Questioning online apologetics

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I'm not sure if my intent for the word is anything out of the ordinary. I find no fault in the dictionary definition.

Here is a quick dictionary entry (not the most comprehensive one, I’m sure):

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions 2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to nitial view on online apologetics. 🙂 Maybe online “explication” would be a better word?)[/b]

[faith] >> An attitude of confidence and openness to possibility in the face of [existential] conditions of uncertainty.

This definition is similar to what I was attempting to explain to LemonJello regarding "childlike faith". 🙂 And you're right, I do have something more specific in mind. Namely, action. The definition which you give here, I think, describes the humility of mind which must necessarily precede a life of faith, but this humility isn't exactly faith itself (at least according to the many faith examples in the Bible). The biblical definition of faith is really inextricable from action. Having an attitude of confidence and openness to possibility in the face of existential conditions of uncertainty, i.e., the state of being which Plato called 'wisdom' (knowing that you know nothing), is accessible to anyone with a little time on their hands. But it's quite another thing to "step out" in faith, trusting enough in a specific promise uttered by God to act accordingly.

This brings us to the Gospel message itself. Christ's message was that God's kingdom is now accessible to all men and women, without partiality. It wasn't a message about "how to get into heaven when you die," which many Christians have mistakenly portrayed it as. Rather, it was, and is, an invitation to partner with God and experience the influx of His kingdom in a real way, in our present lives. Christ himself is the kingdom at hand, and by faith in him men and women are now able to be reconciled with God and live according to his will. Essentially, the Good News is all about the effectiveness of faith put into action, and the demonstration of that faith, not only in Christ's life, but in the lives of his followers.

It's not about heaven and hell, or the end of the world, or even sin - Christ's gospel is nothing if it is not relevant to our daily lives - it's about being "born from above", i.e., being introduced to a synergetic relationship with God, tapping into his ever-present kingdom (Christ), where all God's power, wisdom, protection, guidance, love, care, knowledge, etc., are at your disposal. The Good News is precisely that this "Kingdom living" is now available in Christ, to all who would place their faith in him enough to demonstrate God's kingdom on earth.

__________

EDIT: I think the "gospel" which most people reject really isn't the true Gospel at all. The gospel which the theological right has been selling is a gospel of sin-management (i.e., guilt removal) and eternal destiny (i.e., getting into heaven). People reject this "gospel" because it has no relevancy to their everyday lives. They may not feel particularly guilty about anything, and perhaps suspect a manipulative intent behind the thinly veiled threats of eternal damnation. They may have rejected this "gospel" thinking they have rejected the actual Gospel taught by Jesus Christ, but in truth they haven't even heard the real Gospel yet.

The true gospel stresses the availability of God's kingdom right here and right now, to any and all who act on their faith in Jesus Christ. Christ's original message was intended to be relevant now; God's ever-present kingdom demonstrated now. This is a gospel that can be practiced and proved reliable now, not a gospel dependent on some obscure legal reality in God's mind to do away with one's guilt and secure a place in heaven (although that is certainly part of the deal, but peripherally).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b][faith] >> An attitude of confidence and openness to possibility in the face of [existential] conditions of uncertainty.

This definition is similar to what I was attempting to explain to LemonJello regarding "childlike faith". 🙂 And you're right, I do have something more specific in mind. Namely, action. The definition which you give here, ough that is certainly part of the deal, but peripherally).[/b]

The true gospel stresses the availability of God's kingdom right here and right now, to any and all who act on their faith in Jesus Christ. Christ's original message was intended to be relevant now; God's ever-present kingdom demonstrated now. This is a gospel that can be practiced and proved reliable now, not a gospel dependent on some obscure legal reality in God's mind to do away with one's guilt and secure a place in heaven (although that is certainly part of the deal, but peripherally).

When Jesus says things like the following, why do so many insist on believing that "do[ing] away with one's guilt...a part of the deal"? Or that one can continue to sin and still be granted "eternal life"? What if the "guilt" is part of the process for one to be able/willing "to demonstrate God's kingdom on earth."

John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."

Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The true gospel stresses the availability of God's kingdom right here and right now, to any and all who act on their faith in Jesus Christ. Christ's original message was intended to be relevant now; God's ever-present kingdom demonstrated now. This is a gospel that can be practiced and proved reliable now, not a gospel dependent on some obscure legal r 'I never knew you. [b]Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'[/b]

What if the "guilt" is part of the process for one to be able/willing "to demonstrate God's kingdom on earth."

Please explain what you mean here in more depth.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b][faith] >> An attitude of confidence and openness to possibility in the face of [existential] conditions of uncertainty.

This definition is similar to what I was attempting to explain to LemonJello regarding "childlike faith". 🙂 And you're right, I do have something more specific in mind. Namely, action. The definition which you give here, ...[text shortened]... ough that is certainly part of the deal, but peripherally).[/b]

In The Republic Plato paints quite a different picture of wisdom, as excellence of the rational part of one's soul. While this will involve epistemic humility, it certainly requires more than that. Even if you construe the claim "S knows that S knows nothing" in a manner that does not immediately lead to contradiction, you are still left saddling Plato with a view of wisdom that entails that morons could be wise if they simply have the true belief that they know very, very little. What of Plato's insistence on the necessity of the harmony of the soul, or the knowledge of the good? What of Plato's construal of wisdom as one of the four cardinal virtues?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]What if the "guilt" is part of the process for one to be able/willing "to demonstrate God's kingdom on earth."

Please explain what you mean here in more depth.[/b]

Let's say an individual strays from the path of truth, i.e., the will of God. A result of this straying can be an uncomfortableness/pain, i.e., guilt. This "uncomfortableness" can motivate the individual to change his course to get back on the path of truth. It can also serve as an impetus for the individual to reflect long and deeply enough for him to come to the realization that the behavior can no longer be an option, i.e., repentance. This realization is the truth that can make one free from the slavery of sin.

The mind can also deal with the "uncomfortableness" by coming up with mitigating circumstances, i.e., rationalizations, as to why the behavior was acceptable. This is by far the most common way of dealing with it.

Unfortunately a common rationalization for Christians seems to be the idea that they "are only human" and therefore incapable of overcoming their "sinful nature". This is compounded by the idea that they have been afforded "salvation"/"eternal life"/"entrance to heaven" merely by professing that they believe that Jesus died for everyone's sins. Some even go so far as to take pride in the fact that they "don't have to feel guilt". I believe this largely explains why it seems that Christians are no better at following the will of God than the general population.

I suppose I could go deeper on some of the points, but this should give you the general idea.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's say an individual strays from the path of truth, i.e., the will of God. A result of this straying can be an uncomfortableness/pain, i.e., guilt. This "uncomfortableness" can motivate the individual to change his course to get back on the path of truth. It can also serve as an impetus for the individual to reflect long and deeply enough for him to co ...[text shortened]... d go deeper on some of the points, but this should give you the general idea.

Take a deep breath and have a brandy standing by....

I would tend to agree wholeheartedly with much of what you say here. Guilt is not to be spurned. My view is that there is healthy guilt and unhealthy guilt. If a man is being chastised by God the Holy Spirit will cause him to feel "uncomfortable" and restless (guilty) . This is entirely healthy and good. If God did not cause a stirring in our souls when we have strayed he would not be a loving Father.

I also agree that we are more than "only human" and Jesus said that we are capable of great things. To say we are "only human" is an excuse and a rationalisation.

Where I depart from your view is where you seem to take this to the extreme. It feels as if there is no place at all for any humanity. To accept and understand that one is human and prone to sin from time to time is just realistic. The evidence is all around us.

You seem to not be able to tell the difference between a man who is busting his guts for God but falls over because of his humanity and another man who just falls over and uses his humanity as an excuse.

God , however , can spot the difference.

To me , unhealthy guilt is when a man borders on perfectionism and unacceptance of his own humanity. Unhealthy guilt does not sustain love but feeds judgementalism. What unhealthy guilt does is keep a cloud between men and God because such a man will feel God cannot accept him until he is perfect.

It's this separation from God's love in guilt that Jesus frees us from.
We no longer have to let guilt or sin separate us from God.

This is half my struggle. To realise that God is convicting my spirit of sin but also loving me deeply in the process. It's unhealthy guilt that we don't have to feel because it just keeps us trapped in feeling apart from God. No-one can follow effectively a Father who they feel has condemned them. People need to feel loved unconditionally by God and know that their salvation is not dependent on whether they live perfectly sinless lives or not. It's not emotionally or psychologically healthy for anyone. It's slavery and bondage to fear.

Weak and narrow are the powers implanted in the limbs of man; many the woes that fall on them and blunt the edges of thought; short is the measure of the life in death through which they toil. Then are they borne away; like smoke they vanish into air; and what they dream they know is but the little that each hath stumbled on in wandering about the world. Yet boast they all that they have learned the whole. Vain fools! For what that is, no eye hath seen, no ear hath heard, nor can it be conceived by the mind of man.

--Empedocles (5th cent. B.C.)

All these words proclaiming, asserting, assuming that the writer has learned the whole are expressions of human vanity.

We don't know what we don't know.

We cannot affirm or deny what we don't know.

But what we can do and what organized religion is all about, in my humble opinion, is the organization of humans as social entities primarily as a means of exerting power and influence over their behavior. Sometimes that's for the best; often it has not been so.

For anyone, however, to be so smug as to proclaim their views or their faith provides them or us knowledge of the whole, is simply vanity.

Of that, we have no shortage. For myself, I train daily to increase my awareness of what is happening as it happens. I hope thereby to make better choices than I have so far in six decades of life.

Wisdom does not come from a book, a bottle, or other people. It comes from one's awareness of reality against the background of one's experience in life.

People can do and say and profess and try to sell what they like -- but it is all vanity but that which comes from awareness and experience.

For we have been granted or have developed on our own the ability to make conscious choices.

No book, bottle, preacher, teacher, parent, friend or enemy can inform us of the whole -- what we discover of that we must do ourselves.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The true gospel stresses the availability of God's kingdom right here and right now, to any and all who act on their faith in Jesus Christ. Christ's original message was intended to be relevant now; God's ever-present kingdom demonstrated now. This is a gospel that can be practiced and proved reliable now, not a gospel dependent on some obscure legal real ...[text shortened]... 'I never knew you. [b]Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'[/b]

When Jesus says things like the following, why do so many insist on believing that "do[ing] away with one's guilt...[is] a part of the deal"? Or that one can continue to sin and still be granted "eternal life"? What if the "guilt" is part of the process for one to be able/willing "to demonstrate God's kingdom on earth."

That Jesus saves people from the condemnation of the law is indeed part of the deal - that's why so many people insist on believing it. But neither is freedom from the condemnation of the law more important than obedience. And just because Jesus saves his believer-followers from the condemnation of the law does not mean they cannot experience guilt.

Guilt is the evidence of a spiritual war taking place in the heart and mind of the believer-follower, which is a good thing. God's spirit is at war against the flesh and the flesh is at war against God's spirit. Obeying God and demonstrating God's kingdom on earth, therefore, entails warring against the flesh.

The flesh is condemned by the law to decay and death, and nothing can change that. Christ's believer-followers will only be truly perfect the day God gives them new bodies. In the meantime, God's friends, those who love him, persistently wage war against the flesh, consistently putting to death the deeds inspired by the flesh.

Every apostle was a sinner and battled with the flesh; every saint down through history, the same. God is not in the business of perfecting the flesh. The flesh is doomed. God is in the business of making friends and enlisting them in his army. The primary message of Christ's gospel is the availability of God's kingdom now; that we may join God where he's already at work.

You're right, too many Christians are "just saved" and go on living exactly as the world lives. But it is an equal error to labor under the false pretense that without sinless perfection you cannot be called a friend of God.

If we are renewing our dedication to God everyday, joining him where he's already at work, obeying the Spirit and putting to death the deeds of the flesh - do we have anything to fear? No. Would God send any of his friends to hell? Certainly not, though they may have fallen countless times.

The bottom line is: such people are his friends and he knows them (e.g., David, the adulterous murderer/friend of God).

__________

Just so we get this straight, I'm not going to pretend like the rest of the Bible doesn't exist. You need to start branching out from the few passages you quote from Matthew. Otherwise, there's really no point in us discussing anything further. Thanks.

Originally posted by Scriabin
Weak and narrow are the powers implanted in the limbs of man; many the woes that fall on them and blunt the edges of thought; short is the measure of the life in death through which they toil. Then are they borne away; like smoke they vanish into air; and what they dream they know is but the little that each hath stumbled on in wandering about the world. Ye ...[text shortened]... iend or enemy can inform us of the whole -- what we discover of that we must do ourselves.

I couldn't agree more in many ways. My experience and awareness has lead me to Christ.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Take a deep breath and have a brandy standing by....

I would tend to agree wholeheartedly with much of what you say here. Guilt is not to be spurned. My view is that there is healthy guilt and unhealthy guilt. If a man is being chastised by God the Holy Spirit will cause him to feel "uncomfortable" and restless (guilty) . This is entirely healthy an ...[text shortened]... emotionally or psychologically healthy for anyone. It's slavery and bondage to fear.

"To say we are "only human" is an excuse and a rationalisation.

"It feels as if there is no place at all for any humanity. To accept and understand that one is human and prone to sin from time to time is just realistic."

These two statements appear to be at odds. Realistically they are part and parcel of the same pardigm. They are the same rationalization. At best, the latter merely draws the line at a place closer to following the will of God.

"To me , unhealthy guilt is when a man borders on perfectionism and unacceptance of his own humanity. Unhealthy guilt does not sustain love but feeds judgementalism. What unhealthy guilt does is keep a cloud between men and God because such a man will feel God cannot accept him until he is perfect.

Can you back this up with the teachings of Jesus? You constantly accuse me of having created this "fake Jesus", yet the words of Jesus back my position.

"You seem to not be able to tell the difference between a man who is busting his guts for God but falls over because of his humanity and another man who just falls over and uses his humanity as an excuse."

I really don't think it's about "busting your gut". It's about realization. "The truth will make you free".

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]When Jesus says things like the following, why do so many insist on believing that "do[ing] away with one's guilt...[is] a part of the deal"? Or that one can continue to sin and still be granted "eternal life"? What if the "guilt" is part of the process for one to be able/willing "to demonstrate God's kingdom on earth."

That Jesus saves people e, there's really no point in us discussing anything further. Thanks.[/b]

I'm a follower of Truth. What Jesus taught rings true. Not so for the Bible. If what the Bible teaches were true, it would be evident that followers of the Bible follow the will of God better than those of the general population. If people actually followed the teachings of Jesus, the world would be a much better place.

While the idea of only needing to profess belief that Jesus died for everyone's sins is interesting, it isn't backed by the teachings of Jesus and is self-defeating.

I guess one can believe the teachings of Jesus or the teachings of the Bible. The former makes sense. The latter is filled with contradictions.

As it was in the times of Jesus, as it is now: It isn't about the book.


"You're right, too many Christians are "just saved" and go on living exactly as the world lives. But it is an equal error to labor under the false pretense that without sinless perfection you cannot be called a friend of God."

Doesn't Jesus say otherwise?

Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'



If you don't like Matthew, how about John?

1 John 3:4 -9:
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"To say we are "only human" is an excuse and a rationalisation.

"It feels as if there is no place at all for any humanity. To accept and understand that one is human and prone to sin from time to time is just realistic."

These two statements appear to be at odds. Realistically they are part and parcel of the same pardigm. They are the ...[text shortened]... out "busting your gut". It's about realization. "The truth will make you free".[/b]

You constantly accuse me of having created this "fake Jesus", yet the words of Jesus back my position.--ToO-----

The simple fact is that they don't because you do not take into account the whole range of his teachings or the entire scope of what he did. Until you are prepared to explore ALL of his words and see them ALL together as a body of teachings and then COMBINE them with his ACTIONS as well then you have not won the right to talk about his words "backing you up".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"To say we are "only human" is an excuse and a rationalisation.

"It feels as if there is no place at all for any humanity. To accept and understand that one is human and prone to sin from time to time is just realistic."

These two statements appear to be at odds. Realistically they are part and parcel of the same pardigm. They are the ...[text shortened]... out "busting your gut". It's about realization. "The truth will make you free".[/b]

"These two statements appear to be at odds. Realistically they are part and parcel of the same pardigm. They are the same rationalization. At best, the latter merely draws the line at a place closer to following the will of God." -----------ToO-----------

Has it occurred to you that you seeing "rationalizations" everywhere is infact a rationalization in itself. It defends you from thinking about what the other person is actually saying.

If I say that our humanity is to be accepted or that perfectionism is to be avoided you simply see me as making a "rationalization" or "excuse". It seems to be a kneejerk reaction to many things. I understand that you are suspicious of those looking to make human excuses for sinning but to use this as a rigid template for everything is a mistake. Do you ever get suspicious about your suspicions?

I think you throw the baby out with the bath water an awful lot.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You constantly accuse me of having created this "fake Jesus", yet the words of Jesus back my position.--ToO-----

The simple fact is that they don't because you do not take into account the whole range of his teachings or the entire scope of what he did. Until you are prepared to explore ALL of his words and see them ALL together as a body of teachin ...[text shortened]... s ACTIONS as well then you have not won the right to talk about his words "backing you up".

Don't think that I didn't notice that you failed to back up your position with the words of Jesus.

You can tell yourself that the words of Jesus don't back my position, but the fact remains that they do. Your mind creates rationalizations that allow you to feel good about yourself without having to live up to the words of Jesus.

Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"To say we are "only human" is an excuse and a rationalisation.

"It feels as if there is no place at all for any humanity. To accept and understand that one is human and prone to sin from time to time is just realistic."

These two statements appear to be at odds. Realistically they are part and parcel of the same pardigm. They are the ...[text shortened]... out "busting your gut". It's about realization. "The truth will make you free".[/b]

One other point . You still have as yet to define sin in any meaningful way. You need to say what sin actually means to you. Is it sinful thoughts for example? If a man has a stray angry thought towards his brother or a fleeting thought of desire towards a woman do you define that as sin?

Is overcoming sin a state of perfection to you in which a man never ever loses patience and never loses his temper or has a moan about someone or looks at a woman (or man) for a millisecond ?

If it is then I suggest that your philosophy is probably more suited to meditating gurus living in beautiful incense filled temples with no children or traffic jams or mortgages.

Back in the real world of ordinary people stuff happens , people get stressed , depressed and over worked. Men are surrounded by women wearing flimsy tops and figure hugging skirts. Children whinge and want to be taken to after school clubs just when you are desperate for a hot bath and a kip.

Jesus knew about this stuff. He said "things that cause men to sin are bound to come" , I don't think he was rationalizing myself NOR do I think he was saying it's Ok to not try to be perfect. He just had his eyes open I guess.