[open] A Seeker Has Some Questions That I Think You Can Answer

[BelindaP]

I hope I'm not out-of-line posting this thread, but there is a member by the name of DarkProphet that has some great questions that you could answer. I'm afraid he's going to get conflicting answers in the forum he is in because of the wide range of opinion about his answers in the Christian community. Anyway, I open the floor to him.

 

[Athene]

Not out of line at all, thanks for directing him here.

Ask away DarkProphet!

 

[DarkProphet]

I thank you for inviting me into this new forum. I will now present a slightly modified version of the post from the other forum.

Is it possible for me to be converted with the following condition?

There are a few basic tenets that I believe in that I would not be willing to give up and they are as follows:

That people are generally good.

That to have proof is better then to believe without proof.

That logic and reason should be at the core of how the world is viewed.

That fear should never guide decisions.

That new ideas should be examined.

That old ideas should be changed if they are found to be wrong.
​

The condition is that no part of your attempt to convert me can override any of these tenets. The other option is to show that the tenet you override is not worth being a tenet. I ask this because every attempt to convert me has failed with this condition.

 

[Mling]

I think that the tenets you have are very sound, worthy tenets, and perfectly compatable with the teachings of Christ. The only possible exception might be the one about fear, but I don't think it should be done away with entirely. Fear of things that are truly dangerous is not a bad thing.

So, basically, I see no reason to try to convert you.

edit: also, the first one. I don't disagree with it, but I would not assert it as true. I think it's entirely possible that, not only are people basically good, but everybody is actively living their life in the best way they know how. I think it's possible, but I would not go so far as to assert that it is true.

But yeah...same conclusion: why would I be trying to convert you, again?

 

[DarkProphet]

So, basically, I see no reason to try to convert you.

Well, it seems that it is impossible to reach a Christian realization on reason alone so I would need someone to try to convert me if I am ever to be a Christian. I suppose that is not your obligation but if no one is able or willing to present a case for Christianity that fits these tenets then I am to conclude that Christianity overrides them and therefor not worth my consideration.

 

[Mling]

Are you interested in converting?

 

[BelindaP]

I think Mling was trying to say there is nothing in Christianity that conflicts with these tenets. I'm guessing that you are wanting us to describe a Christianity that fits within these tenets, yes?

 

[DarkProphet]

I think Mling was trying to say there is nothing in Christianity that conflicts with these tenets. I'm guessing that you are wanting us to describe a Christianity that fits within these tenets, yes?

Yes, this is what I'm looking for.

 

[Mling]

The teachings of Christ are simply that one loves and cares for his neighbors--all of his neighbors, with particular attention to those who receive love and care from nobody else. It is not only completely compatable with humanism (which I define as the use of human-centric reasoning and rationality in order to find human solutions to human problems), but I feel that humanism is a more Christlike worldview or "religion" so to speak than many other types of religious thought. My reason for that is this:

Let's talk about James, for a bit. James was a very sweet homeless man who used to beg for change down the street from my flat, when I studied in England. I got him food, or gave him money, and I would sit next to him and chat with him sometimes. If I had a house or apartment, I would have invited him to stay with me for a while after he lost the use of his hands due to frost-bite.
There are many different reasons I might have had for trying to forge a friendship with James. Here is one:
James was clearly malnurished--rail thin and pale (pale, even for an Englishman). I was walking by one day and he obviously needed food, so I gave him some change. After a few moments, it occured to me that I was out looking for dinner, too, and we were both alone, so why not invite him out? He declined, for various reasons, but I had already defined him in my mind as a human being--somebody who I could sit and eat with and talk to. So, after that, when I saw him, I would sometimes do just that--bring him some food and talk with him. The talking, I believed was important, and especially that I sat down on the sidewalk next to him. Why? Because from there I could see the world as he did. I had to seriously bite my tongue the first time I saw him hold his paper cup to a woman who picked up her pace and never even glanced at him. He took it in stride.

This is what I would call humanism--the problems were human (he was hungry and ostracized), the solution was human (feed him and speek to him), the reason for the solution was rational and human-centric (but really too simple to require any sort of explanation here. food helps hunger; there ya go.)

Here's another "religious" reason, I might have done what I did:
This person was hungry, and Christ taught that we should feed the hungry--therefore, in order to follow Christ, I should feed him.
I also didn't know whether he was saved or not. By talking to him, maybe I could find out and try to save him if he's not. Most people won't open up about their religious beliefs to a complete stranger, though, so I should earn his trust, first, before I ask, so I'll chat with him for a while and try to strike up a friendship.

The basic thought process is strikingly different. Here, there is one human problem (he is hungry) and one supernatural or religious one (he may not be saved). With the first problem, the answer is still human (feed him, as opposed to a supernatural solution like pray for him), but the reasoning is supernatural (feed him because God told me to, as opposed to the human reason, because I want him to be fed).
The supernatural problem leads to process that, on the surface seems very sweet, and underneath is distrubingly similar to what would be called "grooming" if performed by a child molester. The process is very simple--I want something very specific for or from this person (to molest them, in the case of the child molester, or to "save" them in the case of the evangelical--I suspect, very strongly, that the reason behind wanting to "save" the person boils down to wanting to carve another notch in your Bible case.) In order to do what I want with the person, I need to manipulate them into trusting me by going through the motions of love and friendship.

But, Christ's instructions were to love, not to feign love but attach strings to it; love includes caring for physical needs, but that love should be the motivating factor. If I feed somebody because I seem them as an opportunity to follow God's orders, I've missed the point. As Kant would put it, I've used the person as a means to an end, and I have failed to see their humanity. And I cannot love a person if I see them only as an opportunity, and not as a person.

So...that is why I think that a humanist approach to Christ's teachings is more Christ-like than a religious approach. Which is why I see no reason to try to convert you.

If you're looking for information on Christianity, as opposed to Christ's teachings, look whereever you want--Crusades, Mother Theresa, Fred Phelps, the UCC... The religion of Christianity, it seems, can be anything to anybody.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I really appreciate what you've written, Mling.

 

[Im_A]

I thank you for inviting me into this new forum. I will now present a slightly modified version of the post from the other forum.

thanks for coming. hope this thread is a good one for you.

Is it possible for me to be converted with the following condition?

There are a few basic tenets that I believe in that I would not be willing to give up and they are as follows:

That people are generally good.​

in my opinion, it depends on who you ask. you will find that beliefs on such matter in Christianity range in various of ways. ​

in my opinion, here's i see it. God created us, or we have faith that God did. so if we have that belief, and then we believe that God is good and holy, then only good can come from God correct? then if God is all-holy, sin cannot destroy God's creation. sure sin has left its mark, but we still have the ability to rid it out of our lives our entire life, so that goes to show that sin, the fall (metaphorical or literal) didn't destroy our goodness but we have a stain upon our lives that we are constantly getting rid of. ​

That to have proof is better then to believe without proof.​

this here is a personal thing in my opinion. mere example, i'm a Christian who doesn't believe there is proof that God exists. i have faith God exists and believes there are reasons to have faith but that isn't proof. plus i believe undeniable proof would contradict the very heart of faith. ​

but that doesn't mean we have to live life blindly. the bible does to tell us to critical examine everything and to hold on to the good. ​

so with that said, what exactly kind of proof are you speaking of here?​

That logic and reason should be at the core of how the world is viewed.​

that is the case already. people use their own logic and reasoning that is the core of how they view their world. is there some universal logic and reasoning that is to be found?​

That fear should never guide decisions.​

fear will always be something we deal with. some may live their life in the fear that God is going to act like the Old Testament describes, but others may try to live their life good because they have the fear of hurting others and causing bad things for people's lives.​

so what exactly are you meaning with "fear"?​

That new ideas should be examined.​

well just look at Christianity history of theological beliefs. that should be enough to know that new ideas are always examined.​

That old ideas should be changed if they are found to be wrong.​

could you explain this one in more detail?​

The condition is that no part of your attempt to convert me can override any of these tenets. The other option is to show that the tenet you override is not worth being a tenet. I ask this because every attempt to convert me has failed with this condition.

the idea of convincing you to believe seems nothing but trickery to me and i am convinced that trickery is from the devil/bad way of life (whatever adjective one wants to call it), and thus i have no reason to convince you to believe in Christianity.

but if i can give you reasons to search it out more yourself and for YOU alone to make the choice to convert it on your own terms and between you and God, i will gladly be a part of it.

God Bless you!

plus if we are to convince you, which conscience are you living your life by? is that what you really want?

 

[CaDan]

There's a free toaster oven in it for whoever gets the conversion referral.

 

[DarkProphet]

The teachings of Christ are simply that one loves and cares for his neighbors--all of his neighbors, with particular attention to those who receive love and care from nobody else. It is not only completely compatable with humanism (which I define as the use of human-centric reasoning and rationality in order to find human solutions to human problems), but I feel that humanism is a more Christlike worldview or "religion" so to speak than many other types of religious thought.

So...that is why I think that a humanist approach to Christ's teachings is more Christ-like than a religious approach. Which is why I see no reason to try to convert you.

If you're looking for information on Christianity, as opposed to Christ's teachings, look whereever you want--Crusades, Mother Theresa, Fred Phelps, the UCC... The religion of Christianity, it seems, can be anything to anybody.

After looking at your church I see where you are coming from but one question I have to ask is why do you believe in Christ?

 

[Loki]

I take Christ to be the representation of the infinite or eternal or divine manifested in humanity, a perfection to which human should aspire.

I'm into the symbolism and mythos of it all, though admittedly it's not typically kosher, so to speak.

 

[DarkProphet]

i'm a Christian who doesn't believe there is proof that God exists. i have faith God exists and believes there are reasons to have faith but that isn't proof. plus i believe undeniable proof would contradict the very heart of faith.​

So what reasons do you have to believe? and why is faith so vital?
​

that doesn't mean we have to live life blindly. the bible does to tell us to critical examine everything and to hold on to the good. ​

so with that said, what exactly kind of proof are you speaking of here?​

This is a tenet so it does not imply that I'm looking for any specific kind of proof, it simply means that to have proof is better to believe without proof. If Christianity demands belief without proof then that overrides this tenet.

that is the case already. people use their own logic and reasoning that is the core of how they view their world. is there some universal logic and reasoning that is to be found?​

This is a tenet so what it means is that I use logic and reason to under stand the world. If Christianity demands that I use something else to understand the world then that would override this tenet.

so what exactly are you meaning with "fear"? ​

Again this is a tenet so what it means that I don't consider fear when making decisions.
​

well just look at Christianity history of theological beliefs. that should be enough to know that new ideas are always examined.​

This is true but I was talking about ideas that are new to me.

That old ideas should be changed if they are found to be wrong.
​

could you explain this one in more detail?​

It means the facts don't fit an idea then that means that the idea is in error and should be changed.

the idea of convincing you to believe seems nothing but trickery to me and i am convinced that trickery is from the devil/bad way of life (whatever adjective one wants to call it), and thus i have no reason to convince you to believe in Christianity.

I apologize if it seems like trickery, I mean no disrespect. Consider it a hypothetical situation where you are an evangelists and I am someone you are randomly trying to convert.

but if i can give you reasons to search it out more yourself and for YOU alone to make the choice to convert it on your own terms and between you and God, i will gladly be a part of it.

Well, if you show me a new way of looking a Christianity then I would have to examine it if I am true to my own tenets.

plus if we are to convince you, which conscience are you living your life by? is that what you really want?

what do you mean by which conscience?

 

[Mling]

I don't think you ever answered my question, DarkProphet. Are you interested in converting?

 

[DarkProphet]

I don't think you ever answered my question, DarkProphet. Are you interested in converting?

To be perfectly honest my goal here is to have a better understanding of Christianity rather then to convert. However, I must say that out of all posts in all the questions I have put forward your post is by far the most compelling for me. This is why I ask why you believe in Christ because it seems counterintuitive to be a Christian-Humanist.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Is it possible for me to be converted with the following condition?

I would say it is possible for you to be converted with any condition. Conversion implies an internal change of heart, not so much an outward change to a given set of beliefs. If you desire Christ to be a part of your understanding of the world, then that can happen no matter what background you are coming from. Your questions relate to Christ, but more so they are asking whether such and such are consistent with the human traditions of Christianity. Because there is so much variety within the faith, I think that for all of your tenets there are many Christians who fully agree with you, and many who strongly would not. None of them affect whether or not you can have a relationship with Christ, if with his guidance you still feel that they are true, though they might affect your relationship with other people.

There are a few basic tenets that I believe in that I would not be willing to give up and they are as follows:

I personally agree with you on most of the following statements:

​

That people are generally good.

Those who consider humans to be essentially "Fallen" from grace would quite disagree with you on this point, and there quite a few of these people. This follows from a belief in Original Sin, in which Adam's sin of disobedience transferred to the rest of the human race as a generally sinful nature. The belief is based on a passage in Romans which reads: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."

The Roman Catholic Church has held this doctrine to be true since at least the fourth century, and it has gained even more strength as a paradigm in American Conservatism. Jews do not believe in original sin, however, and many Christian denominations soundly reject the notion that all people are inherently bad, among them the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Unification Church, and the liberal quarters of most mainstream denominations.

According to the above, knowledge of good and evil (whether understood literally or metaphorically) forever changed the human race, and made it possible to depart from the will of God- it does not, however, necessitate that all people are "bad", just potentially so. In this viewpoint, it is commonly considered that Paul in the passage above is describing sinfulness under law, i.e. individual transgressions, not a general state of badness. In the book of John, Jesus says: "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." The implication is not that the wayward branches are bad per say, but that they could be happier and more fruitful through the knowledge gained through Christ.

The notion of some sort of sin (not necessarily badness, but departure from God's intention for humanity) is central to the belief that a Messiah is needed to guide us in finding our way back to a more beneficial way of life- it is the impetus for conversion, as you might say. If you think you are just as well off deciding entirely for yourself what to do without guidance, than it seems to me you would have little reason to listen to what Christ is saying. However, whether or not you decide to "convert", I don't think this would be a very healthy intellectual attitude, and I do not think it is yours- we all have things to learn from one another, and from the author of the world. Islam, by the way, considers a human being to be sinless at birth, but acquiring sin through the process of life- each person is responsible only for their own actions, though all have sinned.

I have to run along, but if you like I can try to address some of your other questions later.

 

[Mling]

As you've been honest here, I'll try to say this nicely--you might want to reconsider your approach. They way you've started both these threads seems a bit like....a guy takes to wearing armor under his clothes in case he gets mugged, but nobody attacks him, so he starts dressing up in designer clothes and strutting around, but still nobody attacks, so he makes sure his armor is still good and he gets all decked out in his Armani suit and leaves some money hanging out of his pocket, walks through the worst part of town at night and yells "Here I am, completely alone, come and get me!" He wants to see how well his armor holds up, but doesn't realize that most people don't just instinctively lunge at vulnerable-looking targets.

Maybe, rather than posing as conversion-bait, just ask "I'm trying to learn more about Christianity. In your view, could these principles fit into it? Why or why not?"

As for why I believe in Christ...I'm seem to be in the middle of some sort of conversion at the moment, and am not available to answer theological questions concerning personal beliefs. Please leave your name and question, and I will get back to you as soon as I've figured out what the heck is going on in my head. Honestly, I'm not sure right now. It's quite possible that I won't believe in any God at all in two years, but so far I have not seen a compelling reason to give up that belief.

What I have seen compelling evidence for is that the Body of Christ (either, those who follow Christ the man/God, or those who follow Christ, the symbolic figure-head of a certain philosophical system; however you want to look at it) is not just another name for Christianity. I have found no reason to continue allying myself with Christianity. My allegiance is to the preservation and service of humanity, and the teachings of Christ are the purest and best guide I have found--the only system and teacher I can cling to with the full knowledge that I will never have to break that allegiance because my ally has stopped supporting my cause. I have stopped identifying as "Christian," because, as I said earlier, the religion can mean anything to anybody. And for some, I think it is very good and very beneficial, but for others it is used as a weapon.

(as another example, I also won't say the Pledge of Allegiance. Not because I have anything against America, but because the organization known as "America" is only a small portion of my main allegiance--humanity, and I don't think that the worth of a human being is dependent on political borders. Also, sometimes what America does is good and beneficial for humanity, but sometimes it is not. Why would I vow fidelity to something that may easily oppose what I really care about?)

Why have I not critically examined my belief in Christ as God (as opposed to Christ as the symbolic figure-head of a philosophically)?: Well, honestly, because I'm not sure it matters at all, and I am sure that, in my case, it does not matter enough to warrent the mental and emotional strain. What I mean when I say that I have rejected Christianity is that I simply don't care about whether, for example, Christ was all human and all God, or just a little less than all God, or any of the myriad other permutations of that belief you can find. I don't think that there's any way a human could possibly know that, if the question even makes any sense at all. So, I find theology interesting, but I don't think that we can "save" ourselves by believing in the right version of it. Why not abandon the concept of God and Christ altogether, and simply live by what I believe is right?

Might be pure existentialism--I know the belief is useful and meaningful to me.

What it comes down to, though, is that theology has become such an unimportant part of my belief system that, even if I were to find conclusive proof that none of it was true, it wouldn't matter much. I can accept the idea that the story of Christ is just a beautiful metaphore. I don't believe that, but I could accept it, and it wouldn't change much about the way I live. But, like I said a paragraph or so earlier, I don't think there is any way a human could know something like that or prove it true or false, and I've already got this belief in my head and heart.
So, summing up: it's there now. I have found no compelling reason to try to dig it out, it would be extremely painful to do so, and ultimately, there would be no point. So, I'll let it go. Yes, I believe in God and Christ. I believe many other things too, about theology, and have many more ideas about how God and the spiritual world could function, that would be interesting if true, and that I see no reason to strongly disbelieve, but also don't see any reason to believe. I guess I'm saving them as notes from when I go create my own universe.

To be perfectly honest my goal here is to have a better understanding of Christianity rather then to convert. However, I must say that out of all posts in all the questions I have put forward your post is by far the most compelling for me. This is why I ask why you believe in Christ because it seems counterintuitive to be a Christian-Humanist.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I thank you for inviting me into this new forum. I will now present a slightly modified version of the post from the other forum.

Is it possible for me to be converted with the following condition?

There are a few basic tenets that I believe in that I would not be willing to give up and they are as follows:

That people are generally good.

That to have proof is better then to believe without proof.

That logic and reason should be at the core of how the world is viewed.

That fear should never guide decisions.

That new ideas should be examined.

That old ideas should be changed if they are found to be wrong.
​

The condition is that no part of your attempt to convert me can override any of these tenets. The other option is to show that the tenet you override is not worth being a tenet. I ask this because every attempt to convert me has failed with this condition.

I don't see why not. Except for the first of those propositions, about which I have some caveats, I agree with all of them, and I consider myself an orthodox Christian, though of no particular denomination.

My reservations about the first: It depends on what you mean by "good"; believing that mankind is perfectible without divine intervention is incompatible with Christianity. But we can certainly be very good by human standards even without a belief in God. For example, the Dalai Lama doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian God, or accept Christ as his savior, but he's as close to saintly character as any man I know of. The catch is, goodness by human standards isn't good enough to get you into Heaven, because there the standard is perfection. Every one of us is a sinner. That doesn't mean we're bad people, but it does mean we fall short of divine perfection.