Lord Help Me, It’s Another One of Those Missionaries
Well, seems like the missionary post won’t die. There’s a new comment by Shane, and here’s a key snippet:
**********************************************
“I have invited many people to discuss this topic, and the fact is that most people are uneducated in their opinions. I don’t say this to disrespect anyone, but in a world of information-flow at our fingertips, we are sadly lacking in critical thought. We are offended at the idea that someone else might know better, that we might be wrong, that what I’ve been taught is flawed.
I am a Christian. I believe that there is only one way to heaven, and that is not through doing good deeds, being nice, making amends, or being ‘religions, but is by accepting Jesus Christ (the perfect, holy, and willing sacrifice) as our personal satisfaction for payment of our sins. I invite anyone to converse with me on this, and maybe we can seek the truth together.”
**********************************************
Sigh. OK, here we go.
- “Uneducated in their opinions?” In whose judgement, yours? A bit on your high horse, aren’t you?
- I’m not offended in the slightest by someone knowing more than I do. The thing is, there’s no way to say who knows more when it comes to religion.
- As for you believing that there’s only one way to Heaven, great, good for you. Maybe you should look up the definition of “belief” again. There’s no way for you to prove that your way is the right way. What’s that? You say you DO have proof? OK, let’s go over what you have to offer.
1. The Bible = Useful tool, yes. The word of God, maybe. Still not proof that only one way is the right way.
2. The holy spirit inside you = Erm, lots of religions have a similar concept. Sorry, not proof.
3. You speak in tongues/have healed or been healed/felt a calling to minister = Not proof, just evidence of man’s enduring desire to make experiences more meaningful.
You see, it’s impossible to have a conversation with an evangelist. You try to bring up historical and logical points, and all they want to do is tell you that they have to spread the Gospel because a pink unicorn visited them and dropped off a personal invite to Heaven. (ok, I made a bit of that up) Talking about religion defies the very notion of critical thought, Mr. Shane. That’s why it’s an intensely personal experience, because it’s about belief, and things that can’t be proved, and mysticism, with a little bit of theater thrown in for effect. ‘
Frankly, the very idea of being re-born makes me laugh. Seems like a lot of the born-again Christians took that as a great opportunity to start racking up mortal sins again, you know what I mean?
And the last thing - “Don’t be so “right” that you lose your justification.” I’m not claiming to be right. I believe that the mystery and love of God is far beyond the ability of us mortals to understand, and I try to keep an open mind concerning all religions as practiced by individuals.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:49 am
“uneducated in their opinions.”
That doesn’t even make sense, but I’ll sidestep that point for now.
I hadn’t actually seen that post before. After a hearty giggle at the MySpace missionary, my thoughts are thus: You’re right, we have absolutely no idea what’s up there or out there. I’ve had equally terrible experiences with both Christians and Muslims when it comes to conversion pressure - Christians believe that Allah is a moon god, and Muslims believe that Christians are seriously deluded about who Jesus is. Personally, I think there are many paths, and I can’t imagine that God would have given us the Bible then been like “oops, you didn’t get it - let’s try again!” (I do personally believe, as Muslims do, that all of the books came from God, and extend that to other non-monotheistic large and ancient religions as well)
If God is all-knowing, then He would have known what happened with the Bible and wouldn’t have had to give us another book to correct it. Hence, in my opinion, all of the books and religions are just different paths for different people. Different strokes for different folks
July 18th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Just to add my $.02 - I would disagree with the following “I believe that there is only one way to heaven, and that is not through doing good deeds, being nice, making amends . . .” Yes, technically that is a correct view of Christianity, but the point of being a good, moral person who forgives others and helps out the community at-large are central tenants of Christianity.
As Marx said, “Religion is the opium of the people.” It makes people feel good, feel like they have a place in the larger world and serves a great purpose to that extent. Machiavelli advised leaders to allow religion because it keeps people in line, following orders, afraid of authority. To the extent that religion makes people happier and helps communities, I think it’s great. But, I will never understand why because I was born into a religion, it should the only true religion.
To Jill - about God being all-knowing - even if it’s true, in Job, for example, his hubris got the best of him, so maybe he just stopped the story early. This is of course the book that pissed me off because the story made women seem pretty disposable or exchangeable.
And, to be born again, can be wonderful for a person who really changes for the good or as Liosliath points out, an excuse for bad behavoir. My brother, a career criminal, has been born again many times - usually right before he’s up for parole.
July 18th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Felix,
I’m sorry for the offense, in my phrase, “uneducated in their opinions”. I don’t claim to know everything there is to know about any religion, let alone the Muslim religion. I won’t claim to know everything about the Bible, but I call it my rule of faith. Again, I think my phrase stands “uneducated” only in this sense: if you have an opinion, then you should be able to explicate your opinion in an educated fashion. Does that mean that you specifically don’t have an educated opinion? Not at all. It only means that, if you have an opinion, you should be able to rationalize it, give a good defense for it, and be willing to listen to an opposing opinion.
No, actually, I hope I’m not on my “high horse”. I’m willing to hear your points, and I’m willing to give you mine. Is it so hard to believe that “truth” is not what we have come to believe that it is; that “truth” isn’t relative? Black is still black, white is still white, and no matter how hard anyone tries to say that white is actually purple, it remains “white”. Are you going to attack my character or are you interested in seeking the truth? I’m interested in a good dialogue, even if we disagree in the end; I won’t resort to attacking your character in any case.
“There’s no way for you to prove that your way is the right way. What’s that? You say you DO have proof? OK, let’s go over what you have to offer.”
You are correct, that there is no way to “prove” that any way is “right”, and I ask you to retract your statement that I ever said that I do have it. I only have a reasoned, (hopefully educated!) opinion, insofar as what I can offer; my opinion is still fallible, as everyone else’s is. I am willing to hear what your position is, try to understand where you are coming from, and hopefully, give you clear and concise statements as to why I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
“1. The Bible = Useful tool, yes. The word of God, maybe. Still not proof that only one way is the right way.”
Again, I agree. The Bible is my rule of faith, and I should be able to point to my faith inside of this system, but I don’t expect you to accept the Bible as “proof” prima facie.
“2. The holy spirit inside you = Erm, lots of religions have a similar concept. Sorry, not proof.”
I hope that I don’t ever use this argument for “proof” of my faith!
“3. You speak in tongues/have healed or been healed/felt a calling to minister = Not proof, just evidence of man’s enduring desire to make experiences more meaningful.”
This is even more condemnable than #2 as “proof” of faith.
“You see, it’s impossible to have a conversation with an evangelist. You try to bring up historical and logical points, and all they want to do is tell you that they have to spread the Gospel because a pink unicorn visited them and dropped off a personal invite to Heaven.”
Why is it impossible to have a conversation with an evangelist? What have I said to provide your reason for this statement? I’m only asking for us both to explore the truth, if that’s what we are after. I just so believe that I have more reasons to think that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, than you do to deny it. Let’s talk this out! You are assuming that I’m one of those “pink-unicorn” believers without actually talking with me? I have given you much more credit than you have given me.
Where are the “pink unicorns” that you speak of? Have I accused you of being unable to reason with me? I hope that I don’t use the same method to “prove” my faith. I won’t attack your character, as this is properly called the “ad hominem” approach.
What historical and logical points have you brought up?
“Talking about religion defies the very notion of critical thought, Mr. Shane. That’s why it’s an intensely personal experience, because it’s about belief, and things that can’t be proved, and mysticism, with a little bit of theater thrown in for effect.”
I believe that, actually, God is a God of reason (and He gives us a brain so that we CAN critically think; many, however, have used their “faith” in God as justification to throw reason away). If God created the heavens and the earth, and mankind, then He probably gave us the capability to understand and know Him intimately. Unfortunately, just because someone claims to “know” God doesn’t give them either a monopoly on their proposed “license” nor does it make them right.
I just so happen to think that you are correct in some of your analysis. Unfortunately, you are correct if you assume that those who claim to be “Christian” many times don’t have a reason for their faith. They have never thought it out, and many times, if they did, would find themselves lacking in proper understanding. You are also correct to assume that many “Christians” assume that personal experience equates to knowledge. Our personal experiences, feelings, and emotional highs are, so often, only that… and emotions and feelings should not be the basis of our “proof”.
“Frankly, the very idea of being re-born makes me laugh. Seems like a lot of the born-again Christians took that as a great opportunity to start racking up mortal sins again, you know what I mean?”
Again, I agree. I’m sure that this is one of the many things that get in the way of real understanding, and it is deplorable to think that grace gives us license to sin. Many, as you have noted, have taken this “grace” to give them just such a license. If you are willing to hear me on this, based on the Bible, I can show you why this is not the faith of “Christianity” in the truest sense.
Concerning the idea of being “born again”, I would assume that it would make you laugh, if you are not, in fact, born again. Why should I discuss the idea of being “born again” if I know that you cannot understand it, based on the fact that you have never experienced it? Again, I give you more credit than that.
“And the last thing - “Don’t be so “right” that you lose your justification.” I’m not claiming to be right. I believe that the mystery and love of God is far beyond the ability of us mortals to understand, and I try to keep an open mind concerning all religions as practiced by individuals.”
That sentence was actually pointed toward the evangelist gentleman, but it applies to myself just as much as it applies to you. The point was that, just because you might have a reason to think you understand something, if you hammer the point into someone else to the point that they submit, you still lose your audience if you jettison love in the process. I agree that the mystery of God is “far beyond the ability of us mortals to understand” but I also think that, God, in His love for us, has given us the ability to understand Him just enough for us to have a relationship with Him. I think that God, in His love, has allowed us to either choose Him or reject Him; even in the Garden of Eden this is true, and is still true today.
Felix, are you interested in dialogue or are you interested in attacking my character? I have said nothing to indicate that I have a low opinion of your personal belief system. I have only stated that, if you don’t give a reasoned, rational defense, if you resort to emotional appeal, attack of character, and other logical fallacies, then you are correct in assuming that we have no purpose behind this dialogue.
However, if you want to talk this out, I will give you the first play. You may ask questions, or give a logical defense for your own position. So far, I have had to defend my own position based upon your assumptions of what I believe (and they are assumptions, not fact!) Again, I appeal to you- and even if we disagree, I will do my best to respect your opinion, and not assume that you are incapable of reasoning this out.
The ball is in your court.
July 18th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Fine, give me your reasons for believing that your religion is the only right way. No Bible quotes allowed.
Secondly, I don’t have to defend anything, since I’m not the one trying to covert people to my own beliefs.
July 18th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Felix,
To clarify, I’m not a missionary. Not that I have anything against missionaries, but I live in my home town, have a loving wife (and soon, children hopefully!), in rural USA.
Now, to your question:
“(G)ive me your reasons for believing that your religion is the only right way. No Bible quotes allowed.”
That’s a tough one! To ask me to give a reasoned analysis of my faith without the Bible (the rule of my faith) is very difficult.
I will try.
Let me tackle it one piece at a time, if you would allow it. I have a question of my own. Are we assuming the existence of God (or gods) at all or do we start at the proof of God Himself (or gods)? My sincere hope is that you allow for the existence of God (or gods), as it will be a much more direct route, though I am willing to tackle the latter as well. Your question indicates that you assume a higher authority exists, but I am trying to clarify.
I hope you will allow Bible quotes, if I can use them sparingly. If I use it, I will try not to insult your intelligence.
If I can ask, what do you believe? I may be able to answer your questions more clearly if I have a clear understanding of your beliefs.
July 18th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
1. No Bible. You know I don’t accept it as proof. If it makes you feel any better, I don’t accept any other religious text as proof, either.
2. I believe in the existence of God/Allah/Jehovah/a Higher Power, absolutely.
3. My beliefs are not pertinent to this discussion, because I don’t think that others need to subscribe to them to have everlasting life/enter Valhalla or what have you.
July 18th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Felix,
I understand your anxiety over accepting the Bible as “proof”. I think that your beliefs are absolutely pertinent, but only in the sense that (1) you know what my beliefs are based in, and (2) truth is truth, but if I understood what you believed, then I could better attempt to answer based on your belief. However, this is your forum, and I will agree to your terms. Know then, that if the Bible cannot be quoted, then the discussion will be limited to philosophy. However, might I attempt to show you the reason for my belief in the authority of Scripture, then we might proceed through the Bible.
However, I will address the question, and hopefully you may understand why I believe in the authority of Scripture (the Bible).
If God exists, why did He create man? I think that the answer here is, that He created man to have a relationship with Him. If God is God, the author and creator of the universe, did he exist then for man’s pleasure? I think that, considering that He is the King, and we are the created order, then mankind exists for God’s good pleasure.
Man exists to worship God.
If you agree that man exists for God, then wouldn’t it be morally reprehensible for God to create man without giving man the means to know God?
I hope that I am not making total assumptions here, but you have left me in the dark as to how to address your question. I’m not sure if these arguments are compatible with your understanding of God, of if you scoff them. If you disagree, then I would ask you to what extent. If you agree, then we may continue.
By the way, I commend your willingness to hear me on this, and hope that we can continue the conversation in hopes of understanding truth, and putting away false assumptions on my end or yours.
So then, do you agree that
1. Man exists for God (if God is the greater, and man is the lesser)
2. God created man with the means to understand Him
I await your reply.
July 21st, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Felix,
your patience and openess is admirable. I fear I would have given up long ago, for fear of being drawn too deeply into this seemingly and possibly never ending vortex of comparitive discussion. While it is a complex discussion, I can’t help but feel that Shane wants to draw it out even further, even though you never appeared to set out to have such a discussion.
Bon courage
August 17th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Oh dear, I am the one that needs the argumentation that God exists in the first place. And I find it all so depressing the part about doing good deeds is not the way to get to heaven and only accepting Jesus christ as your personal savior is. How is, exactly that we write off so many on the planet? It is exclusionary and frankly thinking like this is at the root of the problem.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Maryam,
Thank you so much for your honest question. Concerning your statements, I suppose I could digress into a list of evidences of why I believe there to be any god that exists whatsoever, but it would still be just that–evidences, and not proof; evidences are always subject to interpretation. Ultimately, one must admit that we are either here by pure mistake, that there is no such things as virtue, honor, and love, because (if one follows the logic of our existence being purely random) they are all man-made, and actually detrimental to the evolutionary law of ’survival of the fittest’, or that we have a purpose in God. We can, if you desire, take this blog in that direction, but we will be in that very place in the end. I am still up for that conversation, if you wish.
You stated, “I find it all so depressing the part about doing good deeds is not the way to get to heaven and only accepting Jesus christ as your personal savior is. How is, exactly that we write off so many on the planet? It is exclusionary and frankly thinking like this is at the root of the problem.”
I agree with your statement, if I started at the same premise. Honestly, I had the very same outlook before I came to Christ. It was the most difficult thing for me to get past (and is very difficult for many). The premise you start at is that there are many good people on the planet, with good intentions, motives, and lead honorable, sacrificing lives that aren’t “Christians”; how can they go to hell? Again, this is difficult to grasp if you start from that assumption.
There are two things that God is most certainly (if we can accept that He exists at all): 1) He is love; 2) He is just.
There are many other things that God is, but in order to address your statement, I will start from here.
In order to tackle these issues, I must address the Bible’s outlook on this (sorry, Felix!) We start from Adam and Eve, in the Genesis account. Without going into too much detail, Adam and Eve were created to enjoy God. There was only one thing that they needed to do to be obedient to Him, and that was not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Unfortunately, they ate of the fruit, and God, being the just God that He is, was obliged to punish them for their disobedience (just as any good parent, in love, would have to punish their children). The punishment was the curse of death, upon them both, and on creation. You see, we inherit their disobedience, their curse, their death, their suffering. Ever since then, we have all been ‘disobedient’ in some way to God almighty. No matter how many ‘good’ things we might do in life, we still fall short of the glory of God.
I’ll take myself for example. Most people generally agree that the ‘ten commandments’ are good things to follow in one’s life. Let’s go through this list using my own life, as I think I’m a pretty good person.
“You shall have no other gods before me” is the first commandment. Today, we consider ‘gods’ to be idols, or something you pray to. I would say that God’s intent wasn’t in ‘idols’ but in anything that becomes ‘god’ in your own life. This can be TV, success, money, a car, or anything that comes before God. In this respect, I most certainly have fallen short.
“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain…” here too, I have many times used God’s name as a cuss-word. (”in vain” has many more connotations, but I’m trying to be as brief as possible.)
“Honor your Father and your mother…” Although I most certainly try, I have dishonored them before, in disobedience, word, thought.
“You shall not murder” Although this might not seem like most of us have committed this sin, Jesus explained the heart of this commandment in Matthew 5:21-22, “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.” The heart of the sin of murder, then, is not the act of shedding blood, but the a heart of anger, resentment, bitterness toward your brother. Sadly, I have to say that, in this respect, I am a murderer.
“You shall not commit adultery.” I have to say that I thought I was clear on this. How did Jesus describe adultery? “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Have I looked at a beautiful woman in that way? I have.
“You shall not steal.” I have stolen.
“You shall not bear false witness.” I have lied.
“You shall not covet your neighbors (stuff).” I have certainly done that.
Ok, you get the picture. I thought I was a good person, but in light of God’s law, I am a blaspheming, dishonoring, murdering, thieving, lying coveter. After all, if a person murders someone, that makes them a murderer, if he steals, he is a thief. According to God’s justice, I deserve punishment, no matter how many times I might give to the poor, be nice to someone, or anything else. If I murder someone, would a court of law let me go because I give to the poor? Justice demands payment for that specific act.
And God is just.
But He is also love.
You see, although we inherit Adam’s disobedience, God sent the answer, in that, through one man’s disobedience (Adam) came death, so also through one man’s obedience (Jesus Christ) came life. You see, although we all fall short, God sent Christ for the payment of our sin. It isn’t exclusionary at all, if you view it in this light:
We all fall short of God’s law (since God is just, there must be payment). God sent His son as payment, and all we need to do is accept that (since God is love).
How do I reconcile that there are some people who haven’t had the opportunity to hear about Christ? I can’t, but I believe that, because God is love, and He is just, He must be able to work that out, and His justice and love is perfect.
But the question isn’t how He works that out with people who never had that opportunity; the question is what will you do with that opportunity? You see, God isn’t exclusive at all in Christ… He is inclusive. His heart is that “not one should perish, but all have eternal life”. But just as He gave Adam and Eve a choice, He gives you that same choice.
I hope you can see my heart in this, that I am not trying to be “exclusive” at all, but I only want to honor God. I really hope you find it depressing to know that good deeds won’t ever get anyone to heaven, because that is a step in the right direction.
August 18th, 2007 at 2:54 am
OK, I’m going to let Shane have the last word here, comments are closed. See you all on the other side, eh?