Does Christianity intentionally feed conflict?

[ReluctantProphet]

That might seem like a silly or baiting question to many of you. But I mean no disrespect in asking it nor do I do so without serious cause.

For many years, I have defended Christianity to the extreme of finding nothing that the non-Christian has to ask for which I cannot answer to his satisfaction or his logical confounding. Doing such things on a forum is very much more difficult and pretty much a waste of time unless he happens to truly be confused and honestly want an answer.

But in all of that time, I keep seeing Christians actually feeding the flames and seemingly wanting controversy and conflict in that they refuse to do the simple (and far more loving) things that would resolve conflict and promote harmony.

I had been accepting that Christianity could clearly see that Jesus was about creating harmony and not feeding disharmony, but maybe I’m just missing the point to all of this.

So before I continue to defend Christianity and certainly before I would join their ranks, I felt it necessary to at least ask the question.

If the answer really is “no”, then maybe there is hope that I could join their ranks. If not, then I will leave Christianity to its devises and go my own way.

If the answer is “no” then I would have to then ask (on another thread) why Christianity isn’t doing the obvious and dispelling the distortions and deceptions better.


Thank you for the opportunity to dialogue.

 

[MethodMan]

That might seem like a silly or baiting question to many of you. But I mean no disrespect in asking it nor do I do so without serious cause.

For many years, I have defended Christianity to the extreme of finding nothing that the non-Christian has to ask for which I cannot answer to his satisfaction or his logical confounding. Doing such things on a forum is very much more difficult and pretty much a waste of time unless he happens to truly be confused and honestly want an answer.

But in all of that time, I keep seeing Christians actually feeding the flames and seemingly wanting controversy and conflict in that they refuse to do the simple (and far more loving) things that would resolve conflict and promote harmony.

I had been accepting that Christianity could clearly see that Jesus was about creating harmony and not feeding disharmony, but maybe I’m just missing the point to all of this.

Let me introduce you to scripture that says otherwise:

MT 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" `a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
MT 10:36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

So before I continue to defend Christianity and certainly before I would join their ranks, I felt it necessary to at least ask the question.

If the answer really is “no”, then maybe there is hope that I could join their ranks. If not, then I will leave Christianity to its devises and go my own way.

If the answer is “no” then I would have to then ask (on another thread) why Christianity isn’t doing the obvious and dispelling the distortions and deceptions better.


Thank you for the opportunity to dialogue.

Actually, we will speak to people that try and distort the teachings of Christ.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Let me introduce you to scripture that says otherwise:

[/font] MT 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bringpeace to the earth. I did not come to bringpeace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" `a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
MT 10:36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

I have taken that passage to mean that Jesus was expecting to fight so as to bring God's kingdom to man. I didn't take it to mean that Christians are to forever be slicing and dicing. Are you saying that it is proper for Christianity to intentionally create disharmony when there was none to resolve? Or to avoid resolving disharmony even within itself so that it can obey the doctrine to bring sword between father and son and break up families?

It seems odd that most family proponents are Christian if their proper intent is to break such things up.

Actually, we will speak to people that try and distort the teachings of Christ.

Well, I'm not sure if my question was understood.[/quote]Yes, I am well aware that Christianity "speaks" AT non-Christians, but I also see that they seem to avoid actually speaking TO them in their language such that communication really takes place. In almost every case, I see that the Christian makes no effort to ensure that his words are really being understood by the listener. The non-Christian often does the same thing. I am not accusing Christianity of the tactic. I am asking only if it is intentional.

 

[republican]

Very good post I love that you can post this with no worry my friend very well put together. But no its not that the christians are looken for a fight. They have been fighting to stay alive since the day of jesus. I mean we have symbols of religion on the US for a reason it was founded under religion but thats another debate to be toped lol. But no we are not looken for a fight the enemy of god satan not other people are looken for a fight.

 

[MethodMan]

I have taken that passage to mean that Jesus was expecting to fight so as to bring God's kingdom to man.

No - More accurately, He was saying that His message would creat disharmony within the community and within families. Some will totally reject His message and enmity would follow.

I didn't take it to mean that Christians are to forever be slicing and dicing. Are you saying that it is proper for Christianity to intentionally create disharmony when there was none to resolve?

Not saying that at all. I am saying that Christians will not be ashamed of the Gospel or accept it being watered down in the name of harmony. Since the Gospel is the only source of real hope in this fallen world, why would we allow it to be obfuscated because some don't like the message?

Or to avoid resolving disharmony even within itself so that it can obey the doctrine to bring sword between father and son and break up families?

If the resolution means to hide the light, then I would choose disharmony.

It seems odd that most family proponents are Christian if their proper intent is to break such things up.

Not the intent. The result.

Well, I'm not sure if my question was understood.

Yes, I am well aware that Christianity "speaks" AT non-Christians, but I also see that they seem to avoid actually speaking TO them in their language such that communication really takes place.

I could understand that POV.

In almost every case, I see that the Christian makes no effort to ensure that his words are really being understood by the listener. The non-Christian often does the same thing. I am not accusing Christianity of the tactic. I am asking only if it is intentional.

This assumes the "listener" is actually willing to listen. It does go both ways, I will give you that.

 

[Ih8s8n]

But in all of that time, I keep seeing Christians actually feeding the flames and seemingly wanting controversy and conflict in that they refuse to do the simple (and far more loving) things that would resolve conflict and promote harmony. I had been accepting that Christianity could clearly see that Jesus was about creating harmony and not feeding disharmony, but maybe I’m just missing the point to all of this.

ReluctantProphet: Could you give an example or two of what you are speaking about? Right now, your comment seems too vague to me so I don't know how to properly respond. Thanks.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Very good post I love that you can post this with no worry my friend very well put together. But no its not that the christians are looken for a fight. They have been fighting to stay alive since the day of jesus. I mean we have symbols of religion on the US for a reason it was founded under religion but thats another debate to be toped lol. But no we are not looken for a fight the enemy of god satan not other people are looken for a fight.

Thank you. This was very much what I wanted to hear and what I could easily join in to help. But the prior post and the actions of very, very many Christians make me seriously wonder.

And even though you have answered from your perspective, I am still not certain that most of Christianity agrees with you.

Are you absolutely sure that Christianity isn't actually trying to intentionally create disharmony??

I VERY seriously NEED to know this answer for reasons that I will point out later if I can see that at least most of Christianity agrees with what you have said.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

ReluctantProphet: Could you give an example or two of what you are speaking about? Right now, your comment seems too vague to me so I don't know how to properly respond. Thanks.

Hmmm.. very good response. But let me see if I can "access the Holy Spirit" (sortta speak) and come up with a better than "off the top of my head" example....

 

[Reformationist]

That might seem like a silly or baiting question to many of you. But I mean no disrespect in asking it nor do I do so without serious cause.

For many years, I have defended Christianity to the extreme of finding nothing that the non-Christian has to ask for which I cannot answer to his satisfaction or his logical confounding. Doing such things on a forum is very much more difficult and pretty much a waste of time unless he happens to truly be confused and honestly want an answer.

But in all of that time, I keep seeing Christians actually feeding the flames and seemingly wanting controversy and conflict in that they refuse to do the simple (and far more loving) things that would resolve conflict and promote harmony.

I had been accepting that Christianity could clearly see that Jesus was about creating harmony and not feeding disharmony, but maybe I’m just missing the point to all of this.

So before I continue to defend Christianity and certainly before I would join their ranks, I felt it necessary to at least ask the question.

If the answer really is “no”, then maybe there is hope that I could join their ranks. If not, then I will leave Christianity to its devises and go my own way.

If the answer is “no” then I would have to then ask (on another thread) why Christianity isn’t doing the obvious and dispelling the distortions and deceptions better.


Thank you for the opportunity to dialogue.

ReluctantProphet, thank you for the question. Please understand that the responses I give are not intended to fuel any sense of disharmony but they are my honest assessment of your post.

First, "Christianity" is a label for the community of people that recognize Christ as Lord and Savior. The answer to your thread topic question is, ironically, answered by you in the first post. As you note, it is not Christianity that intentionally feed conflict but, rather, Christians. You say, "I keep seeing Christians actually feeding the flames and seemingly wanting controversy and conflict." Remember that all people are fallible and sinful and their inherent self-righteousness often motivates them to spread the Gospel for entirely wrong reasons.

Secondly, you say defending Christianity is "pretty much a waste of time unless he [the non-believer] happens to truly be confused and honestly want an answer." The problem here is that you approach the non-Christian and the task of your commission with the arrogant presumption that it is your ability to "satisfy or confound" that brings someone to faith. When we spread the Gospel to the world because we recognize that it is through the Gospel that God reaches His people, even those who have yet to recognize that God has ordained them unto faith, we will be less likely to feel that our efforts are wasted. Trust not in your own ability to convince someone of the truth but look to the Lord to reconcile His people. He has promised that He will lose none of them. It is this very promise that should give you assurance that your efforts will have the exact effect that God intends for them to have. You are commanded to spread the Word. It is God who does the saving. It is God who grants faith. Faith never was, nor will it ever be, the product of you being able to "satisfy or confound" someone with your knowledge.

Also, I am not sure why you think that Christ was about promoting harmony. He was surely about teaching His people to pursue peace but we must never lose sight of the fact that the Gospel, His Gospel, is offensive to the world. You are in the world but you are not of the world. Spreading the Truth of God should take precedence over your desire to live in harmony. The Apostles were very active in their work for God but their lives were often filled with upheaval and disharmony.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, you should submit to Christ as Lord and Savior because you are His creation, not because you like the answers that someone gives you on an internet MB.

My advice, find a Bible, start studying. Come back and ask questions when you don't understand something.

God bless

 

[republican]

Thank you. This was very much what I wanted to hear and what I could easily join in to help. But the prior post and the actions of very, very many Christians make me seriously wonder.

And even though you have answered from your perspective, I am still not certain that most of Christianity agrees with you.

Are you absolutely sure that Christianity isn't actually trying to intentionally create disharmony??

I VERY seriously NEED to know this answer for reasons that I will point out later if I can see that at least most of Christianity agrees with what you have said.

If christains try disharomy then they are not doing their fullness that the lord has asked them to do before his comming or before their calling. But if you are saying those who are going after the fed gov with marriage and symbolic things on this nations land. Then that is not disharomy my friend.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

ReluctantProphet: Could you give an example or two of what you are speaking about? Right now, your comment seems too vague to me so I don't know how to properly respond. Thanks.

I don’t seem to be in a very “holy-istic” mindset today, so please forgive me if this doesn’t make anything any more clear…


Let’s take for example the issue of language.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you’re not speaking the language of the proposed listener, then any message you intended to relay just isn’t going to transfer. The speaker doesn’t sit back and say “Well, if God wanted him to hear my message, then God would have made my words clear to him.” Even though he sees them clearly written in English in his KJV, a reasonably intelligent person doesn’t say, “These are the words of the Bible, and thus need no explanation.”

If the listener speaks only French, German, or Spanish, then any message you wish to relay needs to be in the matching language. Christianity seems to be well aware of this simple thought.

But language is NOT merely a set of familiar sounding words that happen to get used in a random fashion. Every person has a “mental language” which involves the definitions and concept relations to the spoken words.

If out of LOVE, a Christian wishes to ensure the listener actually receives his message, the Christian must not only speak in the proper national and spoken language, but also in the person’s individual mental language.

The proposed intent of the Christian is to actually help the person rather than create confusion and a probable enemy. Thus it only makes sense that the Christian go to the trouble of ensuring that the person is actually translating the words in the same way that the he meant them. Arguments of who is more right or wrong with which definitions can ensue, but such can easily be avoided simply by the Christian (who was trying to help) going to the effort to accept temporarily the definitions that the other person uses. In doing so of course, he needs to point out that the definitions are different and thus if the person is going to read the Bible, then he should keep in mind that the Bible uses different meanings for those same words than the person is using. But after making that clear, the Christian could proceed to discover which words mean what to the person and then relay the initially intended message.

That is a lot more work than would be preferred, but there are only 3 things that I can see preventing the Christian from doing it.

1)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The Christian is too lazy to try that hard for the sake of someone else.
2)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The Christian is just too mentally blind to see his situation.
3)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The Christian is intentionally creating atheists and such.

For example;

Christianity has known for many years exactly “who God is”, yet when asked, they generally reply with “Man can’t know”, “He just is”, “The Creator of the universe, or any of many other “non-responsive” replies.

I can accept that today VERY many Christians have no answer to that question in their heads, but I also know that Christianity used to know that answer and even I know that answer and I can’t know ANY thing without others knowing it as well.

But look what happens when the debater or inquirer asks the obvious question “Who is God?” Does he get an answer that would help him accept the rest of the message, or does he get a basic “I don’t know” response followed by, “but you should believe what I’m saying about God and Jesus.” Nine times out of ten (or more) he gets the latter.

Why would the inquirer accept anything else a person had to say about something when the person has already said that they don’t know what they are talking about?

The Atheist simply assumes that the Christian is talking about some superstitious thing that obviously makes no sense and then proclaims that Christianity is just another case of hoax and manipulation of the ignorant.

Seeing what the Atheist sees in his mind as the Christian is talking, I can certainly understand the Atheist’s conclusion.

But I find that when, in real life, I am around an atheist for very long at all, he ends up not being able to deny the existence of God a bit and often thinks how really silly people are who question it. But then I use the older tactic of actually EXPLAINING IT to him. After which, his reply is often something like, “Ooooh” proceeded by getting a bit upset at the Christians for not making it more clear and then by having to face the same situation that I find myself in as I wonder what the Christians are really up to. And if you think what Christianity is doing is a “sword”, then I say that it is about as affective as a butter knife in comparison to the sword that I use.

What I see is that the Christian creates the Atheist simply by sending the word “God” out to him and not clearing up what the word means (along with 20 others). To me, this is much like the man who pours poison in the other man’s drink, then proclaims later that he didn’t force the other man to drink, the other man could have been more careful so if he is in torment, it is only his problem, not the Christian’s.

This all leads me to wonder if Christianity isn’t pulling something on purpose. The Jews delight in the chaos of others as a part of their understanding of scripture. Recently the US has accepted the Jewish manner of governing over that of the old Christian manner. If the new age Christian really is doing this type of chaos creating, then I would have to accept that the only real difference between the Christian and the Jew is that the Jew wants only their own race to have some freedom from disharmony whereas Christianity invites other races, but other than that, there would be little difference at all. The name “Christianity” would merely have been stolen.

So what’s the real story? Which of those 3 situations pointed out above is going on with SOOoooo many Christians and has Christianity really accepted that conflict is a higher need than harmony?



Sorry for the length of all of this, my mind isn't as clear today as it often is.

 

[DonVA]

That might seem like a silly or baiting question to many of you. But I mean no disrespect in asking it nor do I do so without serious cause.

From the looks of the immediate responses to this post, no disrespect was inferred. Thank you for asking your question!

For many years, I have defended Christianity to the extreme of finding nothing that the non-Christian has to ask for which I cannot answer to his satisfaction or his logical confounding.

It sounds to me like you feel that you have a good understanding of the faith, and have done your homework.

Doing such things on a forum is very much more difficult and pretty much a waste of time unless he happens to truly be confused and honestly want an answer.

...and sometimes the intention of the OP is unclear, due to the perceived tone of the question. Maybe someday we'll have better ways of adding inflections to our writings so that we can clarify as well as we do with the spoken word.

But in all of that time, I keep seeing Christians actually feeding the flames and seemingly wanting controversy and conflict in that they refuse to do the simple (and far more loving) things that would resolve conflict and promote harmony.

Again, it sounds like you have a better handle on Christianity than some Christians do. What's even more distressing is the amount of Christian vs. Christian disharmony you can find on some forums. Differences of opinions do not necessarily require disrespectful dialogue, whether you worship in different faiths, or are having a discussion with someone who's simply curious about Christianity (and we do know there are some very well-meaning inquirers that come to these boards). An earlier poster said it well, Christians are still human, and are sinners by nature. Some do a great job of quoting scripture, but fall short when it comes to respecting each others, and some genuine inquirers.

I had been accepting that Christianity could clearly see that Jesus was about creating harmony and not feeding disharmony, but maybe I’m just missing the point to all of this.

You're not missing the point. You get it! Christianity DOES clearly see that Jesus was about creating harmony. Unfortunately, some Christians fall short of that mark (baited or not), which results in disharmony.

So before I continue to defend Christianity and certainly before I would join their ranks, I felt it necessary to at least ask the question.

Who could blame you?

If the answer really is “no”, then maybe there is hope that I could join their ranks.

The answer really is "no." As a rule, we love harmony, peace, love, and respect. Sign here.

If not, then I will leave Christianity to its devises and go my own way.

You have seen two (or maybe more) kinds of Christians. The ones who work to create harmony, and some who have done otherwise. In my opinion, I think you would make an excellent example of how Christians should interact with non-Christians, and with each other.

If the answer is “no” then I would have to then ask (on another thread) why Christianity isn’t doing the obvious and dispelling the distortions and deceptions better.

Because we are human, flawed, and sinners every one. Just because someone wears a Christian label doesn't mean they are going to be flawless. We're people, with strong emotions and big ideas, and sometimes the two gang up on others at the same time. It's unfortunate, but it's how some people roll.

Thank you for the opportunity to dialogue.

No. Thank YOU for pointing out how we can be better Christians!

 

[ReluctantProphet]

[FONT=&quot]

...You're not missing the point. You get it! Christianity DOES clearly see that Jesus was about creating harmony. Unfortunately, some Christians fall short of that mark (baited or not), which results in disharmony.
.
.
.The answer really is "no." As a rule, we love harmony, peace, love, and respect. Sign here.

Don’t kid about that. Right now there is nothing more important to me than to be able to "sign-up".

But even though you and I would appear at least so far to be well suited to be on the same side. How is the following to be resolved in my mind at the same time...

ReluctantProphet, thank you for the question. Please understand that the responses I give are not intended to fuel any sense of disharmony but they are my honest assessment of your post....

Also, I am not sure why you think that Christ was about promoting harmony. He was surely about teaching His people to pursue peace but we must never lose sight of the fact that the Gospel, His Gospel, is offensive to the world. You are in the world but you are not of the world. Spreading the Truth of God should take precedence over your desire to live in harmony. The Apostles were very active in their work for God but their lives were often filled with upheaval and disharmony.
.
.
.
My advice, find a Bible, start studying. Come back and ask questions when you don't understand something.

God bless

[/FONT]My first temptation after reading this was to ask, "Are you absolutely NUTS???"

But as the name implies, this is from a new-age Christian stance. It is one that I recognize as merely a pre-Christian, Jewish stance. Concerning that "give them hell until they learn to heel" stance, Jesus and I have a FAR better answer than what you seem to think is wisdom.

And my return advise is that YOU read the Bible and start asking the questions that you should have been asking all along. When you can't answer one and no one else seems to be helping, then come to me. You won't run across one that I can't clear up for you if you are sincere in your intent to see it clearly. But of course, we already know that you would never do such a thing.

-----------


SO can you see my dilemma? How can I sign up to something if I can't verify that it really is the same as I would agree to?

 

[epy]

ReluctantProphet,

I think you are asking about why Christianity is not clear? Yes?

There are a lot of factors in that. The biggest thing that comes to mind is that in order to "translate" a statement into a person's mental language a person has to understand the statement. I see in many churches a lack of training individuals to understand basic theological statements.

Another factor is that even if I know something, I easily get toungue tied trying to explain it. Without prayerful consideration my "translation" is just useless rambling.

 

[Key]

That might seem like a silly or baiting question to many of you. But I mean no disrespect in asking it nor do I do so without serious cause.

For many years, I have defended Christianity to the extreme of finding nothing that the non-Christian has to ask for which I cannot answer to his satisfaction or his logical confounding. Doing such things on a forum is very much more difficult and pretty much a waste of time unless he happens to truly be confused and honestly want an answer.

But in all of that time, I keep seeing Christians actually feeding the flames and seemingly wanting controversy and conflict in that they refuse to do the simple (and far more loving) things that would resolve conflict and promote harmony.

I had been accepting that Christianity could clearly see that Jesus was about creating harmony and not feeding disharmony, but maybe I’m just missing the point to all of this.

So before I continue to defend Christianity and certainly before I would join their ranks, I felt it necessary to at least ask the question.

If the answer really is “no”, then maybe there is hope that I could join their ranks. If not, then I will leave Christianity to its devises and go my own way.

If the answer is “no” then I would have to then ask (on another thread) why Christianity isn’t doing the obvious and dispelling the distortions and deceptions better.


Thank you for the opportunity to dialogue.

I am stumped by this question....

I pray that some one else can answer it for you..

God Bless

Key

 

[DonVA]

I don’t seem to be in a very “holy-istic” mindset today, so please forgive me if this doesn’t make anything any more clear…

We all have those days!

Let’s take for example the issue of language.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you’re not speaking the language of the proposed listener, then any message you intended to relay just isn’t going to transfer. The speaker doesn’t sit back and say “Well, if God wanted him to hear my message, then God would have made my words clear to him.” Even though he sees them clearly written in English in his KJV, a reasonably intelligent person doesn’t say, “These are the words of the Bible, and thus need no explanation.”

We must also keep in mind, though, that some words HAVE no exact English translations. This could very well lead to multiple intepretations based on a "we used the best word we could find in our language" translation.
In order to get the exact wording, one would have to read the Bible written in its original language.

If the listener speaks only French, German, or Spanish, then any message you wish to relay needs to be in the matching language. Christianity seems to be well aware of this simple thought.

Again, see above.

But language is NOT merely a set of familiar sounding words that happen to get used in a random fashion. Every person has a “mental language” which involves the definitions and concept relations to the spoken words.

Which may or may not have as many meanings as the words used in the original text of The Bible. We've probably got as good of a translation as you can get, but even at that, there could be words in English which might have alternate meanings, as opposed to a Greek word which could only have one definition.

If out of LOVE, a Christian wishes to ensure the listener actually receives his message, the Christian must not only speak in the proper national and spoken language, but also in the person’s individual mental language.

The proposed intent of the Christian is to actually help the person rather than create confusion and a probable enemy. Thus it only makes sense that the Christian go to the trouble of ensuring that the person is actually translating the words in the same way that the he meant them. Arguments of who is more right or wrong with which definitions can ensue, but such can easily be avoided simply by the Christian (who was trying to help) going to the effort to accept temporarily the definitions that the other person uses. In doing so of course, he needs to point out that the definitions are different and thus if the person is going to read the Bible, then he should keep in mind that the Bible uses different meanings for those same words than the person is using.

But again, we're humans who speak different languages. In my opinion (which I think agrees with yours...) much can be confused based on the definition of a single word, or even one's perception of that word's definition. This is where priests come in handy, by helping us to get past any confusion and get the true meaning, in the right spoken AND mental languages.

But after making that clear, the Christian could proceed to discover which words mean what to the person and then relay the initially intended message.

That is a lot more work than would be preferred, but there are only 3 things that I can see preventing the Christian from doing it.

1)The Christian is too lazy to try that hard for the sake of someone else.
2)The Christian is just too mentally blind to see his situation.
3)The Christian is intentionally creating atheists and such.

4)The Christian might be making his own case for what he's read, and is not following the lead of a priest, or investigating the writings of early Church Fathers who worked diligently to see that we got the right message.

For example;

Christianity has known for many years exactly “who God is”, yet when asked, they generally reply with “Man can’t know”, “He just is”, “The Creator of the universe, or any of many other “non-responsive” replies.

I can accept that today VERY many Christians have no answer to that question in their heads, but I also know that Christianity used to know that answer and even I know that answer and I can’t know ANY thing without others knowing it as well.

But look what happens when the debater or inquirer asks the obvious question “Who is God?” Does he get an answer that would help him accept the rest of the message, or does he get a basic “I don’t know” response followed by, “but you should believe what I’m saying about God and Jesus.” Nine times out of ten (or more) he gets the latter.

Again, as an Orthodox Christian, I agree that there is a LOT of mystery surrounding the description of God.
We tend to want to describe Him in earthly terms, with human words, and I think we all struggle with which words would actually work. For me, God is so Magnificant, so Holy, so Omnipresent, that He is truly indescribable. I can attempt to tell you how I feel when I feel His presence, but even at that, I'd never be able to communicate exactly what that feels like... even if I used the most complete dictionary or thesaurus ever compiled.

To borrow an analogy from another poster on another thread, I can also NOT tell you how these words will get from my computer to yours. I know that I'll spend the time typing them, I'll even do my best to proofread and hope I catch all of my errors, but for the life of me, I cannot describe the process by which these word I'm typing now will appear on your computer screen. But I feel pretty good in having faith that they will, and I have to hope that you receive my message in the way it was written.

Why would the inquirer accept anything else a person had to say about something when the person has already said that they don’t know what they are talking about?

I think many of us know what we're talking about, we just don't know HOW to describe the indescribable.

The Atheist simply assumes that the Christian is talking about some superstitious thing that obviously makes no sense and then proclaims that Christianity is just another case of hoax and manipulation of the ignorant.

Seeing what the Atheist sees in his mind as the Christian is talking, I can certainly understand the Atheist’s conclusion.

I think I understand, too. But what's also necessary here is faith in God, and the belief that Jesus is the Christ, died on that cross for our sins, was resurrected, defeated death, and ascended into Heaven. How painful could all of this have been? I can't describe it. How much love must have backed a sacrifice like that? I can't describe it. How magnificant was this entire event? I have no words that will do any of it justice.

We are sometimes being asked to explain, in human terms, something that cannot be explained in any earthly language. I hope that makes sense. There IS mystery here. Having faith means being willing to accept that it all won't be explained to us while we're spinning around on this globe.

Who am I to demand an explanation from God?

But I find that when, in real life, I am around an atheist for very long at all, he ends up not being able to deny the existence of God a bit and often thinks how really silly people are who question it. But then I use the older tactic of actually EXPLAINING IT to him. After which, his reply is often something like, “Ooooh” proceeded by getting a bit upset at the Christians for not making it more clear and then by having to face the same situation that I find myself in as I wonder what the Christians are really up to. And if you think what Christianity is doing is a “sword”, then I say that it is about as affective as a butter knife in comparison to the sword that I use.

Amen.

Sorry for the length of all of this, my mind isn't as clear today as it often is.

Did these words reach your computer? I knew they would. Please don't ask me to explain how they got there! Especially since I'm on a wireless network!

 

[ReluctantProphet]

ReluctantProphet,

I think you are asking about why Christianity is not clear? Yes?
.
.
.
... Without prayerful consideration my "translation" is just useless rambling.

Thank you all for trying to handle my confusion during this thread, but to keep it a little simpler understand that my ONLY actual question on this one thread is simply "Is Christianity today intentionally causing disharmony?"

If I can determine that enough of the people I am talking to right now as “Christians” are certain that their understanding and belief and that of their church is NOT to create disharmony, but rather to promote harmony, then I have far more detailed and important issues to inquire about.

In the example, I spoke about how Christians appear to be intentionally conveying deception because they seem to avoid the obvious need to ensure clear reception before you transmit.

You mentioned “prayer” in that statement – one of my most dear subjects. Proper prayer is exactly the correct response in the situation of trying to ensure your message is going to be understood for its true intent.

Consider this;

You know that you have a clear commandment against “bearing false witness”. Would you intentionally bear false witness concerning God Himself?? Would you even risk the possibility of it without certain need and even then hope that you hadn’t messed it up?

Do you realize that spreading deception is the issue involved. It is not an issue of who is guilty or might be individually punished. If you say something, which no person does without at least subtle intent, and by doing so, you cause deception in the mind of another, then you have spread deception and despite any good intentions you had, you have given false witness. Can you sit there and seriously tell me that is what you believe God wants you to do?

If you do not want to spread deception and bear false witness about God Himself, then why on Earth would you ever open your mouth on the subject without checking very carefully that you really must do so and checking to be absolutely sure that the one person you are talking to is going to understand the true intent of what you are about to say? Isn’t ensuring such worth the effort?

If I were one of those who were to knock on another man’s door to “spread the word”, other than a polite greeting, the first words out of my mouth would be “What does the word “God” mean to you?”

Depending on his reply, I would proceed on one of 3 paths..

1)I would apologize for disturbing him and politely leave.
2)I would proceed with my “message” (whatever that might be)
3)I would further inquire of other words that I might be able to use such as to relay my message without risking the cause of deception.

The Christian seems to think that if he merely reads words from the Bible that he can be doing nothing wrong. Who told you THAT???

The purpose in speech is to convey meaning. It requires that both parties share the SAME understanding of the words being spoken else DECEPTION is likely. Words being used in any holy scripture certainly ensure nothing of their use by other people. To simply read from the Bible to an atheist is to LIE by creating deception when you had a better option but didn’t have the love or desire to seek it.

Okay, enough of my lecturing on that issue, if we could get back to the only real question for THIS thread..



It appears that DonVA and I could probably agree on many things. But it is also probable that we would disagree on many. My first concern has to be if the actual intent is to agree or disagree. This is the subject of seeking harmony or seeking disharmony. I never “agree to disagree”, I merely accept that when we must, we must – but really must we?

I see nothing blocking even a small Christian group from overwhelming all spiritual adversaries such as to spread across the world nearly unimpeded. This is one of the reasons I have to wonder what their intentions are.

DonVA agrees that Christianity is about pursuing harmony. If he knew what I know, he would have even more absolute certainty of that understanding. But is his understanding the more common one? If not, then only one can be truly Christian and the others must be deceivers, intentionally or not.

At what point can I call myself Christian and not deceive if that level of intent is already so misunderstood by so many?

What group can I join when I see the leaders of every group not even ensuring their steps concerning God before they take them?

DonVA suggested that I explore the churches. Well, actually I did that many years ago. I visited every variety of church available to me at the time. I won't go into all of that but to say; I fasted to 2 weeks unintentionally and with no effort or ill effect. I asked questions and watched quietly accepting and expecting that no one church is going to be a perfect example. I found no sign of the spirit of Jesus in any of them, only the name, good intentions, and a few of the words being misused creating more deception. I dared to privately and politely suggest to a priest that his congregation wasn't hearing him. He became furious without another word from me telling me that I was arrogant and in serious jeapody for thinking that I knew enough to say such things to him. I could see that in some cases it was intentional “for the good of the flock”.

That was many years ago. I now face probable death before the end of this upcoming winter and I have still seen no church appearing to understand Jesus.

I seem to be in that paradoxical position of being between all churches, capable of agreeing with all they SAY, but not being able to truly join even one. I stand as both and neither when I watch non-Christian and Christian debate.

Christianity? WHAT IS YOUR INTENTION??

That is my only question right now.

I have seen one state that it is for harmony. Another says not. I need more than one vote to gain any faith in the reply.

There are 150,000+ members on this site. I NEED more than one vote on the answer.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

The only conflict feeding I see, is in the OP.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

The only conflict feeding I see, is in the OP.

Please explain....?

 

[neilius73]

No. Christianity is used and has been used by goverments as an excuse to go to war or subjegate a populus into fear 'you'll go to hell if you do such and such' 'they are unbelivers so they should be converted, if they refuse burn the pagans' ect ect.
People like GWB use christianity to go to war.

Christianity is supposed to be abpout love. GWB perpetuates war, making him anti-christian. I'm amazed you people in America(bible belt) havent realised this.