I Believe the Truth and You Do Not
I just read an article by societyvs, where he describes debating some Mormon missionaries who visited his house. His knowledge of Mormonism is most impressive, but I had to reply. I don’t normally copy from other people’s sites, but my reply to societyvs is most appropriate for my own site:
My dad is a Mormon of about 20 years. I must say that his beliefs drastically transformed his life. He turned from a real loser, hateful and just plain mean, to a man with real joy in his life. A real turnaround, that if he were a mainline Protestant I would attribute to nothing less than the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, his turnaround is viewed by my church friends as a Satanic trick to fool us into thinking there was something really godly to his religion. *sigh* As a Christian, you bet I felt convicted to confront him about his wacky beliefs. We would each try to convert the other over the years, we knew how each other stood. But whenever this happened we just grew upset with each other. It has been many years trying to build our relationship, one that we never had, so trying to convert each other just tore that relationship down again. In the end, after several years of this, we just quit trying. I have grown to hate religious differences and trying to convince everyone that I am right. He is 1000% of the man he used to be without his beliefs, and that is what is important to me right now. This issue is another reason I have been questioning my own beliefs so much. Is dad REALLY going to hell for believing what he is convinced is true? For trying to make his life better? For using his beliefs to be a joyous man like he has never been before? Right now, I want dad to be happy, and I want to keep a relationship with him as he grows older. That is what is important to me. Does that make me a Pansy Christian who does not hate his own family over Jesus? I guess so.
I have the correct religion!
No, I have the correct religion!
You are both wrong, I have the correct religion!
God, I am just sick of all that. I hope God is happy that we fight over him so.
I will admit it, I hate this aspect of Fundamentalist Christianity. The Bible, at least the way the New Testament is taught in our churches, is absolutely unambiguous in this regard:
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. – John 14:6 (NASB)
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” -Matt 26:18-20 (NASB)
And if we really believe this, we will share this news with the world. Because Jesus told us to. Because he is the only way. And I did witness with all the faithfulness and fervor that I could muster, because I believed it all. I would hang out at the bus depot and airport handing out Jack Chick tracts to strangers (this was the pre-9/11 world). I would pray outside bars and stripjoints, hoping to catch people as they walked outside and convince them of their sinful ways. I would tell my mother and father, brother and sister about the Jesus that I knew, our Savior who was the only way to our salvation. I would try to convince my mother, once a committed Christian and now a practical atheist, the error of her backsliding ways. I even got her to go to church with me a few times, but not before informing the pastor that I was bringing her and if he would not mind directing a word or two of his message her way. At work, I did my mightiest to live my witness for Jesus Christ. I prayed every morning that God give me the strength and the power of the Holy Spirit to witness to my friends. And I did every working day. Sometimes I would go to parties with my workmates, my strategy being that I could steer the conversation to the Gospel Message in a classic ‘bait and switch” maneuver. I went on Church Missions, usually to the inner city, but my most memorable to south Florida after Hurricane Andrew. Sure we helped clean up, repair what could be fixed, feed and comfort people. But again, in a classic bait and switch, we always presented the Gospel of Jesus Christ to these people. “The Hurricane has left you without hope? Jesus will give you your hope back!” Because that’s what it is all about, right? The destroyed houses are mere temporary things, but our souls are eternal. I invited homeless people into my own apartment, to feed them and witness to them. I liked them. They were usually my easiest converts.
I went through years of University work studying astrophysics. It was very difficult to be a witness for Jesus Christ in this setting, because everyone would reject the Bible’s claim for a young Earth and a 6 day creation. Trying to convince these scientists and PhD candidates to base their faith on a book that claimed a very young earth, a 6 day creation, talking donkeys, fiery chariots from heaven and a sun that occassionally stops in its tracks was absolutely impossible. I remember when Phillip Johnson came to speak at our campus. The question and answer period was very entertaining – the biology professors made absolute hash of his anti-evolutionary arguments. How could I continue to witness Jesus Christ in this context? I decided to live my witness. Everyone knew I was a born again Christian, but I did not go out of my way to proselytize. I soon discovered that ‘living a witness’ was a cop-out. I was acting like any other well-adjusted law abiding citizen. Living my witness meant being no better and no worse then anybody else.
When I left academic life I began actively witnessing again. Then I met the woman who would eventually be my wife. We started dating, and I soon discovered that she was Catholic. I needed some subtlety when witnessing to her, after all I kind of liked her and did not want her to think I was too much of a nut. I invited her to my Baptist Church, and she invited me to her Catholic. She told me about why she revered Mary, the Saints, what the mass meant, and everything else associated with mainline Catholicism. While I did not believe as she did, I learned to at least appreciate it. I told her about all my beliefs, and we tried and I think succeeded to see how our differing views could be compatible. After all, she still looked to Jesus as the only source for the forgiveness of sins, everything else is superfluous, right?
Then there was my Mormon dad, which I have already mentioned a bit of.
I am just exhausted from witnessing. I am exhausted and drained from believing that I and my small sect of Christian brethren have the exclusivity on truth and everyone else, no matter what their beliefs, are going to eternal torment. I am sick of believing that I am on the narrow path of righteousness, and my loved ones are on the wide path leading to destruction when in many cases, they are just simply much better people than I am. For most of them, it is not a matter of loving darkness rather than light as the Gospel of John claims. People believe what they believe from personal conviction and family tradition, or because they are not lead to by scientific, historical or philosophical arguments, or simply because their own particular, heretical beliefs lead them to lead fulfilled and productive lives. And yes, yes, I know what the Fundamentalist will reply at this point: “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). Because Jesus is the only way, right?
Ever watch the movie Gandhi? I had never seen it before, and I rented it several months ago. I love what Ben Kingsley said near the end of the movie. India is being torn apart by Islamic and Hindu factions, and will eventually result in the formation of Pakistan. Towards the end of his life, Gandhi, who seems to have lived as Christ-like a life as any man who walked the face of the earth proclaimed, “I am HINDU! I am MUSLIM! I am CHRISTIAN! I am JEW!”, because he was sick of all the religious fighting. This was a universalist and even secular proclamation that we are one humanity, not religious divisions. That scene brought me to tears, because I am probably just as sick of it as he was. I lived the proselytizing life. I understand.
Yes yes, I know, Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Tough. I have witnessed the Gospel of Jesus Christ for most of my adult life, guilt-ridden because I was afraid all of humanity was lost in delusion and in their sins, and if I did not witness to them, they were eternally lost. I could not have real peace with that burden placed on me.
I am sick of that guilt, I am sick of that arrogance of exclusivity, I am sick of looking at our life as a trial from God to see if we believe the correct doctrines, and I refuse to accept it anymore. And if just letting people believe what they wish to believe means not being a real Christian, then so be it.
March 24th, 2007 at 8:01 am
**, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. – John 14:6 (NASB** I’m going probably start something with this, but I do find that statement ambigious, and here’s why. A lot of Paul’s letters contrast two men, Adam and Christ. “In Adam all die, so shall in Christ, all be made alive.” (A paraphrase). So I view that statement as Jesus saying, “You can’t reach God in living the Adam-lifestyle, which is sin. Sin’s never going to bring you to the Kingdom of Heaven, or let you find that Kingdom.” Christ is the Truth. Not Adam. Christ is the life, because Adam is the sin lifestyle, and the wages of sin is death. Christ represents the new man, and you don’t go to the Father until you foresake the old/Adam-man.
And there are a lot of ways to foresake the old/Adam-man.
March 24th, 2007 at 8:18 am
WOW Heather – that was a fast reply!
You have an interesting perspective on John 14:6 that I have never heard before, and I won’t discount it at all. But that view is certainly not taught in many churhces, that is for sure! I tried to make it clear the the way the church teaches that passage, and passages like it are unambiguous! I have read that If John’s Gospel is taken with the right mindset, it is loaded with Gnostic type material, and your view is not far from that. I am saying this as someone who knows next to nothing about about ancient Gnosticism, so please don’t anybody say I am wrong, because I probably am here.
One thing I have tried doing recently is reading and interpreting the books of the Bible as individual books. For instance, try and read John’s Gospel without inperpreting it with something that Paul said. Or Paul with James, etc… it is an interesting exercise to try and see what the individual authors were trying to say. I have found that some of these authors really compete with each other.
March 24th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Heissailing,
I had just posted elsewhere, hit refresh, and saw the new post. And I figured, “Oh, why not?”
**I tried to make it clear the the way the church teaches that passage, and passages like it are unambiguous! ** Oh, you did. Don’t worry.
And I know how churches do teach, but my thing was Jesus was always elusive in the Synotpic Gospels, and saying things in such a way that the first understanding wasn’t the correct one. Why couldn’t the same apply to John’s Gospel? At first glance, the sentence is straightforward. But then I’m left with the following: he says that he is the Truth and the Life. So that means that everything else is the lie and the death. However, fundamentalist churches also teach that anyone who rejects Jesus from the fundamentalist is sent to hell — but then I’m still living in hell. The Son has come to grant eternal life to those that follow … but either way, one is still living, it’s just living in heaven or hell.
Then we’ve got Jesus saying that he is the truth. Which means that all else is a lie … but isn’t one of the primary functions of sin to keep us in that lie, and say that the lie will bring us happiness, success, people will revere us. In the end, most of what the world provides is empty. People get their most satisfaction out of families and helping one another — through demonstrating love. So Jesus is the truth in terms of living the best God-filled life.
As for the Way — that could easily be taken as a critique against the temple, which said that it was the only way to reach God, through the right sacrifice and following the right rules. Jesus said, “No, it’s a lot simpler than that.”
**For instance, try and read John’s Gospel without inperpreting it with something that Paul said.** I’ve done that with the Synoptic Gospels … and keep walking away with good works are incredibly important in terms of getting to the Kingdom of Heaven. For instance, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” Or anything else of the Sermon on the Mount. Or the goats and the sheep. What got the sheep into Heaven was that they helped the poor, and they did so unknowingly. Because both sides were doing the same thing … but it was one’s actions towards the poor that was key. (Plus, in reading that, when the Son of Man returns, it seems like everyone will be preaching in Jesus’s name, as there were only two groups).
March 24th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Interesting I would make an article over here – hell I am not even that smart (lol). But HeisSailing – I think you jumped the gun on this one – about my character and what I am bringing to the table – and I think some of this from your lense (reading into my situation) – which is alright to do, but it does make me feel like I am being mis-represented on some level. (but no one knows me that well so the mistake is genuine and out of concern – I get ya).
“I have the correct religion!
No, I have the correct religion!
You are both wrong, I have the correct religion!
God, I am just sick of all that. I hope God is happy that we fight over him so… I will admit it, I hate this aspect of Fundamentalist Christian” (HIS)
First off, I am merely raising ‘questions’ to the Mormons who have asked of me literal ‘blind faith’ – in the process of ‘converting’ me. Secondly, I don’t want to convert any single Mormon, I just want to ask questions about their faith that I am entitled to know before I should join. This isn’t a ‘fight for God’ in any such manner – I just want to know the ‘cores of their belief set’ – I am not a Mormon nor do I have a clue about what they believe or why they believe (but I have given fair time to both sides of the debate – ex-mormons and mormons – and I want to know the truth from their mouths).
“I believe the truth and you do not” (HIS)
Whoa horsey, whoa whoa whoa…pull the reigns back a bit. I am not from this school of thought. But I raise questions and I am insidious by doing so? Does anyone here believe what they believe without aforethought to what it’s implications are? If so, why? I am asking the questions that need to be asked of someone trying to convert me to their belief set – a belief-set I think produces very ethical character and I have no problems with that. But I raised questions on some things about prophet-hood, baptism of the dead, God has a physical body (and is 3 seperate beings), a 3 tiered heavenly existence, and historical inaccuracies. I raised questions because I don’t know what they exactly believe and why…the questions are for understanding – not for condemnation (of me or them). Also the questions are there because they added a whole belief set to what I already understand – and I am not exactly sure why and for what reason this is?
What if I find contradictions or no archealogical evidence – should I just forget I did? Who’s view do you take in a situation like that…theirs or your own? I mean, I am a First Nations person and my people are from this land (and claim to always have been) – and we have no record of Jewish contact with us – should I defy my culture and it’s history for a faith system? I ask questions because this is right and just in the eyes of the ’seeker’. I am opening the door to those who have knocked – so I can find out some answers. I am seeking out all outlooks on the issues – cause to do any less would be selling my faith short. I am asking, seeking, and knocking – but I wanted to know so they came. And I have never once treated these missionaries with less than respect and honor once they entered my household – no name calling, no ‘I am right you aren’t', and no demeaning of their character – I want to learn what they know and I what i don’t.
But I am alright with this – ‘in the way that you measure – with such weights shall you be measured back’ – so if they have questions about my beliefs (which they seem devoid to ask at this point) I will willingly answer to the best of my knowledge. I am open to freedom of religion and respect what they might also want to know.
I don’t know maybe I should just believe ‘here say’ and ’supposition’ about other religions – since by asking my questions I seem to be stirring up some kind of ’shit storm’ – almost as if I was being un-Christ-like in the process. But then how should I proceed if asking questions presumes ‘I am right to your wrong’?
As for the John 14:6 thing – and Jesus being the ‘way’ – is this a ‘way’ of life as seen in Matthew (follow me idea), a path laid down by Jesus as a ‘way’ to go also? I think of it is a ‘way’ (to live), the truth (he isn’t lying), and the ‘life’ (within these teachings you will find a resurgence of your ethical character)…and no man (or woman) comes to Father (God) by me (Jesus’ teachings and ideas). Now the real question is – can someone find these teachings without coming to Christ? I think so, Jesus was called the ’son of man’ (human experience is partly a factor) – so by living we can see these things that Jesus taught work or do not (for example: adultery isn’t what God see’s as the highest ethical value in a situation – this can be clearly learned without even reading Jesus; same thing could be said for ‘murder’ or ‘religious insincerity’).
I think he is the way (of life) in that I interpret – a way to living a more full life with depth of meaning (love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness which stands in firm opposition to our own human selfishness, greed, incapability to walk in another’s shoes, blindness of worldview, etc). It defintely narrows what one see’s as a higher ethical value in any given situation.
March 24th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
SocietyVs, I was in no way critiquing you or making accusations about your convictions, and I am sorry that is how you viewed them. It was not directed at you. I write these articles only for myself – and only about myself – not other bloggers. I took your article and just took off with it into my own personal rant about my own situation and frustration in Fundamentalist Christianity where yes, we DO claim to have the exclusive truth, and any faith outside of ours is heresy. Yes I was angry when I wrote it, but at my own stupid beliefs, not you for crying out loud! Again, I don’t know you from Adam and have no reason to criticize you in that way – so I hope you take it as a simple misunderstanding.
I really need to learn not to write articles, particulary passionate rants, at 4 in the morning.
March 24th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
HeisSailing – I have no problem with what you said – it’s honest and I can respect that – I have no ill will about anything you wrote either – just clarifying my character – and I knew that you didn’t mean anything bad by it – hell, I think writing with passion is the only way to do it – gets to the heart of the matter.
I actually like your genuine concern for issues and what you write and I wouldn’t want you to change a thing – I am not for the idea of restriciting your freedom of speech. I just wasn’t sure how to take that so I responded by stating what I am actually doing – and I totally understand I may have misconstrued your writings – for which I am sorry also – I don’t want something like this to be a ‘dividing line’ in discussion.
HeisSailing – I am grateful for your writing – really am – and I will continue to participate and I will stop trying to bring out the ‘dissensions’ amongst people (lol) – I have had that charge railed at me before – and it makes me laugh every time. Again, sorry – I will try to be a constructive voice in the wilderness of life.
March 24th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Societyvs: I like the way you’re going about discovering what others believe. I think it is wise to consider other people’s beliefs and understanding, especially about so important an issue.
You said, “Now the real question is – can someone find these teachings without coming to Christ? I think so, Jesus was called the ’son of man’ (human experience is partly a factor) – so by living we can see these things that Jesus taught work or do not (for example: adultery isn’t what God see’s as the highest ethical value in a situation – this can be clearly learned without even reading Jesus; same thing could be said for ‘murder’ or ‘religious insincerity’).”
Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason that these ethics are within us, even without reading what Jesus taught, might be because God put them in our being when He made us? No one has to teach us to feel guilty when we lie or steal, or to react in horror to murder or “unethical” treatment. Maybe it’s because these things have been programmed in when we were created. And maybe Jesus teaching and life, with his high (the highest) of ethical values is meant to resonate with each of us because of those same values already being there. It is possible that the God who created this universe and everything in it, sent His Son to earth, and when He came, He was perfect, so His life became an example that we can hold as the highest standard of a “good life”. But, imagine if that was not why He came. What if His “good life/moral standards” are just a side-effect of Him being here with us. Of course we would notice a difference in someone who is God!! But what if He came here with a greater purpose? If this is true, then I would want to know what that purpose is.
March 25th, 2007 at 4:50 am
joeyanne sez:
“Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason that these ethics are within us, even without reading what Jesus taught, might be because God put them in our being when He made us? No one has to teach us to feel guilty when we lie or steal, or to react in horror to murder or “unethical” treatment. ”
joeyanne, have you ever read CS Lewis’ ‘The Case for Chrisitianity’? He bases much of his belief in God on this very concept and he discusses it thoroughly in this book. You may be right, but I am not as convinced. I don’t necessarily feel guilt when breaking some of God’s moral law as written in the Torah. Stealing and lying, yes those make me feel guilty. But do I feel guilt when I do not keep the Sabbath Holy? no. Do I feel repulsed when I see two gay men holding hands? no. Are these laws, and many others that are questionable really “written on the hearts of men”, or are we taught these things from infancy? It is the classic sociological question of “Nature or Nurture?”. What do you think?
March 25th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Heissailing: Good question. Since you asked what I think, I have to say that I really do think the moral laws that Jesus displayed in His life are “written on our hearts”. The Ten Commandments were written for “God’s people”, the Jews, and, I believe, were meant in part to show them that they could never meet God’s standards on their own, thus pointing them to their need of a Saviour. Jesus did live out the meaning of the Ten Commandments, but not to the letter; that is, He took them farther – not only is adultry sin, but the thought of adultry is sin too. So, do I feel guilty when I don’t keep the sabbath holy? Not really in that sense. The “sabbath” was given to preserve the Jews living in a land not their own – to remind them of the One True God. When Jesus came He freed us from the “law”, but their meanings still exist. Do I set aside time to spend with God?(my “sabbath”, if you will) Yes. Do I feel a sense of loss when that is not kept? Yes. It is my loss, for sure. It is not a rule for the rule’s sake, but a guide to help me live my life the way God designed it to be lived. God didn’t create marriage to take away our joy, but to preserve it. I believe this is the same with the moral “laws”. All around we can see the results of sin. Life without moral guidelines is a life lived only for self. But true love sacrifices self. I’m not sure if this is making any sense, but it is clear in my head. I believe that we can become “desensitized” to the moral laws written on our hearts by the sheer exposure to sin that we experience daily; not always by sinning ourselves (as taught in the Ten Commandments), but by sinning vicariously (as Jesus taught) through television, movies, the internet, etc. I’ll think more on this, though. Thanks for the question.
March 25th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Sorry, but I have one more thing to say. It is inspired by something that a friend shared with me just this morning. It is about questioning God. I believe that God respects our questions and does not in any way consider our doubts as a negative thing. Now, here is something to back that up. We’ve all heard of Doubting Thomas. But God never calls him that; in fact, there is nothing at all to even give the impression that Thomas’ doubts were a bad thing. I’ve heard messages that berated Thomas for “not believing”. But in John 20 we read how Jesus comes again to show Himselves to the disciples. He offers Thomas the assurance He needs. Jesus asks blind faith of no one. He allows us our questions and doubts. How much intelligence is involved in blind faith? However, once Thomas’ questions are answered, by Jesus Himself, Thomas does the only wise thing, and submits to Him as LORD. He says “My LORD and my God.” I don’t believe for a minute that Jesus came to Thomas in a haughty manner saying, “see, Thomas, you should have believed. I was here… nah, nah, nah.” That is not evident in Jesus’ character anywhere else in the Bible. Jesus respected that Thomas needed assurance, and gave it to him!! So, my questioning friends, here’s hope for us. Keep questioning – God does not belittle our questions.
March 25th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
“If this is true, then I would want to know what that purpose is.” (Joeyanne)
Well that’s the big question in all Christ-ians minds – what exactly is that purpose? I only go by what I read from book to book (wach book with it’s context). I think Christ came that we might have a better understanding of what it really means ‘to love our neighbor’ – and this entails a lot fo things – none of the least about ‘loving ourselves’ (or how can one ‘love their neighbor’ if they never know ‘love’ themselves? Also the whole law and prophets hinge on something similar ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ – which requires some serious self-introspection).
I see the purpose of Christ being something on those lines – that we as humans would learn to treat one another in a better manner – a loving way – where we consider the shoes they wear and the shoes we wear at the same time (equalilty in compassion).
Or that we might ‘have life, and at that abundately’. But life involves everyone around us also (the whole ‘no person is an island’ idea) and for life to be something on par with what God see’s us as – well this takes a lot of sacrifice on our parts – and turning from an ‘old idea’ to a ‘new idea’ – renewal of the mind – and seeing that we effect every single person around us (either for the betterment or worseness of the single event) – so we have some honest and sincere living to do (in love of our lives and in the love of others).
But I am rambling. I wanted purpose then I picked up on the gospel ideas of ‘follow me’ or ‘the word in flesh’ and saw a paradigm the writer’s were developing (one of living these teachings for honesty to our God, to ourselves, and to others). I would say I found a purpose in that – a better way of thinking that develops a better society starting in my own mind, soul, strength, and heart – which makes it’s way to the streets and alleyways.
March 25th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Societyvs,
The Bible’s thesis on Jesus’ purpose in coming into the world is clear:
“The Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” (Luke 19:10)
“I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.” (John 12:47)
“…he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners…” (1 Timothy 1:15)
He didn’t come to teach us, or to show us. He came to be one of us, so that he could take our death, the death sentence that passed to us when Adam and Eve chose sin instead of God.
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned… But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! …The judgement followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.” (Romans 5:12, 15-16)
The death of Jesus proves the cost of sin. God can’t pull out his magic eraser and wipe it away. It cost him his very best – Jesus – to deal with sin. Now he is willing and able to forgive any person’s sin who will let him. But he has created us like himself- with personality, and able to choose for ourselves. He can’t force us, just as he couldn’t force Adam, to choose him. We didn’t ask to be sinners- we were born that way – but Jesus’ death means that we can make a fair choice, because we can choose as Adam did.
But Jesus didn’t stop there. He didn’t only forgive us. He also offers us freedom from the power of sin. The work of the Holy Spirit is to set a person free from what they choose to be free from. As a Christian, I don’t have to be subject to my weaknesses and my lower wants. I can choose. It is to my shame that I all too often don’t choose. This is the thing that makes Christianity the sham that it appears to be. We who call ourselves Christians are all-too-often either deluding ourselves or else choosing sin despite the fact that Christ has made us free.
When we reach heaven, our freedom will be complete. We will be free not only from the punishment, not only from the power, but finally, from the very presence of sin. We will be like God, sinless.
Yes, Jesus wanted us to live better lives. But he also offered us the power to live better lives. You seem like a person who is kind and interested in others. I admire that, but I promise you, in my deep heart’s core, I know myself to be horrifyingly selfish and proud. Only in Jesus have I known the power to love in away that is not centred around what I get back.
And when life is over, I, the selfish one, will be transformed, at my choice, by Jesus’ power, into a pure worshipper, a child of God, worthy of heaven. Then I will tell the universe who God is. That’s what the Bible says Jesus came to do.
March 25th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Jenny,
**He didn’t come to teach us, or to show us. He came to be one of us,** Are you saying that he didn’t come to teach or show us at all, or that his primary purpose wasn’t to teach/show us? Because I would say that he also came to teach and show us. Many of his disciples called him Rabbi, and he used parables to get his message across, which is a teaching tool. Because you can save a person from sin by teaching them, or showing them the way. Yes, the crucifixion was necessary, because no one really ‘got it’ until they saw Jesus resurrected. But if it only took the crucifixion, then I don’t think Jesus would’ve spent three years teaching.
**We didn’t ask to be sinners- we were born that way – but Jesus’ death means that we can make a fair choice, because we can choose as Adam did.** I don’t think I’d call this a fair choice, though. Adam/Even had the fair choice, because they were almost blank slates. But under the fundamentalist position, humanity’s default destination is hell, unless one chooses otherwise. Humanity is, in essence, set up to fail. Even if Jesus is the answer, humanity is put into the position of never being able to suceed, and then punished for it.
**I admire that, but I promise you, in my deep heart’s core, I know myself to be horrifyingly selfish and proud.** It’s probably not going to surprise you that I have a different viewpoint on this, too.
I don’t see humanity as born inherently sinful. I see it as born struggling with sin, yes. But if born inherently sinful, then what about man is made in the image and likeness of God? What about man is fearfully and wonderfully made? Didn’t God create anything good about humanity? We do have the ability to be horribly cruel and selfish, but we’re also capable of great acts of compassion and love, even without being Christians. In that, I think we’re seeing man as s/he was originally meant to be. I guess what I’m asking is do you consider yourself to have any qualities that are the opposite of selfishness or pride?
March 25th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Wow, there is so much discussed on here–I think I will just make it short and sweet. GREAT POST! I agree so much and I share in your anger. Christians are so excited about “faith” when they already believe in God–but when witnessing to people it is all about “the truth”, “KNOWING that Christ died for you,” etc. If God wanted us to believe in the TRUTH, I wish he would have given us proof and not just shoddy history, and circumstancial, good feelings that dont amount to much unquestionable truth at all.
March 25th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Heather,
Yes, you are right, Jesus did teach, and yes, I did mean that his main purpose was to die, not teach.
Adam and Eve didn’t have the knowledge of good and evil that we have. They only had the knowledge of good. Yet they had the power to choose. Without Jesus, we are left with your “default’ scenario. However, Jesus death forgives the sin of anyone who allows it. I’m stepping onto controversial ground here, but I would suggest that from the Bible’s perspective, Jesus death means that the “default” is not condemnation, but forgiveness. However, it is impossible to accept forgiveness and reject God as far as we know him (whether we know that his name is “God” or not.) In choosing selfishness, we reject God. If we know the truth and neglect to respond to it, we reject God.
Heather, my dearest friend is not a Christian, and she is one of the loveliest people I have ever met! I hope I’m not being lumped in with the Fundamentalists so soon!
I do believe that humans are inherently sinful, meaning that we are born sinners because our parents are sinners, but not inherently evil. We are created in the image of God. Yes, according to the Bible we are divine creatures – that have been broken by sin. We are not nothing. We are not evil. But within me, this much I know, is a deep heart of darkness that doesn’t match my longing for purity, holiness, love, God.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Hi, Jenny.
**Heather, my dearest friend is not a Christian, and she is one of the loveliest people I have ever met! I hope I’m not being lumped in with the Fundamentalists so soon!** No, no, not at all.
I don’t find any of your posts condemning those who don’t agree with you, or gleefully assigning them to hell. You’re straighforward, and unapologetic in what you believe. In today’s times, that can often be interpreted as ‘intolerent,’ which I find sad. Because there’s a huge difference between believing someone is wrong yet still treating them in a loving fashion, and then going after that person with hatred. As I said earlier, I’ve found that your posts here are very gracious.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Jenny,
I hit the submit button too soon. I’m glad you elaborated on the difference you see between being inherently sinful and inherently evil. My thing with being inherently sinful is that I notice in the Sermon on the Mount speech in Matthew that Jesus was talking to a crowd when he said that “you are the light of the world, and the salt of the earth.” Paraphrase. And this was just with people who were listening to him. So I see Jesus, in a lot of ways, coming to show people their inherent goodness, and reminding them that they were created in the image/likeness of God, and created out of love. They were created to express God and His glory.
March 25th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
HIS I really need to learn not to write articles, particulary passionate rants, at 4 in the morning.
I thought I was the only one who wakes up late and asks myself, “Did I post that?” Thanks for the transparency.
I would opine that Society’s Dad was transformed by Christ using the “tree by its fruits” measuring tool. I watch the Mormon channel on Direct TV and I find their Bible studies quite informative. You can see that many have a passion for Christ. Even the Book of Mormon stories show profound insights although they seem to parallel specific bible stories, compare the Liahona to the Shekinah glory – each guided the lost out of the desert. I don’t usually say “Woo, wait a minute!” until the Doctrines and Covenants chapters.
But the Savior for Society Senior and Society VS is one and the same, Jesus Christ. As W.B. Yeats and JennyPo would say, “I know that in my deep heart’s core.”
March 26th, 2007 at 3:06 am
Jim Jordan sez:
“You can see that many have a passion for Christ. Even the Book of Mormon stories show profound insights although they seem to parallel specific bible stories, compare the Liahona to the Shekinah glory – each guided the lost out of the desert.”
Yes, but then you can make the same charge against the miracle stories about Jesus, which seem to be direct rip-offs of The Elisha and Elijah miracle stories.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Yes, but then you can make the same charge against the miracle stories about Jesus, which seem to be direct rip-offs of The Elisha and Elijah miracle stories.
First, I’m glad to see a specific complaint. On another post you complained of plagiarism but gave no specifics. This info helps the dialog, no?
Second, I’ll get back to #1, but my main point was that it was the same living Savior that has had such a profound impact on both men. To what degree the documents can be trusted is another point. We should be careful to not throw out the Savior with the bath water.
The only miracle that I found was the ascension of Elijah in 2 Kings 2:1. Did Jesus really just walk off into the sunset like Aslan the lion? Was that vision of two men, Moses and Elijah, accompanying Jesus in His ascension a poetic addition? Is the ascension meant to be physical or figurative? These are all questions I’ve asked before.
There is parallelism in the Bible but I see a direct difference between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. The Bible is a story based on actual events. We’re constantly finding tombs and buildings belonging to the main characters in the narrative. Plus the Bible was accumulated over 15 centuries. It was itself a source of unity among the Jewish people (see Ezra, Amos, etc.). The Book of Mormon is based on a dubious set of plates with cryptic writing that have not held up to scrutiny. Furthermore, the story of Jews in North America before the year 600 AD (or even before 1492) has been all but shot down by researchers through DNA testing. Not to mention that much of the Book of Mormon was mostly written by evangelist Solomon Spaulding (1761-1816), who was obsessed with having an Americanized gospel.
From the link: “In 1833 residents of New Salem (now Conneaut), Ohio, signed affidavits stating that Spalding had written a manuscript, portions of which were identical to the Book of Mormon.”
Parallelism does not equal a “rip-off” either. Parallelism between a book that is demonstrably a complete fiction and parallelism within a book that was recorded over 15 centuries by 40 contemporary writers many with historical proofs of their existence are not necessarily equal. I have not even mentioned that the Bible claims God as its driving force throughout.
The Old Testament is replete with references looking forward to a Messiah, a Suffering Servant, sitting at God’s right hand, etc. Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, the inspiration for those previous statements and miracles. A modern analogy might be that if you have two different cars that look almost identical, you could say one copied the other, or that they both came from the same designer. If Jesus is who He claims to be, then He had His hand in both events anyway.
The Ascension with Moses and Elijah leaves me wondering, honestly. I don’t know why they are there. But I have no problem with the Resurrection itself. Of the eyewitnesses to the Resurection, all but John, died by some sort of execution. John’s suffering was brutal also. Neither did they profit from their outrageous claims. Mohammed and Joseph Smith rode their prophet status to financial success and personal fulfillment. The apostles had to beg for money to survive and all met disasterous fates. Why? I believe that they genuinely believed that they were heirs in the eternal kingdom of Heaven. After all, they were eyewitnesses to that fact.
One last thing, you tossed aside the idea of Harmonization By Ommission but I think you should take a second look. It may not be a perfect interpretation but we have to understand that we are trying to understand the ways of the God of the universe. Language has its limitations, as Wittgenstein pointed out. God is behind language but He is also it. Ironically, understanding the limits of language helped me understand the inerrancy of the Bible [which is an article in itself].
Jesus had certain words for the woman at the well. He showed something to Thomas that Thomas needed to see. He guided Elijah to find the remnant of believers in his day. He stilled Abraham’s hand, and made sure he marked that spot with the words “Jehovah Jirah (God will provide)”. Indeed the parallelism of the Bible is chilling. But I don’t think it’s a sign of plagiarism but a signature that these events were controlled by the hand of an infinite intelligence. God is talking to us through those words.
Last, we can agree that Society Senior and Society VS have shown evidence of salvation. They aren’t yet 100% restored, and neither are any of us, but they have a certain hope that drives them forward towards the right path.
Keep in mind I too have doubts about certain passages in the Bible particularly those that don’t seem to serve a purpose like Moses and Elijah hanging out with Jesus. As times goes on I have filed many an uncertain passage over to the certain column after careful study. The Ascension is one that has not been satisfied in my mind as of yet. But the inerrancy of the Bible is at least the right platform, from my experience, to proceed with the Bible. If we simply give in to unbelief and accept that there are massive errors, what good will it do for us?
I could go on but I’ll stop there. Sorry for getting carried away. Great discussion. God bless.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Oops, this was a key sentence and I botched it.
God is behind language but He is also beyond it.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Jim dijo:
“There is parallelism in the Bible but I see a direct difference between the Book of Mormon and the Bible…etc..”
Jim, just to let you know I am not arguing the validity of the Mormon Scriptures. I have only read a little of them, but I know enough that they confirm themselves to be pretty kooky. I don’t buy any of it (and I don’t need to read it to make that judgement).
Jim continúa:
“Parallelism does not equal a “rip-off” either. Parallelism between a book that is demonstrably a complete fiction and parallelism within a book that was recorded over 15 centuries by 40 contemporary writers many with historical proofs of their existence are not necessarily equal.
I am reading a book by Finklestien, ‘The Bible Unearthed’ that argues for very little history in the Old Testament. History seems to finally enter the Old Testament story about the time of the Babylonian captivity and subsequent rebuilding of the temple. Everything before that seems to be greatly exaggerated, fiction, mythology, or unverifiable. Most scholars say there is no proof of anything before the Ezra/Nehemia period of the Old Testament.
Jim continúa:
“The Old Testament is replete with references looking forward to a Messiah, a Suffering Servant, sitting at God’s right hand, etc. ”
I once asked one of my church friends if the most knowledgabel jewish rabbi, or anyone else for that matter, could read the old testament and honestly extract any prophecies about a coming Messiah from it. About the only thing we can figure is that the Coming Messiah will be a decendant from David. Other than that, there is no Prophetic Messianic Tradition in the old testament that I can see. Every other supposed Messianic Prophecy is pulled completely out of the original context and attributed to Jesus. Why do you think the Jewish people don’t accept Jesus as Messiah?
Finalmente:
“One last thing, you tossed aside the idea of Harmonization By Ommission but I think you should take a second look. It may not be a perfect interpretation but we have to understand that we are trying to understand the ways of the God of the universe. Language has its limitations, as Wittgenstein pointed out.”
Why did God not give us one, just ONE unambigous, undeniable, solid prophecy? There is not one that fits the bill. Every one is contrived, taken out of context, or non-existant (Matthew attributes OT prophecies that just are not there). If he is God, he should have been able to give us something better to hang our faith on.
Thank you for writing, even though I have to disagree with you. Believe me, I used to base a lot of my Christian faith on Messianic Prophecy, but it does not hold after a little bit of inspection. I will write about this more in the near future, probably in the form of a book review.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
El Que ’sta velando continuoWhy did God not give us one, just ONE unambigous, undeniable, solid prophecy?
El capitulo entero de Isaias 53 es suficiente para mi. Agregando a esa revelacion mi experiencia personal, estoy contento con mi escogencia de Cristo.
Ciao.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
“there is no Prophetic Messianic Tradition in the old testament that I can see.” (HIS)
I think this is a little mis-leading on one level at the least. The people that are making these claims are Jewish people from the same Torah and synangogue tradition as everyone else of their days…did they simply make this tradition up amongst their fellow-countrymen?
The Midrash contains a lot of information about a Messiah – or messianic ideas – that rose from no other tradition than Jewish texts and rabbinical minds. If one takes a look at some of the ideals within that text – one see’s various versions and ideas about this Messiah. I see the warrior messiah in there but I also see other ideas some of which play strongly into the disciples takes on the Tanakh and interpretation. Below is one excerpt:
“Seeing in his spirit of prophecy that the time would come when the משכן, ‘Mishkan’ (the Sanctuary) would cease to exist and the Shechinah dwell no more in Israel’s midst, Moses was anxious to know by what means the sins of his people would then be expiated. The Almighty vouchsafed the information that He would choose a righteous man from their midst, and make him a משכן (pledge) for them, and through him their sins would be forgiven.–Exod. Rabba 35.” (Page 48 – tales and Maxims of the Midrash)
Notice a Jewish rabbi makes this claim – not a Christian pastor. I think the Midrash is worth looking into for this very reason – to see what some thoughts on the Messiah in Jewish tradition actually were. It’s worth a look to see where the disciples (or Jesus as shown in the gospels) might have been pointing at when making some of their claims (even some of Paul’s claims).
Link: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/tmm/index.htm