New question

[LittleLion]

Eagle_Wings,

How am I relativizing and who said anything about watering down Christianity?

I'll comment what you said earlier:

You have a very valid point with your OP and unfortunately alot of Christians don't realize that one of the biggest turnoffs to non-believers (for lack of a better word) is "Christianese."

Why should Christianese be a turnoff? Do Christians consider Christianese a turnoff?

By Christian understanding, the fallen man will consider anything contrary to his state to be a turnoff anyway.

Another major turnoff is constantly having God shoved down their throat,

Why should it be a major turnoff "constantly having God shoved down [one's] throat"?

If you refrain from saying God whenever you feel you need to, but don't say it in order to accomodate the non-Chrisitan listener, I say you are relativizing Christianity and watering it down. God is central, and this is how Christianity is to be presented -- as far as I know.

But I suppose that if you SHOVE God down one's throat, they will resent you for doing so ...

There is a difference between sugar-coating something and just making it understandable to the layman. It's like a client who brings their dog in to get checked out and I proceed to explain that the doctor's observation was polydipsia, polyuria, elevated glucose levels and his diagnosis is a disorder of the hypothalamic-neurohypophyseal axis. Now the common pet owner, or layperson, is not going to understand that jargon...for crying outloud, I'm a vet assistant and I can barely understand what I just said! Instead, I explain that the doctor observed excessive drinking of water, excessive urination, and a high blood sugar count which means that the dog has diabetes. I didn't water anything down nor did I try to make it sound appeasing to the client.

It's the same thing with Christianity and in fact there was even a perfect example of this between TruthinFiction and another poster a few pages back concerning the Holy Spirit.

I disagree that it is "the same thing with Christianity".

It's not like you are explaining terms like "omnipotence" or some such fancy philosophical interpretation of things that are not even written in the Bible but proposed by later interpretation.

Layman explanation can be very misleading. Like someone PM'd me saying that Jesus dying for me is in a way the same as if I were in a store with someone, the store would be attacked, and the attackers would say that they will kill one -- either me or the other person. And then this person volunteers to die for me. Because of this, I will feel guilty and grateful, and forever be obliged to this person for my life. -- This analogy is misleading as it concentrates on guilt and believing in Jesus because of compassion -- it makes emotional blackmail out of Christianity. Another problem is that it wishes to explain away a divine act with the help of a human act. "It's that, but also much more" doesn't really do it.


I'm not saying you give such sort of explanations; but laymanning in general can be dangerous.

No, truthfully, they just sound self-righteous to me

Self-righteous? Think twice.

and how have I not shown love to my enemies in my previous post? I don't see non-believers as my enemy, unless an individual chooses to be based on their actions towards me.

Well, the thing is that non-Christians have to be more Christian than Christians, in effect.

If you declare yourself to be a Christian, I will connect you to my experience of other people who have called themselves Christians. And they weren't nice people. Many of them considered me an enemy by default.
You are not them, they are not you, but you have both declared yourselves to be Christians. I get a confusing, contradictory image.
It's not my fault that some people calling themselves Christians have given Christianity a bad name. And yet, in the end, I, a non-Christian, have to make the effort to see the difference between the supposedly unified. I have to go study myself, see for myself what a "Christian" is -- and often, my first impression only gets strenghtened.

All I'm asking is that you keep in mind that we all have a history with Christians, and sometimes, that history isn't to their benefit. Some of us have been betrayed by people calling themselves the same way you call yourself. If you think you know what the Truth is, then consider it God's work that we ever came back after being betrayed.

Then why ask?

Because I don't believe I am hard-hearted.

What makes you think that I view you as hard-hearted?

My experience of Christians. Like I said, you are not those people I have made my most experiences with Christianity with. But my experience is, like it or not, that Christians are hostile against non-Christians.

Ever heard what assuming does?

An ass of you and me.

As far as the answer that you'd prefer to hear, I believe I gave it to you in one of your previous posts, only not so harshly.

Sweetie, I have no "preferred answers". If I had them, I wouldn't ask questions.


* * *

searle29678,

What is the point of asking the question if you dont' want to believe or dont' like the answer.

*khm*
First of all, you are leaving out that it is God who gives understanding, not you or the person asking.
Secondly, non-Christians are given little or no credit of having a mind. As if we are empty cups waiting to be filled. Has it ever occured to you that in this cup, there might be some filth that needs to be cleaned out first?

You can't come to God with a scientific mind and expect to be content with every answer you get, that is why the whole concept of Christianity is based on faith.

See, and it is with such assessments that you make religion look like magic. Like something where you are meant to bang your head against the wall.

It's just really hard to explain something that is so huge and powerful and all-encompassing.

Exactly. This is why I think laymanning is bad.

Especially to someone who doesn't even know if they WANT to believe it.

It is an incoherent demand to expect someone that he should want to believe something he doesn't know.

If one starts with "I want to believe", then one can also believe in mermaids.

And secondly, what you are saying amounts to "If you don't intend to join, go away." We are told to test the spirits, and to serve God with out minds. This means that we have to have understanding -- which God will give. Without, we should not pick up more than we can carry.

* * *

heron,

Three, condescending talk, which of course you wouldn't offer.

Not to make a point of this, but I think Christians should somehow account for the harm other Christians have done.
Maybe my specific experience is such, and particularly unfortunate (nobody say sorry, please, I've been over that). But like it or not, Christians often sound as if God is on their side, and then they can point fingers.
Laymanning then sounds like "accomodating the stupid non-Christian", and when laymanning, the non-Christian may indeed feel that the Christian thinks him stupid. This is another reason why I am against laymanning. The Word should be spread undilluted.

Understanding comes by God, and cannot be willed. Sometimes I think it is even more important that the one who is explaining keeps this in mind.


* * *


Eagle_Wings,

That particular question was in response to LittleLion's comment that nobody could explain the reason behind their beliefs to non-believers. If that's the way he feels then why be asking all those questions, that's all I was saying.

Whew. You are forgetting God's part in this.


* * *

TheTruthinFiction,

Littlelion, Here is going to be a question within a question. Now I'm hijacking my own thread. Those that read this, was Jesus respectful? I always took it that he was. It was the others who just didn't like his way of beliefs that had the problem. That would bring in what is respectful since he was preaching something they didn't believe in but I could still see that as being respectful.

For example, if a person comes on a forum and asks questions, in a respectful way, trying not to argue, is that being disrespectful since I don't agree with their beliefs? I may have worded that wrong earlier. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't really question myself if the things Jesus done were disrespectful or not. Personally, from what I have read he was respectful, not judging, trying to help others.

Respect is a relational concept. For me, it is about taking only what is rightfully yours, giving others only what is rightfully theirs.

The crux is in "rightfully", "yours" and "theirs", of course.

Some people want you (general "you) to give them what isn't rightfully theirs (rightfully theirs by your will), and then they call you "disrespectful". You may call others disrespectful when they refuse to give you what you think is rightfully yours.
Next, you may call yourself disrespectful if you find yourself refusing to give others what you think is rightfully theirs.

Either way, thanks for thinking, Ha.

I love this! You are a darling.

The 100 questions, hmm, I will work on getting them together. I won't post them on the forum though but will PM them. I thought last night was my last website update but nope, still have another I have to do so I better get off from here. Thanks everybody

Thank you!

* * *


Heron,

Enlightenment

I was thinking this afternoon about the Buddha search for enlightenment. What did he think it was? What did others search for? What do we consider enlightenment?

Something before which you had to carry water and gather wood, and after which you will have to carry water and gather wood.

 

[Eagle_Wings]

LittleLion,

First off, and this is said as respectfully as possible, but you don't know me well enough to refer to me as "sweetie." I'm not your daughter, girlfriend, or wife, so please don't do that again.

Secondly, you are reading what I wrote and choosing to take it in a way that I did not mean. When I say that I refrain from Christianese around non-believers you are assuming what I mean and then disagreeing with me when I proceed to explain exactly what I meant. This is turning into an argument and I'm not going to do that.

 

[heron]

Imagine being an atheist, running across this forum by accident (which is what got me here) and typing in one innocent question, like "I don't understand why Jesus died, if He was God." The first answer you get back is, "then you should get saved."

You shake your head and toss that off as a freak incident.

The second response you get, is "your heart is made of stone, and that's why you need to ask this question."

What? Why did these people even bother responding? What is "saved?" Most of us know what a heart of stone is, but why would say that of a stranger they know nothing about?

"Christianese" can be language that is so overused, people begin to forget what it was originally intended for.

saved
a decision to ask for help, resulting in an already-established plan of forgiveness. This forgiveness opens up the opportunity of blessings and a wonderful life in eternity.

anointed
Originally poured over with oil, to declare God's blessing and assignment, as with a king. Later used as Holy Spirit infilling, not by our own goodness and effort, but usually asking or yielding to His infilling. The word became "someone who really has a hold on his audience," among other things.


born again
Does not mean giving in to intimidation on the forum. Jesus said that unless a person gives up the mindset they had in order to follow Him, they would not be able to understand the workings of His kingdom. It's a rejuvination process.

 

[Eagle_Wings]

Imagine being an atheist, running across this forum by accident (which is what got me here) and typing in one innocent question, like "I don't understand why Jesus died, if He was God." The first answer you get back is, "then you should get saved."

You shake your head and toss that off as a freak incident.

The second response you get, is "your heart is made of stone, and that's why you need to ask this question."

What? Why did these people even bother responding? What is "saved?" Most of us know what a heart of stone is, but why would say that of a stranger they know nothing about?

"Christianese" can be language that is so overused, people begin to forget what it was originally intended for.

saved
a decision to ask for help, resulting in an already-established plan of forgiveness. This forgiveness opens up the opportunity of blessings and a wonderful life in eternity.

anointed
Originally poured over with oil, to declare God's blessing and assignment, as with a king. Later used as Holy Spirit infilling, not by our own goodness and effort, but usually asking or yielding to His infilling. The word became "someone who really has a hold on his audience," among other things.


born again
Does not mean giving in to intimidation on the forum. Jesus said that unless a person gives up the mindset they had in order to follow Him, they would not be able to understand the workings of His kingdom. It's a rejuvination process.

So much better then any definition I was coming up with at the moment!

 

[Maxster211]

Personally ,

I welcome your opinion , even though , I don't entirely agree .

There are people who gave their lives for the sake of translating The Bible into " the language of the common people " . So that we , who aren't scholars , can understand what is written therein .

Furthermore , through the efforts of many , it has been translated into every major language in the world .

Yes , The Bible is sometimes quoted without the proper thoughtfulness or sensativity .

But it would be foolhardy to abandon referring to It , because it is sometimes improperly applied . It makes more sense to abandon the thoughtlessness instead !

I myself , ( and I'm not alone in this ) , was first introduced to The Saving Faith of Jesus Christ , by reading and thinking on the words of The Bible , in the absence of others .

The way I'm normally led to witness is to express from both personal experience / understanding and with corroborating quotes of Scripture .

If you were to make it clear to me that quoting the Bible offends you , I'd likely refrain from quoting it to you ; but would still continue to express the inspired instructions and principles contained therein . And if you were disinterested in those things as well , I'd move on ... there's plenty of other people who may well appreciate my gift / labors .

John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven . <-----> John 3:27

Scripture is an extremely valuable tool / weapon which we are counselled to learn to handle and apply to every aspect of our life , our being .

That same Sword which may have smacked you in the face , when held by a inexperienced " wanna be " , can be a life-saving surgical instument , which separates us from deadly , spiritually defiling " cancers " of deceit and disbelief .

May The Lord be Pleased To Bless .

wm

I have to disagree with you when you said that they translate it for us who aren't as experienced with Bible lingo [forgive the expresion]. I am 12, yet I can fully understand verses and what they mean, though I can't always desipher parrebles and metaphors.

 

[LittleLion]

LittleLion,

First off, and this is said as respectfully as possible, but you don't know me well enough to refer to me as "sweetie." I'm not your daughter, girlfriend, or wife, so please don't do that again.

Secondly, you are reading what I wrote and choosing to take it in a way that I did not mean. When I say that I refrain from Christianese around non-believers you are assuming what I mean and then disagreeing with me when I proceed to explain exactly what I meant. This is turning into an argument and I'm not going to do that.

Total misfire.

 

[heron]

Eagle_Wings,
Aw!

Maxster, I believe you! I remember being twelve. I also know kids who started reading Grisham and Crichton at 12. So why would older people need paraphrases? (Besides those with low literacy.)

There was a fuss in the 60's and 70's over a "God is dead" slogan, and that's when Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell came out, and a few Bible paraphrases. I doubt the paraphrases were necessary for the words themselves, but maybe more to shake things up for those who were afraid of rejoining the establishment. We're all still a bunch of hippies.

About language of the common man, though, that just speaks to the shift from old english to modern english, which the [church] refused to adapt to. We still love "Be thou my vision" in the original wording, even though it's work to translate it as we sing.

(Naught be all else to me save that thou art?)

 

[Nightfire]

Understanding comes by God, and cannot be willed. Sometimes I think it is even more important that the one who is explaining keeps this in mind.

James 3:1-2
Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.​

Everybody will have to give an account for every careless word they spoke (Matt.12:36). On the side of the speaker, we must be aware of the effects every word might have.

But the listener must be aware that people stumble and are often seeking answers themselves. Don't take the word of only one or two witnesses, but measure their words against God's word.

And then the understanding that comes from God must be accepted in order to have any effect. It won't operate against your will, even if it originated outside it.

 

[heron]

"But the listener must be aware that people stumble and are often seeking answers themselves. Don't take the word of only one or two witnesses, but measure their words against God's word."

Oh yes, absolutely.

It reminds me of driving into a big city, where I often get overwhelmed thinking of the number of people out there. I am in my own little sphere of truth and experience. My passions to defend are based on the injustices I have seen. Out there are millions of junkies, entrepreneurs, nuns, hookers, historians, ranchers, nomads, and kings. Each has seen a different set of injustices. Each has a different reason to believe.

 

[LittleLion]

But the listener must be aware that people stumble and are often seeking answers themselves. Don't take the word of only one or two witnesses, but measure their words against God's word.

And then the understanding that comes from God must be accepted in order to have any effect. It won't operate against your will, even if it originated outside it.

Never rely on second-hand information when first-hand is available.

 

[Maxster211]

Two things.
First of all, I have an answer for the person who started this post, as I think should always be remembered. I only get into a 'sermon' as you put it, when I am very angree at the person I am talking to, and then it is more of a lecture. The only other time I get into a Sermon is when I am trying to explain to someone [weather an adult or a kid in my class or whoever] where they misunderstood what the bible said. I talk alot about the Bible and God to alot of people, and have learned much on this sight alone. My point is that people either have a 'prepared sermon' when they get in a mood. It doesn't nesisarily have to be a good mood, or any other type of normal mood. It could be just how they are, or edgey, or always trying to stay away from demons. It is good to keep that in mind though, so that you could calm them down and get a good answer from them. Also, if you mean that a Sermon is just a long speach about the Bible, then what I have just writen is a sermon. People are in different dephs when it comes to God and Jesus, or even just Christianity. That is also good to know.

Second off,
Little Lion,
I think you should always listen to even the second hand opinion because even if they are 12 years of age, they can still have a good and serious answer. John, a preacher at my church, might not be as well known as Billy Grahm. But he still has his opinions, and he still has his own beliefs, and he still preaches his own way. I preach in my own way, and so do all my friends who preach, and so on an so forth. Don't mind if I quote the LORD OF THE RINGS, for it was strongly based on the Chrisitian Religion.
'Even the smallest person can change the world of men.' Giladreal from the LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING

 

[Nightfire]

Never rely on second-hand information when first-hand is available.

I agree with Maxter211: anybody can have something important to contribute. Obviously your first-hand experience is going to weigh more - being the canvas on which everything else will be superimposed - but it shouldn't automatically veto other people's first-hand experience, even if they are a whole continent or 2000 years away from you. The canvas shouldn't prevent the whole picture from being painted by allowing only the first few strokes.

A prisoner's first-hand experience might convince him only of captivity, and all reports of freedom will be second-hand. He might not have experienced freedom, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or the messengers from outside are lying. Nor does it mean his ideas of freedom are all wishful thinking .

 

[heron]

Sermons, books and classes are second hand...they're still valuable to us. True, first hand needs to be the focus and what we base our decisions on. Both types support our understanding of the truth.

 

[LittleLion]

I agree with Maxter211: anybody can have something important to contribute. Obviously your first-hand experience is going to weigh more - being the canvas on which everything else will be superimposed - but it shouldn't automatically veto other people's first-hand experience, even if they are a whole continent or 2000 years away from you. The canvas shouldn't prevent the whole picture from being painted by allowing only the first few strokes.

A prisoner's first-hand experience might convince him only of captivity, and all reports of freedom will be second-hand. He might not have experienced freedom, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or the messengers from outside are lying. Nor does it mean his ideas of freedom are all wishful thinking .

Another miss. I am constantly being summoned to doubt myself, but to trust others, just like that. Because I, as a non-Christian, couldn't possibly know anything of value ...

 

[heron]

A miss? Really? I just assumed you had something specific in mind, and our minds were on another track. You did give the basic reason that we teach kids the game "gossip," where truth gets distorted down the line. We're just balancing that out with other considerations.

 

[Nightfire]

Another miss. I am constantly being summoned to doubt myself, but to trust others, just like that. Because I, as a non-Christian, couldn't possibly know anything of value ...

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you doubt yourself. Wouldn't that mean doubting good and bad experiences and conclusions as if they were the same?

You have already trusted others implicitly - by accepting their accusations as the only truth, you are putting trust in the opinion of people whose only interest was to put you down, attack your self-image and get you to doubt all good things. Why let them have the final say? Like heron says, there are other considerations that may be true in spite of your past experiences.

Everybody brings the same value to the table - whether Christian or non-Christian, slave or free, man or woman, all are human and share a common plight to varying degrees - but God equalized everybody under his law, so that His grace would be indisputable.

Romans 3:3-4
What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:

"So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."​

 

[LittleLion]

Nightfire,


I really wish you would be called stupid more often. And this in a situation where you would be the one lacking knowledge.
Maybe then you could relate to me.

 

[heron]

And this brings us full circle to the original post, "Do you think that by not giving direct opinions to questions that you are going to help someone?" Truth_in_fiction was hoping for some personal experience and opinion from us, because he considers a mix of experience valuable in coming to his conclusions about the scriptures that he already has access to.

So Little_lion, your experiences have value to us, even if we think we know everything about scriptures or Christianity. I'm not sure how much you've heard about the church as the body of Christ, but that's what it's all about. One person is an arm, another is a leg, and we need each others' gifts and talents to keep the whole thing healthy.

In a case like a forum visitor's question, it's usually someone who made sense of parts of the gospel, but had hit some roadblocks that didn't make sense--things people told him, verses that seemed to conflict--so they're just seeing other people's take on the situation. We have such a diverse collection of backgrounds here, someone is bound to get a sense of how important an issue is (e.g., infant baptism, smoking, divorce).

 

[elizabethevangeline]

And who is God? How can one recognize God if one doesn't know who God is?

So simple to you, isn't it?

I haven't read to the end of the thread yet but I'm jumping in...

There's a book written by a Wheaton College prof called The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. I haven't read it yet but this website reviews it thoroughly:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9503/articles/scandal.html

Sadly, simple is enough for many. The Gospel is simple, but communicating it well is not, neither is the Christian Life nor understanding God.

It's responses like yours that make me want to leave and let you have your precious secrets to yourself.

1 John is a great Bible book to read. It was a book written to counter the growing influence of gnosticism...matter bad, spirit good; you know God through special enlightenment or knowledge. (very basic summary, but I come from evangelicalism. Simple is good. )

I personally started reading Orthodox theology and realized that I've been content with trite answers and that I've been very gnostic.

All that to say...your assessment is right on LittleLion! You nailed it! So keep asking questions, take answers with a grain of salt, read some good theology. CS Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia is full of good theology (I'm not kidding!). I would also recommend Timothy (Kallistos) Ware's The Orthodox Way for a deep intro to what the ancient church has always taught.

 

[heron]

elizabethevangeline, you got the gist quickly! Thanks for the book link!