Gyroscopic Investing

This may get too offensive with words like bad or fake or inferior. I don't care, but some others might. Up to the moderators of course what is kosher. Perhaps it's just gone off topic too far and we should bring it back.

dualstow wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

dualstow wrote: Bothers whom?

Apparently some of the people he knows outside this forum.
(Apologies if you thought i was referring to someone here.)

I was afraid you meant me. (whew) 

I tend to divide Christians into two broad categories: those that live and let live, and those who want non-Christians to become Christians. The latter category in my own circle is quite small, mostly a couple of  Jewish-born distant relatives who took drugs in the sixties and are now born again. The former category are fine, in fact better than "proselytizing" atheists in my book.

In short, if someone feels the presence of God and can't help but run with it, I think that's cool. I'm actually envious.

I divide everyone into two categories: those who divide people into two categories, and those who don't. 

Kshartle wrote:

jan van mourik wrote:

Kshartle wrote:Can they really be Christians if they don't prosletize?

Interesting question. Can they? Does the bible command you to do that? And then if people don't, does that mean they are bad or fake or inferior Christians?

Hey that was my question you're re-asking!

I think Jesus is quite clear about the command as well as Paul and others although I don't have the quotes in front of me or the liberty to search at the moment.

I don't think that the New Testament says to be divisive and intolerant in your efforts to spread the Word.

To me, if you want to share your religious beliefs the place to start is to ask a person if they would be comfortable telling you about their religious beliefs and if so you should listen intently and respectfully to everything they have to say.

When you are done listening to what they have to say thank them for their honesty and willingness to share.  Leave it at that.

The next time you see them tell them you really enjoyed hearing about their beliefs.  If they seem to appreciate this feedback, you might ask them if they would be interesting in hearing about your beliefs and how they relate their beliefs as you understand them.  If they say yes, then proceed, if they say no leave it at that.

When people have been obnoxious with me in sharing their beliefs I have sometimes asked them why, if what they believe is really true, it would be necessary to be so pushy in sharing it.  If you have the truth on your side, why not just spread it in a casual and relaxed way, giving competing belief systems plenty of room and air time to be heard as well?

There are times when someone is being pushy with me about some religious beliefs that I start to feel like they don't really give an oink about me at all, and they are doing what they are doing strictly for their own purposes and I'm just a prop in the scene.  In such discussions, I notice that as I try to engage them in a true give and take exchange, they often have nothing to give and simply dismiss any new idea that I ask them to consider.

I enjoy talking to people about Jesus because a surprising number of people seem to know nothing about his actual teachings.  It's depressing to me to talk to someone who goes to a Christian church regularly and appears to be a religious person, but when you ask them a question like "How have the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament helped you to move through life with a stronger sense of peace and wholeness?" their answer is often some rote recitation of "I am at peace because I know that I am saved because Jesus died on the cross for my sins."  I always feel like such a response is something that someone else told them to say without really thinking about what it means. 

One question I really enjoy asking people when I feel it is appropriate is how much of the Christian belief system would be left if it turned out that Jesus was just a mortal man who had great insight?  To me, virtually all of the belief system would remain intact because most of his teachings never really relied on his claim to be God in order to legitimize them.  Rather, his teachings mostly are validated by the strength of the argument itself, rather than the authority of the teacher (I love teachers like that ).

Jesus seemed to be saying "If you live according to my teachings, it will give you a sense of peace and happiness, and such a durable feeling of peace and happiness is Heaven, and it can be experienced in the here and now."  He of course wasn't the first to say these things, but the framework in which he said them is the dominant religious narrative in many American communities, and thus I think it's important to understand the real insights (if any) that travel in tandem with the supernatural accoutrements that many people seem more fond of discussing and arguing about.

I always suggest that people try living according to the example that Jesus set for a while (including contempt for corrupt religious, political and financial interests in society), and just see how it goes.  If they like it, they should then move on to trying to understand the supernatural elements more deeply and draw their own conclusions about the role of supernatural events in the value and legitimacy of their faith.

To paraphrase Harry Browne, a real Christian (i.e., one who follows the teachings of Jesus) should do so because of the consequences (i.e., a happy and peaceful journey through life ), as opposed to in spite of the consequences (i.e., persecution, personal doubts and a persistent sense of guilt at being God's creation and yet being a constant source of disappointment to Him by simply behaving according to the human nature that God is supposed to have created).

The apostle Paul in particular seemed to have sort of missed the point of Jesus's teachings by becoming a zealous proselytizer that ultimately pissed off the authorities to the point that they wanted him dead.  Anyone so lacking in subtlety that he gets killed by the government because of his religious beliefs is IMHO not what you would call a REALLY effective proselytizer.  It's sort of like a virus that kills its host quickly.  I understand that Jesus met the same fate, but it somehow seems like Jesus didn't realize they were going to kill him just for telling people to be nice to each other and suspicious of authority.  As I read the gospels, it looks to me like the bit about Jesus foreseeing his own death was probably added later.  If Jesus knew that they were going to kill him if he went to Jerusalem, why would he have gone?  Wouldn't that have been a pretty pointless thing to do, especially as his ministry was really starting to get traction?

For some reason some hardcore zealots seem to relish the idea of martyrdom, which always seems a little self-centered to me because the zealots are typically becoming martyrs because they think it will give them a more prestigious address in Heaven.  That seems like a purely selfish act that is designed to benefit no one but the martyr, and essentially give him a better experience of paradise at the expense of many others in this world.  I always thought it would be cool to ask one of these guys who talk about how many virgins they will get in paradise if they think that this paradise will also be a paradise for those virgins.  I mean, is there really some group of young women out there who dream of being raped by a deranged killer in the afterlife?

Interesting reading.  Thanks for sharing.  I thought others might find this quote interesting:

    In Chapter XVII of his Rule of 1221, [Saint] Francis told the friars not to preach unless they had received the proper permission to do
    so.  Then he added, “Let all the brothers, however, preach by their deeds.”?

https://www.americancatholic.org/messen ... iseman.asp

Desert wrote: My previous self would read my posts in this thread, and chalk up my belief in the Christian God to my previous brainwashing during childhood, even though it had ended ~27 years earlier.  So I can't criticize anyone coming to that conclusion (not that you were stating that in your post).

Not only do you not seem brainwashed, you have something that many devout believers lack: you've studied some comparative religion and you've been on the side of nonbelief (and not just mild doubt).  This certainly sets you apart from the pushy people that Medium Tex has come across.

Medium Tex
There are times when someone is being pushy with me about some religious beliefs that I start to feel like they don't really give an oink about me at all, and they are doing what they are doing strictly for their own purposes and I'm just a prop in the scene.  In such discussions, I notice that as I try to engage them in a true give and take exchange, they often have nothing to give and simply dismiss any new idea that I ask them to consider.

The prop feeling! I had a few of those in the past. Sometimes it was just a cabbie in Thailand dropping free Buddhist literature in my lap (I drew a Star of David on a pad of paper and he quickly whisked the literature out of my lap and put it back), and other times I was stuck with a friendly contractor and didn't know how to excuse myself. Some of them cared, others not.

Maybe this is my stereotype, but I feel like I get a lot less of that on the east coast than one would get in Texas.

I enjoy talking to people about Jesus because a surprising number of people seem to know nothing about his actual teachings. 
...

I can't help but ask some Christians if they know Jesus was a Jew. An amazing number of them don't. He was "the first Christian, they say." They seem to have read precious little about the life he led, the rituals he performed, etc. I suppose that makes it easier to bend him to one's one ideal and make him look blond in paintings. None of this should matter and, like you suggested, it's his teachings that should matter. I just find it interesting that people who, well, literally deify him, don't want to find out more.

One question I really enjoy asking people when I feel it is appropriate is how much of the Christian belief system would be left if it turned out that Jesus was just a mortal man who had great insight?  To me, virtually all of the belief system would remain intact because most of his teachings never really relied on his claim to be God in order to legitimize them.  Rather, his teachings mostly are validated by the strength of the argument itself, rather than the authority of the teacher (I love teachers like that ).

I always think about this when the Dead Sea Scrolls come up, because they do seem to suggest that Christianity predates Jesus. But, I suppose no one should have expected faith to just disappear when those texts came to light. They seem to have been relegated to a mere footnote in religious history, and people keep on doing what they're doing. 

Desert wrote: Did you have a favorite book? 

I'd have to say Genesis. I never cared a whit about reconciling it with science and literal history like a lot of people try to do. I think they are missing the point. Even if you don't take it literally it has an amazing cast of characters and stories full of symbolic meaning, setting the stage for the rest of the unfolding story. If you haven't read it, I'd recommend "Gleanings from Genesis" by Arthur Pink if you can find it. It'll blow your mind.

Second would probably be Isaiah.

Others whom I think are missing the point and who eventually turned me off are the "end-timers" but I'll save that for next weeks sermon.