When Beliefs Conflict

[tdidymas]

I have noticed a strange thing. You don't actually have to say "you're wrong, " or "that's wrong" for people to recognise that is what you are telling them. And there is really no difference between you're wrong and that's wrong. There are some things in the Bible, things like behaviors, attitudes, sins that are non negotiable and if asked should be addressed, in a kind way. The basic doctrines of Christianity are also non negotiable but there is a way to DISCUSS these things without stepping all over a person's beliefs, or them. Other things like baptism and it's meaning, free will or not, things of this sort it is important to remember that for the most part people have firmly established beliefs, ones they back up with scripture, and it is no one's job to take a stance that the other should be corrected and their mind changed. Those differences do not affect persons salvation. They don't need to be TAUGHT by someone that "that's wrong." And maybe when you suggest teaching you are only referring to the first things mentioned and not the latter. That is unclear in your posts. What it SOUNDS like is that You consider yourself to have authoritative interpretation and those who disagree,for their own good, must be corrected. If I'm wrong about that, my apologies. Just saying, that's what it SOUNDS like. I say these things as one who adheres to Reformed Theology, which I gather from a previous post by Wondering, you are too.

Maybe I should consider what you're saying here about being insensitive to the word "wrong." However, I differ with you when you say there's no difference between "you're wrong" and "that's wrong." "You're wrong" is making it personal. It's pointing to the identity of the person, "you," which implies that there is much more about the person that is wrong, than merely the issue (or opinion) at hand. Saying "that" is wrong is just taking a stand on the particular thing that is in disagreement. However, it may be true that people are generally confused between the two, and the reason why it appears insulting.

As far as teaching, if you have information from a reliable source that people generally don't know about, and is relevant to the thread, wouldn't you want to share that information? I consider that teaching. Well, some people would say "sharing information," but that doesn't require the information shared to be relevant to the thread or point at hand. Teaching involves reasoning for the purpose of persuading someone to see clearly. Isn't that why you share what you believe to be true? If you think that you see more clearly than the person you are communicating with, don't you try to explain your point in order to persuade (or influence) the other person?

And even if the person I am communicating with doesn't accept what I say, there are a lot of people in the forum who read the posts who are wanting to learn why people interpret the Bible the way they do, and to see the reasoning as examples for themselves. I have done this myself. So why wouldn't I want to teach others what I know, and show them how I reason out my interpretations? I have learned a lot in these forums, and why should I withhold it?

Yet, I do get your point that there could be improvements in the way people communicate, and I'm trying to make improvements myself. I'm still in the learning curve, and there is always room for improvement.
TD

 

[Boaz]

Maybe I should consider what you're saying here about being insensitive to the word "wrong." However, I differ with you when you say there's no difference between "you're wrong" and "that's wrong." "You're wrong" is making it personal. It's pointing to the identity of the person, "you," which implies that there is much more about the person that is wrong, than merely the issue (or opinion) at hand. Saying "that" is wrong is just taking a stand on the particular thing that is in disagreement. However, it may be true that people are generally confused between the two, and the reason why it appears insulting.

As far as teaching, if you have information from a reliable source that people generally don't know about, and is relevant to the thread, wouldn't you want to share that information? I consider that teaching. Well, some people would say "sharing information," but that doesn't require the information shared to be relevant to the thread or point at hand. Teaching involves reasoning for the purpose of persuading someone to see clearly. Isn't that why you share what you believe to be true? If you think that you see more clearly than the person you are communicating with, don't you try to explain your point in order to persuade (or influence) the other person?

And even if the person I am communicating with doesn't accept what I say, there are a lot of people in the forum who read the posts who are wanting to learn why people interpret the Bible the way they do, and to see the reasoning as examples for themselves. I have done this myself. So why wouldn't I want to teach others what I know, and show them how I reason out my interpretations? I have learned a lot in these forums, and why should I withhold it?

Yet, I do get your point that there could be improvements in the way people communicate, and I'm trying to make improvements myself. I'm still in the learning curve, and there is always room for improvement.
TD

Agree completely. In fact I was just typing out a post on different thread and realized I was teaching. I was offering up information that applied to the thread. I didn't like school and my mother was a teacher(I loved her anyway) so forgive me for cringing at a simple word!

 

[tdidymas]

I've given up on persuading persons.
I find that the best way to witness is just to proclaim my experiences and what I believe. Maybe ask a couple of questions and then leave it to the Holy Spirit.

One tills, one plants, one waters,
but God causes the growth.

We each have our own way.
No problem.

And yes, I DO believe it's important to be nice.
Jesus was nice. Except when He was very mad at something.

"Jesus was nice" is a doctrinal statement. It's something you believe about Him, which you want to share, is it not? And what's the reason for the exercise? Is it to offer this belief as an example, as if to persuade me to "be nice"? You said you believe being nice is important, and then you offer your reasoning, which you believe is an authoritative statement - "Jesus was nice." I say it's a doctrinal statement, because you are asserting it to be true. It appears to me you are trying to persuade (influence) me. And you don't see this as teaching? IMO it is the very nature of it.

Now, concerning your statement that Jesus was nice, I have reasons to disagree with that:
1. He called people to repentance
2. He gave authoritative commands
3. He confronted hypocrites, even calling them "snakes"
4. He told people the truth without catering to their personal feelings
5. He put mental obstacles in peoples' way to test their faith
6. He said many things contrary to popular opinion and culture
7. He rebuked His disciples for their lack of faith
And I'm sure there are many other things He did that people would not consider nice.

When I think of "nice" I think of these things:
1. Going along with the crowd to avoid rejection or confrontation
2. Being politically correct to avoid legal entanglements
3. Catering to peoples' personal feelings in fear of being rejected or hated
4. Withholding truth so as to not rock the boat
And I'm sure there are many other things I could think of if I thought about it long enough.

My point is that when I said I would use a "nicer word" I was being sarcastic - but I should probably use a nicer word - facetious. It was because I detected that it was what you were conveying in your previous posts, which you confirmed above. I'm sure I can be kind, light-hearted, compassionate, loving, and other ways that people could also call "nice." Except I don't consider those things as "nice," at least in the way I meant it, namely, catering to peoples' personal feelings. I'm not committed to being nice or pleasant by that definition. I'm committed to being honest, open, clear, and objective, because I have a passion for truth.

And yes, we all have different ways of doing things.

What started this whole discussion was your statement about my saying that the forum was a help to sharpen our teaching skills, that it disturbed you. It begs the question, why would it disturb you? Up to now, I did not even address the fact that you thought I was some self-appointed teacher of the forum, since you said words to that effect, that such was a false accusation (or prejudice), since I was actually thinking of my teaching ministry outside the forum context, when I said it. So it begs the question, were you disturbed because of the word "teaching", since you jumped on it like a cat on a mouse? Or were you disturbed because of some other reason, such as were you abused in some way by someone who purported to be a teacher?
TD
P.S. Have a nice day.

 

[GodsGrace]

"Jesus was nice" is a doctrinal statement. It's something you believe about Him, which you want to share, is it not? And what's the reason for the exercise? Is it to offer this belief as an example, as if to persuade me to "be nice"? You said you believe being nice is important, and then you offer your reasoning, which you believe is an authoritative statement - "Jesus was nice." I say it's a doctrinal statement, because you are asserting it to be true. It appears to me you are trying to persuade (influence) me. And you don't see this as teaching? IMO it is the very nature of it.

Now, concerning your statement that Jesus was nice, I have reasons to disagree with that:
1. He called people to repentance
2. He gave authoritative commands
3. He confronted hypocrites, even calling them "snakes"
4. He told people the truth without catering to their personal feelings
5. He put mental obstacles in peoples' way to test their faith
6. He said many things contrary to popular opinion and culture
7. He rebuked His disciples for their lack of faith
And I'm sure there are many other things He did that people would not consider nice.

When I think of "nice" I think of these things:
1. Going along with the crowd to avoid rejection or confrontation
2. Being politically correct to avoid legal entanglements
3. Catering to peoples' personal feelings in fear of being rejected or hated
4. Withholding truth so as to not rock the boat
And I'm sure there are many other things I could think of if I thought about it long enough.

My point is that when I said I would use a "nicer word" I was being sarcastic - but I should probably use a nicer word - facetious. It was because I detected that it was what you were conveying in your previous posts, which you confirmed above. I'm sure I can be kind, light-hearted, compassionate, loving, and other ways that people could also call "nice." Except I don't consider those things as "nice," at least in the way I meant it, namely, catering to peoples' personal feelings. I'm not committed to being nice or pleasant by that definition. I'm committed to being honest, open, clear, and objective, because I have a passion for truth.

And yes, we all have different ways of doing things.

What started this whole discussion was your statement about my saying that the forum was a help to sharpen our teaching skills, that it disturbed you. It begs the question, why would it disturb you? Up to now, I did not even address the fact that you thought I was some self-appointed teacher of the forum, since you said words to that effect, that such was a false accusation (or prejudice), since I was actually thinking of my teaching ministry outside the forum context, when I said it. So it begs the question, were you disturbed because of the word "teaching", since you jumped on it like a cat on a mouse? Or were you disturbed because of some other reason, such as were you abused in some way by someone who purported to be a teacher?
TD
P.S. Have a nice day.

I didn't jump on anybody....
I made a simple statement which you can't seem to get out of your mind.

Yes, I DO believe it's nice to be nice.
I DO believe Jesus was a nice person.
No,,,I don't agree with your definition of nice.

You have a teaching ministry?
That's great.
You're doing God's work.
God's blessings be upon you.

 

[tdidymas]

I didn't jump on anybody....
I made a simple statement which you can't seem to get out of your mind.

Yes, I DO believe it's nice to be nice.
I DO believe Jesus was a nice person.
No,,,I don't agree with your definition of nice.

You have a teaching ministry?
That's great.
You're doing God's work.
God's blessings be upon you.

I didn't say you jumped on someone, I said you jumped on the word "teaching." It wasn't a simple statement, as it seemed loaded.

And may the Lord bless you also.
TD

 

[GodsGrace]

I didn't say you jumped on someone, I said you jumped on the word "teaching." It wasn't a simple statement, as it seemed loaded.

And may the Lord bless you also.
TD

It wasn't loaded.
See you around.

 

[Mungo]

For information
From the Concise Oxford English Dictionary

nice
n adjective
1 giving pleasure or satisfaction; agreeable. Øgood-natured; kind.
2 fine or subtle: a nice distinction. Ørequiring careful attention.
3 archaic fastidious.

WORD HISTORY
The word nice entered Middle English in the sense 'stupid', from Latin nescius, meaning 'ignorant'. It developed a range of senses, from 'wanton and dissolute' to 'strange or rare' and 'coy or reserved'. It was first used with a positive connotation in the sense 'fine or subtle' in the 16th century, and the current main meanings, senses 1 and 2, are recorded from the late 18th century.

 

[The Light]

My point is that the differing denomination's theologians believe they each have the correct answer to my questions even though the answers are different, and, I might add, to very important questions.

All of us believe we have the objective truth.
I was just trying to show that this could be problematic for the church; but, alas, there is no solution that I can think of.

The issue is the lack of a baseline starting point in many instances. Theologians start off with the given that the demonination they are from is standing on truth and their studies are often designed to defend those tenants they started with. COnfirmation bias plays a huge role. If only we could start with the premise that we don't know what the truth is or the end result will be, we just have evidence and will go wherever it takes us. That mindset leads to the least amount of error but is so lacking.

 

[GodsGrace]

The issue is the lack of a baseline starting point in many instances. Theologians start off with the given that the demonination they are from is standing on truth and their studies are often designed to defend those tenants they started with. COnfirmation bias plays a huge role. If only we could start with the premise that we don't know what the truth is or the end result will be, we just have evidence and will go wherever it takes us. That mindset leads to the least amount of error but is so lacking.

Good point,,,but by now I'd have to agree that this is lacking and will not happen....Most theologians belong to some church or other and will tend to agree with those of the past.

I do know a Catholic priest that says purgatory is nowhere in the bible. But he also says it's very necessary to confess our sins (to a priest)....so, yeah, what would that base be?

Seems like we can only agree on the very few basics that all Christians believe...maybe this is all that's necessary?

Maybe we just like to debate?
Maybe we just need our "opinion" to be confirmed?
Or we want everyone to believe as we do?

I know why I'm here, but not why everyone else is here.
I'm sure we all have our reasons.

 

[The Light]

Seems like we can only agree on the very few basics that all Christians believe...maybe this is all that's necessary?

Maybe we just like to debate?
Maybe we just need our "opinion" to be confirmed?
Or we want everyone to believe as we do?

I know why I'm here, but not why everyone else is here.
I'm sure we all have our reasons.

It may be a good exercise for individuals to do reassessments every few years where they start anew with their studies by TRYING to resist the temptation to build on their preconceptions.

 

[GodsGrace]

It may be a good exercise for individuals to do reassessments every few years where they start anew with their studies by TRYING to resist the temptation to build on their preconceptions.

I left one denomination for another...so I'm not much into preconceptions...at least I don't THINK I am...who can know for sure?

I've changed my mind about baptism...
I've changed my mind about soteriology and what gets us saved...
I can't decide what John 3:5 is referring to...

Is that good enough for ya??
LOL

 

[The Light]

I left one denomination for another...so I'm not much into preconceptions...at least I don't THINK I am...who can know for sure?

I've changed my mind about baptism...
I've changed my mind about soteriology and what gets us saved...
I can't decide what John 3:5 is referring to...

Is that good enough for ya??
LOL

We all have preconceptions we have to work to overcome. It gets problematic when we are oblivious to our own biases and act as if we are fully objective and our current stances are unmovable.

I too have changed by opinion of baptism and salvation. I THINK John 3:5 is a reference to water baptism, but not even info is given for me to be too dogmatic about it.

 

[GodsGrace]

We all have preconceptions we have to work to overcome. It gets problematic when we are oblivious to our own biases and act as if we are fully objective and our current stances are unmovable.

I too have changed by opinion of baptism and salvation. I THINK John 3:5 is a reference to water baptism, but not even info is given for me to be too dogmatic about it.

Right...
I waiver from Baptism to natural birth.
Nicodemus does ask how one could return to the womb.
But I could accept either one and will not be unmovable,,,as you say.

And anyway, who could know for sure?
No original manuscripts...we have to trust that what we have is what God intended us to have.

 

[daninthelionsden]

It is one thing to adhere to a theological position and quite another to be indoctrinated in to it.

 

[Boaz]

It is one thing to adhere to a theological position and quite another to be indoctrinated in to it.

True. Very true. I have noticed that when people are indoctrinated to belief they refuse to LISTEN to or even consider as possibility anything different than their own beliefs. They seem to be resistant to truth, have no interest in truth in fact and for the most part I suspect do not check the teaching they adhere to as coming from the Bible. They LIKE what they believe and they intend to keep on believing it. I am in no way referring to my own theological beliefs as being right, or advocating for them. But there are many things being taught today that are blatant heresy, made up by preachers for their own gain, that aren't being questioned or examined by followers. Christianity is being presented in a way they would like for it be. Often, sadly, even the basic tenets of Christianity are warped. Christology is riddled beyond recognition and those things that scripture says are necessary for salvation may not even be taught. Mainly, Christ's substitutionary, propitious death on the cross for those who believe. Our justification and sanctification in Christ.

 

[daninthelionsden]

True. Very true. I have noticed that when people are indoctrinated to belief they refuse to LISTEN to or even consider as possibility anything different than their own beliefs. They seem to be resistant to truth, have no interest in truth in fact and for the most part I suspect do not check the teaching they adhere to as coming from the Bible. They LIKE what they believe and they intend to keep on believing it. I am in no way referring to my own theological beliefs as being right, or advocating for them. But there are many things being taught today that are blatant heresy, made up by preachers for their own gain, that aren't being questioned or examined by followers. Christianity is being presented in a way they would like for it be. Often, sadly, even the basic tenets of Christianity are warped. Christology is riddled beyond recognition and those things that scripture says are necessary for salvation may not even be taught. Mainly, Christ's substitutionary, propitious death on the cross for those who believe. Our justification and sanctification in Christ.

Off topic, I know, But as I was reading your post I was thinking how beneficial it would be to the Body of Christ to have a TV/Radio show where all these theological issues were discussed rather than just these rich celebrity preachers controlling the airwaves.

 

[GodsGrace]

Off topic, I know, But as I was reading your post I was thinking how beneficial it would be to the Body of Christ to have a TV/Radio show where all these theological issues were discussed rather than just these rich celebrity preachers controlling the airwaves.

Do you know John Lennox?
What about JT Wright?

There are many good teachers/preachers on youtube.
Whitney Pinky?
Check them out.

There's a great site called Truth Challenge by Dr. Spencer Gear that is very informative.

 

[tdidymas]

True. Very true. I have noticed that when people are indoctrinated to belief they refuse to LISTEN to or even consider as possibility anything different than their own beliefs. They seem to be resistant to truth, have no interest in truth in fact and for the most part I suspect do not check the teaching they adhere to as coming from the Bible. They LIKE what they believe and they intend to keep on believing it. I am in no way referring to my own theological beliefs as being right, or advocating for them. But there are many things being taught today that are blatant heresy, made up by preachers for their own gain, that aren't being questioned or examined by followers. Christianity is being presented in a way they would like for it be. Often, sadly, even the basic tenets of Christianity are warped. Christology is riddled beyond recognition and those things that scripture says are necessary for salvation may not even be taught. Mainly, Christ's substitutionary, propitious death on the cross for those who believe. Our justification and sanctification in Christ.

There are other reasons why people strongly adhere to their theology, such as fear of being wrong about it. Fear of eternal condemnation is very subtle but strong motivation. It's what Paul calls stronghold, and the writer of Heb. calls bondage.

It's a shame that "indoctrinate" has such a bad connotation that people immediately think of psychological tyranny and evil motives. The term "doctrine" simply means "teaching," and we are all indoctrinated into something. Many of us are indoctrinated in the true gospel of grace and freedom in Christ, and what a blessing. I'm glad I'm there, and I quite like what I believe.

But I do agree that many preachers today have greed and popularity as their motives, just as it was from the beginning.
TD

 

[Boaz]

There are other reasons why people strongly adhere to their theology, such as fear of being wrong about it. Fear of eternal condemnation is very subtle but strong motivation. It's what Paul calls stronghold, and the writer of Heb. calls bondage.

It's a shame that "indoctrinate" has such a bad connotation that people immediately think of psychological tyranny and evil motives. The term "doctrine" simply means "teaching," and we are all indoctrinated into something. Many of us are indoctrinated in the true gospel of grace and freedom in Christ, and what a blessing. I'm glad I'm there, and I quite like what I believe.

But I do agree that many preachers today have greed and popularity as their motives, just as it was from the beginning.
TD

I agree that in many cases it is fear that keeps people from even considering other beliefs or doctrines. Doctrine does indeed mean teaching (that awful word again TD. lol). Doctrine itself, or a long time anyway was avoided not only as bad word but unnecessary for church, not everywhere of course, but some churches. I always thought thought maybe they should open the dictionary. And I'll agree that using the word indoctrination in the context that I did was inaccurate. I mean it in the sense of having our beliefs put into us by repetition, through tradition or a cult or a denomination, with no theological back up, no Biblical backup involving hermeneutics or exegesis, either by the institution or personally. To the point we accept it, won't budge from it, won't investigate its truthfulness. I don't consider that I have been indoctrinated. I did my own study, my own investigation, my own search for truth (using human references and resources, to be sure, but checking them against the Bible.) And reached my own conclusions. And some of the things taught I disagree with or o not fully understand their interpretations.

 

[Boaz]

There are other reasons why people strongly adhere to their theology, such as fear of being wrong about it. Fear of eternal condemnation is very subtle but strong motivation. It's what Paul calls stronghold, and the writer of Heb. calls bondage.

It's a shame that "indoctrinate" has such a bad connotation that people immediately think of psychological tyranny and evil motives. The term "doctrine" simply means "teaching," and we are all indoctrinated into something. Many of us are indoctrinated in the true gospel of grace and freedom in Christ, and what a blessing. I'm glad I'm there, and I quite like what I believe.

But I do agree that many preachers today have greed and popularity as their motives, just as it was from the beginning.
TD

Indoctrination:the process of getting a person or group of people to accept beliefs uncritically.
There is a subtle cultish or ulterior motivation implied there it seems to me.