SIN IS STILL SIN

[topher694]

If your tactic is trying to seem like you're not like those other Christians, sounds to me like you're engaging in no true Scotsman to say your perspective on Christianity could change their mind. But how is that any different than the initial problem of inventing an illness to present the cure, you've just posited a different approach

But if you're just going to be defensive and keep making Freodin to be attacking you rather than engaging in a way you think is cynical, you're insinuating your presumptions onto him as much as you claim they're doing to you

My tactic? How cynical. I couldn't possibly have convictions and stand by them. Everything I say must be a means to an end. And that end is "winning" somehow?

No true Scottsman? I've accused no one of not being a real Christian. I simply disagree with their approach. If you think that's a no true Scottsman, you'd best take a second look.

It appears your tactic is to read the worst into what others type. My heart (not tactic) comes from years of actual ministry, sincere attempts to help people and proven results.

My only real issue is the approach Skidder takes causes more harm than good (which this thread proves). I have spent countless hours counseling hurt people due to the damage his tactics cause.

 

[muichimotsu]

My tactic? How cynical. I couldn't possibly have convictions and stand by them. Everything I say must be a means to an end. And that end is "winning" somehow?

No true Scottsman? I've accused no one of not being a real Christian. I simply disagree with their approach. If you think that's a no true Scottsman, you'd best take a second look.

It appears your tactic is to read the worst into what others type. My heart (not tactic) comes from years of actual ministry, sincere attempts to help people and proven results.

My only real issue is the approach Skidder takes causes more harm than good (which this thread proves). I have spent countless hours counseling hurt people due to the damage his tactics cause.

Your convictions are just that: they stand on the merit of arguments for them, not the strength of your beliefs in them

If our general discussion is seeking truth as an end, then the means by which we do so would be utilizing various methods

The end could be winning, but perhaps you're not seeking that.

The problem becomes how you justify the claim that they are wrong and not actually doing what is right to seek out truth. What is the basis in the Christian worldview to necessarily be compassionate if the stakes are so high that it might behoove them to be harsh in some sense? It's a mixed bag in the gospels alone about being compassionate versus harsh in encouraging the whole "follow God" angle

Your intentions can be good, but the reality you claim in regards to it is where I'd take issue, because it's playing into people's frailty of not wanting to confront reality and instead filter it so it's more comfortable

And why should it be that I have a tactic unless you have a basis to believe my focus is on winning or such? Seems as much generalization as you accuse me of doing

Again, good intentions are arguably hollow without consideration of the impact the assistance done because of them has on people in the long term rather than a short term of "recovery"

 

[topher694]

No, sorry, that is exactly the point I do not get. Or that I contest, if what I think you mean with that is correct.
People who are not satisfied with themselves seek to get better. What they chose in order to do that can differ widely.
Some may "seek God" to help them. But if they do that, they already believe that there is "God" or a "Higher Power" to help them.

So I guess you can understand why that would be a little difficult - and potentially dishonest - for atheists.

I have had many people who don't believe in God, or are unsure of Him walk into my church. I have had many of the same ask me many "hard" questions once they learn I am a pastor. Questions about life and death, pain and suffering, forgiving those that hurt them the most. Not in any sort of debating way whatsoever.

People that are not Christian who are seeking God. Sometimes just answering their questions and showing compassion (which has been my main focus in this thread) is enough to guide them to a place of belief. Regardless of the result, it actually happens a lot.

So you can see why I would not accept that people must have a previous belief in order to seek God. I have numerous contrary experiences.

 

[topher694]

Your convictions are just that: they stand on the merit of arguments for them, not the strength of your beliefs in them

If our general discussion is seeking truth as an end, then the means by which we do so would be utilizing various methods

The end could be winning, but perhaps you're not seeking that.

The problem becomes how you justify the claim that they are wrong and not actually doing what is right to seek out truth. What is the basis in the Christian worldview to necessarily be compassionate if the stakes are so high that it might behoove them to be harsh in some sense? It's a mixed bag in the gospels alone about being compassionate versus harsh in encouraging the whole "follow God" angle

Your intentions can be good, but the reality you claim in regards to it is where I'd take issue, because it's playing into people's frailty of not wanting to confront reality and instead filter it so it's more comfortable

And why should it be that I have a tactic unless you have a basis to believe my focus is on winning or such? Seems as much generalization as you accuse me of doing

Again, good intentions are arguably hollow without consideration of the impact the assistance done because of them has on people in the long term rather than a short term of "recovery"

So now I am obligated to prove my arguments to your satisfaction? Except I've already stated many times I have no desire to argue.

I put out my opinion and experiences. People ask me questions about that, then get upset at my answer and attach far more to them than was there. Then, expect me to answer the far more portions. It's silly.

My primary intentions have been and will continue to be to help people that want it, not win arguments. I've dedicated my life to that. If you are looking for arguments versus insight we've got nothing more to talk about.

 

[Freodin]

I have had many people who don't believe in God, or are unsure of Him walk into my church. I have had many of the same ask me many "hard" questions once they learn I am a pastor. Questions about life and death, pain and suffering, forgiving those that hurt them the most. Not in any sort of debating way whatsoever.

People that are not Christian who are seeking God. Sometimes just answering their questions and showing compassion (which has been my main focus in this thread) is enough to guide them to a place of belief. Regardless of the result, it actually happens a lot.

So you can see why I would not accept that people must have a previous belief in order to seek God. I have numerous contrary experiences.

I cannot doubt your experiences... I simply do not share them. Quite obviously, we deal with different parts of the population.

But the first sentence here is something I found interesting for my point: "... or are unsure of Him..."

You are a pastor. Your "job" is faith. I am an atheist. Even if it is not a job, it is an important part of my life.
And just as you encounter people "who are unsure of Him", I encounter people who "do not really not believe in God". They just haven't really thought about it.

I really don't want to use the "true scotsman fallacy" in this regard, and "atheism" is much too vague and different to do so. But I have found that quite a lot of those "converted atheists" have never been atheists in the way that I am.

I do not believe in deities. So why would I talk to a pastor about life and death? This is for people who believe that there is something to it. And if they search out a Christian priest, they obviously believe that there is something to Christianity.

I am rather reluctant to call these people unbelievers.

I might misrepresent them. As I said, I talk to other people than you do.

 

[Robban]

My tactic? How cynical. I couldn't possibly have convictions and stand by them. Everything I say must be a means to an end. And that end is "winning" somehow?

No true Scottsman? I've accused no one of not being a real Christian. I simply disagree with their approach. If you think that's a no true Scottsman, you'd best take a second look.

It appears your tactic is to read the worst into what others type. My heart (not tactic) comes from years of actual ministry, sincere attempts to help people and proven results.

My only real issue is the approach Skidder takes causes more harm than good (which this thread proves). I have spent countless hours counseling hurt people due to the damage his tactics cause.

I thought skidder was talking about the general condition of the worldwide church,
not a one on one.

What harm has he done?

Haha, a little too Jonathan Edwards?

 

[NBB]

I thought skidder was talking about the general condition of the worldwide church,
not a one on one.

What harm has he done?

Haha, a little too Jonathan Edwards?

I am concerned too, we should fight for the true gospel, this an horrible thing, accepting bad as good and good as bad, and telling the gays they can live a lie, as in be christian and sin there is nothing that could go wrong there. I mean i sin too, but we should try to call sin what it is and not embrace it.

Also discussing this with unbelievers is a bad idea.

 

[topher694]

I cannot doubt your experiences... I simply do not share them. Quite obviously, we deal with different parts of the population.

But the first sentence here is something I found interesting for my point: "... or are unsure of Him..."

You are a pastor. Your "job" is faith. I am an atheist. Even if it is not a job, it is an important part of my life.
And just as you encounter people "who are unsure of Him", I encounter people who "do not really not believe in God". They just haven't really thought about it.

I really don't want to use the "true scotsman fallacy" in this regard, and "atheism" is much too vague and different to do so. But I have found that quite a lot of those "converted atheists" have never been atheists in the way that I am.

I do not believe in deities. So why would I talk to a pastor about life and death? This is for people who believe that there is something to it. And if they search out a Christian priest, they obviously believe that there is something to Christianity.

I am rather reluctant to call these people unbelievers.

I might misrepresent them. As I said, I talk to other people than you do.

All I can tell you is that is what some of them - those that have approached me - call themselves. I'm in no more position (less actually) to question them on that than I am to question Christians on their belief in God.

 

[topher694]

I thought skidder was talking about the general condition of the worldwide church,
not a one on one.

What harm has he done?

Haha, a little too Jonathan Edwards?

It's whole other topic in and of itself. But, the point is I've seen and dealt with the damage done using this approach both on an individual level and a more general level. It absolutely happens, far too often, and it can really hurt people and either damage their faith or drive them away from God.

 

[muichimotsu]

So now I am obligated to prove my arguments to your satisfaction? Except I've already stated many times I have no desire to argue.

I put out my opinion and experiences. People ask me questions about that, then get upset at my answer and attach far more to them than was there. Then, expect me to answer the far more portions. It's silly.

My primary intentions have been and will continue to be to help people that want it, not win arguments. I've dedicated my life to that. If you are looking for arguments versus insight we've got nothing more to talk about.

Are you not projecting particular insinuations you seem to have onto me rather than considering tone and such are not as clear through online posts versus face to face conversations?

The question at the core seems to be: is it possible that the help you offer is a placebo rather than something long-lasting?

 

[Robban]

It's whole other topic in and of itself. But, the point is I've seen and dealt with the damage done using this approach both on an individual level and a more general level. It absolutely happens, far too often, and it can really hurt people and either damage their faith or drive them away from God.

Thought that was the topic in his opening post he said ecumenical.

Is that not the whole collection?

This world is getting dafter and dafter for each day that passes.

People getting offended over nothing,
strikes me they have too much time on their hands.

 

[topher694]

Are you not projecting particular insinuations you seem to have onto me rather than considering tone and such are not as clear through online posts versus face to face conversations?

The question at the core seems to be: is it possible that the help you offer is a placebo rather than something long-lasting?

No

 

[topher694]

Thought that was the topic in his opening post he said ecumenical.

Is that not the whole collection?

This world is getting dafter and dafter for each day that passes.

People getting offended over nothing,
strikes me they have too much time on their hands.

Pretty sure I included that in my statement.

 

[NBB]

It's whole other topic in and of itself. But, the point is I've seen and dealt with the damage done using this approach both on an individual level and a more general level. It absolutely happens, far too often, and it can really hurt people and either damage their faith or drive them away from God.

Should not be this like any other sin? and adulterer needs to want to stop cheating his wife to follow Christ right?

 

[topher694]

Should not be this like any other sin? and adulterer needs to want to stop cheating his wife to follow Christ right?

That's not my point. When you start at a place of condemnation without offering a way to overcome and encouragement to do so, be it specific or general, it does not point people to Jesus it drives them away from Him. It is entirely possible to be strong in your convictions and still point people to Jesus. That is exactly what John the Baptist did.

 

[NBB]

That's not my point. When you start at a place of condemnation without offering a way to overcome and encouragement to do so, be it specific or general, it does not point people to Jesus it drives them away from Him. It is entirely possible to be strong in your convictions and still point people to Jesus. That is exactly what John the Baptist did.

AH ok.

 

[muichimotsu]

No

Uh, there were 2 questions there, is no the answer to both?

Saying it's impossible your method could be a placebo seems more extraordinary to say than being skeptical of it

 

[Robban]

That's not my point. When you start at a place of condemnation without offering a way to overcome and encouragement to do so, be it specific or general, it does not point people to Jesus it drives them away from Him. It is entirely possible to be strong in your convictions and still point people to Jesus. That is exactly what John the Baptist did.

"Ye offspring of vipers"

Is hardly a pat on the back.

 

[muichimotsu]

"Ye offspring of vipers"

Is hardly a pat on the back.

Weird how Jesus isn't depicted with much consistency even between supposedly the more similar thematic gospels (though I'll admit I only know bits and pieces of the themes each has). It's almost like having multiple gospels might've further complicated the message, even assuming he's consistent in each individual gospel (I'm skeptical on that)

 

[topher694]

Uh, there were 2 questions there, is no the answer to both?

Saying it's impossible your method could be a placebo seems more extraordinary to say than being skeptical of it

Well since I know of several people that would not be alive today otherwise, including myself, I'm confident in my answer.