Is it possible to proselytize from a place of humility?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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".

Just because the commission structure sucks doesn't mean you aren't selling something.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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


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?


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.

I'm open to the Bible being false, and await your demonstration of same.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?


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?


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?


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.

Pardon me, I was thinking of 1 Tim but wrote 1 Cor.

As I wrote, the commandment to evangelize is explicit in Jesus's commission that His followers were to teach others to do what they had been taught and so on until this age closes.

Now you can confer with statements like that in Romans 10, where the age ends once the number of Gentiles in the church arrive, so that God can uplift Israel, statements about God's tremendous patience and kindness toward the lost, statements like "preach in and out of season", etc., etc. so many dozens of verses that any sect that believes Jesus saves apart from works insists on the work of evangelism!

 

[sojourner]

I'm open to the Bible being false, and await your demonstration of same.

Factually? Historically? Quite easy. Genesis implies that the earth is a flat disc, over which a rigid sky sits like a dome, with the heavenly bodies fixed on it. We know that’s factually false.

 

[Windwalker]

Pardon me, I was thinking of 1 Tim but wrote 1 Cor.

What specifically in 1 Tim were you referring to? Which verse?

As I wrote, the commandment to evangelize is explicit in Jesus's commission that His followers were to teach others to do what they had been taught and so on until this age closes.

Can you provide the quotation? Was it to all Christians, or the 11 he was talking to? Was it somewhere else? If I can see the verse, I'll will correct myself.

Now you can confer with statements like that in Romans 10, where the age ends once the number of Gentiles in the church arrive, so that God can uplift Israel, statements about God's tremendous patience and kindness toward the lost, statements like "preach in and out of season", etc., etc. so many dozens of verses that any sect that believes Jesus saves apart from works insists on the work of evangelism!

That's one verse you quoted from just now from 2 Tim 4:2. But that was specifically him speaking to Timothy, not Christians as a whole. He specifically refers to his personal ministry, "keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry." This is being written to a minister, not the congregation. Do have another verse to support your idea that all Christians should preach to non-Christians? I'm open of course to being wrong about this, but I just need to see one verse that commands all Christians to be evangelists, preaching and witnessing, proselytizing, and so forth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Factually? Historically? Quite easy. Genesis implies that the earth is a flat disc, over which a rigid sky sits like a dome, with the heavenly bodies fixed on it. We know that’s factually false.

Huh? Genesis is literal to you but filled with contradictions? That's a trick.

I don't care what you think Genesis implies, rather, I want to hear facts in evidence from an ancient text.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What specifically in 1 Tim were you referring to? Which verse?


Can you provide the quotation? Was it to all Christians, or the 11 he was talking to? Was it somewhere else? If I can see the verse, I'll will correct myself.


That's one verse you quoted from just now from 2 Tim 4:2. But that was specifically him speaking to Timothy, not Christians as a whole. He specifically refers to his personal ministry, "keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry." This is being written to a minister, not the congregation. Do have another verse to support your idea that all Christians should preach to non-Christians? I'm open of course to being wrong about this, but I just need to see one verse that commands all Christians to be evangelists, preaching and witnessing, proselytizing, and so forth.

1 Tim 2:8 speaks of "men praying EVERYWHERE" and 1 Cor 11:5 speaks of "women praying with heads uncovered/covered".

The Great Commission invites the disciples, who although they numbered more than 11, to reach all nations for the gospel. We know they did not reach the Americas and Australia, etc. with the gospel. Fortunately, we can confer with statements like 2 Tim 2:2 where disciples are told to keep passing the torch by teaching all they've been told to others who will teach others...

Why are we arguing over whether a gospel that is shouted by angels to the whole Earth in Revelation and "preached from the rooftops" and "in season or out of it" and "not to be hidden, like a light under a bushel" is somehow best communicated without words? If I meet someone who's never heard of Jesus Christ, (rare but happens) or misunderstands the gospel (frequent!) how should I "show them Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross for their sin" WITHOUT WORDS?

 

[Windwalker]

1 Tim 2:8 speaks of "men praying EVERYWHERE" and 1 Cor 11:5 speaks of "women praying with heads uncovered/covered".

What does praying have to do with preaching? They are two entirely different activities, like brushing your teeth is not riding a bicycle.

The Great Commission invites the disciples, who although they numbered more than 11, to reach all nations for the gospel.

That is not explicitly stated anywhere. This is an extrapolation of what you imagine it must mean, because people have told you its the responsibility of all Christians to evangelize others. I don't imagine it means that. I simply read a conversation he was having with those 11 in front of him, where he was explicitly speaking to them about their particular mission. I don't read him intending that to be a commandment to every follower. Nor, does it make sense it would be.

We know they did not reach the Americas and Australia, etc. with the gospel. Fortunately, we can confer with statements like 2 Tim 2:2 where disciples are told to keep passing the torch by teaching all they've been told to others who will teach others...

But if you read the words of that passage, it very clearly states it's to "faithful men", not all Christians. It is an instructuction of them to teach other teachers, who then teach others the teachings. You can see for yourself:

"and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also."

That's more than reading into the text that this is a call for all Christians to be preachers and teachers, especially in light of Paul explicitly stating in 1 Cor. that not everyone is. How can you conclude otherwise?

Why are we arguing over whether a gospel that is shouted by angels to the whole Earth in Revelation and "preached from the rooftops" and "in season or out of it" and "not to be hidden, like a light under a bushel" is somehow best communicated without words?

Because it is. Ten trillion words of some preacher, do not begin to rival in communicating Truth like a simple gust of wind on the face, or a simple look from the eyes of one filled with Love.If you can't shine that light with your person, your words are meaningless. And hence why so many preachers, are the blind leading the blind, proclaiming something they themselves don't know, despite having memorized the entire Bible complete with theological degrees.

If I meet someone who's never heard of Jesus Christ, (rare but happens) or misunderstands the gospel (frequent!) how should I "show them Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross for their sin" WITHOUT WORDS?

What you show is not your theology, but the Love of God, if you have that in you. Otherwise, all the rest is a substitute to tell ourselves we have the Truth, when it is in fact still lacking in us. If you can't speak Truth without words, you'll never be able to with them.

 

[sojourner]

Huh? Genesis is literal to you but filled with contradictions? That's a trick.

I don't care what you think Genesis implies, rather, I want to hear facts in evidence from an ancient text.

Thanks.

That is factually what the term means: a hammered out dome. That’s how they pictured the earth and heavens. It doesn’t get any more factual than that, except in your imagination. If they didn’t picture it that way, they wouldn’t have said it that way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Huh? Genesis is literal to you but filled with contradictions? That's a trick.

There are aspects of Genesis that I think lend themselves best to a non-literal interpretation, like Adam and Eve: naming the man in the story "Man" and the woman in the story "Woman" seems to me a giveaway that they're intended as archetypes and not as literal historical figures.

The cosmology of Genesis, though... I don't see any reason to interpret it non-literally except for modern embarrassment, but that doesn't speak at all to the intent of the story's Bronze Age authors. How would they have known that what they were saying would sound ridiculous thousabds of years later?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What does praying have to do with preaching? They are two entirely different activities, like brushing your teeth is not riding a bicycle.


That is not explicitly stated anywhere. This is an extrapolation of what you imagine it must mean, because people have told you its the responsibility of all Christians to evangelize others. I don't imagine it means that. I simply read a conversation he was having with those 11 in front of him, where he was explicitly speaking to them about their particular mission. I don't read him intending that to be a commandment to every follower. Nor, does it make sense it would be.


But if you read the words of that passage, it very clearly states it's to "faithful men", not all Christians. It is an instructuction of them to teach other teachers, who then teach others the teachings. You can see for yourself:

"and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also."

That's more than reading into the text that this is a call for all Christians to be preachers and teachers, especially in light of Paul explicitly stating in 1 Cor. that not everyone is. How can you conclude otherwise?


Because it is. Ten trillion words of some preacher, do not begin to rival in communicating Truth like a simple gust of wind on the face, or a simple look from the eyes of one filled with Love.If you can't shine that light with your person, your words are meaningless. And hence why so many preachers, are the blind leading the blind, proclaiming something they themselves don't know, despite having memorized the entire Bible complete with theological degrees.


What you show is not your theology, but the Love of God, if you have that in you. Otherwise, all the rest is a substitute to tell ourselves we have the Truth, when it is in fact still lacking in us. If you can't speak Truth without words, you'll never be able to with them.

I'm not saying all persons are called to be teachers or preachers or evangelists. I'm saying scholars have good reason to understand from the scriptures that the Great Commission is for all--including the obvious point I've mentioned several times now, that Jesus calls for disciples to made of all nations and tribes of people--and you know the 11 (and it was likely the 500 who heard this commission, by the way) did not reach the Americas with the gospel.

None of which has to do with the plain understanding that sometimes silent contemplation or showing love is best, however, it is the gospel that saves, so Paul asks rhetorically in Romans 10:

14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The words above, including "call", "heard", "hear", "preacher", "preach", "preach", "tidings", "hearing" and "hearing", indicate that no one is getting to Heaven unless people preach verbal messages.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is factually what the term means: a hammered out dome. That’s how they pictured the earth and heavens. It doesn’t get any more factual than that, except in your imagination. If they didn’t picture it that way, they wouldn’t have said it that way.

Factually what which term means?

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are aspects of Genesis that I think lend themselves best to a non-literal interpretation, like Adam and Eve: naming the man in the story "Man" and the woman in the story "Woman" seems to me a giveaway that they're intended as archetypes and not as literal historical figures.

The cosmology of Genesis, though... I don't see any reason to interpret it non-literally except for modern embarrassment, but that doesn't speak at all to the intent of the story's Bronze Age authors. How would they have known that what they were saying would sound ridiculous thousabds of years later?

I'm surprised a little that you see cosmology that way, since there are many obvious comparisons including creation ex nihilo. There was no time and space, there was primordial darkness, there was intense light, the heavens expanded, etc. It's the Steady State theory, now universally discarded, that was against Genesis, and yet again, science offers strong confirmation of Bible truth in the modern era.

 

[sojourner]

Factually what which term means?

The Hebrew term for “sky.” Raqiya. It literally, factually means, “A hammered out dome.” The sky is not a rigid (hammered out) dome. We’ve proved that scientifically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm surprised a little that you see cosmology that way, since there are many obvious comparisons including creation ex nihilo. There was no time and space, there was primordial darkness, there was intense light, the heavens expanded, etc. It's the Steady State theory, now universally discarded, that was against Genesis, and yet again, science offers strong confirmation of Bible truth in the modern era.

Science refutes, and does not confirm, the idea that the Earth was originally made as a formless expanse of water, as well as:

- that the Earth was formed before the Sun and other stars.
- that plants existed before the Sun
- that a solid expanse in the sky holds back "waters above us."

 

[BilliardsBall]

The Hebrew term for “sky.” Raqiya. It literally, factually means, “A hammered out dome.” The sky is not a rigid (hammered out) dome. We’ve proved that scientifically.

The word "firmament" is used to translate rāqîaʿ (רָקִ֫יעַ‬), a word used in Biblical Hebrew. It is derived from the root raqqəʿ (רָקַע), meaning "to beat or spread out thinly", e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal.

The dish/dome distinction is important since the wrath of Revelation is of a bowl turned upside down to get out all of the stuff inside, in the Greek.

The Bible says in many places God stretches apart the Heavens, as in the word raqia, meaning malleable. This is exciting since it was pooh-pooed for millennia before modern scientists realized 1) the universe is expanding 2) rapid expansion somehow goes beyond the expected speeds and 3) speed of expansion should decelerate and not accelerate.

I had never studied out raqia before, but per the usual, studying the original language deepened my faith that God is always right and that the Bible contains numerous scientific accuracy points.

Thanks!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Science refutes, and does not confirm, the idea that the Earth was originally made as a formless expanse of water, as well as:

- that the Earth was formed before the Sun and other stars.
- that plants existed before the Sun
- that a solid expanse in the sky holds back "waters above us."

You seem a bit confused. Is it the Earth is of water or the universe? If the latter, the correct Bible exposition, I've seen a good explanation of a water expanse which creates time dilation and other observable phenomena. Further, I'm surprised you state categorically that we know there is no water outside the visible universe. Surely you know no telescope has seen the "edge" of this universe?!

I NEVER mind someone using scientific facts to challenge the Bible, but I'm aware when skeptics presume to say things that are unscientific/unsupported by modern science.

 

[sojourner]

The word "firmament" is used to translate rāqîaʿ (רָקִ֫יעַ‬), a word used in Biblical Hebrew. It is derived from the root raqqəʿ (רָקַע), meaning "to beat or spread out thinly", e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal.

The dish/dome distinction is important since the wrath of Revelation is of a bowl turned upside down to get out all of the stuff inside, in the Greek.

The Bible says in many places God stretches apart the Heavens, as in the word raqia, meaning malleable. This is exciting since it was pooh-pooed for millennia before modern scientists realized 1) the universe is expanding 2) rapid expansion somehow goes beyond the expected speeds and 3) speed of expansion should decelerate and not accelerate.

I had never studied out raqia before, but per the usual, studying the original language deepened my faith that God is always right and that the Bible contains numerous scientific accuracy points.

Thanks!

Where it goes horribly wrong, is that Wikipedia isn’t the best source for Biblical Hebrew. Raqiya doesn’t mean “stretched out.” It means “hammered out.” When Genesis was written, they didn’t know about “expansion of the universe.” It’s almost certain that Genesis isn’t some magical “prophecy” (especially since Genesis isn’t prophetic literature) about the nature of the universe. It’s much more likely that — like the ancient Sumerians thought (since that’s the origin of the Genesis creation account) — the authors believed that the sky was a rigid bowl-shape that covered the disc of the earth. They believed that the sun, moon and stars were fixed upon that bowl.

They used the word Raqiya because that’s how rigid bowls were constructed.

Herein lies a contradiction: either the sky is a rigid dome, or it can be stretched out. But not both. That means that the different writers were using metaphor to talk about things they could not cognitively grasp (like the nature of the cosmos). They used the metaphor of the bowl because they thought that was what the sky was like: rigid and bowl-shaped. Others used the contradictory concept of a sheet being spread out.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Where it goes horribly wrong, is that Wikipedia isn’t the best source for Biblical Hebrew. Raqiya doesn’t mean “stretched out.” It means “hammered out.” When Genesis was written, they didn’t know about “expansion of the universe.” It’s almost certain that Genesis isn’t some magical “prophecy” (especially since Genesis isn’t prophetic literature) about the nature of the universe. It’s much more likely that — like the ancient Sumerians thought (since that’s the origin of the Genesis creation account) — the authors believed that the sky was a rigid bowl-shape that covered the disc of the earth. They believed that the sun, moon and stars were fixed upon that bowl.

They used the word Raqiya because that’s how rigid bowls were constructed.

Herein lies a contradiction: either the sky is a rigid dome, or it can be stretched out. But not both. That means that the different writers were using metaphor to talk about things they could not cognitively grasp (like the nature of the cosmos). They used the metaphor of the bowl because they thought that was what the sky was like: rigid and bowl-shaped. Others used the contradictory concept of a sheet being spread out.

I see that in your interpretation, you are careful to note that dolts who didn't know the nature of the universe wrote Genesis, rather than that God, who is omniscient and knows the universe isn't a hammered dome, did.

Further, you are ducking the point that no known telescope can see an end to the universe, and it's age will increase as telescopes get stronger, there could be surrounding waters or hammered domes or other things. This argument of yours is a parallel to ones I've heard that the ancient morons who wrote the fallible scriptures described the Earth as a circle not a sphere, because in the limited Hebrew lexicon they used the Hebrew word for circle that also means child's toy, AS IF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS CARVED PERFECT WOOD SPHERES FOR TOYS.

Ludicrous! There are WAY too many scientific points of accuracy in the Bible for me to see your point--and you've ignored my statement that the Bible says in numerous places and times, God stretches the Heavens EXACTLY as science now says!

 

[sojourner]

I see that in your interpretation, you are careful to note that dolts who didn't know the nature of the universe wrote Genesis, rather than that God, who is omniscient and knows the universe isn't a hammered dome, did.

Further, you are ducking the point that no known telescope can see an end to the universe, and it's age will increase as telescopes get stronger, there could be surrounding waters or hammered domes or other things. This argument of yours is a parallel to ones I've heard that the ancient morons who wrote the fallible scriptures described the Earth as a circle not a sphere, because in the limited Hebrew lexicon they used the Hebrew word for circle that also means child's toy, AS IF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS CARVED PERFECT WOOD SPHERES FOR TOYS.

Ludicrous! There are WAY too many scientific points of accuracy in the Bible for me to see your point--and you've ignored my statement that the Bible says in numerous places and times, God stretches the Heavens EXACTLY as science now says!

First of all, I never said that the writers were “dolts.” That’s your term and it’s inflammatory. “Ignorant” and “dullard” are not synonymous. they simply didn’t know, and did the best with what they had at their disposal.

Second, I don’t believe for one second that “God wrote the Bible.” People wrote the Bible. Period. They may have been inspired, but people — fallible, biased people — wrote the Bible.

I suppose you didn’t know that our present telescopes get us back to within seconds of the Big Bang? And we can see far enough to let us know that “nothing is new in the universe.” There is nothing to lead us to believe that the universe suddenly changes at some point. There are no domes around the earth, around any of the other planets, around the sun, around the asteroids belt, around the solar system, or around any other system we’ve looked at — and there’s no reason to believe that suddenly changes somewhere. The universe is as it is.

Look, imagery is used in biblical writing, and that imagery is all very, very consistent: it’s imagery based on the writers’ concrete experiences. If they didn’t know how to hammer out bowls, they wouldn’t have used that imagery for the sky. And they sure wouldn’t have used that imagery if they thought the sky was something other than what was usually hammered out. There are too many other mythic references to a flat earth in ancient religions that contributed stories to the Bible for us to believe that, somehow, these particular people “got it right.” This isn’t magic, and its not miracle. It’s ancient myth. That’s what it is, and neither wishing nor faith will make it what it is not.

And, in fact, I DID reference your statement about stretching the heavens. So what? That doesn’t change the fact that the Genesis creation myth is scientifically untenable. AND it doesn’t change the fact that the two images of heaven contradict each other.