So you want to be converted? (for Joachim Pieper)

Great Debates
1

Since you asked, and since the thread in which you asked (Can someone convert me, please?) has become somewhat sidetracked, I thought I would contribute my views here.

First, neither I nor any human can convert you. God speaks directly to your heart, in all things and at all times. You merely need listen, and perhaps you already do. God does not limit Himself to the words of humankind, either those of the Bible or of preachers.

God is Love. An obvious but difficult stricture. When you have Love in your heart, for all, without exception, and to the utmost limit of your abilities and somewhat beyond, then you are with God. It matters not what road you have followed to bring this Love into your heart and spirit.

A problem that some people have is allowing themselves to be happy, to love themselves, to find meaning and purpose in life. One way that some people have found to bring those qualities into their life is through faith in God and the message that Jesus brought. It is incontrovertably true that many people have found strength, purpose, and peace of mind by such faith. It is equally incontrovertable, and deeply regrettable, that some have adopted the trappings of faith to justify self-righteous and hateful behavior; all the endeavors of mankind are imperfect.

If you are unhappy, if you desire meaning and purpose, if you wish guidance, if you wish strength, faith might perhaps might help you find them. If you admire those who’s love and strength of purpose appears without bound, then perhaps faith can help you emulate them more closely. If you already feel these things, then changing your beliefs might prove unecessary. I do not know you well enough to advise you more specifically.

2

And yet, God had to send his Son here to show us what was right. Thus, this claim that somehow we have love “built-in” and that God speaks directly to us is false, unless you think Jesus was just screwing off.

Actually, the Holy Spirit here makes more sense.

That is true, in so much as there is but one road one can follow to get there.

But you are not supposed to love yourself, you are supposed to love God.

But I rarely meet anyone who does so.

There is nothing wrong with being self-righteous, if you are in fact righteous. Don’t confuse the two. As for all the enmdeavors of mankind being imperfect, that is pure pessimism.

Just be careful who you listen to.

3

I find it incomprehensible that so many so-called Christians and rationalists both (since I don’t know which category jmullaney falls under) concern themselves to the point of obsession with the means one achieves the spirit of Love rather than the achievement itself.

I intended the OP of this thread to directly respond to Joachim Pieper’s “request” to be converted. When attempting to persuade someone of a position, one must detail how that position is of benefit to that person and by what means he or she may acheive those benefits.

There are many people in this world who strive to have Love in their hearts for all. They came to that attitude by many different paths, some through the study of the words of Jesus, some through the study of other writings and religious traditions, some through a mystical gnosis, and some through scientific study and rational philosophical inquiry.

I am not so arrogant, nor so convinced of my own perfect wisdom, as to say that my way of bringing Love into my own heart is superior to that of others. Notice that a careful reading of the OP shows that I do not reveal my own method; I generally choose to reveal nothing of my personal life here. Regardless of my own path, I do recognize the power of faith to positively transform a person to a spirit of Love. I admire the wisdom and Love of Gandhi as much as I do that of Martin Luther King; I care not from which set of writings they gained their dedication to truth and their commitment to compassion.

Love of self does not equate to arrogance, selfishness or self-indulgence. It means that you (in the rhetorical second person) regard your own self and actions as important and meaningful. It is the first step to Love of others (Love your neighbor as yourself). The infant science of psychology has revealed that if you have an accurate, realistic and positive view of yourself, you are more able to see the positive and value in those around you. Contrawise, if you have nothing but guilt and loathing for yourself, you will see naught but the negative in others. This simple observation is as valuable to the faithful as to the atheist. Before one can accept the divinity of Jesus, one must first accept the value of the gospels’ wisdom. And, indeed, such wisdom is the important part; with it, one can lead a life of happiness and fulfillment.

To assert, however loudly and self-assuredly, that one’s position is TRUE beyond a question or doubt convinces no one with the least amount of rational intelligence or self-respect. However, to assert that a path can actually work to his own benefit, ah, that can hope to convince the most dedicated atheist of the power and benefit of faith. If your theology teaches hatred and loathing, of yourself or others, I want no part of it, whether you call yourself Christian or not. If your theology, philosophy, or merely your personal nature teaches Love for all, yourself and others, unstinting, then I care not how you have arrived by that teaching, I admire and respect you in full measure.

jmullaney makes one important point, “Just be careful who you listen to.” Always let your own heart be your guide. Any words you hear or read are the words of men, no more or less fallible than yourself. Much wisdom has been written, and much folly, and much of both in the name of God. Remember too, “By their fruits you shall know them.”

4

This statement is just going completely over my head? What can be said about the achievement itself? Nothing can be said of it. The means are important – and if Joachim had them and kept them he would not be sad much longer.

What would it benefit Joachim if he gained the whole world and lost his soul? That is the only benefit that Christianity offers.

True, but apparently they do not all know the way to succeed in their striving or they would be striving no longer.

Of course.

So, Jesus was arrogant? Perhaps.

Not really! Aren’t you just describing pride? Pride is evil. Love requires humility.

:rolleyes: No. Love your neighbors as if they were yourself. Not love yourself first and then try to love your neighbors as much.

Ack. It’s Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard!!

You have this backwards. Obviously, if, through your positiveness, you think you are better than everyone else, you hold everyone else in lower regard and vice versa.

(That is of course what Jesus did.)

Sadly, some people do not even think they have souls, so any offer of salvation falls on deaf ears.

Well, already we’ve parted if you are to insist loving one’s self is a better way.

You can’t always let your heart be your guide either, for the heart of man is twisted. So if you must listen to man, listen to one with the Holy Spirit if you can find such a one and ask them. Look for those who produce the fruits of the Spirit in keeping with repentance and do not belong to the world and are thus despised by the world. They will gladly share their wisdom.

Good luck

5

jmullaney, I find your views and objections obtuse to such a degree that I am unable to understand them well enough to refute them.

6

Thanks, Joe, the OP was well thought-out and I shall think on it.

Between you, guys, I have both ways and means. I’ll try to find a middle-ground, since it seems to me much of the bad press ‘religion’ gets is because of the extremes that people take their beliefs to.

The trouble with looking for the prohets who are despied by society, jmullaney, is that some of them are despised for good reasons. Mostly because they’re frekin’ nuts. But then, I suppose that’s what the Jews thought about Jesus.

Cheers for your interest in my souls. I’ve got a fourteen hour flight to think it over, and I’ll post again when I’m back in sunny England. Thanks.

7

“sunny England”?

Where, pray tell, are you flying from, the Sahara Rainforest?

-VM

8

I wish at this time to raise a hearty “hear, hear!” to Joe Malik, whose understanding of what I condider to be true and important to be exceptionally well rendered in words.

(i.e, “me too”)

9

OK, let me try to clarify:

  1. the means to love, which are keeping Christ’s teachings, are important.
  2. You can not bribe people into being Christians with promises of anything more than the salvation of their soul and a light yoke (i.e. you will not have to strive in order to love once the Spirit is upon you).
  3. Jesus, though he fits your description of arrogant behavior, was not in fact arrogant but righteous.
  4. Love is not prideful.
  5. The love Christianity speaks of is not love of yourself. You are supposed to love God and love your neighbors as yourself. Not “as much as” yourself as you have implied.
  6. A “positive view of yourself” is just another word for pride. Pride is unChristian.
  7. Man’s heart is inherently twisted and he can not be left to judge for himself what is right or even how to interpret scripture.

Is that better?

10

1) the means to love, which are keeping Christ’s teachings, are important.

Love itself is Christ’s teaching. If one Loves, one is keeping His teaching. The rest is just technique and commentary.

2) You can not bribe people into being Christians with promises of anything more than the salvation of their soul and a light yoke (i.e. you will not have to strive in order to love once the Spirit is upon you).

Appealling to a person’s self-interest is not a bribe. Do you argue that a person should follow Christian philosophy even if not understood? If such a belief system brings that person naught but misery, how can you persuade him or her to adopt it? Threats of everlasting torment?

And is not the promise of salvation of the soul a bribe? What differentiates a bribe from a promise or hope of benefit? You really need to define your terms most carefully and explicitly here to avoid complete confusion.

I have found in my life that the yoke of Love is indeed heavy at times. I have placed great demands on my character to fulfill my beliefs and my philosophy. Heavy as it is, I have found the rewards commensurate with the burdens.

3) Jesus, though he fits your description of arrogant behavior, was not in fact arrogant but righteous.

Cites? I am not an expert on the Bible. Certainly one must accept a degree of interpretation or consider acceptable genocide, incest, and other activities generally held as evil.

4) Love is not prideful.

Define “pride”.

*5) The love Christianity speaks of is not love of yourself. You are supposed to love God and love your neighbors as yourself. Not “as much as” yourself as you have implied. *

I fail to see the distinction. Again, you must be much more specific here.

6) A “positive view of yourself” is just another word for pride. Pride is unChristian.

Why should one adopt a belief system which requires one to hold a negative view of him or herself? And again you must define “pride”.

7) Man’s heart is inherently twisted and he can not be left to judge for himself what is right or even how to interpret scripture.

If I lack the ability to judge what is right, how can I determine what is right and wrong? Other people are in the same boat as I am. According to this assertion, I cannot even interpret scripture to judge right and wrong! This statment is not only without any sort of reasonable basis, it excludes any method of determining right and wrong, or good and evil.

Additionally, it contracticts a fundamental tenet of the Christian religion: The doctrine of original sin, which was aquiring the ability to determine good and evil!

Ultimately, the only guide to the conduct of one’s lives is one’s own heart, mind and spirit. One may say that the Bible, whether interpred literally or figuratively, is the only authority, yet it requires a decision of the heart to accept that authority over that of competing philosophies.

I find the underlying philosophy I infer from your statements disturbing and somewhat repellent. You are naturally entitled to practice your beliefs, but unless I am grossly misintepreting you, I could never subscribe to your views, nor would I counsel a person, however desperate for meaning or purpose, to adopt them.

I think the best we can do (again assuming my inferences are close to the mark) is explicate our respective philosophies. I doubt there is a means for us to come to any significant agreement.

I offered the OP not as a definitive interpretation on Christian philosophy, but as an exercise in constructing an argument which would at least have meaning to someone who implied he was entirely atheist. Merely shouting, “My views are TRUE!” is generally not considered a convincing or even interesting argument. Misusing the principles of logic and reason is not only unconvincing (not that I accuse you of such, but in discussions of theology and coversion such behavior has certainly occured), it marks the proponent as fraudlent and deceitful or at least mentally deficient.

11

Heck. I almost finished my reply and my browser crashed. OK, one more time…

If one keeps his teachings, then one loves. I think we are agreed as long as you are not putting the cart before the horse.

And, I was wrong about what I said about appealing to self-interest. I do think that is a must, but it is dangerous to appeal to pride. Pride, like all capital sins, is a result of love of self, and this specifically means taking delight in one’s actions, possessions, or relationships. Love of God is antithetical to love of self.

Confusing. Christianity is not so much a philosophy as a way of being and living. A person should attempt to keep the teachings even if he does not understand why they are important, if that is what you mean.

There are temporal spiritual rewards, you are right. But a worldly person might not see it this way. So, yes, sometimes you have to use the rod and sometimes you only need to use the staff.

How so? Can I help?

Huh? You lost me here.

I’m not sure that this is an important distinction as to what the word “as” means or not, but there is a danger in the first versus the second:

Love your neighbor as much as yourself
Love your neighbor as if they were yourself

Since Jesus told his followers to deny themselves, I’m inclined to think the second is correct.

It is a bad idea to mix pop psyc with religion. Don’t think of it as a negative view of self, but rather no view of self. Of course, I’m in a state of sin myself so I have no idea where to begin an explanation that this is a good thing.

Well, how can an imperfect person interpret scripture except imperfectly? Jesus himself said to his apostles, that if they kept his teachings he would give them the Holy Spirit, and that it would teach them all things of wisdom. But many people say you need this spirit in the first place to understand what his teachings are. All people are wise to some degree but after having been around here a while I’ve come to see that otherwise level headed and intelligent people can have wildly different views of what any given scripture means, what scriptures do and do not apply to them, etc. I’ve even been told that, since I’m a sinner, I can not possible know anything and should not be listened to no matter what I say about scripture. So I’m in this weird theological minefield where everyone knows they keep Jesus’s teachings because, of course, they have the Spirit because they keep the teachings, and this spirit does not tell them they are wrong, and to suggest otherwise ain’t pretty.

So, I’ve concluded that scripture alone is not enough. Apostolic succession is required also. Jesus taught the truth to his followers, who taught it to the newbies, and so on. That is the only hope for the transmission of Truth.

Um… good point. But if everyone knows what is good and what is wrong inherently, why Jesus? Why the Ten commandments? Why any religion anywhere? I think that through their Sin, they realized what they had done was wrong, only because they had been in perfection before hand. Since many of us are still born into an imperfect world, we might never have the perfection to know that what we take for granted might be wrong and that is the essential problem.

What is wrong with this view?

I don’t know anymore what to say to an atheist. There may not be a God, but if you live a life of faith in God by keeping Christ’s teachings, you would discover some circumstantial but none-the-less convincing evidence that there is some higher being that is Love. But no atheist I have talked to on the board, let alone many who call themselves Christians, have expressed the slightest interest in conducting such an experiment.