Christianity and Love, Part III

Great Debates
61

Chocobo said:

And Esprix threw it my way.

'Twon’t work, 'Sprix. Sorry. Remember the Bible verse that has tortured every straight teenage boy: “For if you look upon a woman lustfully, you commit adultery with her in your heart.” I had a cute little scenario sketched out of what is going on in a boy’s mind as he alternately glances at a pinup and thinks about what GOD is gonna say about it, but I’m not going to use it.

Okay, so what does “inspired” mean? Me, I find most of Triskadecamus’ postings “inspired,” and I mean it in the same way as I do certain passages of Scripture – God intended that the human writer express himself in just that way, and he did, in response to His will. For many conservative Christians, this sort of literalism of inspiration extends to the whole book. For others, the understanding is that the human writers were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what they did, though the words were left up to them. Think of the parallel of a celebrity collaboration, where the celebrity tells his story and the ghostwriter puts it into the proper words. Then there are those who pick and choose. And the question of what’s “canonical” comes into play, and there are those who argue at length about passages being canonical or not, to say nothing of the Catholic vs. Protestant game regarding books like Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, and such. And some take a very liberal view that God intended it to be brought together but didn’t have a whole lot to do with the contents.

Me, I see it as that every word is there because the Holy Spirit wanted it to be – but for a variety of reasons, including giving bad examples. Like the command to divorce foreigners in Nehemiah. Like having that one passage translated “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.” And so on.

And, folks, as has been pointed out repeatedly and seems to just whoooooosh by those it’s pointed out to, it has to be read in context, not just trotting out some isolated verse that seems to make your point. As I remarked to FriendofGod earlier, with a lot of irony, quoting a verse from one of the Psalms out of context states that “There is no God.” (I’ve been waiting for David B. or slythe to throw that in when somebody starts a prooftexting derby. :wink: I can only admire their restraint.)

Just because somebody should say this, and the conservative Christians seem to have skipped making the point, the traditional understanding of the application of the Torah to Christians is that they are excused from the ceremonial and dietary provisions but bound by the moral ones. So you can eat your pork chop in your polyester-and-wool slacks sinlessly, so long as you don’t screw around with whomever you’re eating it with unless married to them.

I think we’re at an impasse here. Those of us on the liberal-Christian side, backed by the non-Christians, hold for an ethical standard based on some variation on the Golden Rule (and yes, we’ve been through what a masochist ought to do, and all that, thanks), the law of Love, and nonjudgmentalism and noncoercion. (Later, Lib. We have the infighting after the main battle, OK? :D) Those on the conservative-Christian side insist that the laws of the Old Testament and Paul’s letters, or those they find applicable to today, are the standard for a good and moral life. And nobody is prepared to give any credence to the views of the other.

The Sodom story. Oh, my! This gets trotted out every time the question comes up. Just one quick question for those who are convinced the homosexual activity is the point of condemnation – when Jesus remarks of the towns who would not listen to his disciples that “it will be better for Sodom in the day of judgment than for them,” is that because the townsmen wanted to have gay sex with the disciples? That’s nowhere in the Gospels. Or maybe is it because Sodom’s sin was against the great Middle Eastern law of hospitality, that the stranger among you is welcomed and treated with kindness and generosity, not gang-raped? In a desert country, this social mandate transcends any national codes because it was often literally a life or death situation that one could count on it wherever one went. And turning away the people who are bringing the good news of salvation is even more evil than what the Sodomites did? That interpretation fits the story better in my eyes, whatever your take on the sinfulness of homosexual acts.

And by the way, has anybody noted that the Sodomites were bent on gang-raping the angels first? I think we can all agree that there is a quite reasonable basis for using the story to condemn a group of men forcing sex on other men. And a commandment against forcing sex on a male angel wouldn’t bother people a whole heck of a lot – very few people have seriously contemplated it, unless there’s somebody gay who doesn’t understand the concept of fiction and happens to have the hots for John Dye (the angel of death on “Touched by an Angel”).

Andros cites the I Timothy line:

[Tracer]
Huh! I didn’t know there was a special commandment prohibiting circle jerks. Somebody want to tell the Boy Scouts about this?
[/Tracer] :smiley:

Question: Every so often when this discussion gets brought up, somebody mentions the Book of Jude. It’s pretty darn short, and I don’t see the anti-gay condemnation anywhere in it. Somebody got a cite?

Gaudere: Don’t you realize that women aren’t important! It doesn’t matter what they do or don’t do. Besides, it’s fun to watch! :wink:

62

Aw, that one’s too easy to figure out. I prefer the Bible verse that assures me personally that I will be happy: [Rom 12:15.1] Gaudere cum gaudentibus… “Gaudere with those rejoicing…” (waiting for the inevitable second joke…)

Or the one that predicts I will warn those who might call me “Gaudy”:
[2Cor 2:3.17] et hoc ipsum scripsi ut non cum venero tristitiam super tristitiam habeam de quibus oportuerat me gaudere confidens in omnibus vobis quia meum gaudium omnium vestrum est
And I wrote as I did, so that when I came I might not suffer pain from those who should have made me Gaudere; having confidence in you all, that my joy is [the joy] of you all.

(Havin’ fun with the Latin Vulgate… dum de dum dum dum :slight_smile: )

63

Oh, come now. You’re the Christian, you’re always quoting the Bible, and yet you don’t know about the parts where God (or his chosen representatives) tells people to rape?
Numbers 31:17-18

“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” (am I mistaken, or is this child molestation?)

Deuteronomy 21:10-14

“When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails
and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.”

And arguably the Benjaminite’s abduction-rape of the women in the vineyards (Judges 21) occurred with God’s approval.
Interestingly, you didn’t challenge me on the plight of the Amalekites- I guess it’s old news to you that your idol likes genocide, dubious though you may be about the rape thing.

-Ben

64

“Rejoice. Rejoice. We have no choice.” — CSN&Y

65

The contention that Christians debate homosexuality as sin so intensely because homosexuality, and other forms of sexual sin are the most common, and most often practiced sins is simply a self delusion.

More people eat pork and shellfish than are homosexual. Far more people wear wool/cotton blend clothing than are homosexual. Let’s not even mention the Cheeseburger. If the literal meaning of every word of the bible is of any importance, these are the sins that should be most troubling to the Christian fundamentalists. After all, a whole lot of these cotton/poly wearin’ ham and cheese omelet eatin’ shrimp cocktail tastin’ sinners are doing it right after church services, and not repenting at all! They don’t think they are sinning, and they don’t think they need to repent!

Now, just how is it that the lonely guilt ridden teenager who lets his gym buddy feel him up in the shower any more of a sinner? Why are you not trying to get the Supreme Court to ban cheeseburgers at Boy Scout Jamboree? What is the real reason that sex is the preoccupation? It cannot be that God despises homosexuals, because He evidently hates Disco Leisure Suits every bit as much, and who can blame Him?

I think the preoccupation with sex is simply a preoccupation with sex. Let’s look for the simplest explanation. Those who claim Christianity is the reason that they talk about homosexuality so often are certainly stretching our credulity a tad bit. After all, they aren’t much upset if I talk about how much I like Ruben Sandwiches. I think they find it a lot more emotionally stimulating to talk about sex than to discuss cooking. Smut sells. It sells because people respond to sex. And if you are convinced that sex is a bad thing, but still really like talking about it, well, you have to talk about how bad it is. That way you get to have your sex, and still hold on to your righteous self image.

Pardon me for just saying it out, but I think it is a bunch of sanctimonious crap, each and every time. You sin, I sin, everyone sins, and if you want to talk about sins, I think you should limit yourself to talking about your own, and I think you should watch out that you aren’t just glorifying them. I have never discussed my own sins on the board, and I don’t intend to start now. (The Ruben Sandwich thing doesn’t count because it really isn’t a sin to eat a Ruben Sandwich, or a shellfish, or a big old hard dick.) Sin is hatred. The opposite of love. It is the destruction of love. It is the selfish desire to have what we want when having it hurts someone else. It is not about rules, it is about hurting other people, or yourself. You sin with your heart, not with your genitals.

Tris.

66

Polycarp:

First - just thought you’d be glad to know my ex-gay friend has agreed to post a message. Actually he’s going to send me an email and ask me to post it. He said he’s going to think about what to say and then send me his comments.
Poly I’ve got to admit to you … I’m having a hard time figuring you out. I was semi-blown away by this quote:

"Me, I see it as that every word is there because the Holy Spirit wanted it to be – but for a variety of reasons, including giving bad examples. "

I thought you’ve tried to chastise me (in luv of course) for this very belief! What am I missing here? I agree about bad examples, the most obvious of which is Job. You can quote a verse out of context in Job and what you’re quoting is a jerk who is questioning Job in an ungodly way!

I also agree verses should be taken in context. You can literally make the Bible say anything you want by taking verses out of context. Again, gotta take the “glasses” off to see what it’s really saying.

You described the liberal and conservative Christian views. I’ll take your word for it on liberal views, but as a so-called conservative, I must correct part of this:

“Those on the conservative-Christian side insist that the laws of the Old Testament and Paul’s letters, or those they find applicable to today, are the standard for a good and moral life.”

The standard for a good and moral life is anything God says it is, through Jesus, through Paul, through the O.T., through whomever in the Bible. Ever studied Hebrews? One of the main purposes of this book is to show which of the O.T. laws no longer apply, and which ones do (as an example, tithing still applies but sacrificing animals doesnt!).
As for your comments on Sodom and Gomorrah … believe it or not, I somewhat agree. But don’t get too excited. Jude verse 7 (yes, the “little” book you mentioned) says “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They server as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire”.

So clearly one of their sins that God was judging was sexual immorality and perversion. Which “brands” of sexual perversion are unknown, but the only specific one mentioned was homosexual sex in Genesis 18, so we know that that was at least one of the things they were being judged for. But I’ll agree it probably wasn’t the only thing. “Sodomy” is probably the wrong word for gay sex. “Sodomy” can better be described as overall sexual immorality and debauchery.

That’s it for now. Going to bed. Night all.

67

Well, Tris, I always assumed you were talking about good, holy Reuben sandwiches, with no swiss cheese, the way God ordered them. I must admit I’m appalled that your defile your body with such filth. Remember, God loves you, but you can’t really be a Christian until you renounce your shameful practices. I admit it’s easier for me–I don’t even like swiss cheese! But knowing that you practice such things, well, I don’t know if I can let my kids play at your house anymore. I just don’t want them to get the idea that Reuben sandwiches–with cheese–are acceptable.

68

Ben-

Both of those verses seem to speak to when you take women captive in war. In Numbers, it speaks to killing the women who are no longer virgins, since presumably they are ‘unclean’. It says to ‘save yourselves for every girl who has not been with a man’. That seems to speak to keep all the girls who have not had sexual relations and therefore are not ‘unclean’.

If you look at the Deuteronomy and Numbers passages together, they speak to similar subjects: what to do with women you capture in war. In Deut. it says to take them into your home, allow them a grieving period, then take them as your wife. Husband-wife relations is hardly rape.
You can apply the same to the Numbers passage, since both books were written at approximately the same time.

By today’s standards, it would be child molestation. But keep in mind that in the OT, women were married just as soon as they could conceive children, which would place them in their puberty years. Most of those were arranged marriages as well. Would you call an arranged marriage rape as well? Since the practice of arranged marriages has decreased significantly, we no longer consider it custom. Now we have the ability to choose our mates as we see fit. Just because our customs are different from theirs doesn’t make either theirs or ours wrong…just time delayed.

As for the Amalekites, God says in 1 Sam. 15:2-3, "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they cme up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belions to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Why did God order the Amalekites completely wiped out? All the Amalekites were, were thieves, terrorists, and murders. The whole bunch of them. The Amalekites lived by raiding/attacking people to steal from them. They did this to the Isrealites as they entered the Promised Land. God knew the Isrealites would never be able to live peacefully in the P. Land with the Amalekites constantly raiding them, so he ordered their destruction. Also, their pagan culture was an insult to God and threatened the Isrealite’s relationship with him; therefore there was no choice but to wipe them out.

Tris-
I think that the general Christian doesn’t think about eating pork or wearing cotton/poly blends is because, like Friend said, “Ever studied Hebrews? One of the main purposes of this book is to show which of the O.T. laws no longer apply, and which ones do (as an example, tithing still applies but sacrificing animals doesnt!).” Acts 10:12-15 states, ‘It contained all kinds of four-footed animals , as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, “Get up Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ In Lev. 17:11-12, the reasons behind not eating blood is made clear. ’ "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I hae given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.” ’ Since the reason for not eating blood was that it was the substance of atonement, that ban would be lifted after Jesus’s death and resurrection, since His blood was the final atonement for all sin.

I think that’s it. 'Night all.

69

**

So the capture is nonconsensual, the marriage is nonconsensual, but the sex is?

**

Please leave the Maglemosian period and join the rest of us, Chocobo. There really is such a thing as marital rape.

**

Ok, Chocobo, it’s time for the question every fundamentalist needs to answer:

You are sitting before a crib, with a crying, defenseless Amalekite baby in it. Do you chop it in half?
-Ben

70
71

Okay, this is a reasonable argument. You are saying that some of the things that God said were fine and dandy in one time and place are not in another, rape and child molestation by our definitions, but not theirs then. There are also things that were considered sins back then (pork, fabric blends, etc.) that are hunky-dory now. So what, then, is the litmus test to determine which is which? Why pork kabobs but no porking Bob?

72

Emphasis added.

But FoG, don’t you understand that what appears clear-cut to you, can appear clear-cut to someone else who derives a totally different meaning from it? The biggest beef anyone has with you on this board is that you refuse to admit that your interpretations ARE interpretations. Oh, I’ve heard you say “I don’t know about this part here,” a couple times. You will admit that much at least. But wherever you feel certain in your belief you feel certain. You fail to acknowledge that your certainty is a human certainty, and subject to human failings. When you talk about the Bible’s being clear-cut, you are saying that it is clear-cut to you. Simply by declaring the Bible to be clear-cut and disallowing any argument to the contrary, you are saying that your understanding of the relevant chapter and verse, both in meaning and intent, are beyond reproach, while the understandings of others are not worth consideration.

I really am not on some kind of mission to make you doubt what you believe to be true, just to somehow make you understand that the beliefs you take from your book and your personal experiences and revelations are not inherently better than the beliefs others take from the same book and their personal experiences and revelations. Yes, we know that you think what you say has a basis in scripture. Others who disagree with you use the same scripture to find different answers, and they do it with all the same honest deliberation and soul-searching that you can muster.

73

Ben and Ptahlis:

I hope you don’t mind my making a quick comment on your debate with Chocobo, but there were a couple of things said that I would like to comment on.

Ben said: “There really is such a thing as marital rape.”

Chocobo didn’t say there wasn’t such a thing. He made the point that the passage that you said included God ordering someone to rape someone else contained no such order.
As for the whole “Do you kill the baby or don’t you?” question, believe me, passages like this have caused great debates among Christians for centuries. I don’t begin to fully understand what the heart of God was behind this type of thing (and I’m curious if Chocobo has insights), but I do have one possible thought.

Perhaps God saw something the rest of the world couldn’t see – that the Amalekites were hopelessly lost and were not going to turn to God no matter what. If that was an absolute fact, perhaps the generational curse of sins being passed on was so strong in this case, it guaranteed that every child would grow up to turn against God. If this is the case, then perhaps, in a weird way, it was God’s mercy that caused them all to be wiped out.

There’s a totally different angle too … perhaps it was a way of protecting the rest of the world from the evil of this culture. Ie, it wasn’t mercy on the children, it was mercy on the rest of the world. Again, if all were going to be evil, that evil could only grow stronger in the children.

OR … perhaps it was both. Or something else altogether. But I will say that what I just typed makes sense to me as one possibility at least. It’s the same logic behind the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and even the destruction of the earth at the end of the age. There were children on the earth at the time of the flood, in Sodom and Gomorrah, and there will be at the end of the earth. The same principles could apply here too. As I said, I’m curious if Chocobo has other comments. I like the clear way he explains things.
Ptahlis said: “So what, then, is the litmus test to determine which is which?”

Hebrews. Actually the whole NT speaks to this but Hebrews in particular.

Ptahlis, regarding your comments to me:

I actually understand how you feel believe it or not. I’ve actually thought about this some, and I realize my taking such a strong stance turns some people off. If it makes you feel better, I would call many things “my interpretation” or “my opinion” or “this is what I get out of it” throughout the Bible. The points I just finished making in this very post are a good example of that.

Here’s my dilemma Ptahlis, and the dilemma of every single Christian on the planet. There are certain things in life that are just fact whether we believe them or not. I’ve often used the example of the law of gravity. Let me honestly ask you a question … I’d be curious as to your answer. If you knew someone who didn’t believe in the law of gravity, would you say it’s “just your opinion” that it’s true, or would say “the law of gravity is a fact, whether you or I believe it or not”?

Christians are convinced solidly of several key facts: that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to reach God, and that you can come to Him if you repent and receive Him into your life. Now … here’s the problem. It’s not “just my opinion”. It’s a serious reality and I realize many people don’t see it that way. I’ve often thought about sharing “as if” it were just my opinion, but that feels like I’m lying! It’s a serious dilemma – how to not come across as “know-it-all”, but yet not compromising the truth and seriousness of the situation one iota. Tough balancing act, one which I’m not doing very well, obviously!

So I’m really asking for advice here. You know someone who believes the law of gravity is false. What would you do?

74

**

I think that your reasoning is a bit specious here. If you kill someone’s family, kidnap them, and force them to have sex with you against their will, that’s rape, plain and simple. To say, as Chocobo did, that it was “marital relations” and therefore wasn’t rape is to imply that marital rape does not exist.

**

And what about free will?

**

Well, this gets to the old question of why God creates all those people who are going to be evil, and why he creates a bunch of people who are going to be unbelievers and go to hell anyway. Why didn’t God command someone to kill the infant Hitler, if he can command it for every last Amalekite? Why did God create Hitler in the first place? If I’m going to hell for my disbelief in God, then why did God create me in the first place?

And this doesn’t even touch the question of the Midianites. Isn’t it a little convenient that all the Midianites, men, women, and babies alike, were so irredeemably evil as to make their extermination necessary, except the chicks?

-Ben

75

FriendofGod,

Could you please tell me the circumstances where YOU would kill a helpless baby? If God told you that this group of people were evil and you had to slaughter every man, woman and child in the group would you do it?

76

Ben:
Where in the passage is anyone forced to have sex? As for the rest of your comments, I will defer to Chocobo to go more indepth on his comments, although I’m tempted to because it’s so obvious how you’re twisting his words that it isn’t funny.

As for your comments about free will, why did God create Hitler, etc etc … good questions! I think the Amalakites had free will, but perhaps by their free will they had chosen such a deep-seated level of evil that it couldn’t be broken out of. As I said, I’m not sure that what I said is correct, it’s just one possible theory.

I definately want to highlight the most important line of your post. Really, why God created Hitler doesn’t matter. Why God told Israelites thousands of years ago to slaughter the Amalakites doesn’t matter. What matters is this comment here:

“I’m going to hell for my disbelief in God, then why did God create me in the first place?”

Ben, God created you for one reason and one reason only – to have a love relationship with you. God loves you. He wants to pour out His love into your life, into areas of pain, and give you a brand new life. He is waiting with outstretched arms for you to come to Him.

You were never, ever, meant for hell Ben. God created you to share in deeply fulfilling fellowship with Him and spend eternity with Him. You don’t have to go to hell. This isn’t about Amalakites, Hitler, or anyone else. It’s about you. God loves you.

And lastly, Icerigger:
Truthfully, I don’t think I could do it. Then again, God hasn’t told me to do anything like that, and I doubt He ever will. If He did, perhaps He would give the grace to carry it out. Perhaps He would give me insight into why. I don’t know. But I can say right now I don’t think I could do it.

77

Icerigger wrote:

What if it was crawling around in a nuclear ICBM control room, and was about to hit the “launch” button, and the missile was aimed right for you home town, and you were all the way on the other side of the room, and you yelled “NO!” to the baby but it didn’t listen to you (maybe it was deaf) – and you had a loaded pistol?

(Okay, okay, that’s stretching credibility a little bit, I know. Hardly anybody’s allowed to carry loaded pistols anymore.)

78

More to the point, how stupid a command does God have to give before you start to wonder whether he’s testing you on your ability to think for yourself…

-Ben

79

**

Oh, right- do you think that Moses told them to keep the virgins for themselves because virgins cook better? What exactly is your argument here? Moses told the Israelites that they could capture virgins as wives after they killed off their families. What isn’t forced about that kind of marital relationship? “Well, I’ve killed your mother, your father, your brothers and sisters, all before your very eyes, I’ve kidnapped you to a foreign land, and I’ve forced you into marriage. Are you feeling… amorous?” “No.” “Aw, shucks. Nice guys always finish last!”

**

This sort of tactic is actually very typical of fundies, you know. Just look in the irate letters that get sent to the Skeptical Review, for example. Constantly fundamentalists write in to say that every article is riddled with obvious and ridiculous errors, but none of them ever go into the specifics, and so the editors of the Skeptical Review don’t have a chance to create a rebuttal. Maybe Chocobo will do a little better.

**
Hey, you can defend belief in the Magic Sky Chicken if you answer every question with nothing more than “that’s a good question!” Please, remind me- what, exactly, does your religion have to recommend it over a belief that 2+2=5? I seem to have forgotten.

**
Please, FriendofGod, this is ridiculous. Unborn babies chose evil in such a deep-seated fashion that there was no hope for them? What were they doing- were twin blastomeres rubbing up against each other in a naughty fashion? And once again, why did God create the Amalekites? Why not, at the very least, render them sterile? Why not then wait for them to die of old age before the Israelites moved in?

**

Please, FriendofGod, you’re ignoring my argument so blatantly that it’s not even funny. God makes people knowing that they will reject him and spend an eternity in hell. If God wants love so badly, why bring himself the tsuris of making people knowing that they will only reject him? Why not choose to only create those people who will, of their own free will, choose to become Christians?

Do us all a big favor, FriendofGod. Take a deep breath, realize that the hard sell isn’t going to work, and forget about converting me. If you can treat me like a human being instead of like conversion fodder, and listen to what I say, and explain your beliefs in a logical fashion, you’ll get a lot further towards saving my soul than you will by parroting the tired old ad pitches.

-Ben

80

Ok, I think we’re approaching middle ground here. First off, I agree that there is an objective capital “T” Truth out there. (Others, BTW, may not, but that’s a whole new area, and I won’t go there now.) But the nature of this Truth is not demonstrable. There are people all over the world with vastly different versions of the Truth who are every bit as unwaveringly certain as you are in yours, even within the Christian faith.

The law of gravity is just not a good example. It can be independantly verified. A good definition of “fact” for use when debating is “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” In other words, it would be beyond all reason to try and interpret gravity as being nonexistant given the evidence at hand. I don’t believe that this is in any way analagous to the existence of a God, far less the existance of one particular God.

Among Christians that believe as you do, those things you take as Truth are agreed upon and can be described as facts. To everyone else outside your circle of belief, they are articles of faith, not objective facts. Until and unless you can demonstrate to those of us outside that circle that your Truth is actual, then it is beyond your purview to claim them as facts, regardless of whether they describe the objective Truth. A devout Muslim could make the same “factual” statements about Allah and Mohammed, with all the same certainty, but surely you would not be convinced would you? In neither case can they be considered “facts” even if one of them turned out to be Truth.

FoG, we all know what you believe to be the nature of the universe. We are not asking you to deny what you think is real or to say that anone else’s beliefs are just as good. What you need to realize is that when dealing with others outside your faith, saying things like It’s not “just my opinion”. It’s a serious reality and I realize many people don’t see it that way. indicates that you hold your interpretations of the scripture and subjective perceptions of God to be unassailable and incontrovertible. It is not your faith in God that people find objectionable, but your faith in yourself. By that I am not intimating that you think yourself perfect. What I am saying is that you believe your perceptions of certain things to be perfect, disregarding the fact that other human beings like yourself have widely variant perceptions of those exact same things (God and scripture.)

If you want an example of how to post without being thought of as a “know-it-all” and yet not compromise on what you believe to be deadly serious, carefully read Polycarp’s posts. (Please correct me if I in any way misrepresent you here Poly.) He and I do not agree on the nature of reality at all. He is a Christian, I an atheist. However, in reading his posts I have never felt preached-to, nor talked down to. I’ve never gotten the idea that Poly held himself above me or any other poster when expressing his beliefs. He has been both thoughtful and tactful when presenting his beliefs, and I have gained a lot of insight from them. While he has not convinced me that he is right in his beliefs regarding the nature of reality, he has convinced me that he is reasonable and approachable, and so too his beliefs. I am dead sure that Polycarp believes every bit as strongly as do you, but Poly is wise enough to be aware that he is a human being and that there is no reason for the rest of us to accept what his perceptions and interpretations of scripture tell him about the universe simply on his say-so. He accepts that other peoples’ perceptions lead them to different conclusions without accusing them of deluding themselves or wilfully blinding themselves to the truth.

There is a marked qualitative difference between saying, “I believe in God, and Jesus is the only way to salvation,” and saying, “God’s existance and Jesus as the gateway to salvation is FACT, whether you or I believe it or not.” The second statement is not the least bit more convincing to a non-believer than the first one-- believers through the years have experienced the same joy, conviction and fervor in many different faiths. It does have the immediate effect of making a non-believer hostile to the message because of the manner in which it is presented because it, quite honestly, makes the person sound unbelievably arrogant about the whole question. By saying “I believe…,” rather than “It is a fact that…,” the first person is not in any way “watering down” his message. No non-believer is going to assume that the person is any less sure of himself because of the fact that it is belief. Regardless of whether it is presented as fact or not, anything that is so utterly unverifiable and unfalsifiable as the nature of God automatically gets the status of opinion or belief, no matter how strongly held, because no matter how certain the speaker is in his knowledge, he is a human being. As you said before, the Truth is the Truth whether anyone believes it or not. However, simply calling your belief a fact doesn’t confer upon it any degree of certainty to anyone other than yourself. All it does is call into question your willingness to question yourself.