Posted on 08/01/2012 5:43:55 AM PDT by BereanBrain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDuDN2FtrIo
It sounds like your fellow church member is not the only one with a "my way or the highway" attitude.
But rather
"This is what the bible says" "and this is what it means to me"
I offer this as information, not instruction.
Now as to my own grandfather being successful or not in carrying that sort of thing forward, I do not know for certainty, for I seldom heard him or much anyone else sermonize, myself not being brought up in religious instruction and church attendance.
My only problem is the inability to rationally discuss once the stuff IS posted. However, I see why they have to create the devotional category “rule”.
After all, the less virtuous a people, the greater its need for laws (rules). If people can’t respectfully discuss on these threads, a rule is needed.
—It sounds like your fellow church member is not the only one with a “my way or the highway” attitude.—
From what post did you glean that? I ask because my whole premise was that neither of us KNOWS for sure and that both sides have good arguments. His position is that he is right regarding his position.
And even the pastor liked that I was challenging it. i.e. I was not saying I am right and he is wrong. Rather, I was saying that he may not be as right as he thinks he is and that he just may want to re-evaluate his take on the scripture he uses as proofs.
In no way did I ever suggest in that conversation that I am right and he is wrong, regarding the final conclusion of our belief. In fact, all I ever really did was propose another option and ask questions.
So, I ask again, from where did you get your impression?
—”This is what the bible says” “and this is what it means to me”—
This is EXACTLY where I was trying to go. It failed with this particular guy. He was a brick wall, just as liberals can be regarding political issues.
In that one statement above is the spirit of what I was trying to get across from my position and trying to get him to add the last two words to his.
It failed. It never got into a heated discussion, but it was clear that he believed it. When I asked him what do all the passages that speak of “eternal life for one, and death and destruction for the other” mean, regarding the eternal experience of the latter. He got very obstinant.
The reason was simple: He lives in the bible belt with people that agree with him. I come from Seattle, arguably the most unchurched part of the country - not to mention I debate it incessantly with non-believers on the internet in an attempt to sharpen my knowledge and, hopefully, bring some into the fold. His views have never been challenged. Mine are all the time. I can’t just “believe what I believe”. I have to back it up - and do on a daily or at least weekly basis.
I’m hoping that my presence there will challenge some of the folk to revisit why they believe what they believe and maybe even change some of their views. Which ones, I don’t know. But if your only response to someone that challenges your viewpoint is “the bible sez it”, you are not really wearing the full armor of God. You only think you are.
Probably the part that rubs me the wrong way regarding Vision’s Osteen “devotional” every day is the very first post that all of them contain:
“Debate of any kind is not appropriate on a devotional thread. They are closed, i.e. to be treated as if they are occurring behind the closed doors of a church.” -Religion Moderator
I remember contemplating that the first time I saw it. I backed out and have never entered one of those threads again except to enter todays to cut and paste that.
My take: With that caveot, the presence of the thread here is pointless and negates the whole reason this site exists and is compelling to visit.
One can go to the Osteen site for all the “devotional” discussion of Osteen they want.
Agreed. Sometimes christians preach that if you become a christian then everything is grand. Not true. In fact, it could get bad for us. What we have when we put our faith in God and become His, is peace from the mayhem. We know that whatever happens, we have Christ. If we die, we have Christ. If we lose our job, we have Christ. If a spouse is unfaithful, we have Christ. Putting our successes and faith in worldly things will only let us down. Christ will not. That is our hope and our peace.
I got it from what you said:
I thought it was funny at the time, though I didn’t dare crack a smile. The whole reason I brought it up was to give an example of a bit of theology that reasonable Christians can disagree on because both sides have merit. That guy would have none of it. It was LITERALLY like arguing with a liberal. I’ve got him in my sights if, for no other reason, than to use him as an example to the rest of the congregation. Hopefully he may change his mind on some of this stuff. I’m not talking about him changing his position but, rather, on “non bullet doctrines” realizing that his interpretation is not necessarily the equivalent of God’s divine inspiration. This is especially true when he refuses to consider what scripture actually says. He’s not familiar with the greek or hebrew lexicons and is one of those “King James Only” believers. I hate to pigeon hole him and fought it for months, but man, he fits it to a T. I hope we can be friends some day. Seriously. If only he can figure out that I’m not trying to attack his position, but only his “my way or the highway” attitude about it.
Maybe if you read it again, you would understand my point. I happen to agree with the "other" guy that Hell IS a real AND eternal place that the condemned will suffer in eternity. It isn't a pleasant thing to comprehend and some people refuse to believe such a place exists, preferring the idea of "annihilation" instead. I believe this IS one of the major tenets of the Christian faith that CAN be proved by Scripture.
My comment had to do with your assertion that you were the one showing tolerance. The words you used to describe the other guy did not sound all that tolerant to me. Words like:
reasonable Christians can disagree
LITERALLY like arguing with a liberal
use him as an example to the rest of the congregation
“non bullet doctrines” realizing that his interpretation is not necessarily the equivalent of God’s divine inspiration
is one of those “King James Only” believers
he refuses to consider what scripture actually says
He’s not familiar with the greek or hebrew lexicons
I just read those and didn't see such a tolerant attitude as you claimed. I'm not attacking you, just trying to demonstrate that a tolerant person would not use some of the terms you did for someone who disagreed with him. That's all.
I agree! As Paul said, “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1:21)
—The words you used to describe the other guy did not sound all that tolerant to me. Words like:
reasonable Christians can disagree
LITERALLY like arguing with a liberal
use him as an example to the rest of the congregation
“non bullet doctrines” realizing that his interpretation is not necessarily the equivalent of God’s divine inspiration
is one of those “King James Only” believers
he refuses to consider what scripture actually says
He’s not familiar with the greek or hebrew lexicons
I just read those and didn’t see such a tolerant attitude as you claimed. I’m not attacking you, just trying to demonstrate that a tolerant person would not use some of the terms you did for someone who disagreed with him. That’s all.—
I should start by sharing my feelings about the word “tolerance”. I believe that the most religiously intolerant man that ever lived was Jesus.
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
I don’t consider Tolerance to be good or bad. It depends on the situation. I tolerate people having an opinion different than mine. What I don’t tolerate is when they DON’T tolerate it. ;-)
You see, reasonable Christians CAN disagree. Remember Paul and Barnabus? And in this case I described, it really WAS like arguing with a liberal - In essence, completely ignoring anything I said, regardless of the merit, AS IF I HAD NOT SPOKEN.
Regarding the “example” comment, it was way too brief to communicate what I meant, which, as I reread it, did not mean at all what I said. Sorry about that. What I meant was that others saw the discussion we had, my quiet attempts to share scripture and the meaning of English words, and his bull nosed “the bible sez there is iternal suffering, period.” responses, complete with lifting and patting his bible. IOW, let the observer determine which is the more compelling viewpoint.
Regarding my “bullet doctrines” statement: I don’t see what your problem is with that one. I was trying to be tolerant of our disagreement.
Regarding the “King James only” comment. Yep. I stand by it. I can get the word from any version and have enough understanding of the original languages to know that all versions are flawed. I don’t hold any version up as the one ordained by God. And when anyone else claims one is, I challenge them on it. I “tolerate” all versions to one degree or another. “King James only” people don’t. FWIW, the bible I use in church is King James. :-)
Regarding “he refuses to consider what scripture actually says”, I stand by that one too. He has so enjoined himself to the particular viewpoint that when you ask simple questions about the meaning of words he clams up and goes back to “the bible sez it’s eternal suffering and that settles it” mode. The liberal thing I spoke of earlier.
Regarding : He’s not familiar with the greek or hebrew lexicons, my point was that he is using his King James bible and, more importantly, his personal interpretation of what it means (on some very controversial subjects) to be the final word. He appears to have done what I consider to be anathema to a Christian believer: He has stopped learning. I pray I never get there, though it is a concern.
Just to reiterate, I think there are places for tolerance and places for intolerance. I am tolerant of opinions different than mine, but I am intolerant of those who disagree being intolerant of me disagreeing with them.
Sorta sounds like a twisting of words, but it does get to what is a real meme in the world today: When is it the high road to tolerate a thing and when is it the high road to not tolerate a thing?
BTW a friend of mine who is a pastor and author says this: Most Christians spend the first year or two of their Christian life reading the bible and learning who God is and what their relationship with him should be. They then spend the rest of their life defending that particular viewpoint, no matter how “dumb” a serious bible scholar may find some aspects of it. They can be like adults that stopped going to school in fourth grade and refuse to believe anything that contradicts what they had been taught up to that point.
I moved from Seattle and now live in the bible belt. The guy I bought my house from became a pastor at a church in my area where people attend religiously their entire life and have very, VERY strong opinions on what the bible says. In that church he discovered that many of the elderly members did not know the difference between the old and new testaments!
He tried to preach from the bible and after a year was fired. They knew better than him. They were using the understanding they acquired in Vacation Bible School and never grew beyond that. And they were ALL OVER the fire and brimstone thing.
BTW, I was a believer in that theology as well, until about two years ago. I’m constantly fascinated by how much I discover I DIDN’T know about a biblical concept on which I’ve had an opinion for many years until I go into deep study of it. This has resulted in a 180 degree turnaround in some cases and a significant tweeking of details in others.
But in all cases it solidifies my understanding of, and belief in the grace message, which is the singularly unique cornerstone of Christianity. Or, should I say, Capstone.
You mentioned almost converting to Mormonism, so you probably have an idea about what they believe about Jesus. Though I can be tolerant towards their right to believe what they want, I will not give approval for their false doctrines. There are certain truths that are nonnegotiable - truths that we KNOW make up what it means to be a Christian and that God has made clear in Scripture. And the LDS version of the Bible, I would hope, is not one that you would "tolerate” to one degree or another.
I welcome discussion on doctrines of the faith and think we should all be able to dialog with each other without rancor and hurt feelings. We should be confident enough in our positions on doctrines to be fully able to defend them if asked. Like Paul told Timothy, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (II Tim. 3:16,17) and Peter said, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience" (I Peter 3:15,16)
I hope you have a good weekend.
You and I agree to the point that we are redundant. ;-)
I can tell that you would have had the same internal response to the guy I was talking about that I did. And for the same reason. your second sentence is what I expected, but was shocked by the use of the “liberal” MO.
And regarding Mormonism, I used to give to Saints Alive in the 80’s. I almost became a Mormon back in the day because I was an agnostic and just assumed it was another “Catholic-like” big church. I educated myself and became a very extroverted opponent. That said, I played in a bar band that was all Mormon except for me.
Think about that for a sec: A Mormon bar band. ;-)
And I very much appreciate your last paragraph. We are on the same page. EVERY SINGLE THING I do has a back story of my faith in Jesus. It’s why I see this world almost as if it were the Matrix. And it is important to not just believe, but know WHY you believe and be ready to defend it. I do it daily on a liberal web site both to share the Good News and sharpen my skills. They even challenge me in ways, sometimes, that force me to go back to the bible. Some of them are VERY well educated in the bible and church history. It makes me “battle hardened”.
Well, on the other hand, nobody ever reads the “devotional” Osteen stuff. Or at least, nobody ever replies to it.
That must be an embarrassing ping list to be on, where nobody ever wants to say anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.