Sadly

Unfortunately, after deliberating with shadow we have decided to end the debate on changing churches(not that anyone is reading). This is as we have both lost interest on the topic issue. The structure of future debates may be changed to prevent it being too draggy. Perhaps there will be no more debates. A blog is after all, not a good place for such events.

D

The Treatise of a Free-Thinking Christian

A TREATISE ON THE FREE THINKING CHRISTIAN

What is a thinking Christian and are all called to think?

ON FREE THINKING

1)Every Christian has the right to think critically or not to think critically just as every man has the right to think critically or not to think critically

1.2 Every Christian who does not think does not forfeit salvation for thought is not the prerequisite for salvation

1.3 Every Christian who does not think still can be used by God for He still works in those who are not perfect

WHY ONE SHOULD THINK

2) Every Christian should think and consider their faith

2.4 For it is said in Philipians 4.8 to think on such things

2.5 Every Christian who believed 2.4 is not a thinking Christian for they have

believed an assertion and an overly ambitious interpretation of the verse

2.6 Every Christian is called to think for they should have a reason for their faith

as it is said in 1 Peter 3:15

2.7 Every Christian should ask themselves why they believe in God if in 2.6 they

do not have a reason for their faith.

2.8 Every Christian who in 2.6 states personal experience as a reason should

question why their personal experience should be put above the personal

experience of other religions

2.9 Every Christian is called to think for in Matthew 7:15, Jesus says beware of

false preachers. Preachers are not infallible, and it is not wrong to critique

them.

ON EXPERIENCES WITH GOD

3) Coming back to 2.8

3.1 Every thinking christian should ask why other religions have seemingly God experiences.

3.2 Every thinking christian if told that those experiences are deceitful and the lies

of the devil, should ask themselves how they do not know that their own experiences are deceitful and are the lies of the devil.

3.3 Every thinking christian should ask whether perhaps it is those religions that are right

3.4 Every thinking christian should ask why not accept the experience of a madman that there are aliens that look like clowns

3.5 Every thinking christian if told that the experience of a madman is unbelievable should question that maybe it is the madman who is sane and not us since we are basing our proof on experience alone.

ON DOUBT

4) Every christian should know that to doubt is to think

4.1 For to think is to not know everything

4.2 To not know everything is to question

4.3 Many christian books tell christians to think as it will strengthen their faith, but never say what should be done if they think and lose their faith

4.3 Every christian including new ones should think critically even if it means jeopardizing their faith

4.4 For what is their faith in the first place, if they did not think about it?

4.5 It is not the fault of those who truly disbelieve(honestly and not for ulterior motives) for not believing, it is the fault of the christian for not providing essential evidence.

4.6 By this I do not mean that non-believers do not go to hell(if there is such a place), but I mean to show that the church should not blame atheism on evolution, or certain books or philosophers but rather ask themselves whether they have managed to answer the books and philosophers.

4.7 Every Christian should know they are the “light of the world” therefore they must not shrink from an intellectual challenge. For Jesus interacted with all, not only the prostitutes but with lawyers and Pharisees as well who were the intellectuals of the day.

4.8 Every Christian should question why they should continue believing if the church cannot answer them

4.9 Every Christian should know no one has all the answers, but at least some sort of closure should be provided

4.91 Every church should question whether they are the light of the world if they cannot be an answer to Christians themselves, much less the world

ON FAITH

5) Hebrews 11:1 , For faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen

5.1 Every thinking christian should know that in the bible it talks about the “evidence” of things unseen. Do we have the evidence for the things unseen? Or do we have mere feelings

5.2 Every thinking christian should know that nothing is can be absolutely known for certain and thus faith is needed.

5.3 Every thinking christian should question something if too much faith is necessary

5.4 Every thinking christian should know that mere belief in something is blind faith

5.5 Every thinking christian should know that thinking about their faith then truly implies rational faith

5.6 Every thinking christian should know that if one says that the atheistic challenge need not be met because we have faith, that faith is blind as it is mere belief without considering the whether the belief is true.

ON THINKING

6) Every thinking christian should have some background knowledge of their religion

6.1 Every thinking christian would have read some apologetics

6.2 Every thinking christian would have read some theology

6.3 Every thinking christian should have read a good atheistic book(at least)

6.4 Every thinking christian should know that know that philosophy is not something obscure and dangerous. They should know that our roots of theology in Aquinas and Augustine has roots in Greek philosophy.

6.5 Every thinking christian should have some sort of notion of church history

6.6 Every thinking christian should be open to criticisms by atheist, agnostics or even other Christians

6.7 Every thinking christian who has not done the above should not feel bad but rather start to do something.

ON DIALOGUES

7) Relating back to 6.6

7.1 Every thinking christian should know it is not wrong to debate with others and even non-christians

7.2 By arguments I mean logic and not real shouting and screaming

7.3 Some say that arguments cannot convert anybody. Atheists say that is why they are not Christians.

7.4 Again some say arguments cannot convert anybody. One should ask why they believe in something so unconvincing.

7.5 Again some say arguments cannot convert anybody. One should ask why so many people now believe the earth goes around the sun and not the sun around the earth. For it was an argument which has convinced people.

7.6 Some say arguments will lose the audience. True for some, for others they are lost if no arguments are given. For those who will not listen to arguments, they are not thinkers. For a thinker must defend their stance not on pure belief but on arguments.

7.7 This is not to say one should go around constantly arguing. There must be a balance. However one should not cower and retreat from arguments.

IN CONCLUSION

8) This has not been a comprehensive argument. These are things which to me are intuitive if one accepts that Christians should think.

8.1 No thinking Christian should reject this treatise on the claims of pastors or those in position, not even professors. The thinking Christian only has the right to reject this treatise on the basis of logic and argument.

8.2 The bible says to love the lord with all your heart, all your soul and all your MIND.

8.3 One cannot love someone, they do not know.

8.4 Sola christus, amen.

The Treatise of a Free-Thinking Christian

To Dad, probably the only christian that will

understand(by understand I mean empathise and not

comprehension alone)

this...maybe

HAPPY FATHER’S DAY

INTRODUCTION

I use to have a certain pity for atheists who comment on how Christians do not think and for those X-tians who have fallen away because of this. It is of course faulty logic to reject something on the basis that its proponents do not think. However, like a flash, a certain encounter has made me suddenly realise what they felt.

Even those Christians who agree with me that we must think about our faith, only seem to think that such deliberation is right if we strengthen our faith. If our thoughts lead us elsewhere, suddenly faith takes over and logic is kicked into the background. This is especially so if you have had “experiences” with God. Such double standards are sickening.

Would Martin Luther have decided that papal authority is infallible and that God is actually love if he followed “faith” instead of thinking? No, it is the study of scriptures that lead him to that conclusion. If he crumbled to pressure of having “faith”, the catholic church would still be selling indulgences for your sins. In fact Martin Luther said that unless it is shown in scripture or by logic(meaning even if there was no scriptural evidences but it was shown logically), he would not recant

I am calling this treatise that of the “free-thinking” christian. Though free thinking is often associated with atheists, a free thinker is actually one who bases his beliefs on logic, is open minded to new ideas and is ready to let go of their old beliefs if it is shown to be false. It is a sad state of the church that a freethinker is someone with secular beliefs since this implies that to follow logic is to abandon religion.

-shadow

Changing Churches?(Opening rebuttal pt 2)

D has taken a very conservative stance of saying it is sometimes right to change church while it is sometimes wrong. In a sense he has proposed something very wishy-washy and I believe his definitions are rather unclear. As I have said in the first part of my opening, what if a person believes the doctrine of the church is wrong when the person himself is wrong? My previous analogy of the bowtie wearing Christian should prove this point.

Rather if D would like to propose doctrine, the imbalanced church and reluctance to change as circumstances, he should make the signs clearer and more objective instead of putting it into the hands of the christian and say do whatever you think.

I have said less than D, but I believe that I have already pointed out many fallacies in his thinking. Thus I close my opening.
-Shadow

In Reply: To Digress

There are a errors in your thinking my dear friend. Firstly, just because something is of natural origin does it mean it is not of God? Does not God use human means to reach others?

Secondly, are you saying that conversions can be not of God? Surely that is not true, for how can salvation which is by definition something given by God, be something that is not of God?

I believe the balancing point is that just because some experiences are natural, does not mean it is not of God. However since some experiences are natural, we have to be wise in differentiating between what is humanly induced and what is truly a God experience. A question though, even if some are humanly induced, might they not be of God since they would help increase a person's faith? Nevertheless you make a good point in saying that reliance on such experiences should not become the bedrock of proper christian faith.

-D

To Digress

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sq-YUdq1OI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DylNVUN_3I&feature=related

This is a bit of a distraction but these videos have just caught my attention. Now generally you might expect me to refute what is going on, but rather I am going to do the opposite. I am going to question our faith. Please watch the video first as it is essential to understanding the point I am about to make.

Before I begin, let me first state that there are a few large gaping loopholes in Derren's experiment such as expecting every pastor in the whole world to be trained hypnotist's and cold readers. However a valid point is made, "If these conversions can be made just because of natural circumstances, then is there really something supernatural?" Now let us not talk about conversions alone but rather all kinds of "spiritual" experiences.

It is commonplace to see people cry under the presence of God and feel so touched and yet they can just walk out of the place without a single change or dare I propose even leave without conviction. With all the brilliant and dazzling lights, with superb music, the jumping up and down, and of course the statements of faith; are these just items to help 'suggestibility'? Many would say, but these are all to help a person get closer to God. Well, that is exactly what 'suggestibility' is. Many a time we say we feel a great high during worship, sadly I have felt the same when listening to other music.

Let me drop the bombshell. This is just my bias opinion, but I agree with Derren Brown. Many times what we experience in church is just pure hype.

Such actions are by no means wrong. It is like closing our eyes when we pray, the action of closing our eyes actually help to keep us from being distracted. Nevertheless, it is the actual act of praying to God that is important, not the closing of our eyes. In primarily charismatic circles however, the 'closing of eyes' has become the main focus. But it needs to come to a place where we can go past all these things.

I remember in church one time a pastor said that the service must not be predictable so as to prevent the church from being "religious" and being "stuck in a certain culture". The same night, I read CS Lewis' Letters to Malcolm where he believes a service should always be the same. That is because it is not the service that matters, but the focusing on God. A service that always changes makes people distracted and deters focus. I believe both sides have certain truths, but I have begun to lean more on CS Lewis' side.

How can we come to a place where emotions do not matter anymore(not that emotions are not important but rather we place God before our emotions)? Where our decisions to praise God does not depend on how well we feel. How can we worship like those in persecuted countries where they can sit for hours listening to God's word? There is certainly no glamour in that, and many a strong Christian including myself would never sit for 6 hours straight just absorbing God's word. What makes the Bible so beautiful for them eventhought they have to walk miles to go for meetings, eventhough they sing songs that are decades old, eventhough there is no great pentacostal preacher?

What made those in the Old Testament love God so much? They did not have the priviledge that we have of knowing Jesus. They did not have the Holy Spirit. They were not able to communicate with God whenever and wherever they wanted. They had to slave to bring cows and sheep to the temple each week. What made David sing such beautiful praises and dance naked when the Jews regained the ark of the covenant.

Last comment, many a person would say they do not really know how to hear God's voice. How can we say we truly love and have a relationship with Him if we cannot communicate? Food for thought indeed: is our faith based on a real relationship with God or just suggestibility? Are we looking for the next high and spiritual experience or are we longing to sit before the feet of Jesus? That is another interesting question that can become a future debate, since there are so many things that we deem is religious which is just human, what is actual relationship with God?

-shadow

Changing Churches (Opening rebuttal pt 1)

Unfortunately, I have not fully formulated all my arguments yet but let me first go through D's arguments one by one to determine their validity. I have no time and no need for fancy openings or inspirational quotes unlike D.

While this is by no means wrong, we have shifted the focus of the church from God to ourselves, the people.

D interestingly says this but a question can be asked, we shift our focus on God, but did not God say love your neighbour as yourself? God in Genesis said to Abraham, that He would bless him as long as he became a blessing to other nations. It is just the silly that talk about God all the time and yet do nothing for His people. Remember Jesus talking about the goats and the sheep? It is those that feed the hungry and give to the needy that will essentially inherit the kingdom. Yes, it is all about God! But likewise, God is all about the people! I think the main important focus is that we do not just abstain from loving ourselves, but rather love all things that God loves.

Next let us enter into the real argument. In D's first proposition, he states that it is permissible to change church because of what happened in Revelation with the Nicolatans. D should be reminded that he cannot be too literally taking that as proof for the situation in the Bible is different from today in many ways as D himself admits:

As such, today we are not going to have a Bible exposition but rather we are forced to use analytical thinking to produce an answer.
Now it might be asked why is this so? Well in the early church, there were not so many denominations as there are today.

Firstly, they were changing groups not churches. Secondly, how can D assume that the church will proclaim the Nicolaitans as a sect? Thirdly, since the situation then was different, how can you assume that it will allowed today? It is D's premise that since they did it then, we can do it now. But in the first place D establishes that the church back then was different from now! So how can we apply the same rules again to two different situations?

It does not relate to those who are in a new town and are looking for a new church.

Redundant statement, those who are in a new town are not changing churches. They are looking for a new one.

That is why we must be committed to a church, and help it even if it is struggling, even if it is lousy, and even if it is dying.

How does one be strong enough to have commitment to the church and help it when it is struggling? This is done by training up strong christians. How can a dying church grow strong christians? As such it is not so simple an answer as D would like us to think. Besides that, D does not give a clear answer to the second question. Is he implying that Christians should not change churches?

If a christian has not tried to help and change the church, the christian has no right to change church.

So D creates a chaotic system where everyone tries to change the church. Take for example if a person believes that every christian should wear bowties to church. He then tells that to the pastor. The pastor refuses to accept it. As such, the person now has the perogative to leave the church. This is also implied when D talks about doctrine. Yes it can work for those with good doctrine, but what about those with bad doctrine? For no one thinks that their own doctrine is false.

Basically a church should be balanced.

Then again, who is the more authoritative person to say whether or not the church is balanced? Is it not the pastors who have more experience? D is basically taking all power out of church authorities and putting it into the hands of people. He is doing exactly the opposite of what he is intending to do in the first place of keeping the army of God together.

But, if the ministries of the church are effective or have the potential, then stay. Let me say this, you will grow more from serving people than obtaining greater teaching.

So how does D know this? I thought earlier on D states that a church should be balanced? Now he talks about just service and little teaching. I suppose it would be alright if a church had a great feeding the poor program but every sunday the preacher just says Jesus loves you and ends the service. I know that is an exaggeration, but it perfectly fits into the parameters that D has set.

-Shadow