How should a "Christian" deal with "heretics"?

[ToBeLoved]

Of course it is, because you refuse to even acknowledge my very last point

We never started a conversation.

You never addressed my point that you have no valid theological argument.

It’s really simple and somehow hard for you to understand. Go see the definition of apologetics. This is not rocket science

 

[cvanwey]

Honestly, atheists on this thread are not very good.

Ad hominem attacks are classic responses from individuals whom have no rebuttal.

So once again, there appears a cognitive dissonance to retain belief in a resurrection, while not believing a flood claim; as they are both very large assertions with a specific agenda and purpose. One being salvation, and one being to rid the world of evil.

It's a good thing you are not 'required' to believe in the flood

 

[Freodin]

How do you define "carefree" and "uncaring" anyway?

I'm here, speaking to you. Taking time to read posts to someone else instead of leaving the house and getting on with my day because it bothers me that I couldn't understand the line of questions and wanted to give the best possible answer in order to help you.. that to me is caring...

Do you desire that Christians put you on the rack until you "believe" in Christ ?

Or don't you think it's more kind, compassionate and caring to do our best to answer your questions and allow you the freedom to make your own decisions, taking the time to pray that God helps both my speech and your understanding...

We may have different interpretations of what it means to care.. I care enough not to force you, while doing my best to speak to you about my faith.

You asked me to explain my belief, not twist your arm.

Consider the following analogy.
You have a family gathering. I am just a neighbor, over the street. Now your crazy uncle starts to spread vile slanderous lies about me.
I don't like that. I come over to your gathering and ask the people: hey, you claim to be such nice loving people... and here in your midst is someone who lies about others. What are you going to do about that?

The response that I get is basically: We? Nothing! It's not our job. He's family. You are not. His lies about you don't bother us. We don't care about that, we have other topics that are important to us. What are you even doing here, attacking us?

Do you think I should see that as "caring about me"?

 

[cvanwey]

We never started a conversation.

You never addressed my point that you have no valid theological argument.

It’s really simple and somehow hard for you to understand. Go see the definition of apologetics. This is not rocket science

I've made one repeatedly. It is inconsistent to accept a resurrection claim, while rejecting the flood claim, when both claims are said to come from the same universal entity.

I could care less what you think the definition of apologetics may be. You do realize that defintions of many words vary greatly right? English is the beauty of language. It is the very same reason I can drive down any busy road, and see two disputing churches, right next to each other. Why? Because definitions and interpretations vary greatly.

However, I find it extremely odd, that something as axiomatic and as large as a human exterminating flood claim can be rejected? You don't find this simple observation peculiar?

 

[Freodin]

Get out your Bible and make a valid Biblical claim.

I can’t help if you want to talk physical science. Show me that it is proven geographically that there has never been a flood.

Right. You can’t.

Your not challenging the Bible. Go get out your Bible.

Now if I were to claim that the Bible makes it absolutely clear, divine truth which you would deny if you were to believe otherwise, that there was NO such flood here on our Earth... would you accept that as a valid theological argument?

 

[Petros2015]

But is it intellectually honest to state you believe in a resurrection, even if the evidence does not seem to follow as such, just like the many whom don't believe in a flood claim, because the evidence does not follow as such?

I think it is - in my case I feel like there is comparitively good evidence of a resurrection occurring (which involves 1 person) vs the global flood (which involves the whole planet and every species on it) and has (to my thinking) very little positively weighing evidence and a lot of negatively weighing evidence.

On the side of the resurrection, from a completely impersonal surface view, there's 2000 years of Christendom, churches everywhere, still worshipping the event. SOMETHING appears to have happened. And then a bunch of Jewish fisherman start something that is still going, enduring through Roman oppression.

I don't think Jewish fishermen normally do or are capable of this sort of thing. Not unless they meet God and God gives them an awful lot of help.

I'm pretty sure they stay in Israel and fish.

I am not a biblical literalist, or sola scriptura though. I think it is probably the best written account of that SOMETHING that happened? I consider the Bible to be pointing to the infallible, but not infallible itself as a whole as far as being a guide to human history or cosmolology.

There is the question of human nature too. I'm pretty convinced that if Christ appeared and didn't defend himself, and spoke Truth, He would be killed (in any age, by any people, by the powers that be). That part of story, the part about human nature, seems to be True. At least, it has been from my own personal experience.

So, I needed for the rest of it to be True too. And the more I followed it, the Truer Christ got.

 

[cvanwey]

Because you have made no valid claim that I need to defend my faith from.

Get out your Bible and make a valid Biblical claim.

I can’t help if you want to talk physical science. Show me that it is proven geographically that there has never been a flood.

Right. You can’t.

Your not challenging the Bible. Go get out your Bible.

You have again navigated directly around my repeated point(s). Which is...

It is inconsistent for individuals to accept a resurrection claim, but reject a flood claim; being both claims apparently came from the same authority?

Furthermore, you are requesting the exact opposite of my request. Which is...

The Bible IS the claim. Why would I get out my Bible to prove this claim, unless you are claiming the Bible does not assert a flood?

My initial question to you was what references support the Biblical claim, outside the assertion from the Bible? The onus is on you, if you assert the flood actually happened. Once you provide a reference, which appears to support a flood claim, then we can discuss. In the mean time, I state there exists no evidence to support such a positive claim.

I am not able to provide evidence of absence

1. So until you present a rationale as to why it is not inconsistent for individuals to accept a resurrection claim, but reject a flood claim - being that both claims apparently came from the same authority.

And...

2. Provide an apparent valid source to support the claim from the Bible, because you cannot use the claim to prove the claim....

Then yes, we are finished...

 

[cvanwey]

I think it is - in my case I feel like there is comparitively good evidence of a resurrection occurring (which involves 1 person) vs the global flood (which involves the whole planet and every species on it) and has (to my thinking) very little positively weighing evidence and a lot of negatively weighing evidence.

On the side of the resurrection, from a completely impersonal surface view, there's 2000 years of Christendom, churches everywhere, still worshipping the event. SOMETHING appears to have happened. And then a bunch of Jewish fisherman start something that is still going, enduring through Roman oppression.

I don't think Jewish fishermen normally do or are capable of this sort of thing. Not unless they meet God and God gives them an awful lot of help.

I'm pretty sure they stay in Israel and fish.

I am not a biblical literalist, or sola scriptura though. I think it is probably the best written account of that SOMETHING that happened? I consider the Bible to be pointing to the infallible, but not infallible itself as a whole as far as being a guide to human history or cosmolology.

There is the question of human nature too. I'm pretty convinced that if Christ appeared and didn't defend himself, and spoke Truth, He would be killed (in any age, by any people, by the powers that be). That part of story, the part about human nature, seems to be True. At least, it has been from my own personal experience.

So, I needed for the rest of it to be True too. And the more I followed it, the Truer Christ got.

There is so much I want to say, but won't. So I will stick to, what I feel, is the largest driving point here.

I would assume you believe Jesus is God. So before the trinity, God commanded a flood. If you half way acknowledge that evidence leads to the contrary, regarding a claimed flood, then I find your last statement in direct conflict:

'So, I needed for the rest of it to be True too. And the more I followed it, the Truer Christ got.'

Intellectual honesty does not mean that something is true because you want it to be. It means you instead follow the evidence, and accept the conclusion, where ever that may actually lead. So we appear to have an conflict. God asserted both stories, and one of them appears to not be substantiated. And the other, being the resurrection, is not falsifiable.

Thoughts?

 

[ToBeLoved]

You have again navigated directly around my repeated point(s). Which is...

It is inconsistent for individuals to accept a resurrection claim, but reject a flood claim; being both claims apparently came from the same authority?

Furthermore, you are requesting the exact opposite of my request. Which is...

The Bible IS the claim. Why would I get out my Bible to prove this claim, unless you are claiming the Bible does not assert a flood?

My initial question to you was what references support the Biblical claim, outside the assertion from the Bible? The onus is on you, if you assert the flood actually happened. Once you provide a reference, which appears to support a flood claim, then we can discuss. In the mean time, I state there exists no evidence to support such a positive claim.

I am not able to provide evidence of absence

1. So until you present a rationale as to why it is not inconsistent for individuals to accept a resurrection claim, but reject a flood claim - being that both claims apparently came from the same authority.

And...

2. Provide an apparent valid source to support the claim from the Bible, because you cannot use the claim to prove the claim....

Then yes, we are finished...

I’ve tagged you for prayer .

I am going to pray for you that God shows you His Truth.

May the Lord God Almighty bless you with His wisdom and grace.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Consider the following analogy.
You have a family gathering. I am just a neighbor, over the street. Now your crazy uncle starts to spread vile slanderous lies about me.
I don't like that. I come over to your gathering and ask the people: hey, you claim to be such nice loving people... and here in your midst is someone who lies about others. What are you going to do about that?

The response that I get is basically: We? Nothing! It's not our job. He's family. You are not. His lies about you don't bother us. We don't care about that, we have other topics that are important to us. What are you even doing here, attacking us?

Do you think I should see that as "caring about me"?

I can pick and choose who I invite to my house... but the crazy uncle bothering my neighbor scenario where I could call the police on the crazy uncle and have him removed if need be, is an entirely different story.

There are no religious police to be called, and whenever anyone's tried such a thing you end up without freedom. Look no further than the Taliban or Catholicism in the middle ages to see what a predetermined set of beliefs that must be adhered to gets you.

God allows our freedom. Hes not a Christian Taliban supporter - its part of what makes Him worthy of worship.

Does that mean there will be some measure of confusion as to the extent of what is taught in the faith? Yes.. and honestly, one would hope intellect comes into play when you read the positions and texts for yourself and come to your own conclusions..

If your not willing to do that, then do you even care what the truth is? God exists, but He's not the type to force people to worship Him. That's Satan. God says seek and you shall find..

 

[cvanwey]

I’ve tagged you for prayer .

I am going to pray for you that God shows you His Truth.

May the Lord God Almighty bless you with His wisdom and grace.

Ad hominems, changing the subject, and ignoring the requests, are typical responses by someone whom feels they have no further rebuttal. So I will ask one last time, and I also 'pray' that you address them:

1. Present an actual rationale as to why it is not inconsistent for individuals to accept a resurrection claim, but reject a flood claim - being that both claims apparently came from the same authority, and are both very large and serious assertions which would change humanity forever.

2. Provide an apparent valid source to support the claim from the Bible, because you cannot use the claim to prove the claim....

************

Furthermore, if what you state is correct, you are then requesting that God removes my free will. Or even worse, allows billions to go to hell because God chooses to only reveal truth to certain individuals. And if prayer does work, then pray for the billions whom believe in opposing entities, which will continue to do so until their last earthly breath, and then explain why your prayer did nothing to change the results So if prayer does work in such circumstances, why would you add me to your 'list'? By default, if prayer works, as you seem to suggest, you should have already prayed for everyone.

 

[Freodin]

I can pick and choose who I invite to my house... but the crazy uncle bothering my neighbor scenario where I could call the police on the crazy uncle and have him removed if need be, is an entirely different story.

There are no religious police to be called, and whenever anyone's tried such a thing you end up without freedom. Look no further than the Taliban or Catholicism in the middle ages to see what a predetermined set of beliefs that must be adhered to gets you.

God allows our freedom. Hes not a Christian Taliban supporter - its part of what makes Him worthy of worship.

Does that mean there will be some measure of confusion as to the extent of what is taught in the faith? Yes.. and honestly, one would hope intellect comes into play when you read the positions and texts for yourself and come to your own conclusions..

If your not willing to do that, then do you even care what the truth is? God exists, but He's not the type to force people to worship Him. That's Satan. God says seek and you shall find..

I find it amazing how you are able to equate "worshipping God" with "lying about other people". It tells me quite a lot about your faith.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I find it amazing how you are able to equate "worshipping God" with "lying about other people". It tells me quite a lot about your faith.

Slander is already actionable under the law so why do we need to inject religion into an already established law?

 

[Petros2015]

I would assume you believe Jesus is God. So before the trinity, God commanded a flood. If you half way acknowledge that evidence leads to the contrary, regarding a claimed flood, then I find your last statement in direct conflict:

'So, I needed for the rest of it to be True too. And the more I followed it, the Truer Christ got.'

I'll do better than that. I'll 99.9999% acknowledge that evidence leads to the contrary. There might be some out there which is credible that I am not aware of. And maybe I'm wrong, there is perhaps I feel a slim chance that I am, but I think it's on the order of a mega-millions chance. The supporting evidence in favor of a flood of the scale described, so far as I know, consists entirely of 3 chapters in the first part of this funny little book.

Intellectual honesty does not mean that something is true because you want it to be. It means you instead follow the evidence, and accept the conclusion, where ever that may actually lead. So we appear to have an conflict. God asserted both stories, and one of them appears to not be substantiated. And the other, being the resurrection, is not falsifiable.

It does leave a bit of a dilemma. Because of it, I considered burning the whole book for a while. In the end, I decided not to. It contained too much that I do consider truth and too much that I loved.

Hopefully, God will feel the same way about me.

I will say this. You can, if you choose, investigate the flood from a scientific and empirical level and (I think) you will almost certainly find it to be false. You can also, if you choose, investigate Christ from a personal and spiritual level using the Gospels and prayer as a guide, and I think you will find Him to be true.

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” -Herbert Spencer

 

[cvanwey]

I'll do better than that. I'll 99.9999% acknowledge that evidence leads to the contrary. There might be some out there which is credible that I am not aware of. And maybe I'm wrong, there is perhaps I feel a slim chance that I am, but I think it's on the order of a mega-millions chance. The supporting evidence in favor of a flood of the scale described, so far as I know, consists entirely of 3 chapters in the first part of this funny little book.



It does leave a bit of a dilemma. Because of it, I considered burning the whole book for a while. In the end, I decided not to. It contained too much that I do consider truth and too much that I loved.

Hopefully, God will feel the same way about me.

I will say this. You can, if you choose, investigate the flood from a scientific and empirical level and (I think) you will almost certainly find it to be false. You can also, if you choose, investigate Christ from a personal and spiritual level using the Gospels and prayer as a guide, and I think you will find Him to be true.

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” -Herbert Spencer

I appreciate the absolute honesty. So how do you reconcile the apparent fact that the same claimed agent made two large claims, and the one that is actually completely testable, turns up false?

*******************

As for the claimed resurrection, I invite you to hit another post, that appears to have been lost in the shuffle, so many here do not scream 'off topic'. What If....?

 

[Chesterton]

nm

 

[John 1720]

I wouldn't dare to assume that I could define who is who... but I guess you Christians of all stripes have no problems with that.

So how do you suppose to deal with someone who teaches a "false" version of Christianity? Would it matter if it was a "false" version of "basic doctrine" or just different interpretations of "marginal details"?

I have heard that Christians should not correct their fellow believers "in public"... so that unbelievers can see the differences that exists between them. (Oh my, we would need to be so blind not to notice. )
But what about when a fellow believer teaches his "false doctrines" to unbelievers? Do you have a duty to correct them, so that the unbelievers do not get a wrong image of your religion?

Hello Freodin,
Christians can certainly disagree with each other on many things but orthodox (straight Christianity rather than the denomination) does have its non-negotiable statements of faith. Over the years those eventually developed into creeds for uniformity. This more-so as the Apostolic age came to an end, after the turn of the century. But even late into the 2nd century we have testimony how apostles and their disciples handled false teachings about the Lord.

• But Irenaeus, in the first book of his work Against Heresies, illustrates to us some more abominable false doctrines of the same man, and in the third book relates a story which deserves to be recorded. He says, on the authority of Polycarp, that the apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but, learning that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from the place and rushed out of the door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him. And he advised those that were with him to do the same, saying, "Let us flee, lest the bath fall on account of the presence of Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, who is within."

In other instances John's disciples (2nd generation Christians) like Polycarp stopped their ears if untruths were spoken. Third generation Christians, such as Irenaeus chose to write letters, as well as apologies and this seems to have been the trend even up to the 4th or 5th centuries..

• 
  
  
  • Irenaeus wrote several letters against those who were disturbing the sound ordinance of the Church at Rome. One of them was to Blastus, On Schism, and another to Florinus, On Monarchy; and because he was being drawn away by the error of Valentinus, Irenaeus wrote his work, "On the Ogdoad", in which he shows that he himself had been acquainted with the first successors of the apostles. At the close of the treatise we have found a most beautiful note which we are constrained to insert in this work. It runs as follows:

• 
  
  
  • "I adjure thee, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and in light of His glorious advent when he comes to judge the living and the dead, that may copy this book, to compare on what you shalt write. Correct it carefully by this manuscript, and also to write this adjuration, and place it in the copy."

These things may be profitably read in his work, and related by us, that we may have those ancient and truly holy men as the best example of painstaking carefulness. In the letter to Florinus, of which we have spoken, Irenaeus mentions again his intimacy with Polycarp, saying:

• 
  
  
  • "These doctrines, O Florinus, to speak mildly, are not of sound judgment. These doctrines disagree with the Church, and drive into the greatest impiety those who accept them. These doctrines, not even the heretics outside of the Church, have ever dared to publish. These doctrines, the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions of the apostles, did not deliver to thee."
  • "For when I was a boy, I saw thee in lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in the splendor of the royal court, and endeavoring back then to gain his approbation. I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe even the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed to us, as well as his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his discussions with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And, as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the 'Word of life,' Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures. These things being told me by the mercy of God, I listened to them attentively, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart. And continually, through God's grace, I recall them faithfully. And I am able to bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard any such thing (as being proposed), he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and as was his custom, would have exclaimed, O good God, unto what times hast thou spared me that I should endure these things ? And he would have fled from the place where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. And this can be shown plainly from the letters which he sent, either to the neighboring churches for their confirmation, or to some of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them."

Thus far Irenaeus. [ii]

In Christ, Patrick

[i.] Eusebius Book III Chapter 28 - on Polycarp’s story of John and Cerinthius
[ii] Eusebius of Caesarea; 340 AD CHURCH HISTORY : Book 4, Chapter 21.

 

[Silmarien]

[original post deleted]

I assumed he meant that no Christian had deigned to weigh in on the original thread, not in this one. Skimming the thread, I don't see any formal heresy in it... just a whole bunch of anti-evolutionary rhetoric.

I think what's being ignored is that many of the atheists on the site are here specifically to fight with Creationists, and the wilder, the better. If you're here to make sport of people, that's the type of thread you'll flock to. I think the title alone would chase other people away, though.

 

[Chesterton]

I assumed he meant that no Christian had deigned to weigh in on the original thread, not in this one.

Oh, after re-reading it I think you're right. Guess I read it carelessly. Thank you. I'm deleting my post, and my apologies to @Freodin.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Now if I were to claim that the Bible makes it absolutely clear, divine truth which you would deny if you were to believe otherwise, that there was NO such flood here on our Earth... would you accept that as a valid theological argument?

I’d ask you for your proof verses from the Bible.