How to defend your Faith

[quatona]

Unless I'm missing your point, it seems like you're saying you're not challenged on your beliefs because you keep them private? Obviously, that would work that way. I don't think I've ever seen you say anything on CF. Would you want to share your personal beliefs here?

No, why would I? They are my personal, private beliefs. They are none of your business.

The OP's just talking about conversation, not political activism, but it seems you're saying her Christian beliefs are subject to scrutiny because they could be grounds for making rules which affect others?

No, I am saying that I suspect that I have never been asked to "prove my faith" because I didn´t expect anyone else to act upon them, and I can´t fathom how I could possibly be asked to defend my beliefs when I am not vocal about them.
Now, if you want to make the reverse conclusion, ok: I don´t see how anyone will be asked to prove his private faith when they keep it private. So apparently you are doing something different than I do.
And, yes, I suspect that this entire "it´s just our private relationship - we don´t need to prove it anymore than Einstein had to prove that he loved his wife" isn´t completely honest. Einstein didn´t have to prove that he loved his wife because he didn´t expect everybody else to share those feelings and to marry his wife, as well.
You don´t have to prove anything about your private personal relationships with those supernatural entities that populate your belief systems, until you start to make truth claims or try to impose your beliefs on the rest of the world.

Rules will come from some belief, whatever it is,

No, I don´t see how they do, and in particular I don´t see how those rules must be accepted by anyone else than the believer.

so that's not a particular reason to need to critique Christianity

I don´t criticize Christianity for it (Christians can try whatever they like - at some point it´s just that they will be asked for evidence and such).
My points would be:
- Trying to make rules for others based on a certain belief and on the other hand saying "it´s my personal relationship" don´t go together well.
- Of course, if you want to make rules for others, you are asked for good reasons for them, just like anybody else. "My personal relationship with supernatural entitiy X (for whose existence I don´t even have any intersubjective evidence) requires me to do it" is not considered such a good reason. You will easily understand why, when you think of people trying to put up rules with reference to supernatural entities you don´t believe in.

more than atheism

Last time I checked, my lack of belief in Gods didn´t imply any rules whatsoever. Care to give me an example for such a rule?

or anything else.

Neither does any other of my conviction require me to put up societal rules for others.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

I have found sometimes the best way to "defend my faith" is to not engage people who are interested in attacking it. Jesus said not to cast your pearls before swine, and I find that trying to share my faith with people who aren't really interested in listening to fall under that category.

 

[quatona]

I have found sometimes the best way to "defend my faith" is to not engage people who are interested in attacking it. Jesus said not to cast your pearls before swine, and I find that trying to share my faith with people who aren't really interested in listening to fall under that category.

People who aren´t interested in my views are swine.
We need more of that attitude. Not.

 

[~Anastasia~]

People who aren´t interested in my views are swine.
We need more of that attitude. Not.

This is why I do not quote the verse. The principle is accurate. But people will take the wrong implication from it.

It also says next the swine will turn and rend you. But we don't typically expect unbelievers who hear us speak of our faith to turn on us and shred us with knives either.

The principle is the thing ... not that we regard people as swine.

 

[quatona]

This is why I do not quote the verse.

...and that´s why I responded to the person who not only quoted the verse, but even emphasized the "swine" part.

The principle is accurate. But people will take the wrong implication from it.

It also says next the swine will turn and rend you. But we don't typically expect unbelievers who hear us speak of our faith to turn on us and shred us with knives either.

The principle is the thing ... not that we regard people as swine.

So what do you think is this principle (I sense that you and I can even agree on it - something like "It´s not a good idea to share one´s faith with people who aren´t appreciative)?
Additional question, if I may: Why, do you think, does the bible use a wording that actually makes it hard not to "take the wrong implication from it"?

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

I didn't emphasize the swine part. I don't think other people are swine. I do think that a person who is not interested in listening would treat anything you say with as much delicacy as well..... what the verse said.

 

[~Anastasia~]

...and that´s why I responded to the person who not only quoted the verse, but even emphasized the "swine" part.

So what do you think is this principle (I sense that you and I can even agree on it - something like "It´s not a good idea to share one´s faith with people who aren´t appreciative)?
Additional question, if I may: Why, do you think, does the bible use a wording that actually makes it hard not to "take the wrong implication from it"?

I would say it's more like not to share the details of the faith (the fine, distilled parts) with people when they are not going to be appreciative. The possibility exists that they will be appreciative another time. But you don't need to try to push finer points of Theology on a person when they are not ready to hear it, won't want to hear it, wouldn't yet understand it.

The deeper you go, sometimes the more potential there is for misunderstanding.

I think the reason that words are used, even words that risk offense, is that those words weren't written for the unbelievers they refer to. Digging a bit deeper can reveal truths to the believer who understands them, so they have a richer meaning. But no one intended the believers to say them to an unbeliever when they were being put into practice. And to be fair, Zaida wasn't doing that either - she was just discussing the matter and brought up a relevant passage, but then again this is a widely public forum where anyone can read it. But it's not hard to find out that it IS in the Scriptures, so she hasn't given away some secret or anything.

I think there is more meaning to "pearls" ... but as for the word "swine" we can understand directly that it refers to unbelievers because swine were unclean animals, so the designation is understandable to the one hearing it. The strong irony of juxtaposing pearls and swine makes an impact. Swine are also somewhat unpredictable and potentially dangerous in their responses, being large and powerful enough to do damage. Using "mouse" for example would not give at all the same impression.

It is fitting to give much understanding. Not that it is fitting to call a person "swine" but it does convey a lot of meaning without having to spell it all out.

Somehow I am reminded of the Samaritan woman who referred to herself when she told Christ that "even the little dogs eat crumbs dropped from their master's table". Dogs are also unclean, but in this case she was conveying submission, acceptance, expectation of some consideration, as well as being outside the house of Israel.

Am I making sense? Forgive me if not. I'm very tired, lol.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why, do you think, does the bible use a wording that actually makes it hard not to "take the wrong implication from it"?

because the Bible was never meant to be read apart from the Church that produced it. it is the book of a particular worshiping community, for that community.

 

[Chesterton]

No, why would I? They are my personal, private beliefs. They are none of your business.

No, I am saying that I suspect that I have never been asked to "prove my faith" because I didn´t expect anyone else to act upon them, and I can´t fathom how I could possibly be asked to defend my beliefs when I am not vocal about them.
Now, if you want to make the reverse conclusion, ok: I don´t see how anyone will be asked to prove his private faith when they keep it private. So apparently you are doing something different than I do.

I say that atheists have nothing to say, and you respond by saying "I have nothing to say" just like an atheist. The fact that you're introverted doesn't create a burden of proof for everybody else.
Is there something shameful or embarrassing about your beliefs? Do you just lack confidence in them? Anyway, I wish you'd tell me because maybe they're better than mine, and you'd be doing me a favor.

And, yes, I suspect that this entire "it´s just our private relationship - we don´t need to prove it anymore than Einstein had to prove that he loved his wife" isn´t completely honest. Einstein didn´t have to prove that he loved his wife because he didn´t expect everybody else to share those feelings and to marry his wife, as well.
You don´t have to prove anything about your private personal relationships with those supernatural entities that populate your belief systems, until you start to make truth claims or try to impose your beliefs on the rest of the world.

No, I don´t see how they do, and in particular I don´t see how those rules must be accepted by anyone else than the believer.

I don´t criticize Christianity for it (Christians can try whatever they like - at some point it´s just that they will be asked for evidence and such).
My points would be:
- Trying to make rules for others based on a certain belief and on the other hand saying "it´s my personal relationship" don´t go together well.
- Of course, if you want to make rules for others, you are asked for good reasons for them, just like anybody else. "My personal relationship with supernatural entitiy X (for whose existence I don´t even have any intersubjective evidence) requires me to do it" is not considered such a good reason. You will easily understand why, when you think of people trying to put up rules with reference to supernatural entities you don´t believe in.

Last time I checked, my lack of belief in Gods didn´t imply any rules whatsoever. Care to give me an example for such a rule?

Neither does any other of my conviction require me to put up societal rules for others.

Again, I don't know what rules you're talking about, and I don't know why you're mentioning it in this thread about discussion, except maybe as a red herring.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Most people I've come across have a materialistic/secular worldview, for sure - their view is; if you can't prove it, then it didn't happen/don't exist.

Others still considers themselves Christian but are so influenced by that worldview that they can't bring themselves to believe in certain aspects of the Bible (quite a few of them!) and are left with very little to actually believe in.

Prayers are appreciated, besides my family I'm feeling lonely in my faith at the moment. That's why I'm so happy to be here.

So appreciate your vulnerability, as I've been there myself with being very lonely when your faith is not understood. Will continue to pray. As an aside, I've met Christians who say they believe in Christ and yet they are essentially Deists and do not believe in the Supernatural or that miracles are real. To them, scripture is a historical story and folks with the Jesus Seminar have often done that. In Graduate School, I had to do a lot of debate with others on the issue and it is interesting how people seem to be able to believe in everything else BUT a God who'd reveal Himself in the Person of Christ.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thanks, GxG. I should still have the books, when I have time (that could take a while!) I will try to go over them. (Stroebel's I mean, Letters was something I got from the library.) I appreciate your perspective though. I could really only remember history and logic being used.

Strobel can be a bit intense at times, but he had many good things to say...

 

[quatona]

I say that atheists have nothing to say, and you respond by saying "I have nothing to say" just like an atheist.

Neither you nor I said it.
I for one said told you that I have no interest in sharing my convictions here. That´s not "I have nothing to say", and it doesn´t equal "atheists have nothing to say".

The fact that you're introverted doesn't create a burden of proof for everybody else.

I didn´t say there was a burden of proof, and I didn´t say my introversion creates such.

Is there something shameful or embarrassing about your beliefs?

No, why would you think that?

Do you just lack confidence in them?

No, I am totally confident - that´s why I feel no need to convince others of them.

Anyway, I wish you'd tell me because maybe they're better than mine, and you'd be doing me a favor.

Thanks for the interest, but at this point: No.
It´s pretty much the way Anastacia just explained her understanding of "casting pearls before swine" (even though I personally find this wording pretty unfortunate): I don´t see your genuine interest. So far you were juggling with concepts like "burden of proof" and alike, you are in contest mode, and I personally don´t think that our metaphysical convictions deserve to be treated that way.
Plus, even if you were genuinely interested: This is not the private, personal place that´s suited to contemplate on each other´s private, personal metaphysical convictions.
The people I talk with about these things are hand-selected. Sometimes a person talks to me about the problems they have with their mental constructs, and sometimes I share one or two nuggets with them that I feel might be helpful to them.

Again, I don't know what rules you're talking about,

You don´t know that some people argue for societal and political actions with sheer reference to their metaphysical beliefs (that which you called "personal relationship")?

and I don't know why you're mentioning it in this thread about discussion, except maybe as a red herring.

I told you why I have been mentioning it. I was and still am wondering why, how and in which situations people see themselves under pressure to "defend their faith" and reminded that they have a "burden of proof". I don´t think a person has a "burden of proof" for their private personal convictions, and I rarely observe someone asking for someone else´s personal beliefs just so to ask for "proof" next (well, you just did - but this is a discussion board, and not real life ).
So I summarized those situations in which - in my experience - the question for evidence typically comes up:
1. People making truth claims concerning metaphysics, and even more often
2. People arguing for real life solution with reference to their metaphysical beliefs.

 

[quatona]

because the Bible was never meant to be read apart from the Church that produced it. it is the book of a particular worshiping community, for that community.

Thanks. That may be the case - but it doesn´t answer my question.

 

[quatona]

Thanks for your response, Anastasia!

I would say it's more like not to share the details of the faith (the fine, distilled parts) with people when they are not going to be appreciative. The possibility exists that they will be appreciative another time. But you don't need to try to push finer points of Theology on a person when they are not ready to hear it, won't want to hear it, wouldn't yet understand it.

The deeper you go, sometimes the more potential there is for misunderstanding.

I agree with this, and I handle it like this.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thanks. That may be the case - but it doesn´t answer my question.

well, then I will rephrase. the Bible uses wording that was decided by the Church, complied by the Church, and to be read within the Church. it might seem like folks take the wrong meaning, but that is only because they are not reading it with the correct lenses.

 

[quatona]

well, then I will rephrase. the Bible uses wording that was decided by the Church, complied by the Church, and to be read within the Church. it might seem like folks take the wrong meaning, but that is only because they are not reading it with the correct lenses.

Still doesn´t answer my question, but it´s ok.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Still doesn´t answer my question, but it´s ok.

hahaha, bummer. how about this: it is written with an easy wording, the problem is that wording requires the context of the Church.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

It is my personal believe that murder is wrong, but maybe I shouldn't try to impose that belief on other people?

It is my personal belief that pedophilia is an abomination, but maybe I should try not being so pedophobic?

It is my personal belief that rape is wrong, but maybe I should not expect men to share that belief because boys will be boys....

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks for your response, Anastasia!


I agree with this, and I handle it like this.

You are most welcome!

I wish I could help with what Matt is trying to explain, but I'm not sure I could do a better job. He's right though.

Scripture was never intended to hammer people over the head with. It was meant to teach Truth to those who would understand it. I wish I could think of a good illustration or analogy, but it escapes me just now.

 

[Chesterton]

Neither you nor I said it.
I for one said told you that I have no interest in sharing my convictions here. That´s not "I have nothing to say", and it doesn´t equal "atheists have nothing to say".

It's literally true that you have nothing to say.

I didn´t say there was a burden of proof, and I didn´t say my introversion creates such.

You also don't say you're an atheist, but you have that slightly snarky thing in your user title.

No, why would you think that?

Sometimes when people hide things about themselves it's because they feel that way about them. I don't think that's the case with you, I suspect it's because if you make your beliefs known then you are vulnerable; you may be asked to defend them.

No, I am totally confident - that´s why I feel no need to convince others of them.

That statement doesn't make sense to me.

Thanks for the interest, but at this point: No.
It´s pretty much the way Anastacia just explained her understanding of "casting pearls before swine" (even though I personally find this wording pretty unfortunate): I don´t see your genuine interest. So far you were juggling with concepts like "burden of proof" and alike, you are in contest mode, and I personally don´t think that our metaphysical convictions deserve to be treated that way.
Plus, even if you were genuinely interested: This is not the private, personal place that´s suited to contemplate on each other´s private, personal metaphysical convictions.
The people I talk with about these things are hand-selected. Sometimes a person talks to me about the problems they have with their mental constructs, and sometimes I share one or two nuggets with them that I feel might be helpful to them.

Well I do have some genuine interest, but you're right that I ask in order to try and put you in contest mode. I anticipated that you'd shrink from the challenge and you did. But remember that's part of what the OP was about - we Christians are frequently put in contest mode (and ridiculed) by being open about our beliefs. Also, I recall there was a thread made by a well known member here (an atheist), and the point of the thread was basically that "if Christians are unable or unwilling to share the most personal details of their relationship with God, it's because they're lying about it".

You don´t know that some people argue for societal and political actions with sheer reference to their metaphysical beliefs (that which you called "personal relationship")?

Not some people, all people. Atheist societies, pagan societies, all societies have rules. The more atheist part of your country used to have a very strict rule about how far west you were allowed to walk.

I told you why I have been mentioning it. I was and still am wondering why, how and in which situations people see themselves under pressure to "defend their faith" and reminded that they have a "burden of proof". I don´t think a person has a "burden of proof" for their private personal convictions, and I rarely observe someone asking for someone else´s personal beliefs just so to ask for "proof" next (well, you just did - but this is a discussion board, and not real life ).
So I summarized those situations in which - in my experience - the question for evidence typically comes up:
1. People making truth claims concerning metaphysics, and even more often
2. People arguing for real life solution with reference to their metaphysical beliefs.

My experience is very different. I see it all the time on CF. Right now I'm involved in a thread where I said that the universe looks fine-tuned for life, and someone responded "No it's not. You have the burden of proof to show that it is."