Prismatic,

It is in a believers system and a part of their duty to try and convert people to believing in Jesus. They cannot change this anymore than the sun can stop shinning. To that effect, I have written a book for that very purpose (proselytizing), but I haven't ever attempted to force my beliefs upon anyone; I understand how aggravating and annoying that must be... If someone is not interested in the good news then that's their choice.

I think that alot of people dislike the dogmatic aspect of Christianity, but I believe that dogmatism plays a part in everyones lives, all that changes is what we are dogmatic about, and how we express the dogmatism.

I don't think that Christians are more moral than other people (non-believers), but I do believe that trying to be a good Christian, does point the direction of a person's moral compass to "good" as it were. I think that it is a useful aspect of Christianity, that it has the ability to make people "more moral or moral," so to speak.

Indeed, but once the intended victim of their conversion attempts has demurred, they need to cease and desist and allow him the complete freedom of conscience to which he is entitled.

Agreed.

That is certainly one side of the coin. I do not question that Christianity has the ability to make people better—in fact I know many examples of that—but there is no guarantee it will and it also has the ability to make people worse, to make them cruel and unkind to those of other faiths. I know many examples of that as well and I'm sure you do too. The fundamentalist versions give people an erroneous view of the world and science. Most often Christianity leaves people simply unchanged in character, unimproved in any degree. I'll be glad to give examples if you need them.

Agreed, there's no need for you to give examples. I think that Christians, to avoid becoming closed mindedly dogmatic, need to have tolerance of other people's beliefs, and use reason and logic as well as faith in their belief.

I think that Christianity has the effect of polarising peoples opinions. Some view its teachings as an invaluable message of truth. While others dismiss it as a nonsense. I think that those who dismiss Christianity as a nonsense, will no doubt also regard those who do believe in it with disdain and ridicule. And, label them as being delusional because the doctrine of Christianity does not conform to their idea of what is logical and what makes sense to them. Therefore, there is no point I feel, in trying to teach people the word of God / good news, who do not believe that there is a God. Indeed, the Christian places themselves at a disposition in attempting to do so.

That said, it is the duty of the Christian to try to save people. Therefore, they have almost no choice in the matter. But don't misunderstand me, I think that it is a pleasure for the Christian to try to save other people. I know that some people regard the notion that they need to be saved as arrogant, but I don't think that is arrogant at all. The Christian, in trying to save another person, believes that they are acting out of compassion. Arrogance has nothing to do with it. They are following a doctrine that they believe will benefit other people. They do so in the hope that they can convert people to believing in Jesus, and thereby save them from an eternity of pain and suffering.

I believe that the “beef” with Christianity comes, when those who do not feel that they need to be saved and don't believe in God; an atheist or a follower of another religion, are told that they are living a life of sin and that they need to be saved. I can see how that would create a “beef” with Christianity, leading to feelings of contempt and indignation towards it. However Christians are not psychics, they cannot tell by looking at a person if they don't believe in God (unless their clothing gives away that they belong to a different religion), therefore they travel around choosing people at random, hence the door to door approach.

Importantly, I think it should be considered that Christians believe that they are carrying out the will of God by trying to save people - a God that they love and trust. They want others to enjoy the benefits that believing in God has brought into their lives, and so they proselytise. Its quite a natural process.

Prismatic,

Prismatic wrote:

This is exactly what led earlier Christians to subject heretics to torture—the idea that torturing them into confession would save their souls at the price of destroying their worthless bodies—in other words it was mercy that led them to do it. In addition of course the money and property of heretics was confiscated for the greater glory of God.

I would not describe the type of people that use torture as a method to gain a confession / allegiance as Christians. I would describe them as monsters who used Christianity to fulfil their own base desires and agenda. Christianity as a religion, has imbued its leaders with authority. Corrupted people came into power and abused that authority. Jesus stated that the two most important commandments are to put God first and to love your neighbour. This message is may be being preached, but it is not practised by all who call themselves Christians. Hence we have the type of 'Christian' you describe. This does not change the fact that there are those who genuinely do practice Jesus' teachings and do have a genuine desire to save people and to spread the good news.

Prismatic wrote:

Nowadays of course torture is forbidden and believers must content themselves with milder means such as the discourtesy of forcing their attention on unwilling listeners. This is certainly less offensive than the rack. Most door-knockers will go away when you tell them you are not interested, but some are more persistent and stronger expressions of disinterest are required.

“Door knockers” as you call them, are only trying to fulfil their Christian duty, that you are not interested is entirely your prerogative. No one is going to force you to believe in Jesus.

Prismatic wrote:

Of course. When people are doing something that others find disagreeable, they always tell themselves that they are doing it for the good of the victim. "I'm doing this for your own good." It doesn't matter what their motive, they are still intruding. It may be their duty to preach, it is not my duty to listen. It's a rather simple matter.

I think that if someone genuinely wants to do something good for another person you cannot call that person “a victim.” The Christian genuinely does want to help the person. So they are, in effect preaching for the person's own good (attempting to save a soul). The person may or may not be receptive to the Christian, but the Christian does have the persons best-interests in mind. Therefore, I think that the motive does matter.

Prismatic,

Prismatic wrote:

The notorious No True Scotsman fallacy. Always on tap when a Christian does something naughty. The long history of persecution by church and state working hand in hand is too well known to be dismissed so lightly.

I have not committed the fallacy that you have accused me of and I'll explain why. For the purpose of this argument let us focus upon what Christ said in the book of Mark 12:28-31. Jesus was asked “Which is the first commandment of all?” he replies “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.” Here, in these words, Christ has given us the two most important tenets of Christianity, the cornerstone of Christianity if you will. Therefore, anyone who does not obey those two commandments, originally crafted in the old testament (book of Exodus 20:3-17) and re-endorsed by Jesus Christ, cannot call themselves a Christian, since they ignore its most important tenets. The people you described, who were torturing others into confession were not obeying those two commandments, therefore they cannot be considered Christians.

Prismatic wrote:

Sorry, but no. The notion that a person's good motives entitles him to make claims on my time, money, and attention is ridiculous. The first rule of good manners is not to impose on others. If that makes advertising and proselytizing difficult, so be it.

A persons good motives does not give them the right to make claims on your time, money, and attention. However, I don't think that it is bad manners to knock on someone's door with the intention of bringing them good news. If the Christian attempts to force the issue of bringing you the good news even though you don't want to hear it, then that is bad manners. If you don't want Christians knocking on your door perhaps you should put a “No Christians” sign up?

Alas my time has run out, hopefully i'll comment on the rest of your post later.

Prismatic,

Prismatic wrote:

They were in fact at least in their own minds carrying out the two commandments precisely. First, a commitment to loving God entails a commitment to seeing that his word is carried out as the law of the land and that no heretical beliefs which might imperil the faithful are allowed to stand. Second a commitment to loving thy neighbour includes protecting him from heretical opinions which might put his soul at risk by banishing heretics or turning them over to civil authorities. In the case of the heretic himself, the only hope of saving his soul from eternal punishment was his recanting. Heretics are well known to be so blinded to the truth that they will not recant voluntarily and must be tortured.

How can you be so sure of the mental state or motives of those who tortured people? Perhaps they were just cruel people who used Christianity as an excuse to torture people? When Christ says “neighbour” I think that the word neighbour is a metaphor for "our fellow man," which would also include the heretic. If, as you say they were following the doctrine of Christ at least in their own minds, then they were, in my opinion massively misinterpreting and misapplying the Christ's doctrine. Christ never said that we must torture or harm our neighbour.

Prismatic wrote:

Now the church preceded scripture and therefore has the greater authority, in particular, the authority for determining what scripture means. The Bible was not meant to be read and interpreted by everyone, it is the property of the church.

Jesus has the highest authority in the church, his doctrine should take precedent, and all decisions made by the church should be based upon upholding Christ's doctrine. I think that the bible was meant for everyone; even if the church did not, or claimed it to be their property. The book of Isaiah 42:1 states about Jesus “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” Thus displaying that God's message / Jesus' doctrine was meant for everyone.

Spectrum,

Spectrum wrote:

Perhaps one way out is for the next Messiah to turn up and erase all the negative verses and keep the positive verses. But I don't see the possibility of a Messiah in our modern-scientific-rational-internet world. Anyone claiming to be a prophet in our modern society is like to end up in a ward.

The ideal way out is to resolve the issue of (1) via other means other than using any immutable holy texts (Torah, Bible, Quran). As such, one effective way is to wean off the Abrahamic religions first, and substitute them with non-violent progressive and flexible (not immutable) spiritualities.

I think that the bible should be accepted for what it is and the account that it gives. I do not believe that any part of it needs to be changed – I believe that God has his own character. He has likes and dislikes, anger and wrath, love and kindness. If one rejects the bible or wants to change it, then, one rejects and wants to change God. There is violence in the bible, but how is that any different from what we see in today's world, or the world post the bible? Mankind has a violent history which God cannot be blamed for. Jesus' doctrine radically changed and updated God's message. Instead of obeying strict rules and laws from the old testament, that some would consider unreasonable. Jesus also spoke out against violence.

What non-violent progressive and flexible (not immutable) spiritualities do you suggest?

Prismatic,

Prismatic wrote:

The Inquisition is a well-studied historical phenomenon. There are extant Inquisitor's manuals which gave justifications for torture and execution. They relied on Bible verses such as those found in Deuteronomy 17:

Surely, this is a circumstance of where the bible has been misused for the purposes of serving a malevolent directive? I don't think that Christianity as a concept, can be blamed for such flagrant misuse of the bible. In such a case, where people were being tortured and executed in the name of God for their beliefs, the 'individuals' who did so, and misused the doctrine are responsible and accountable for their cruel "ungodly" actions. Upholding the doctrine of Christianity was not their cause or concern, they had their own agendas (probably concerning power) which they were attending to, by causing the suffering of others. If they thought that they were carrying out the will of Christ and adhering to his teachings, they were sorely misguided.

Prismatic wrote:

Torture and execution were not only practiced by the church but were part and parcel of civil justice. It is hard for us to imagine that people who considered themselves Christian could engage in terrible acts like these, but it is the case. They were not monsters, but merely people of their time.

In my opinion, people who commit such acts and call themselves Christians are not only hypocrites, but also psychologically monsters, in the form of human beings.

Prismatic,

So by their reasoning, the ends justifies the means? That is the usual rhetoric for people in power who act as monsters. I understand what you're saying though, they lived in a different time where the norms and values were vastly different to our own modern times.

Anyway, I've learnt quite a bit in our debate, and I value learning over winning or losing an argument. Thanks for your time.

Spectrum,

Personally, I don't believe that Jesus is the only way to God. I think that if God sees someone who is genuinely a good person and lives their life in a moral way, that is enough for God to accept them; the persons religious beliefs or spiritual practices do not matter, it is the persons 'heart' that matters to God. As is stated in 1 Samuel 16:7 “But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.” I think that the capability of believing in Jesus, is the all important factor. Someone who is genuinely religious or spiritual, with a degree of faith, has the capability of believing in Jesus even if they are not a Christian. Therefore, I think that God is more 'flexible' than many Christians believe and preach.

I believe in Christ's teachings and I think that they are deservedly immutable, he was after all, the son of God, that point has to be taken into consideration here, as he shares God's authority. I think that his teachings are timeless. And therefore suitable for the present and future generations of mankind. In my opinion, they are not in need of change or revision to suit the changing world.

Personally, I don't believe that we will ever be able to eradicate the fear of death from people, but I do believe that we can reduce it through positive spirituality. That said, I don't think that we should just invent, amalgamate or change spiritual practices to suit the changing world. The old and the new should grow together.

Prismatic,

Prismatic wrote:

Fanman wrote:Spectrum,

Personally, I don't believe that Jesus is the only way to God.

What then do you take as the meaning of these verses?

John 14:5-6

Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Obviously, Jesus is saying that he is the only way to God, I disagree with that though. As I stated, I don't believe that Jesus is the only way to God. I believe that being a good person with a faith (the spiritual capacity to believe in Jesus) is also a way to God.

Prismatic,

You're correct. I do not consider myself to be a true Christian. I do believe in the God of Christianity and Jesus, but I do not believe that they are as rigid as the Christian religion portrays them to be. I think that the "all or nothing" notion of believing in Jesus is unfair and untrue. I know what Jesus says in John 14:5-6 is very clear, but I still think that God would have mercy on those who are good, but follow other religions that they perhaps grew-up in.

Misty wrote:John 14:5,6 The key is to understand what Jesus is telling Thomas. Jesus was saying he will soon be going to be with the father. Thomas did not understand, so asked how can we know the way? Jesus being the mediation between God and mankind, taking the sin of all mankind and making them blameless is the way, the truth, and the life. The way, the truth, and the life is the gift Jesus gave/gives mankind. A free gift. In this respect Jesus is the only way to the father. So, the 'road' to the father has already been paved for humans. 'It is finished' were the words of Jesus. It isn't about religions, how one is reared, it is about the gift of Jesus. A gift already given for all mankind whether they acknowledge it or not. The way-the truth-the life is the gift. That is what Jesus meant when he said "no one comes to the father except through me." In due time all mankind and all creation will be restored to the father, creator God, because Jesus accepted the responsibility.

Misty,

I think that's a theologically beautiful comment and a good read. I agree that Jesus is the way to God, or at least the primary way. I also agree that Jesus is the mediation between mankind and God. And, that he was given to us as a gift - a gift that was, and is rejected by so many unfortunately... I think that where I have difficulty, is accepting that a genuinely good person who is of a different religion, would have to suffer that same fate as the worst sinner, only because they do not believe in Jesus; or reject him because of the religion they have been brought up in, whilst they are still being a good person. The fact that Christians spend there good time going from door to door, I think reflects how much they actually want to save people and how important they believe it is to believe in Jesus. Perhaps in God's time, those who are good people, but of a different religion / faith or even atheists, will be given a second chance to 'get to know' Jesus? God is merciful, therefore I believe that he would not allow a sinner and let's say a 'saint', to suffer the very same fate.

Misty,

I agree with what you say, except that I believe that a person can do enough to please God. I think that if a person believes in Jesus, follows his teachings and let's say gives generously to charity, I believe that individual is pleasing to God, like a pleasant smell. I think Proverbs 2:7 provides a good example of God's relationship with those who please him, those whom he considers righteous “He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.”

Prismatic,

I think that John Calvin is correct, in that we are all born with the mark or stain of sin upon us, dating back to Adam's and Eve's original sin. However, Calvin seems to not acknowledge the fact that we are worth saving! If we weren't, God would not have sent Jesus into the world to be a sacrifice for our sins. I think that Calvin's experiences of mankind perhaps clouded his objectivity?

edelker,

edelker wrote:

Even literal-or “natural” interpretation-hermeneutics-is nowhere found in the biblical texts. People suppose it is so based on curious and dubious reasoning like- the natural readings of prophecy fulfillments (since Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies literally-we are supposed to interpret scripture as such). Obviously, it doesn’t take much to show that such fulfillment neither happened literally nor as clearly as believers would have us think.

Isaiah 42:1 “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.”

Isaiah 42:6 “I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;”

Matthew 3:16-17 “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Do you not think that Matthew 3:16-17, and Jesus' life in general (the belief that he is salvation and light for all the people of the world) is the natural interpretation of the prophecy in Isaiah 42:1 and 42:6?

edelker,

Please don't forget to respond to my updated / edited post (#62), with a nice little question for you to get your teeth into!

edelker,

Do you not think that Isaiah 42:1-7 is literally referring to an individual?