´óÏó´«Ã½

Ryan (#10 from the Revival '11 thread) -

"...it would be really nice if LSV and Natman made up. You both tend to make good points!"

I have nothing against Natman personally, but this kind of anonymous debate is about issues that need to be aired.

If you or Natman met me personally (and it would be great if that could happen), I really don't think you would find me a particularly strident person. OK, there's a bit of 'rough and tumble', and I assume that most people can take a bit of banter. If not, then do shout.

I acknowledge that Natman has made a number of points that I agree with or sympathise with.

Here is one such example, which I acknowledged at the time in my post #25 on that thread.

Here's another one concerning many (most) Christians' refusal to live consistently with a belief in hell, on the one hand, and committed evangelism, on the other. I remember one particular meeting I attended over twenty years ago (a small group meeting) at a flat in north London, and the leader of the fellowship (who, it has to be said, was rather adept at making other Christians feel extremely guilty) came out with this comment, in a particularly menacing tone of voice: "Don't you all realise that most of these people around us are going to hell?" Everybody sat there looking pretty downcast, and the meeting somehow moved on. Over the years I have often thought about that incident and wondered why the leader didn't immediately get off his backside and go out and start shouting and screaming in the street to warn people about their horrific fate. In fact, his general behaviour was not one of doing anything of the sort - ever!

That is why I am extremely sceptical about the typical fundamentalist view of hell, because I have never once met a single Christian who actually, really, genuinely believed in it, such that he or she acted accordingly (unless, of course, such a Christian wanted people to go to hell, or was a double decree Calvinist, and therefore had a theological excuse!). By 'acting accordingly', I don't mean doing a bit of evangelism once every five years, or having odd conversations; I mean, getting up early in the morning, going into the town centre, and telling every single person you meet (possibly at the top of your voice) that, unless they become a Christian (in the right kind of way), they are going to burn in hell forever.

So Natman made a good point there.

So, I don't think it's all 'pistols at dawn' between me and Natman. He may think otherwise....?

Hell no.

An internet persona, particulary one on pseudo-anonymous blogs like this excellent one, can be totally different to that expressed in real life. I'd like to say I'm not as argumentative in real life (my wife might disagree!), but such a forum is an ideal place for true feeling and opinions to be expressed without the possibility of the 'heat' of the debate crossing into non-internet related activities (or at least that's the idea).

I'm sure LSV is a nice enough guy, I'm sure if I knew him in real life he'd be a sound character and I admire his tenacity and belief in his opinions. I might disagree with 99% of them, feverently in fact, but I have a lot more respect for people with whom I disagree with passionately but can argue their side, than people with whom I might have more in common but whose idea of an argument is to state their case and then refuse to fight for it.

Besides, when it all comes down to it, it's the internet and is how it can be sometimes.

Loved it Natman!

Here's another one. It would appear that the Vatican is not as anti-secular as it would have us believe.

/news/technology-12391129

I wonder if the app. is in the vernacular.

Church iPhone app. I'm a Protestant, am I allowed to make a joke? :-)

Those three sins, I'm supposing they are sins, which have been ticked on the screen shot on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ item RJB linked to... are exactly the three I'd have ticked if I had to tick my sins.

And if the, "Have I ever been involved in superstitious practices..." one was changed to, "Have I ever been involved in superstitious practices in church," I'd tick that one too.

That the Catholic Church is embracing new technology is a curious development given that the Pope has warned about the dangers of Facebook.

Not long ago a Radio 4 investigative programme on paedophile priests revealed that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith do not use modern technology to communicate. Repeated requests for information from the production team drew blanks.

Newlach

This sketch probably best sums up the Vatican approach to technology.

@logica_sine_vanitate:
We actually do have folks in the States who evangelize the very way you describe by handing out tracts on salvation to everyone they meet.I've encountered tracts left for people to pick up in restrooms, library books,under the windshield wipers of vehicles,etc.
I don't think it's a strictly American phenomena, but it's surely more widely present in the American South.And while my religious doctrines may differ some with the tract dispensers, I do appreciate their earnestness & sincerity.At least Christ is being kept in the conversation.Even our gas stations here may have a Bible verse on their marquee or a statue of the Blessed Mother near the price per gallon sign.If you've ever read Flannery O'Connor-(which is great reading)- you'll get the idea.

If grokesx is out there somewhere, could he please clarify what he means by he and I having 'unfinished business' re Bertrand Russell.

I'm up for continuing the discussion from wherever we left it...

mscracker -

Well, I have been involved in handing out tracts in public - many years ago in the centre of London (one leaflet was about Darwin, which would have really got people like Natman going!!), but I don't consider literature evangelism to be the kind of communication appropriate to warning someone about their imminent torment in fire. After all, if we see someone's house is burning down around them (and the occupant doesn't realise), we don't warn them about the danger by giving them some literature to read. We shout and scream our warnings - loud and clear!

That is what I meant when I said that I had never encountered any Christian evangelising in a way that indicated that they really really REALLY believed in hell.

That's because Hell does not exist and we all know it intuitively. Indeed it even says in the bible that God is fire. Fire is the energy of love - even Jesus said 'I have come to spread fire across the earth and how I wish it were already kindled" ie to spread love. So perhaps its not hell that is full of fire but heaven - the fire of love. Thing is - which force or energy would tell u that the worst place to go is full of fire - when it's actually what we are made of and what we seek - love/fire!!?? There's a left field one....

Natman post #2;

That is a very accurate cartoon you link to. Reminds me of one i saw ages ago; a guy sitting at his PC going "Computers really are very educational. In just two weeks i've learnt how much simpler my life was without one."

Eunice (@ 10) -

The fundamental difference between your views and mine seems to be that I believe that love can be wilfully rejected, whereas you seem to think differently.

Love defines what evil is. Evil is the rejection and antithesis of love, and the evil person hates love (and when I talk about 'love', I am not talking about the licentious and self-orientated concept of 'love' of much popular culture, that may lack any kind of moral content). Yes, I agree that God is fire, and God's love is fire. That love and fire is 'hell' to the person who is unrepentantly evil.

I don't accept the idea that every single person who encounters the love of God will willingly and happily embrace it. That idea is a violation of free will. Love is vulnerable, and can be rejected.

At the heart of the rejection of the love of God is pride, which C.S. Lewis called "the complete anti-God state of mind". This is the kind of attitude that says that "I would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven", which is the satanic inverse of the beautiful Psalm 84: "I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, then dwell in the tents of wickedness." (verse 10).

So I believe in 'hell', but the concept needs to be very carefully defined. I don't accept that hell is a special provision laid on to force a punishment on those who have died having failed to tick the correct religious boxes!! That is simply a convenient delusion for the religious control freaks, who love to use the threat of hell to enforce conformity to their perverse demands.

@LSV

Just seen your reply. Real life is a bit busy at present, but I'll get back to you anon.

LSV; Not quite. I do agree that love can be rejected - indeed we do it all the time! (that would require more explanation - mebe later!). I am perhaps coming from a different angle though. What I meant earlier was that that wilful rejection is based on false misunderstandings, false beliefs and lack of awareness and that the more awareness we have, the less we would wilfully reject that love.

It is the absence of love that allows evil to reign. FOr me there are no evil people as such - there are people who are empty of love and through which evil can reign. The 2 are very different. And yes I agree there is free will and people can reject love but I feel if someone truly encounters the love of God, that it will be noted, marked in some way - and at some point further down the line may be kindled. For me, evil is anything that promotes the separation from the love that we are - this is actually very wide ranging when fully understood and is not just the obvious evil of evil deeds etc - its not such a loaded word when understood in that way i feel.

Although love can be rejected as we have done for aeons - it is our divine heritage to come home to it because that is what we are made of and where we come from. This is why every human being seeks love - we are really seeking ourselves and why many people relate to knowing God as a form of coming home to themselves.

I agree pride is our major downfall and for me this is the pride of the human spirit that separated from the soul and thinks it is 'it' - and yet it causes our woes by its selfseeking ways and need for identification, recognition and acceptance. The human spirit does not like to think it has been fooled and it will defend to the hilt its ways. For me the spiritual journey is the return of the human spirit to the soul it separated from - and where the spirit is then rendered naught and the soul, the love and light of God are embodied and expressed in the human person.

For me 'hell' can be the hell we create on earth in life - but is not the hellfire of the afterlife that is talked about in some circles - that is fiction.

So not so many differences ....! :-)

logica_sine_vanitate:
Thanks.
I think we all have different gifts-some for preaching with words, some with actions.Didn't St. Francis say something to the effect that we should preach & when necessary, use words?
In serving to others we exhibit Christ's love & (hopefully)draw the ones we serve to Christ.So, I would think that would be a powerful form of evangelization as well.
But, God bless the folks who hand out tracts, too.It takes a lot of conviction to hand out literature to strangers-as you must know.