Thank you for your fairness in this post.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

First off, thank you for telling us more about yourself. But then again, you were the one who earlier implied that you were an expert on religion, so I still feel that it is proper to make the point that you're really no more or less of anything that the rest of us.

As for the exercise, you responded like about 60% of the class initially did. It isn't an exercise in relativism, either, if you think about it. In fact, the question is set up in such a way that disagreeing with it actually is the relativistic answer, while agreeing with the statement shows a proper and (IMO) healthy sense of self-skepticism and analysis of one's inner self.

What it boils down to is that we are imperfect and need to have as one of our "core beliefs" that we are imperfect, and as such will always have problems and mistakes with our core values. I like it since it's a good ice breaker in groups and gets people thinking. :)

Getting back to you, GOM... I see a problem with your approach here in that while you say you can view the world in a more complex manner and appreciate other points of view, you rarely do anything but come from the exact same point of view no matter what the topic seems to be.

That's what I find to be biased. Statements like this are an example:



When I read that, I feel as if I'm being being talked down to like some seven year old child. It's rude, condescending, and quite honestly, just your opinion. I personally feel that you would do far better by realizing that this approach is counter-productive and instead actually talk about your position based upon its logical and ethical merits rather than always falling back on your religious beliefs and dogma.

Let me take this a paragraph at a time…

You’re quite welcome for what I told you, but I didn’t tell anyone anything ”more about [myself]”. As I indicated, these are all things that I’ve shared in DH previously, many of them multiple times. In short, WHAT I SHARED WAS NOT NEW INFORMATION. Also, when was it that I indicated by implication or otherwise that I was an “expert” on religion? I know a good deal about my own faith and a fair amount about Islam, especially relative to those who frequent DH, but that doesn’t even come close to making me an expert. I’m a relatively well read believer in/follower of Jesus Christ who has interacted with a wide variety of people over the years, but again, this doesn’t make me an expert. So I’m sorry you read something into my comments, but I never indicated that I’m an expert on “religion”. The only context and sense in which anything like that would seem to fit would be when talking about Christianity and Islam, and that’s only when comparing my knowledge to those who routinely frequent DH. I could certainly be wrong, but most DH participants that I’ve interacted with appear to have somewhat scant knowledge of both. And of the information they do have, at least some portion of it appears to a somewhat confused amalgamation of misunderstandings. Having said that, it’s only in this context where the word “expert” could even seem to be appropriate, and I would argue that even there it’s probably not a useful label. It would be like saying spblat or Some Dude are “experts” on atheism. It’s probable that neither of them would choose that moniker for themselves, but there is a sense in which it could fit because each of them probably have somewhat more specific information and understanding of atheism and/or individual atheists than I do. They may be “experts” in that sense (i.e. relative to me). With regard to being “more or less of anything than the rest of [you]”, I’m not even sure what you mean? I wasn’t aware of having made such a claim to begin with. It’s interesting that when we interact, I sometimes have trouble telling if we’ve actually communicated before, because often you seem to be responding to things I haven’t said or haven’t intended to say. Can you come up with a reason as to why this might be the case?



I find this fascinating, how is not being able to affirm that some of my core beliefs ”ARE” wrong actually the relativistic answer? If I can and do say that it is possible that some of my core beliefs are wrong, then what do you see as the difference? What I see is that you’d like to see people affirm what they do not know to be the case. I cannot do that. I can affirm that it is possible for that to be the case, but until I know it to be the case, I cannot affirm that it is the case. In my opinion not affirming, as true, something that you don’t know to be true vs. what you know is possible or what you know to be true doesn’t keep you from exhibiting a healthy skepticism. I simply don’t think it makes sense to affirm, as true, what I don’t know to be true. If you think that’s sensible, then more power to ya. But it is precisely because I could be wrong in my beliefs and understanding of reality that I’m here. I test such things here virtually every time I post. Were I so certain that I couldn’t be wrong, then why would I never need to interact with anyone who didn’t agree with me? Sure, to share the Gospel, but once I’d done so, why would I need to interact any further?



I couldn’t agree with you more, in terms of understanding that we are imperfect, and as such, are given to an imperfect understanding of reality. This is a central belief of Christians and myself. However, that doesn’t mean I affirm things, as true, before I know them to be true, specifically. I affirm their possibility, until such time as I know they are true. So it’s possible I’m mistaken about gravity, but I do not affirm that I’m wrong about gravity, when I don’t know such a thing to be the case. That’s far too dangerous. I operate the same way with regard to other beliefs. This kind of ice-breaker may get groups thinking, but what it immediately made me think of was an attempt to impose and/or encourage relativism, a foundational aspect of which is not to hold on too tightly to any core beliefs, at least not to the extent that they prevent you from affirming contradictory truth claims, worldviews, etc...



I’m not entirely sure I know what you’re getting at. In your mind, does being able to understand other points of view mean that my own point of view is supposed to change? It almost seems as though you’re taking being able to “view the world in a more complex manner and appreciate other points of view” as being able to affirm other views or truth claims as equally true to my own or to actual truth/reality. Is that what you’re getting at? If I’m even close to being on the right track, it sounds like you’re simply finding the fact that I’m not a relativist of any sort, both baffling and frustrating. That’s certainly understandable. It must seem pretty alien, and I have to believe it’s incredibly frustrating.



NOW LET ME DEAL WITH YOUR LAST SERIES OF COMMENTS…

The first thing I will say is that this comment was part of a larger comment meant to respond to something spblat had said earlier. Here’s a truncated but more full quotation of both spblat and myself:



I don’t suppose it will surprise you to know that, in tone, you could be accused of talking down to me through this entire thread…would it? But having said that, I do apologize if you felt talked down to, particularly since I wasn’t talking to you. But even though I wasn’t talking to you, I apologize anyway because the intent was not to talk down to anyone. It was to respond to what spblat had said from my own point of view. If we are truly to Differ Honestly here, then I think I owe you my honest point of view. And my point of view on the topic I’ve placed in BOLD above is as you read it. It is indeed, my opinion, but I also believe it’s true. That you may not feel the same way about my opinion because you’re not convinced of it or because it doesn’t match your own has nothing to do with ”bias” of any kind. My approach is and has been to simply share my point of view. If you think my approach doesn’t work here, then what is your solution? Would you prefer I gave someone else’s point of view on the topic? If I can only discuss things that have been logically and ethically proven in your own mind, then there will be precious little to talk about. There is no real ability to ”Differ Honestly” at that point. If you’d rather not be exposed to a Christian perspective, then please just say so. If that’s not what you’re saying, the only other thing I can apprehend from your comments is that you’d rather see me express my Christian point of view without reference to Christian scriptures or beliefs. That sounds odd to say the least, and logically speaking, it’s simply impossible. If there is anything else I can do, let me know. Hopefully, you don’t feel talked down to in this response. That’s certainly not the intent. It’s been a confusing but interesting conversation.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

(note - paragraphs and breaks are a good thing. It makes it easier to read your responses, Gom)

No problem so far. A typical tactic - appear as is you are being contrite and playing the "I'm just a normal guy" card here. There is no problem if this is the only response. But all, too often when debating something, it is used merely as a polite segue to cover up a nearly opposite point of view:

It sounds like my analysis was correct, though. You're being a bit weaselly and mincing semantics here, GOM, and you know it. While you're not an "expert", you claim to be what amounts to essentially the same thing in the very next sentence. It's honestly quite a lame debating tactic, since the two sentences if looked at apart from each other are not saying the same thing. The first claims that you are no expert, and the second says that compared to us here at DH, you are.

Well, the entire context, which you conveniently forgot IS about DH. My claim wasn't about you being an expert as a person, but that you are acting like one in discussions here at DH when you probably shouldn't.

And this is where it crosses the line into being condescending. Or maybe a more accurate word would be patronizing instead of "expert". Now, you might not see it as that. My father never does, either, since he sees it as just simply "the truth" as he sees it. But there's a reason nobody talks about religion with him any more. He's just impossible to have a rational discussion about it with. (nice guy otherwise - just don't bring up religion)

GOM, you've posted hundreds and hundreds of posts here at DH and most of them have this same smug and "you all are woefully misinformed and I feel kind of sorry for you" undertone when it comes to Christianity and Islam.

To you, it probably doesn't register that to most of the rest of us, it comes across as condescending or patronizing. Many of us *do* have extensive knowledge of Christianity but simply have a different view of it than you do.

Statements like "And of the information they do have, at least some portion of it appears to a somewhat confused amalgamation of misunderstandings." really leaves no room for debate on this one. I think your tone needs to change.


**snip discussion on ethical exercise**
It really isn't part of this discussion, GOM, and I said as much. It's just an exercise and nothing more.


I apparently hit another "landmine word" and your mind went off on a tangent as a result. What I simply meant is that you say that you are open-minded, but your responses to us concerning religion are (often in the next few sentences after implying that you are not) strident, opinionated, and patronizing.

I don't have a problem with the message. What bothers me is your tone. There's simply no reason at all to have such a patronizing tone to your discussions. Now, perhaps you don't see it as such. But it certainly is coming across (from what I gather at least) to the rest of us that way. And after a couple of years of it, It's getting to be wearisome to deal with.

Perhaps I'm desensitized to it. For my part I've been trying to stay laser-focused on the specific issues and claims, ignoring what I might perceive as diversions and condescension. My advice is to see if you can get him to make specific positive factual claims, and then see if you disagree with his facts, and see if an interesting debate can be developed from there.

It may be me getting used to Gom (and him getting used to me), but I think he has gradually been improving his tone.

This will likely be my last response to this particular item, as it has little or nothing to do with the actual thread.

Um, okay? Do you want me to respond or not? If you’re going to accuse me of using cheap debating tricks and tactics every time I respond to a charge you’ve made, I’m not sure what progress can be hoped for? I’m not attempting to appear contrite at all or engineer any kind of clever segue. I’m more confused than anything, which is probably why I asked the question, “when was it that I indicated by implication or otherwise that I was an ”expert” on religion? That question isn’t meant to convey contrition in any sense, but it is meant to make known my bafflement at the charge of claiming to be an ”expert” on religion, as well as to elicit a factual answer.



Um, no, I’m simply trying to deal with your charge. If I’m attempting to be precise, it’s just because I’m being careful. I don’t always succeed at being as careful as I should, but I do try to take some care with what I choose to say. You can call me names (e.g. weaselly) if you’d like, but I don’t know what good that does? No, I did not claim not to be an ”expert” and then “claim to be what amounts to essentially the same thing in the very next sentence.” This is a false charge. I made my actual claim very clear, and I made what I was not claiming clear as well.



What followed after that, was my attempt to put some rational understanding to your claim. In this attempt, I spelled out the only sense in which the label of ”expert” could even be made to appear to make sense, and even then, it still would not make sense of the idea that I’ve claimed to be an ”expert on religion”. I said the following: “…The only context and sense in which anything like that would ’SEEM’ to fit would be when talking about Christianity and Islam, and that’s only when comparing my knowledge to those who routinely frequent DH. In other words, it only appears to make sense if you were talking about a very limited universe of religions (i.e. Christianity & Islam) and only in the context of a very limited universe of human beings (i.e. those who participate in DH.) So the first sentence says that I am not an expert, and the second sentence states that the only way I could even appear to be an expert, is if you pared the word “religion” down to mean (Christianity and Islam) and pared the universe of available people knowledgeable of those two religions down to about 10 to 15 people. In short, those two statements were both meant to undermine the very idea that I’m an “expert on religion”. The mere fact that you didn’t understand the meaning of what I said may cast some considerable light on why we continue to have problems communicating. I don’t know if that’s my fault or yours’, but I’m certainly willing to assume it’s my fault. I’ll certainly do what I can be to be clearer about what I’m saying, but as I’ve said, I already take some pains to do so. Having said that, the typed word does leave a lot of room for misunderstanding. There is so little room for tone, facial expression, the deep impression of the “now memory” of the moment. Some of those things just aren’t available to us in the same way they would be in person because we can’t hear or see one another, and we often read posts at differing times. In any case, let me move on.



Are you saying that merely the sharing of my view is condescending? That does seem odd. How many members of DH do you suspect would feel comfortable labeling themselves as an orthodox Christian? There are likely very few in my estimation. However, I am one who would do such a thing. Not only that, but I am a relatively devout Christian, in that I routinely read the Bible, attend Christian services, read books by Christians and non-Christians alike on subjects that relate to the faith. This makes me no “expert on religion”, nor would I be comfortable with the label, as it relates to Christianity, but I think it does lend some relevance and weight to my comments regarding it. How relevant and how much weight is entirely up for debate, but I don’t think that’s an unreasonable view. Nor is it unreasonable for me to observe that many members of DH appear to have a relatively scant or limited body of knowledge concerning Christianity. This is not a dig or a slap in the face of the members of DH so much as simply an assessment of the basis upon which they speak about the religion. Someone could certainly make the same assessment of me when it comes to Hinduism, Buddhism, and to a slightly lesser degree atheism, as my level of knowledge of all of those is significantly less than my knowledge of either Christianity or Islam, and likely less than at least some if not a majority of those who participate in DH. There is nothing condescending about that. It’s just a state of affairs. It might be that I wouldn’t like to be told that my level of knowledge appeared to be “scant” from the perspective of someone who knew about those things, but it doesn’t mean that they are being particularly condescending or that the claim is actually untrue. It would simply be their perspective, and if there perspective corresponded to reality, which it likely would, then it would be quite true. I suppose I could get upset about that, but I personally wouldn’t see the point. If I were frustrated, then maybe I’d try to get a better understanding of the religion(s) or view(s) in question and address the topic at a later date when I’d acquired a more comprehensive understanding.

We’ve already been over the bit about your father, but I found it interesting that you didn’t choose to respond to anything written on that issue. I’m not your father. Nor am I opposed to rational discussion. I will say that this has not been one. From my perspective, it’s been quite confusing. While I’m very sorry that you feel like you’re being patronized, talked down to, or as if I’m being condescending, I’m not able to identify precisely how I can change these kinds of things. From my perspective, I’m simply giving my point of view. You’re free to oppose my point of view and present some kind of reasonable explanation or argument as to why things are actually not the way I believe them to be, but apart from that, I don’t know what can be accomplished. I’m certainly open to differing points of view, as that’s part of the purpose and functional necessity of this forum, but interrupting a thread in order to create an argument about the style rather than the substance seems to take us far off course. If there’s something I can do to help our conversations go more smoothly rather than simply not talking, which appears to be the implication of your comments, please let me know.



Yes, if you or I lacked significant information on a subject that someone else knew a significant amount about, then it would probably come across in the comments made by the other party. That’s the nature of ignorance. Again, that’s not a slap at anyone. It’s just a true state of affairs. If I started spouting off about high-level physics to a professional physicist, it probably wouldn’t take long for he/she to figure out that my knowledge didn’t go very far, and it’s likely that their understanding of my lack of knowledge would come across in their subsequent comments. Some people are better than others at softening or otherwise candy-coating such comments, but the fact of my ignorance would still remain. As such, it’s possible that I might be indignant and see their claim and/or demonstration of superior knowledge and understanding of physics as some sort of “smug undertone” that tainted all of their subsequent comments in my mind. I don’t know that this is what’s going on here, but I assume it’s a possibility. But certainly, if you are misinformed about something I know something about, then it will probably come across, and if you’re well informed on something I know something about, that will probably come across as well.



Certainly, perceptions can differ greatly, but I try not to let tone get too much in the way of discussion. I’ve repeatedly but briefly commented on the tone I perceive from others. The fact that you perceive something of the same tone from me really isn’t surprising. The best I can do is to offer a sincere apology and to declare that I’m not intending to come across in some kind of Bible-thumping superior attitude kind of way, but that probably won’t stop the perception from occurring. I think there is something in human nature that recoils and detests being made to feel (true or not) that we know less than we think we do. There is something disconcerting about it. I encounter it all the time when I talk to my Pastor, certain wise older men & women, and the odd philosopher or apologist with whom I might correspond for a time. Within the last year or so, I had the opportunity to correspond with Professor Gregory Ganssle at Yale University and Dr. J. Budziszewski at the University of Texas, and for both men, I could tell I was out of my league by the first or second e-mail. In retrospect it was pretty funny, but at the time it was no fun realizing how much more I had to learn.

You may believe you have extensive knowledge of Christianity, and I will certainly be willing to affirm that when I see significant evidence of that. That doesn’t mean that you must agree with Christianity, but it does mean that you must understand it. Having said that, I am by no means saying that you have no knowledge or even that you don’t have more knowledge than a lot of non-Christians. This could certainly be the case, but that doesn’t necessarily equate with having extensive knowledge of Christianity itself. Of course, as always, my assessment could certainly be mistaken, and if or when I have reason to believe this is so, I will certainly retract that statement of understanding as it relates to the person who’s demonstrated a lot more understanding than I’d originally taken them to have. Just so you know, I’d rate you as having a higher level of understanding than most of the non-Christians in DH. Do you feel like an ”expert” now? Hehehe… Just a little joke to lighten the mood.



Sure there’s room for debate. I could always be wrong, but that’s my honest assessment. In many cases, the participants of DH have taken to interpreting Christianity the way they want to, and then they slap on the label of knowledge on it; almost totally devoid of reference to what Christianity really is, how it is spoken of or communicated in the Christian Scriptures, or what devout believers/followers take it to be/mean today and throughout its history. Some years ago, when I was asking some of the hard questions of Christianity, I learned that I had to stop imposing my own understandings onto the religion and start letting Christianity speak for itself. That was a difficult task, as I’d been raised in the Church, but I found it incredibly revealing after that as well. It began to come alive in a way I’d never seen it before. Instead of just being some kind of magical wishing or something less than tangible, it became something that was intelligible, with a real message, an evidential history, and the unmistakable ring of truth in every question it answered or state of affairs it described. Even today, I find it utterly fascinating and captivating, as it stands up to literally centuries of assaults men have brought against it. I do not dare men to assault it, but I find their attempts completely fascinating, and it, ironically, often proves to be a great strengthening agent. One sets out to let the walls of his faith be attacked, and finds them better supported after the battle than they were before. I’ve often walked away with this kind of impression.



So you see “open-minded” as meaning without opinion, a tabula rasa, or maybe just agreeable? I see it merely as being willing to consider another point of view seriously. However, if it appears obviously without foundation or not like something that can be taken seriously, then obviously you would maintain your former opinion. In doing so, I’m sure it’s possible to appear strident, opinionated, and even patronizing. I have certain beliefs that are usually well supported by one thing or another, and unless I’m given something substantial that appears to necessarily unseat these well founded beliefs, I have no reason to have a change of mind. I don’t know what to tell you. That doesn’t mean that anyone isn’t open-minded. It simply means that they aren’t weak or simple minded. And I mean this in the sense of being naïve, imprudent, and lacking in appropriate judgment or conviction. I don’t mean this as a pejorative. Some people say, probably insultingly, so open-minded that your brains fall out. Not being those things doesn’t mean that you’re not open-minded. It just means that you’re not sitting at the extremes. You’re not holding on so tight that you avoid conversation and confrontation with other points of view and hard questions or claims, and you’re not so easily swayed by the first plausible sounding apologetic for a contrary point of view if upon deeper reflection, such change isn’t warranted. It’s about prudence and balance I suppose. I welcome opposing points of view, particularly if they are well argued and truly plausible. My understanding certainly has never been perfect, and it’s fully possible that I’m wrong on one thing or another. While I hope I’m not wrong on the more foundational beliefs to which I hold, such a thing is possible. You can call that semantics, weaselly, being close-minded in a practical sense, or anything else you’d like, but I maintain that I wouldn’t be here if I weren’t open to other points of view to some significant degree. I’d settle for debating finer points of theology with people who already agree with me on the basics if that were the case. As it stands, I spend more time exposing myself to people like yourself than I do getting mentally soft & fat with those who are going to A’men 99% of what I say. I want to know that Christianity is true and that I’m not simply wishing myself into a fantasy, and while I do know this subjectively, I was to know it objectively as well. In addition, it allows for me to expose others to Christianity and to tell them that God has made a way out for them in Jesus Christ. Their alienation from their Creator doesn’t have to be permanent and it can be mended by what Christ did for you and me. There are, of course, other reasons as well, but I’ve discussed that many many times before. Again, all I can do is apologize for any tone you might be perceiving, but I would point out that this perception isn’t one-sided. Consider that the next time you decide to make an issue out of something I’ve said. More often then not, it’s unintentional. I’m certainly not perfect, but I’m also not out to upset or offend you either. I’m simply me, and I’m sharing my point of view regarding whatever is said that I find particularly interesting. Like I said, this is probably my last response to this. I don’t know what more I can say or do. I’ve been as clear as I know how to be, and I’m not convinced that even the extra efforts I’ve made here is going to produce greater understanding. We’ll see though.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

But that's exactly the issue. You assume that you are the one with the most knowledge, but even out of the few people that I do know here personally, several are quite well versed on religion. But they just don't choose to/want to get into long heated discussions. Don't necessarily confuse a lack of reaction/engagement from us to your posts with a lack of skill on our parts.

Or maybe we just keep it simple and focus more on areas that we are exploring and thinking about than re-hashing old topics again and again. I think the problem is that you see something that you think is "wrong" and feel obliged to react to it rather than let it slide. Now, I've been doing forums like this for twenty years, and in that time, I've learned that there are many different ways of viewing the same thing in a discussion, and the point of the discussion isn't to prove who is "right", but about the discussion itself.

You know, the interesting thing is that in all of my posts here at DH, I've never actually mentioned any religious affiliation in one way or another, other than to mention that I'm fairly indifferent at this point in my life/taking a break from it all.(though I actually do have one - I've been very careful to not mention it as it will color people's perception of me on this forum) Of course, I keep to myself about that mostly, so even my family doesn't really know much about it.

Being surrounded by an entire wad of born-again fundamentalists also kind of ruins any chance to talk quietly about anything at a family get-together, so I just don't bother. Take last Thanksgiving - one of them had one of those ballot initiative forms that they brought with them and everyone was signing (against gay marriage this time). I managed to avoid it all, but they're really that overboard most of the time when it gets brought up.

So I use this place as a bit of an outlet I guess. But it's just me talking about talking about religion. My belief is that most people don't analyze their beliefs enough, no matter what they believe. Blind faith in anything bothers me and I see it as a cause of many of the world's ills. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. But if I can get someone to look at their life a bit more critically instead of being another sheep that's on autopilot, then that's good thing.

Concerning levels of knowledge, I'd say that I'm not even close to several other members here, but that they, like myself, take a very low-key approach and never waive any authority or credentials into the air. Even myself, I barely get above a 1 or 2 on my "heated discussion" meter. Nothing like I used to years ago on Usenet(way before they started archiving it, sorry - there were some astounding flame-wars back then).

To me, this is a place to hang out with a couple of my good friends and chew the fat as it were about "what if" and "why" and "that's interesting". It's also the reason Spblat and I both left other religious forums - we just weren't interested in being preached to or talked to as if we were children. We could have engaged them on an even level, but what's the point? Higher blood pressure? Convincing someone we don't know and who essentially isn't a real factor in our daily lives of nothing because they won't listen anyways?

Sometimes the reason that we appear to act and react the way that we both do here, GOM, is because Spblat and I as we've gotten older have a very low-key personality when it comes to seeking out confrontation. 90% of the time, if the option to not get excited over something is available, we'd rather play a game with our kid(s) and/or have a beer. Most of the time, my thought process runs something like this:

- Wow that post is awful. I want to show him...(blood pressure rising).
- (thinks about the thousands of flame wars in the past and forums and so on)
- (thinks about how the Internet isn't real and is generally a waste of time)
- Meh. Whatever.

Why spend two hours researching something about Christianity to feed my ego because I "won" a discussion online? Maybe when I was 20 and didn't know any better and had a lot of angst at the world, but now... Even a response like this is about my limit before I get bored and want to get out of the house.

I think you confuse our point of view with our overall knowledge. And I think it's a bit presumptuous to know "what Christianity really is". If you know it that well, you should be writing books and making money off of them. And I don't mean that as a snide comment, either. If you really do have some insight about Christianity that the rest of us don't have, then write books or start your own blog/site or something. If you don't, though, please could you refrain a bit more from thinking that you do when you are here at DH? Because we're more interested in things like "why do we view it differently?" than what is the correct answer.

I think you never really got that, GOM. That the reason that this place is so different to you is because we're not really debating religion so much as debating and discussing why and how we all see it differently.(hence the name)

Or maybe it's more interesting to find out why the other person sees thing differently than you do? It's much more interesting, at least to myself, to consider other possibilities. And, yes, sometimes just discuss things for the sake of discussing.

I applaud your attempts to explore your own beliefs, but the simple fact is that DH isn't a place to "expose" us to anything. Almost all of us originally came from exactly where you are right now, GOM, earlier in our lives,(or were raised in that sort of environment) and so it's a bit needless. It's also why it comes across as a bit patronizing, even though you probably don't mean it to be perceived as such. We really don't need to hear it all over again for the hundredth time.

ie - I think there are maybe 5 or 6 of us here who weren't brought up in fairly conservative Christian or Catholic families. The rest, probably half of that number were still "Christian"(liberal or other types). It's just not really necessary here, GOM. In fact, it's actually a bit unwelcome. I'd wager that 75%+ of DH is (formerly Christian) Agnostic or Christian.

I think that you would do better here if you focused more on the interactions and differences between us rather than religious facts and beliefs.

I did say "seem unfamiliar". I can only go by our interactions, and you seem to only concern yourself with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which are essentially the same religion when compared to Hinduism, for example.

I don't believe that you have considered and rejected the merits of even the millions of Gods that others actively worship. That's why I brought up the fact that you are from the U.S., and not India.



Luke 19 - verses 29-36

19:29 And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,
19:30 Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.
19:31 And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.
19:32 And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them.
19:33 And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?
19:34 And they said, The Lord hath need of him.
19:35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.
19:36 And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way.

Nowhere does it say the owners willingly let them take the horse. You are reading things into the text that aren't there. He didn't send the disciples to ask the owner for their horse. He sent them to take it and told them what to say if they got caught.

John 2 - verses 1-4

2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2:2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

I think "Woman, what have I to do with thee" is quite rude. It would be rude of me to say it to my mother.

Destroying the money changers stands was criminal. It would be criminal if anyone else did it, and I would think that Jesus would be held to a higher standard, rather than lower.

I can't find the yelling at sick people passage, so I'll give you that one.



You seem to be a suck-up to God. Always talking about his 'Godly' prerogatives, and how cool he is. Jehovah was a total jerk to Job, not to mention the whole 'kill everyone, even babies' flood bit. I've never seen you do anything but justify any horror that was done as 'well, he's God so that makes it okay'.

You can't reject my hypothetical as less solid than yours, since the basis of both is the same.

sampa,
Yes, you said “seem unfamiliar”, but this is an argument from silence. If you never mention Hinduism, then there is no opportunity for me to “seem” familiar with it, but this inability to “seem” familiar with Hinduism is the product of circumstance or opportunity and has nothing to do with the existence of actual knowledge or familiarity. So simply because I haven’t chosen to take the time or had the opportunity speak on a particular religion doesn’t mean that I’m unfamiliar with it. However, I will say that there are many thousands of religions with which I am probably not familiar. Hinduism and Buddhism wouldn’t be among the religions with which I have little familiarity however. For a time, I was in a Master’s Program on religion, and no it wasn’t a Christian program of any sort. It was a secular religion program at a private liberal arts college. I later decided on American History and dropped my double major however. In any case, I had the opportunity to take multiple classes on World Religions, Alternative Religions, Wicca, Mormonism, etc... I am certainly no expert, but I have looked at the vast majority of the world’s dominant religions & by and large found few reasons to take them very seriously. I’d already had some significant philosophical training at that point and many of them like Buddhism seemed to fly in the face of reality. I actually believe I exist as a person in an objective sense and that suffering and pain are real rather than a result of desire and illusion. In addition, several deny the laws of logic, which are self-evidently extant and at work in our everyday lives. We use them even if we don’t know they are there. It was at that time, that I found a great deal of appreciation for the words of an early Muslim philosopher Ibn Sina defending the existence of the law of non-contradiction by saying “anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as to not be burned.” While I find the actuality of that pretty barbaric, I find the notion itself humorous. In any case, I opted for Christianity, probably in part, because I knew more of it than I did others, but that certainly wasn’t the only reason. The reality of it is that I’ve simply never been able to overcome its truthfulness. Wherever I’ve looked, I found that if I looked enough, satisfactory answers were available for every single issue of importance. I still have more answers to find, but after having answered hundreds of different questions through my own research and study, I’m increasingly confident that they are available to me. I’ve not found anything approaching this with any other religion that I’ve looked at. I suspect that you’re guilty of this same charge though, in “that you [haven’t] considered and rejected the merits of even the millions of Gods that others actively worship.” That doesn’t matter so much to me, as it is my position that “…of the millions that do exist, there are probably very few good reasons to believe in the vast majority of those…”.



I’ve decided to take a different tact on this particular objection because of nature of your previous response. In this case, the “Godly prerogatives” you mentioned actually matter a great deal. If you’re going to deal with or judge God, then you must do so on the basis of who and what He is, not because you believe in, follow, or respect Him, but because it’s the only reasonable and just way of dealing with anything (i.e. in the context of reality or what they truly are). For example, if you decided not to deal with cars as if they were cars and instead decided to treat them like you would flowers, then you’d likely be killed by one as soon as you failed to avoid walking out in front of one. If you decided to deal with human beings as you would gnats, I suspect that there would either be a lot of smashed human beings, or you would be in jail. Now, I’m obviously using some somewhat extreme examples, but I hope you get the point. If you’re going to deal with Jesus then it only makes sense to do so on the basis of Who and What He is said to be. First, if you create or are responsible for the existence of something, you are the owner of it. In this context, Jesus (John 1:14 & John 1:1-3) would be the ultimate possessor, proprietor, or owner of all that ever came into existence and could make use of it for His purposes without ever being guilty of stealing anything. Secondly, the passage in question should be seen in light of God’s omniscience, in the sense that Jesus obviously already knew about the “colt” and that the disciples would be asked why they were untying or taking the colt away. It is also likely that He was aware that the “colt” could be procured from these particular owners with merely a declaration of His need for it. In addition, they were explicitly told to offer a justification, which seems odd if you were truly just stealing from someone. In this context, the more natural way to read this particular passage is that they were allowed to take the “colt”, and that they offered the justification because they were in fact, not stealing it. If Steal means, to take the property of another without right or permission, it seems that Jesus had both. He had the right, as God, and having the permission of the owner upon giving the justification seems to make most sense of the passage. Since I have no real indication that you’re a follower of Jesus Christ, your chances of seeing this as a viable answer is fairly slight, but it’s certainly always possible. Personally, I’ve found this answer quite satisfactory. I don’t think the second part of my answer (i.e. the owner’s allowance/permission being most natural reading) is any kind of knock-down-drag-out argument, though I think it does support my view. However, I think the first part of my answer (i.e. God’s ownership/dominion over all that exists) is the most essential and certainly true element. I certainly hope that it helps answer your question.



You probably see it that way because you’re not very familiar with the languages in which the Bible was written and maybe aren’t aware of the transition that’s going on in that passage either. This is why actually studying the Bible is really very necessary to get the full meaning. Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic don’t necessarily translate easily into our modern languages. The New American Standard Bible probably does the best of getting us closest to a Word for Word translation, but no version can do it perfectly. The Greek word used for that greeting or address is actually a term of respect and/or affection, but it reads differently to us in modern English. You can find Christ using the same word in He also uses the same term in Luke 13:12 and multiple passages in John as well. In addition, this is a time when Jesus is making the transition from being her (i.e. Mary’s) son, to beginning His 3 year Earthly ministry and shows us the new relationship that has developed at the time He took up His Earthly ministry. He’s no longer simply Mary’s son, but now He’s the Christ, the Son of the living God sent to die for the sins of mankind. He wasn’t being rude, but simply essentially cautioning Mary. Drawing attention to Himself before it was time was not part of His plan, and Mary had advance knowledge of Who her son was and was aware of His power. It’s as if he’s saying “be careful, I can’t be making inappropriate use of my power.” That doesn’t mean He can’t help her at the moment, but she needed to be cautioned against “expecting” the use of His power for her own ends when He was there for another reason. I hope that makes sense.

With regard to the moneychangers, I will simply say that the moneychangers were defiling the temple, a place of prayer and worship, by selling animals inside it, and they were cheating the people out of their money. In short, there was nothing right about what they were doing and everything wrong about what they were doing. As God and as a Rabbi, Christ had the right to run the thieves out of the temple. That’s why it’s often referred to as Christ “cleansing the temple”. I’m not sure why you’d call it criminal when the real criminals in that case were the moneychangers who were hustling the people out of their money? And with regard to higher standards, what I can tell you is that God doesn’t respond to standards outside of Himself. The moral law finds its perfect expression and example in His character. There simply is no other standard beyond His own nature for Him to respond to. I hope that helps clear things up for you.




I thought your term “suck-up” was interesting and deserved some closer attention. In looking up the term “suck-up”, I found that it means A person who flatters or defers to others obsequiously; a sycophant. To make that as crystal clear as possible, I decided to look up a few of the words in that definition as well. I found that “obsequiously” means Full of or exhibiting servile compliance; fawning. And it looks like “sycophant” means A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people. Now, I should point out that your comments seem designed to be insulting, but I’ve decided to assume that they are not meant that way and therefore, to take you seriously regarding them. In doing so, I’m simply going to give you my very straightforward perspective on why two unlike things can sometimes look the same. I am not a ”suck-up”, but why I am, at the same time, a willing slave or servant of Jesus Christ. The term “suck-up” gives the impression of servile or servant-type behavior deceitfully carried out for purely self-serving reasons. In other words, a suck-up need not actually thinking highly of those to whom he/she “sucks-up”. He/she is simply trying to better or at least maintain his/her image in the eyes of those to whom he/she “sucks-up”. Privately, the person may think very poorly of those to whom he/she has been “sucking-up”. This is not the case with me when it comes to God the Father or Jesus Christ. I do indeed behave in a servile or servant-type of way. I behave in a fearful and reverential way. I behave in a loving and apologetic way as well. What I am doing is not trying to deceive God 1 Samuel 16:7, since He already knows what is in my heart, but instead, I’m merely trying to treat God appropriately. Now it’s clear that I’m unable to do this, since I cannot exhibit perfect behavior toward God or anyone else, but I try to constantly make the effort and to apologize when I am unsuccessful. I don’t do this merely because I love God, but because God, through no obligation on His part, chose to love me first. Only the perfect can be in relationship with God, and human beings are not perfect. They are a sin ruined creation, but God desired to extend mercy to humanity. Unfortunately, God is just and He couldn’t simply extend mercy without His justice first being satisfied. That is why Christ came to die for us, you and me. In essence, the judge chose to take the punishment for our deeds upon Himself in order to satisfy His own justice, just so that he could extent mercy and forgiveness to those who would accept His offer of reprieve and relationship with Him forever through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. God chose to do this for me, and I’ve responded to His offer. I feel that the very least I can do, is to treat Him with the proper fear, respect, and love. Put simply, He deserves this treatment both for Who He is and for What He has done. Again, I’m dealing with God as God, and I’m not judging Him as if He were a human being, bound by our prerogatives or lack of prerogatives. In any case, in this sense, there is no sense in which I’m merely a “suck-up”, hoping to put one over on God and make Him like me by being some kind of obsequious toad at his beck & call. I am at His beck & call because He has loved me when He didn’t have to and it has made all the difference in my life. My life is filled with meaning, with love, and with eternal hope as a result of a gift God gave to me utterly without obligation to do so. I will never be able to do enough to repay that, but I will certainly try. As a final example, you might think of it in this way. The actions of a loving husband and a guy who’s just a player can sometimes look exactly the same. However, one comes from honest motives of love for the other person, while the other derives from lust and a desire to fulfill one’s self without real thought or compassion given to the other party. Not precisely analogous, but I thought it might help your understanding.



If I have no good reason to believe your hypothetical questions to be the case, then yes, I can reject it as less solid than my own. But you say the basis of both is the same. Please tell me how that is? How are they constructed upon the same basis? What is this identical basis you speak of??? Very curious…?

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

I'm just going to focus on one thing in your reply. That is the "God's Prerogatives" part. By invoking "God's Prerogatives", any action is made Just, since God is allowed to do anything he wants to anything he's made. This makes the statement that "God is Just" meaningless.

Since nothing God can do is 'not good', it becomes meaningless to call him Good. Killing, torture, curing disease, and all other acts are equivalent for him in the Good/Evil department.

In the case of the horse theft, Jesus would have maintained his perfect merit if he'd told his disciples to rape and kill the owners if they asked why they were taking the horse, since it was 'his' horse, and the people were also 'his' to do with as he pleased.

By invoking the "God's Prerogative" notion, you make large portions of the bible meaningless. God is not Good. God is not Just. God is also not Bad or Unjust. He is beyond all moral concepts. There is no basis for predicting what God wants since he is beyond all human concepts.

This makes my hypothetical that God hates suck-ups and will send them to the eternal icky just as likely as yours that by worshipping him and believing in him you will get to go to heaven. You have no basis for deciding which one God will do. The bible is no guide, since God would be perfectly justified in creating a bible that makes you do exactly the wrong thing.

I was using the term suck-up in a more loose way than I should have. More of a fanboy or some such. Very annoying to some people, maybe God as well?

Personally I find the Adoptionist heresy a much better way of interpreting the Jesus story. It explains some things that are frankly just stupid in other interpretations. Having Jesus cry out on the cross "Father, why have you forsaken me?" is just silly if he is God at that time. If nothing else, he knew that he was just taking a 3 day dirt nap. He definitely knew the answer in any case, since he's God.

However, in the Adoptionist view, God adopted him because he was such a holy guy at the point when he was baptised by John. At that point God said "This is my son in whom I am well pleased". I think that may be the only time in the gospels that God is supposed to have actually spoken. That's when the holy spirit entered him and it stayed till the crucifixion. That makes his sacrifice painful enough to satisfy Jehovah and we all get into heaven. 3 days later he get resurrected and all is hunky dory.

I still think it's just a story, but it's a more consistent one. It also gets rid of the silly trinity thing.

p.s. I also think Hinduism is a bunch of hooey. I do like some of Zen buddhism, but not the other churchy versions of buddhism. Similarly, I think there is some goodness in Sufism, but find most of Islam of little value.