cyberjosh
Member
- Oct 19, 2005
- 3,472
- 11
*This is long but important*
I'll put in dashed line breaks to try to make it easier to read.
I had the most interesting experience today, while walking across campus today on my way to lunch there was a guy in his early to mid twenties, dressed in normal clothes, and well built (could have been a runner or an athlete), standing the the courtyard in front of the building I was going into and he approached me and was holding a book in his hand and started to ask me some questions. For a quick second I thought he was Christian evangelizing, as I've seen (and actually stopped to talk with) other people who do so in the exact same court yard, and he asked me if I had a second and I stopped to talk with the man to see what he had to say. He introduced himself and said he was a monk, and asked me if I had ever met a monk before, and I said no, and to show me he was a monk he took of a stylish newsboy cap that he was wearing to show me his shaven head except for a short que or ponytail in back. He then asked me if I had ever heard of the book in his hand - the Bhagavad Gita - or ever meditated or practiced yoga (not the aerobic imitations, but true Hindu yoga meditation), and I told him I didn't and stated that I was a Christian and believed in the Bible. So that I wouldn't seem dismissive I did try to bridge the conversation after I said that by saying that I'm sure that what he believed had some good principles, and I told him that many religions share the same good principles because of God's impression of morality in the mind & soul of every person, and that I'm sure what he believed was good principles, but that I believed in Christ and the truths of the Scriptures.
This is when it went completely unexpectedly in a direction I never imagined. This man was intense yet calm, collected, convicted about what he was saying, and totally sold to his mission never once raising his voice but always making points without stopping to have to pause and think about what he was going to say, always had an answer. I almost wish I could be that quick and collected in my thoughts. If I hadn't been as firm in my faith as I am I might have been intimidated or out-spoken by the man, although he was also very non-threatening in his whole demeanor. What he did next was start with me on a rather reasonable conversation with me at first, and although I disagreed with his POV, I was respectful and listened. When he heard that I was a Christian he started picking up immediately with that and started telling me things that Jesus said, and also said that Jesus had been in India and had read the Bhagavad Gita which is 2,500 years old. I respectfully told him there was no evidence for that, although I had heard the theory and that we don't really know what Jesus did for the first 30 years of his life. We started talking about various principles in the Bible which he seemed to accept as truth, but as truth from his point-of-view - and he often told me I misunderstood what the Bible was saying. We actually got a point in the discussion about Bible translations in which he told me I really should try to read it in the originals (which I told him would be ideal) and that I'd see some things that had been distorted in translations which aided in a misunderstanding I and other Christians had bought into about the truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then he started talking about spiritual principles, and I was right in there with him, agreeing with some points I had in common with him, and then he started mentioning compassion, and then mixed in some references about most Christians he had met were materialistic and then mentioned eating meat - which he was strongly opposed to. At first it was all hazy as to what he was talking about but then I finally drew the connection after he started saying that killing animals is not showing compassion or sympathy to other living creatures, then I understood that he was tying compassion (or rather the lack of it) to that practice - and since most Christians eat meat etc. they too did not understand the true nature of compassion, and that we are thus blinded/hindered from coming to a full knowledge of the truth. He mentioned several times that he had taken that better path of compassion, and that he knew of some truth that is hard for others who are not enlightened as well to understand (he never used the word "enlightened" interestingly - but I'm just trying to give you the gist of what he said) similar to/just as (his words), "Jesus had told his disciples that there was many things to tell them but they were not yet ready". So he was turning the Scriptures to his advantage to press his point of following a better path which even Jesus understood but that us "materialistic Christians" were blinded from seeing because we lacked compassion and on a fundamental level misunderstand what real compassion is even though we think we know what it means.
He was also maddeningly "pure in purpose" not for a second compromising his beliefs, and would - as some strongly convicted Christians do - disagree or correct me when I wasn't exactly precise in my language, and also neither got angry nor "accepted" agreements from me in favor of what he said (as some - even pastors - might be tempted to do sometimes [I believe], in that we sometimes are glad that someone just "accepted our argument", rather than being concerned about what it is we are really teaching or what they really are believing). And so he was commendable in not wanting "mans approval" yet he would always turn things around on me. For example when I agreed with him once that I agreed with the principles he had mentioned, he said - cleverly turning it around on me, "It had nothing to do with agreeing on principles. Principles are principles, the sun shines - that's a fact nothing to agree on, its just inherently true." And in indescribable ways he kept on "out-besting" me in words and in other points he made, driving at trying to get me to see the path I have to take if I truly want to know the truth, because my materialistic view was blinding me from seeing the whole truth and has led me to not understanding Jesus correctly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But he was relentless on the specific point of not eating meat, and I tried to allay some of that by mentioning Biblical principles like how Daniel had gone on his vegetable-only diet in Daniel 1. and how Paul said that if eating a certain food should make his brother stumble then he would never eat that food again, and how to Jews he would become as a Jew (observing their dietary laws, etc.) in order to preach Christ without providing a stumbling block. And he several times half-conceded with me in my unwavering profession of following Christ only and said, "Well keep following Christ and maybe he will show you what true compassion means", implying I suppose that it would lead me to a path of celibacy and abstinence from certain foods - as even Christian monks do. But each time after he said that he would firmly state that I was not on the same level as him and referred to what I can only guess was Hindu concept of the "conditioned soul". The conditioned soul in essence is the apathetic, mindless, habit based, doing of certain activities like eating meat, having sex, and he listed a few others I can't remember. And I forget the term he used for people like himself but I think it was something like the "freed soul" who was freed from that "enslavement". I didn't connect the dots until later that he was really preaching to me from a perspective of celibacy, and he also never told me he was Hindu, I just figured that out from all the context clues.
See, the most maddening part of it all was that most of his principles he stated were dead on descriptions of the sinful flesh, and also his over-and-beyond decision for abstinence is even permissible under the freedom we have in Christ, and thus most of what he said i didn't diagree with much in principle. But he was relentless, well collected, always had an answer, and was a very imposing presence. i had to split off the conversation with him after 40 minutes and left him to talk with someone who had joined the conversation half-way through because he saw me and him going at it pretty intensely in front of courtyard full of people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could write several more paragraphs of things we covered, but I am so very concerned about people like that. The man was not evil (all are sinful - but this man was not a "bad" man), he was always sincere, never raised his voice, always had an answer but was unwaveringly dedicated, and he took the upper tone of superiority in the conversation which (as hard as I tried) was impossible to break. He even almost had me once (although I think it was unfair) in trying to accuse my manner in which I was defending the Gospel as a sign of weakness and not fully understanding the truth because he said I was being defensive which betrayed a weakness or strain in my position - yet he was doing the same thing by going on the offensive and being so high handed and so "right" that only he could be the one making legitimate points and only me making excuses for them. As I said it was an impossible situation to turn around, and I've almost never experience anything like it in my life. I can only remember a select few people I've met in the past who were so firm, confident, and relentless in what they were saying that it was nearly impossible to argue with then or get a word in edge wise. His construct of moral purity was "too high" to be lowered. And see it would be less maddening if he were like the Pharisees in pretentious self-righteousness, and arrogant. He was not outwardly like we might envision the Pharisees, and while I would certainly argue that he was arrogant (self-deceived into thinking he had attained some supreme enlightenment that no one else can attain unless we agree with the principle he put forth) he did not act arrogant. And how can I not help but be understanding of being unwavering on a principle, when I myself hold a similar standard for uncompromisingly upholding the message of Christ. We were so similar in conviction, strength of character, etc. yet on completely opposite sides of the pole. How can God get to people that firm in what they believe? Is it impossible?
Any weak Christian I'm sure would have emerged in defeat from that, but I was always calm, always respectful, firmly disagreeing myself with specific points, and even tried to evangelize to him but he was already pulled Jesus to his side for his arguement so it was impossible to "reintroduce" the true Jesus to him. By the way he would have continued talking with me all day I'm sure and he invited me to come back when I had something more substantial than the materialistic and rather shallow philosophy/theology of Christianity.
I don't know what to say. The guy was rock solid, had a calm but imposing presence in a debate, and wouldn't back down. What do we say for these type of people: morally good but incessantly stubborn in suggesting they already know the truth from God?
God Bless,
~Josh
I'll put in dashed line breaks to try to make it easier to read.
I had the most interesting experience today, while walking across campus today on my way to lunch there was a guy in his early to mid twenties, dressed in normal clothes, and well built (could have been a runner or an athlete), standing the the courtyard in front of the building I was going into and he approached me and was holding a book in his hand and started to ask me some questions. For a quick second I thought he was Christian evangelizing, as I've seen (and actually stopped to talk with) other people who do so in the exact same court yard, and he asked me if I had a second and I stopped to talk with the man to see what he had to say. He introduced himself and said he was a monk, and asked me if I had ever met a monk before, and I said no, and to show me he was a monk he took of a stylish newsboy cap that he was wearing to show me his shaven head except for a short que or ponytail in back. He then asked me if I had ever heard of the book in his hand - the Bhagavad Gita - or ever meditated or practiced yoga (not the aerobic imitations, but true Hindu yoga meditation), and I told him I didn't and stated that I was a Christian and believed in the Bible. So that I wouldn't seem dismissive I did try to bridge the conversation after I said that by saying that I'm sure that what he believed had some good principles, and I told him that many religions share the same good principles because of God's impression of morality in the mind & soul of every person, and that I'm sure what he believed was good principles, but that I believed in Christ and the truths of the Scriptures.
This is when it went completely unexpectedly in a direction I never imagined. This man was intense yet calm, collected, convicted about what he was saying, and totally sold to his mission never once raising his voice but always making points without stopping to have to pause and think about what he was going to say, always had an answer. I almost wish I could be that quick and collected in my thoughts. If I hadn't been as firm in my faith as I am I might have been intimidated or out-spoken by the man, although he was also very non-threatening in his whole demeanor. What he did next was start with me on a rather reasonable conversation with me at first, and although I disagreed with his POV, I was respectful and listened. When he heard that I was a Christian he started picking up immediately with that and started telling me things that Jesus said, and also said that Jesus had been in India and had read the Bhagavad Gita which is 2,500 years old. I respectfully told him there was no evidence for that, although I had heard the theory and that we don't really know what Jesus did for the first 30 years of his life. We started talking about various principles in the Bible which he seemed to accept as truth, but as truth from his point-of-view - and he often told me I misunderstood what the Bible was saying. We actually got a point in the discussion about Bible translations in which he told me I really should try to read it in the originals (which I told him would be ideal) and that I'd see some things that had been distorted in translations which aided in a misunderstanding I and other Christians had bought into about the truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then he started talking about spiritual principles, and I was right in there with him, agreeing with some points I had in common with him, and then he started mentioning compassion, and then mixed in some references about most Christians he had met were materialistic and then mentioned eating meat - which he was strongly opposed to. At first it was all hazy as to what he was talking about but then I finally drew the connection after he started saying that killing animals is not showing compassion or sympathy to other living creatures, then I understood that he was tying compassion (or rather the lack of it) to that practice - and since most Christians eat meat etc. they too did not understand the true nature of compassion, and that we are thus blinded/hindered from coming to a full knowledge of the truth. He mentioned several times that he had taken that better path of compassion, and that he knew of some truth that is hard for others who are not enlightened as well to understand (he never used the word "enlightened" interestingly - but I'm just trying to give you the gist of what he said) similar to/just as (his words), "Jesus had told his disciples that there was many things to tell them but they were not yet ready". So he was turning the Scriptures to his advantage to press his point of following a better path which even Jesus understood but that us "materialistic Christians" were blinded from seeing because we lacked compassion and on a fundamental level misunderstand what real compassion is even though we think we know what it means.
He was also maddeningly "pure in purpose" not for a second compromising his beliefs, and would - as some strongly convicted Christians do - disagree or correct me when I wasn't exactly precise in my language, and also neither got angry nor "accepted" agreements from me in favor of what he said (as some - even pastors - might be tempted to do sometimes [I believe], in that we sometimes are glad that someone just "accepted our argument", rather than being concerned about what it is we are really teaching or what they really are believing). And so he was commendable in not wanting "mans approval" yet he would always turn things around on me. For example when I agreed with him once that I agreed with the principles he had mentioned, he said - cleverly turning it around on me, "It had nothing to do with agreeing on principles. Principles are principles, the sun shines - that's a fact nothing to agree on, its just inherently true." And in indescribable ways he kept on "out-besting" me in words and in other points he made, driving at trying to get me to see the path I have to take if I truly want to know the truth, because my materialistic view was blinding me from seeing the whole truth and has led me to not understanding Jesus correctly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But he was relentless on the specific point of not eating meat, and I tried to allay some of that by mentioning Biblical principles like how Daniel had gone on his vegetable-only diet in Daniel 1. and how Paul said that if eating a certain food should make his brother stumble then he would never eat that food again, and how to Jews he would become as a Jew (observing their dietary laws, etc.) in order to preach Christ without providing a stumbling block. And he several times half-conceded with me in my unwavering profession of following Christ only and said, "Well keep following Christ and maybe he will show you what true compassion means", implying I suppose that it would lead me to a path of celibacy and abstinence from certain foods - as even Christian monks do. But each time after he said that he would firmly state that I was not on the same level as him and referred to what I can only guess was Hindu concept of the "conditioned soul". The conditioned soul in essence is the apathetic, mindless, habit based, doing of certain activities like eating meat, having sex, and he listed a few others I can't remember. And I forget the term he used for people like himself but I think it was something like the "freed soul" who was freed from that "enslavement". I didn't connect the dots until later that he was really preaching to me from a perspective of celibacy, and he also never told me he was Hindu, I just figured that out from all the context clues.
See, the most maddening part of it all was that most of his principles he stated were dead on descriptions of the sinful flesh, and also his over-and-beyond decision for abstinence is even permissible under the freedom we have in Christ, and thus most of what he said i didn't diagree with much in principle. But he was relentless, well collected, always had an answer, and was a very imposing presence. i had to split off the conversation with him after 40 minutes and left him to talk with someone who had joined the conversation half-way through because he saw me and him going at it pretty intensely in front of courtyard full of people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could write several more paragraphs of things we covered, but I am so very concerned about people like that. The man was not evil (all are sinful - but this man was not a "bad" man), he was always sincere, never raised his voice, always had an answer but was unwaveringly dedicated, and he took the upper tone of superiority in the conversation which (as hard as I tried) was impossible to break. He even almost had me once (although I think it was unfair) in trying to accuse my manner in which I was defending the Gospel as a sign of weakness and not fully understanding the truth because he said I was being defensive which betrayed a weakness or strain in my position - yet he was doing the same thing by going on the offensive and being so high handed and so "right" that only he could be the one making legitimate points and only me making excuses for them. As I said it was an impossible situation to turn around, and I've almost never experience anything like it in my life. I can only remember a select few people I've met in the past who were so firm, confident, and relentless in what they were saying that it was nearly impossible to argue with then or get a word in edge wise. His construct of moral purity was "too high" to be lowered. And see it would be less maddening if he were like the Pharisees in pretentious self-righteousness, and arrogant. He was not outwardly like we might envision the Pharisees, and while I would certainly argue that he was arrogant (self-deceived into thinking he had attained some supreme enlightenment that no one else can attain unless we agree with the principle he put forth) he did not act arrogant. And how can I not help but be understanding of being unwavering on a principle, when I myself hold a similar standard for uncompromisingly upholding the message of Christ. We were so similar in conviction, strength of character, etc. yet on completely opposite sides of the pole. How can God get to people that firm in what they believe? Is it impossible?
Any weak Christian I'm sure would have emerged in defeat from that, but I was always calm, always respectful, firmly disagreeing myself with specific points, and even tried to evangelize to him but he was already pulled Jesus to his side for his arguement so it was impossible to "reintroduce" the true Jesus to him. By the way he would have continued talking with me all day I'm sure and he invited me to come back when I had something more substantial than the materialistic and rather shallow philosophy/theology of Christianity.
I don't know what to say. The guy was rock solid, had a calm but imposing presence in a debate, and wouldn't back down. What do we say for these type of people: morally good but incessantly stubborn in suggesting they already know the truth from God?
God Bless,
~Josh
