requistite to be counted as an acceptable belief system. Christianity has an advantage in the Western world due to it's integration over the years with politics and the ruthless and determined suppression of other rivals in the past 1800 years. However, it doesn't make its fundamental beliefs any more plausible than the other religions in the world.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan: to my understanding Christ is not the person that was Jesus - some people use the terminology of Christ consciousness. A consciousness that each person can develop/embody. I have understandings at the level of energy as to my understanding ultimately everything is energy. And Christ is the love and light of the soul and this can be embodied by each person. In a way, each person could be a messiah, has the potential to be a messiah by embodying the CHrist - and it is our own choices that result in this not being a favourite of God. I am not alone in my understanding of Christ - many CHristians also differentiate between Jesus the person and the CHrist and recognise it is the journey for each person to be or become Christ - to embody the love of God.
We are all unique and we are all the same - one of the paradoxes of life! We are each a unique expression of the divine, but our core essence is pure love and this is the same in each person. I have explained somewhere else how I see Jesus and why I don't necessarily agree with all that he is reported to have said due to the bible being a book written by men many yrs after his death and who did not live as he lived. Resurrection for me is referring to the spirit - that is eternal, not the body which is mortal. There were apparently references i n the bible to reincarnation that were removed at the council of NIcea in order for the church to have power over people - on the theory that if people knew they reincarnated the church could not control/have power over them ie. no threat of hell or damnation possible. There remain a few references that can still be interpreted as supporting reincarnation. So for me Jesus knew about reincarnation.
'The kingdom of God is within' - for me this is within the inner heart of every person. Thus it is impossible for us to be separated from God in-truth. However, we each live as if we are separated from God when we make choices that are not coming from the pure love of the inner heart and we all do this every day. So for me, God/love is with each person - whether they know it or not or call it God or not - though they may not be connected to God/expressing from that place. God for me can be seen/felt in many places (feeling is a better arbiter of truth than seeing in my understanding) - in the smiling eyes of another, in the joy and laughter of a child or an adult, in playfulness, in the beauty of nature, the magic of God can be seen in every day life by synchronicities and the flow of harmony, in the gentle loving touch of another, in the sheer joy of BEING, being alive, being present, being joyful, being still, being love - without needing anything outside of oneself. For me God is a presence that can be felt and known and that is pure love and joy that I know does not judge and does not condemn - those are human attributes not divine.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan:
I really find it tiresome trying to unravel your misrepresentations and contortions. Here is just one example of the faulty reasoning with which your posts on evangelism and justice are riddled.
In post 85, you write:
“You say: indoctrination involves engagement in routines and rituals
I ask: are all routines and rituals bad [i.e. how do we distinguish which are indoctrination]
You say: those used as a form of indoctrination are bad”.
Now, I didn’t imply that indoctrination ONLY involves engagement in routines and rituals or that engagement in routines and rituals is ONLY about indoctrination. That’s your twist on it. There are many methods of indoctrination, some of which I have outlined. The use of routines and rituals are examples. If you bother to consult any book on brainwashing, you will see that this is so. Read ‘Battle for the Mind’ by William Sargant or ‘Techniques of Persuasion’ by JAC Brown, or any CIA manual for that matter. All of them discuss the use of routines and rituals as techniques of religious and political brainwashing. This is exactly what I said.
Of course, the MOTIVES of the use of routines and rituals is all important. Many rituals are not about indoctrination. I shave evey day; that is a ritual, but it is not designed to inculcate any belief uncritically in my brain. Life is full of such routines and rituals, and no one is suggesting that they are all about indoctrination. But certain types are used for that precise purpose and are often very effective.
Complain about this comment
On this theme - I came across this 'joke' that highlights some of the nonsense of religious differences!
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.
So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
"Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?"
"Well... are you religious?" He said yes.
I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian."
"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?
"Protestant."
"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist"
"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God!"
"Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.
Complain about this comment
My view of 'evangelism' is this: we are all evangelists, of some kind or other. Everyone has a world-view, a philosophy, and inevitably will try to persuade others to agree with it, whether this is done blatantly or subliminally.
One of the great evils of this world is the tendency to divide world-views into two simple categories: 'religious-spiritual', on the one hand, and 'secular-materialistic', on the other, and then to assume that each category is intellectually and morally homogenous. So, for example, a group of fundamentalists claiming to represent Islam flies two planes into the twin towers in New York, and all other so-called 'religious' people are guilty of this atrocity by association. Hence Professor D's evangelistic tracts about 9/11, urging us to "Imagine no religion".
There is no such thing as a morally and intellectually neutral viewpoint, called 'secularism', which attempts to place the burden of proof on anyone who does not subscribe to its materialistic underpinnings. The burden of proof is on all of us to support our truth claims with evidence and sound reasoning, and any public attempt to do so qualifies as a form of proselytising or 'evangelism'. The attempt to 'deconvert' religious people is another form of proselytising.
What I will accept is offensive about religiously motivated evangelism is the often menacing and manipulative method and tone in which it is undertaken. I remember one occasion when a Christian was standing in the pedestrian precinct of a town on the south coast of England shouting at passers-by, and accusing them of worldliness and 'sin' simply because they were going about their daily business, and, by implication, neglecting God. I regard that as a form of public disturbance, but you can bet that if this 'preacher' was moved on, he and his church would cry persecution. A drunkard carrying on in the same way would certainly be viewed as a public nuisance.
'Religious' people, however, do not have a monopoly on unpleasantness. I seem to remember a time when the refusal to adhere to the atheistic worldview in a certain country of eastern Europe merited the death penalty (can you get more unpleasant than that?). Or those who interpret scientific evidence in a way that is not considered to be 'philosophically acceptable' (according to the fashion of the day), are dismissed without recourse to sound rational justification.
I can sympathise with the concern about the way the idea of 'damnation' is handled. As a Christian I do not believe that God damns people for 'thought crimes'. Wrong thinking, of course, can lead to wrong behaviour, but there are many reasons why people believe what they do - as a result of upbringing, bad experiences etc. I don't accept the view that the Christian message can be reduced to a set of doctrines, which one must believe 'or else'. In fact, one of the major attacks on the early church was from gnosticism, with its belief that salvation is gained through possessing the correct 'knowledge'.
Any philosophy which relies on threats and fear-mongering has to be treated with great suspicion. I did not become a Christian out of a fear of hell. Also, any secular philosophy which relies on intimidation, mockery and a refusal to handle evidence with integrity, is also suspect. Which is why I am neither a fire-and-brimstone religious fundamentalist nor a materialistic atheist.
I think the truth is a bit more complex than that.
Complain about this comment
Sincerity of belief is not enough. You may sincerely believe that some donkey fluff about the baby Jesus coming to earth to die for our sins and rise to give us teh eternul lifez is true, and therefore you feel justified in demanding that other people believe it, but I have to say I differ from a lot of people here in that I do NOT admire the sincerity of such nutcases. Their "sincerity" emanates from a narcissistic and completely unreasonable refusal to take account of the views of others, as well as to critically assess what they are pushing.
And here I will warm LSV's chirpy little cockles by agreeing that certain atheists are as guilty of this as any raving Baptist. And I even agree that certain atheists distort and misrepresent the pixie-botherer's position, and that is way bad. Hitchens, for example, whom I enjoy immensely, frequently blethers on about the evils of religion without acknowledging that his image of god is not the image that most people have. Where he is *right* however is in that the image of god that most people have is not consistent, and when this is pointed out, you get the sort of fatuous nonsense that trips from the likes of McGrath that god is a "mystery", as if this was an adequate response. Most religious people that I know are decent intelligent people (Jonathan and Peter, you are included, but you do have specific donkey deficits that need rectified), but this capacity for self-criticality is lacking,
And in case you want to come back on this and suggest that I am not applying this to myself, I can only assure you that this is not the case. I iz well self-critical - it's just that I really *am* right about most things :-)
Complain about this comment
@brianmcclinton (100)
'I really find it tiresome trying to unravel your misrepresentations and contortions. '
Brian, you accuse me of things, then say you can't be bothered to present evidence for your accusations when I object. Do you think that might be at all tiresome?
'Now, I didn’t imply that indoctrination ONLY involves engagement in routines and rituals or that engagement in routines and rituals is ONLY about indoctrination.'
Generally when words are capitalised, it is because people are drawing attention to them. In this case, I find it quite strange because I never accused you of exclusively defining indoctrination as engagement in routines and rituals. In fact I quite deliberately summarised you as saying that indoctrination INVOLVES engagement in routines and rituals i.e. an inclusive, rather than exclusive word.
Neither did I accuse you of saying that routines and rituals are exclusively about indoctrination. In fact I asked you for clarification about how you determine when a routine or ritual constitutes indoctrination.
'That’s your twist on it.'
I strongly disagree. In fact, I think you're misrepresenting me. Would you care to quote the places where I say these things? The bit from post 85 that you did quote was simply voicing a concern that some of your answer amounted to circular reasoning and therefore didn't clear anything up i.e. it was an objection to a LACK of definition - the very opposite of accusing you of defining things in a particular way.
'If you bother to consult any book on brainwashing'
I thought we didn't need to bother with providing evidence for claims? Isn't that what you said when I asked you for evidence?
'Read ‘Battle for the Mind’ by William Sargant or ‘Techniques of Persuasion’ by JAC Brown, or any CIA manual for that matter.'
You want me to go read a book before I reply to your blog post? Seriously? When has that ever been a requirement? Why don't you summarise what they say and justify why you think it is relevant to evangelism? After all, it's your claim.
'This is exactly what I said.'
Not really.
'Of course, the MOTIVES of the use of routines and rituals is all important.'
Okay. And you consider the motives of some evangelists to be nefarious, right? Does this extent to Sunday School teachers in general?
Complain about this comment
@Jonathon 96
Dunno how to do italics so hope you get the gist.
‘Really? How many people actually watch the God channel?’
I do not watch the God Channel normally, and did not find anything other than what I expected. I did mean it was the type of evangelism which is expected.
‘They frequently are disowned. Take somebody like Joel Osteen and you'll find plenty of negative commentary about him, his church and his methods.’
I’ll look him up but my point was that I do not see the mainstream churches saying much. Evangelicals are quite happy to label the Pope and anti-christ or the archbishop of Canterbury an enemy of christ or Hindus idolaters, but people seem reluctant to call them out for their issues.
‘Who is running what? Let's take the Norther Ireland context - what churches are being run by God channel nutters? I can see Whitewell being put in that category, but it's an independent church that a lot of mainline churches would have reservations about. Certainly within PCI I hear far more criticism of altar call methods than commendation.’
I was not suggesting that churches were run by god channel nutters, I was suggesting that they use the same techniques. In the Northern Ireland Context we have the Caleb Foundation, regularly on trying to get their views reflected in places where they have no place and imposing their values on others. The Free Presbyterians have some nasty bile they like to push out at every opportunity and they also want to have everyone live by there values. Usual bigotry, prejudice and anti science stuff.
‘Where, when, how, by whom?’
Most evangelist work on the FUD principle, instil fear, uncertainty and doubt and then provide the solution that seem to make sense even though there is no evidence.
So
Church, television, street, letterbox, house calls
Every chance they get
By the methods I have already described
By the evangelist especially the ones like the free P’s and Caleb.
'Evidence?’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/24/homophobia-racism-northern-ireland
http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2007/2980.html
I will get the stats for suicides early next week, I don’t have them here.
‘If I preach that adultery is wrong, does that make be bigoted against adulterers? Is it possible to see an action as immoral without hating the people who commit those acts. ’
Adultery is a choice, sexual orientation is not, I do not see the connection. If you ask me do I see preaching against Homosexuality and attempting modify or uphold laws which make me unequal in society then yes I would say that is bigoted. There is no reason given for the stance on homosexuality - punishment, denigration and denial of rights without reason is bigotry. God did not give a reason, so he is bigoted and you are just following orders.
‘Put another way, you say that the kind of evangelism that evangelicals do is wrong and that we preach wrong things. Does that make you a bigot against evangelicals?’
No I said that many methods were wrong and that preaching bigoted ideas was wrong. For instance religion used to preach that mixed race marriages were against gods laws and were able to quote scripture to prove it. Do you believe that was wrong to preach that and to insinuate that children born to such couples were damned and were likely to be deformed or do you believe that if that is what the bible says then it is OK to tell mixed race couples that they are sinners and going to hell.
‘Without receiving gar from Jesus Christ, everyone has a death sentence over them. And whatever they've done wrong, anyone can be forgiven and receive eternal life instead. Homosexual activity isn't any more special than say adultery. Neither is it any more of a temptation than heterosexual fornication, nor or homosexuals lesser beings with lower will power.’
Rubbish, sexual orientation is a fixed characteristic, adultery and fornication is a choice. In your world view a homosexual must never have sex , a heterosexual can get married and have all the sex s/he wants. Are homosexuals allowed to have relationships as long as they do not have sex, are we still allowed to have sex with ourselves or is that banned too as we would be having impure thoughts of a homosexual nature. You either do not understand, or refuse to see, the difference between sexual choices and sexual orientation.
‘I think that con men are good at fooling people, but I don't think that evangelists are necessarily con men or that they use the same methods.’
I disagree
‘My point was that by the time people are teenagers they should have some ability to make decisions for themselves, therefore they have a degree of accountability for their actions. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here or what parallel it has with the situation here in NI.’
You conveniently left out the bit were I said they were being indoctrinated from an early age and you were banned from countering it. It is analogous to NI in that that is what the christian churches do here. Would you be willing to leave religious teaching until the child is old enough to have a degree of accountability and make decisions for themselves. I think you would find friends in the secular and humanist groups with that outlook.
‘Well why don't you just go ahead and make that case, because I don't see the evidence for it. There are some evangelicals who are all for legislating biblical morality, but that isn't the defining feature of evangelicalism and plenty would take an entirely different view. Being in favour of evangelism is not equivalent to wanting to legislate biblical morality.’
The defining feature of evangelism seems to be to convert everyone to their faith and ensure everyone else lives by there values. That is the predominant view expressed across the media by evangelicals. If that is not the defining feature then they are misrepresenting your majority or the majority do not care what they are doing in there name.
‘That's all very vague and nebulous.’
It’s not really
‘What's your point? That some evangelicals are Bad People? What a surprise, so are some Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and so on. What is its relevance to the issue of evangelism?’
I would say not some but many, enough to do damage to the people they want to damage and to ruin the reputation of the rest of the evangelicals who just don’t or won’t see it.
As for all the rest of the faiths mentioned, please don’t deflect we are talking about evangelists. I have never found the ‘look they are just as bad’ excuse very convincing it’s the same one the Pope uses when asked about child abuse, does it excuse the RC church? - No.
Complain about this comment
Helio: agree - it's not about beliefs or the sincerity of them.
**I iz well self-critical - it's just that I really *am* right about most things :-)**
Really?? According to whom?? Yourself perhaps?? :-)
So that'll be some day when you find out you might just have it a tiny wee bit not right!! :-)
Complain about this comment
Eunice, indeed, that'll be the day, but I fear none of us will be around to see it ;-) If I'm wrong in *that* assessment, be sure to let me know, OK?
;-)
Complain about this comment
Is evangelism threatening and insulting, you ask William.
I guess any human interaction carried out with aggression and arrogance would be.
But lets remember what the early church made of all this.
In the book of acts it was clear they believed that the messiah had come; he had proven that he was the master of the bogeyman we all face - death - and he promised us freedom from all guilt and bondage ie what we might now call compulsive behaviours / addictions.
He promised life; that we would have divine guidance for the highest purposes our lives could have and freedom to live a life for others.
Not forgetting an internal "comforter" to confirm we are always the apple of his eye, regardless of if we let everyone else and ourselves down.
Is this message bad news or good news?
Evangel means goods news from which we get "gospel".
This is the evangelism of the early church which we can all read for ourselves in the book of acts.
The nations of this world that have had a love affair with this gospel are cooincidentally the same cultures which have the highest standards of freedom of speech, work ethic, freedom of thought, human rights and standards of living.
The nations of this world that have never embraced this message have the opposite.
Hows this for my own stab of evangelism;-
Guys, I believe that anyone who wants to test the veracity of this good news for themselves has nothing else to do in the first instance but to get down on their knees in the private of their own home and ask Christ if he is really real.
I dont believe you will ever regret it.
sincerely
OT
Complain about this comment
@Dave 105
If you do [i]this[/i] except use angled brackets rather than square brackets, then you get italics. You can also do [b]bold[/b] the same way. Your post was clear enough without it anyway.
'I’ll look him up but my point was that I do not see the mainstream churches saying much.'
I'm curious Dave about what it is you expect mainstream churches to do about televangelist conmen. Most of the time, they're fairly irrelevant to life here in NI. There's not much reason for me to preach about them for instance because we're not exactly inundated with them over here and few people watch them. If Benny Hinn was coming over to speak and I knew that people were thinking of going to see him, maybe I'd say something then.
To be honest, I don't see too many attacks on the Pope of the ABoC in churches either, so I'm not sure there's any special treatment going on. Sure we sign the Westminster Confession of Faith of subscribe to the idea that the office of the Pope in the form in which it existed when the confession was written operated in a manner that opposed Christ, but that's not quite the same as launching attacks on the Pope today. And a lot of what gets signed up to would repudiate the work of televangelists, just not by name.
'I was not suggesting that churches were run by god channel nutters, I was suggesting that they use the same techniques. In the Northern Ireland Context we have the Caleb Foundation, regularly on trying to get their views reflected in places where they have no place and imposing their values on others.'
They may be vocal, but they're a small group and I don't know how representative they are of any particular denomination.
'The Free Presbyterians have some nasty bile they like to push out at every opportunity'
Again, they're quite a small denomination and aside from Paisley I honestly don't know much about what they say and do.
'they also want to have everyone live by there values'
Doesn't everyone to an extent?
'Most evangelist work on the FUD principle,'
That's a pretty big claim. I imagine that for most evangelism the fear, uncertainty and doubt is probably experienced most by the evangelist!
'Every chance they get'
In the church we usually bemoan the fact that so little evangelism is done and that people are too timid to share the gospel.
'I will get the stats for suicides early next week, I don’t have them here.'
Thanks for the other links. Remind me about them once you have the suicide stats and I'll look at it all together to get the full context.
'Adultery is a choice, sexual orientation is not, I do not see the connection.'
Neither do I. But then I was referring to homosexual activity, not orientation. The Bible doesn't condemn anyone for orientation and neither do I.
'There is no reason given for the stance on homosexuality'
Dave, that's just nonsense. Are you honestly telling me that you've never heard anyone give reasons why they think homosexual activity is wrong?
'God did not give a reason, so he is bigoted and you are just following orders.'
Now this raises some interesting issues.
1) At what point does morality become axiomatic? At what point are things just wrong because they are, rather than because of an underlying reason? For instance hitting someone is wrong because it causes harm. Why is causing harm wrong? s there a reason behind that or is it wrong in itself? Can you keep going back with infinite reasons or at some point do you get a reasonless reason, a moral axoim?
2) If God says something is wrong and we disagree with him, is it more likely that God is a bigot or that our view of morality is deviant? Does it even make sense to call God bigotted?
3) Does it make sense to disagree with God?
4) Reasons are given in the Bible. They generally come back to God having created men and women to have sexual relationships with people of the opposite sex. We are designed that way. Homosexual activity is therefore a deviation from God's design. Orientation, assuming it exists, does not necessarily reflect design because of the existence of sin i the world as a result of our actions, therefore homosexual desires cannot be said to be natural by appeal to its existence in a fallen creation.
'You either do not understand, or refuse to see, the difference between sexual choices and sexual orientation.'
It's more a case of me thinking that our lives are defined by more than our sexual impulses. We're not animals, we can make choices and there is fulfilment to be found outside of sex.
'You conveniently left out the bit were I said they were being indoctrinated from an early age and you were banned from countering it.'
Actually Id din't even address your hypothetical situation because I didn't see its relevance.
'It is analogous to NI in that that is what the christian churches do here.'
What is the analogy to:
converting large parts of the protestant faith
creating a culture of hate
closing your church down as an abomination against the lord
bringing in the death penalty for worship
only teaching their faith in schools
forcing all children to learn about their faith
all other faiths being airbrushed out
having to be discreet about your belief or be killed
It's just that I'm struggling to remember the last person PCI had executed.
'The defining feature of evangelism seems to be to convert everyone to their faith and ensure everyone else lives by there values.'
Doesn't everyone want that to an extent? Though I'm not too sure about the values bit.
'As for all the rest of the faiths mentioned, please don’t deflect we are talking about evangelists.'
Actually, I think your comment was the deflection. Just because some evangelicals do bad things doesn't mean that evangelism is bad unless evangelism was responsible for what they did. Just because an atheist does something bad doesn't mean that atheism was to blame for what he did. That's my point.
Complain about this comment
OT (#108)
I did as you suggested and do you know what happened?
Nothing. Well, I got sore knees and my back didn't like it, so I guess you could say I regret it now.
Your implication that the gospel is the source of all of our 'standards of freedom of speech, work ethic, freedom of thought, human rights and standards of living' is flawed. Correlation does not imply causation. The 'standards of freedom of speech, work ethic, freedom of thought, human rights and standards of living' that Japan enjoys are not gospel related at all.
The Church has had an important historical role in maintaining a social conscience, but it is also perceived as a source of a lot of societies ills as well.
Complain about this comment
Helio: sure - though I reckon you might be right on that one. Gonna take lifetimes for you to admit you have been duped! The spirit's pride is very mighty!! :-)
Complain about this comment
@Jonathan Boyd (109)
Thanks for the bit on italics etc.
Dave, that's just nonsense. Are you honestly telling me that you've never heard anyone give reasons why they think homosexual activity is wrong?
I have never heard any rational reason which did not involve god, prejudice, statistical nonsense or plain nonsense.
If you can give me any real and rational (non biblical) reasons why homosexual sex is wrong I would love to hear them.
Orientation, assuming it exists,
Why are you assuming, are you not sure that your heterosexual orientation exists. Homosexual orientation is well documented, not assumed and you only have to ask me and I will happily confirm it's existence.
Your points about disagreeing with god, maybe look at it this way,
There are things in the bible which christians used to believe god said and told them to do (such as slavery, banning mixed race marriages, subjugating women, genocide, flat earth, geocentrics etc). Over time christians have managed to change their interpretation of the bible to show that god wasn't saying these things as they were obviously wrong and god cannot be wrong.
My point is that between 6 and 10% of the population are homosexual or bisexual. It is a fixed characteristic and has been a feature of mans existence since as far back as we have records. If god created us he made us gay.
Why would this god of love create something with the purpose of discriminating against us or is it just like the slaves, you misunderstood him and you weren't meant to have slaves.
Or maybe he set it as a trial for you to see if you could overcome your prejudice, grow a couple, and do what is right by his creations instead of slavishly following the text.
Complain about this comment
OT
The nations of this world that have had a love affair with this gospel are cooincidentally the same cultures which have the highest standards of freedom of speech, work ethic, freedom of thought, human rights and standards of living.
I am not sure you can claim all of that is as a result of the gospel. It is truer to suggest that it has been the failure of the gospel based creed to completely subjugate its people which has allowed them to fight for their freedoms. It is the division and rivalry in the and between the christian factions which has created the fractured societies in which people were able to think freely and grow as societies and not faith.
I bet the RC church in particular would like to go back to a system of complete obedience, they might even be able to bring back all the fun of the inquisition. Now they knew what to do with a bonfire.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan:
I want to retrace our steps here. In post 43 you wrote:
“I would hope that a sincere Christian would not resort to any sort of manipulation or blackmail - that is not authentic evangelism as far as I understand it - but I don't see that simply stating the facts of the gospel necessarily amounts to these things”.
Now, simply stating a belief is fine. Of course, I would dispute your phrase ‘the facts of the gospel’. There are few facts in the Gospels. Anyway, if an institution such as a school which seeks to educate the young, agrees with you and offers no alternative views, then that is a classic definition of indoctrination, whether religious or political. It’s akin to Chinese children reciting the thoughts of Chairman Mao or children in Nazi Germany being taught that Jews are vermin.
Now, let’s turn to manipulation and blackmail. Do you think that some of this occurs here? And how? You see, I outlined some common techniques of indoctrination as outlined by research and in classic texts, like ‘Battle for the Mind’. But then you kept asking me: “at what point does sharing sincerely held beliefs with others about to being pernicious? At what point does telling people about a matter of life and death become pernicious?” What’s your answer to these questions, Jonathan? Where do you think the line lies?
My answer was that it becomes pernicious when it seeks to indoctrinate. You thought that was circular reasoning, but it isn’t. Sharing a sincerely held belief I take to mean simply stating what you believe to others. But we are discussing attempts to brainwash people. That means that we are trying to instil a belief in them without their being aware of it so that they accept it uncritically. It wouldn’t be indoctrination in the pejorative sense in which the word is commonly used if it were merely a conscious exchange of opinions and the other person (people) were simply being offered an opinion to examine. In other words, we are talking about the common techniques of manipulating and controlling the mind to a point of view. Do you accept that this often happens? Do you accept that cults like the Aum Sec and Heaven’s Gate tried to indoctrinate their followers with methods like routine and ritual?
Now, that brings us to routine and ritual. You then went on a merry-go-round of chopped logic. Are all routines bad, you asked. What on earth that question had to do with the topic is anybody’s guess. The answer is obviously no, but we are talking about the ones used to indoctrinate. Do you believe yourself that routines and rituals can be used to indoctrinate? If so, what are they?
‘Battle for the Mind’ is a classic on brainwashing. You might learn something from it. Too bad that you only want evidence when it suits you. It is a tad ironic that a Christian like you should be selectively demanding evidence when your whole faith is based on a total absence of same. Indeed, religious faith and evidence are mutually exclusive. Anyway, we’ll let that pass for the moment.
Let me, as requested, summarise what these standard texts say about the technique of using routines and rituals as a means of indoctrination, though I must say I’m surprised that you haven’t read any of them. You might find something out about religious indoctrination, which presumably you accept does happen from time to time and can be very dangerous, as the example of the above cults alone clearly indicates. Are you happy just that people believe in a god and Jesus, irrespective of how they arrived at that belief Do you believe that the end justifies the means?
Read on, and then maybe you can give me some answers. I shall cut to the chase and spell it out in neon lights so that even you can get the point.
Any kind of effective indoctrination works best when people get drawn into the thought system a step at a time. It's a kind of seduction process, and leaders and recruiters use a powerful combination of social and psychological influence techniques that are meant to hinder and break down a person’s thinking abilities and sense of self, so that the person can no longer evaluate what is happening. Over time the result of these techniques and pressures is to transform the person into a deployable agent for the leader and/or message.
Brainwashing is essentially a behaviour modification programme that works to change a person's patterns of thinking and perceptions of the world, and it needs to be continually reinforced. This is why recruits are often separated from their normal reality, and put through such rigorous daily routines and rituals.
The routines and rituals include long hours of chanting, meditating, listening to droning lectures and mild forms of trance induction that again, reduce the person's ability to think clearly. Much of this is aimed at attacking the person's sense of self, getting them to doubt their own instinct and judgment, inducing fear, anxiety, and guilt, and creating the series of crises so that the person has to choose over and over again, for the belief. In the Heaven's Gate cult, they did such things as: mate members go through various disciplines and rituals over long periods of time; for example, sleep for 4 hours, be awake for 4 hours, sleep for 4 hours, be awake for 4 hours for months on end....be on liquid diets for months on end, remain sequestered with hoods on their faces so they couldn't see each other for months on end."
Other routines and rituals include:
1. Reptitive music, with a beat ideally ranging from 45 to 72 beats per minute (a rhythm close to the beat of the human heart). This can be hypnotic and generate an eyes-open altered state of consciousness in a high percentage of people
2. Chanting or singing - Eliminating non-cult ideas through group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases: ‘Praise the Lord!’ ‘Jesus loves you’.
3. Working up emotions to a fever pitch: inducing weeping, clasping of hands, even trembling and physical collapse.
4. Preachers using voice roll routines. A ‘voice roll’ is a patterned, paced style like that used by hypnotists when inducing a trance.
Now, instead of gobbleydook which seems to be intended to question whether religions indoctrinate AT ALL, perhaps you can inform us, at length if you like, what kind of religious indoctrination annoys you. That would be more interesting than your roundabout defence of faith at all costs.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan
The 1859 Revival is a good example of brainwashing through the use of excessive emotionalism. One Presbyterian minister, Rev Isaac Nelson, described it as ‘the year of delusion’, which was ‘from the first a huge juggle, a giant imposture, having really no more to do with Christianity than the phenomena of electro-biology” (quoted in Bardon: ‘A History of Ulster’, p343). Rev William Breakey was appalled by the expressions of intense religious emotion, condemned by the ‘Lancet’ as “insane and indecent follies...evidence of a temporary unsettling of reason among the duped”.
Rev SJ Moore approvingly described the impact of his own preaching: “They fall as nerveless and paralysed, and powerless, as if killed instantly by a gun-shot. they fall with a deep groan - some with a wild cry of horror... the whole frame trembles like an aspen leaf, an intolerable weight is felt upon the chest, a choking sensation is experienced” (Bardon, pp343-4).
Here is a description of the prostrations, “when men and women, sometimes as great multitudes, would be struck down under the conviction and power of God crying out in agony of soul and would rise up again born of the Spirit, redeemed and forgiven. As well some fell into trances and others had visions”.
Do you accept that these are not justifiable methods of persuading anyone of a philosophy or opinion?
Complain about this comment
Jonathan *That's a pretty big claim. I imagine that for most evangelism the fear, uncertainty and doubt is probably experienced most by the evangelist!*
Agreed - but that does not mean they should then impose their views on others esp when coming from fear, uncertainity and doubt! I mean - why would you sign up to something sold by someone who is filled with fear, uncertainity and doubt??????
*In the church we usually bemoan the fact that so little evangelism is done and that people are too timid to share the gospel.*
Perhaps the people of the church are more aware than the preachers that it is wrong to impose one's views on others where they are not wanted/welcomed/open to discussion
**If God says something is wrong and we disagree with him, is it more likely that God is a bigot or that our view of morality is deviant? Does it even make sense to call God bigotted?
3) Does it make sense to disagree with God?**
How do you know for sure that you know what God says? The bible was not written by God but men along time ago....it has errors and it is not infallible as has been pointed out many times. Thus it is not a 100% foolproof indication of what God says.... so regurgitating it is past its sellby date - its overdone to the hilt. Please give me some other evidence that you know what God says that does not come from the Bible. If I took the bible away from you and you had never read it - would you know what God says??
**Homosexual activity is therefore a deviation from God's design. **
Sorry Jonathan but this is just nuts. We have all come from God - without exception. We all have God within us, love within us, everybody everywhere without exception has an essence of love in my view. Homosexuals are NOT deviations anymore than the rest of us are!
**Doesn't everyone want that to an extent? Though I'm not too sure about the values bit.**
No - I don't need people to agree with me or live as I live and I am very happy for them to make their own choices about what works and doesn't work for them. I am happy to share my views, what I have learned about the human condition, God etc and if they want to know more that's fine and if they don't that's fine. I know it is wrong for me to impose upon another and is harming to both myself and the other person. Do I get this right all of the time ?? No - but I'm learning! :-)
Complain about this comment
@Dave (112)
'I have never heard any rational reason which did not involve god, prejudice, statistical nonsense or plain nonsense.'
Ah, now that's a rather different claim.
'If you can give me any real and rational (non biblical) reasons why homosexual sex is wrong I would love to hear them.'
That's rather unnecessarily restrictive. Firstly it rests on a premise that biblical reasons aren't real and can't be rational, which I would dispute. Secondly, isn't it like asking a Muslim to justify their ethics without suing the Q'ran (I've probably spelt that wrong), a Jew to do so without reference to the Torah or a humanist without reference to the Golden Rule. As a Christian, I take my morality from God and therefore the Bible plays a major role in providing my moral basis. If I took the Bible out, I wouldn't be able to explain my morality. Nor would I want to.
'Why are you assuming, are you not sure that your heterosexual orientation exists. '
You're reading too much into it. I meant the phrase to indicate that I wasn't looking to start a debate in favour of against the concept of orientation. Looks like it had the opposite effect!
'Over time christians have managed to change their interpretation of the bible to show that god wasn't saying these things as they were obviously wrong and god cannot be wrong.'
The thing is that there are different types of claims that people take form the Bible. Some are more open to interpretation than others. Just because one interpretation which had been dominant in the past has been shown to be wrong, does not mean that another unrelated interpretation is necessarily wrong. That just wouldn't be logical. The driver for turning a biblical interpretation has to be a demonstration that the bible has been wrongly understood, rather than the demands of current culture.
'If god created us he made us gay.'
Everyone faces temptations. Some people are more pre-disposed towards certain actions than others, however it does not remove accountability for those actions. Indeed the Bible goes so far as to say that we are born into sin and that we are slaves to sin i.e. we have no ability to live without sin. That doesn't change the fact that God doesn't want us to sin.
Look at it this way. The Bible teaches that creation has universally been damaged by sin. What we see in nature therefore does not necessarily tell us how nature is supposed to be. We can't look at people's predispositions and assume God wants them to always be that way. Take for instance the bling man in John's gospel who people thought was blind because of either his sin or his parents'. Jesus said that he had been born blind so that God's glory could be displayed in his healing. Just because he was born blind doesn't mean that God wanted him to always be blind.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan : Sin as it is used does nothing but fill people with guilt that they are not good enough, they are bad, they are fallen etc and this is very damaging. It eats at their self-esteem, their self-respect and generally is very harming to the human person and their body.
The original word meant'to miss the mark' and this is much more gentle and does not carry the same baggage as sin. Especially when used in the context of knowing that we are love but we 'miss the mark' when we don't speak, think, act with love. This is just part and parcel of being human - and is not punished by God. There are however consequences due to laws of cause and effect.
The differences in these 2 perspectives are huge
In yours the person is seen to be flawed/damaged/bad in some irreparable way - that they have to trust or have faith in Jesus to be redeemed and need to repent etc. Meanwhile they continue oblivious as to how there thoughts/feelings about themselves as sinners is detrimentally impacting their health and wellbeing and they are totally unaware of their true nature. They have to place power in something outside of themselves that they need to trust will do it for them (heal).
Whereas in mine - the person is known to be love, already whole, already perfect and that there is nowhere to go. There is only the undoing of that which we are not - to reveal that which we are. Of course none of us have perfected the ways of love - so that is just accepted and it does not get punished by God. Knowing however, that our own lovelessness is the cause of our problems we can be empowered to make different choices, loving choices and heal ourselves.
Can you see the difference and see that one (yours) is disempowering and harming and the other (mine) is empowering and healing??
Complain about this comment
@Eunice (116)
'it is wrong to impose one's views on others where they are not wanted/welcomed/open to discussion'
There's a difference between evangelism and imposing views.
'How do you know for sure that you know what God says?'
How do you know?
'Please give me some other evidence that you know what God says that does not come from the Bible.'
Aren't you the one always justifying your views on the basis of what you feel in your own heart which is even less accessible and examinable than the Bible?
'If I took the bible away from you and you had never read it - would you know what God says??'
Probably not. Praise the Lord that he has revealed himself.
'Sorry Jonathan but this is just nuts.'
Eunice, I can't help but read your questions and apply them to what you say. And when I do, you know what? I come to exactly the same conclusion.
'We all have God within us'
How do you know that? How could I possibly come to know that?
Complain about this comment
Brian
I shall run the risk of agreeing with at least some of what you say. I am thinking of your interactions with Jonathan and posts 114 and 115 in particular.
The features of brainwashing you outline are, of course, a concern, and even if there is no deliberate attempt to influence a person we all know the power of music, emotion, chanting and so on. (Sometimes it’s called advertising, sometimes it’s called sport and sometimes it’s very, very clever and very, very potent.) Here I agree.
I agree too, that there are features of certain christian movements some of which go by the name evangelical which correspond to some of what you outline. Now, I am not suggesting that people are being deliberately influenced but what is pretty clear is that crowds can make people do strange things and there is the danger that people switch off and let others do their thinking for them.
I’ll pick up too on the 1859 ‘Revival’. I put revival in quotes because I had occasion during 2009 to suggest that perhaps the 1859 revival wasn’t a revival. I am familiar the kind of quotes you post and again I agree, I find them disturbing and, more than that, there is the irony that if they were to happen in a Presbyterian church in 2010 there would be a rush for the door. We all have our myths, and I suspect the ‘1859 Revival’ is one of them. Whether or not there was the deliberate stirring up of emotionalism I don't know, again it could have been a matter of crowd dynamics. But I agree, if preachers (or whoever) are setting out to whip up such hysteria then I for one if I have opportunity shall tell them to wise up, indeed I have had cause to object on a number of occasions. (self critique, H, my man!)
Now, on all this I agree. And yes, Christianity has had it’s fair share of weirdness.
However, there are also Christian churches based on democracy, on the accountability of committees and which are structured in such a way that makes it much more difficult for one individual to hold too much power. And, speaking historically, these checks and balances have been deliberate.There are not perfect but neither do they indulge in brainwashing.
Religion does not necessarily equal brainwashing.
And no, the end does not justify the means.
And I shall ignore your comment, "religious faith and evidence are mutually exclusive."!!
Complain about this comment
I agree that some religious believers have thought it out for themselves and have not been 'brainwashed'. Obviously, though, I think they are mistaken.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan: **There's a difference between evangelism and imposing views.**
1) There is? What is the difference please?
**'How do you know for sure that you know what God says?'
How do you know?**
2) You are not answering my question but evading it which suggests that you do not know for sure what God says.
**Please give me some other evidence that you know what God says that does not come from the Bible.'
Aren't you the one always justifying your views on the basis of what you feel in your own heart which is even less accessible and examinable than the Bible?**
3) Again you are turning this onto me and not answering the question - which again suggests that outside of the bible you have no idea what God says. Perhaps it is that which makes you cling onto the bible for dear life and say that this is the truth - because without it you are lost perhaps?
As for my heart - it is accessible although I have done a good job of keeping it in hiding for many years! And you can examine it all you want.
**Probably not. Praise the Lord that he has revealed himself.**
4) Reinforces point 3 - which is why you need the bible to be true and literally true or else you have no foundation. What if that revealing as it is in the bible has been hijacked and bastardised by mankind
**'We all have God within us'
How do you know that? How could I possibly come to know that?**
I know that as a combination of knowledge and experience - and each feeds the other. I know it to my bones, to the core of me - but of course it wasn't always like that and it has been and continues to be a journey - unfolding and evolving. If I can do it - anyone can. And because I know we are all made the same, all made equal I know that what is inside me, is also inside you and everyone else - an essence that is pure love.
You should have the knowledge because it is in the bible "The kingdom of God is within/inside you" Luke.
"Be still and Know that I am God". "Ye are all sons of the most high"
‘God is love, and he who lives in love lives in God and God in him’
and there are more references that could be used re wisdom of heart etc Also for example
Julian of NOrwich '‘he is the foundation from whom we have our life and our being’. 'God is in man'
‘be nothing at all between God and man’s soul. And in this endless love man’s soul is kept whole’
‘God is endless supreme truth, endless supreme wisdom, endless supreme love uncreated; and a man’s soul is a creature in God which has the same properties created.’
‘all our travail is because love is lacking on our side.'
…'that one loving soul by itself, through its love, may know for itself him who is incomparably more than sufficient to fill all souls that exist …..to know it for oneself is endless bliss(I would say joy); its contrary is endless pain.'
Cloud of Unknowing: ‘basic requirement is acceptance of one’s self and of God as one’s being’
‘it is by love that the soul enters into union with him’, for ‘by love he can be caught and held, but by thinking never.’
Often people don't have the experience and the first step then is to at least accept the knowledge that you are love, that the Kingdom of God/love is inside you- that God could not make you any less than love - for you are made from him with love, from love, in love. Accepting that can be a first step!
As for the experience - is the journey from the head to the heart and can take a bit of practice. A gentle breath exercise can help re-connect one back to the inner heart, stillness, love, joy. I dont think I can teach it over the blog though! Trusting what one feels rather than what one thinks - again this is a journey for most esp where we have shut down feelings. Making choices that are aligned with love, with self -care, self-respect, being gentle with oneself, what one eats/drinks etc - all of these things help build love in the body.
So you can know it for yourself - everybody can know it for themselves - so that you/they/we do not have to rely on words in a book , because it comes naturally from the love that is inside you, from God that is inside you.
Complain about this comment
@brianmcclinton (114-115)
'if an institution such as a school which seeks to educate the young, agrees with you and offers no alternative views, then that is a classic definition of indoctrination, whether religious or political'
Just so I'm understanding you correctly, you're defining indoctrination here as presenting one view without presenting any alternatives?
'Now, let’s turn to manipulation and blackmail. Do you think that some of this occurs here? And how?'
Do I think that people in Northern Ireland are manipulated or blackmailed?
'I outlined some common techniques of indoctrination as outlined by research and in classic texts, like ‘Battle for the Mind’. But then you kept asking me: “at what point does sharing sincerely held beliefs with others about to being pernicious? At what point does telling people about a matter of life and death become pernicious?”'
Really? As far as I can tell, you first mentioned 'Battle for the Mind' in post 100. you outlined some techniques in posts 85, 53 and 36, though it isn't clear whether these are techniques from Battle for the Mind or not. The only times where I mention the word 'pernicious' are in posts 43 and 49. I'm not quite sure how that fits with your chronology.
'What’s your answer to these questions, Jonathan? Where do you think the line lies?'
In order to act in a pernicious manner, then you have to intend or bring harm to the person you're speaking to, right? If we're talking about someone who sincerely believes the gospel and believes it as good news, then wanting someone else to believe in it isn't pernicious because the gospel itself isn't pernicious. The way to bring harm to a person would be to induce some sort of outward conformity to the gospel message without effecting any sort of inward heart change i.e. getting someone to live as if they were a Christian without actually developing a personal faith relationship with God. Encouraging a certain set of morals, conformity to a community or any other outward manifestation of 'good living' without inward personal faith would be harmful because it could leave a person thinking that they're a Christian when actually they aren't. This means that evangelism which focuses on modifying behaviour, rather than developing a relationship with Jesus Christ, would be pernicious.
'That means that we are trying to instil a belief in them without their being aware of it so that they accept it uncritically.'
I wouldn't regard that as evangelism in any proper Christian sense. I think that Christian evangelism by its very nature requires people to be aware of it, therefore anything which attempts to work on a sub-conscious nature wouldn't be authentic evangelism or an appropriate way to share the gospel.
'Sharing a sincerely held belief I take to mean simply stating what you believe to others. But we are discussing attempts to brainwash people ... Do you accept that this often happens?'
I accept that it happens, but 'often' isn't terribly well defined. I think that you've presented two poles on a fairly wide spectrum: passive statement of belief and hyper-aggressive brainwashing. In between you have all sorts of means of persuasion. Take what we're engaging in at the moment. We're not simply stating opinions; we're actively trying to persuade and convince each other of views. I imagine that most evangelism consists of some form of persuasion that has little to do with brain-washing.
''
'Are all routines bad, you asked. What on earth that question had to do with the topic is anybody’s guess.'
Possibly an attempt to find out which routines you think amount to indoctrination? Doesn't seem like too outlandish an idea, does it?
' You then went on a merry-go-round of chopped logic.'
What exactly is 'chopped' logic and what did the merry-go-round look like? Or is asking for further clarity on what constitutes an indoctrinating ritual in some way illogical? I thought that good discussion would be advanced by better understanding each other. Was I wrong to presume that?
'Do you believe yourself that routines and rituals can be used to indoctrinate? If so, what are they?'
I'm sure they can, but I'm not making the claim; you are. Find your own evidence.
'Too bad that you only want evidence when it suits you.'
Really? And where did this assertion come from? As I recall, you're the one one who couldn't be bothered giving evidence.
'It is a tad ironic that a Christian like you should be selectively demanding evidence'
Where was I selective? You do like making personal attacks don't you Brian? Tell me,
'when your whole faith is based on a total absence of same.'
Being unconvinced by evidence isn't the same thing as the evidence being absent.
'Indeed, religious faith and evidence are mutually exclusive.'
Really? Then I guess the Christian faith isn't religious. I'm curious, where did you get your definition of 'religious faith' from? Is it impossible for there to be evidence for religious faith? Is this the kind of open-minded that you wrote about in point 3 of the Humanist Ethical Code? You know, the place where you encourage people to 'Be Sceptical, Yet Open-Minded.' Perhaps it's time to go back and rewrite the code?
'Anyway, we’ll let that pass for the moment.'
Really? Then what was the preceding paragraph. You can't have your cake and eat it Brian. If you commented on it, then you didn't let it past.
'though I must say I’m surprised that you haven’t read any of them. '
Really? And why would I be expected to have read them? I'm not planning on doing any indoctrination, neither is it something I run into much. I didn't study the subject and have no personal interest in it. What made you think I would have read them? Clearly there must be a good reason, after all you felt compelled to note your surprise.
'Are you happy just that people believe in a god and Jesus, irrespective of how they arrived at that belief Do you believe that the end justifies the means?'
I've answered that above. Certain means prevent people from arriving at the end.
'I shall cut to the chase and spell it out in neon lights so that even you can get the point.'
Even I? How thoughtful Brian! I guess this must be a practical demonstration of point 7 of the Humanist Ethical Code - 'Be Loving and Kind'. Or were you thinking of point 8 - 'Help The Weak And Needy'? Tell be Brian, which particular need or weakness is it you're addressing my spelling things out in way that even I will understand?
'Any kind of effective indoctrination works best when people get drawn into the thought system a step at a time. It's a kind of seduction process, and leaders and recruiters use a powerful combination of social and psychological influence techniques that are meant to hinder and break down a person’s thinking abilities and sense of self, so that the person can no longer evaluate what is happening. Over time the result of these techniques and pressures is to transform the person into a deployable agent for the leader and/or message.'
This sounds like it would have to be a fairly meticulous thing, right? Very deliberately planned to deceive and manipulate the victim?
'Brainwashing is essentially a behaviour modification programme that works to change a person's patterns of thinking and perceptions of the world, and it needs to be continually reinforced. This is why recruits are often separated from their normal reality, and put through such rigorous daily routines and rituals. '
Cut off from the world, essentially. Told to no longer be in it?
'The routines and rituals include long hours of chanting, meditating, listening to droning lectures and mild forms of trance induction that again, reduce the person's ability to think clearly. Much of this is aimed at attacking the person's sense of self, getting them to doubt their own instinct and judgment, inducing fear, anxiety, and guilt, and creating the series of crises so that the person has to choose over and over again, for the belief. In the Heaven's Gate cult, they did such things as: mate members go through various disciplines and rituals over long periods of time; for example, sleep for 4 hours, be awake for 4 hours, sleep for 4 hours, be awake for 4 hours for months on end....be on liquid diets for months on end, remain sequestered with hoods on their faces so they couldn't see each other for months on end."'
Sounds frightfully awful. I'll be sure to be on the lookout for that.
'Other routines and rituals include: '
The four examples you include, is intent an important part of whether it is considered brainwashing?
'Now, instead of gobbleydook which seems to be intended to question whether religions indoctrinate AT ALL'
Really? Who was doing that?
'perhaps you can inform us, at length if you like, what kind of religious indoctrination annoys you'
I'm not sure I really see the value in that beyond what I've already said. I'm not particularly interested in arguing that religious indoctrination takes place. I'm more interested in saying that evangelism doesn't have to fall under that category, and that authentic Christian evangelism won't.
'That would be more interesting than your roundabout defence of faith at all costs.'
I'm sorry Brian, but the only way I can explain this statement is that you must be having dreams about me. While it's rather flattering to imagine that you dream about debating me, I'm not sure it's healthy for you. Perhaps you need a holiday?
Regarding the 1859 Revival, there is healthy debate about the nature of events and whether they were genuine or not. It was on my Irish Church History course, but that's the one week I missed due to illness and I never really got round to reading up properly on it so I don't feel that I could give an informed answer about those specific events. However I can make the general observation that trying to persuade anyone by means of deception is wrong.
Complain about this comment
@Eunice (122
'1) There is? What is the difference please?'
Imposing your views on someone means forcing them to believe or conform in some way to what you believe. Evangelism doesn't require that this happen and indeed I would argue that where it is accompanied by force, it isn't authentic evangelism. If we look for instance at the book of Acts, which surely is the definitive record of Christian evangelism, it is the evangelists who are usually the victims of force. They simply spoke to people.
'2) You are not answering my question but evading it which suggests that you do not know for sure what God says.'
It's more that I was struggling to take the question seriously from someone who constantly refers to their own heart as the source of revelation. You're awfully nice Eunice and I respect your tenacity, but the question just seemed loaded with irony given that none of us can test your claims whereas at least the Bible is available to everyone.
If you want a proper answer, I'd say that I am persuaded of the historicity of the resurrection. I believe that Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead and in doing so validated the many claims he made. If he is God, then I'm fairly confident of the Bible's status as his revelation to mankind. That's the short version.
'Again you are turning this onto me and not answering the question'
Again, it's the irony thing.
'which again suggests that outside of the bible you have no idea what God says.'
Not quite, but close. I think we can learn a bit about God from the world around us, but specific details are going to be in the Bible. It's possible for God to work in other ways, through angels of the work of the Holy Spirit, but the normative way for him to reveal himself seems to be through the Bible. It is his chosen means of revelation, particularly with regards to salvation and discipleship, as far as Christians understand it.
'Perhaps it is that which makes you cling onto the bible for dear life and say that this is the truth - because without it you are lost perhaps? '
Thanks for the long distance psychological examination Eunice, but I cling to the Bible because I believe it to be true.
'As for my heart - it is accessible although I have done a good job of keeping it in hiding for many years! And you can examine it all you want.'
How would I do that?
'which is why you need the bible to be true and literally true or else you have no foundation'
Don't see your logical chain of thought here Eunice. If I was making up means of revelation, wouldn't I make things a lot easier on myself if I imagines multiple means of revelation?
'What if that revealing as it is in the bible has been hijacked and bastardised by mankind'
Hypotheticals are a little pointless unless there is good reason to think that they could be true. You may as well ask 'What if I'm really Elvis, but had extensive plastic surgery and a memory wipe so that I think that may name is Eunice?'
More seriously, if the Bible was demonstrably wrong, then Christianity would be wrong. Paul himself wrote that Christians are to be pitied above all others if the resurrection was proven false.
'I know that as a combination of knowledge and experience - and each feeds the other. I know it to my bones, to the core of me'
So basically, it's nothing but a gut feeling. A hunch?
'If I can do it - anyone can.'
Do what? Have a gut feeling?
'You should have the knowledge because it is in the bible'
Hang on, are you saying you trust the Bible now? Why do you regard this au authoritative, but not what Luke says about the resurrection?
'"The kingdom of God is within/inside you" Luke. '
A clearer translation would be more along the lines of 'in your midst.' Jesus was talking to Pharisees who he was rather unlikely to say had the kingdom in them. Rather he was saying that the kingdom was present. Regardless, the kingdom is not the same as the king.
'"Be still and Know that I am God"'
Telling people to stop what they're doing is not an indication that God lives in their hearts.
'"Ye are all sons of the most high"'
Luke 6:35? It's 'will be' not 'are'.
Alternatively if it's Psalms 82:8, then the Psalmist is speaking to other gods, telling them that they're going to be dethroned.
'‘God is love, and he who lives in love lives in God and God in him’'
That's a conditional statement, rather than an assurance that God already lives in our hearts.
If you want a reference about the heart and wisdom from the Bible, try Proverbs where we're told that it is deceitful above all things.
Sorry Eunice, but given a choice between the Bible and your gut feeling, I'm going to stake my life on the Bible.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan:
**They simply spoke to people.**
many evangelists do not do this - I can go to B'mena and find people blaring down a megaphone about being a sinner and needing to be saved - this is not simply speaking to people. It is imposing and should be abolished.
**but the question just seemed loaded with irony given that none of us can test your claims whereas at least the Bible is available to everyone.**
I am available to everyone!! haha :-) if they so choose..... and you can test it for yourself its not about what I say, its coming to know it for yourself.
**but the normative way for him to reveal himself seems to be through the Bible. It is his chosen means of revelation, particularly with regards to salvation and discipleship, as far as Christians understand it.**
Needless to say - I disagree. The normative way is through the heart and soul of every person - just that many dont know this and/or choose to not live from there as we are not taught/demonstrated it etc. THe bible is a book - made of paper, you are a Son of God, living with love in your heart that you can call upon to answer all questions. Yes - that is a journey, an unfolding etc it doesn't happen overnight.
**I cling to the Bible because I believe it to be true.**
there should no need to cling. ANd it's not about belief although often that's how it starts. It's about knowing. I know the bible is not 100% accurate. I know God is love and you are love (and everyone else)......I don't believe it.
**How would I do that?**
you have been doing it all along - even though you may not have called it that!
**More seriously, if the Bible was demonstrably wrong, then Christianity would be wrong. Paul himself wrote that Christians are to be pitied above all others if the resurrection was proven false.**
It's not about the resurrection of the body in my view - the body is a vehicle for the spirit and soul. It is mortal. That does not mean it is not important - it is - it reveals all our choices and is the marker of truth.
SO even if it was 100% proven that the bible or the interpretation of the bible is wrong re resurrection of the body - it wouldn't matter one bit. It is the spirit that carries on. ALso it's not about what happens at death - but what we do during life and how we live - because that influences our next life on earth etc.
**So basically, it's nothing but a gut feeling. A hunch?**
Now Jonathan - is your heart in your gut???? I seriously hope not!! I never mentioned the word gut!!! Of course its not a gut feeling nor a hunch. The inner heart is the greatest source of love and joy - nothing on the outside can beat it. This is what you can come to know (along with some other things - like who you really are!)
**Hang on, are you saying you trust the Bible now? Why do you regard this au authoritative, but not what Luke says about the resurrection?**
I have said all along the bible contains wisdom and folly, truth and untruth and it is for each person to discern what they accept or not. FOr me it is what is aligned with a God of love and also by my own experience and knowledge from other sources. The resurrection for me is spiritual - not physical.
*
**A clearer translation would be more along the lines of 'in your midst.' **
Why do any translation?? It's pretty clear as it stands. Your interpretation is just fudge. Also you can come to know this for yourself - not just because I or anyone (even Jesus) says so.
**Telling people to stop what they're doing is not an indication that God lives in their hearts.**
Again you can come to know this by your own experience, your own stillness.
**That's a conditional statement, rather than an assurance that God already lives in our hearts.**
God lives in our hearts but if we don't choose the ways of love then he is not lived, not expressed in all that we do, say and think. SO for God to be lived, to be expressed, we have to choose to live in love and according to the ways of love.
**If you want a reference about the heart and wisdom from the Bible, try Proverbs where we're told that it is deceitful above all things.**
There are many that say otherwise and in other traditions as well. There is also a distinction between the heart and the inner heart. Again one has to use discernment.
*Sorry Eunice, but given a choice between the Bible and your gut feeling, I'm going to stake my life on the Bible.**
I am certainly not asking you to choose my gut feelings!!! I don't choose them myself!! It's not about what I say or my experience, it's about coming to know (not believe but know) this for yourself Jonathan - that you are love, that nothing can harm or destroy that love, that you are a son of God and you cannot be made less by God but we make ourselves less through our own loveless choices and believing falsities like we are sinners going to hell or that we are not good enough, we are bad, and on and on with all the misbeliefs and misperceptions that we carry about ourselves. Of course it is your choice and you are free to choose which ever path you like. Perhaps read 118 again and let me know if you can feel the difference in the 2 choices.
Complain about this comment
@Eunice (125)
'many evangelists do not do this'
Many is not the same as well. I don't deny that some evangelists are imposing, but you didn't seem to think that there was a difference between evangelism and being imposing. Are you happy enough that evangelism can be done in a way that isn't imposing?
'It is imposing and should be abolished.'
What do you mean by abolished? Made illegal?
'I am available to everyone!! haha :-) if they so choose..... and you can test it for yourself'
How exactly do I rest it though Eunice? You haven't been at all clear about that.
'its not about what I say, its coming to know it for yourself.'
How can I come to know something without being told it?
'Needless to say - I disagree.'
Actually it is a bit needless. You were asking where I go for truth about God and I was giving an answer. Everything you've said in reply yo had already said. I could have said absolutely anything and you would have come back with the same reply. Are you actually planning to engage with anything I see Eunice, or is it a case of just repeating your mantras?
'there should no need to cling.'
I was just using your own words.
'ANd it's not about belief although often that's how it starts. It's about knowing.'
Tell me Eunice, what is the difference between believing and knowing and how do you make that transition?
'you have been doing it all along - even though you may not have called it that!'
That answers absolutely nothing. How would I examine your heart?
'SO even if it was 100% proven that the bible or the interpretation of the bible is wrong re resurrection of the body - it wouldn't matter one bit. It is the spirit that carries on.'
Eunice, you asked me a hypothetical question about the Bible and my beliefs. Why are you telling me about your beliefs? What exactly was the point of the question you asked?
'Of course its not a gut feeling nor a hunch. The inner heart is the greatest source of love and joy - nothing on the outside can beat it. This is what you can come to know (along with some other things - like who you really are!) '
Sounds like a gut feeling to me. Something you've just decided is true and don't have any external reason to justify it.
'I have said all along the bible contains wisdom and folly, truth and untruth and it is for each person to discern what they accept or not. FOr me it is what is aligned with a God of love and also by my own experience and knowledge from other sources. The resurrection for me is spiritual - not physical.'
Well Eunice, we can't both be right, so this whole 'for me' thing is a bit of a nonsense. And in order to discern things, you need a reliable measure. What makes your heart reliable? What makes your experiences reliable? What makes your definition of love reliable?
'Why do any translation??'
Because the New Testament was written in Greek and you were writing in English. What you quoted had been translated. I was offering another, more precise translation.
'Your interpretation is just fudge.'
Translation, Eunice, not interpretation. How is your Koine Greek? I don't think that 'it's just fudge' really amounts to any sort of counter-argument.
'Again you can come to know this by your own experience, your own stillness.'
Eunice, you've utterly misunderstood the passage.
'There are many that say otherwise and in other traditions as well. There is also a distinction between the heart and the inner heart. Again one has to use discernment.'
You talk about things that have to be done, but don't explain how they are done or why they are trustworthy.
'It's not about what I say or my experience'
Doesn't come across that way Eunice. After all, you did ask me to examine your heart.
'Perhaps read 118 again and let me know if you can feel the difference in the 2 choices.'
I've read it and it was full of misunderstandings. For a start, there are several words for sin in the Bible, in various languages, so limiting it to 'missing the mark' is wrong. Saying that that is a gentle thing is also an error when you don't have the context for what the mark is, what the consequences for missing it are and what the context for any instance of its use it.
Complain about this comment
Natman
ref 110.
Personally I dont have any doubts. If you seek God with all your heart he will be found.
As for Japan, it doesnt actually undermine my argument does it.
Their values are actually very similar to the nations I describe, similar to uk/europe/us and israel.
Other nations in history have built impressive civilisations, by my understanding using conscience as a guide, which does take you back to God.
OT
Complain about this comment
Dave
Im not actually suggesting that the Catholic church, in practise, is favourable to this message.
I find it hard to believe how an organisation which has covered up child abuse systematically from the very top in written policy can have much in common with the Christ if the gospels.
That is not to judge the actual faith of laity in that church though.
True enough some "Christian" institutions have confused the gospel for theocracy. That does not refute the gospel though.
OT
Complain about this comment
JOnathan - did you get out of the wrong side of bed this morning?? :-)
Are you happy enough that evangelism can be done in a way that isn't imposing?
I have no experience of it being that way and to my understanding trying to persuade someone who has not asked for a discussion/debate etc as we are doing .....is imposing. Telling someone they have to believe this or else .... is threatening and imposing.
What do you mean by abolished? Made illegal?
no - it was a quick response - I just wish people would realise the harm they are doing (to themselves and others) and stop doing it themselves.
How exactly do I rest it though Eunice? You haven't been at all clear about that.
On here it would be by the things I say is one example - I am not condemning people (usually!), I endeavour not to judge but am certainly not perfect in that! By how I live and treat people - again I am not perfect but its not about perfection. That although I write alot about love on here its about how I bring that into my life - are my words and actions congruent and consistent. This for me is a journey and as I've said i'm not perfect and it is easier to write than live but that's what I endeavour to do.
How can I come to know something without being told it?
Jonathan are you married? Do you love your wife? (assuming you have one)
If you don't have one - pick someone you love eg parent etc
So if you love this person
do you believe you love them or
do you know you love them??
Did anyone have to tell you that you love them or is this something that you have come to for yourself without anyone telling you?
Now depending on the answer
Do you think that you believe/know you love them or
Do you feel that you believe/know you love them?
I'll say more when I have your answers.
Tell me Eunice, what is the difference between believing and knowing and how do you make that transition?
this comes into above so I'll leave til your answers and expand then
How would I examine your heart?
partly covered above - by feeling if my words/actions/deeds correspond with love or that which is not love. But it's not that simple either - because where you are at, your conditioning, beliefs etc can influence your interpretation - but underneath that your love and my love are the same - for love is love. We have human emotional love which is a bit different!
Eunice, you asked me a hypothetical question about the Bible and my beliefs. Why are you telling me about your beliefs? What exactly was the point of the question you asked?
Jonathan - it's called discussing - you answer a question, I read it and respond according to what you have said - so I was explaining perhaps not very clearly why in my view Christians would not need to be pitied if the bible was wrong.
Eunice, you asked me a hypothetical question about the Bible and my beliefs. Why are you telling me about your beliefs? What exactly was the point of the question you asked?
I'm getting lost in the questions!!
You tell me your views and I as part of the discussion counter with my views!
If it was the question re the bible being hijacked/bastardised - then it was just for you to consider 'what if' that is true and that the bible is not 100% accurate ...how would that impact you?
Sounds like a gut feeling to me. Something you've just decided is true and don't have any external reason to justify it.
It may sound like that to you - but I assure you it is not. The wisdom teachings say 'be a lamp unto yourself', 'know thyself' etc
I feel what resonates with me as truth - this is unfolding. Not truth itself unfolding, but my ability to feel what is truth that unfolds.
AN external reason is not needed as such to justify it but living it brings its own understandings and experiences in the external world that verify it - so one lives with more love/joy/harmony/less emotionality etc
Well Eunice, we can't both be right, so this whole 'for me' thing is a bit of a nonsense. And in order to discern things, you need a reliable measure. What makes your heart reliable? What makes your experiences reliable? What makes your definition of love reliable?
True, we can't both be right - at least we agree on that :-)
It's also not about 'me'. It's about God and manifesting the love of God on earth. For me to know God and do that (manifest the love of God on earth) I have to know me - so that is part of the journey. But once me is known, God is known, then its about service with love and joy, with God - without perfection and without false/fake joy/love, without imposing.
Re reliable: comes down to feeling .... we feel all of the time and for me it is a journey getting re acquainted with what I am feeling etc so it takes practice and I will get it wrong/mess it up etc as that unfolds....but the more that I have discarded that which I am not, then the more I am able to feel that which I am and live according to that. The body is the marker of truth - it never lies. So if we are not feeling joy, love harmony etc then we are in separation to God. The more I live according to what I know to be true that feeds my experience. It is by putting the teachings into practice that one finds out for oneself whether they are reliable or not.
Eunice, you've utterly misunderstood the passage.
In your eyes Jonathan that may be true. But that one line says it all - come to know yourself in stillness, as stillness and then see what you say.
You talk about things that have to be done, but don't explain how they are done or why they are trustworthy.
In one word - feeling. The trust comes, the more we live according to what we feel in the body rather than think in the head. We are energetic beings, we feel all of the time, we are interconnected with all that is....so it is about learning to feel and trust what we feel. At the same time there is the un-doing of all that we have accumulated that is not us in truth - false beliefs, false perceptions etc
Doesn't come across that way Eunice. After all, you did ask me to examine your heart.
Jonathan that was in response to you saying that my heart was less examinable than the bible! ANd I said you can examine it all you want - slightly different to asking you too. But anyway that's not the point - yes of course I will share my experiences, my views on here like everyone else - but what i am saying is that for me it is about people coming to know these things for themselves if they so choose - not about just relying on the words/experience of another or a book.
As for the last paragraph - that is a head response. I asked if I recall correctly to see if you could feel the differences. NOt give me what your understanding is - just read and feel in your heart/body what happens when you read each one. SO for example, might be a feeling of joy or sadness, or feel lighter or heavier, or a whole myriad of different feelings are possible - is there any difference in what you feel inside when you read each one (without thinking whether it is right or wrong or analysing it!)
Enjoy :-)
Complain about this comment
Brian Thomas (@88) -
You are right in saying that God is a God of love...but He is also a God of justice and he punishes sin.
Why the word 'but'? You seem to be implying that the 'justice' of God is somehow unrelated or in contradistinction (perhaps even contradiction) to the 'love' of God. I take the view that this is a dualistic idea of the character of God (which actually reflects pagan philosophy) and is not a scriptural view, but, alas, is at the heart of so-called 'reformed theology'. The Bible makes clear that the 'love of God' is the basis of the law: Romans 13:10 and Matthew 22:37-40. Those who are judged have rejected the love of God, not simply been on the receiving end of God's wrath due to the effect of so-called 'original sin' (meditate on Isaiah 5:3-4, if you don't understand what I mean - God takes the initiative, and only judges after his initiative has been clearly and unequivocally rejected. Damnation is therefore never the starting point in any life. I could quote many more scriptures to support this view).
For those who trust Jesus as their Saviour there is salvation but for those who don't there is judgement.
Are you saying that people are judged for moral reasons, spiritual reasons, religious reasons or intellectual reasons - some of them or all of them? The judgement of Matthew 25:31-46 looks suspiciously moral to me, and nothing to do with all the other categories (except 'spiritual', depending on how you define the word).
Also you need to define what you mean by "trusting in Jesus as their Saviour".
Many Evangelicals give the impression that only those who consciously accept Jesus as their Saviour will avoid suffering the default judgment of being thrown into hell. The concept of the 'uniqueness of Jesus Christ' is interpreted to mean 'the uniqueness of the human conscious acceptance of Jesus Christ' - a common example of evangelical double-talk. The two statements have no logical relationship at all. Jesus can be the actual and active unique Saviour of someone who is completely ignorant of him.
I remember after the death of Princess Di, when certain Christians were thoroughly exercised as to the post-mortem fate of the tragic lady, that someone in my fellowship made the comment that if she were saved "it would undermine the uniqueness of Christ" (or words to that effect). This was based on the assumption that Diana had failed to "become a Christian" (in the proper evangelical sense) before she died. What he meant was that her supposed failure to consciously accept Christ meant that Jesus was not allowed to have mercy on her, as her thought processes were an affront to his unique identity. This is clearly utter rabid nonsense.
Does the Bible support my argument? As a matter of fact it does. Read the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The victim was lying beaten up by the side of the road. The Samaritan comes along and simply saves him. Does he ask the victim whether he wants to be helped? Perhaps the victim is even unconscious. Does the Samaritan think to himself: "It would not be theologically and soteriologically correct for me to help this man if I cannot get his active agreement. Perhaps I ought to try to rouse him and get a signature off him or a response to my evangelistic appeal, in order to be assured that his free-will is being respected." Of course not. The Samaritan helps him, irrespective of whether the poor chap is conscious or not.
(I am well aware that there will be those who may feel the urge to twist this example and possibly use it to support the doctrine of double predestination with its denial of the role of free-will - an idea flatly contradicted by 1 Timothy 2:4).
So the Samaritan was this man's 'unique saviour' in this context, and yet there is no requirement for the wounded man to consciously 'believe in him'. Do you get my point?
Here's another example from the ministry of Jesus.
In Matthew 16:13-20 Jesus asked his disciples: "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" And they replied, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Then Jesus asked as to their view of him. Peter confessed that Jesus was "The Christ, the Son of the living God."
Now what is interesting here is that Jesus then commanded his disciples not to divulge this information to anyone. In other words, Jesus was perfectly happy to allow people to believe that he was merely a prophet, and yet this was no bar to him healing and blessing the multitudes, as we read in the Gospels. Clearly this shows that 'correct belief in the identity of Jesus Christ' cannot be a necessary condition to receiving the love and salvation of God. But I doubt this irrefutable insight from the Bible would be taught in most evangelical churches! (Or it would probably be dismissed as just characteristic of a different dispensation - now expired, which, of course, implies that we should now pay no attention to anything Jesus did or said during his ministry on earth!)
(For those who have managed to read this far, let me just say that I am well aware that some of you regard the Bible as merely a cunningly redacted fabrication - the product of a highly implausible religious conspiracy. I realise that you have to believe that in order to be faithful to your own materialistic philosophy of life. I take the view that the Bible constitutes a terribly incompetent example of redaction - not to mention public relations, if that is the case. But anyway, my argument still holds true. The Bible says certain things, which are, by reason of their controversy, grotesquely neglected by those who claim the Bible as their authority.)
So what are the implications of all this for evangelism? Perhaps a bit more humility, grace and understanding towards the proverbial 'non-Christian?
Complain about this comment
Hi Jonathan, why don't you ask Eunice where she gets all of her theories from? I've asked her a couple of times but she's avoided to answer.
Natmans avoided one or two himself.
It's apparent that all they wish do is try and challenge the truth of word of God...they have misinterpreted it also.
It is a reflection of what happened in Genesis, chapter 3.
Complain about this comment
Brian Thomas : I answered that I have read widely - from many different faiths, many different books, also Ageless Wsidom teachings and esoteric philosophy and my own experience of course comes into it.
I am not challenging the truth of word of God - just how you understand and interpret it and also I have said that for me the bible is not 100% truth. I challenge evil - that which separates people from their essence of love and to my understanding and experience telling people they are sinners going to hell does just that and is false. You are free to carry on believing it - but that does not make it correct - no matter how many times it is in the bible! :-)
Complain about this comment
#131, #132
My guess was Eckhart Tolle.
:-)
Complain about this comment
OT , your post in #108 -
"The nations of this world that have had a love affair with this gospel are cooincidentally the same cultures which have the highest standards of freedom of speech, work ethic, freedom of thought, human rights and standards of living.
The nations of this world that have never embraced this message have the opposite."
Your post in #127
"As for Japan, it doesnt actually undermine my argument does it.
Their values are actually very similar to the nations I describe, similar to uk/europe/us and israel.
Other nations in history have built impressive civilisations, by my understanding using conscience as a guide, which does take you back to God."
I don't recall Japan ever embracing the Christian doctrine, in fact, it's got one of the lowest percentage of Christian populations in the world. So Japan not only undermines your argument, it entirely destroys it. It's direct proof that a high standard of living and a strong social conscience is entirely independant of having a Christian history.
And as far as I'm concerned, a conscience is a product of evolution, a sense of social altrusism designed to increase your chances of producing healthy and viable offspring in a secure social group. There's been a lot of research done on the benefits of altruism in an evolutionary setting. How much research have you done with regards your opinions that all conscience is sourced from a god?
Brian, Brian, Brain, if I have avoided something, then I do apologise, this is a busy blog and I don't like to spam it up with multi-page long posts. However, I've also started to ignore arguments of authority (to which I cannot respond with anything other than 'you're wrong'), absolute insistance that the bible is some kind of final authority (it's not, not to me) and subjective 'if you only pray, with all your heart' comments, as they're innane and pointless to an atheist. I could respond with 'if you go and sit in a quiet room, and think about nothing, you'll soon realise there is no god', but it wouldn't achieve anything, would it?
Complain about this comment
ScotchMan - I have read ET but that does not form part of my current philosophy and I have a very different understanding of that work now.
NAtman - that's funny re I could respond with 'if you go and sit in a quiet room, and think about nothing, you'll soon realise there is no god',
I could say all of that and end up with you'll realise there is a God!! haha Such is life eh ......
Complain about this comment
You just don't like being hit with the truth Natman...that's why you don't answer those touchy questions.
Eunice...don't put your all your trust in all these philosophies...man doesn't have all the answers...God does...in the Bible.
Complain about this comment
Brian (#136),
Hit by the truth? You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you, entered your house, rifled through the drawers, made a sandwich and then left a note telling you it'd called.
They're not 'touchy', I deem them pointless. If you want to go for 'touchy' then explain to me why your god is more plausible and 'true' than Odin, or Zeus, or Gannesh.
Also, you ignored my posts in previous threads concerning the complete lack of references in the bible to satan being an angel and so on. Was that being hit by the truth too?
Your accusations are slightly insulting to me, as it implies you know me better than myself. Such subjective comments are either well meaning but ignorant, or calculated trolling. I'm not sure which is worse.
Complain about this comment
BrianT: thanks for the advice - I'm doing just fine and I know where God is! :-)
Complain about this comment
Jonathan (123):
In post 85 I defined religious indoctrination as “essentially promoting a one-sided opinion as being truthful, without allowing access to other ideas and with no reservation in calling it, unjustifiably, the ‘truth' ... It aims to ensure that the indoctrinated person does not question or critically examine the doctrine they have inculcated. The NI RE syllabus is a good example. It focus almost exclusively on Christianity, yet it is the only subject in which children directly learn about philosophies of life. How unfair to the child is that? RE should be replaced by Philosophy, which include both religious and secular worldviews”.
Could you tell me what you disagree with here in this definition? How do you define indoctrination and do you accept that it occurs in ‘religious education’ in NI? Do you think that RE in NI should continue as it is? Recently, under pressure from other faiths, it was tweaked to include two other world religions besides Christianity at Key Stage 3. Before, only Christianity was mandatory. Do you agree that that previous stipulation was enshrining indoctrination? And do you agree that including two other world religions at ONE stage of a child’s education is a slight improvement? And do you agree that it is only a slight one, and that the RE syllabus needs to move further to encompass ALL the major world religions and secular worldviews?
Complain about this comment
I see your getting touchy again natman..the answers...my friend...are in the Bible...but sure your scared to read it or acknowledge it....
You say you have read it...well if you had then there's a complete lack of understanding...your heart is as hard as concrete.
Jesus Christ is God...His existence has been proven...His resurrection too...
Don't try and throw this smokescreen about Thor and the rest.
Eunice...I think your largely mistaken....big time mistaken!
Complain about this comment
@brianmcclinton
'How do you define indoctrination and do you accept that it occurs in ‘religious education’ in NI?'
More questions? You asked me a lot of questions in posts 114 and 115. In good faith I responded in post 123. Before we move on to more questions, how about you engage with what I've written? After all this, is supposed to be a two-way discussion, not a one-way interrogation. How about we start with the issue of what is pernicious. You asked me what where I thought the line lies on that - now that I've given an answer, don't you think it would be appropriate to respond?
I'd also like an answer to my questions about chopped logic and selective evidence. Don't you think it's a little rude to insult someone then refuse to explain why you did it?
Actually, going back to look at post 123, I'm struggling to see how you've acknowledged me typing it at all. I'm beginning to wonder if you even read my posts Brian. After all you're asking for a response to post 85, which I've already given you in post 91:
"Promoting a one-sided opinion as being truthful - don't see what is bad about this in of itself. Repeating a fact by itself isn't indoctrination, so I'm assuming this isn't the core issue.
without allowing access to other ideas - this seems like more of an issue. Are you distinguishing here between allowing someone access to other ideas without actually putting them foreword, and actively presenting someone with a range of options?
and with no reservation in calling it, unjustifiably, the 'truth' - how do you determine what is justified? Who tells a parent what they are justified in presenting as the truth?"
You replied to me in post 100, declining to address the specifics of what I said because you found it 'tiresome trying to unravel your misrepresentations and contortions.' If you're interested in actually having a discussion now, then that's great, but don't forget to read and not just write.
Complain about this comment
@Eunice (129)
'I have no experience of it being that way'
But do you accept or deny that it can be that way? I have no experience of Muslim evangelism, but I'm fairly sure that it can be done in ways that aren't imposing.
' to my understanding trying to persuade someone who has not asked for a discussion/debate etc as we are doing .....is imposing. '
Are you suggesting you can't talk to someone about a subject unless they bring it up first? If so, how can they bring it up if they don't know about it? Or, more significantly, how can anyone start a conversation if a condition for talking about a subject is that someone has already talked about it?
'Telling someone they have to believe this or else .... is threatening and imposing. '
If real consequences exist for not believing or not doing something, is it wrong to inform someone of those consequences? Wouldn't it be unloving to not inform people of negative consequences?
'no - it was a quick response - I just wish people would realise the harm they are doing (to themselves and others) and stop doing it themselves.'
So it's more a response to the consequences then the method?
'On here it would be by the things I say is one example - I am not condemning people (usually!), I endeavour not to judge but am certainly not perfect in that! By how I live and treat people - again I am not perfect but its not about perfection. That although I write alot about love on here its about how I bring that into my life - are my words and actions congruent and consistent. This for me is a journey and as I've said i'm not perfect and it is easier to write than live but that's what I endeavour to do.'
But how does your life tell me anything about God or the truth claims that you make? Plenty of people live upstanding lives, but make different claims to you. Surely actions alone can't de used to discern truth.
'So if you love this person
do you believe you love them or
do you know you love them??'
There's a difference between knowing my own subjective emotions and knowing objective facts. And to a extent, even the things I know about myself are simply strongly held beliefs. The difference is simply a matter of conviction.
'partly covered above - by feeling if my words/actions/deeds correspond with love or that which is not love. But it's not that simple either - because where you are at, your conditioning, beliefs etc can influence your interpretation - but underneath that your love and my love are the same - for love is love. We have human emotional love which is a bit different!'
Eunice, we define love very differently, so I fail to see that helps.
'Jonathan - it's called discussing - you answer a question, I read it and respond according to what you have said - so I was explaining perhaps not very clearly why in my view Christians would not need to be pitied if the bible was wrong.'
When I answer a question I sometimes struggle to see how your response relates to the question you asked, or moves the discussion forwards.
'It may sound like that to you - but I assure you it is not.'
That's rather the problem though isn't it? It all comes back to you Eunice. There's nothing I can look at, nobody I can speak to, etc. that would allow me to test out what you're saying. I would have to take you at your word. If you died and rose from the dead, then I'd have reason to start trusting you, but until that happens, I'll trust the guy who did.
'Re reliable: comes down to feeling'
As I said then, it's all a gut feeling. You can't get much less reliable than feelings.
'In your eyes Jonathan that may be true. But that one line says it all - come to know yourself in stillness, as stillness and then see what you say. '
That's a fairly non-sensical statement that has nothing to do with the verse you quoted.
I must confess Eunice that it's getting to the point where I wonder if you're just a very skilled wind up merchant who's trying to see how exasperated you can get a few Christians/Atheists.
Complain about this comment
@LSV (130)
'Many Evangelicals give the impression that only those who consciously accept Jesus as their Saviour will avoid suffering the default judgment of being thrown into hell. The concept of the 'uniqueness of Jesus Christ' is interpreted to mean 'the uniqueness of the human conscious acceptance of Jesus Christ' - a common example of evangelical double-talk. The two statements have no logical relationship at all. Jesus can be the actual and active unique Saviour of someone who is completely ignorant of him.'
'“The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.'
Romans 10:8-17
I struggle to see how Romans could be interpreted in a way that is consistent with what you say.
'Does the Bible support my argument? As a matter of fact it does. Read the Parable of the Good Samaritan. ... The Samaritan helps him, irrespective of whether the poor chap is conscious or not.'
That parable is an answer to the question 'who is my neighbour,' not 'what must I do to be saved.' It's teaching about how we as humans should treat other, not who God saves. Ethics rather than soteriology.
'Clearly this shows that 'correct belief in the identity of Jesus Christ' cannot be a necessary condition to receiving the love and salvation of God.'
In order to be clear, wouldn't there have to be some context which indicates that his command to withhold the information is related to salvation? Surely LSV you are not unaware that Jesus frequently commanded his identity to be concealed prior to the crucifixion so that people wouldn't try and turn him into the kind of Messiah that they expected, rather than the kind he was planning to be?
Complain about this comment
Jonathan:
How do you define religious indoctrination?
Complain about this comment
@brianmcclinton ()
'How do you define religious indoctrination?'
As I've already said Brian, I've answered a lot of questions, so I think it's your turn.
You asked me a lot of questions in posts 114 and 115. I replied to them in post 123 and asked some follow up questions. Rather than respond to me, you asked a bunch of new questions in post 139.
An a discussion, there is expectation that each participant will ask questions and provide answers. They will engage with each other's responses. It's hard to see how a discussion can be conducted in good faith if answers to questions are never responded to. It's hard to see what value you place on the other participant in the discussion and what they have to say, if all you do is bombard them with questions.
You've asked questions I've answered, now it's your turn to respond to my answers. That's how discussion works. So how about we start with the issue of what is pernicious. You asked me what where I thought the line lies on that - I've given an answer, don't you think it would be appropriate to respond?
Complain about this comment
BrianT : that's fine!
Jonathan:
Re Imposing: I mean that we can impose by how we say things - not just what we say. So topics can be discussed/brought up etc and presented - but one person may do so in a way that is gentle and non-imposing and another where it is forceful, full of shoulds and musts or their opposites and where how they say it is imposing.
Re negative consequences: Out of love for humanity I have informed you that it is harming to call people sinners and there are negative consequences for doing so both for you and the other person. I have given you the information and I leave you be to choose whether you change this or not. I do not insist or threaten or say you must do this. It is one thing to present information and let the person decide as opposed to telling them what they must do/decide. Also some of what you consider real consequences (eg hell/damnation/judgment) for me are not real but false and harming. So for me it is the opposite of loving to tell people about these things that are only harming and not real ....it is evil....it promotes separation from their essence of love.
There's nothing I can look at, nobody I can speak to, etc. that would allow me to test out what you're saying. I would have to take you at your word.
You dont have to accept anything I say and you dont and that's fine - your choice. You test it by feeling in your heart if what I am saying could be consistent with an all loving God. You can then make choices for yourself in line with it and come to know for yourself whether it is true or not. I have said all along its about coming to know it for yourself - not because I or anyone else has said it or in a book.
As I said then, it's all a gut feeling. You can't get much less reliable than feelings.
I have already said it's not a gut feeling - one's heart is not in one's gut!! And contrary to what you think - it's all about feelings.
That's a fairly non-sensical statement that has nothing to do with the verse you quoted.
Not correct - the verse was Be still and know that I am God - so it has everything to do with stillness.
I must confess Eunice that it's getting to the point where I wonder if you're just a very skilled wind up merchant who's trying to see how exasperated you can get a few Christians/Atheists.
Fine - I have no desire to exasperate you so I'll leave it there. :-)
Complain about this comment
Jonathan/LSV
Jonathan, I'm not sure how aware you are of LSV's previous postings here, but (as someone he might consider to be in the 'reformed camp') I'm interested to see where he's going with this.
First, on the 'Good Samaritan', there is a question prior to "'who is my neighbour,'", it is "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" I really don't think we can rule out thinking of Jesus as taking on the role of the Samaritan.
Second, LSV in saying, "Does he ask the victim whether he wants to be helped?" seems to suggest that the Samaritan is free to help whomever he wishes, regardless of their ability to seek help, that would sound like grace to me.
Third, LSV says, "So what are the implications of all this for evangelism? Perhaps a bit more humility, grace and understanding towards the proverbial 'non-Christian?" On this I can only agree.
First I'm agreeing with Brian, now LSV, perhaps I have had too much sun this week!
However I have a question for LSV. LSV you say, "God takes the initiative, and only judges after his initiative has been clearly and unequivocally rejected." What hope then is there for the enemy of God?
Complain about this comment
Jonathan:
I've forgotten your answer. How do you define religious indoctrination?
Complain about this comment
Brian (#140)
Jesus' existance has not been proven, neither has his ressurection, to claim so is a falsehood, possibly even delusion, neither of which are becoming in one who professes to be a christian.
I was also under the impression that the answers, my friend, are blowing on the wind.
But that might just be me.
And ducking the question regarding Thor (who I didn't mention but is a good one!), it's not a smokescreen. It's a legitimate question that most honest christians would answer with 'it's a matter of faith'.
And that, from me to you, is that. I don't feed the trolls more than once.
Complain about this comment
@brianmcclinton (148)
For the final time Brian.
This isn't an interrogation, it's a discussion. If you want the discussion to proceed, you have to start engaging with my responses, rather than just asking questions. If you're not interested in that, then you're clearly not interested in honest debate and there's little point in me talking to you. If there's anything you've 'forgotten,' all our posts are preserved on this page.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan:
We cannot have a proper discussion about concepts such as indoctrination if only one of us explains what he means by the terms. I am asking you in the spirit of inquiry so that I can better understand where you are coming from. I too am willing to learn. Now, I gave you my definition more than once. So if you want a discussion, let's be clear what we are talking about.
I ask you, for the third time, how do you define religious indoctrination?
Complain about this comment
2MP: "God takes the initiative, and only judges after his initiative has been clearly and unequivocally rejected." What hope then is there for the enemy of God?
Plenty of hope because God does not judge! Even his enemies. We are so stuck at the human level of reward and punishment, judgment and condemnation - the divine does none of these things. How can boundless pure love judge and condemn?? It cannot. LOve and compassion is the response. Something that we as humans find hard to contemplate (esp for enemies etc) because we are so good at judging and condemning and being self-righteous. :-)
Complain about this comment
@brianmcclinton (151)
In post 114 you asked me if I think that manipulation and blackmail occurs in Northern Ireland. I asked you for clarification about the question so that I could answer it.
Rather the provide clarification so I can answer a question you've already asked, you've gone and asked another question and demanded that I reply to this second question before the first one has even been dealt with. Can you see why I struggle to see any point in answering the second question?
And if you're going to talk about the importance of understanding what people mean, you said that evangelism can be pernicious. I asked you where the line is drawn, you asked me where I think its drawn, I gave an answer and as yet you haven't responded to it. Why should I engage in a discussion on the definition of indoctrination when we haven't settled on what it means to be pernicious?
You asked me if I accept that brainwashing happens here often. I gave you an answer, but you haven't responded to that. What confidence can I therefore have that you'll respond to any answer I give about indoctrination?
When you don't respond to answers I give, it's hard to believe that you're genuinely interested in learning where I come from.
If you start engaging with what I've already said and the discussions we've already started, then I'll give a definition of religious indoctrination. But I'm not going to allow you to dictate the course of this discussion because it is not an interrogation.
Complain about this comment
Natman
The answer to you plausibility question is, aseity.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan:
Don’t be silly. Neither of us has to engage in a discussion with the other. My initial contribution to the thread occurred in post 36 where I outlined some of the more ‘offensive’ or ‘pernicious’ methods of religious evangelism. I listed 4 methods: compulsion, indoctrination, moral blackmail and emotional manipulation. I tried to define what I meant in subsequent posts.
You have quibbled with all of them, pedantically dissecting every word and sentence I have written. If you do not wish to explain your understanding of the more pernicious (i.e. harmful, detrimental) aspects of evangelism, that’s your decision. If you think all methods of instilling Christianity are fine, you are entitled to your opiniom. but a little bit of honesty might be in order.
I shall ask again, and add the further question: how do you define religious indoctrination and do you think it occurs in many NI schools?
I am not demanding an answer. But unless we make it clear what our own positions are, then it seems to me that the discussion has been pointless.
Anyhow, for the benefit of others, I shall restate my own position.
There is an excessive degree of harmful types of evangelism in NI and much of it is detrimental to the mental well being of many children here.
On the programme I cited the fact that the RE syllabus is more narrow than in any other in any part of the UK. Why is this so? In Scotland, RE has been replaced by RME (Religious and Moral Education) and includes Humanism. The NI syllabus stipulates that two other religions must be studied apart from Christianity ONLY at Key Stage 3. This was introduced after pressure from other faiths. The syllabus stipulates nothing but religion. This is indoctrination of the worst kind. And there is one further point here. Since most schools (96%) are segregated on sectarian lines, the children are only taught one brand of Christianity. This is a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
Eunice (@152) -
Plenty of hope because God does not judge! Even his enemies. We are so stuck at the human level of reward and punishment, judgment and condemnation - the divine does none of these things. How can boundless pure love judge and condemn?? It cannot.
Thank you, Eunice, for this comment. I have nothing but sympathy for your viewpoint, but I have to say that I don't agree with universalism (if that is what you are implying), for the simple reason that it is in the nature of love that it can be rejected.
I believe in the reality of evil, and that some people are evil through their own wilful choice. Why are they evil? Why do they delight in harming others? Answer: because they have rejected the love of God.
It doesn't matter how much God loves these people. These people are judged by their own evil. This idea of judgment has nothing to do with the sort of gnostic claptrap that a certain type of Christian peddles about God condemning people who have failed to say the magic Christian words in time before they die, or the illogical Augustinian waffle that God feels under some kind of bizarre obligation to damn people for a sin someone else has committed (even if its effects are mysteriously and unjustly transmitted into everyone else's life. By the way, a whole chapter of the Bible is devoted specifically to refuting this error: Ezekiel 18). The true biblical idea of judgment is based on the reality of what we are in our hearts.
James 2:13 says: "Judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment." In other words, the only people who will not receive mercy from God are those who have shown no mercy. And why have they shown no mercy? Because they hate mercy. They reject mercy. That is what they are as people. There is nothing God can do for them.
A truly evil person hates the love and mercy of God. That is why they are evil. How therefore can such a person receive and live in the reality of that which he hates?
This is why I do indeed believe in a concept of hell, but I believe heaven and hell are, in essence, one and the same place - i.e. the presence of God (see Hebrews 12:29). This reality is 'heaven' for some people and 'hell' for others, and it has nothing to do with God hating people who fail to comply with religious dogma or small print (as if God is nothing more than an exceedingly mean spirited celestial bureaucrat). It's to do with the reality of our hearts.
If a person is incorrigibly evil in his heart, then no amount of 'calling on the name of Jesus', 'praying the sinner's prayer', 'believing in the doctrines of the Evangelical Alliance or Westminster Catechism' etc will save him (see 1 John 4:8). Conversely, if someone has lived in love and mercy, then, as James 2:13 (and 1 John 4:7) states, he (or she) will receive mercy, even if his mind is full of wrong and misguided theological and philosophical notions (wrong thinking which may be the result of human weakness - a state of affairs with which God can sympathise - see Hebrews 4:15). It is really very simple.
But I'm afraid you won't hear much about this in the usual common or garden evangelistic tract or sermon.
Complain about this comment
Brian, I see zero incentive from your comment to further respond to what you say. If you were interested in what I have to say, then why didn't you respond to what I wrote earlier? From what you say, it seem that you don't think discussion is important, so I guess this is the end of our conversation (for lack of a better word).
Complain about this comment
LSV: thank you for sharing your perspective. I can see and understand where you are coming from but I would disagree with some key points.
Evil is real - but it need not be. We give it power, feed it by our lovelessness (perhaps you would say rejection of love?) . If we all were lovefull - evil could perhaps be annhilated - that day is a long way off of course!
For me, people are not evil in their hearts/inner heart. All inner hearts are pure love: we are all made the same and this is part and parcel of our makeup. So even the most evil, vile person has the potential to connect to this love. But of course in them it is not known, it is hidden, disconnected/separated, not felt, not expressed and in the emptiness of love evil comes through man but does not come from man. There is always a bigger picture as to how these people became like they are - and often there is a childhood that is empty of love, perhaps abusive etc There is usually alot of self hatred and self loathing that just gets projected onto others - there is no love of self.
God does not judge these people for God is aware of the bigger picture and how they came to be like they are - the truly lost and empty. However, you say they are judged by their actions and I would say there are consequences to their actions that will play out in future lifetimes etc - not as punishment but in order to heal the lovelessness that started it all in the first place.
All people want love - to love and be loved. Those who appear to reject it are really rejecting themselves - such is the hatred and self-loathing and lack of love for themselves and this is usually borne out of their history/biography, and perhaps incl past lives etc.
I agree that we can live in hell on earth or heaven on earth - according to our choices/views etc and the presence or absence of love. The greatest source of that love is within each person - but most don't know that and it is our separation from that love that is perhaps our greatest ache and longing. The hole that nothing can fill but oneself by love. I agree that the status of one's heart is more important than one's mind - but not in a reward/punishment/judgment/mercy way - just regarding our own evolution and return to God and ability to live our lives with love/joy and harmony and serve in that.
I agree it can be simple - but not always easy as we each have aeons of momentums and loveless ways of living that do not disappear overnight unfortunately!! :-)
Complain about this comment
Jonathan:
Much of what you have said on this thread is, as far as I can see, irrelevant to the subject. The question was: "are you offended by evangelism? Since you did not address this question, apart from a timid reference to Eunice to some evangelists being 'imposing', I concluded that most of your comments were red herrings designed to deflect from the question rather than throwing light on it.
The fact is that your comments create the definite impression that you are not much offended by any kind of evangelism as long as it succeeds and are annoyed that others are. But the end does not justify the means.
Complain about this comment
Is there not an ethical duty upon the evangelist to verify the truth of the propositions he or she is pushing? In the case of Christian evangelism, no matter how "sincere" the evangelist (or evangelical), how can we "respect" them, when it is patently obvious in most cases that they have never even given consideration to other views? If all they know about atheism is dreck scraped off the soggy pages of some miserable tome by CS Lewis or (shudder!) Lee Strobel, can we *really* say we admire their depth of conviction? Should we not instead pity these poor blinkered creatures, and challenge them to their core with something that - just maybe - someday may open their eyes and cause them to at least *question* the certainties and reject the falsehoods that drive them into the evangelical approach?
Indeed, maybe we should admire the con-man *more* for dreaming up his nefarious marketing scheme, rather than the doltish sap who provides and passes on the recommendations, unshakeable in their opinion that Cyrus T. Hurgensmyer's Patent Snake Oil really does cure cancer? Well, admire, but not in a good way.
Complain about this comment
Helio:
Considerations to other views? You must be joking! Here's a good example, namely the effect of segregated education on RE in NI. There is a religious divide here and a large amount of religious bigotry. Is that addressed in RE? If most children are taught RE from a ‘Protestant’ or ‘Catholic’ perspective and the RE syllabus says nothing about this divide, how can it be?
Thus, back in the 1970s, J.E. Greer wrote, after questioning Heads of RE departments, that at Sixth form level, “No mention was made of the problems of comparative religion which lies at the root of so many social problems in Northern Irteland, the Protestant-Roman Catholic division”.
Nearly 40 years and nearly 4,000 deaths later, the main churches still treat this problem as if it didn’t exist. There is no real attempt to explain to Protestant or Catholic pupils the nature of the difference, real or imagined, between them. So, if you think the Pope is the Antichist or that Protestant churches aren’t real Christian churches, there is nothing in schools in NI to counteract such assumptions.
In other words, the churches are quite happy to evangelise among ‘their own kind’ and explain nothing about the 'other kind', even if it means that children continue to harbour bigotry towards that other side. By this omission, the main churches have in fact contributed to this bigotry in the wider society.
Complain about this comment
@brianmcclinton (159)
'Much of what you have said on this thread is, as far as I can see, irrelevant to the subject.'
Brian, much of what I've said has been in response to your posts. Are you telling me that you've been saying irrelevant things? As far as I can tell, we've been discussing the appropriateness of evangelism. Your particular area of focus has been the issue of potential religious indoctrination.
I've gone back through the posts that I've addressed to you and noted what they're about. You can find the summary at the end of this post. Perhaps you can tell me which posts you felt were irrelevant.
Personally, I'm more of the opinion that unsubstantiated claims that I'm misrepresenting you, allegations that my logic is 'chopped' (whatever that means) and various personal attacks you've repeatedly launched into are more irrelevant.
'The question was: "are you offended by evangelism? Since you did not address this question, apart from a timid reference to Eunice to some evangelists being 'imposing', I concluded that most of your comments were red herrings designed to deflect from the question rather than throwing light on it.'
Not quite sure what was timid about my reply. Would you care to enlighten your readers, or was that an irrelevant comment?
As for the issue of 'the question,' a reading of Will's article, as opposed to just the headline, reveals that there are several questions:
* Is there really an imperative on Christians to convert their fellow humans or, for that matter for Jews, Muslims, or humanists, to be persuaders for their beliefs?
* Is evangelism, then, a form of religious abuse?
* What's been your experience of evangelism?
* Is it a healthy or unhealthy feature of religious life in the 21st century?
I've engaged with more than one of the questions Will asked and engaged with your answers. I'm curious - did you assume that what you said would go unchallenged? Is that what's offended you?
'The fact is that your comments create the definite impression that you are not much offended by any kind of evangelism as long as it succeeds'
I'm confused Brian: a paragraph earlier you claimed that I didn't address the question of whether I'm offended by evangelism. So which is it: did I answer, or didn't I? Hypothetically, if I answered that I wasn't offended, what would be the basis for your accusation that I've been irrelevant? Is an answer that disagrees with you automatically irrelevant?
Either way, I didn't actually say that and I'd love to see your justification for making that claim. Doubt I'll see any though since your track record is one of personal attacks followed by silence when evidence is asked for. Your task is made doubly hard by the necessity to explain why I said such things as these (I've put crucial phrases indicating offence in bold):
* 'I would hope that a sincere Christian would not resort to any sort of manipulation or blackmail - that is not authentic evangelism as far as I understand it'
* 'Wouldn't a government edict banning sharing faith with your own children be as tyrannical as a theocratic edict forcing atheist parents to send these children to Sunday school?'
* 'Jesus had few hards to say about those who teach children, but what he did say was unequivocally condemnatory towards those who mislead them.'
* 'If people are saying things simply because they've learned a response rather than because they sincerely believe them, then that's of limited vale and I would hope that any minister/you worker etc. would impress that upon people.'
* 'Every minister I've ever known has impressed upon young people the need for confirmation to be a personal decision of faith rather than a blind ritual or peer pressure issue.'
* 'I'm pretty sure that a lot of the God channel is evangelism at its worst and it's a sad indictment of the level of discernment many people have that it's so big.'
* 'Take somebody like Joel Osteen and you'll find plenty of negative commentary about him, his church and his methods.'
* 'Certainly within PCI I hear far more criticism of altar call methods than commendation.'
* 'I agree that many of the televangelists try to brainwash people or swindle them out of money and I'm appalled at it. I don't think anyone here would argue with you on that point.'
You should be lot more careful when you throw the word 'fact' around. After all, didn't you write 'our nature and our needs require that we use knowledge to enhance the good life' in the section of the Humanist Ethical Code entitled 'Respect Truth and Reason,' and ' facile certainties are mistaken and dangerous, however secure they make their supporters feel in their own minds,' in the section entitled 'Be Sceptical, Yet Open-Minded '?
'and are annoyed that others are'
It's more the case that I'm annoyed by the suggestion that Christians shouldn't evangelise or that all evangelism (or even most evangelism) amounts to religious indoctrination. Most of all though, I'm annoyed by misrepresentation, hypocrisy and flat-out lies.
'But the end does not justify the means.'
Don't think I ever suggested it does.
Summary of posts referred to above. Again I've put crucial phrases in bold.
Post 43:
* Suggested that evangelism is a necessary action by anyone who sincerely believes in the message of the gospel.
Distinguished between manipulation/blackmail and authentic evangelism.
Asked at what point evangelism should be considered pernicious (a term you used).
Post 49:
* Repeated the question about being pernicious.
* Considered the issue of what rights parents have to bring their children up with their own worldview (evangelism within the family).
* Asserted that parents should tell their children what they believe to be true and that lying to your children for the sake of diversity of opinion isn't moral.
* Asserted that followers of one worldview should not prevent parents with a different view sharing that view with their own children.
* Speculated on whether the different views about evangelism arise from a lack of concern for consequences in the afterlife.
* Asserted that it is the moral duty of a parent to do good for their child, which in a Christian context means sharing the gospel with them, rather than teaching them idolatrous lies.
Post 91:
* Disputed your definition of religious indoctrination and requested clarification on some crucial details.
* Discussed the proper use of catechisms, which you linked with religious indoctrination.
* Discussed the importance of intent in Christian worship and evangelism which I believe distinguishes it from indoctrination.
Post 104:
* Asked if you consider the motives of Sunday School teachers to be nefarious (pernicious religious indoctrination).
Post 123:
* Asked for clarification about the meaning of some of your questions so that I could properly answer them.
* Outlined my understanding of pernicious behaviour and contrasted it with my understanding of proper evangelism.
* Outlined some essentials for evangelism.
* Suggested that there is a spectrum of persuasion from passive statement of belief to hyper-aggressive brainwashing and that spectrum might be a more useful concept that simply considering the two extremes as if they were the only options.
* Suggested that indoctrination requires meticulous, deliberate planning.
* Asked about the role of intent in examples of brainwashing methods.
* Stated that I was more interested in showing that evangelism doesn't have to be indoctrination (on-topic) than in expressing what kind of religious indoctrination might annoy me (heading off-topic).
* Observed that there is debate about the nature of the 1859 revival.
Post 141:
* Asked you to respond to some outstanding questions before I continue to answer yours.
Post 145 onwards:
* We both get a bit repetitive at this point.
Complain about this comment
Brian
You have mentioned the RE curriculum on a number of occasions now so perhaps it is time for a response.
First of all I am one of those Christians who happens not to be particularly bothered about insisting on a 'Christian' RE curriculum anyway, however, in a more specific response to your concern it might be useful to take a look at the wider curriculum and not just the RE aspect of it as the wider curriculum addresses some of your concerns. Not only that but even as far as RE in particular is concerned you might find the curriculum at KS1 and KS2 to be of interest, and may I suggest that you consider the methodology as well as the content.
Helio
You are quite right, and evangelical to the... what was it...yes, core. Knowing *about* atheism isn't enough, just like knowing *about* Jesus isn't enough, one must not believe for themselves. It's why we have church, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
Peter, knowing *about* Jesus is enough. That is why I am an atheist. You have church to reinforce myths about Jesus, not promote knowledge. But you know this really.
Complain about this comment
Helio: problem is unless they are open to considering other views( and most are not - as per the nature of evangelicals) - it usually proves to be a fruitless exercise as Bob Price found !! Your efforts best spent elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan:
Two of the four starred questions are essentially the same as the head question. What concerns me is the harm that much Christian evangelism does. I call it pernicious because that word means 'harmful'. Now, if you think I am wrong, you are welcome to say so, and I will address your points. If you think I am partially correct you are also welcome to say so, and I will address your points. But do not expect me to respond to your attempts to skirt round my concerns.
Your bold type points are mostly superficial and do not address the deeper issues. I am not overly concerned about megaphone evangelism or televangelism. Nor do I have any objection to Christians encouraging an ETHIC of love, cooperation and care for others. Far from it. That is excellent, and accords with the better part of Jesus' message, and I made that clear on the programme.
What concerns me is the instilling of the DOGMA of mainstream Christianity, and I also made that clear on the programme, the dogma of the sky god,the dogma of a single saviour, the notions of atonement and damnation, and all the negative ideology in this kind of Christianity. This is what is pernicious to me: the anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-equality brand of Christianity that predominates in Northern Ireland. I find it a destructive, dangerous poison in our psyche.
I have focused a lot on education because I have experience of it and because I think most of the trouble in NI is the product of a failure of education.
You see, I think that what you consider 'normal' I consider compulsion, indoctrination, emotional manipulation or moral blackmail. That is where the problem between really lies, isn't it?
The one bold type point that I want to comment on is this: "every minister I've ever known has impressed upon young people the need for confirmation to be a personal decision of faith rather than a blind ritual or peer pressure issue". Now, you may think that this ensures freedom of choice. I think, whether you like it or not, that you and the ministers are largely fooling yourselves. All the work of indoctrination etc. has already been done by this stage.
You see, there is no disputing that NI is a very religious society. Why? What is different about us that links us with the most 'evangelical parts of America, for example? We kid ourselves, or at least some of us do, that it is the result of our superior morality. You must be joking! We kid ourselves, or some of us do, that it is the result of our superior intelligence. You must be joking! We kid ourselves, or some of us do, that it is the result of our superior education. You must be kidding! The truth is that it it is none of these.
I'll tell you why. A fundamental reason is that for 400 years the society has been dominated by two opposing and reactionary brands of Christianity which have been passed on from generation to generation. Occasionally, it erupts into violence, as we have seen in the last 40 years. Lecky said that "if the characteristic mark of a healthy Christianity be to unite its members by a bond of fraternity and love, then there is no country where Christianity has more completely failed than Ireland". He was right.
So the question is, Jonathan, whether you like it or not: have the main Christian churches learned anything from the last 40 years? There are little signs that they might have learned a little. Norman Hamilton, for example, is an outreacher. But they have a long way to go to eradicate the deep hatred ingrained into so many people here of 'the other side' (yes, I know it is partly political as well but, as history shows, nationalisms allied to antagonistic religions is a lethal cocktail).
Complain about this comment
@brianmcclinton (165)
'Two of the four starred questions are essentially the same as the head question.'
Could you explain how? The head question is 'are you offended by evangelism?'
* The first question asks if there is a religious duty to evangelise - nothing about offence.
* The second question ask of evangelism is a form of abuse. This is more of an objective question concerning facts, rather than the subjective head question which is about experience.
* The third question is broader than the head question, asking what people's experience of evangelism is, rather than simply asking if it is offensive.
* The fourth question ask if it is healthy, which is a broader way of phrasing the second question, so it's arguable that there's duplication there.
Anyway, your accusation was that I was be irrelevant. Are you claiming that my posts haven't been relevant to any of these questions?
'I call it pernicious because that word means 'harmful'. Now, if you think I am wrong, you are welcome to say so, and I will address your points.'
I have and you didn't.
I asked for your definition of pernicious in posts 43 and 49, but you weren't forthcoming. In post 165 you have offered a synonym. In post 123 I offered a definition and asked you to respond. You declined to do so, instead insisting that I go on to define religious indoctrination as well. If you've changed your mind and decided to move on with the discussion, then that's great.
I'll repeat the relevant part of post 123 here so you don't have to search for it. I've highlighted some particularly important phrases:
'In order to act in a pernicious manner, then you have to intend or bring harm to the person you're speaking to, right? If we're talking about someone who sincerely believes the gospel and believes it as good news, then wanting someone else to believe in it isn't pernicious because the gospel itself isn't pernicious. The way to bring harm to a person would be to induce some sort of outward conformity to the gospel message without effecting any sort of inward heart change i.e. getting someone to live as if they were a Christian without actually developing a personal faith relationship with God. Encouraging a certain set of morals, conformity to a community or any other outward manifestation of 'good living' without inward personal faith would be harmful because it could leave a person thinking that they're a Christian when actually they aren't. This means that evangelism which focuses on modifying behaviour, rather than developing a relationship with Jesus Christ, would be pernicious.'
'But do not expect me to respond to your attempts to skirt round my concerns.'
What do you mean by that, or is it another nebulous accusation?
'Your bold type points are mostly superficial and do not address the deeper issues.'
Really? You made an accusation Brian. I went back, examined the evidence and presented it to you. Dismissing it as superficial without actually offering any evidence for your claim is rather poor form. If I made a claim without evidence, particularly if you had gone to the trouble of amassing your own evidence, would you be impressed?
'I am not overly concerned about megaphone evangelism or televangelism.'
Your claims were:
* I was irrelevant
* I'm not offended my evangelism as long as it is successful.
Which of those claims does your concerns about evangelism have any bearing on, or is that skirting round the issue?
'What concerns me is the instilling of the DOGMA of mainstream Christianity'
The ethics are rooted in the dogma.
'the dogma of the sky god'
That's not a Christian doctrine. At best it's a mocking caricature that has no place in sincere, respectful debate of the kind that you encouraged in A Humanist Ethical Code.
'the dogma of a single saviour, the notions of atonement and damnation'
That's pretty much the content of evangelism. Ethics are a matter of discipleship, for disciples to live out. Evangelism is more concerned with inviting people to become disciples, following their saviour. There is no Christian evangelism without this good news becoming proclaimed.
'This is what is pernicious to me: the anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-equality brand of Christianity that predominates in Northern Ireland.'
None of these things equate to the essential soteriological doctrines you mentioned. If anything, many of these things fall more ethics than soteriology. I agree that many professing Christians act in a misogynistic, homophobic, sectarian way, however that is not representative of the message of the gospel, nor does it dictate that the message must be spread in a way that involves hatred. These issues are generally secondary matters that are impacted by the gospel and may reflect in a particular understanding of the gospel, but do not in of themselves reflect whether someone believes the gospel or dictate what they do with it. For instead on the women's issue, both complementarians and egalitarians can be gospel-believing, gospel-professing Christians. And among the complementarians, the doctrine and ethics that arise out of the doctrine are not necessarily hateful in the way you suggest. What you talk about is something of a caricature and stereotype.
'You see, there is no disputing that NI is a very religious society.'
Ah so the debate is completely settled and there's no room for dissent. Our minds should be closed and evidence to the contrary dismissed as a lie? That's hardly the approach that humanists encourage is it?
I would argue that we're a society that wears a religious mask over a tribal head and heart. For all the talk of religion, many people are more Protestant or Catholic by culture than out of sincere personal belief. Take a look at church attendance and ask people what they believe or even understand about the Bible and you'll get a picture of a society that identifies itself as religious but in practice is really quite secular.
Even if it as true to accurate to say that religion is the major factor in encouraging conflict and vision in Northern Ireland, that is not the same as saying that the gospel, the good news, the evangelion that is central to authentic Christian evangelism is a factor. Sadly religion can become greatly divorced from the gospel and the need frequently arises for the religious to be evangelised because they have developed a religion that is more about human philosophies (such as nationalism) that the joyous truth at Jesus Christ is risen.
In fact if evangelism does not joyously proclaim that as central to Christian faith, then it is certainly not the kind of evangelism I would encourage; on the contrary, I would be deeply offended by any so-called evangelism that replaces Jesus Christ was nationalist ideology, be it the desire of a united Ireland or 'God and Ulster' rhetoric.
'if the characteristic mark of a healthy Christianity be to unite its members by a bond of fraternity and love, then there is no country where Christianity has more completely failed than Ireland". He was right.'
There is a lot of religiosity, but very little true religion. Much of what passes for Christianity, isn't. In that, he is correct, but I think it weakens your claim. Christianity isn't the problem so much as a lack of authentic Christianity. I'd say that this is an example of the need for evangelism to the extent of evangelising the church, rather than evidence that evangelism is bad. The people rioting and conducting sectarian violence are people who need the gospel, not people who are spreading it.
'So the question is, Jonathan, whether you like it or not: have the main Christian churches learned anything from the last 40 years?'
I agree that the church is very slow to respond. However I disagree that this is 'the' question. 'The' question is 'what should did church do about the situation is has tried to ignore for 40+ years?' The answer is share and live the gospel. Evangelise Ireland. Evangelise cultural Protestants. Evangelise our communities. Evangelise the church. Gossip the gospel to one another.
Complain about this comment
@Eunice (146)
Sorry if I've been slow to respond. I'm back to work now, so I'll probably not be posting half as much.
I'm also sorry for coming across as if I got out of bed on the wrong side, particular when you've said so much about living out what you say about love. Obviously I profoundly disagree with much of what you believe, but I unreservedly endorse the necessity for words and actions to resonate and reinforce each other. I've failed in that in the last week or two and apologise for my lack of grace.
In discussing with Brian, I think we've faced a problem with trying to discuss too many things at once. If we're going to continue to talk, do you think it would be helpful to take one topic and discuss it in more detail? If so, would you like to highlight one part of post 146 that you'd like me to respond to? Alternatively, feel free to say something new here or ask a question of me. I'll try and be more focussed in my response.
Complain about this comment
@Helio (160)
'Is there not an ethical duty upon the evangelist to verify the truth of the propositions he or she is pushing? In the case of Christian evangelism, no matter how "sincere" the evangelist (or evangelical), how can we "respect" them, when it is patently obvious in most cases that they have never even given consideration to other views?'
Unusually, I actually agree with you (to a certain extent). Evangelists (and indeed anyone who hears an evangelist) should attempt to verify the truth of propositions. Christianity should be believed only if it is true, not because we would like it to be, or because conforming to it provides opportunity for social advancement etc. I'm also convinced that Christians shouldn't fear looking into the truth of claims and having done so, should have no fear of looking objectively at other religions and worldviews. If Christianity is true and if God grants assurance, then examining what others believe shouldn't be a dangerous thing, but rather should equip a Christian to understand and better communicate the gospel to others.
Where my caveats comes is in the consideration of other views. I'm not as convinced as you are of the need to consider other views in order to be certain of the gospel. If a convincing case is made for the claims of the Gospel and God grants assurance of this, then there isn't any particular need to look at other options. I think it can be a helpful thing as far as evangelism goes however in order to demonstrate that you have considered other options and found them lacking. I can certainly empathise with what you say about respect. There's can be a certain arrogance about evangelising someone without understanding what they believe.
It'd certainly be distressed if anyone said that they're a Christian because they've read a Christian author, be they Lewis, Stroble, Bell or Keller, rather than reading the Bible and getting to know Jesus himself. Paul himself had similar concerns about the Corinthians, they they were becoming Paulians or Appolosians rather than Christians.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps, H, you missed the broader analogy in my comment so I’ll look at this another way.
This is a thread about evangelism and as I have already suggested in passing there are different types of ‘evangelism’ and different types of ‘evangelicalism’. (And here I am not limiting my use of either word to a tradition within Protestant Christianity) I have already mentioned ‘advertising’ and ‘sport’. To this I might ad ‘consumerism and brand loyalty’ I might add ‘music, fashion and technology’, and I might add ‘atheism’. If you have missed that atheism is evangelical then you need to look a little closer.
I have had cause a while back to comment on the various atheist ads, the bus and billboard ones, and I mentioned the summer camps, like Camp Quest; there’s one in Ireland now, and they’re asking for volunteers on the website and they outline the teaching which takes place (and I note there is singing, and drama and crafts and games and sports) It’s like a Holiday Not the Bible Club.
And that’s the thing, Athe *ism* (Secular *ism*) is evangelical. Atheism has it’s speakers and it’s conferences and it’s magazines and all the rest, and you have your church.
And you reinforce your myths about Jesus (isn’t that the point of CJCA?), you have a ‘Christology’, you have ethics and you tell me that there are people who are happy to sing hymns and participate “fully in the life of churches”. It’s just that you do it according to a different myth.
And that’s my point about, “Knowing *about* Atheism” not being enough. One must embrace Atheism. From what I can see one must ask Atheism into their heart (defined as core of one’s being), one must develop a personal relationship with Atheism, and one must evangelise for Atheism.
Is the same difference!
Brian
Read the curriculum resources yet?
Complain about this comment
Speaking of Christology, might I add that Jonathan's explanation of the gospel of Jesus risen and the way in which he contrasts it with religion and nationalism (of whatever kind) is pretty much what has been too often missing from NI Christianity.
And this comment too, "Take a look at church attendance and ask people what they believe or even understand about the Bible and you'll get a picture of a society that identifies itself as religious but in practice is really quite secular." is an important one.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan:
Just to get this out of the way first. I am still puzzled, after rereading post 123, what on earth you are trying to say about the word ‘pernicious’. I defined it as harmful and you say that’s not a definition but a synonym. My dictionary defines it as destructive or harmful. Now, I know that it also has an old meaning of ‘evil’, but that’s not a word I find very useful. I tend to avoid it as much as possible. So, I repeat: the dogma of Christianity is pernicious, though the ethic has some good aspects. And it is the dogma of Christianity rather than its better ethnic that has dominated in Northern Ireland.
I think Lecky would agree with me. He thought Jesus was in many respects a great moral teacher but that the churches had long since lost sight of that ethical teaching. He was a freethinker and relentless critic of Christianity, although he began by studying divinity. Be careful you might end up like him, realising how foolish and naive some of your youthful thoughts were.
Take this, for example, this to Helio:
“I'm not as convinced as you are of the need to consider other views in order to be certain of the gospel. If a convincing case is made for the claims of the Gospel and God grants assurance of this, then there isn't any particular need to look at other options”.
Now, there’s the definition of a truly closed mind. Lecky writes:
“The constant exaltation of blind faith, the countless miracles, the childish legends, all produced a condition of besotted ignorance, of grovelling and trembling credulity, that can scarcely be paralleled except among the most degraded barbarians.” (‘History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe’).
Or again:
“Faith always presented to the mind the idea of an abnormal intellectual condition, of the subversion or suspension of the critical faculties. It sometimes comprised more than this, but it always included this. It was the opposite of doubt and of the spirit of doubt. What irreverent men called credulity, reverent men called faith; and although one word was more respectful than the other, yet the two words were with most men strictly synonymous”.
Or again:
“Persuade men that when ascribing to the Deity justice and mercy they are speaking of qualities generically distinct from those which exist among mankind -- qualities which we are altogether unable to conceive, and which may be compatible with acts that men would term grossly unjust and unmerciful: tell them that guilt may be entirely unconnected with a personal act, that millions of infants may be called into existence for a moment to be precipitated into a place of torment, that vast nations may live and die, and then be raised again to endure a never-ending punishment, because they did not believe in a religion of which they had never heard, or because a crime was committed thousands of years before they were in existence: convince them that all this is part of a transcendentally perfect and righteous moral scheme, and there is no imaginable abyss to which such a doctrine will not lead”.
Or again:
“All history shows that, in exact proportion as nations advance in civilisation, the accounts of miracles taking place among them become rarer and rarer, until at last they entirely cease”.
Or again:
“The doctrine of a material hell in its effect was to chill and deaden the sympathies, predispose men to inflict suffering, and to retard the march of civilization”.
Or again:
“There is no wild beast as ferocious as Christians who differ concerning their faith”.
Or again:
“Whenever the clergy were at the elbow of the civil arm, no mastter whether they were Catholic or Protestant, persecution was the result”.
I give these quotes partly because, although an Irishman and a great historian, Lecky has been forgotten and indeed buried because he said and wrote things too near the knuckle.
Complain about this comment
Eunice (@158) -
All people want love - to love and be loved. Those who appear to reject it are really rejecting themselves - such is the hatred and self-loathing and lack of love for themselves and this is usually borne out of their history/biography, and perhaps incl past lives etc.
Again, I can understand where you are coming from (although I don't hold to the idea of reincarnation).
I don't believe that it is true that "all people want love". It is certainly true that "all people need love", but that is, of course, not the same thing. I believe that some people, intoxicated by pride, reject and despise what they regard as the weakness and sentimentality of love. Love only operates in the context of humility, and humility is anathema to the person who embraces evil. For fear of flirting with 'Godwin's Law' (or rather 'Godwin's Observation'), I hesitate to mention the person often regarded as the epitome of evil, but a certain tyrant from the last century seemed to hold that point of view, and this motivated his brutal oppression of the weak, the vulnerable and those least able to defend themselves. His evil character was driven by a particular belief about the role of love and mercy in human life - a weakness that held back (his deluded idea of) racial progress and the so-called 'survival of the fittest'.
Another example: in 1996 a madman walked into a primary school in Scotland and gunned down a group of helpless young children. Some Christians started to proffer reasons for his behaviour, citing his troubled background etc. I reject this kind of thinking. Thomas Hamilton was an evil man. Period. There is no excuse whatsoever for this kind of behaviour.
And to hear the sort of theology that "because of the fall" all of us are somehow equally guilty before God, and therefore as inherently sinful as that man (and that includes all of his victims), makes me realise why so many people feel that some popular and heavily promulgated versions of the Christian message don't seem to ring true. Such thinking is actually completely divorced from reality. We cannot downplay the seriousness of particular manifestations of evil by citing the concept of "the universal sinfulness of man". There is an ocean of moral and spiritual difference between the tantrum of a child, or the drink problems of a loner, on the one hand, and the premeditated crime of a mass murderer, on the other. Those who think there is not are, frankly, living in a fantasy world. A lot of 'sin' - especially the kind that fire-and-brimstone evangelists tend to focus on - often has more to do with human weakness than wilful evil.
But I'm afraid to say that some people, as a result of their own pride and wilful rejection of love, will never be saved. That is their choice, and no amount of "understanding their deprived upbringing" will make a scrap of difference.
Perhaps this misguided reasoning is the influence behind a lot of the ridiculously light sentencing we see in our criminal justice system. The "bleeding heart brigade" just don't 'get' the seriousness of evil, I'm afraid, and neither do the "we are all as evil as each other" brigade (and, of course, not forgetting those in whose philosophy 'evil' doesn't really exist anyway, this phenomenon being nothing more than the outworking of a survival mechanism).
Complain about this comment
To respond to your normal banter Natman..here is an extract from a 'secular' website asking the question about Jesus existence.....
Yes. They are called the New Testament, which has been repeatedly confirmed as historically reliable in details which can be checked.
Outside the Bible there are a number of documents which demonstrate Jesus existence. Tacitus the Roman Historian refers to Him, as does Phlegon in reference to the darkness at the time of the crucifixion. Josephus, the Jewish historian also refers to a number of Gospel details and certainly assumes the existence of Jesus himself.
The fact is that the skeptical scholarship of the late 19th and early 20th century has been swept aside by the tide of evidence, even though it is unfortunately still quoted as if true and irrefutable by persons with anti-Biblical presuppositions. Modern scholars also accept that the New Testament itself was written much earlier than previously thought. Even such liberals as J.A.T. Robinson in his epochal work 'Redating the New Testament' explains his conviction that the entire New Testament was written before AD70.
These are significant conclusions as they reinforce the claims of the New Testament itself to be the work of either eyewitnesses or of those who knew them. Thus making it, as a historical document, of first-rate importance.
In addition to these, there are many other non-canonical gospels that confirm Jesus' existence. Also we have the writings of Irenaeus and others who learned of Jesus from their own teachers (Polycarp in the case of Irenaeus). Polycarp was a pupil of Jiohn the apostle.
To deny the validity of the gospels as historical evidence is as foolish and bigoted as denying the validity of documentation 'proving' that other great figures existed such as Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great or even William Shakespeare for that matter. For there are many times more ancient references to the existence of Jesus Christ, that have better providence, than Julius Carear, Alexander the Great and Shakespeare all put together, but sadly it seems trendy these days for pseudo-intellectuals claiming that Jesus never existed, presumably because they know better than the countless learned figures who have written about this carpenter from Nazareth over the last 2000 years.
Complain about this comment
@brianmcclinton (172)
Brian, here's a summary response. Below it you'll find a more detailed response to your post if you're interested in that.
Looking back to post 166, you seem to make two main points:
1) Christian ethics are good, Christian doctrine is bad.
2) NI is a very religious society that is divisive because of religious indoctrination of children.
Is that a fair summary?
In post 167 I highlighted area where we differ:
1a) Ethics are rooted in doctrine, so you cannot simply separate them.
1b) Evangelism involves soteriological doctrines which I don't see as pernicious.
2a) NI has a veneer of religion, but underneath is quite secular.
2b) What passes for religion is often very different from authentic Christianity.
2c) The message of the gospel, which is proclaimed in evangelism, is very different to the 'religious' motivations of those who commit sectarian violence.
Rather than quote Lecky without saying what is relevant about his quotes, why don't we go down one of those avenues. If you want to quote Lecky in response to one of the points, please do so, but explain why you think Lecky is relevant to the point.
The detailed response follows:
'Just to get this out of the way first. I am still puzzled, after rereading post 123, what on earth you are trying to say about the word ‘pernicious’.'
I agree with you that being pernicious equates to being harmful. However that by itself doesn't say anything about what is pernicious with regard to evangelism. The paragraph I quoted outlined what I consider to be the difference between helpful and harmful evangelism, providing a definition that is relevant to the topic of this conversation.
Is that any clearer?
'So, I repeat: the dogma of Christianity is pernicious, though the ethic has some good aspects. And it is the dogma of Christianity rather than its better ethnic that has dominated in Northern Ireland.'
As you say, that's a repeat of what you've already said. I addressed that point in my previous post. Do you have any comment on what I said about dogma and ethics or my assertion that NI actually wears a religious cloak over a secular life?
'Now, there’s the definition of a truly closed mind.'
I fail to see how what I said equate to what Lecky said. I think you'll have to show your working rather than jumping straight to the answer. For instance, contra Lecky, I endorsed the idea of studying other believes. My words that you quoted where rebutting the idea that it is logically necessary to examine other views in order to have certainty about one view. It said nothing about willingness to look at others. Neither did I say anything about blind faith.
'“Faith always presented to the mind the idea of an abnormal intellectual condition, of the subversion or suspension of the critical faculties."'
Contrast this with my words to Helio:
'Evangelists (and indeed anyone who hears an evangelist) should attempt to verify the truth of propositions. Christianity should be believed only if it is true, not because we would like it to be, or because conforming to it provides opportunity for social advancement etc.' Lecky's definition of faith diverges substantially from the definition of authentic Christian faith.
'Persuade men that when ascribing to the Deity ...'
Haven't a clue how that is supposed to relate to anything I said.
'All history shows that, in exact proportion as nations advance in civilisation, the accounts of miracles taking place among them become rarer and rarer, until at last they entirely cease'
Again, no idea how that relates to what I said or the argument that evangelism is pernicious. If you want to debate the gifts of the Spirit, wouldn't you be better taking the discussion to the Open Thread? After all, it is rather irrelevant to this discussion.
'The doctrine of a material hell in its effect was to chill and deaden the sympathies, predispose men to inflict suffering, and to retard the march of civilization'
Does this mean you think that evangelism is bad because in spreading the idea of hell, it holds civilisation back?
'There is no wild beast as ferocious as Christians who differ concerning their faith'
What does this have to do with evangelism?
'Whenever the clergy were at the elbow of the civil arm, no matter whether they were Catholic or Protestant, persecution was the result'
Combining civil magistrates and ecclesiastical magistrates can cause a problem. What does that have to do with evangelism?
'I give these quotes partly because, although an Irishman and a great historian, Lecky has been forgotten and indeed buried because he said and wrote things too near the knuckle.'
Okay, but this isn't the Lecky Tribute Thread. Could you stay on topic with his quotes?
Complain about this comment
LSV
I am beginning to better understand your view. Where does Jesus fit into it?
Complain about this comment
LSV: In truth we do not need love because we are love! It is our lack of love for ourselves that leads us to think that we need love from an external source. However, for most this is how they experience love.
I understand your view re people of evil and using Hitler as an example and I agree that they can hold all sorts of views re weakness of love and can reject it strongly etc. However, underneath all of that - they still want love - even though they may fiercely appear to reject it. A look into Hitler's background/childhood also shows an abusive and unloving environment. This by no means excuses the evil behaviour of him or anyone else - we are all responsible for all our choices. However, for me there is always a much bigger picture than the apparent one we are looking at - people are not born evil, are not evil in their inner heart - no-one is.
I do not go along with the universal sinfulness of man or fall either - these just help to create more evil.
Re the loner drinker or the mass murderer - these are all manifestations that stem at the root level from a lack of love for oneself. There is a bit more to it but it is in the emptiness of love that evil works through man.
I disagree that some people will never be saved. Maybe not in this lifetime but in time all will return to God - because that is our true nature, that is where we come from, it's just a returning to what we already are:love. I feel it is possible for all - although as I say to my understanding this may occur over many lifetimes. But I would never write somebody off completely forever more.
Re evil: it is an interesting word and one that was not part of my vocabulary and one that I have changed my use of and views of. I notice Brian mentioned it was not a word he found useful and I understand that view and held it myself. It comes with a lot of baggage particularly in religious circles. Hence when i use the word on here I usually qualify what I mean by it. For me now evil is anything that separates us from our essence of love - it is not just a vile act etc. THis understanding of evil really broadens it to many many things that perhaps people would not recognise as evil. For example anything that promotes separation between men is evil - for when coming from love we recognise that we are a one humanity and all equal and the desire is for co-operation with one another. So in this context, even religion as it stands today can be seen as evil - when it promotes separation between men rather than recognising our common divine heritage irrespective of which religion one is from. I also mentioned this to Jonathan in the context of calling people sinners or talking to them about hell/judgment/damnation. In my view all of these are harming and are evil because they separate one from their true essence of love - and to my understanding sinners/ hell/judgment/damnation are not of divine origin.
We all make choices every day and we are all responsible for those choices and they can be evil or loving ie. they can separate us from our own essence of love or they can build the re-connection to and embodying of that love. There is a spectrum if you like that we all live on and we do not realise the full consequences of all our thoughts/words and deeds - for all do have consequences. So even when we are emotional and angry etc that is separating us from our essence of love. This may seem to be taking the understanding of evil too far - but when you realise that it is the lack of love, our lovelessness that feeds all our suffering and all evil acts etc then you begin to see how even small things are very important and why perhaps we need a re-appraisal of what evil is and how pervasive it truly is - and to call it for what it is.
Complain about this comment
2manypeters (@176) -
Where does Jesus fit into it?
Oh, that's easy to answer. He fits into it as God.
Or should I be more specific? He fits in as the one who has revealed the true nature of God.
Forgive me if I am setting up a straw man, but I can't help trying to read between the lines (or rather 'line') of what you wrote. I wonder what you really mean by the word 'Jesus' in this context?
Do you mean 'Jesus' in a gnostic sense of "active, conscious belief in Jesus"? Is the word 'Jesus' code for: "the acceptance of a certain message, or set of doctrines"?
If a person is in a state of ignorance concerning the Christian faith, is 'Jesus' then not active vis-a-vis that person? This is what some people, alas, seem to be saying. If a person can be saved who has died in a state of ignorance, then that apparently 'undermines' the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, or even the relevance of Jesus Christ for that person.
This is as absurd as saying that when I had my tonsils out, and therefore I was experiencing oblivion under general anaesthetic, the surgeon who performed the operation could not have existed or could not have had anything to do with me, because I was ignorant of him during the operation. I did not 'confess belief' in him. In fact, I never knew him at all. I zonked out on the trolley in the lift up to the operating theatre, and came to in a hospital bed. So therefore, where did the surgeon "fit into it" (to paraphrase your comment)?
Can you see that the objective existence and salvific activity of Jesus Christ is not dependent on what goes on between the ears of human beings?
Of course, that does not mean that we should not bother believing in Jesus. When a person is convicted of their need to turn to Jesus Christ, then that is what they should do. But no one has the right to start making assumptions about the activity of Jesus Christ in the lives of people who may not appear to 'fit the bill' evangelically speaking.
'Jesus' is not a badge that anyone is required to wear. That is a tragically crass form of reductionism that bears little relation to the authentic Christian faith.
In John 5:39 Jesus said the following: "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me."
The 'Scriptures' here are a reference to what we call the Old Testament. Jesus said that the Scriptures testify of him, and yet Jesus is not mentioned once by name in the entirety of the Old Testament. So my question to you is: where does Jesus 'fit into' the Old Testament, since he is not mentioned once by name, even though the whole Old Testament is about him?
In what sense is the Old Testament about Jesus? Surely it is to do with the understanding of the reality of God, and not with simple doctrinal confession.
And, in the same way, there is nothing that I have written in my other posts, which does not speak of the God revealed in Jesus Christ.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan: Christianity should be believed only if it is true, not because we would like it to be, or because conforming to it provides opportunity for social advancement etc
Your statement is correct - but how do you know it/Christianity is true?
The difficulty I have is that it seems to me the only way you believe that it is true is because you trust and believe that the bible is the infallible word of God? Is that correct?
Hence why it is difficult for you to see that the bible could be wrong in places - because you then do not know what is true and what is not? Is that correct?
If it was proven to you that the bible was incorrect in areas - how would that impact your belief in CHristianity?
Drawing on previous discussion it appears that you believe rather than know that your version of Christianity is true and this is based on your belief rather than knowing that the bible is the infallible word of God - is that a fair summary? Are there any other ways outside the bible that lead you to believe or know that your version of Christianity is true?
Complain about this comment
@BrianThomas,
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. There is precisely NO contemporary evidence for the life of Jesus the Nazarene outside the gospels, and plenty of evidence within the gospels that they were not written by eyewitnesses, but by people passing on tales that they had heard at several removes. I have already shown that the anonymous author of the gospel of "Matthew" intentionally altered Mark's account to fit with his theological opinions, so the chances of getting facts out of there seem somewhat slim.
As for Tacitus, it is by no means clear that he refers to Jesus (writing many years later, of course), and the Phlegon story is a pile of piffle with zero supporting evidence. So I presume you haven't really looked these up - you are just regurgitating something someone once told you.
A bit like the gospel writers, I suppose.
The only things that we can be certain about are that the various authors of the gospels, multiply removed from Jesus (whatever you may think about Polycarp) tarted up their accounts to make them sound better, and to promote their prior theological (not historical) opinion that poor dead Jesus had in fact risen from the dead.
The Evangelists (every one of them anonymous), in short, were confabulators.
Complain about this comment
LSV
Thank you for your comments.
I wasn't thinking in terms of what Helio might call 'belief' rather I was thinking of Jesus, the historical person, his life, his death, his resurrection, his ascension and what he reveals to us about God.
I can therefore run with much of what you are saying: "that the objective existence and salvific activity of Jesus Christ is not dependent on what goes on between the ears of human beings?", that "that does not mean that we should not bother believing in Jesus", that "no one has the right to start making assumptions about the activity of Jesus Christ in the lives of people who may not appear to 'fit the bill' evangelically speaking." that "'Jesus' is not a badge that anyone is required to wear." All of that can work within my more 'reformed' view.
I was however linking my thoughts about Jesus (and what I have said above his life, death etc.) to what you have said about those who reject love, those who might be the enemies of God. What hope is there for those who curse God and, if I might put it this way, how would I get a heart like the one you describe? What if I, by my attitude towards him, am one of his enemies.
Please understand too that I am not setting out here to push any particular view, I'm just interested to see where the conversation will go and what we can learn.
Complain about this comment
Emmmmmm...
To answer, to answer not, to answer, to answer not...
Tell you what, I'll make a cup of tea without the bag and see if it leaves me with any thoughts.
Complain about this comment
@LSV (178)
'The 'Scriptures' here are a reference to what we call the Old Testament. Jesus said that the Scriptures testify of him, and yet Jesus is not mentioned once by name in the entirety of the Old Testament.'
Of course he is - YHWH. He's also the Suffering Servant, the Son of David, the Messiah and so on.
Okay, obviously people in the New Testament could not call on Jesus by the particular name he took on i his incarnation, but they could still put their trust in him by placing their trust in the Godhead. That leaves two questions:
1) Can someone be saved by trusting in YHWH without trusting in Jesus?
2) Can someone be saved without trusting in YHWH?
My suggested answers:
1) The parable of the tenants at the vineyard, references to Jesus as the capstone that was rejected and description of him as a stumbling block for the Jews suggest that if you follow YHWH but reject Jesus, then you're not in a saving relationship with God.
2) Romans 10 asks how people can be saved unless they are called. And in the Old Testament there is every indication that there is no salvation outside of YHWH. There are some indications that YHWH might have made himself known to people other than the Jews e.g. to Melchizedek's people who seem to have been worshippers of the Most High God, but that is definitely not the pattern.
'If a person is in a state of ignorance concerning the Christian faith, is 'Jesus' then not active vis-a-vis that person? This is what some people, alas, seem to be saying. If a person can be saved who has died in a state of ignorance, then that apparently 'undermines' the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, or even the relevance of Jesus Christ for that person ... Can you see that the objective existence and salvific activity of Jesus Christ is not dependent on what goes on between the ears of human beings?'
Jesus could be said to be at work in everyone - after all he sustains the universe. But at work in a saving way? You're right to warn against putting God in a box - we should not say that logically God could not work to save someone without the name of Jesus being involved. However when we turn to the people and ask how has God chosen to work, rather than how could God work, it seems that he has chosen to call his elect in such as to cause them to call on the name of Jesus for salvation.
I addressed some of this in post 143 - I'd be interested to hear what you have to say in response to it if you have the time, particularly Romans 10.
Complain about this comment
LSV.
Jesus' 'name' is not mentioned in the Old Testament but it doesn't He's not there.
He is the Son of God who became flesh.
In chapter one of John's gospel it talks about the Word...this is Jesus.
...present at the creation of the world.
If you look back to the very first book Genesis you will see the connection.
There are numerous others that I could provide you with...if you would like them.
Another one that comes to mind...if you read the book of Daniel and the story of the 3 men who were thrown into the furnace by the king...as the king looked into the furnace another figure could be seen with them....this was the pre-incarnated Jesus.
There are many others...but I hope this helps
Complain about this comment
Helio (@180)
The only things that we can be certain about are that the various authors of the gospels, multiply removed from Jesus (whatever you may think about Polycarp) tarted up their accounts to make them sound better, and to promote their prior theological (not historical) opinion that poor dead Jesus had in fact risen from the dead.
And the early church wrote this so-called 'piffle' in their blood, based on their belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Amazing commitment to a 'lie', don't you think?
I prefer to believe in a theory that is a bit more plausible than that.
By the way, Helio, you say there's no evidence to convince you of the truth of the Christian faith. But I wonder whether any evidence of any conceivable kind could ever convince you. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you are one of those types described in Luke 16:31, who would never be persuaded even in the face of an irrefutable miracle. I am sure you would find some way of explaining it away. People of your world-view have a lot of 'form' when it comes to things like that.
But at least we have one thing in common. I am also a sceptic and I also demand evidence. It's just that my scepticism is directed towards the materialistic / naturalistic world-view.
I find no evidence (especially empirical evidence) to convince me of your atheistic interpretation of reality. You bemoan the lack of so-called documentary evidence to support the Christian faith, but I can't help but notice that you pin your faith (and I mean faith) on an explanation of reality, which depends on unrepeatable events which occurred before the advent of recorded human history.
There is a certain delicious irony to that, don't you think? :-)
Complain about this comment
@Eunice (179)
I'm going to answer your post in a slightly different order than you asked the questions. Hope that's okay and doesn't cause any confusion.
'Drawing on previous discussion it appears that you believe rather than know that your version of Christianity is true and this is based on your belief rather than knowing that the bible is the infallible word of God - is that a fair summary?'
I think it's important here to define the word 'believe,' which I probably should have done earlier. In fact I'll define a few terms for you:
proof - can mean one of three things:
1) legal/historical proof in which the balance of evidence is sufficient to overwhelm doubt
2) scientific proof in which a theory so well explains observed phenomena that it seems unlikely to be overturned without radically new observations being recorded (e.g. the laws of thermodynamics) and alternative explanations being ruled out
3) logical/mathematical proof wherein a proposition can be demonstrated to be true from a set of axioms and data e.g. Pythagoras' theorem is proven.
knowing - the evidence is so overwhelming that I cannot conceive of it not being true, short of my senses lying to me.
belief - accepting a proposition as true on the basis of the offered evidence.
faith - belief accompanied by commitment to the proposition. That probably sounds a bit nebulous, but in the Christian context it means that faith is belief which is acted upon in a positive way, belief that is accompanied by works.
assurance - certainty about the truth of a belief and conviction that faith is well placed. It is a blessing from God in relation to faith in him. It's possibly the closest thing to how you seem to have used 'knowing.'
The caveat I would add is that I'm not very careful about distinguishing between faith and belief and indeed there are times when the Bible doesn't either, but where a distinction is drawn, it is along those lines.
Now to answer the question. I believe that the Bible speaks truthfully about God. I have faith in Jesus Christ as described by the Bible and hopefully in the way which is exhorted in the Bible. I have assurance that these things are true and my examination of the claims of the Bible concerning Jesus Christ and his resurrection meet an acceptable level of proof. In that sense, you could say that I know that the Gospel, which is the central message of Christianity as I understand it, is true. Doubtless in my imperfection and pride, there are other things I believe which are wrong, mistaken or even idolatrous, but the central saving message I know to be true.
Does that explain where I stand a bit better? It's probably a longer answer than you anticipated!
'Are there any other ways outside the bible that lead you to believe or know that your version of Christianity is true?'
Brian Thomas has mentioned some. There are references by historians and church history records the beliefs of the early church which match up well with the Old Testament. As Helio has pointed our, there is some separation from the events though, so I don't consider that evidence to be more important than the evidence of the New Testament itself. When I consider what it says, its internal coherence, its resonance with what I see in the world, in mankind and in myself, when I compare it with the Old Testament's expectations of the Messiah/Christ, when I take into account how close to the time of Christ it was written and most of all when I consider the resurrection itself and the ease with which it could have been disproved by simply producing the body of Jesus of Nazareth, the claim that he rose and ascended and is seated at the right hand of the Father seems to me to be the most convincing explanation.
'The difficulty I have is that it seems to me the only way you believe that it is true is because you trust and believe that the bible is the infallible word of God? Is that correct?'
I grew up trusting the Bible. I was blessed to be raised in a home where I was exposed to Christianity. I lost touch with the church around the time I was about 10, without ever thinking that Christianity was wrong, returned in my teenage years and found that my faith grew. Basically, I don't know when I started to believe or what caused me to believe. I just know that as far back as I can remember thinking about Jesus, I trusted him. As I have grown older, part of the process of growing in faith has involved investigating it, looking at evidence and being challenged by others. My faith did not arise out of a critical examination, but it has thrived under it. My first degree before I had a notion of entering the ministry was Physics and at Oxford there was no shortage of smart people asking difficult questions about the Bible and Christianity. There was also no shortage of smart, critically thinking people who were convinced by Jesus Christ. I've never worried that a critical examination of Christianity should be a problem.
'Hence why it is difficult for you to see that the bible could be wrong in places - because you then do not know what is true and what is not?'
It's difficult for me to see that it could be wrong because any time someone has suggested that it is, I've examined the issue and found a better explanation that is more consistent with the Bible as a whole. I find that a great number of objections arise out of:
* failure to understand the context
* failure to understand differences between English and the original languages
* an obsessions with King James Version combined with failure to understand the English of over three centuries ago
* refusal to consider explanations that have certain premises e.g. God being worthy of worship
* confirmation bias in wanting to see the Bible proved wrong
* sinful pride
'If it was proven to you that the bible was incorrect in areas - how would that impact your belief in CHristianity? '
That depends. There are a number of minor errors in the raw text - variations between manuscripts that are well known are generally as insignificant as a variant spelling. Those don't bother me in the slightest as they don't affect the message. The process of translation into English has more of an impact that textual variants. There are a handful of disagreements over whether certain passages were originally in the Bible - namely the ending of Mark and the start of John 8. I'm inclined the believe that the longer and shorter endings of Mark were later additions to the text and that the very short ending is the authentic one. As for John 8, it could be an authentic story that was a later insertion into the manuscript. I'm inclined to regard that passage as more like the Shepherd of Hemas, which was a letter written in the early church and has given much encouragement to Christians, but isn't given the canonical standing as the New Testament epistles. However these are two rare and exceptional cases. They stand out because of certainty over everything else.
I suspect though that what you had in mind was more along the lines of 'what if the Bible got its facts wrong.' That would be a concern, particularly if the facts relate to the central message of the gospel. If for instance evidence was provided that the resurrection did not happen, it would be a most serious challenge to Christianity that would have to be examined. I would have no fear of conducting such a process because I do not believe that an examination of such evidence would yield real proof against the claims of Christianity. Theoretically though, if you could disprove the resurrection, then Christianity comes tumbling down. Pretty big if though. Nobody could do it at the time and nobody has managed in the last 2,000 years.
That was a bit longer than I planned, but I hope that answering the questions in a different order has ultimately helped give a clearer answer.
Complain about this comment
@LSV (185)
It's funny. Some of the things you post make me want to tear my hair out. Then you go and post something like your reply to Helio that makes me want to go gather up all the hair I've torn out, make pom-poms out of it and starting chanting 'LSV, LSV!' while dancing like I'm on Glee.
I'll settle for a dignified 'hear, hear' though.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan:
You are misrepresenting me again. Don’t simplify and distort what I say and then complain about me not representing you properly. Pots and kettles, and all that.
1. I did NOT say that Christian ethics are good. If you read my posts, I said that there were SOME good aspects, but there are also bad aspects, eg. Jesus’ hatred towards unbelievers and his consigning them to hell. In other words, the ethic of Jesus is contradictory. He preached loving you enemies and turning the other cheek but was anything but loving towards those who did not believe in him. I like the loving and pacifist aspects; I deplore the other less loving and less pacifist aspects. They are bad (pernicious, you might say). I think that should be crystal clear.
2. Nor did I say that the divisions in NI are just a product of religious indoctrination of children. That is only PART of the explanation. It is partly a failure of education in general (remember that indoctrination is often unconscious: we pass on to others as truth what has been indoctrinated into us). I said that it was also partly a political clash of nationalisms.
3. “Ethics are rooted in doctrine”. This is a vague statement and I don’t particularly like the word doctrine because it has connotations of ‘dogma’, but in general I probably agree with it, if we take a doctrine to be simply a set of beliefs or principles. In this sense, one would like to think that ethics is not merely intuitive but has been thought out and is therefore based on some set of principles, which might be religious or secular or political or social etc. Now, take a principle like the golden rule, which Jesus states. You may think it derives from a loving god; I think it was pinched from earlier thinkers like Confucius, Hillel etc. It is a good principle but in my view it is totally unrelated to Christian dogma. In other words, the separation you talk about boils down to the fact that you believe in Christian dogma and I don’t.
4. This word ‘pernicious’ really bugs you. But let me say that:
(a) A dogma which condemns people who don’t agree with it to eternal damnation is pernicious.
(b) The idea that we can be ‘saved’ through faith is pernicious.
(c) The idea of the atonement - that someone should carry the blame for other peoples’ crimes - is pernicious.
(d) The concept of original sin is pernicious.
So, yes, there is a lot of difference here.
5. “NI has a veneer of religion, but underneath is quite secular”. To some extent I agree, though it is more religious than, say, the UK or France or the Netherlands. The UK has a veneer of religion in terms of the monarch as Head of the C of I, Bishops in the Lords, prayers in Parliament, BBC Thought for the Day etc, but it is definitely more secular than NI, which has the highest level of church attendance of any region of the UK. Also, NI politicians, especially on the unionist side, generally adopt reactionary religious attitudes towards issues such as abortion, women’s rights in general, homosexuality, political issues such as Palestine, human rights etc.
6. “What passes for religion is often very different from authentic Christianity”. Well, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. I have already said that Christianity is very much a mixed bag (according to Nietzsche, the last authentic Christian died on the cross). It seems that Christianity is very much open to interpretation. Presumably, those who fly a flag ‘for God and Ulster’ are sincere in their belief, and so too was Bobby Sands, who compared himself to Jesus ‘on the road to calvary’. So, whether the Gospel message is really different from those who commit sectarian violence is debatable, especially in the context of 2,000 years of ‘Christianity’. “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword” seems perfectly in keeping with the philosophy of the violent men of the last 40 years in NI.
7. I’m afraid we shall have to differ about ‘Christian faith’. I think it is totally illogical and unscientific What’s scientific or logical about a dead man being resurrected after more than two days?
Moreover, if you are ‘certain’ of this, not merely wishing that it were true, and have ‘verified it’, then this also is doubly illogical (a) because certainty is not a a word in the scientist’s vocabulary and (b) no proper scientist would state that this resurrection has been ‘scientifically verified’. You say that it is not logically necessary to examine other views in order to have certainty about one view, but this is a piece of meaningless nonsense, especially in the context of an irrational faith. Continuing with the example of the resurrection, how on earth could this ever be believed with certainty without reference to other views, eg. by contrasting it with the commonly accepted view that when you’re dead, Jonathan, you are well and truly dead. To be ‘certain’ that there was a resurrection of Jesus, you would have to show that he defied the scientific principle or law of nature (the ‘other view’) that all men are mortal, he was a man, and therefore he was mortal.
8. I think you are deluding yourself in implying that you have arrived at the truth simply by seeking it and nothing else. Your postings in general seem to me to display an immature cockiness of opinion which a wiser head would avoid. But simple certainties are also part of the problem in NI. Many people don’t like scepticism and doubt. They prefer black and white solutions. They think they have the truth and the right way - the Mass or the Hot Gospel - and that others are in error.
9. I think the Lecky quotes are highly relevant. Take the one about the Christian wild beast. Hasn’t ‘spreading the faith’ (evangelism) not historically involved much bloodshed? Does it not sum up the Crusades? The Inquisition? The 17th century wars of religion? The Bosnian conflict? The Irish Troubles? To name but a few.
10. I think your certainty about so much of Christianity should be contrasted with my doubt. I don’t know if Jesus existed. You do. I don’t know what will happen to me when I die. You do. I don’t know whether there is a god(s) of some sort (though definitely not the Christian sort). You do. I don’t know whther the universe had a beginning and will have an end. You do. Now, these doubts don’t worry me. I am happy to be a questioner who doesn’t know all the answers. And I do think that my scepticism is ‘infinitely’ more rational and more in accordance with the scientific evidence or lack of it than your certainties.
Complain about this comment
LSV (#185)
I'm sure Helio will make his own reply in time, but a few of your points need addressing, not least as they reinforce flawed opinions and some of them even struck me as slightly hypocritical.
Your statement that 'the early church wrote this so-called 'piffle' in their blood' is nothing special. Countless ideologies over the centuries have had people willing to die and lie for their faith, it didn't make it anymore true. Plus, if you were going to be killed for your faith, wouldn't you want it to be as amazing and 'tarted up' as possible? No one dies for a mediocre story, do they?
If someone was to perform a miracle in front of me, then yes, I probably would explain it away without resorting to divine intervention. However, I suspect you're one of the types described in the book of Natman 3:21 who attempts to put a divinity inspired spin on anything, even those things with hard solid scientific evidence that a god had nothing to do with it. People of your world-view have a lot of 'form' when it comes to things like that.
There is a horrendous lack of any believable evidence for Christianity if you discount the bible as being self-referencing propaganda and highly unreliable at that. The delicious irony about atheism, that you seem to have overlooked in your haste to describe it as a 'faith', is that atheism needs -no evidence whatsoever-!
It's not a statement of faith, it's not a belief, it's looking at the world and seeing it for what it is, instead of trying to create some greater magical being to oversee it all. When I see a tree, I see a tree, that's all. It requires no faith, no beliefs, it's. a. tree.
The burden of proof is on the people who wish to show something more, ie theists.
Skeptism towards anything is good. It encourages free thinking and an open mind. However, what you claim to have isn't skeptism if you refuse to consider evidence that directly contradicts what you think already. That's called delusion and is what a lot of theists have and call skeptism.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan: thank you for your comprehensive reply! One of the main areas of difference between us is with regard to salvation. As I understand it you believe that the only form of salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ - yes? Whereas for me, the only form of salvation is self-salvation. The teachings of CHrist can be used to help one do that and make the loving choices required for self salvation but for me, it does not matter how many times a person says they believe in JC, how strong their faith is in JC, these things are irrelevant unless they actually live the teachings and make choices for themselves that are loving. THe reasoning is this - everything we do /say/think has a consequence. So if someone says they believe they will be saved by JC - but lives a life full of anger /emotion etc then they will have the consequences of that both in their body and physical health and also to my understanding their next life. I know you don't agree with re-incarnation but you don't have to for this point. If you can see that how we live today has consequences for tomorrow - choices we make that only we are responsible for - then we can only save ourselves by living and making choices according to the ways of love. Saying I believe in JC or I have faith in JC is not enough -in my view it has to be lived and expressed by the person in gentleness and loving non-emotional ways. :-)
Complain about this comment
[Hey! Where did my post go?? Here it is again:]
Good grief - a somewhat target-rich environment is opening up in relation to the historical claims of Christianity. I'll have to return to this when I have stitched my sides back together from the image of Jonathan and his pom pom fanboi adulation of the marvellous LSV. Jonathan, can you *really* be happy with that? Yikes.
But for now:
Theoretically though, if you could disprove the resurrection, then Christianity comes tumbling down. Pretty big if though. Nobody could do it at the time and nobody has managed in the last 2,000 years.
"At the time"? You mean 40 years LATER? The problem is that the burden of proof is with those who claim a resurrection happened. The evidence in the bible is VERY strong, nay incontrovertible, that the stories of the resurrection were cooked up decades later as embellishments at best, and have zero credibility. The resurrection is a myth. The fact that Christianity has not come tumbling down is testament to the ease with which people can deceive themselves. Have you READ the accounts? Really? Side by side? Go do.
Complain about this comment
LSV, the history of the world is written in the blood of people who died for piffle. The 11/9 hijackers and 7/7 bombers died (and killed) for piffle. The Inquisitors and witch-hunters burnt people at the stake over piffle. Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered over piffle.
You truly under-estimate the Power of Piffle, and this is your loss.
The historicity of the resurrection as an event is inextricably tied up in the historicity of the attendant events. I do not find it particularly problematic that Jesus the Nazarene made a pitch at being the Messiah and ended up getting crucified by the Romans as yet another example to those uppity Jews in C1CE Palestine. I don't even have a problem with the notion that the temporary place where his body was placed was found to be sans stiff when the ladies (whichever ladies they were, of course!) arrived on Sunday morning to do their embalming.
The problem is that *every* account of the so-called "risen Christ" that we have from the gospel writers is quite clearly made up after the event. Not *one* of these post-resurrection accounts has any credibility at all, and the earliest gospel doesn't mention *any* post-resurrection appearances! There is really only one interpretation that does justice to the texts in the bible, and that is that the initial "resurrection" of the dead Jesus was conceived as a spiritual one ("evidenced" only by visions, such as that of Saul Paulus); over time it morphed into a pseudo-physical one, with concomitant embellishments that are characteristic of the authors of Matthew, Luke and John, recorded NOT to provide historical context, but as propaganda for the received dogma. I.e the belief in a resurrection came *first*, and became a shibboleth, whereupon the stories were invented to back up the theological "reality" - just like Matthew faking the extra donkey.
So enough with this nonsense that the resurrection is historically reliable. That is completely and utterly untrue - even IF there was a resurrection, the bible does not support it!
How odd. Helio standing up for the Bible in the face of the reinterpretationists. Whatever next?
Complain about this comment
Helio, you're missing the point! It's a matter of faith. To provide direct evidence would destroy the entire concept of religion.
Besides, if people are capable of believing in a 6000 year old universe, then a simple physical resurrection is small fry. I can even come up with some semi-plausible justifications for a seeming resurrection (if you're prepared to stretch the boundries of credulity), but I can't think of any way to squeeze 6 billion years into 6000.
I've stated before, it's impossible to argue with someone if their opinions are held as a matter of belief. Evidence and reason that run contrary to their beliefs are ignored. Your only hope is that they lose that belief and begin to see reason.
Complain about this comment
Natman, yep - the sad thing is that when you *do* actually lay out the gospel accounts (and Acts and Corinthians of course) beside each other, it is as clear as day what is going on. Theistic Christians accuse the rest of us of not treating the bible as a historical document; of not believing what is written there. Yet the ones abusing the bible are in fact those who are mangling the texts and torturing them so that they produce a message that is not there, or to suppress a very clear message that *is* there.
Peter and Jonathan are perfect examples of this behaviour, in their hilarious, but in the end futile, gymnastics in relation to the Matthean account of the Palm Sunday Donkeys. Here we have a very very clear set of information in the bible, and because it disagrees with their perceptions (even though they pretend the bible is inerrant, for theological reasons that are not themselves even biblically coherent, never mind logically ridiculous!), they are prepared to pretend that it does not exist.
Pfah!
But, as a Christian, it saddens me to see other Christians treat the bible with such disrespect. You would think that they almost don't care about what really happened - all they care about is "The Truth" which is what they have received, and they can't even tolerate imagining the *possibility* that there may be a better explanation that takes account of all the evidence.
They're like Sudoku players who go around altering the original numbers in the grid.
Complain about this comment
Natman
You raised this issue of faith and evidence before, only now I see you are using the words “direct evidence”. I don’t know if this indicates a shift in your thinking from the donkey thread, I mean the save the world thread, or not, but, do you trust me to change the tyres on your car, you never did say.
You also say that it’s impossible “to argue with someone if their opinions are held as a matter of belief”. Really? How are using the word belief here, and surely at least some of us Christians on here have engaged in debate?
Anyway, on to the issues of the bible as evidence; without going anywhere near the debate about it’s accuracy, what kind of extra biblical evidence are you looking for? Other accounts which affirm the resurrection? Affirmation of the resurrection from people who don’t believe it happened? I’ve asked before, but I’m not sure what you mean here. And apart from that perhaps we ought to note that the bible isn’t actually just one book.
It is, rather, a collection of books, or, to be more precise, a collection of letters and poems, and sayings and history (oh dear, did I say history?) and law and so on, in other words a variety of literature. It includes writings by 40 or so different authors over about 1,400 years. There is unity *and* diversity. These writings reflect the unique personalities and perspectives and intentions of the authors (did I ever say this already?) It has a context in a culture (which, incidentally, Helio, isn't our culture), with people and events and traditions and language. Interestingly there were no chapters or verses, and it isn’t even a collection of books arranged systematically according to doctrine. This makes it (whatever you think of it) a collection of evidence.
So while I can agree with you and Helio that just because people were prepared to die because of the story it doesn’t make the story true, could we at least recognise that the bible isn’t some sea-front gospel memory verse.
Helio
You’re not still on about donkey’s, are you?
I see you have moved on. (Are those statements contradictory?) Perhaps you might tell us what kind of accounts you would accept as consistent. Note I said consistent rather than evidence for a resurrection.
I do recognise however that you are right. People who declare themselves as such, usually are. :-)
Complain about this comment
Natman (@ 189)
Skeptism towards anything is good. It encourages free thinking and an open mind. However, what you claim to have isn't skeptism if you refuse to consider evidence that directly contradicts what you think already. That's called delusion and is what a lot of theists have and call skeptism.
And I think the same argument could be applied to you. Oh... how silly of me. I forgot. The atheists don't need to consider any evidence to support their explanation of reality, because the idea that all the complexity of the universe is the result of undirected and non-intelligent activity is so bleedin' obvious that we don't even need to think about it! (Never mind the fact that that idea directly contradicts the empirical evidence of the workings of nature. But hey ho - there is obviously some mysterious law of nature which states that the subjective opinions of the village atheist must always trump logic and evidence!).
The idea that a particular interpretation of reality is self-evident and therefore should not need to be defended is, at best, intellectually naive, and at worst, scurrilous and deceitful. I can see that you have never studied epistemology. You perhaps think that our view of life should derive from empiricism alone (I'm assuming that from your rather simplistic example of looking at a tree); if so, then you really are more uninformed than I imagined. Empiricism is a fallacious method of arriving at 'truth' anyway (whatever the word 'truth' could possibly mean in your philosophy), since it is self-refuting. The fundamental claim of empiricism, namely that all knowledge derives from sense experience, is itself not derived by that method. So therefore we need to factor in something which is non-empirical called 'reason', which therefore must possess validity. It is then incumbent on anyone who makes truth claims to explain the validity of reason within their philosophy.
An idea of reason derived from the process of natural selection cannot deliver truth, since the only justification for anything within that scheme is pragmatic: whether it aids survival, or not. This is actually the logical implication of Professor Dawkins' thesis in his TED talk about the "queerness of the universe": his self-refuting hypothesis goes that 'human reason' has evolved for a particular reason, to enable man to operate within certain parameters. This is a pragmatic view of reason. And I say that his hypothesis is 'self-refuting' in that there is actually no reason for us to believe what he is saying anyway, since, according to his own epistemological claim, he is only saying this for subjective reasons, namely to aid his own survival. (It's a bit like the person who says "everything is meaningless" and then expects us to believe that what he has just said possesses meaning!)
Therefore there is no such thing as 'truth' within this schema. If I am deluded - as you convince yourself that I am - then I am no further from 'the truth' than you are, since the only justification for believing anything is whether it aids survival. If I think that my beliefs aid my survival, then that is completely in keeping with the process of natural selection. There is no 'right or wrong', 'truth or falsehood' about it.
Now, of course, I regard this naturalistic epistemology as a load of utter cobblers. Naturalists (by which I mean 'metaphysical naturalists') have no basis for the concept of 'truth', as I have explained, and therefore they steal the idea from a world-view they reject. The same, of course, goes for morality.
If you think that atheism (and the materialistic philosophy undergirding it) is not a belief and is therefore self-evident, then perhaps you ought to read this article from the Telegraph. Here Tom Chivers (clearly of the materialistic persuasion) explains that different beliefs about the nature of humanity have a direct effect on how we treat the unborn foetus (and other moral issues of course can be considered). The idea that the materialistic view is "so obvious that there's no need to defend it" is frankly absurd and naive in the extreme, especially when serious moral issues flow from it. I could just as easily say that basic human morality depends on a view of the sanctity of life, which does not sit easily with the view that human beings are nothing more than bundles of atoms and molecules. I could argue that the sense we have of morality constitutes clear evidence that the non-materialistic view of reality is "self-evident". But the very fact that people of different persuasions can put arguments to support their particular view of reality rather demonstrates that their respective views are not, and cannot be, self-evident! Simple logic tells us this.
Therefore there is a burden of proof on the atheist to justify his world-view, just as much as there is a burden on the theist.
Complain about this comment
Two posts to answer! And both of them as full of flaws as the other! Oh, Helio, I bet you wish you were this lucky! ;)
2MP, first.
I mean evidence as provided directly, as opposed to going to research it yourself, not direct as in first-hand.
Also, it -is- impossible to debate with someone when their only source is a book (or collection of books, I'll get onto that soon) that they insist is directly given by god. I can't refute belief, I can't argue with faith, it's too personal, and when that person denies evidence in favour of faith, I give up.
Either the bible is one book, or a collection of books. If it's, as some claim, inspired by god directly, then it's a single book with one editor and a collection of authors. If it's a collection of independant sources, then you can't claim divine inspiration. Either one or the other, you can't have both. The 'unity *and* diversity' you so ardently claim was a careful crafting of early church politics in deciding which books to keep and which to throw, and further politicing when older translations were discovered and revealed inconsistencies and contradictions.
As a collection of evidences, it's culturally interesting but no serious historian would ever use the bible as a source for history and certainly no scientist would ever use it as a serious basis for anything at all. Despite your claims, outside of those who insist on biblical inerrancy, the bible is -not- evidence.
LSV,
I have an open mind and like to think I practice free thinking, I apply just as rigourous vetting procedure on non-religious opinions as I do those that require faith.
You're missing the point entirely. How can I prove nothing? How can I give evidence that there is nothing there? Surely the fact that the existance doesn't seem to be apparent is enough? The complexity of the universe is an argument of incredulity. Just because -you- can't see complexity as random doesn't mean it isn't so. As a chemist, I can do this everyday. Create a super-saturated solution of an ionic salt, drop in a seed crystal and within moments you have an incredibly complex crystal structure. The physical laws to which this operates is well known and well proven; the pattern made is completly random, but it's also very complex and has followed some very precise rules.
Despite your claims to the contrary, it is on the part of those who believe in god to prove his existance. To argue against it merely requires me to say 'I don't believe in god'. Job done. You'd be suprised how much thought I -don't- give god every day. Your straw man sayings are old and well disputed. Although you might accuse me of avoiding the question, I am confident in my lack of belief. If there's something you have that can convince me otherwise, then go ahead.
It's very simple; I don't believe in gods. The universe neither needs one, nor do I. I cannot provide evidence in a lack of gods just as you cannot provide evidence for the existance of them instead.
Complain about this comment
Jonathan Boyd (@187) -
It's funny. Some of the things you post make me want to tear my hair out. Then you go and post something like your reply to Helio that makes me want to go gather up all the hair I've torn out, make pom-poms out of it and starting chanting 'LSV, LSV!' while dancing like I'm on Glee.
It's because I feel at times between a rock and a hard place.
The 'rock' is the vacuousness and logical absurdity of atheism and the 'hard place' is the brutal injustice of certain forms of fundamentalist Christianity.
Brian's quotes from William Lecky reveal something of the confusion and conflation of ideas associated with a common perception of Christianity. I totally disagree with Lecky concerning his statements about the miraculous, which have to do with a certain explanation of reality (is the universe a closed or an open system?) I fail to see what is objectionable about the idea of a system open to the involvement of an intelligent creator.
But... of course, it depends what that creator is like. And this is where I agree with Lecky. I have nothing but sympathy for his revulsion at a certain interpretation of Christianity, as expressed thus:
Persuade men that when ascribing to the Deity justice and mercy they are speaking of qualities generically distinct from those which exist among mankind -- qualities which we are altogether unable to conceive, and which may be compatible with acts that men would term grossly unjust and unmerciful: tell them that guilt may be entirely unconnected with a personal act, that millions of infants may be called into existence for a moment to be precipitated into a place of torment, that vast nations may live and die, and then be raised again to endure a never-ending punishment, because they did not believe in a religion of which they had never heard, or because a crime was committed thousands of years before they were in existence: convince them that all this is part of a transcendentally perfect and righteous moral scheme, and there is no imaginable abyss to which such a doctrine will not lead.
Just because I reject atheism and embrace Christianity does not imply that I buy into certain ideas commonly associated with Christianity. I acknowledge that there are various verses of the Bible which can be interpreted (I would say misinterpreted) in a way that suggests that God damns people simply for being born (or should I say, conceived), but there are a great many others which could be interpreted in a completely different way.
Throughout the entire period of my life during which I have openly professed to be a follower and disciple of Jesus Christ, I have not, even for one brief moment, been able to agree with certain ideas considered by many to be 'sound doctrine'. These ideas include the concepts of reprobation and inherited guilt. I find it impossible to understand how a moral, self-aware, intelligent, sentient human being can seriously consider the doctrine of reprobation (whereby God, in effect, creates some people for no other reason than to damn them - whether by supra- or infralapsarian means) to be remotely consistent with any idea of justice the human mind has the capacity to comprehend. Or that when a mother holds her new-born baby in her arms and looks on him with joy, that God looks on that same child with eternal burning anger, because of the guilt of the sin of Adam, and such a God would have no qualms about casting that baby into a fire of burning sulphur where he will scream in hideous agony forever, if he were unfortunate enough to die, not having 'said the sinner's prayer'. I challenge any Christian to prove to me that there is any difference between the character of God and the character of Satan in that scenario. (So you can see that I have had my "hair tearing" sessions too - many of them, in fact!)
(I hear what you're saying about Romans 10. I will look into that, but bear in mind it is specifically to do with Israel).
Complain about this comment
Perhaps there are some, reading, watching or participating, creative (perhaps even clever) enough to use the following words in a sentence:
Bush. Round. Mulberry.
A first person plural pronoun may be useful.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
The RE Syllabus at Key Stage 3 does address the issues of prejudice, sectarianism and reconciliation at Key Stage 3. However, the resources still ignore secular philosophies such as Humanism and Christianity gets most coverage with a lot of examples from the Bible.
I think it rather avoids addressing head on the local religious divisions. I don't think it really explains to teenagers what the central issues are between Protestants and Catholics in NI. For example, if you were 'brought up' by your parents and local church to believe that the Pope is the antichrist, there is nothing here to tell you why he isn't (or allegedly isn't!). Similarly, if you were brought up by your parents and the church to follow the Pope in his belief that Protestant churches are not TRUE Christian churches, there is nothing in it to suggest why they are (or allegedly are!).
Complain about this comment
Natman, yes, I'm seething with the envy of the jilted right now. I feel like I have been cuckolded or something. The bevy of little beauties that I have carefully cultivated as my own precious W&T harem have been wooed away by the charms of another, and I pace dejectedly rejectedly ejectedly down the street in the rain, the rising moon casting a baleful almost accusatory eye at my huddled shape, as if its answer to my yearning is for me to look inside myself, where I know I will find naught but emptiness itself.
But setting that aside for a moment, back to LSV and his chirpy yet ultimately doomed attempt to "get" atheism. I mean, what IS that pile of socks? I seem to recall Plantinga making a similar inane argument, and I also seem to require someone sensible ripping him a new one, but I can't seem to track down the precise exchange. Never mind. As 2MP points out, we seem to be revisiting some territory that has perhaps been adequately mapped, and LSV's fishy utterances from the Comfy Chair have been addressed on several occasions.
I would like to reassure The Subject, however, that his caricature of the atheist position is incorrect (I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear that, since his assessment of the truth or otherwise of certain core aspects of theistic Christian dogma appears to be based on whether he thinks it corresponds with his own soft spot for wee babies). Take this, for instance:
I totally disagree with Lecky concerning his statements about the miraculous, which have to do with a certain explanation of reality (is the universe a closed or an open system?) I fail to see what is objectionable about the idea of a system open to the involvement of an intelligent creator.
Now here, as a Christian Atheist, I feel I have to hold up a little flag. I have no axe to grind for Lecky, but I am perfectly open to the idea that there may be an intelligent creator who also tinkers with the universe and performs miracles. If such a pixie (and by its fruits shall ye know it) exists, and our universe is but a subsystem of a larger system that incorporates one or more of these superdupernatural meddlers, that is fine by me. But there is a problem. There is no evidence for such pixies. Our universe seems to run just as well *without* invoking these strap-ons as with them.
"But what about miracles?" I hear our aspirant philosopher cry. Yet when asked to provide examples, the doughty protosage gives us nothing but *stories*! I, and indeed most rational people, respond: "WHAT miracles?". LSV then points to more stories, and stories about stories, and conclusions based on the flimsiest of premises. And so we end up stuck - LSV insisting that we are excluding miracles a priori (with our naturally-selected brains), when in fact all we are doing is asking him to adopt a very basic standard of honesty.
It's all a bit pathetic.
Complain about this comment
Oh, Helio, dearest, you are quite the Hosea. Come in out of the dreek, little one.
Complain about this comment
Here, O Israel... ;-)
Complain about this comment
Helio (@201)
But setting that aside for a moment, back to LSV and his chirpy yet ultimately doomed attempt to "get" atheism. I mean, what IS that pile of socks? I seem to recall Plantinga making a similar inane argument, and I also seem to require someone sensible ripping him a new one, but I can't seem to track down the precise exchange. Never mind. As 2MP points out, we seem to be revisiting some territory that has perhaps been adequately mapped, and LSV's fishy utterances from the Comfy Chair have been addressed on several occasions.
Thank you for this humorous little nightcap, Helio. The village atheist's best mate's (or are you the actual VA?) specious expatiations are a hilarious way to round off a truly mesmerising day dancing round the epistemological mulberry bush, as 2MP has so atmospherically described it. Don't think your comments trouble me. In fact I find them a positive scream. Ad hominem digs, name dropping without evidence, blarney, bluster and bluff. Positively wonderful stuff. The perfect tonic for the end of day!
I am fascinated by your observation that my attempt to "get" atheism is ultimately doomed. Of course it's doomed! If your fantastically implausible explanation of reality is correct, all my attempts to do anything at all are "ultimately doomed". And so are yours. We are all doomed. That is what you believe (sorry, that is what you claim to know). Eternal oblivion beckons. The general anaesthetic to end all anaesthetics. La la land.
So since we are all doomed, since we are all sailing nearer to that great iceberg of human mortality that stands ready to capsize us all into the deep of eternal unknowing, what the heck does it matter what anybody believes?!
You get so hot under the collar about religion, blah, blah, blah, ... but so what? If my beliefs are natural selection's way of helping me to survive, then that's OK, according to your philosophy! Gosh, you're not even faithful to your own belief system. Sorry, evolution, all is forgiven. Even your best mates haven't yet twigged what you're about!
It's obvious to me that I know a heck of a lot more about the logical implications of atheism than you do.
Yawn. Another day of trying to chisel into closed minds. I think I'll call it a day...
Complain about this comment
@LSV (198)
'But... of course, it depends what that creator is like. And this is where I agree with Lecky. I have nothing but sympathy for his revulsion at a certain interpretation of Christianity, as expressed thus:'
I can sympathise with that. The way Lecky phrases it certainly doesn't come across as attractive or loving. But then I don't think it quite reflects the understanding of Christian I have, which as you've probably worked out is from the Reformed tradition.
'I acknowledge that there are various verses of the Bible which can be interpreted (I would say misinterpreted) in a way that suggests that God damns people simply for being born (or should I say, conceived), but there are a great many others which could be interpreted in a completely different way.'
I'm not sure how much you're implying with the phrase 'simply for being born' but this certainly seems to resemble what Lecky says. I'm not sure that 'simply' is really the best word. My understanding of God's wrath is that is provoked not imply by being born, but by born as a sinful person, into a sinful race, with a sinful heart, committing sinful deeds and the most egregious of sins is the failure to recognise YHWH as Lord.
I'm guessing from a few other comments you make that a major concern you have is the fairness of applying this to a child. Maybe we could agree that there are good reasons to interpret the Bible as saying that adults in full possession of their mental faculties stand before God guilty and without excuse. Even if you disagree with that interpretation, would you say that it is easier to argue for as a reasonable understanding of scripture than saying the same thing of a child or mentally disabled adult?
If anyone said that God sends infants to hell and doesn't show unease, uncertainty or distress about it, I would wonder what state their own heart is in because I don't think that the Bible gives us much information about wrath and children. As far as I can tell anything abut judgement is applied to adults. When it is mentioned in a context relating to children, it is in the sense that those who mistreat children will be condemned. The way that Jesus treats children and the certainty David had that he would see his dead child again suggests to me that there is hope that there is no judgement for children or anyone else who could not be held accountable for their lives. I can't say that for sure, but it seems like a reasonable understanding and I guess I would like it to be true. I can see a case for saying that children are saved by the faith of their parents due to the idea of the covenant family as well.
'Or that when a mother holds her new-born baby in her arms and looks on him with joy, that God looks on that same child with eternal burning anger, because of the guilt of the sin of Adam, and such a God would have no qualms about casting that baby into a fire of burning sulphur where he will scream in hideous agony forever, if he were unfortunate enough to die, not having 'said the sinner's prayer'. I challenge any Christian to prove to me that there is any difference between the character of God and the character of Satan in that scenario.'
I can sympathise with that. Rather than deal directly with the case of a new-born baby, I'd actually like to consider more generally the comparison between God and Satan (which would then have repercussions for the case you describe).
What is the difference between God sending people to Hell and Satan wanting people to suffer - does God take pleasure in people's suffering in a way that makes him like Satan? That's the essence of what you're challenging there as far as I understand it. We both agree that that surely can't be the case, but presumably for different reasons and with different consequences for views of wrath, judgement, salvation, evangelism, etc.
The way I understand these issues would be quite similar to Jonathan Edwards - I wonder if you've ever read his essay on 'The End For Which God Created The World'?
'I hear what you're saying about Romans 10. I will look into that, but bear in mind it is specifically to do with Israel'
That's a fair point. That being said, while Paul does make much of Israel's special relationship, he also spends much of Romans emphasising that they are in the same plight as Gentiles and are saved in the same way. If it is necessary for Israel to hear and call on the name of Jesus, I'd be sceptical about the idea that Gentiles wouldn't have to.
Complain about this comment
@Helio (210)
'Natman, yes, I'm seething with the envy of the jilted right now. I feel like I have been cuckolded or something. The bevy of little beauties that I have carefully cultivated as my own precious W&T harem have been wooed away by the charms of another, and I pace dejectedly rejectedly ejectedly down the street in the rain, the rising moon casting a baleful almost accusatory eye at my huddled shape, as if its answer to my yearning is for me to look inside myself, where I know I will find naught but emptiness itself.'
Would you like a hug?
@Eunice (190)
Sorry, but I nearly lost your post in the athesit-infested seas.
'As I understand it you believe that the only form of salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ - yes?'
Correct.
'Whereas for me, the only form of salvation is self-salvation. The teachings of CHrist can be used to help one do that and make the loving choices required for self salvation'
By teachings, I assume you refer to a small subset of his teachings? He had quite a bit to say about the need to repent and to approach him as the way to (re)establish relationship with God.
The Christian understanding of mankind's plight is that our rejection of God and continued sin mandate a punishment (which makes sense - why would a loving God treat evil as if it was of no consequence?). We cannot wipe out our sin, therefore the debt must be paid either by us, or by an appropriate substitute - Jesus Christ. Being fully man, he can take the place of a man and die, but being fully God, he is without sin, can rise from the dead and is an acceptable substitute because he can adopt the role of both the offender and the offended against - he is not a disconnected third party.
'for me, it does not matter how many times a person says they believe in JC, how strong their faith is in JC, these things are irrelevant unless they actually live the teachings and make choices for themselves that are loving.'
I can sympathise with that and the Bible is full of teaching that Christians must have the kind of faith that is live out. After all Jesus did say that people would know who his disciples were because of their love for each other. Christians (myself included) or often poor evangelists because we struggle to do that.
Thankfully though, Jesus over came the struggles he faced and presents us with a life that backed up his message. I can fully understand being disillusioned with Christian claims when you see Christian lives. But what about Christ? You obviously consider his life to have great worth, so does that make you more inclined to believe his message?
Complain about this comment
@brianmcclinton (175)
'1. I did NOT say that Christian ethics are good.'
I doubt there's anyone here who thinks that you did. I certainly didn't imply it. I was drawing a distinction between your view of ethics and your view of doctrine, rather than setting out how much of Christian ethics you agree with.
'They are bad (pernicious, you might say)'
Don't you mean 'I might say' - after all, it is your choice of word, not mine and has been all discussion.
'2. Nor did I say that the divisions in NI are just a product of religious indoctrination of children. That is only PART of the explanation.'
When you talked about a failure of education I wasn't sure if you were talking about education with regard to religion or education in general.
I was asking you if I had correctly summarised your beliefs precisely because I wanted to make sure that I was discussing what you were arguing for, not a misunderstanding of what you said. If someone asks for clarification it's a bit bizarre to then go and attack them for 'misrepresenting you.' I was asking what your view is, not stating what it is.
Incidentally I do agree that there are serious problems with education and struggle to see how separating Catholic and Protestant (or 'Catholic' and 'Protestant') kids can do anything other than foster a sense that 'the other side' are different and suspicious.
'3. “Ethics are rooted in doctrine”. This is a vague statement and I don’t particularly like the word doctrine because it has connotations of ‘dogma’,'
Ethics don't appear out of the aether. Ethics are a response to doctrine. Change doctrine and you change the definition of what is good resulting in a change in ethics.
What distinction are you drawing between doctrine and dogma? Dogma tends to be used in a pejorative way. Doctrine is simply the technical word for beliefs or a system of thinking. Dogma consists of those doctrines which are held to be essential truths, however there is a more popular pejorative use of the word in which any doctrine is labelled as dogma to attack it as a blindly held superstition. Doctrine is more general, dogma is more technically more specific, but popularly used a pejorative label for general doctrine. Without knowing which use of dogma you intended, I went for doctrine.
'Now, take a principle like the golden rule, which Jesus states. You may think it derives from a loving god; I think it was pinched from earlier thinkers like Confucius, Hillel etc.'
It certainly wasn't invented around AD 30, I agree with you on that. Earlier forms of it can be found for instance in Deuteronomy. Other philosophers arriving at it earlier doesn't rule out God as the origin. If he creates men with a conscience and a mind then it's possible that they can arrive at good ethics. Providing a solid base to justify the ethic as a good and correct one is a different matter however.
'It is a good principle but in my view it is totally unrelated to Christian dogma. In other words, the separation you talk about boils down to the fact that you believe in Christian dogma and I don’t.'
Not necessarily. If we ask 'why is this ethic good' then Christian doctrine can provide a foundation which goes back to God. Without Christian doctrine you can either arbitrarily accept it or have some ethical system which is governed by beliefs about what is good.
'4. This word ‘pernicious’ really bugs you. But let me say that:'
Well it's very relevant to what Will is asking e.g. Is evangelism abuse?
'(a) A dogma which condemns people who don’t agree with it to eternal damnation is pernicious.'
In what sense? That it is simply harmful to those who don't agree? Or that the harmful consequences are wrong? In the first case, you must say that any form of punishment for wrong-doing is also pernicious. If the second, then are you saying that it is harmful to share a belief that other people subjectively view as wrong?
'(b) The idea that we can be ‘saved’ through faith is pernicious.'
This has pretty much the same issues. In what way is it pernicious?
'(c) The idea of the atonement - that someone should carry the blame for other peoples’ crimes - is pernicious. '
Again, in what way?
'(d) The concept of original sin is pernicious.'
In what way? You've said that various things are pernicious, but not justified that view in any way here - something I have frequently asked you to do.
'5. “NI has a veneer of religion, but underneath is quite secular”. To some extent I agree, though it is more religious than, say, the UK or France or the Netherlands.'
That doesn't say a lot though. Europe is very secular.
'6. “What passes for religion is often very different from authentic Christianity”. Well, “by their fruits ye shall know them”'
That's rather in line with what I'm saying.
'It seems that Christianity is very much open to interpretation. Presumably, those who fly a flag ‘for God and Ulster’ are sincere in their belief, and so too was Bobby Sands, who compared himself to Jesus ‘on the road to calvary’.'
There's a difference between being sincere and being right.
'So, whether the Gospel message is really different from those who commit sectarian violence is debatable, especially in the context of 2,000 years of ‘Christianity’.'
Ok, let's debate it. I've laid out the message of the gospel as typically spread by evangelists. In what way does sectarian violence relate to that message?
'“I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword” seems perfectly in keeping with the philosophy of the violent men of the last 40 years in NI.'
Really? What's the context for the quote? We don't want to do any silly proof-texting do we? How does Jesus' partial description of his mission turn into a prescription to take up the sword, particularly in light of his refusal to allow the disciples to engage in violence on his behalf? Taking into account wider Christian teaching, what is the nature of the peace and the sword that Jesus alludes to?
A better understanding of the text would be that Jesus hasn't come to bring all people together, but that his teaching will be divisive. There will be those who are for him and those who are against him. Sheep and goats. Wheat and tares.
'7. I’m afraid we shall have to differ about ‘Christian faith’. I think it is totally illogical and unscientific What’s scientific or logical about a dead man being resurrected after more than two days?'
I'm not sure what you're responding to - my post addressed to you, or the one I addressed to Eunice? If the one I addressed to Eunice, then it's a little disingenuous to say that I can't faith faith if the resurrection isn't logical or scientific when I included the concept of historical/legal proof. Scientific proof is somewhat irrelevant because the event is claimed as a miracle, so science has no bearing on it. Logical proof would be a strange thing to talk about. In what sense can be said to be logical or illogical for resurrection to occur?
'Moreover, if you are ‘certain’ of this, not merely wishing that it were true, and have ‘verified it’, then this also is doubly illogical (a) because certainty is not a a word in the scientist’s vocabulary and (b) no proper scientist would state that this resurrection has been ‘scientifically verified’.'
Why are you talking about history as if it was science? I'm taking making a claim that dead bodies spring back to life by some natural, observable, repeatable process; I'm claiming that one particular body - that of Jesus Christ - rose from the dead on one occasion two thousand years ago. That's a fundamentally different claim.
'You say that it is not logically necessary to examine other views in order to have certainty about one view, but this is a piece of meaningless nonsense'
Why?
'especially in the context of an irrational faith'
What does that context have to do with Christian faith?
'Continuing with the example of the resurrection, how on earth could this ever be believed with certainty without reference to other views, eg. by contrasting it with the commonly accepted view that when you’re dead, Jonathan, you are well and truly dead. To be ‘certain’ that there was a resurrection of Jesus, you would have to show that he defied the scientific principle or law of nature (the ‘other view’) that all men are mortal, he was a man, and therefore he was mortal.'
It seems fairly logical to assume that men are men unless otherwise demonstrated and that they are all mortal unless an immortal man is found. Resurrection seems like a more logical explanation than the suggestion that Jesus who by all appearances was a man, was actually not a man or that in contrast to every man who has lived, was immortal.
'8. I think you are deluding yourself in implying that you have arrived at the truth simply by seeking it and nothing else.'
What did I say which led you to say that? It's hard to reply without any sort of context or evidence.
'Your postings in general seem to me to display an immature cockiness of opinion which a wiser head would avoid'
Really? The kind if wisdom and lack of immature cockiness that:
* sneeringly says 'but then, Jonathan, we live in dear o’l norn iron where the Lord still looks down upon us from on high and wants to help us find 'the truth' because we cannot be trusted with freedom of thought, can we?'
* hyperbolically refers to evangelism rather than paedophilia as 'child abuse of the worst kind'
* libellously says 'I really find it tiresome trying to unravel your misrepresentations and contortions.'
* never explains what is meant by 'a merry-go-round of chopped logic.'
* cannot substantiate allegations like 'It is a tad ironic that a Christian like you should be selectively demanding evidence when your whole faith is based on a total absence of same'
* throws out insults and accusations then tries to dodge a response by saying 'Anyway, we’ll let that pass for the moment.'
* condescendingly says 'I shall cut to the chase and spell it out in neon lights so that even you can get the point.'
* doesn't b