Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Any thoughts?
Well, you asked...

IMO, it is imperative that Christians be intimately familiar with all the religions of the world, out of respect for those people who may genuinely and wholeheartedly believe in them. Can this be done without giving the impression that we (Christians) are condoning belief in a religion other than Christianity to push with each person... provided we speak the lines written for us.

To become 'well-versed' in another's belief system, IMO, smacks of either naiveté, arrogance, or possibly both, but certainly disingenuous.

Can one be naively disingenuous? Isn't that same as being ingenuously disingenuous? 🙂

It assumes that I'm going to know more about their religion than they (or, at least as much) and that said knowledge will assist me in convincing them of something they (clearly) overlooked.

Not necessarily. It is entirely possible to study a religion in order to develop an appreciation for it, rather than to use your knowledge simply to better evangelize its adherents. From what little study I've done (I'm about to begin pursuing a major in Religion and Philosophy here at the University of Illinois) it is already readily apparent to me that there is much enrichment to glean from the study of religion, quite apart from evangelism or apologetics.

Paul came to understand that his pathetic attempt of relating what he thought he knew about what the Athenians believed could somehow relate to what he knew to be true was a waste of time.

Are you sure about this? I don't remember Paul's attempt being that pathetic at all; actually, quite the opposite. He worked the UNKNOWN GOD into his speech to the high council of the city and some believed: "When they heard Paul speak about the resurrection of the dead, some laughed in contempt, but others said, “We want to hear more about this later.” That ended Paul’s discussion with them, but some joined him and became believers" (Acts 17:32-33).

I think this is what inspired Paul's famous speech to the Athenians, the "Unknown God" reference he used to draw parallels from their supposed beliefs to reality... and we know how that turned out.

Again, bad example, as it turned out alright considering he had a tough crowd (some believed).

Paul came to understand that such an approach was useless, and determined instead...
"For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

I'm not sure how Paul's dealings with the Corinthians can be seen as evidence of some sort of change of tactic learned after reasoning with the the Athenians. More likely Paul's particular way here of dealing with the Corinthians (who, in contrast to the Athenians, were already believers) is due instead to the fact that the Corinthians were still worldly-minded; acting like "mere men." Paul certainly did not speak to all people the same way. Isn't there a statement of Paul's to the effect that Christians are to be all things to all men? In other words, we ought to meet everyone where they are? I don't think you do Paul enough justice.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
interesting how you make no mention of a public ministry, how anyone can read the Bible and somehow overlook this aspect, is altogether, quite amazing, for this seems to me to be the litmus test of the question raised by epiphinehas.

For example, in entering into a discussion, with someone of an Islamic faith, it helps to know, what they accept ...[text shortened]... owledge of the Prophets, establishing common ground and trying to build on that common ground.

Excellent, Robbie.

Originally posted by Conrau K
This is a huge problem for all Christians working in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. For Catholics in particular, there is an ongoing paradigmatic argument -- is dialogue about mutual affirmation or understanding or is its purpose fundamentally evangelical? The Catholic Church in particular has made very large movements in ecumenism (many of its univers ...[text shortened]... profession of the Trinity and possibility of pluralism in talking about the Trinity.

I definitely reject pluralism of any sort. Ecumenism, too.

One shouldn't compromise one's beliefs simply in order to avoid conflict, division or argumentation. But you are right, evangelism is not necessarily opposed to learning and understanding other faiths.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Like another poster said , you could've been born in a non christian country. Would you still be a christian then? Honestly?

It's hard to say. There are Christians in every country on earth. It is possible to have been born into a Christian family virtually anywhere. In my particular case, I wasn't raised to be Christian, even in the midst o of God' and the questionable authority they impart to those who have them.[/b]

Judging from your posts I really dont doubt that you are on the right track. In fact your post was filled with so many doubts that you should feel completely confident that you are on the right path.(As opposed to filled with self-righteous jargon that just shows your insecurities.)

Now as for spiritual experience , only the experiencer,(and a Zen master), can know that they have overcome all doubting and have finally burst into the seat of enlightenment.

Vistesd uses the english much better than I, so I may come off as sounding less "inteligent", but rest assured I keep to my dharma at all times. Or at least make a very sincere effort to do so.

For me to renounce my faith,(in an unamable premise that has guided my life for the last 10 or so years), would be as silly as for me to expect you to renounce yours. Like I said; nothing to me is as concrete as my own personal experiences. To deny these would be to walk back into the preverbial dark ages. Once you get to this state (liberation), there is no going back. You just cant get rid of that type of "knowledge", for it plagues me at every turn if I even dare try. Past the fear of death and on my way to enlightenment. (I can hear you all scoffing at the utter apparent absurdity of that last sentence, but after all I'm just trying to be honest.)

This is not a game. There are no winners or losers. We are all climbing the same mountain and the view from your side may be quite different to the view on mine, but it is tha same mountain. The one and only.

I try not to get lost in intellectual traffic but realize that it is a nessecary stepping stone. I am willing to speak to people on their own terms , for it is their own knowledge that will get them home. Not the second hand knowledge from others.

I view my position as one that has stopped struggling with itself. I try not to be authoritarian in any way.

At this stage I just like to share stories and laugh as often as possible, for this is truly a daunting mission and often the sideways approach can be more effective than the head-on one.
But each to their own😵

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Excellent, Robbie.

Hey Epiphinehas, peace to you my friend. what one is struck with, is the manner in which Paul undertakes to establish his line of reasoning, for despite the fact that it was well known that Agrippa was immoral, having married his brothers wife, Bernice, yet Paul showed him the utmost respect. He could have easily condemned him, but instead, very respectfully used his personal experience, and the knowledge that Agrippa was well versed in the 'controversies of the Jews', to his advantage, thus, finding common ground and establishing a basis for Paul to give him a testimony. Therefore it seems imperative, that we try to establish what grounds we have for agreement, then we shall be better suited to 'adorn', the teaching of the Christ. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
interesting how you make no mention of a public ministry, how anyone can read the Bible and somehow overlook this aspect, is altogether, quite amazing, for this seems to me to be the litmus test of the question raised by epiphinehas.

For example, in entering into a discussion, with someone of an Islamic faith, it helps to know, what they accept ...[text shortened]... owledge of the Prophets, establishing common ground and trying to build on that common ground.

interesting how you make no mention of a public ministry, how anyone can read the Bible and somehow overlook this aspect, is altogether, quite amazing, for this seems to me to be the litmus test of the question raised by epiphinehas.
I assumed that (a public ministry) was what we were talking about. Unless I'm not getting what you're emphasizing, I am considering all of our contacts with an unbeliever as a public ministry. Am I missing it?

I get what you're saying with respect to a reference point--- as clearly Paul was attempting to do with the Unknown God--- but I fail to see how knowing the subtle differences between a Sunni and a Wahabi's beliefs are necessarily going to 'help me help them.'

Paul's point of reference with Festus, IMO, was justified, in that Festus possessed a foundation--- the same foundation upon which truth was being disseminated by God through the Jews for several thousand years--- which could be built upon.

Many times our efforts (read: our best guesses) at building upon some referential point fail, owing to our lack of understanding regarding another's religion and/or the person's individual value system related to the same.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
To become 'well-versed' in another's belief system, IMO, smacks of either naiveté, arrogance, or possibly both, but certainly disingenuous.

Can one be naively disingenuous? Isn't that same as being ingenuously disingenuous? 🙂

It assumes that I'm going to know more about their religion than they (or, at least as much) and that said knowledg ...[text shortened]... meet everyone where they are? I don't think you do Paul enough justice.

... it is already readily apparent to me that there is much enrichment to glean from the study of religion, quite apart from evangelism or apologetics.
Agreed.

That ended Paul’s discussion with them, but some joined him and became believers" (Acts 17:32-33).
And the sense that I get from this part is that the whole endeavor was not met with resounding success.

I guess the issue comes down to this for me: if I want a teller to know the difference between a counterfeit and an authentic bill, I have the teller do nothing but touch authentic bills. Let someone whose job it is to find counterfeits root out the same on their own; the best method for knowing the real ones from the fakes is contact.

My authentic lifestyle, my accurate representation of the truth will be the most effective tools in allowing someone else to see the truth--- not my ability to tell them the difference between the fakes they're holding and my good money.

Time is short!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]interesting how you make no mention of a public ministry, how anyone can read the Bible and somehow overlook this aspect, is altogether, quite amazing, for this seems to me to be the litmus test of the question raised by epiphinehas.
I assumed that (a public ministry) was what we were talking about. Unless I'm not getting what you're emphasizing, ...[text shortened]... ing another's religion and/or the person's individual value system related to the same.[/b]

how will it help you? let me point out a few similarities.

before getting into the intricacies of the difference between Shia and Sunni or anyone else, it is very helpful, to those who are engaged in a public ministry to know not only the beliefs, but something of the customs to those to whom we shall speak. How shall you find common ground if you know next to nothing about what it is they profess? I thought that this would be self evident? Apparently not.

the passage that you cited is a perfect example of this, for Paul, although a Christian, commends the Athenians for their Godly devotion despite the fact they were engaged in idolatry, and what is more, he utilises their belief, in order that he may furnish a witness regarding the Christ and even uses knowledge of first century poetry to do this, something which would have been familiar to the noble minded Athenians!

We are interested in adorning the teaching of Christ as exemplified by Paul and that means finding common ground, how this can be done if we do not know what it is that persons of a different faith profess, i do not know.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how will it help you? let me point out a few similarities.

before getting into the intricacies of the difference between Shia and Sunni or anyone else, it is very helpful, to those who are engaged in a public ministry to know not only the beliefs, but something of the customs to those to whom we shall speak. How shall you find common ground if y ...[text shortened]... n be done if we do not know what it is that persons of a different faith profess, i do not know.

One of the best coaches in the history of basketball, John Wooden, had a somewhat curious stance when it came to the opposition. Whereas all other coaches spent considerable amounts of time and effort toward 'scouting' the other team for strengths and weaknesses, he spent none.

His view was that, if properly prepared according to their own game plan, whatever they might find out about the opposition was superfluous.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
One of the best coaches in the history of basketball, John Wooden, had a somewhat curious stance when it came to the opposition. Whereas all other coaches spent considerable amounts of time and effort toward 'scouting' the other team for strengths and weaknesses, he spent none.

His view was that, if properly prepared according to their own game plan, whatever they might find out about the opposition was superfluous.

what applies in a game of basketball is practically irrelevant in a discussion on spiritual matters with someone of a different faith, for we are trying to engage others in a conversation and to minister to them, to provide practical help or some other solution of which the scriptures make reference, thus, we are genuinely interested in what they have to say, not to debate the pants off them and walk away with ones Bible smokin like a Loch Fyne herring!

(Isaiah 61:1-2) . . .The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me, for the reason that Jehovah has anointed me to tell good news to the meek ones. He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to those taken captive and the wide opening of the eyes even to the prisoners;  to proclaim the year of goodwill on the part of Jehovah and the day of vengeance on the part of our God; to comfort all the mourning ones. . .

its a ministry of reconciliation my friend, not of alienation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what applies in a game of basketball is practically irrelevant in a discussion on spiritual matters with someone of a different faith, for we are trying to engage others in a conversation and to minister to them, to provide practical help or some other solution of which the scriptures make reference, thus, we are genuinely interested in what they hav ...[text shortened]... all the mourning ones. . .

its a ministry of reconciliation my friend, not of alienation.[/b]

what applies in a game of basketball is practically irrelevant in a discussion on spiritual matters...
Well, there goes the idea that a point of reference will help introduce an otherwise-foreign concept!

thus, we are genuinely interested in what they have to say,
We are? You might be, but I am not--- at least not when it comes to spiritual matters. Bully for you, but I wouldn't dream of even feigning interest in what I consider to be crap from a sewer. My only interest would be strictly curiosity-based: how did the truth get so completely out-of-whack?

its a ministry of reconciliation my friend, not of alienation.
Whether we like it or not, whether we realize it or not, when we offer any differing belief system, we are necessarily standing in opposition to the held beliefs, doing everything possible to get them to change from a position in total enmity to the Cross.

"... remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ."

Reconciliation can only happen when the gap is bridged; the gap can be bridged only after it is acknowledged.
My friend.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]what applies in a game of basketball is practically irrelevant in a discussion on spiritual matters...
Well, there goes the idea that a point of reference will help introduce an otherwise-foreign concept!

thus, we are genuinely interested in what they have to say,
We are? You might be, but I am not--- at least not when it comes to spir ...[text shortened]... en when the gap is bridged; the gap can be bridged only after it is acknowledged.
My friend.[/b]

i was very well aware of the concept, it has been proffered in chess as well, in that we concentrate on our own strengths rather than those of our opponent, hardly new, and certainly not relevant.

how anyone can continue through life, in such a 'i am uninterested in you and your beliefs', has to be the worst indictment that can be levelled against so called christians, and is indeed, reflective of all that is wrong with you people. People are spiritually sick, in a dying condition, and you people are uninterested in what they have to say??? It reeks of lack of compassion and self righteousness, lack of empathy and a self-centred approach that is just as about far removed from Christ as one can possible get. Was Paul uninterested in the Athenians, despite their idolatry? was he unconcerned with Agrippa despite his infidelity? No, he was concerned enough to try to help them understand the surpassing value of Christ, despite their 'differences', acknowledged or otherwise.

If Christ was truly in you people, you would be embroiled in humanity, not living, despite it, my friend.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]what applies in a game of basketball is practically irrelevant in a discussion on spiritual matters...
Well, there goes the idea that a point of reference will help introduce an otherwise-foreign concept!

thus, we are genuinely interested in what they have to say,
We are? You might be, but I am not--- at least not when it comes to spir ...[text shortened]... en when the gap is bridged; the gap can be bridged only after it is acknowledged.
My friend.[/b]

Bully for you, but I wouldn't dream of even feigning interest in what I consider to be crap from a sewer.


Anything other than Christianity (I would say “your understanding of Christianity”, but that would seem redundant in context) is no more than “crap from a sewer” and beneath your even feigning interest? Interesting: at first blush, a kind of a priori contempt.


Now, I have misread you before, and maybe I am again (and maybe I should know better). Maybe your language of contempt here is meant to hone a finer point than I am seeing. Are you really that utterly contemptuous of any religious view but your own? I mean, I think your theological views are generally just wrong: but I never would have thought, in all our years of arguing on here, of calling them “crap from a sewer”.


So, I don’t know what to do here other than ask you: are you really that utterly contemptuous of any religious view but your own?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i was very well aware of the concept, it has been proffered in chess as well, in that we concentrate on our own strengths rather than those of our opponent, hardly new, and certainly not relevant.

how anyone can continue through life, in such a 'i am uninterested in you and your beliefs', has to be the worst indictment that can be levelled against ...[text shortened]... truly in you people, you would be embroiled in humanity, not living, despite it, my friend.

i was very well aware of the concept, it has been proffered in chess as well, in that we concentrate on our own strengths rather than those of our opponent, hardly new, and certainly not relevant.
Huh.

how anyone can continue through life, in such a 'i am uninterested in you and your beliefs', has to be the worst indictment that can be levelled against so called christians
I'm sorry: I must have missed the indictment part. What was it again?

... reflective of all that is wrong with you people.
What do you mean "you people?"

People are spiritually sick, in a dying condition, and you people are uninterested in what they have to say???
Untrue and unfair! I make it a point to always tell them to turn their heads and cough. Okay, maybe coughing doesn't qualify as 'something to say,' but my wanting to hear it must count as interest. Right?

It reeks of lack of compassion and self righteousness, lack of empathy and a self-centred approach that is just as about far removed from Christ as one can possible get.
Oh dear me.
I'd nearly forgotten how our Lord Jesus Christ was quoted so often imploring those around Him to tell Him their stories. Who can forget these nuggets of compassion toward those poor, sickened and lost souls:

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"
"You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."
"And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Ah, nothing like those old tear-jerkers, eh?
Can't you just hear the crackling fire, as they gathered around the warmth of the glow, excited for their own turn to tell the Messiah all about their individual take on what it takes to get to Heaven?

Are you really that foolish about life? Really that naive?

He didn't come to this planet to start a give-and-take dialogue between man and God: as God, He knew perfectly what the issues were... and the issues had nothing to do with God listening to man. Instead, the issues began with man listening to Him. Quite candidly, God doesn't give a rat's ass about what man thinks about righteousness; He already knows every aspect of man's twisted, tortured take on what it's all about.

The Lord Jesus Christ came to this earth to tell God's side, not listen to man.

If Christ was truly in you people, you would be embroiled in humanity, not living, despite it, my friend.
Comically, in your yearning to appear more intellectual than warranted, you mistakingly fumble out a truth.
From the moment I picked up my cross, I have been in conflict with all unbelieving humanity... striving in my encounters to show them the error of their way, to see the reality of truth.
My friend.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i was very well aware of the concept, it has been proffered in chess as well, in that we concentrate on our own strengths rather than those of our opponent, hardly new, and certainly not relevant.

how anyone can continue through life, in such a 'i am uninterested in you and your beliefs', has to be the worst indictment that can be levelled against ...[text shortened]... truly in you people, you would be embroiled in humanity, not living, despite it, my friend.

If Christ was truly in you people, you would be embroiled in humanity, not living, despite it, my friend.

Whoa, take it down a notch. There's no need to condemn anyone here, we're just having a discussion. Here you are berating Freaky about the merits of being 'embroiled' in humanity, yet you're actively creating divisions right here in this very thread ('you people'😉. Please tell me you see the irony in that. It's OK to disagree, but it isn't OK to insult or condemn.

I think you both make valid points, which is why this subject is so difficult.