Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format

Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > Mad_Gerbil and Rameus Discussion

Posted by: Rameus Nov 17 2004, 02:46 PM

Hairless Gorilla (aka Mad_Gerbil), I thought it might be interesting (read: entertaining) for us to engage in a ten question (each) dialogue. This is not a debate or anything of the sort. Let's call it sheer, morbid curiosity on my part. I'll start out by asking you ten questions, one at a time. You answer each honestly, and then I will ask another. Once I have exhausted my ten questions, it is your turn to play soapbox Sam. Sound like a rubber table to you? Rameus (NOTE: No other responses please until gorilla and senor arrogante are finished with the question and answer phase.)

Posted by: Rameus Nov 17 2004, 02:47 PM

Question I: How do you know that Jesus Christ is real?

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 17 2004, 03:11 PM

‘O wretched countrymen! What fury reigns? What more than madness has possess’d your brains? Think you the Grecians from your coasts are gone? And are Ulysses’ arts no better known? This hollow fabric either must inclose, Within its blind recess, our secret foes; Or ‘t is an engine rais’d above our town, T’ o’er look the walls, and then batter down. Somewhat is sure design’d, by fraud or by force: Trust not their presents, nor admit the horse.’ -Book II - The Aeneid Fortunately for you, I’m no better man then Priam when it comes to listening to my own personal Laocoon. I accept, with the proviso that the questions deal with religious matters and don’t deal with other personal aspects of my life. Naturally, I’ll return the favor in that regard. Also, I’d like to give each question some thought. Please allow for 24-36 hours per question so that I may silence the wailing Cassandra long enough to compose an answer worthy of the question. I’m afraid my answers will only frustrate you immensely – also, I don’t know if I could think of 10 questions to ask you in return. Don’t take that as in insult, it’s just I hate questions designed to ‘convert’ on the spot – they are lame and I don’t wish to be guilty of that nonsense. I’ve also just exhausted my knowledge of the Aeneid in a single post. Except for Dido and Carthage. There, that did it. I’m done.

Posted by: Rameus Nov 17 2004, 03:48 PM

I assume you are going to spend the next 24-36 hours communing with your God? If you need time that is not a problem. You know me, sometimes I respond in minutes, sometimes in weeks or even months. I do recommend a lot of caffeine though, that seemed to work wonders for me yesterday. Rameus

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 18 2004, 06:11 AM

QUOTE (Rameus @ Nov 17 2004, 10:48 PM) I assume you are going to spend the next 24-36 hours communing with your God? If you need time that is not a problem. You know me, sometimes I respond in minutes, sometimes in weeks or even months. I do recommend a lot of caffeine though, that seemed to work wonders for me yesterday. Rameus Well, yeah... that and my requisite 8 hours of sleep, 8 hours of work, 1/2 hr. of The Simpsons, cleaning the house, playing Tomb Raider with the kids, and blowing time on other threads. I briefly considered fasting for the sake of your soul during this time, but then I remembered that today is 2 for 1 at the local Taco Barn. As much as I love you, man, I simply cannot pass up that deal -- it only comes around once a week. I should have something for you this evening.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 18 2004, 02:57 PM

QUESTION 1: How do you know that Jesus Christ is real? INTRODUCTION: I like how you’ve worded this question. I’d like to take a moment to clarify my understanding of it. The question isn’t asking “How do you know Jesus Christ was real?” I think that is important, because it cuts to the heart of the matter. If Jesus were real in the past, but is no more, then I have to agree with Paul that ‘we among all men are the most miserable.’ The question also isn’t asking “How do you convince others that Jesus is real?” That is important because I’m not going to be writing an apologetic intended to convince anyone here. I’ll be writing about why I believe – and that is a personal thing that likely won’t have much meaning for anyone else here. I’d go as far to say that I don’t try to convince people that Jesus is real – that isn’t my job. Because I’m answering for me, I’m also going to be blunt. That means you’ll be enduring unsubstantiated ramblings about things meaningful to me but not meaningful for you. If anyone reading this gets upset about that I’ll invite them to PM Rameus with flames for asking Christians the kind of questions they love to answer. In short, to me this appears to be a personal question asking me how I know Jesus Christ is real in the here and now. Because of this I won’t be presenting an apologetic, my response isn’t an argument; it is just a straight answer. -------------------------------------------------------- THE ANSWER: I’m going to list the reasons how I know Jesus is real and comment on each one. Because I have several answers to this question I’ve taken the time to list all of them. Furthermore, I’ve rated these on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being a reason I believe yet I find the reason unconvincing and 10 being an example of a reason why I believe and the reason is very convincing (in my own thinking, not to others). 1: MY PARENTS AFFIRM JESUS IS REAL: Rating 2 As I honestly consider this question I cannot deny that this is a component. However, I think this answer is over-rated (that is, people suspect that this reason, for me, actually rates a 7 or 8). Many people here had parents that told them Jesus is real and yet they left the faith. On the other hand, there are instances of people who were told Jesus is not real and they became Christians. I do agree it is more likely for a person to think Jesus is real if they grow up in a culture that affirms such a belief; however, I put this low on the scale of answering the question “How do you know Jesus is real?” based on the fact that people of all cultures come and go from the faith and my parents have always been clear they’d love me no matter what faith I pursued. No pressure there so this gets a low rating. 2: I GREW UP IN THE FAITH: Rating 3 It has been shown that if one grows up in a faith they are more likely to stay with it as they age. I think for a lot of people this reason would rate a 7 or 8, if not a 10. The reason this drops down to a 3 for me is that I spent several years getting a snout full of Christian hypocrisy and spent a great deal of time having face to face run ins with the leaders of my church. In fact, I consider myself to have functionally changed faiths – I went through the same sort of grief someone might experience if they switched from Christianity to Atheism. I cannot claim my ordeal was the same; however, it was enough to drop this from a 7 or 8 down to a 3, if not lower, since my current faith didn’t have the luxury of outright rejecting the entire system and the huge amount of hypocrisy I saw had as good a chance of turning me into a rabid anti-Christian denizen of exchristian.net as anything. 3: THE BIBLE AFFIRMS JESUS IS REAL: Rating 5 I cannot deny that this is a significant component of my belief that Jesus is real. As you like to point out, we likely wouldn’t even know Jesus ever existed without the Bible. That fact alone slides this factor up the scale to a 10, for all practical purposes. However, one must consider there are other books that talk about other gods and goddesses so picking one book and ‘running’ with it would seem a rather arbitrary decision. The fact that several religions exist and each has ancient texts which speak of wondrous things slides this reason back down the scale and it comes to rest at a comfortable 5. 4: MY SURPRISE AFFIRMS JESUS IS REAL: 7 C.S. Lewis experienced this, and I know that I have as well. I had a point in my life where I sat down and wrote out all the reasons why it was foolish for me to be following Jesus. I was sick, poor, alone, lost, beaten down (physically, mentally, and spiritually) and had nothing to show for my efforts to take G_d seriously. I remember the day I wrote all that down in a long list of reasons why I was angry with G_d and I couldn’t understand why all of this had to be – and then, in tears after hours of crying -- I pounded my fist on the ground and declared – echoing Job – that “even if you kill me, still I will trust you.” And then JOY. Not healing, not happiness, not money, not clarity, not social position, not solved problems – no, just pure JOY. Like Lewis, I was surprised by Joy. This doesn’t rate a 10 because people can be fooled by their own emotions and delusions. Any one experience is fine and good, but these things fade over time. 5: MY EXPERIENCE AFFIRMS JESUS IS REAL: Rating 10 Jesus made the claim that He is the “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 5:12). If Jesus was not real then upon putting my faith in Him I would not have so completely found “the Way, the Truth, and the Life”. This Way, this Truth, and this Life that I’ve found is more real to me than any other form of proof because I’ve been living it. I live this Way, this Truth, and this Life in the here and now – so that if Jesus is these three things than He is in the here and now, and as such He is to me demonstratively real. Now there are times when the Way has grown dark and the Truth very pale and the Life very weak – at those times I continued to follow the call of Jesus and the Way, the Truth, and the Life has always come through – often with such brightness and clarity that I’ve asked for it to be dimmed. This is related to reason #4 with the exception that it is a train of continuing events that continue to affirm that Jesus real on almost a daily basis. ---------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: If it were only my parents, or culture, or a slobbering goof of a preacher I’d of pitched my faith system 15 years ago. If I was relying solely on the Bible I’d be struggling with doubt all of the time because one archeologist would throw down some really good evidence that refutes the Scriptures and another would throw down evidence that confirms it. Back in forth I’d go, scared to open up exchristian.net every day – wondering if today was the day the Bible would finally be proven false. I couldn’t live that way – I would refuse to live that way and I would resign myself to agnosticism until the archeologists figured it all out. Rather, I know Jesus is real because of the absolute power this Way, this Truth, and this Life have been demonstrated to me in my life, and through it all I have His Joy - unexpected, without limit, and in the here and now.

Posted by: Rameus Nov 19 2004, 10:56 AM

Question II: How do you know that the "experiences" you have had, and that the "power" of Jesus that you feel in your life is not simply the Supreme Being or a greater force of some kind? To clarify: How do you know that you are not just tapping into some greater force, and attributing it to the Jesus fable? Surely people of other faiths have "spiritual" experiences that they attribute to their belief system. Isn't it plausible that the parishioners of each of the world’s diverse faiths experience similar phenomenon, and yet interpret these phenomenon according their religious worldview? Rameus

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 20 2004, 08:06 AM

QUOTE Question II: How do you know that the "experiences" you have had, and that the "power" of Jesus that you feel in your life is not simply the Supreme Being or a greater force of some kind? Introduction In thinking on this question I’ve been able to come up with 3 possible sources (false sources) for my continuing experience in adoring the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The sources, along with a reaction to those sources, are summarized below: 1: The Source of my Joy in the Way, the Truth and the Life is Self-Deception. This is a real possibility that cannot be denied – in fact, with my track record this would be the odds on favorite for a gambling man. I could just be fooling myself – a sort of emotional addiction where I create a series of crises and then experience Joy when they are resolved. This would be like enjoying a movie where the hero is put in great danger so that a great deal of relief is felt when the danger has passed. The truth of the matter was that for the hero, there never really was danger – in reality, there never was a hero. I think an atheist would sum it up like this, “You are relieved a non-existent G_d saved you from a non-existent Hell. Why not just excuse both of those illusions and feel good all the time?”. The problem I see with this approach is that it could apply equally well to any individual. For example, an atheist could claim that they are merely following the ‘facts’ but how does that atheist know (for sure) that they’ve not bought into an addiction or delusion wherein they get a ‘high’ off of denying a reality wherein truth is discovered through faith, intuition, and feelings? Another way of saying it would be: How does the atheist know that their ability to detect G_d isn’t broken? When we get into considering insanity and self-deception, in my honest opinion we are all playing a game of Blind Indian. We laugh at each other’s cards while lacking the ability to see our own. (1) Another problem I have with this answer is that addiction creates imbalance and ultimately harms as opposed to providing healing. Alcoholism, drugs, gluttony and other forms of addiction all feel good for a while but they ultimately lead to less health, less truth, and less joy. I think most of the examples of Christianity to which people have been negatively responding to on this site have been instances of a type of Christianity which is a form of addiction as evidenced by its destructive nature.(2) Addictions and delusions destroy. In my life, my Christianity has been a force of healing and joy. My Savior is challenging me to give up self righteousness, greed, arrogance and a dozen other ugly things that characterize my life. This is a contrast to my early fundamentalism which was very destructive and was leading me into an unhealthy state of being. I’ve experienced what delusional religion is like and in contrast what I have now seems to be of a different stuff altogether – which is why I excuse this as a viable option. 2: The Source of my Joy in the Way, the Truth and the Life is an Impersonal Force. Again, this is a very real possibility. However, Jesus as a symbol of that Impersonal Force works for me – the force is verified through the person of Jesus. To put it bluntly, why tap the keg another way when the tap I’m using now keeps filling my mug? An important point here is that Jesus claims to be the only Way, Truth, and Life. Apparently the force that keeps filling my cup doesn’t mind the exclusivity of the claims which Jesus made – if that force doesn’t mind then I’m not going to worry about it. I’m going to busy myself with another round. 3: The Source of my Joy in the Way, the Truth, and the Life is a Personal Force. This I would take to mean a ‘personal force’ other than the Jehovah of the Bible. This personal force is interacting with me in spite of my Jesus fetish. One might claim the deity is Allah or a Hindu god or maybe even Thor. Again this is a very real possibility. When I find the truth of the matter in this case I’ll thank that Personal Force for having mercy on me despite my delusional approach. What else can I do in an instance where I call upon a Personal Force in the wrong way and still find myself blessed? SUMMARY: The short answer to your question is, of course, that I have no way of knowing for sure (3) that I’m not interacting with my own delusions, an impersonal force, or a personal but misidentified source. I rebut those possibilities with my experiences wherein the interactions work and provide me with Joy. Delusions destroy, addictions break things down and corrupt them – I’ve seen the opposite effect in my life since leaving my addictions for Jesus Christ. I don’t think this means I’m close minded on the matter. Throughout the past 15 years the prayer which I’ve repeated the most, and indeed, represents the most earnest desire of my heart would be something like the following: “G_d, I’m human. I live in a culture, a place, a time and I’m limited by this context. I have my own motivations for everything I do and I deceive myself constantly. Because of this, I’m left at your mercy for the truth – you may be Allah, you may be some other G_d -- but all I have right now in my understanding is Jesus Christ. Well I’m here today to tell you that I don’t care what you have to do to me to teach me the truth – break my legs, starve me, take away everything in my life – do whatever you must in order to get through my delusions and illness – to get me to the truth whatever it is – spare nothing, I beg you to do this even though I’ll be fighting you every single step of the way.” I’m not throwing that out there as a sneaky way to get people here to consider praying that, rather it is to demonstrate that my approach to G_d has changed radically from my fundamentalist days. My approach to G_d used to be that I’d tell him what He was and what I had to be, whereas, my approach today is to ask G_d to reveal himself to me and to teach me what I ought to be. To me, that is the difference between a religion and a relationship. This shift in my thinking is probably the major reason why, functionally, I know Jesus is the one Way, the only Truth, and the only Life and that the other three possibilities are not the case – because His exclusive claim to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life has proven itself to be true in every regard, and since embracing this I’ve been throwing off addiction and allowing G_d to reveal himself. --------------------------------------------- NOTES: 1: I’ve run into only a couple of atheists willing to admit this point. If you don’t admit it, that is fine because I don’t wish to argue it. Again, this thread is about Rameus asking me for my views on stuff without really arguing as much as simply presenting it. 2: This is something that can only be measured over time, since many healing processes appear destructive up front. For example, the surgeon’s first incision appears destructive but is necessary to save the life of the patient. 3: In the scientific sense of the word.

Posted by: Rameus Nov 20 2004, 08:40 AM

Question III: If worshippers of the Jesus Christ myth are the only people on Earth who functionally have a relationship with God, and only their prayers are answered, why is there a demonstrable global paradigm of regional religious demographics? To clarify: If only Christians have a functional relationship with God, and only they have their prayers answered, why is this not apparent to the world? Why do regional demographics (not effectiveness of prayer) largely determine a person's religion? Examples: If you are born in India, the probability is you will be a Hindu. If you are born in the Middle East, the probability is you will be a Muslim. If you are born in America, the probability is you will be a Christian. It would seem that the rest of the world is deluding themselves, but Christians of course are not. If only one religious group on Earth felt as though their prayers were being answered, it seems probable that people of other faiths would abandon their ineffective religions en masse and embrace the true path to God. Please explain this phenomenon, or rather lack of one. Rameus

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 23 2004, 06:50 PM

Question III: If worshippers of the Jesus Christ myth are the only people on Earth who functionally have a relationship with God, and only their prayers are answered, why is there a demonstrable global paradigm of regional religious demographics? CORRECTION OF ASSUMPTIONS After I clear up some apparent assumptions which I find troubling I will provide an answer to the question. Bear in mind once again that I am not a professional apologist nor am I a theologian. I participate in these discussions for fun and all my answers are subject to refinement after further study. Also, I’m not claiming that the question actually makes these assumptions – the following is for the sake of clarity. 1: Assumption One: Christians are the only ones that have a relationship with G_d. I’m not comfortable with this assumption. I think all people have a relationship with G_d even if that relationship is one of seeking, confusion, disbelief, or outright rebellion. It is a subtle point; I’ll grant you that, however in my opinion Christians accepting G_d’s plan for peace with Him isn’t the same as having a monopoly on His attention. 2: Assumption Two: G_d only hears/answers the prayers of the Christian. This is almost explicitly stated in the question and I don’t believe this assumption either. It is likely that G_d hears the prayers of the lost as readily as He hears the prayers of the redeemed. 3: Assumption Three: G_d only blesses the redeemed. The Bible is clear that G_d sends the rains on the just and the unjust. G_d even ‘whistled’ and brought Babylon down on the ancient Israel – using Babylon as a tool of vengeance just like He used ancient Israel as a tool against the Canaanites. I imagine the pagan Babylonians were seeing their prayers answered in a grand fashion in those days. G_d often prospers (or allows for the prosperity) of the wicked. 4: Assumption Four: All truth is exclusive property of Christians I disagree here as well. If a Buddhist renounces materialism in pursuit of spirituality they may not be embracing Jesus Christ but they are embracing some freeing truth. This is going to give a measure of success and joy in his or her life. Generally speaking, the application of parts of the truth (resisting the seven deadly sins, etc) is going to carry along with it some blessing. 5: Admission One: G_d’s ThoughtsI’ve no doubt that much of the answer to this question strays over into knowledge that is G_d’s and G_d’s alone. Yes, I hear the catcalls in the back of the room – every time theists don’t know something they fall back on this one. I don’t intend it to be an answer anyone here will accept, rather, I’m throwing it out there as an admission that I cannot present a complete answer to the question. WORKING WITH THE CORRECTED ASSUMPTIONS: It is a Scriptural concept that G_d actually blesses the wicked. He provides rain for the just and the unjust. Furthermore, I’m currently unaware of any verse (subject to education on my part) where G_d has His divine hearing turned off when the wicked call upon Him. In fact, He often gets angry when His blessings on people are mis-attributed – something only possible in the context of blessings being bestowed upon those who refuse to acknowledge their benefactor. In short: 1: G_d blesses the just and the unjust (a Biblical concept and empirically observable). 2: Misattribution of the source of blessing is a natural consequence of vast divine blessing when it falls upon the unjust. 3: Most of humanity has a natural desire for knowledge of the divine. 4: Most of humanity interprets the divine within the context of their culture and propagate that same method of interpretation. In short, the nature of G_d is merciful and generous. Even the deceived have the privilege of enjoying His blessings and prosper despite their misattribution of the source of their benefits. Such a phenomena is observed in the Biblical testimony from Genesis to Revelation. It has puzzled greater men than myself. (David asked, "Why do the wicked prosper?") I think points 1-4 answer why we see the demographic we see today; however, I must admit those points do nothing to answer why such a thing is permitted by G_d.

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 23 2004, 06:57 PM

******** NOTICE ********** I'm going to be celebrating Thanksgiving with the family most of this weekend and likely won't be able to answer another question until Monday or Tuesday of next week. I'm still very much into this discussion, it has been a great deal of fun thinking through these things. I appreciate Rameus' graciousness in coming up with fun questions and being patient while I allow them to rattle around in my head long enough to produce an answer, or non-answer, as the case may be. **************************

Posted by: Rameus Nov 23 2004, 07:53 PM

According to you, God blesses all people; the just and the unjust. He also answers the prayers of everyone; Christian and non-Christian. You have also said that all people have a relationship with God, in some way at least. And lastly, you said that human beings interpret the divine within the context of their culture. When asked how you know Jesus Christ is real you said: QUOTE Rather, I know Jesus is real because of the absolute power this Way, this Truth, and this Life have been demonstrated to me in my life, and through it all I have His Joy - unexpected, without limit, and in the here and now. Question IV: It seems to me perhaps, that you are experiencing the very same phenomenon (or a very similar one) that you have made allowances for all people, non-Christians included, to experience from the divine. If all people receive divine blessings, answered prayers, have a relationship with the divine, and interpret all of this in their own cultural context, then how can you cite these very reasons as evidence that you experience the Way, the Truth, and the Life? Critical Thinking Question: Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote: "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist." Was he wrong? If so, why? Rameus

Posted by: Rameus Nov 23 2004, 08:38 PM

Remember you bloody animal, I'm flying out to Michigan tomorrow and I won't be returning until next week. Rameus

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 29 2004, 06:38 PM

QUOTE Question IV: It seems to me perhaps, that you are experiencing the very same phenomenon (or a very similar one) that you have made allowances for all people, non-Christians included, to experience from the divine. If all people receive divine blessings, answered prayers, have a relationship with the divine, and interpret all of this in their own cultural context, then how can you cite these very reasons as evidence that you experience the Way, the Truth, and the Life? -------------------------- Hint: Short answer in bold. You need not read the rest of the response. In my searching for G_d I can only receive and respond to what I’m granted. I cite these things as meaningful to me because this is what I’ve been given as a provision from G_d(1). His provision to others in no way detracts or adds to my own other than the fact I might avail myself of the opportunity to rejoice in the mercy they receive(2). For example, I’m incapable of measuring the religious experience of the Hindu. I cannot step out of my mind and objectively weigh the Hindu’s experience on one side and my own on the other side, thereby granting myself the opportunity to pick the faith system that tips the scales. How one could do this sort of comparison shopping is beyond me -- I'm left allowing for them to have something going on in their lives because I'm not willing to claim I know their hearts and minds. I will tell a Hindu peaceably of Jesus Christ and His teaching at which point they may reject it or accept it. I’ve sworn myself to Jesus Christ, and since He has been faithful in every other regard I find it easy to believe Him when He declares Himself the only Way, the only Truth, and the only Life. It is a fine point perhaps, but that is His claim and not mine. Jesus said “My sheep hear My voice”. I believe that is what I’ve heard. Could I be wrong? Sure. Could the Hindu be right? Could Atheism be right? Again, I must admit both are a possibility. In all honesty, Rameus, I could be a toy for some sadistic deity. That doesn’t change the fact I can only respond to what I’m given – it could be that the call I’ve been following for 30 years is that of a Siren leading me to a rocky shore. If that is the case I’m sure I’ve no idea why, upon a lifting of the fog, I can see in my past a thousand rocky shores that the voice has led me through unscathed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTES 1: Obviously this should be taken in the context of this thread as a whole in that I acknowledge the possibility of deception. 2: Or I could be a jealous poop – which more often than not is the case.

Posted by: Rameus Dec 16 2004, 08:45 AM

Question V: Is evangelism right or wrong in your opinion? If you are "incapable of measuring the religious experience of the Hindu" as you stated previously, then why do you take it upon yourself to make efforts to convert people of other faiths? Hindu's do not actively seek to convert others, that cultural expression is largely a product of Christianity and Islam. Why should the parishioners of these two faiths feel morally compelled to "convert the heathens" so to speak? Is this cultural arrogance or divine inspiration? Why? Critical Thinking Question: Has evangelism historically been a positive or a negative force in human society? Why or why not? Rameus

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Dec 16 2004, 05:29 PM

I've begun work on this 5th question. I hope to have something up by Saturday evening. Good to see ya back, dude!

Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Dec 18 2004, 05:48 PM

QUOTE Question V: Is evangelism right or wrong in your opinion? If you are "incapable of measuring the religious experience of the Hindu" as you stated previously, then why do you take it upon yourself to make efforts to convert people of other faiths? Hindu's do not actively seek to convert others, that cultural expression is largely a product of Christianity and Islam. Why should the parishioners of these two faiths feel morally compelled to "convert the heathens" so to speak? Is this cultural arrogance or divine inspiration? Why? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE MEANING OF BEING INCAPABLE OF MEASURING THE RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE OF ANOTHER IN THE CONTEXT OF EVANGELISM: The admission that I am "incapable of measuring the religious experience of the Hindu" means that I do not feel comfortable telling a Hindu (or an Atheist) that they are unhappy or spiritually unfulfilled. However, that admission has no bearing on my opinion that the Hindu is wrong and in need of the Way, the Truth, and the Life. For me the admission that I cannot measure the religious experience of another is a question apart from the need for evangelism touching more upon the attitude of evangelism. While evangelizing the Christian must always recognize that he or she cannot read another person’s mind. If a Hindu tells me that he is happy then as far as I’m concerned he is happy. If the Atheist tells me he has found a purpose, or doesn’t require one, then who am I to call him a liar? Aren’t we all just a little bit tired of others telling us how we feel or what our motivations are for our actions and beliefs? So the first answer to your question is that my inability to measure the spirituality of another human being influences the attitude behind the evangelism and not the need for evangelism. I wanted to clear that up before moving on. My inability here is a boundary I must respect. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONVERTING PEOPLE: The task of ‘converting’ people as I view it is merely the task of sharing ideas and leaving the rest up to the individual. Using the courtroom as an analogy I’d say the task of the Christian is like unto that of a witness on the stand. It isn’t the job of the witness to convince anyone, rather, it is the job of the witness to tell clearly and honestly what he or she has witnessed. The jury (potential convert) may decide to reject the testimony of the witness, find the testimony unconvincing or embrace the testimony as the truth. Too many in Christian circles imagine themselves to be lawyers – that is, it is they view it as their job to convince. Please note the difference in attitude between a good witness and a good lawyer. A lawyer measures failure or success based on the ability to convince (convert) the jury to his position. A witness measures failure or success based on the ability to clearly tell the truth with transparent honesty – regardless of the position the jury takes. The lawyer has a great deal of pressure to convince. The witness only has to relax and tell the truth. I don’t see it as my job to ‘convert’. I plan to wander through life sharing with others (and listening to them share) about this thing called truth. If you find my testimony convincing that is great – if you don’t, then that is great as well. I win no matter what happens – as long as I obey the mandate of I Corinthians 13. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CULTURAL ARROGANCE AND DIVINE INSPIRATION: Evangelism performed from a position of arrogance is wrong. There can be no doubt that a great deal of evangelism is less the product of a desire to honestly share with others and more a means to meet some psychological need to be ‘right’. I imagine more than one missionary entertained thoughts of superiority while showing some ignorant bushman the wonders of the flashlight. Too many evangelists imagine themselves to be the savior instead of bearing news of the Savior. Abusive evangelism – or instances of cultural genocide wrapped in the banner of ‘missionary work’ riddle history like acne on the face of the fry boy at the local greasy spoon. This type of ‘evangelism’ is wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In short, evangelism that is merely the sharing of ideas – a testimony of the working of the Way, the Truth, and the Life in one’s life is a very good thing in my opinion. I see it as no different then say, authoring a book on why one believes Judaism was the product of an experiment in monotheism by the ancient Egyptians. A dialog that respects personal boundaries is healthy. The expression of ideas in the context of mutual respect is also a good thing. Evangelism that is the product of arrogance and self-righteousness is not merely undesirable, it is downright evil.

Posted by: Reach Jan 25 2005, 05:27 AM

This topic is unpinned, for now. http://exchristian.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2483&st=0&#entry45083

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)