Is it possible to proselytize from a place of humility?

[sojourner]

You didn’t bring it up. You just started using the term in your own special way without telling people that you weren’t using it to mean what everyone else in the thread meant.

It was only after I pointed out that what you were saying didn’t make sense with the normal meaning of the word that we tried to figure out what you did mean... and even then, it took you a few pages to finally admit that the contemporary meaning of the word was different from the one you were using.


Yeah... about that. Now that we have semantic disagreements out if the way: this is one of the few areas where @BilliardsBall and I agree. It seems bizarre that you would point to a book full of examples of people winning converts by preaching to crowds or convincing them by speaking to them one-on-one, and these acts being held up as praiseworthy, to try to support your argument that Christians shouldn’t do these things.

But what does “winning converts” mean? See, this is where context matters. As I said, in the time period pointed to in the stories, there was no religion, no doctrine, no “faith” (in the sense of belief system) to convert people to. There was only a conversion of intent of heart. In fact, that’s the gospel message Jesus preached: “Turn yourselves around, because God’s imperial rule has come near.” “Turn yourselves around.” “Have a change of heart.” That’s proselytization from a biblical perspective, and that’s what I lift up as admirable. Sure, speak to people one-on-one. Speak to them en masse. Even better, show them — demonstrate to them by your example. But what the Bible says you’re showing them is a change of heart, not a change of belief, or a change of religious adherence. IOW, proselytization isn’t “selling the church,” so much as it is showing love and compassion, just as Jesus did. Jesus didn’t call people away from Judaism. He called them to love their neighbor as themselves.

This is not “using the term in my own special way.” It’s actually doing the exegetical work of figuring out what these ancient texts are actually saying, and applying it to a modern understanding.

It’s like reading an old book in which someone says that “He was a gay young man,” and then telling everyone that the character was homosexual, rather than just happy (which was the original meaning of the text). Yes, meanings change, and I think it’s important to point out where the meaning has changed and why its important to look to the original meaning, if we’re going to claim that we’re following the text by our actions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But what does “winning converts” mean? See, this is where context matters. As I said, in the time period pointed to in the stories, there was no religion, no doctrine, no “faith” (in the sense of belief system) to convert people to. There was only a conversion of intent of heart.

I’m more interested in the time period when the stories were written. By the 2nd Century, the Christian Church really was its own thing distinct from Judaism.

In fact, that’s the gospel message Jesus preached: “Turn yourselves around, because God’s imperial rule has come near.” “Turn yourselves around.” “Have a change of heart.” That’s proselytization from a biblical perspective, and that’s what I lift up as admirable. Sure, speak to people one-on-one. Speak to them en masse. Even better, show them — demonstrate to them by your example. But what the Bible says you’re showing them is a change of heart, not a change of belief, or a change of religious adherence. IOW, proselytization isn’t “selling the church,” so much as it is showing love and compassion, just as Jesus did. Jesus didn’t call people away from Judaism. He called them to love their neighbor as themselves.

I’d be hard-pressed to find a monotheistic religion that didn’t consider conversion to their religion to be “having a change of heart” and aligning themselves with what God wants.

This is not “using the term in my own special way.” It’s actually doing the exegetical work of figuring out what these ancient texts are actually saying, and applying it to a modern understanding.

And you think that you found the right interpretation and all those billions of other Christians who interpret things in a different way don’t agree with you because they “didn’t actually do the work” and haven’t “figured out what these ancient texts are actually saying?”

I hope you realize that this doesn’t exactly come across as humble either.

Why do you think all the other Christians haven’t done what you describe? Why don’t they agree with you? Are they too complacent? Too lazy? Too stupid?

 

[sojourner]

I’m more interested in the time period when the stories were written. By the 2nd Century, the Christian Church really was its own thing distinct from Judaism.


I’d be hard-pressed to find a monotheistic religion that didn’t consider conversion to their religion to be “having a change of heart” and aligning themselves with what God wants.


And you think that you found the right interpretation and all those billions of other Christians who interpret things in a different way don’t agree with you because they “didn’t actually do the work” and haven’t “figured out what these ancient texts are actually saying?”

I hope you realize that this doesn’t exactly come across as humble either.

Why do you think all the other Christians haven’t done what you describe? Why don’t they agree with you? Are they too complacent? Too lazy? Too stupid?

The Acts account was written in the 1st century, and Xy was a movement, not nearly so organized or established as its own thing. Many Christians still considered themselves Jews.

Of course people consider conversion to their religion as a change of heart, but that particular change of heart is, I think, at least somewhat incongruent with Jesus’ message of repentance.

I’m not the only one, Penguin, to see this interpretation. Not by a long shot. Very few people know how to exegete texts. It’s not a hubris thing, it’s just a fact. Not a lot of people who fly know how to pilot an airplane. Not everyone who encounters surgery is a doctor. There are people who are specially trained to do those things. Clergy are in that set of people who are trained. It’s not that people are complacent, lazy or stupid. But those who go to court are best served to retain a lawyer. Those who would consider theology are best served to retain someone trained in theology. Would you let your bar buddy do eye surgery on you, because he was “sincere in his compassion” for you? Probably not. You’d find a competent ophthalmologist.

Part of the problem is that the church became imperialized, which I don’t think was ever the intention. That’s when Xy became an entity that one “joined.” That’s when members became part of an elite class — the “Elect” — And proselytization became an act of hubris.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Interesting. Are you part of the JW's or a group often referred to as "Oneness" or "Jesus only" pentecostals? Those are the only two major groups I am aware of which are non-Trinitarian.

Aside from that, my point was that not everything that Christians believe and practice is spelled out explicitly in scripture, and that was just one example. While you say you reject the Trinity formulation, I can guarantee you not everything you believe and practice is spelled out explicitly in scripture. We are sort of left to interpret what it means to us. To have something spelled out explicitly, sort of defeats the purpose to developing maturity. It's maturity, not beliefs, that are the measure of truth in someone. What I may say may be absolutely true, while it's never mentioned in scripture. I think to say never think beyond scripture, is the best way to keep them immature in faith.


I'm sorry, I'm reading the opposite here. It says explicitly, that not everyone has the same gifts. Can you cite a passage that says all followers are to preach?



Yes, "and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines," meaning, not everyone has the same gifts. That's the whole purpose of the passage. No Christian should be telling other Christians they "should" be doing this thing or that thing. For some Christians, their path is a vow of silence. Being told they have to preach, is counter to that.


Sure, let your light so shine before men. That says nothing about preaching. It's about "being" a light, in however that manifest in whatever form.


Same as above.


Everyone is to have faith, but that's not preaching.


Or not verbal words at all. The woman touched Jesus in a crowd and was healed. No words were exchanged. To which he told her, that it was not he who did it, but it was her faith that did it. No preaching required.


That is a specific gift that not everyone has, but one which Paul says we should seek. But the gift of professing is not the same thing at all as someone standing up and preaching their beliefs. No comparison at all. It's much more akin to say a musician playing from a place of deep inspiritaion, except in words, like a poet. Not everyone does this, according to that passage you quoted.


There is no way that glossolalia should be confused with "preaching". Talking in tongues is ecstatic speech in a state of religious ecstacy. It's not preaching. (And don't try to quote Acts 2 to tell me it is. ) Paul explicitly discourages that in the congregation because it does not build up others. It only benefits the one doing it, he says.


Again, this isn't preaching. And in all honestly, I don't believe there is a Christian alive who actually knows what Paul was referencing. There are a lot of groups that think they understand based on how they think it looked like, but that is speculation, and then just mimicry of that speculation in practice in their churches where someone enters into a state of ecstatic speech, and then some congregate stands up, typically speaking in King James English, interestingly enough, and says things they think God is saying such as, "Thus saith the Lord, I have heard your prayers and will send you a bountiful harvest in due season," etc, etc. etc.

That is all very interesting, but that is not preaching either.


Hardly. You think when Jesus says to let your light shine, he means preaching? How do you imagine you would fulfill Jesus' command? If you can't say it with silence, you sure as hell can't say it with words!


I am not telling you what you should or shouldn't do. You were arguing that all Christians should try to proselytize others, that it is a commandment to them for everyone to preach. I say that isn't true.


For you to express the gift of God you have in silence, is your path. I would recommend practicing meditation to help show you how you should for yourself inhabit that in yourself. Blathering words about beliefs, without that core of Silence at the center of ones being, is just our egos on parade carrying God banners to deceive ourselves with. Truth can speak for itself, without our words mucking it all up.


In verbal communication, in all cases, it is what is not said, nonverbal communication that is heard above all else. Someone can say they love me all day, but if I don't feel the truth of that coming from them, then it's not coming from a place of Truth.


Prayer is an exercise for yourself, not for the benefit of others. And prayer is best when it is silent. It is just the pure state of the heart laid bare before God. God doesn't care about your words. They mean something only to you and your mind, in the place where it is still mistaken it matters. Knowing occurs with the heart, not as a result of deductive conclusions of the mind piecing together logic statements.


Obviously language has its place in human socities, included ecomonic and legal activities. This has nothing to do with the Truth of God spoken to the hearts of man. God is not a legal entity.


The best communication in relationship is nonverbal. Blathering on and on with the mind filling volumes of words throughout the day, is ultimately a distraction from such simply being at Rest in the arms of Love. This is what holds relationships together, not us blathering on about our ideas. Those are interesting, but ultimately just ornamentations about something profoundly more essential than that. To look into the others eyes and simply "know" without words, is ten billion times more Truthful.


How would you read that if you were mute and could not use your mouth?

I'm in neither of the groups you suggest.

I take it you understand Ephesians as some, not all, are to preach. I'm to preach. You wish me not to, then claim to represent the divine. Clearly, Jesus commissioned preachers, ancient and modern. We are to speak.

I also would take issue with "silent contemplation is best". Sometimes it is, my church has practiced it. There are other plain Bible statements of verbal prayer. For example, the Psalms.

Unfortunately, all of what you write is sincere, but some of what you write is self-contradictory. For example, you wrote "Truth can speak for itself, without our words mucking it all up." Then why are you using words to explain this to me? Just let truth explain itself to me without your input. Why do you consider it a necessity to post many words to me, many times, to tell me to not use words? It sure looks like you wish ME to be silent and YOU to do the talking about things you claim need no speech whatsoever.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You didn’t bring it up. You just started using the term in your own special way without telling people that you weren’t using it to mean what everyone else in the thread meant.

It was only after I pointed out that what you were saying didn’t make sense with the normal meaning of the word that we tried to figure out what you did mean... and even then, it took you a few pages to finally admit that the contemporary meaning of the word was different from the one you were using.


Yeah... about that. Now that we have semantic disagreements out if the way: this is one of the few areas where @BilliardsBall and I agree. It seems bizarre that you would point to a book full of examples of people winning converts by preaching to crowds or convincing them by speaking to them one-on-one, and these acts being held up as praiseworthy, to try to support your argument that Christians shouldn’t do these things.

We agree on a lot of things! I agree that we should both suspend biases as much as we can, using a skeptical, rationalist mindset to approach any topic, scientific or metaphysical, and should hold a very healthy degree of skepticism regarding miracle claims, religions and the supernatural.

The difference is Jesus Christ still communicated to me specifically, through that lens. He still does so!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We agree on a lot of things! I agree that we should both suspend biases as much as we can, using a skeptical, rationalist mindset to approach any topic, scientific or metaphysical, and should hold a very healthy degree of skepticism regarding miracle claims, religions and the supernatural.

Of course, we disagree on whether you've actually put that approach into practice.

The difference is Jesus Christ still communicated to me specifically, through that lens. He still does so!

I remember your descriptions of "Jesus Christ communicating to you" as less than compelling. IIRC, it was mainly cases where you had sudden intuition that you felt was especially accurate in hindsight, but I can't recall you ever ruling out confirmation bias. Did I remember correctly?

 

[Windwalker]

I'm to preach. You wish me not to, then claim to represent the divine.

This is the second time you have said I am saying you should not preach. Can you point to one time I actually have said this? I don't recall saying, or even thinking that. Where did you come up with this from?

Secondly, where or when have I ever claimed I represent the Divine? Where are you coming up with this stuff from? Isn't this bearing false witness, claiming I said or did something when it's all made up by you?

Clearly, Jesus commissioned preachers, ancient and modern. We are to speak.

All I have ever said is it is not an injunction to all Christians to proselytize others, selling them God and whatnot. If you choose to be God's salesman, that's your prerogative. It's not a command to all Christians to peddle religion.

I also would take issue with "silent contemplation is best". Sometimes it is, my church has practiced it. There are other plain Bible statements of verbal prayer.

Yet again. This is fabricated. I never said, "Silent contemplation is the best". For one thing, I've never brought up "contemplation", which is a form of meditation. Meditation can be verbal, such as in the chanting of mantras. As far as prayer goes, again, you may speak to God using vocalizations if you wish. But Jesus said you should do this in private, in your closet, not standing on street corners. It does seems to me, Jesus seems to think private prayers are "best". Do you disagree with him?

Unfortunately, all of what you write is sincere, but some of what you write is self-contradictory. For example, you wrote "Truth can speak for itself, without our words mucking it all up." Then why are you using words to explain this to me?

Finally, you are actually quoting my words. But this is not a contradiction however. When I said "Truth can speak for itself," that was a capitalized Truth, as in Divine Truth, not a propositional idea I have to discussion with another person using words in order to communicate the understanding of my mind to theirs. By Truth speaking for itself, I mean it in the sense of the Psalms where its says, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork, day unto day uttereth speech, night unto night shows knowledge". This is Truth speaking for itself, without words. Amen.

Just let truth explain itself to me without your input.

Romans 1:20. "The invisible things of him through creation are clearly seen and made known, even his eternal power and godhead so they are without excuse". That's one example. I'd like to understand how you can't hear God without verbal words. Please explain that one to me.

Why do you consider it a necessity to post many words to me, many times, to tell me to not use words?

Because I am attempting to explain my thought processes in the hope it may register with yours so you open the eyes of your heart and hear Truth without words. Hearing my thoughts about specific concepts requires words. God himself however, is not a concept you are required to "think about" in order to know.

You don't understand this? Is God a conceptual proposition to you? It's not to me. God is more like the rays of light hitting my face and body and warming my being with its Presence - all with the absence of words.

It sure looks like you wish ME to be silent and YOU to do the talking about things you claim need no speech whatsoever.

The only thing I would say regarding that is, I wish you would use your words to describe something you have experienced beyond words. Then they are meaningful. Otherwise, they are just your ideas about what God is without the benefit of anything tangible. If all one hears are words, then the meaning is empty.

 

[Thanda]

Until there is evidence or personal experience to the contrary there will be absolutely nothing another human being can say, nor any (normal) feat they can enact that will change my mind. It really is as simple as that.

These are powerful words. And they are so true. If there be a God, especially if he is the God spoken of in the Bible he must speak to each individual and not expect them believe the story of someone else.

spiritual realm - a realm wholly unknowable and unprovable by anyone

Now you make the same mistake you have just chastised others for. You may not know it but to assert that it is unknowable by anyone is beyond your expertise (of course you are probably just expressing an opinion). Do not speak for others. Do not assume what they know or don't. Do not assume that because you have not achieved a certain understanding others have not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

These are powerful words. And they are so true. If there be a God, especially if he is the God spoken of in the Bible he must speak to each individual and not expect them believe the story of someone else.

"The story of someone else"... like the stories in the Bible?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Now you make the same mistake you have just chastised others for. You may not know it but to assert that it is unknowable by anyone is beyond your expertise (of course you are probably just expressing an opinion). Do not speak for others. Do not assume what they know or don't. Do not assume that because you have not achieved a certain understanding others have not.

I could have said "heretofore unproven", and this would be more true. Had it been inter-subjectively proven, beyond doubt, then there would like be a large shift of focus of many a scholarly mind. That it is unprovable is only part my own opinion, and part parroting of theists themselves who claim that much is not able to be proven, and never will be.

And as for "unknowable" - ultimately you're right, I do not know that it is unknowable, and it is only opinion. Opinion based around it being a curious thing that no one who does, supposedly "know" has been held up or given the great amount of credit that real, APPLICABLE knowledge of such a realm would likely incur. Notice I said "applicable" - because even if you know of a thing, if it has no real world application, then the knowledge is not necessarily of any worth. Even if it only opened up a new area of actual, quantifiable study, that would have the world buzzing with talk (and investigation) of this freshly discovered realm. Instead all you have are conflicting or at least disparate and spotty accounts... crackpots proven to be crackpots trying to peddle ghost stories or worse, and generally poor quality, indemonstrable information even on a personal level. That's what surrounds my opinion. There are a great many fields of study and areas of research that have provided actual, quantifiable results to the advancement of the human condition. The study of "the spiritual realm" (if there is such a thing - which is also debatable) doesn't really have that going for it. Note, I am counting "the spiritual realm" as separate from the doctrine and adherence to religious practices - which very well may be nothing more than human contrivances.

 

[Thanda]

"The story of someone else"... like the stories in the Bible?

Yes, like the stories of the Bible.

 

[Thanda]

I could have said "heretofore unproven", and this would be more true. Had it been inter-subjectively proven, beyond doubt, then there would like be a large shift of focus of many a scholarly mind. That it is unprovable is only part my own opinion, and part parroting of theists themselves who claim that much is not able to be proven, and never will be.

And as for "unknowable" - ultimately you're right, I do not know that it is unknowable, and it is only opinion. Opinion based around it being a curious thing that no one who does, supposedly "know" has been held up or given the great amount of credit that real, APPLICABLE knowledge of such a realm would likely incur. Notice I said "applicable" - because even if you know of a thing, if it has no real world application, then the knowledge is not necessarily of any worth. Even if it only opened up a new area of actual, quantifiable study, that would have the world buzzing with talk (and investigation) of this freshly discovered realm. Instead all you have are conflicting or at least disparate and spotty accounts... crackpots proven to be crackpots trying to peddle ghost stories or worse, and generally poor quality, indemonstrable information even on a personal level. That's what surrounds my opinion. There are a great many fields of study and areas of research that have provided actual, quantifiable results to the advancement of the human condition. The study of "the spiritual realm" (if there is such a thing - which is also debatable) doesn't really have that going for it. Note, I am counting "the spiritual realm" as separate from the doctrine and adherence to religious practices - which very well may be nothing more than human contrivances.

The difficulty I've noticed is that when we speak of proof we are prone to defining it as something one person presents to another. This kind of thinking is not wrong but it has limitations. For example a claim may be made by a person that therapists can help people overcome trauma. He may base this assertion on his own experience with psychologists. But what proof could he present to the hearer that he in fact has changed? What proof could he present that the change was a result of the psychologist's assistance and not by some other cause?

Of course if many people have had the same experience there is more weight to the claim.

This is the nature of faith and the extent of the "proof" that can be offered. God or the Holy Spirit is the "therapist" that seeks to change the heart of man so that he may experience and obtain "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." Many testify that they have received this by listening to the voice of God as it speaks to their hearts - directing them, counselling them, comforting and strengthening them.

Now you may counter that there are studies the prove the effectiveness of therapists or psychologists. That is true. But there are three things to consider. Firstly the studies that prove the effectiveness of therapists and psychologists not older than one at most two hundred years old. And yet therapists and psychologists (in all their various forms including church ministers) have been assisting people for thousands of years. The effects of therapy therefore did not come into existence only when they could be proven. They existed from the beginning.
Therefore existence and the ability to prove do not always coexist.

Secondly the advantage that visits to a therapist has is that one can actually independently verify when, how often and for how long a person has visited with a particular therapist. This is not possible with communion with the divine. I have no way of proving to you that God gave me certain counsel this morning and that I followed it and it worked.

Lastly the effectiveness of any therapy program rests largely with the attitude of the patient. If therapy were itself a fool proof science then all prisoners who leave prison would never commit crime again unless they had not received or had refused therapy. We of course know that most prisoners end up repeat offending despite receiving professional help while incarcerated. But how do you measure the attitude of a person? He may say he is willing to change while secretly having a resistent heart.
This is one of the main issues with spiritual matters. A person says they are trying out religion while they inwardly have not fully committed themselves to doing whatever is asked of them (not by a preacher but by the spirit that speaks in their hearts).

Just today someone shared with me an experience where they had been badly hurt by someone. They were so angry they were seriously contemplating killing that person. But the voice came to them to not just to desist from that course of action (which would probably just be common sense) but to actually go to that person and offer their forgiveness and seek reconcilliation. Their forgiveness was rejected but they felt immeasurable peace (a fruit of the Spirit) thereafter. How easy it could have been for her to resist the voice. How easy it could have been for her to miss out on the opportunity to experience proof, first hand, of the benefit of listening to the voice of God in her heart.
But now she knows. Now she has proof. But she cannot lend that proof or knowledge to me or anyone else. We must all experience it for ourselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, like the stories of the Bible.

So Go wouldn’t expect the stories of the Bible to be believed?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Now you may counter that there are studies the prove the effectiveness of therapists or psychologists. That is true. But there are three things to consider. Firstly the studies that prove the effectiveness of therapists and psychologists not older than one at most two hundred years old. And yet therapists and psychologists (in all their various forms including church ministers) have been assisting people for thousands of years. The effects of therapy therefore did not come into existence only when they could be proven. They existed from the beginning.

I completely agree that visits to clergy or church personnel have likely helped many troubled people. That is not in dispute! My main point is that the "spiritual" aspect of such visits is in no way quantifiable! But as you have stated, even the efficacy of "therapy" enacted by clergy IS something that could be studied... it IS something quantifiable. Just because you put the label "spiritual" on something does not mean that there is a realm from which "spirits" interact with the world. Action and interaction with clergy is REAL... but "spirits?" That remains yet to be seen, demonstrated or reproduced.

Just today someone shared with me an experience where they had been badly hurt by someone. They were so angry they were seriously contemplating killing that person. But the voice came to them to not just to desist from that course of action (which would probably just be common sense) but to actually go to that person and offer their forgiveness and seek reconcilliation. Their forgiveness was rejected but they felt immeasurable peace (a fruit of the Spirit) thereafter. How easy it could have been for her to resist the voice. How easy it could have been for her to miss out on the opportunity to experience proof, first hand, of the benefit of listening to the voice of God in her heart.
But now she knows. Now she has proof. But she cannot lend that proof or knowledge to me or anyone else. We must all experience it for ourselves.

And my argument is that there is not much reason to call the voice she heard "God." That's just an attempt at explaining what could otherwise simply be a human-nature phenomenon. There is absolutely zero indication outwardly that what she experienced was the voice of some spirit. And inwardly, she sounds like a very troubled person if she is able to get that worked up, and is literally willing to kill someone over it. And these... these are the stories told time and again. People in dire emotional or mental straits are the ones who hear God. You could say that they are the ones most "in need" - which is an obvious go to - but might it simply be that those troubled states intrinsically bring about an inborn desire to seek out some outside "help," and if none is forthcoming from "regular" channels, the mind might even conjure something of its own to deal with the issue? Hence the reason people in different cultures, with different religions reach out to different Gods... and any of them sometimes receive the "help" requested and claim it was the God/gods they are familiar with! My point being... the jury is out, and you can't definitively say one way or the other. In the exact same way that you told me I couldn't say that "The spirit realm is unknowable", you cannot say with 100% confidence that this woman heard the voice of God. You simply can't. That caveat works both ways, my friend. And you will, unfortunately, always be the one with less realistic claims, and less evidence to bring to the table.

 

[Thanda]

So Go wouldn’t expect the stories of the Bible to be believed?

No, not necessarily. The primary purpose of Bible stories and indeed the stories in most holy books is to teach principles or truths. Thus the focus as you read should be whether the principles being taught are true rather than whether the stories really happened or someone was just writing a really good poem.

Perhaps the best way to describe it is like a good science textbook. It will contain many claims but the author does not expect you to believe them simply because he is stating those claims. The book will normally contain methods of how you can reproduce the experiments yourself or the mathematical proofs on which the assertions are based.

Likewise when one picks up the Bible (or Book of Mormon, Quran or any other holy book) one would normally seek for life principles which they can apply in their own life. As they apply them they can independently verify whether those principles are in fact true. Jesus said "My doctrine is not my own but his that sent me. If any man will do his will he will know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself".

Another important thing to consider is that God is able and does speak to each of us individually. As he does so he imparts a measure of light or truth to us all. From this light we are able to judge many other supposed truths. Therefore by honestly following the light that is within - always seeking to live true to it - we will be enabled to recognize the truth whether it is contained in the Bible, Quran or even the words of a very good Sam Smith song .

 

[Thanda]

I completely agree that visits to clergy or church personnel have likely helped many troubled people. That is not in dispute! My main point is that the "spiritual" aspect of such visits is in no way quantifiable! But as you have stated, even the efficacy of "therapy" enacted by clergy IS something that could be studied... it IS something quantifiable. Just because you put the label "spiritual" on something does not mean that there is a realm from which "spirits" interact with the world. Action and interaction with clergy is REAL... but "spirits?" That remains yet to be seen, demonstrated or reproduced.

The central point I was making is that the ability to prove a thing doesn't always coexist with the thing itself. Many phenomena existed without means to prove for many years. The Higgins Bosson was theorized to exist a few decades ago (and it existed even before it was theorized) but only recently was there the capability to prove it.

Just because it is difficult or impossible currently to independently prove whether someone has infact had an experience with a Deity does not mean that such experiences do not exist.

And my argument is that there is not much reason to call the voice she heard "God." That's just an attempt at explaining what could otherwise simply be a human-nature phenomenon. There is absolutely zero indication outwardly that what she experienced was the voice of some spirit. And inwardly, she sounds like a very troubled person if she is able to get that worked up, and is literally willing to kill someone over it. And these... these are the stories told time and again. People in dire emotional or mental straits are the ones who hear God. You could say that they are the ones most "in need" - which is an obvious go to - but might it simply be that those troubled states intrinsically bring about an inborn desire to seek out some outside "help," and if none is forthcoming from "regular" channels, the mind might even conjure something of its own to deal with the issue? Hence the reason people in different cultures, with different religions reach out to different Gods... and any of them sometimes receive the "help" requested and claim it was the God/gods they are familiar with! My point being... the jury is out, and you can't definitively say one way or the other. In the exact same way that you told me I couldn't say that "The spirit realm is unknowable", you cannot say with 100% confidence that this woman heard the voice of God. You simply can't. That caveat works both ways, my friend. And you will, unfortunately, always be the one with less realistic claims, and less evidence to bring to the table.

Calling the voice God is perhaps difficult. You are correct that it could possibly be some other natural phenomenon.
But I think the main reason many (including myself) have termed the voice God (an entity that is separate from us) is because they often receive knowledge from this voice they couldn't reasonably know by any of their previously acquired knowledge or through any of their natural senses. Also because (as was the case with the lady I mentioned) the voice often gives counter intuitive (almost illogical) advise that actually turns out to be just what the situation required.

But I am satisfied according to my faith that if you follow the voice within it will be well with you here and on the other side whether you have called that voice God/Allah/Krishna or just your conscience and intuition. The labels don't matter much, so long as you listen.

As to your aspersion that only desperate people hear the voice of God - that is a mistake. Firstly do not judge my friend as you have no idea what was done to her to consider killing.
But secondly it is a well known fact that people often wait until they are in a desperate situation before they seek advice and help.
For example people of wait until their have sunk deep in debt before they seek or heed the advice of a financial advisor. The advice was always available, and sometimes it had already been given, but often only after failure is there the requisite humility to listen.

That has been my experience...I am often to proud and set in my ways to listen to the counsel. But when I hit rock bottom, when my ways end in heartache, disappointment or disaster - it is then that I find the humility to listen to the voice and allow it to guide me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is the second time you have said I am saying you should not preach. Can you point to one time I actually have said this? I don't recall saying, or even thinking that. Where did you come up with this from?

Secondly, where or when have I ever claimed I represent the Divine? Where are you coming up with this stuff from? Isn't this bearing false witness, claiming I said or did something when it's all made up by you?


All I have ever said is it is not an injunction to all Christians to proselytize others, selling them God and whatnot. If you choose to be God's salesman, that's your prerogative. It's not a command to all Christians to peddle religion.


Yet again. This is fabricated. I never said, "Silent contemplation is the best". For one thing, I've never brought up "contemplation", which is a form of meditation. Meditation can be verbal, such as in the chanting of mantras. As far as prayer goes, again, you may speak to God using vocalizations if you wish. But Jesus said you should do this in private, in your closet, not standing on street corners. It does seems to me, Jesus seems to think private prayers are "best". Do you disagree with him?


Finally, you are actually quoting my words. But this is not a contradiction however. When I said "Truth can speak for itself," that was a capitalized Truth, as in Divine Truth, not a propositional idea I have to discussion with another person using words in order to communicate the understanding of my mind to theirs. By Truth speaking for itself, I mean it in the sense of the Psalms where its says, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork, day unto day uttereth speech, night unto night shows knowledge". This is Truth speaking for itself, without words. Amen.


Romans 1:20. "The invisible things of him through creation are clearly seen and made known, even his eternal power and godhead so they are without excuse". That's one example. I'd like to understand how you can't hear God without verbal words. Please explain that one to me.


Because I am attempting to explain my thought processes in the hope it may register with yours so you open the eyes of your heart and hear Truth without words. Hearing my thoughts about specific concepts requires words. God himself however, is not a concept you are required to "think about" in order to know.

You don't understand this? Is God a conceptual proposition to you? It's not to me. God is more like the rays of light hitting my face and body and warming my being with its Presence - all with the absence of words.


The only thing I would say regarding that is, I wish you would use your words to describe something you have experienced beyond words. Then they are meaningful. Otherwise, they are just your ideas about what God is without the benefit of anything tangible. If all one hears are words, then the meaning is empty.

I wonder why you are selective with "prayer closet" but miss the injunction for all persons to pray in the congregation and so on (I Corinthians).

Thank you for quoting Romans 1, a favorite chapter of mine. The unspoken testimony of the creation informs us that unrepentant sinners have no excuse (as per the passage), and is not a statement saying world evangelization is to be conducted in silence.

I resent your using the term "peddle religion". I'm offering at no charge, no cost to anyone except my time, my effort, my concern, my willingness to sacrifice unto God, opportunities to trust Jesus for what I understand to be a free gift of eternal life.

The Great Commission actually IS an injunction for all persons who've trusted Christ to "preach the GOSPEL, in or out of season".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Of course, we disagree on whether you've actually put that approach into practice.


I remember your descriptions of "Jesus Christ communicating to you" as less than compelling. IIRC, it was mainly cases where you had sudden intuition that you felt was especially accurate in hindsight, but I can't recall you ever ruling out confirmation bias. Did I remember correctly?

Yes, we disagree on whether I past and present put that approach into practice, because if you believed that ANY born again Christian among millions of us puts that into practice, your worldview could be altered.

There have been many other communications, healings, interventions, blessings. Maybe a better approach is to explain how, following the precepts of the Bible, I have a MORE than happy marriage, kind and diligent children, healthy communications with others, etc.

After all, as a biblicist I would say the vast majority of current communication between God and man is in the scriptures. For example, when someone says, "My house seems haunted!" I tell them to read the Bible, so that Satan sees his tactics result in the person's drawing closer to God. This stops haunted locations in their tracks!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, we disagree on whether I past and present put that approach into practice, because if you believed that ANY born again Christian among millions of us puts that into practice, your worldview could be altered.

Sure: your failure to give a convincing argument is my fault.

There have been many other communications, healings, interventions, blessings. Maybe a better approach is to explain how, following the precepts of the Bible, I have a MORE than happy marriage, kind and diligent children, healthy communications with others, etc.

Based on a sample size of one?

If you're "following Biblical precepts," I have to wonder how happy the marriage is for your wife, since the Bible has some pretty appalling advice for how husbands should treat their wives.

My own experience (albeit almost as limited as yours) has been the opposite: in my experience, more religion correlates with more misery.

... however, none of this is relevant. As someone who claims to have a skeptical, rational approach, I'm sure that you'll agree that appeal to the consequences of belief is fallacious, right?

After all, as a biblicist I would say the vast majority of current communication between God and man is in the scriptures. For example, when someone says, "My house seems haunted!" I tell them to read the Bible, so that Satan sees his tactics result in the person's drawing closer to God. This stops haunted locations in their tracks!

Yes: you seem to assume the Bible is reliably true, though you haven't given any good reasons for this assumption... at least as far as I've seen. You seem unwilling to consider that this might not be the case, which is where the lack of humility comes in.

 

[Windwalker]

I wonder why you are selective with "prayer closet" but miss the injunction for all persons to pray in the congregation and so on (I Corinthians).

There are a lot of verses in 1 Cor. Which in particular are you referring to? Where he says, "But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue"? I fail to see how that refutes what I said. Did you have another verse in mind?

Thank you for quoting Romans 1, a favorite chapter of mine. The unspoken testimony of the creation informs us that unrepentant sinners have no excuse (as per the passage), and is not a statement saying world evangelization is to be conducted in silence.

It is not a statement saying that evangelizing is to be conducted in silence. I have never said what it "should" be. It can include words, but it doesn't "have to", which is what you are arguing. Romans 1:20 is an example where no words were spoken, yet Truth is communicated. This is something you in your mind cannot seem to imagine is possible. Why is that?

I resent your using the term "peddle religion". I'm offering at no charge, no cost to anyone except my time, my effort, my concern, my willingness to sacrifice unto God, opportunities to trust Jesus for what I understand to be a free gift of eternal life.

If you are trying to convince others to convert to your religion, you are peddling religion. Whether you are doing this for "free" or not is besides the point. If it comes with the price tag of joining your religion, there is a cost involved on their end and then they are "buying" a product you are selling. It sounds harsh to put it in these terms, but in reality that is what it is.

On the other hand, if you were to simply share the joy and the light you have found with others, and share with them God as part of that for you, that of course is perfectly fine and reasonable. If they respond they have found that in their religion too, then you should celebrate it with them. Do you? If not, if you feel that is not valid for them and they need your religion, then you are selling them on something for some other reason than for themselves. You have something to gain in trying to convince them against what they believe in favor of what you believe. Why? Who is that about? And how is that then not trying to sell a product to them you perceive they need to buy? What is that about?

The Great Commission actually IS an injunction for all persons who've trusted Christ to "preach the GOSPEL, in or out of season".

Says who? He was speaking to the 11 who were present. Where does it say all Christians are to evangelize others? Let's find that stated explicitly. I don't seem to recall that commandment to all believers in God.