Dealing with People "Spreading the Word"
- Thread starter BudoPo
- Start date
BudoPo
Member
I think I posted somewhere in this thread that I understand that people "spreading the word", as it were, believe they are helping people and doing something good. That's why I'm polite to them and don't mind it too much. What gets me is when I (politely) tell them I'm not interested, and they don't get the hint. Usually I have to listen to them for quite some time talking about their views, noting each instance that I don't agree with. The other issue is pamphlets targets at converting specific religions. I started this thread when someone showed up with a pamphlet specifically geared to show Jews (my faith) why they should accept Jesus (90% of the info in the pamphlet was wrong, BTW).
But like I said, I know they feel they're doing something good, and that's ok by me. It's just the targeting and not leaving when asked to that I find irritating.
MDindef, in your case, in my opinion, the people you visited came to you first, and you were following up. That's something else, and is fine, in my book.
But like I said, I know they feel they're doing something good, and that's ok by me. It's just the targeting and not leaving when asked to that I find irritating.
MDindef, in your case, in my opinion, the people you visited came to you first, and you were following up. That's something else, and is fine, in my book.
Not only that, MD, but they obviously filled out a visitor's card so they're fair game. Everyone knows that if you don't want the church people coming to your house, don't fill out the visitor's card.
Plus that, church members SHOULD make a visit to first-timers. It's just the friendly and welcoming thing to do. To me, that's a lot different than the door-to-door salespeople.
Plus that, church members SHOULD make a visit to first-timers. It's just the friendly and welcoming thing to do. To me, that's a lot different than the door-to-door salespeople.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Re: Bottom Line!
I interpret those verses as Jesus was the
Word, spoken by the Father. Just as God spoke the Word in Creation, so God speaks now in the Son. The same creative energy and love that formed the universe now has become flesh. God is, in Jesus Christ, restoring the entire creation.
In other words, God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit were all there together in the Beginning.
I can't speak for everyone, but it took a long time for me to figure that out. Another point: If you believe in God, you should believe in Jesus Christ as well. Anyone agree/disagree?
penncam
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. The same was in the beginning with God".
I interpret those verses as Jesus was the
Word, spoken by the Father. Just as God spoke the Word in Creation, so God speaks now in the Son. The same creative energy and love that formed the universe now has become flesh. God is, in Jesus Christ, restoring the entire creation.
In other words, God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit were all there together in the Beginning.
I can't speak for everyone, but it took a long time for me to figure that out. Another point: If you believe in God, you should believe in Jesus Christ as well. Anyone agree/disagree?
penncam
Last edited:
watercolor
yeah yeah
Simple answer........
agreed
agreed
Christy
b*tch rocket
Actually that would be a big NO! I personally, am a Christian. However there are many different religions out there that make no reference to Jesus in their doctrine (Budhists, Hindus etc.).
The only religions to acknowledge Jesus, is Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (well there's also the Mormon's). The difference between Christianity vice Judaism and Islam (and if I'm wrong, someone please correct me), Christianity is the only religion that believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Judaism and Islam acknowledge Christ as a prophet but not the "Messiah".
BudoPo
Member
I don't think Jesus is acknowledged anywhere in Judaism at all. He came on the scene long after the Old Testament stories took place. There may be some historical records, but he's not in the Old Testament, or the Talmud (which came later). I just know a little about Islam, but I'm pretty sure you're right, Christy, it acknowledges Jesus as a prophet. You're right that believing Jesus to be Christ differentiates Christianity, but there are also philosophical differences betweent the three religions, too (again, I claim ignorance with Islam, though).
This would only apply if you believe God would become corporal. I don't know if any Hindu gods every became flesh, and there are no gods in Buddhism, but a flesh and blood God is very contrary to Judaic beliefs.
This would only apply if you believe God would become corporal. I don't know if any Hindu gods every became flesh, and there are no gods in Buddhism, but a flesh and blood God is very contrary to Judaic beliefs.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Belief in Jesus Christ?
Whether or not other religions make or do not make reference to Jesus - does that invalidate the prophesies made in Isaiah, Daniel and the Psalms that foretell the coming of the Messiah, and that he will come from the line of David? Are you saying you don't put any credence in the Book of John(especially the Prologue) where he states that Jesus(the Word) was there with God in the Beginning? I don't want to start a war - but I'd like to start a fire and get some more opinions from all of you.
penncam
Whether or not other religions make or do not make reference to Jesus - does that invalidate the prophesies made in Isaiah, Daniel and the Psalms that foretell the coming of the Messiah, and that he will come from the line of David? Are you saying you don't put any credence in the Book of John(especially the Prologue) where he states that Jesus(the Word) was there with God in the Beginning? I don't want to start a war - but I'd like to start a fire and get some more opinions from all of you.penncam
K
Kain99
Guest
You are vastly mistaken! Christ is recognized worldwide not always as God's son, but always definitevly recognized as a prophet.
We all think we understand the diffrences in religion. The question is do we? We know that "they" act this way or that way but do we really understand why?
O.K. Class, Test time..
why do Christians, Muslims and Jews all claim Abraham as their father? The connections are astronomical and truly amazing... We cling desperately to our diffrences but, how diffrent are we? P.S. I am excluding all cow and insect worshipers. I honestly know little about you.
BudoPo
Member
penncam, I don't think you're starting a war. This thread is actually having a pretty decent dialogue. The issue is whether you believe Jesus was divine or not. Christians believe he was God incarnate (or separate from God? I'm not sure of the details of the trinity). Muslims consider him a prophet. Judaism makes no reference to him, and you'd get individual opinions that he was a prophet, a teacher, or neither. Neither Judaism nor Islam considers him to be divine. I don't think other religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc really consider the question at all), except that Taoism (IIRC) considers him to be a prophet or teacher (not sure which). My own personal view is that he was a preacher.
Kain, I have to agree with you about knowing the differences about religions. We see the differences, but usually don't learn the background.
Kain, I have to agree with you about knowing the differences about religions. We see the differences, but usually don't learn the background.
Hessian
Well-Known Member
I'll reference something I posted a while ago:
If you have determined that Christ is a great preacher or teacher and nothing more....
Than you are accepting him as one of the greatest frauds and charlatans also.
"I and the Father are one..."
"I am..."
"I am the way the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me."
If you want to accept these words as Christ's...then you either have to follow them or consider Christ a major liar.
If you want to say these are penned by his followers and he never said those quotes, then his followers were liars and they were willing to be martyred for the lies they wrote.
So: Christ as a man, a preacher, or a teacher? (and nothing more?)
No...illogical conclusion.
Your next option is some type of ghost or warlock...pulling magical stunts and faking healings. No charlatan heals people and then tells them to be silent.
No Fraud asks that his healing be verified by leading religious leaders...
And magicians who claim special powers don't result in them being crucified and not confessing to their trickery.
Take it away....
If you have determined that Christ is a great preacher or teacher and nothing more....
Than you are accepting him as one of the greatest frauds and charlatans also.
"I and the Father are one..."
"I am..."
"I am the way the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me."
If you want to accept these words as Christ's...then you either have to follow them or consider Christ a major liar.
If you want to say these are penned by his followers and he never said those quotes, then his followers were liars and they were willing to be martyred for the lies they wrote.
So: Christ as a man, a preacher, or a teacher? (and nothing more?)
No...illogical conclusion.
Your next option is some type of ghost or warlock...pulling magical stunts and faking healings. No charlatan heals people and then tells them to be silent.
No Fraud asks that his healing be verified by leading religious leaders...
And magicians who claim special powers don't result in them being crucified and not confessing to their trickery.
Take it away....
Hessian,
That used to be my arguement too, back in my religious period. When someone would suggest that Jesus was "just a teacher" or "simply a good person", I'd fire back that this could not be so, for you'd have to be calling him a liar.
However, you outline nicely what my opinion now is:
"If you want to say these are penned by his followers and he never said those quotes, then his followers were liars and they were willing to be martyred for the lies they wrote."
A bit harsh, but most likely the truth--especially if you want to decide what about the story of Jesus is "logical v. illogical".
Many historians argue that Jesus (as appears in the bible) wasn't even one person, rather, His works and deeds are a collection of stories about many different people that filled a specific need of the people in that area at that time. It became the relgion of the masses, was adopted for political reasons by the Roman Emperors and, as they were the preeminant force on the planet at the time, it spread far and wide.
Thus, it's not that the Apostles were "liars" out for their own gain, per se. But more likely, the writings all took place at different times, things were added, things removed, ideas misinterpreted etc. as is in human nature. Hell, we can't even get a game of telephone with 8-10 people right...
Secondly, Christ's story is hardly unique. He's not the only crucified "savior", he's not the only man to claim direct liniage to God (or to BE God or what have you), he's not a part of the only Trinity, he's not the only prophet to preach peace, love, and to sing the praises of the "meek" or disenfranchised of the world.
So, yes, your arguement is valid if you are operating under the framework that everything written in the Bible is accurate and unbiased. However, since other religions were brought into the mix, you have to take into account that not all people take the Bible for wrote fact and there are more possibilities for what the "truth" (if it could ever be detrmined) may or may not be.
That used to be my arguement too, back in my religious period. When someone would suggest that Jesus was "just a teacher" or "simply a good person", I'd fire back that this could not be so, for you'd have to be calling him a liar.
However, you outline nicely what my opinion now is:
"If you want to say these are penned by his followers and he never said those quotes, then his followers were liars and they were willing to be martyred for the lies they wrote."
A bit harsh, but most likely the truth--especially if you want to decide what about the story of Jesus is "logical v. illogical".
Many historians argue that Jesus (as appears in the bible) wasn't even one person, rather, His works and deeds are a collection of stories about many different people that filled a specific need of the people in that area at that time. It became the relgion of the masses, was adopted for political reasons by the Roman Emperors and, as they were the preeminant force on the planet at the time, it spread far and wide.
Thus, it's not that the Apostles were "liars" out for their own gain, per se. But more likely, the writings all took place at different times, things were added, things removed, ideas misinterpreted etc. as is in human nature. Hell, we can't even get a game of telephone with 8-10 people right...
Secondly, Christ's story is hardly unique. He's not the only crucified "savior", he's not the only man to claim direct liniage to God (or to BE God or what have you), he's not a part of the only Trinity, he's not the only prophet to preach peace, love, and to sing the praises of the "meek" or disenfranchised of the world.
So, yes, your arguement is valid if you are operating under the framework that everything written in the Bible is accurate and unbiased. However, since other religions were brought into the mix, you have to take into account that not all people take the Bible for wrote fact and there are more possibilities for what the "truth" (if it could ever be detrmined) may or may not be.
That was pretty good, Jimmy. I was trying to think of a tactful way to say all that.
Hessian, you painted the rest of us into a corner when you said either A) believe that Christ was the son of God or B) believe that he and his biographers were a bunch of liars. None of us want to offend you or other Christians by saying that Jesus and crew were a bunch of liars.
Legends get handed down and they grow in the telling. I will suggest that a man called Jesus walked the land, telling his story of salvation. It's probable that the events of the New Testament did, in fact, occur in some fashion. Then man got ahold of the stories, embellished them and now they are accepted as "fact" among Christians.
It's kind of like the Immaculate Conception. Catholics somehow decided that Mary was born of a virgin, too, even though there's nothing in the scriptures that supports that theory. But now it's an accepted "fact" among Catholics that Mary was born without original sin - they even have a holiday that celebrates it. At some point, this will be incorporated into the Bible as we know it and will become part of the New Testament, along with the "miracles" that Christians believe without hesitation.
Hessian, you painted the rest of us into a corner when you said either A) believe that Christ was the son of God or B) believe that he and his biographers were a bunch of liars. None of us want to offend you or other Christians by saying that Jesus and crew were a bunch of liars.
Legends get handed down and they grow in the telling. I will suggest that a man called Jesus walked the land, telling his story of salvation. It's probable that the events of the New Testament did, in fact, occur in some fashion. Then man got ahold of the stories, embellished them and now they are accepted as "fact" among Christians.
It's kind of like the Immaculate Conception. Catholics somehow decided that Mary was born of a virgin, too, even though there's nothing in the scriptures that supports that theory. But now it's an accepted "fact" among Catholics that Mary was born without original sin - they even have a holiday that celebrates it. At some point, this will be incorporated into the Bible as we know it and will become part of the New Testament, along with the "miracles" that Christians believe without hesitation.
K
Kain99
Guest
Misinformation can damage- be careful with your "truth"
Through all the gospel accounts, Jesus constantly claims to be God. That’s why the religious rulers kept trying to stone him to death, for blasphemy.
For the sake of saving space Let’s look at just four statements Jesus made:
“I am God’s Son”
John 10:36
“No one comes to the Father except through me.“ John 14:6
“Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”
John 14:9
“He who believes in me will live, even though he dies.” John 11:25
Through all the gospel accounts, Jesus constantly claims to be God. That’s why the religious rulers kept trying to stone him to death, for blasphemy.
For the sake of saving space Let’s look at just four statements Jesus made:
“I am God’s Son”
John 10:36
“No one comes to the Father except through me.“ John 14:6
“Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”
John 14:9
“He who believes in me will live, even though he dies.” John 11:25
Kain,
Ok. Let's look at those. My response:
Who's to say those things were ACTUALLY said? I mean, in terms of the aruguement that Jesus was either a liar, a crazy person, or telling the truth.
Bringing up passages where Jesus referes to himself as God or what have you does nothing to conclude that those three options are the only ones in play here.
Ok. Let's look at those. My response:
Who's to say those things were ACTUALLY said? I mean, in terms of the aruguement that Jesus was either a liar, a crazy person, or telling the truth.
Bringing up passages where Jesus referes to himself as God or what have you does nothing to conclude that those three options are the only ones in play here.
K
Kain99
Guest
Jinmmy, yours is an "educated-sounding" argument which in fact has no validity whatsoever. This type of argument is based on the fact that the average layperson knows so little about the Bible that he or she is liable to judge a biblical argument solely on its style and presentation (eg- "does it sound right?", ") for lack of any other method of judging its validity.
So up front and to the point, "I've got your number!"
It is no secret, that all world religion is based on Faith. We belive based on the evidence at hand. If I read you right, your coming from the: "Unless I see" standpoint. O.K. Unless you see..... Do you see air? Does it exist? How do you know?
In your earlier post you basically state that ‘Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God’. It sounds intelligent, but it doesn’t fit the evidence. You are grasping at straws to maintain your stance that the Bible is falable, therefore inconsequencial. Interesting approach, but your flame can easily be extinquished. Do you know anything about World History? Where did you obtain your knowledge? Are these accounts written by people? Should you trust anything you have been taught, read etc?
Whenever a person is on trial, it is the law of the land that the accused suspect has a right to testify in his or her own defense. When it is the Bible on trial in the court of public opinion, being suspect, or accused of error, inaccuracy, etc., it seems equally fair to turn to it and allow it "testify" about what it is, and from whence it came. Therefore, I provide some references.
Joshua 1:8 - "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."
Isaiah .34:16 - "Seek ye out the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them."
Isaiah 40:8 - "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
Mark 13:31 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away,but my words shall not pass away."
Colossians 3:16 - "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admoshing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord."
II Timothy 3:16- "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
I Peter 2:2 - "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby."
I just love guys like you..... I live for a good healthy debate! If you and I are going to go head to head this could take a while, maybe we should start a new thread.
You either have faith or you have evidence - the two rarely coincide. There is no real "evidence" that Jesus ever existed. All we have is someone's account of his life. If we were to believe based on that, we would also believe that Vito Corleone was a real person. That the Cat in the Hat was a real animal. That some animals once took over a farm and turned it into a dictatorship, with the pigs as the leaders.
And while you don't see "air", you can certainly see the particles that make up what we call "air" under a microscope.
Frank
Chairman of the Board
Even the Bible itself claims you're not supposed to believe the testimony of anyone without the corroboration of at LEAST two witnesses. So allowing the Bible to speak on its own behalf as to whether it is the word of God is circular reasoning.
I won't dispute the fact that Jesus was an historical person. There is simply far too much in his favor to suggest otherwise. Socrates exists only in Plato, but Jesus is written about by many who either lived in his time, or briefly thereafter. From the ante-Nicene fathers to the archealogical evidence of just how far Christianity spread in the first couple centuries seems proof enough that it could not be manufactured. And the message itself is very different in many ways, from other religions, which were elitist, or open only to men, or persons from a particular race. It has some elements which resonate today that set it apart from Mithraism and many of the competing religions of the time, which were barbaric and lacked any of the elements of benevolence, humility, sacrifice and such. And the teaching is consistent enough that its essentials are preserved through writings which were probably not widely spread through the world - that is to say, writings such as the Gospels, Paul's writings, the Didache, the ante-Nicene and Apostolic fathers -- all of the apologies written - they're fairly consistent. A religion that is totally made up by many people is usually just a mess.
It might be argued that the reality of Jesus is no more real than the Cat in the Hat, but then he would also be no more real than Caesar or Alexander the Great, and yet we recognize their existence.
As to whether the Bible is the word of God - all I can say is, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary PROOF. And while the New Testament especially has much to its credit - Ghandi once desribed the Sermon on the Mount as going "straight to his heart" - there are enough holes in it to convince me it is not inerrant in every way.
I won't dispute the fact that Jesus was an historical person. There is simply far too much in his favor to suggest otherwise. Socrates exists only in Plato, but Jesus is written about by many who either lived in his time, or briefly thereafter. From the ante-Nicene fathers to the archealogical evidence of just how far Christianity spread in the first couple centuries seems proof enough that it could not be manufactured. And the message itself is very different in many ways, from other religions, which were elitist, or open only to men, or persons from a particular race. It has some elements which resonate today that set it apart from Mithraism and many of the competing religions of the time, which were barbaric and lacked any of the elements of benevolence, humility, sacrifice and such. And the teaching is consistent enough that its essentials are preserved through writings which were probably not widely spread through the world - that is to say, writings such as the Gospels, Paul's writings, the Didache, the ante-Nicene and Apostolic fathers -- all of the apologies written - they're fairly consistent. A religion that is totally made up by many people is usually just a mess.
It might be argued that the reality of Jesus is no more real than the Cat in the Hat, but then he would also be no more real than Caesar or Alexander the Great, and yet we recognize their existence.
As to whether the Bible is the word of God - all I can say is, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary PROOF. And while the New Testament especially has much to its credit - Ghandi once desribed the Sermon on the Mount as going "straight to his heart" - there are enough holes in it to convince me it is not inerrant in every way.
Frank
Chairman of the Board
This makes an assumption about the Bible which is a popular misconception - that it is a living document that gets re-edited and doctored throughout its existence. It might be because people presume that without the printing press, it just got changed continually over time. This has no basis in fact. Unlike manuscripts of Homer, or of Josephus or Polybius or Livy etc. for which there are small numbers of manuscripts, the Bible has tens of thousands which span centuries. Further, it is so widely quoted by early sources, the original material can be reconstructed from other ancient writings. Since its content has been unchanged for nearly two millennia since the last books were written and accepted into the present canon, there hasn't been any change in it of significance. Yeah, Luther wanted to change stuff, as did Jefferson, and other groups, but the original content is still available. Thus, it's highly unlikely that anyone can add to it, changing it.
Church belief, tradtion, dogma - these will vary and they WILL get re-written, and in that respect, I actually *respect* that - I tend to believe that churches are refining their beliefs over time, sometimes stepping backward, sometimes forward. But the Bible itself remains static. This is part of the reason why I do NOT believe it is literally inerrant.
K
Kain99
Guest
Many skeptics think that Christianity is for people who do not want to think. Christians are often characterized as people who believe whatever they are told by the church. Faith is thought of as something that one believes blindly - with no supporting evidence. However, this viewpoint does not represent biblical Christianity.
In contrast, to what many skeptics believe, the Bible challenges its readers to test it and come to a reasonable conclusion.
The Bible teaches a rational faith, based upon knowledge and refined through testing. Christians are encouraged to use their minds in all aspects of life, including our spiritual life