19 Aug 08
I skip in and out of the Forums, sometimes giving it a miss for months, because some of the debates are really infantile and pathetic, not to mention vindictive, hurtful and malicious.
So it was an absolute feast to see epi's thread with the above title and the responses of vistesd. I can't remember ever having enjoyed reading a thread as much since the beginning of the "Spirituality" forum (and even before it was separated from "Debates"😉.
After having read about four pages, I skipped to the end (page 21!) to see the conclusion of this discussion and maybe participate. I discovered (check it yourself!) that the last 12 pages are knightmaster and ToO, with jaywill thrown in, nitpicking some obscure differences of interpretation - twelve pages, for crying out loud, with no conclusion in sight!!
The last post by ephiphineas was on page 8, I believe.
What is interesting (to me) in epi's premise (that online apologetics are ineffective) is that that is exactly the reason why I have stopped contributing (and reading) the spirituality forum. I used to enjoy the creation/evolution discussions, but I have yet to see or hear of anyone whose point of view has been changed by a reasonable debate (or apologetics). It seems a total pearls before swine thing!
However, then you have CS Lewis and others like Merton who make me feel like "If I could only argue like HIM, then...." and off I go again!!
Ultimately, I subscribe to the saying "The man with an experience is never at the mercy of the man with an argument." Take the guy who was born blind: when the learned experts EXPLAINED to him, probably with GREAT ELOQUENCE, that "Jesus could not posssibly be the Messiah, because etc etc", all he said was: "I cannot answer you, yet all I know is one thing: I was blind, now I can see!"
I really identified with epi's experience in the church with the pastor - I could relate many like that. They have become my "piles of stones" along the way, to which I return to remind myself, when the going gets tough. (That is why we read time and time again the admonition to REMEMBER!)
Of course, I can immediately hear someone rushing to answer this statement with a YES, BUT! What about the Hindu or whatever who ALSO has some very dramatic experience! Again, my simple answer is that that is HIS issue, not mine. I cannot speak for anybody else's reality, but my own reality cannot be removed from me by anybody, because, you see, I WAS blind, and now I can SEE!
And I have lots of piles of rocks to prove it...
Anyway, thanks again, vistesd and epi for your lengthy and detailed sharings. Here is one RHPer who appreciated that open meeting of the minds.
And the conclusion is: sometimes apologetics on RHP CAN be effective!
At least up to page 8...
In peace
CJ
19 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustWould you like to give me an example of my "nit-picking"?
I skip in and out of the Forums, sometimes giving it a miss for months, because some of the debates are really infantile and pathetic, not to mention vindictive, hurtful and malicious.
So it was an absolute feast to see epi's thread with the above title and the responses of vistesd. I can't remember ever having enjoyed reading a thread as much since the b etics on RHP CAN be effective!
At least up to page 8...
In peace
CJ
I would like to see exactly what you call "nit-picking".
It could be that you just don't care that much about detail so you call detail "nit-picking".
I am opened to be corrected by you. But you will have to show me an example.
Here's your chance. Or was this just a hit and run job?
19 Aug 08
Originally posted by jaywillRepeating yourself several times is an example of nit-picking.
Would you like to give me an example of my "nit-picking"?
I would like to see exactly what you call "nit-picking".
It could be that you just don't care that much about detail so you call detail "nit-picking".
I am opened to be corrected by you. But you will have to show me an example.
Here's your chance. Or was this just a hit and run job?
In this short post alone you repeated yourself.
20 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThe entire several pages long debate about "Paul said" or "Jesus said" interspersed with slanderous comments on both sides made me weary in my bones!
Would you like to give me an example of my "nit-picking"?
I would like to see exactly what you call "nit-picking".
It took me a while to figure out what the debate is all about and, quite frankly, I'm still not quite sure. Certainly both of you are nitpicking and playing with words. There is no disagreement between Paul and Jesus, except that Paul at times said: this is my personal opinion, which may imply that sometimes it WAS his personal opinion, and he just didn't bother to explicitly say it!
The Bible must be taken in context and as a whole. "Scripture interprets scripture".
Enough said. This debate is not worth pursuing. I just started this thread in the hope that epi and/or vistesd could see that someone else appreciated their discussion.
Over and out.
CJ
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by Rajk999I agree that in one post I repeat sometimes.
Repeating yourself several times is an example of nit-picking.
In this short post alone you repeated yourself.
However, I use repetition over a number of posts because my personal experience is that understanding the Bible does not always come with one hearing it one time.
Think how much repetition there is in the Bible itself. ie.A very striking example is in Psalm 136.
20 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by CalJust===========================================
The entire several pages long debate about "Paul said" or "Jesus said" interspersed with slanderous comments on both sides made me weary in my bones!
It took me a while to figure out what the debate is all about and, quite frankly, I'm still not quite sure. Certainly both of you are nitpicking and playing with words. There is no disagreement between Paul vistesd could see that someone else appreciated their discussion.
Over and out.
CJ
There is no disagreement between Paul and Jesus, except that Paul at times said: this is my personal opinion, which may imply that sometimes it WAS his personal opinion, and he just didn't bother to explicitly say it!
=========================================
Congradulations. You agree with what we were trying to show ToO the Bible taught.
Only difference is you simply stated it. ToO would not accept me simply stating it. So I had to do the hard task of proving it.
There was not disagreement between Jesus and Paul was precdisely what all my writing was about.
Goodbye.
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by CalJustWhile you're complaining about nitpicking how come you had to open up a new discussion called #2 on something already started ?
I skip in and out of the Forums, sometimes giving it a miss for months, because some of the debates are really infantile and pathetic, not to mention vindictive, hurtful and malicious.
So it was an absolute feast to see epi's thread with the above title and the responses of vistesd. I can't remember ever having enjoyed reading a thread as much since the b ...[text shortened]... etics on RHP CAN be effective!
At least up to page 8...
In peace
CJ
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by CalJustThe battle for truth is not "nit picking". The fact that we go into detail may dismay you but the truth does not emerge easily. It emerges from a cauldron of debate where the chaff gets separated from the wheat.
I skip in and out of the Forums, sometimes giving it a miss for months, because some of the debates are really infantile and pathetic, not to mention vindictive, hurtful and malicious.
So it was an absolute feast to see epi's thread with the above title and the responses of vistesd. I can't remember ever having enjoyed reading a thread as much since the b ...[text shortened]... etics on RHP CAN be effective!
At least up to page 8...
In peace
CJ
The debate itself is not irrelevant either. It is a central debate concerning salvation by works versus salavtion by grace. It's also about forgiveness/acceptance versus judgementalism.
I will admit that things get heated and we have a go at each other , but that happens in any good debate. The line sometimes gets crossed. The house of commons is a good example of this. Any heated debate has this aspect to it. There is always a bit of amicable needle , take that out and it's just flat.
My aim is always to try and use someone's logic back against them to expose the fallacy of it. In ToO's case I try to use the words of Jesus because that's what he places so much store by. My frustration is that he won't hold himself to any logic or consistency.Maybe I should give up , but then again just putting the argument out there is enough for me. I'm under no illusion of changing anyone , but I might make them think a bit. In the end it helps me think more clearly.
21 Aug 08
Originally posted by CalJustVery cool to hear from you, CalJust. I'm glad vistesd and I could help make your day. 🙂
I skip in and out of the Forums, sometimes giving it a miss for months, because some of the debates are really infantile and pathetic, not to mention vindictive, hurtful and malicious.
So it was an absolute feast to see epi's thread with the above title and the responses of vistesd. I can't remember ever having enjoyed reading a thread as much since the b ...[text shortened]... etics on RHP CAN be effective!
At least up to page 8...
In peace
CJ
Keep piling up those rocks!
God bless.
21 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThe reason should be obvious: The original title and subject of this thread had long since been abandoned, and I wanted to return to the topic of Relevance.
While you're complaining about nitpicking how come you had to open up a new discussion called #2 on something already started ?
Also, as I said in my response, I wanted to catch epi's eye, (which I have now done, hi epi!) and he had obviously abandoned the discussion as early as page 8, and was unlikely to return.
CJ
21 Aug 08
5 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister"It is a central debate concerning salvation by works versus salavtion by grace. It's also about forgiveness/acceptance versus judgementalism."
The battle for truth is not "nit picking". The fact that we go into detail may dismay you but the truth does not emerge easily. It emerges from a cauldron of debate where the chaff gets separated from the wheat.
The debate itself is not irrelevant either. It is a central debate concerning salvation by works versus salavtion by grace. It's also abou anyone , but I might make them think a bit. In the end it helps me think more clearly.
For the record once again, I do not believe in "salvation by works" as it is commonly used and what it commonly entails. I believe that Jesus teaches one must BE righteous and not merely ACT righteous for "salvation"/"eternal life"/"heaven". This is not about "judgementalism", but about becoming one with truth, love, compassion, justice, etc., i.e. the will of God.
My position is logical, consistent and is supported by the teachings of Jesus.
Like usual KM distorts my position. Though I have corrected him a number of times, he resorts to using distortions, half-truths and even outright lies. The truth is not in him.
I believe that Jesus understood and spoke the truth. His teachings are deep and profound.
Mahatma Ghandi said:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
I would rephrase this as follows:
"I like your Christ. I do not like your 'Christianity'. It results in 'Christians' remaining so unlike your Christ."
21 Aug 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI believe that Jesus teaches one must BE righteous and not merely ACT righteous for "salvation"/"eternal life"/"heaven". This is not about "judgementalism", but about becoming one with truth, love, compassion, justice, etc., i.e. the will of God. -----------ToO-------------
[b]"It is a central debate concerning salvation by works versus salavtion by grace. It's also about forgiveness/acceptance versus judgementalism."
For the record once again, I do not believe in "salvation by works" as it is commonly used and what it commonly entails. I believe that Jesus teaches one must BE righteous and not merely ACT righteous ...[text shortened]... 'Christianity'. It results in 'Christians' that are so unlike your Christ."[/b]
Any truly righteous act comes from a centre within that is righteous. BE and ACT are part of the same thing. However , your position is still equivalent to salvation by works and opposed to grace because you believe that you can attain a level of righteousness (by your own efforts) that will "earn" you salvation.
You are in the same position as salvation by works because you reject the notion that it is God who saves and that we cannot save ourselves unless he does something within us (ie transformation via the Spirit). You do not believe that salvation is a gift given by God but you believe that you can become righteous without God's help or without the remission of sin provided by Jesus.
You also believe that someone's salvation cannot be assured via grace because one sinful slip by the saved person means there is no way back. Forgiveness for sin is not possible for you once a person starts to follow. This is what makes it judgementalsim , it's because you believe that God is not able or willing to forgive a follower who is earnestly following but trips over from time to time.
Fortunately God's grace is much bigger than this and he is compassionate , and accepting of our humanity. How can you be compassionate in this world if your whole concept of God is as a unforgiving , hard task master who has no room for mistakes? Your "god" has no compassion for those who stumble or fail , he is a perfectionist ogre who waits for the tiniest sin before condemning you.
This is not the good news of the Gospel and it is not the God who sets people free and lifts the broken and downtrodden. It is not the God of grace who is more compassionate and understanding than you can imagine.
Your compassion and love for others cannot be that great if you so easily write off those who stumble without trying to understand why. You forgiveness for others must be very weak if you think God cannot forgive a follower who stumbles along the way.
21 Aug 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI would rephrase this as follows:
[b]"It is a central debate concerning salvation by works versus salavtion by grace. It's also about forgiveness/acceptance versus judgementalism."
For the record once again, I do not believe in "salvation by works" as it is commonly used and what it commonly entails. I believe that Jesus teaches one must BE righteous and not merely ACT righteous ...[text shortened]... Christianity'. It results in 'Christians' remaining so unlike your Christ."[/b]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your 'Christianity'. It results in 'Christians' remaining so unlike your Christ."
-----------ToO-------------------------------------
However , the true Jesus who preached love , acceptance and forgiveness has compassion that goes beyond yours . Despite the condition of many Christians , he still loves them and sees them as beautiful. Simon Peter had many failings and sins and could be a pain in the **** by all accounts from what I can see , but Jesus still loved him dearly and did not condemn him or dismiss him as it seems you would (for not being perfected)
He sees through the sin and failings to the person within. He hates the sin but still loves the sinner. If you had eyes of compassion and love (instead of judgement and perfectionism) you would see this also.
21 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMy position is logical, consistent and is supported by the teachings of Jesus.-----------------ToO---------------------
[b]"It is a central debate concerning salvation by works versus salavtion by grace. It's also about forgiveness/acceptance versus judgementalism."
For the record once again, I do not believe in "salvation by works" as it is commonly used and what it commonly entails. I believe that Jesus teaches one must BE righteous and not merely ACT righteous Christianity'. It results in 'Christians' remaining so unlike your Christ."[/b]
It's not cosistent with the Last Supper , the Lord's Prayer or Jesus's teachings about his death and the release of the Holy Spirit upon the church he said he would build (which in your world view must have just "dissappeared" ). It's also not consistent with the way Jesus treated Simon Peter and the other disciples (who were not without sin).
Don't let the evidence get in the way of what you are determined to cling to though.