Superiority Complex.

[Catherineanne]

What do people think of the comment and what do people think of using scripture in moral debate?

(If you want to see the whole discussion here's the link: http://www.revelife.com/722660966/in-moral-debate-should-we-quote-scripture/)

I probably would not use Scripture in a discussion with a non believer, mainly because it would be irrelevant to him or her. Similarly, I am completely unmoved by verses from the Koran, because they carry no authority with me. I use Scripture in discussions with Sola Scriptura followers, because that is the kind of language that is meaningful to them.

It is a matter of relevance, but also of politeness.

 

[Catherineanne]

Christians must think because the bible keeps them in check it will work the same way for everyone, but as you say it Ain't gonna happen.

The Bible doesn't keep me in check. Nor does it constrain some 'Bible believers' to demonstrate self control when quoting it.

 

[Catherineanne]

As per our Lord's mandate to His disciples, the responsibility of a Christian is to share the Gospel with non-believers at every opportunity.

God forbid!

St Francis said, 'Preach the Gospel at all times; if absolutely necessary, use words.'

In other words, sharing the Gospel is about who we are, not about boring everyone to tears with our own variant of Scriptural exegesis.

 

[Catherineanne]

Christians, by default, must quote the Bible when they participate in moral debates, but they are equally compelled to explain themselves.

I am sorry, but this is not the case. There is no 'must' about it; there is a choice. There is no constraint on Christians to quote the Bible when stating their moral position. We can quote anyone and anything we like, the same as any other person.

As a Pacifist, for example, I would be more likely to quote Gandhi, because his words on this issue summarise most effectively what I believe. This does not mean that I place Gandhi above the Scriptures (although in Pacifist terms he probably does rate higher than some books of the Bible at least), but it does mean that the quotation is likely to resonate with more than just Christians.

 

[Catherineanne]

Well, yes, I don't doubt that there is little out there that would "work" to convert a nonbeliever in God to Christianity. I'm afraid we are all rather stubborn in our religious beliefs.

There is only one thing that can change a person from being an unbeliever to a believer, and that is God's grace. It is his job, not mine, therefore it is not my job to batter you or anyone else about the head with Scripture verses or my idiosyncratic interpretation of the same, until you submit to believing in God.

Which is why I don't generally engage in evangelism. Just who I am and how I behave. That's all.

 

[Catherineanne]

Being an Atheist is seen by most religious people here as being a choice unbelievers make, they think atheists deliberately deny God, I think that's why they don't like atheism being discussed, you would think that because most of them know very little about atheism they would want to know what it's all about, but as you say even if they did ask we are not allowed to tell them.

Anyone who takes this pov is not following mainstream Christian belief. It is an accepted truth of our faith that no-one can effect his own salvation; our salvation is always an act of God's grace. God calls, we answer.

So, the choice is either;
a God is being singularly ineffectual in calling you
b you are refusing to answer him out of some kind of hubris
c he has not called you sufficiently effectively as yet; the Lord moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform. He has other plans and is in no hurry, because he knows that you are as safe in his hands as any believer.

I go with c, myself. If we accept this as being at least possible, and we also accept that none of us has arrived as yet; we are all on a journey, then there is no point blaming any non-believer for not believing. It would make as much sense as blaming someone on a transatlantic flight for not being in Arizona. None of us chose to believe; that is works theology. We were all called to believe, and simply responded to that call.

Me today; you tomorrow. Or next year, or next decade. Whenever. Doesn't bother me.

 

[Catherineanne]

"If we believe that our very nature is sinful, it necessarily follows that a sinful nature can only lead to sinful thoughts and actions.

I don't know where you are getting this idea that the very nature of humanity is sinful. This is not what the Bible says about the creation of man, or about how we are to thank him for our creation.

Once we know what sin is, we can then choose either to engage in it or not. Because we are human we will stumble, but not because we are inherently evil, but because we are imperfect.

More importantly, God chose to create us as fallible and imperfect; he wanted us this way, because it is by making mistakes that we learn and mature. Fallibility is not the same thing as having an inherently sinful nature at all. We have a choice; we can either never take a risk and never make a mistake, or we can choose to follow Christ instead, knowing that he will no more expect perfection first time from us, than we do of our own children.

 

[Greg1234]

Christians must think because the bible keeps them in check it will work the same way for everyone, but as you say it Ain't gonna happen.

No one is trying to keep you in check. Lol. I frequently see atheists conversing among themselves saying I did this and that to a Christian today. A Christian tried to use this verse on me so I gave him what was coming for him. Nobody messes with me. I'm the boss. Yea...

And of course the others cheer him on and tell him good job keep it up etc. Its almost as if you guy's instigate a confrontation to then exhibit some kind of response which you can then turn in for some brownie points. This is not true for all atheists but it happens very frequently.

The use of bible verses is not to end conversations. But it is a response which was already given more than 2000 (+ -) years ago and the need to repeat it seems unnecessary. Especially when it is worded so much more eloquently. The reply from the atheist that "I don't believe in such and such" is not unexpected, outright retaliation does not really have the **wow** factor ("they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces", Matt 7:6).as most seem to believe. If I had given the response in my own words, then I would be chastised, you take it from the bible, then the bible is chastised. Thats how it works.

The mind is active. A man hard set in the material will not budge. Like the setting of frost on the joints in the middle of a blizzard, when he drops, with every passing day, moving becomes seemingly more painful, more unlikely, to the point where your encouragement is an outright insult. But you have to move to stay warm. You have to start moving to get warm. In the meantime though, words of encouragement fall on deaf ears. The road you tread almost patronizing to him. Then come the utterances of discouragement. For the sake of not using scripture:

"Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. He who has ears, let him hear.” (Matthew 13:1-9)

"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.” (Matthew 13: 18-23)

 

[Catherineanne]

Asking a Christian to not quote the Bible in a moral debate is like asking an American not to quote the U.S. Constitution during a debate of constitutions; it's completely baffling.

It is a bit sad if Christians can't think of any other arguments for their pov, than those found in Scripture. Rather lacking in imagination, I would say.

 

[Catherineanne]

The mind is active. A man hard set in the material will not budge. Like the setting of frost on the joints in the middle of an Blizzard, when he drops, with every passing day, moving becomes seemingly more painful, more unlikely, to the point where your encouragement is an outright insult. But you have to move to stay warm. You have to start moving to get warm. In the meantime though, words of encouragement fall on deaf ears. The road you tread almost patronizing to him. Then come the utterances of discouragement.

I refer you to my post above. Salvation is by grace, not by works.

It is not for you or me to convince anyone of anything. Only God can do this.

Therefore, we can chill out.

 

[ephraimanesti]

It is a bit sad if Christians can't think of any other arguments for their pov, than those found in Scripture. Rather lacking in imagination, I would say.

MY DEAR SISTER,

Apparently St. Paul doesn't agree with you. He wrote, "ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED AND IS USEFUL FOR TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTING AND TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, SO THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK." (II Timothy 3:16-17)

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[SithDoughnut]

MY DEAR SISTER,

Apparently St. Paul doesn't agree with you. He wrote, "ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED AND IS USEFUL FOR TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTING AND TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, SO THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK." (II Timothy 3:16-17)

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

Note how that verse refers to the 'man of God', as opposed the unbeliever. The Bible is invaluable as guidance if you already believe it, but is useless to someone who doesn't. As Catherineanne said, it is more effective to preach through actions than words.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Note how that verse refers to the 'man of God', as opposed the unbeliever. The Bible is invaluable as guidance if you already believe it, but is useless to someone who doesn't. As Catherineanne said, it is more effective to preach through actions than words.

MY BROTHER,

Yes, but the man or woman of God does need words to explain the actions to the unbelievers so that they know the source and the power from whence the actions flow, and, in the final analysis, the primary God-mandated "action" of a man/woman of God is the speaking of the Words of God to unbelievers.

Secondly, the Scriptures relating to the need for and attaining of Salvation are crystal clear--any reasonably intelligent child can understand them. Whether or not they are accepted by a non-believer and acted upon is not the concern of the speaker but the responsibility of the hearer.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Catherineanne]

MY DEAR SISTER,

Apparently St. Paul doesn't agree with you. He wrote, "ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED AND IS USEFUL FOR TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTING AND TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, SO THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK." (II Timothy 3:16-17)

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

Nope, the blessed Paul and I are in full agreement on this one, as long as we stick to what the Bible says, and don't wander into extrapolation. I may well disagree with your interpretation of what Paul means in these words, but that is not the same thing as disagreeing with the blessed saint.

I also think the Bible is useful etc etc. Paul does not say we ought never to use any other point of reference when talking to people. This attitude is interpretation, therefore, and not Scripture.

 

[Catherineanne]

As Catherineanne said, it is more effective to preach through actions than words.

Perhaps even more than this, SD. If our words are about love, and our actions are about intolerance or bigotry, then our words risk bringing our whole faith into disrepute. Better to keep quiet than run such a risk, I would say.

Therefore, by all means evangelise if you want to, fellow believers, but make absolutely 100% certain that your life is congruent with what you are saying, or else you are not furthering the kingdom, but exactly the opposite.

 

[Catherineanne]

MY BROTHER,

Yes, but the man or woman of God does need words to explain the actions to the unbelievers so that they know the source and the power from whence the actions flow, and, in the final analysis, the primary God-mandated "action" of a man/woman of God is the speaking of the Words of God to unbelievers.

Nonsense. The primary mandate of any Christian is to love.

Rule one: Never answer a question before it is asked. The answer will simply not be heard.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Nope, the blessed Paul and I are in full agreement on this one, as long as we stick to what the Bible says, and don't wander into extrapolation. I may well disagree with your interpretation of what Paul means in these words, but that is not the same thing as disagreeing with the blessed saint.

MY SISTER,

Isn't the above statement somewhat of an abrupt change of position from your previous pronouncements--such as the following--which appear to be demanding "extrapolation" and "imagination" as opposed to sticking to what the Bible clearly states----

It is a bit sad if Christians can't think of any other arguments for their pov, than those found in Scripture. Rather lacking in imagination, I would say."

For a Christian, any other source of arguments are bogus because, for a Christian, the expectation is that their point of view will coincide EXACTLY with that expressed by their Abba and His Son.

I also think the Bible is useful etc etc. Paul does not say we ought never to use any other point of reference when talking to people. This attitude is interpretation, therefore, and not Scripture.

There is NO "other point of reference when talking to people" besides God's expressed Word. HE is the one and only "point of reference" for a Christian. Not very "imaginative", perhaps, but it seems to me that faithfulness is more important that "imagination" in Spiritual matters, given that "imagination" is a key ingredient in the creation of cults and heresies.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[ephraimanesti]

Nonsense. The primary mandate of any Christian is to love.

MY SISTER,

Is not the honest, accurate, and comprehensive speaking of God's Word to another--especially one lost in the darkness of unbelief--the ultimate expression of Love towards them?

ephraim

 

[Catherineanne]

MY SISTER,

Isn't the above statement somewhat of an abrupt change of position from your previous pronouncements--such as the following--which appear to be demanding "extrapolation" and "imagination" as opposed to sticking to what the Bible clearly states----

Not at all. If you are going to quote the Bible, it is imperative to make sure you quote it properly, and don't wander off into your own imagination.

If talking to people, you can choose to base what you say on the Bible, and you can also choose to base it on other reference points. Again, always assuming you quote them correctly.

No inconsistency at all.

For a Christian, any other source of arguments are bogus because, for a Christian, the expectation is that their point of view will coincide EXACTLY with that expressed by their Abba and His Son.

You are assuming that every other argument is going to contradict Scripture. Why would you think that, exactly?

There is NO "other point of reference when talking to people" besides God's expressed Word. HE is the one and only "point of reference" for a Christian. Not very "imaginative", perhaps, but it seems to me that faithfulness is more important that "imagination" in Spiritual matters, given that "imagination" is a key ingredient in the creation of cults and heresies.

You are entitled to your opinion on this one.

However, to me, Christ may well be the cornerstone of our faith, and indeed he is, but that does not mean that we cannot quote Gandhi, the Duke of Wellington, or the Dalai Lama if we wish to do so. A Christian quoting the Dalai Lama does not suddenly change into a Buddhist.

If we are talking to those who do not understand what the Bible is, or who Christ is to us, it makes far more sense to start from where they are, rather than where they are not.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Hey, you are aware of the fact that Paul was answering the question of whether the "Old Testament" scriptures were to be read or not, don't you?

The Bible as we know it today didn't exist at that point in history. Most of the New Testament wasn't even written at the time.