An Experiential Faith

PDN

This morning I was in church and, as part of the worship, my teenage daughter sang a song she had written on God helping heal the broken-hearted. I know many of our worshippers have faced huge problems in their lives. Some came to Ireland as asylum seekers from war-torn places. Some were disowned and beaten by their families because they forsook another religion to receive Christ. One woman watched her daughter burned to death by rebels in Sierra Leone. Others have been saved from lives of prostitution, alcoholism and drug abuse. Others are single parents, are raising handicapped children, or were victims of domestic abuse. And others are nice respectable middle-class people, yet facing their own particular problems.

As my daughter sang, hundreds of people were weeping all over the place. Not tears of sorrow, but of joy and thankfulness. I marvelled that the little baby that I held in my arms in a hospital delivery room 18 years ago has grown up to be a gracious, sensitive young woman that can minister so effectively into the lives of others. And I'm not ashamed to admit that I shed a few tears myself.

Then I reflected on the fact that Christianity is a faith that is "better felt than telt". I guess that's why the Bible says, "O taste and see that the Lord is good". I realised that one life changed for the better is much more valuable than all of the debates and semantics that we indulge in.

So I thanked God for the power of His Gospel, and as I got home from church I couldn't think of anything better than logging on to this board, which is, after all, devoted to Christianity, and sharing what a great experience it can be to be a Christian.

philologos

People experience a lot in their lives. The way God saves when people turn to Him for help is amazing and supernatural. I have prayed to Him several times for things in my own life, although none were as serious as you have listed above.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

This morning I was in church and, as part of the worship, my teenage daughter sang a song she had written on God helping heal the broken-hearted. I know many of our worshippers have faced huge problems in their lives. Some came to Ireland as asylum seekers from war-torn places. Some were disowned and beaten by their families because they forsook another religion to receive Christ. One woman watched her daughter burned to death by rebels in Sierra Leone. Others have been saved from lives of prostitution, alcoholism and drug abuse. Others are single parents, are raising handicapped children, or were victims of domestic abuse. And others are nice respectable middle-class people, yet facing their own particular problems.

As my daughter sang, hundreds of people were weeping all over the place. Not tears of sorrow, but of joy and thankfulness. I marvelled that the little baby that I held in my arms in a hospital delivery room 18 years ago has grown up to be a gracious, sensitive young woman that can minister so effectively into the lives of others. And I'm not ashamed to admit that I shed a few tears myself.

Then I reflected on the fact that Christianity is a faith that is "better felt than telt". I guess that's why the Bible says, "O taste and see that the Lord is good". I realised that one life changed for the better is much more valuable than all of the debates and semantics that we indulge in.

So I thanked God for the power of His Gospel, and as I got home from church I couldn't think of anything better than logging on to this board, which is, after all, devoted to Christianity, and sharing what a great experience it can be to be a Christian.

Fair play, an interesting post.
How do you feel about the violent aspects of Christianity such as Luke 19:

'But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me'

More info on cruelty:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

Christianity more violent than Islam:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Fair play, an interesting post.
How do you feel about the violent aspects of Christianity such as Luke 19:

'But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me'

More info on cruelty:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

Christianity more violent than Islam:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

Luke 19:27 is an incidental detail, quoted without approval, in a parable that addresses those Jews who thought the Messiah was about to set up a new Kingdom and get rid of the Roman oppressors. Jesus used the parable to teach that it makes good sense to keep busy doing one's religious duty and fufilling one's potential, irrespective of what you think might be around the corner. The minor details in the parable were not intended to endorse people being crowned kings in different countries and then returning, to promote the mina over any other unit of currency, or to express approval of the practice of killing slothful servants.

In the interests of fairness it would be more accurate to entitle your second link: The Bible contains more acts of violence than the Quran - a very different matter indeed from saying that Christianity is more violent than Islam. In fact, since Islam also claims that the Old and New Testaments are among their holy books, then logically, by this reasoning, Islam would be much more violent than Christianity, wouldn't it?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Luke 19:27 is an incidental detail, quoted without approval, in a parable that addresses those Jews who thought the Messiah was about to set up a new Kingdom and get rid of the Roman oppressors. Jesus used the parable to teach that it makes good sense to keep busy doing one's religious duty and fufilling one's potential, irrespective of what you think might be around the corner. The minor details in the parable were not intended to endorse people being crowned kings in different countries and then returning, to promote the mina over any other unit of currency, or to express approval of the practice of killing slothful servants.

I wouldn't call the threat of murder "incidental" or a "minor detail".
It's disturbing.

In the interests of fairness it would be more accurate to entitle your second link: The Bible contains more acts of violence than the Quran - a very different matter indeed from saying that Christianity is more violent than Islam. In fact, since Islam also claims that the Old and New Testaments are among their holy books, then logically, by this reasoning, Islam would be much more violent than Christianity, wouldn't it?

A well put rebuttal, you are correct, I should have stated it as you did.
Would you agree that the Bible is more violent than the Quran?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

So I thanked God for the power of His Gospel, and as I got home from church I couldn't think of anything better than logging on to this board, which is, after all, devoted to Christianity, and sharing what a great experience it can be to be a Christian.

...cough...devoted to the discussion of Christianity...


cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

A well put rebuttal, you are correct, I should have stated it as you did.
Would you agree that the Bible is more violent than the Quran?

Not having read the Quran I wouldn't really know.

It may well be true that the Bible contains accounts of more violent acts than the Quran - but the context would be important. For example, are violent acts mentioned as bad things to be avoided at all cost (as in David's murder of Uriah or Cain's murder of Abel), as a record of events that were commanded by God in the past but not recommended to readers of the New Testament (in itself something that Christians struggle to understand), or as something meritous to be emulated?

For example, my child's school history textbook contains the accounts of more violent acts than Mein Kampf, or even the Nazis' plan for their 'Final Solution', does that mean it is a more violent book?

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

...cough...devoted to the discussion of Christianity...

Don't you feel that's slightly pedantic? I mean if I log onto a football board and mention that it's devoted to football, you hardly expect someone to correct me to point out that it's devoted to the discussion of football.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Not having read the Quran I wouldn't really know.

It may well be true that the Bible contains accounts of more violent acts than the Quran - but the context would be important. For example, are violent acts mentioned as bad things to be avoided at all cost (as in David's murder of Uriah or Cain's murder of Abel), as a record of events that were commanded by God in the past but not recommended to readers of the New Testament (in itself something that Christians struggle to understand), or as something meritous to be emulated?

For example, my child's school history textbook contains the accounts of more violent acts than Mein Kampf, or even the Nazis' plan for their 'Final Solution', does that mean it is a more violent book?

The History book is not trying to get you to become a Nazi and belief and worship Hitler. It would be a very worrying book if it was. The Bible is an effort to get you to support a supernatural deity who seems to prone to bouts of violence. Be consistent - one minute you say: "context is important", next you ignore the context. I am sure you don't approve of violent Nazi acts - do you approve of all the violence acts in the Bible?

Splendour

PDN wrote:

Then I reflected on the fact that Christianity is a faith that is "better felt than telt". I guess that's why the Bible says, "O taste and see that the Lord is good". I realised that one life changed for the better is much more valuable than all of the debates and semantics that we indulge in

Ain't that the truth; 'better felt than telt'-I like it! It's so true though, if one were to eat some new exotic fruit and describe it to someone else, it wouldn't mean a thing. If that person were to 'taste' that fruit themselves, then there would be no need for a description; they'd just know because of their own experience.

Nice post PDN, thanks.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Don't you feel that's slightly pedantic? I mean if I log onto a football board and mention that it's devoted to football, you hardly expect someone to correct me to point out that it's devoted to the discussion of football.

Because in that case it matters rather little, football having very little verbal component - although I would point it out if your posts consisted only of abusive chants...

In this case it matters rather a lot, since a board "devoted to" Christianity is clearly a board for celebrating Christianity, which necessarily precludes any discussion of whether Christianity is correct in outline, doctrine, or implications - and by implication excludes atheists and members of other religions. "Discussion of Christianity", on the other hand, has none of these meanings, but neither does it exclude celebration of Christianity.

The use of "pedantic" is also good, since it implies unnecessary precision, rather than what is in this case clearly necessary precision. I suspect, though, that you can tell the difference just as well as I can...

Nice try, though - subtlety is always appreciated.

in a mildly minatory tone,
Scofflaw

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

The History book is not trying to get you to become a Nazi and belief and worship Hitler. It would be a very worrying book if it was. The Bible is an effort to get you to support a supernatural deity who seems to prone to bouts of violence. Be consistent - one minute you say: "context is important", next you ignore the context. I am sure you don't approve of violent Nazi acts - do you approve of all the violence acts in the Bible?

The context is that the Old Testament records God's revelation to man prior to the coming of Jesus Christ. The New Testament builds on that revelation and contains directions for living that, if followed, would certainly not encourage violent behaviour.

You ask if I approve of all the violent acts in the Bible? Of course not. I don't approve of Cain killing Abel, for example. I guess you really intended to ask if I approve of the instances where God commanded acts of violence? I neither approve or disapprove. There are parts of the Bible that I don't yet understand, and I am humble enough to admit that.

Nice hijack, by the way.

robindch

PDN wrote:

Nice hijack, by the way.

Two hours, fifty minutes from start of thread to first accusation of hijacking -- is this a record?

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Two hours, fifty minutes from start of thread to first accusation of hijacking -- is this a record?

To be fair, while TR is posting a question about the violent aspects of Christianity in counterpoint to PDN's celebration of its peace-enhancing qualities, it is a bit of an attack. Having said that, the OP doesn't particularly point the thread in any strong direction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

I'm not worried about whether or not the thread veered off-topic, but simply noting that it's taking less and less time for people to allege thread-hijacking or christian-bashing. Used to take months at one time and it's down to hours now.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

I'm not worried about whether or not the thread veered off-topic, but simply noting that it's taking less and less time for people to allege thread-hijacking or christian-bashing. Used to take months at one time and it's down to hours now.

Mmm. There seems to be a move by some posters to make it a forum for Christians rather than a forum about Christianity.

To do so, of course, would require everyone to ignore the opinions of the non-Christian posters - which would be fair if this were already a forum for Christians. It isn't - it's a forum for posters to post about Christianity, which means that non-Christians who post here are on an equal footing.

So, one pretends that the opinions of Christians only need be taken into account - whereupon one has already won.

It's a classic technique - quite nice to see it in action.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

robindch wrote:

I'm not worried about whether or not the thread veered off-topic, but simply noting that it's taking less and less time for people to allege thread-hijacking or christian-bashing. Used to take months at one time and it's down to hours now.

OK, I'm new to this board. So is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Would posters prefer Christians to get bashed for months before pointing the fact out? Or is weeks or days more preferable? I would appreciate some guidance so I can fit in with the prevailing culture around here.

Now, my original post was a non-combative reflection about how Christianity was essentially experiential rather than a matter of debates and semantics.

28 minutes later another poster challenged me as to my view on "the violent aspects of Christianity" and posted two links (one of which was very inaccurately and pejoratively labelled) which are a blatant attack upon Christianity. After doing my best to answer his questions I very gently complimented him on his hijack.

If I've done something wrong then maybe someone could explain to me?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

OK, I'm new to this board. So is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Would posters prefer Christians to get bashed for months before pointing the fact out? Or is weeks or days more preferable? I would appreciate some guidance so I can fit in with the prevailing culture around here.

I admire your reduction of the question to the issue of how long Christians "get bashed" for. It is a ploy, though, since the issue is both more complex, and less dramatic, than you pretend.

PDN wrote:

Now, my original post was a non-combative reflection about how Christianity was essentially experiential rather than a matter of debates and semantics.

It would be equally fair to say that both this thread and the "Separation of Church & State" thread are coat-trailing exercises. In neither case have you actually asked for Christian responses only, and in neither case have you given the thread any clear direction. Can you really claim that the threads are "hijacked"?

PDN wrote:

28 minutes later another poster challenged me as to my view on "the violent aspects of Christianity" and posted two links (one of which was very inaccurately and pejoratively labelled) which are a blatant attack upon Christianity. After doing my best to answer his questions I very gently complimented him on his hijack.

If I've done something wrong then maybe someone could explain to me?

As far as I can see you are devoting what appears to be considerable rhetorical powers and intelligence to an attempt to make this forum something it is not - to wit, a forum exclusively for Christians.

If you'd prefer to get only Christian responses on a thread, mark the thread as such, and don't make any gratuitous remarks about atheists (please come and make them on the A&A forum instead, which is, you know, a forum for discussion about atheism, so bashing is welcome). It's simple enough, I think, while allowing room for everyone who posts here - and it's a discussion that's already been had.

respectfully,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

It would be equally fair to say that both this thread and the "Separation of Church & State" thread are coat-trailing exercises. In neither case have you actually asked for Christian responses only, and in neither case have you given the thread any clear direction. Can you really claim that the threads are "hijacked"?

As far as I can see you are devoting what appears to be considerable rhetorical powers and intelligence to an attempt to make this forum something it is not - to wit, a forum exclusively for Christians.

respectfully,
Scofflaw

Both threads you mention are raising serious issues. The first was about the fact that Christianity is essentially an experience rather than an intellectual exercise. I didn't ask for Christian responses only because I believe that is a debate that all should be able to participate in.

As for the thread on the separation of church and state - I had thought that would be an area where we might find some common ground. This is because it appears that many objections to Christianity are founded on State-sponsored terrorist acts such as the Inquisition or the crusades. Again, I thought this could create some useful dialogue rather than being pounced on to become a christians versus atheist issue, which sadly is the way many threads on this board seem to go.

"Coat trailing" usually means something that is deliberately provocative. I actually think that you are being extremely unfair to suggest that I was indulging in such a pastime. Yes, my posts present an extremely positive approach to Christianity, but surely that is understandable since I am a Christian? Such posts would, in my opinion, only be provocative to someone who is steadfastly opposed to Christianity ever being presented in a positive light.

Finally I am under no illusion that I could ever make this rather polarised board a place where only Christians can post, nor is that my aim. I would like to think that a few more positive posts would attract a few more Christians to frequent this place. However that is unlikely if most threads get turned into a Christian versus atheist debate. Actually, there is much more to discuss about Christianity than that.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Both threads you mention are raising serious issues. The first was about the fact that Christianity is essentially an experience rather than an intellectual exercise. I didn't ask for Christian responses only because I believe that is a debate that all should be able to participate in.

No offence intended, but perhaps it would have been worth making that clearer...as it was, it appeared that you were making a statement about the peace-bringing qualities of Christianity, which does rather invite the question TR asked.

PDN wrote:

As for the thread on the separation of church and state - I had thought that would be an area where we might find some common ground. This is because it appears that many objections to Christianity are founded on State-sponsored terrorist acts such as the Inquisition or the crusades. Again, I thought this could create some useful dialogue rather than being pounced on to become a christians versus atheist issue, which sadly is the way many threads on this board seem to go.

It may yet become so, although not if it's a reprise of the old "Communists are bad, Communists are atheists, atheists are bad" argument.

PDN wrote:

"Coat trailing" usually means something that is deliberately provocative. I actually think that you are being extremely unfair to suggest that I was indulging in such a pastime.

Well, I'm always willing to change my view, but you have been both provocative and combative from the get-go, so I think it's not an unreasonable supposition. It may yet turn out to be a canard (in which case you will have an apology), but currently it looks like a duck to me.

PDN wrote:

Yes, my posts present an extremely positive approach to Christianity, but surely that is understandable since I am a Christian? Such posts would, in my opinion, only be provocative to someone who is steadfastly opposed to Christianity ever being presented in a positive light.

I have no such objection to Christianity, and yet I find your posts provocative - as you can see.

PDN wrote:

Finally I am under no illusion that I could ever make this rather polarised board a place where only Christians can post, nor is that my aim. I would like to think that a few more positive posts would attract a few more Christians to frequent this place. However that is unlikely if most threads get turned into a Christian versus atheist debate. Actually, there is much more to discuss about Christianity than that.

Indeed there is. PDN, I appreciate that we atheists tend to involve ourselves rather a lot in discussions here. Partly that's a natural result of what we are - people who have questioned faith and haven't stopped. Partly, however, it is because the Christianity forum has been heavily dominated historically by evangelical Christians, frequently of the Biblical-literalist persuasion - a preponderance unrepresentative of Christianity at large, and almost impossible to ignore.

It's as hard for an atheist to ignore a post that sideswipes atheism as it is for a theist to ignore an attack on their beliefs, and it's a regular occurrence here. Some attacks are outright - "atheists are this or that", others are more subtle "Christianity is the only possible basis for morality", and some are straightforward lies about facts - "abstinence-only HIV programs work better", "the world is only 6000 years old", "evolution is a lie".

You are stepping into this forum at the end (it currently seems, anyway) of a protracted series of such skirmishes - so we're still a bit jumpy, and trigger-happy. From here, we can either calm things down, or permanently polarise it - I assume that you would favour the former?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Just what I need on a rainy Monday morning. Lets see if we can clarify a few points here.

PDN wrote:

OK, I'm new to this board. So is this a good thing or a bad thing? Would posters prefer Christians to get bashed for months before pointing the fact out? Or is weeks or days more preferable? I would appreciate some guidance so I can fit in with the prevailing culture around here.

The best guidance I can offer is to read the posts and familiarize yourself with those who are posting. Leave the moderating to the moderators and use the report post function if you feel a post has gone off topic. You can even PM the mods direct, I am always available to chat.
In all honesty, you have not posted here long enough to be able to clearly differentiate what constitutes real Bashing on this forum. This forum will always be highly volatile, its the nature of things when one get a major religious force trying to maintain that it is the only real path to follow. If one make this claim, one can expect to receive a lot of flack from those that disagree. Try cooling things a little and I think you will see that this is a pretty cool place to be.

PDN wrote:

Now, my original post was a non-combative reflection about how Christianity was essentially experiential rather than a matter of debates and semantics. 28 minutes later another poster challenged me as to my view on "the violent aspects of Christianity" and posted two links (one of which was very inaccurately and pejoratively labelled) which are a blatant attack upon Christianity. After doing my best to answer his questions I very gently complimented him on his hijack.

You make this sound like all the Atheists and Agnostics spend all their time poised over their keyboards just waiting to pounce (mentioned before by somebody). It was the luck the draw. I do feel that the post in reply to your original post was indeed provocative, but it was a counter to the post you were setting up. Your post did not pose any question, rather it was an expression of your joy at having had a meaningful experience. I have to say that you did not help matters by accusing the poster of hijacking the thread. Something that is appearing way to frequently in this forum. Again, use the post button or rely on the mods that are doing their best to maintain a balance. Less of the Highjacking from all would be a nice start. As a matter of fact, I have just added misuse of the word hijack to my list of ban-able offenses. I trust we will see less of it.

Scofflaw wrote:

As far as I can see you are devoting what appears to be considerable rhetorical powers and intelligence to an attempt to make this forum something it is not - to wit, a forum exclusively for Christians.

Agreed, and once again, I must refer to the charter. This is NOT a Christians only forum. It is a place to discuss issues surrounding christian beliefs and a place where christian can ask other christians questions pertaining to their own faith, or non believers can question christians on their faith and vice versa.

Scofflaw wrote:

If you'd prefer to get only Christian responses on a thread, mark the thread as such, and don't make any gratuitous remarks about atheists (please come and make them on the A&A forum instead, which is, you know, a forum for discussion about atheism, so bashing is welcome). It's simple enough, I think, while allowing room for everyone who posts here - and it's a discussion that's already been had.

Agreed. In particular, the part about not make gratuitous remarks about atheists. The same holds true for the Atheists also. And my hat off to the christians who have already taken the leap into the A?A forum.

PDN wrote:

Finally I am under no illusion that I could ever make this rather polarised board a place where only Christians can post, nor is that my aim. I would like to think that a few more positive posts would attract a few more Christians to frequent this place. However that is unlikely if most threads get turned into a Christian versus atheist debate. Actually, there is much more to discuss about Christianity than that.

Good point, one I do support. However, you will always have Christian versus Atheist debate, thats why we have this forum. As already mentioned, you can make a post Christian only by stating it in the beginning of the post, and not in the Title.
In summary, Scofflaw has said it perfectly:

Scofflaw wrote:

It's as hard for an atheist to ignore a post that sideswipes atheism as it is for a theist to ignore an attack on their beliefs, and it's a regular occurrence here. Some attacks are outright - "atheists are this or that", others are more subtle "Christianity is the only possible basis for morality", and some are straightforward lies about facts - "abstinence-only HIV programs work better", "the world is only 6000 years old", "evolution is a lie". You are stepping into this forum at the end (it currently seems, anyway) of a protracted series of such skirmishes - so we're still a bit jumpy, and trigger-happy. From here, we can either calm things down, or permanently polarise it - I assume that you would favour the former?

philologos

robindch wrote:

I'm not worried about whether or not the thread veered off-topic, but simply noting that it's taking less and less time for people to allege thread-hijacking or christian-bashing. Used to take months at one time and it's down to hours now.

because it is thread hijacking, he was discussing how he practises his faith and how people of different experiences can worship together. It has nothing to do with violence in Christianity, you would be free to set up your own thread about it. But as for now it is blatant hijacking. This was the kind of stuff complained about in that other thread entitled "Atheists Out" I think you'll find.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

because it is thread hijacking, he was discussing how he practises his faith and how people of different experiences can worship together. It has nothing to do with violence in Christianity, you would be free to set up your own thread about it. But as for now it is blatant hijacking. This was the kind of stuff complained about in that other thread entitled "Atheists Out" I think you'll find.

It's not thread hijacking. I am curious how the OP reconciles the uplifting part of his faith with the aggresive and vengeful violence in the scripture his faith is based on. The question is on this dichotomy, the OP is one side of the dichotomy hence the decision of including the question in this thread.
Furthermore, the point Christianity being a faith 'better felt than telt', is a very interesting point but how does this apply to the violent aspects of the scripture? Should the violence also be felt, e.g. inquisition, crusades or should that be just telt?
Note I am referring specifically to violence approved, threatened or sanctioned by Jesus / God not the violent acts in the Bible independent of the aforementioned. It's a challenging question, can you answer it intelligently or is the hijacking nonsense the best answer you have?

philologos

what verses of violence are you discussing? *even though this should be in another thread, considering it is completely offtopic and blatant thread hijacking*

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

what verses of violence are you discussing?

Read the thread.

*even though this should be in another thread, considering it is completely offtopic and blatant thread hijacking*

I have defended why I put it here, up to moderator to intervene if they are not happy.

philologos

Well I see Luke 19:27 as the following, after reading the entire passage instead of picking out chunks which are favourable as Tim Robbins has done.

Luke 19:27 wrote:

Then he said to those who were standing there, "Take the gold coin away from him and give it to the servant who has ten coins". But they said to him "Sir he already has ten coins" "I tell you", he replied, "that to all those who have something, even more will be given; but those who have nothing, even the little they have will be taken away from them". Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me to be their king, bring them here and kill them in my presence."

Firstly, this is discussing faith, and if you make an effort to believe and trust in Jesus (as our King), He will reward you for your efforts and your devotion to Him. In regard to those who don't, He is claiming that they will be punished for rejecting HIm when it comes to judgement day. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Again, this is just my interpretation. But the King is meant to be Jesus, and the people who collected the money a representative sample of how much people were willing to show their devotion to Him. I don't see anything horrifying about God judging those who rejected Him.

It was made quite clear in the First of the Ten Commandments:

Exodus 20:1-6 wrote:

God spoke, and these were his words: "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, where you were slaves."
"Worship no other god but me"
"Do not make for yourselves images of anything on earth or in the water under the earth. Do not bow down to any idol or worship it, because I am the Lord your God and I tolerate no rivals. I bring punishment on those who hate me and their descendant down to the third and fourth generation."

BrianCalgary

One of the great things about Christ is that we go about our day to day business trusting in His guidance.

I know for myself I am convinced of the truth of Christianity because of the historical evidence of the risen Christ and the history of God's actions in the lives of His people.

But when the Holy Spirit comes and makes His presence known, there is nothing like it. The joyful emotions, the peace that passes all understanding.

Sunday must have been great PDN.

TR: Are you looking for an answer form a Christian perspective or are you just wanting to stir it up. I can't imaginer that you will accept any answer that anyone will give you that contradicts your preconceived notion of a loving God. Until you can even come close to showing me that youa re prepared to accept an answer and are searching for God, I am going to remain silent. Because there really is no point.:(

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

TR: Are you looking for an answer form a Christian perspective or are you just wanting to stir it up. I can't imaginer that you will accept any answer that anyone will give you that contradicts your preconceived notion of a loving God. Until you can even come close to showing me that youa re prepared to accept an answer and are searching for God, I am going to remain silent. Because there really is no point.:(

Yourself, Jackass and PDN need to stop equivocating and state yeah or nay to whether you condemn the violent and venegful threats of murder of your spiritual leader. You either condemn murder or you don't. PDN, it's ridiculous you giving out about torturing of Christians when your Christian leader states he is prepare to tolerate killing himself and you refuse to condemn it.Pot Kettle and black spring to mind.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yourself, Jackass and PDN need to stop equivocating and state yeah or nay to whether you condemn the violent and venegful threats of murder of your spiritual leader. You either condemn murder or you don't. PDN, it's ridiculous you giving out about torturing of Christians when your Christian leader states he is prepare to tolerate killing himself and you refuse to condemn it.Pot Kettle and black spring to mind.

Which spiritual leader are you talking about?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Which spiritual leader are you talking about?

Who is your spiritual leader?

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yourself, Jackass and PDN need to stop equivocating and state yeah or nay to whether you condemn the violent and venegful threats of murder of your spiritual leader..

Who do you say is the spiritual leader?

Tim Robbins wrote:

You either condemn murder or you don't..

Define murder?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Who is your spiritual leader?

My spiritual leader is Jesus, but you are evidently referring to someone else who is into killing people. Hence my question.

If you tried to be a little less aggressive you might find people could understand you better. Just a suggestion.

You also appear to be arguing that Christians should not be allowed to comment when other Christians are tortured for their faith. Am I interpreting you correctly?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

My spiritual leader is Jesus, but you are evidently referring to someone else who is into killing people. Hence my question.

I am not, my point is clearly consistent with scripture. I did not say Jesus killed people I said and I wish you would read it clearly: 'Yourself, Jackass and PDN need to stop equivocating and state yeah or nay to whether you condemn the violent and venegful threats of murder of your spiritual leader.'
Can you do that or must you equivocate to eternity?

If you tried to be a little less aggressive you might find people could understand you better. Just a suggestion.

Hillarious, I am the one who categorically rejects violence and killing. I am aggressive for challenging the ethics and morality of murder?

You also appear to be arguing that Christians should not be allowed to comment when other Christians are tortured for their faith. Am I interpreting you correctly?

No, of course they should be allowed to comment and their views should also be allowed to be commented on.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

Hillarious, I am the one who categorically rejects violence and killing. I am aggressive for challenging the ethics and morality of murder?
.

You are equating Christianity with killing and murder. You have not told us who you mean by spiritual leader.

Where do you stand on abortion?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am not, my point is clearly consistent with scripture. I did not say Jesus killed people I said and I wish you would read it clearly: 'Yourself, Jackass and PDN need to stop equivocating and state yeah or nay to whether you condemn the violent and venegful threats of murder of your spiritual leader.'
Can you do that or must you equivocate to eternity?

This is getting surreal. I didn't say anything about Jesus killing people. I said that Jesus was not "into" killing people. That means He did not advocate killing nor did He endorse killing people.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Hillarious, I am the one who categorically rejects violence and killing. I am aggressive for challenging the ethics and morality of murder?
.

No, you are aggressive because you appear you appear to be incapable of having a reasoned conversation without being rude.

philologos

I take it Tim Robbins is satisfied with my interpretation of Luke 19:27 then, as he clearly has nothing to come back with it.

Asiaprod

Jakkass wrote:

I take it Tim Robbins is satisfied with my interpretation of Luke 19:27 then, as he clearly has nothing to come back with it.

I am sure when he comes back from vacation he will have something to say:)

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

As my daughter sang, hundreds of people were weeping all over the place. Not tears of sorrow, but of joy and thankfulness. I marvelled that the little baby that I held in my arms in a hospital delivery room 18 years ago has grown up to be a gracious, sensitive young woman that can minister so effectively into the lives of others. And I'm not ashamed to admit that I shed a few tears myself.

Wow this thread went off track very quickly...

What I would say to the atheists here, at least wait until the Christians say something inaccurate or objectionable before we start in on them. PDN was sharing a wonderful experience with people, I don't think there was much need to demand that he justify killing in the name of his religion on this thread. I certainly have no objection to asking him to justify it on other threads when the thread is about morality and Christianity, but there is no context for it on this thread.

Back to the original post, I think that is wonderful PDN.

The only thing I would say is that you would no doubt feel exactly the same about your daughter if you were Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim (or Atheist) so possibly the direction of your thanks should maybe go to the relationship with your daughter and yourself rather than your god.

I say this only because I sometimes get the feeling on this forum that Christians here believe that everything they experience is some how more intensive or profound that what people in other religions or cultures experience, because they are Christian.

I touched on that briefly in another thread when I asked what do Christians here think happens to members of other religions when they have a "religious experience"

Mr. Presentable

OP, thank you for sharing your beautiful moment.

I bet you are starting to regret posting it in here though. This forum, sadly, is becoming a refuge for the po-faced. As Scofflaw so nicely reminds, this is a place for discussion of christianity. It is not a banner stand.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

Well I see Luke 19:27 as the following, after reading the entire passage instead of picking out chunks which are favourable as Tim Robbins has done.

Firstly, this is discussing faith, and if you make an effort to believe and trust in Jesus (as our King), He will reward you for your efforts and your devotion to Him. In regard to those who don't, He is claiming that they will be punished for rejecting HIm when it comes to judgement day. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Again, this is just my interpretation. But the King is meant to be Jesus, and the people who collected the money a representative sample of how much people were willing to show their devotion to Him. I don't see anything horrifying about God judging those who rejected Him.

Well I am back after being unfairly banned by some glitch or whatever happened.
I think this scripture is open to interpretation. Does Jesus advocate violence?
Well the King in the story is advocating violence and murder. If the King is meant to represent Jesus does this mean Jesus advocates it?
Well it's impossible to say. It's subjective really. It's a bit violent for my liking. But I don't think one can conclude that the Jesus that Luke tells us about, advocates violence just because the King in parable does, which for me is a good thing. But I still don't like the hint at it.
I changed my mind about this scripture following a lively and intelligent debate in the excellant atheist forum while I was banned in this one.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well I am back after being unfairly banned by some glitch or whatever happened.
I think this scripture is open to interpretation. Does Jesus advocate violence?

Jesus is God. God clearly advocates violence, the Old Testament is full of violence. Jesus then clearly does advocate violence.

On the other hand God, though Jesus, appears to instruct his followers not to use violence unless told to do so by God. They are not to take violence into their own hands, on their own judgment.

So it is can be argued that the Bible teaches that violence is only acceptable if God instructs you to use violence.

The problem of course with that is that throughout history men and women have believed that God is instructing them to use violence, and therefore they can rationally justify these actions within the framework of the religion.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well I am back after being unfairly banned by some glitch or whatever happened.
I think this scripture is open to interpretation. Does Jesus advocate violence?
Well the King in the story is advocating violence and murder. If the King is meant to represent Jesus does this mean Jesus advocates it?
Well it's impossible to say. It's subjective really. It's a bit violent for my liking. But I don't think one can conclude that the Jesus that Luke tells us about, advocates violence just because the King in parable does, which for me is a good thing. But I still don't like the hint at it.
I changed my mind about this scripture following a lively and intelligent debate in the excellant atheist forum while I was banned in this one.

You fail to understand that Jesus indeed is God. If Jesus is meant to represent this King, then the King is representing God. The King is giving God's judgement on those who hate and despise him. God is the ultimate judge, he is the only one who has any right to punish another. He is punishing those who reject him. He isn't encouraging anyone else to use violence, as God is the only one who is punishing in Luke 19:27. I quite truly, don't see anything wrong with God punishing those who reject Him.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

You fail to understand that Jesus indeed is God. If Jesus is meant to represent this King, then the King is representing God. The King is giving God's judgement on those who hate and despise him. God is the ultimate judge, he is the only one who has any right to punish another. He is punishing those who reject him. He isn't encouraging anyone else to use violence, as God is the only one who is punishing in Luke 19:27. I quite truly, don't see anything wrong with God punishing those who reject Him.

Since you're very definite about that - what of those who never heard the Word? Are the Maoris to be punished because the Word of God didn't reach them until the nineteenth century? Did they really reject God in any meaningful sense?

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

They don't hate or despise God since they never knew Him.
Infact Mark 16:15-16 claims that the desciples should spread the word throughout the world. those who believe will be saved and those who don't will be condemned.
Personally, I would interpret that as if the people reject God on hearing about him, they will be condemned. However I could be totally wrong. Considering that it comes after "Go throughout the world"

dreamingoak

Tim Robbins wrote:

Fair play, an interesting post.
How do you feel about the violent aspects of Christianity such as Luke 19:

'But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me'

More info on cruelty:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

Christianity more violent than Islam:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

That wasnt god. that was someone abusing His name. we have to use common sense and personal authority!

Zombrex

dreamingoak wrote:

That wasnt god. that was someone abusing His name. we have to use common sense and personal authority!

Isn't that exactly the the Bible teaches you not to do?

magicbastarder

Jakkass wrote:

I quite truly, don't see anything wrong with God punishing those who reject Him.

punishing how?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

Isn't that exactly the the Bible teaches you not to do?

That's what they've been telling us...

dreamingoak

I quite truly, don't see anything wrong with God punishing those who reject Him.[/QUOTE]

eek! Would you, should you punish a child for rejecting his parent? A good parent leads and teaches by loving example, and loving guidance, not by scaring a child into submission! I once asked my own father, as a teenager to explain why he felt it was reasonable to beat a child, but not an adult. He could not give me a clear answer, but it boiled down to " because the child has no one to defend him. I am bigger, and I have complete authority over him. I will command his respect, then he will do as i say"

This whole problem comes form a confusion of the words 'respect' and 'fear'.
We want a child to listen and learn from us because they trust our judgment and can see that we are good wise loving parents who can guide them well. That is Respect.

A child who does as we say for fear of reprisals, is not open hearted and therefore cannot truly learn, they cannot think and reason for themselves. Their fear of us keeps them quiet and obedient perhaps, but the good parent wants more than obedience, he wants the child to blossom and achieve his potential, as I believe our God wants for us.

I do not fear God, but I do respect Him.