Why I probably won't continue the argument:
While it isn't really an argument, the discussion between Wanderer and myself can easily become one of two things: an interesting ongoing debate about the nature of "god", the universe, and life in general, or a mean spirited fight that can alienate anyone who reads it from either point of view. Not that I would get mean spirited, and I am in no way implying that Wanderer would either. I know the man, and while I do not agree with his views on what many would call religion, I do respect him and know that he respects me. The mean spiritedness could come from third party commenters who may want to join in. Sadly, I believe that most of those people looking to pick a fight or be insulting to the other side would be those who agree with me. Christians, for all our love and peace and goodwill towards men, tend to be very combative, spiteful, and downright rude more often than not.
But that isn't exactly why I want to stop this potential storm before it starts. You see, the debate has been raging for years between Christians and (for lack of a better term) non-Christians, and as intelligent as Wanderer is, and as intelligent as I would sometimes like to believe I am, there probably isn't anything new that the two of us can add to it. All that will happen, whether this becomes a long debate or a bitter fight, is we will continue for days, weeks, months, maybe even years in this point, counterpoint, until eventually, we have exhausted all that our finite little human minds can fathom about God and neither of us will be any closer to changing our minds. I am a Christian and will always be a Christian because I am one hundred percent sure that I have chosen the true path the God and nothing will shake that. And though I do not agree with Wanderer, he is also sure that I haven't. Most likely, there is nothing that I can say to convince him that Jesus is the one and only way to Heaven. He knows the scriptures very well (if you doubt it, try a debate of your own with him...) and has chosen a different path. I have often said that there is nothing that anybody can say that can convince anyone of the existence of God or the exclusivity of the Bible's claims. Debates rarely win souls.
Yes, I have heard the stories of those who set out to disprove Christianity's claims and in the end became devout Christians simply on the basis of the facts, and the life of Jesus is a historic fact, as is his resurrection, according to many historians, both Christian and secular (though some of the secular ones try to explain it away). But such occurrences are rare. I couldn't say anything to convince an atheist of the truth of Jesus Christ and his claims, but I could do plenty. Jesus told his disciples that men would know that they were his followers by their love, not by their ability to win debates or their logical reasons for their belief.
Debates have their place. Many Christians find that they learn more from debating their faith with an unbeliever than they do in just regular Bible study or hearing a sermon. When confronted with a hard question (like Wanderer's question that inspired my last post) we search for answers that we didn't even know we needed. But "The Path to Everywhere" failed to convert Wanderer to Christianity, as I knew it would. Am I convinced? Yes. And I learned more about my faith from writing that little essay than I did in Church last week.
But if Wanderer and I were to devote even a small portion of our time and efforts trying to convince each other, it would do no good for either of us and all that anyone who happened to find their way in the middle of our discussion would find is an argument in the name of God, which I believe is a misuse of his name. I recently had to tell a friend of mine who follows what I consider to be a cultic version of Christianity that I would no longer publicly discuss religion with him. While neither of us believes that the other is actually saved and our sole and loving intent was to bring the other to repentance, all that anybody who didn't understand what we were doing would see is two Christians fighting about God, and that would turn off many unbelievers.
So the debate ends, at least here on Dawn. While I will gladly answer any comments and will probably leave a few more on Wanderer's site, and I won't commit myself to never again posting something like "path", I will not use this blog as a place to argue about religion.
This blog is set up for me to showcase my writing, to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ through fiction, and to present Christian principles and issues in a new, hopefully entertaining, format. Another reason I do not want to spend hours debating this is that I do not have the time. I have written a novel (426 pages by hand!) and am currently typing it up so I can submit it to a publisher. Every time I sit down to write a five page essay on doctrine that's five pages of my book that I haven't typed. BTW, if and when I finally sell my book, the title "Dawn is Coming" will make more sense.
God Bless everybody,
Arthur B Roberts.
And please go and see the Narnia movie! As a fan of Christian fantasy fiction, I hope it does well! I only hope that the producers do Lewis's classic justice.
But that isn't exactly why I want to stop this potential storm before it starts. You see, the debate has been raging for years between Christians and (for lack of a better term) non-Christians, and as intelligent as Wanderer is, and as intelligent as I would sometimes like to believe I am, there probably isn't anything new that the two of us can add to it. All that will happen, whether this becomes a long debate or a bitter fight, is we will continue for days, weeks, months, maybe even years in this point, counterpoint, until eventually, we have exhausted all that our finite little human minds can fathom about God and neither of us will be any closer to changing our minds. I am a Christian and will always be a Christian because I am one hundred percent sure that I have chosen the true path the God and nothing will shake that. And though I do not agree with Wanderer, he is also sure that I haven't. Most likely, there is nothing that I can say to convince him that Jesus is the one and only way to Heaven. He knows the scriptures very well (if you doubt it, try a debate of your own with him...) and has chosen a different path. I have often said that there is nothing that anybody can say that can convince anyone of the existence of God or the exclusivity of the Bible's claims. Debates rarely win souls.
Yes, I have heard the stories of those who set out to disprove Christianity's claims and in the end became devout Christians simply on the basis of the facts, and the life of Jesus is a historic fact, as is his resurrection, according to many historians, both Christian and secular (though some of the secular ones try to explain it away). But such occurrences are rare. I couldn't say anything to convince an atheist of the truth of Jesus Christ and his claims, but I could do plenty. Jesus told his disciples that men would know that they were his followers by their love, not by their ability to win debates or their logical reasons for their belief.
Debates have their place. Many Christians find that they learn more from debating their faith with an unbeliever than they do in just regular Bible study or hearing a sermon. When confronted with a hard question (like Wanderer's question that inspired my last post) we search for answers that we didn't even know we needed. But "The Path to Everywhere" failed to convert Wanderer to Christianity, as I knew it would. Am I convinced? Yes. And I learned more about my faith from writing that little essay than I did in Church last week.
But if Wanderer and I were to devote even a small portion of our time and efforts trying to convince each other, it would do no good for either of us and all that anyone who happened to find their way in the middle of our discussion would find is an argument in the name of God, which I believe is a misuse of his name. I recently had to tell a friend of mine who follows what I consider to be a cultic version of Christianity that I would no longer publicly discuss religion with him. While neither of us believes that the other is actually saved and our sole and loving intent was to bring the other to repentance, all that anybody who didn't understand what we were doing would see is two Christians fighting about God, and that would turn off many unbelievers.
So the debate ends, at least here on Dawn. While I will gladly answer any comments and will probably leave a few more on Wanderer's site, and I won't commit myself to never again posting something like "path", I will not use this blog as a place to argue about religion.
This blog is set up for me to showcase my writing, to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ through fiction, and to present Christian principles and issues in a new, hopefully entertaining, format. Another reason I do not want to spend hours debating this is that I do not have the time. I have written a novel (426 pages by hand!) and am currently typing it up so I can submit it to a publisher. Every time I sit down to write a five page essay on doctrine that's five pages of my book that I haven't typed. BTW, if and when I finally sell my book, the title "Dawn is Coming" will make more sense.
God Bless everybody,
Arthur B Roberts.
And please go and see the Narnia movie! As a fan of Christian fantasy fiction, I hope it does well! I only hope that the producers do Lewis's classic justice.
posted by Arthur Brokop II at 7:55 PM
7 Comments:
I didn't really see it as a debate, not the "I am going to teach you the right way" version anyway. I suspect you know that. You know me. I will be sorely disappointed if the discussion stops as a whole between us. You test me more than any other. Like a trial by fire, those such as yourself are wonderful assets to have.
Still, I respect what you say about interlopers and not wanting it to take over this blog. Feel free to carry it back to mine. (MC might turn a little costic, but he is mostly harmless. If you think hard, you might remember meeting him too.)
I was somewhat disappointed that you didn't respond to my statements, and hope in another forum you will do so. I only present my questions to you with the sincere hope that you present answers that keep my brain moving.
All the best wishes as always. Blessed be. (P.S. your phone is ringing)
Now this is where we mess with the other people reading this. :)
I will continue what I started to say when your phone died and presume others reading this will get the gist. In keeping with the intention of the post, I humbly request that anyone who wishes to refute take the link from my name to my blog and take the argument up there, unless Arthur contradicts this request. Here goes:
We have the three in one. God is one, yet there are three aspects. One of these aspects is demonstrated by God choosing to come to earth as man. Limiting himself so he could experience life as man instead of as God. If he lives, suffers and dies as a man, what sacrifice is this truly?
As a man, this is immense. Yet when it is done, again he is back to his true self in which this small fragment is minute. Even if he didn't know it would be, ultimately the experience is minimal to him. How does this demonstrate his love? It demonstrates the metaphor he chose to describe it, yet if you attempt to quantify, what sacrifice was it truly? He offered his own pain, which in scope was negligible, to accomplish what? To teach us? Undoubtedly. To learn? Absurd. To demonstrate sacrifice? Unthinkable. There is no tangible sacrifice God could make that wouldn't be beyond horrific to us.
Arthur - I meant to bring up in conversation, that all other points aside, I am curious about your response to my question about the "poison" of one sentence effecting the rest of the points presented. Any thoughts?
"Christians, for all our love and peace and goodwill towards men, tend to be very combative, spiteful, and downright rude more often than not."
How sad and How true. I think it's easier here in the world of blogs because you do not have to hear the hurt or see the tears of frustration this attitude can cause.
" it would do no good for either of us and all that anyone who happened to find their way in the middle of our discussion would find is an argument in the name of God, which I believe is a misuse of his name."
This is also very true, and I have used Scripture to show that we are warned against such arguing. Yet the debate goes on...
"all that anybody who didn't understand what we were doing would see is two Christians fighting about God, and that would turn off many unbelievers."
Yeah, but Wandere isn't a "Christian" is he? I guess, I think there is a time and season for this kind of conversation. Maybe the blog world is the safest place (and most inexpencive way since these debators come from all over the world)to actually carry it on. Wouldn't it have been interesting if Lewis and Tolken had been able to use blogs to discuss that which they used to discuss over pints in the local pub. Hey, Lewis and Tolken were the original Emergents. Yeah, but maybe that observation is lost on Wanderer and Arthur. By the way...I love you both - told Pastor Art I'd love to adopt Wanderer. The guy at the gas station thursday night was pretty "gothic" he reminded me of W.
Unfortunately, those who simply proclaim Scripture and desire to see it taught as one complete Word, are called mean-spirited. By this definiftion Jesus and the apostles were mean, and continue to be so, as they are right now speaking to us through the Bible.
At the risk of sounding "mean" Wanderer is demonstrating the observations one makes when you do not read Scripture as a whole, try to lift Jesus/God out of the context of the Scriptures etc. I come from the side of complete belief and faith in the Word of God as inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. The relativist wave swamping over the western world is the beginning of mass apostasy. I am all for "conversation" however if someone is blatantly off re: the Word I am not going to say "gee, you could be right"
Warhol gave everyone 15 minutes of fame. Post-modernism will give everyone 15 minutes of being right.
Based on current ideas of unity and "peace" we should not have police anymore as they most likely have violated a law or sinned in their past thus making them unqualified to judge, what I am doing as lawbreaking. The speck and the log of the sermon on the mount does not say that we cannot judge. Jesus says judge in this manner; consider the speck in your own eye to be a log and consider the log in your brothers eye to be a speck. Both can be removed, according to the Lord's words,and we can judge properly. In reality all of us have logs in our eyes.
This is all I have to say on this.
Well I lied, one more thing;
Scripture does not say that we should not profess and defend the doctrines taught by Jesus the apostles and prophets. Everyone of them did this ,so are they hypocrites. The pointless arguments Paul warned against are things that we see in plenty in blogdom. Name-calling, hurt feelings, why can't we all get along. We are called to be at peace but not at the expense of Truth. Unity at the expense of Truth is spoken of 2 Thessolonians 2.
Now I wish that I did want to continue this argument. My blog hasn't seen this much traffic in months! I guess it goes to show you that people don't want to sit down and read a nice short story or poem, but if they have the chance to enter into an argument, they jump at it. Is that why Jesus spent so much time answering pointless questions from hypocrital church leaders instead of preaching the message He inteded to? DISCLAIMER: The last statement was not directed at anybody!
But, I digress...
This is why I do not want to continue this debate here in this format. That is not what this blog is about and I do not want it to become a forum for arguments about doctrine with Christians and non-Christians alike. I talked with Wanderer for hours last night and we did touch on a lot of these things in our private conversations. But would I want those conversations listened to and picked apart by people who only assume they know where the two of us are coming from? (again, not directed at anybody)
NO!
But, as is evidenced by my short story "Civil Disobedience" and the fact that one of those online quiz things said that I was like Jonathan Edwards in my theology and approach- "Fire and brimstone preacher... take God's justice very seriously... passionate about preaching and an accomplished theologian"- I am very aware of doctrine and have spent much of my short career in the Church standing up for the truth of the scriptures, the authority of the scriptures, and attacking false doctrines. But that is not what this particular blog is intended to be! But, considering the twenty hits that I got yesterday, maybe it should be...
I will continue the debate on the comment pages, but don't look for two many more posts about it.
BTW, Wanderer, I'm getting to your questions, be patient. And check your next cheeseburger for cyanide! And Chris, Maryellen says that now that you've commented on my page, I've made it into blogdom! Thanks!
God Bless,
ABR
Chris - "At the risk of sounding "mean" Wanderer is demonstrating the observations one makes when you do not read Scripture as a whole, try to lift Jesus/God out of the context of the Scriptures etc."
Not true. You see, just as you shouldn't take God out of the bible, you shouldn't take the author out of his writings. At the risk of stating the obvious again, I wasn't taking scripture in or out of context. I was speaking from my own position. The fact that others relate biblically to what I say isn't me taking it out of context.
Post a Comment
<< Home