Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nick H on October 13, 2012 at 7:15am

How does cutting one's self off from the larger community let one spread the word of God? Surely, this is one of the primary roles as Christians? If you don't wish to have opinions that differ from your own then why join any Christian group outside of your own family or church? Even anil's contributions. Personally, I found his posts to be too disjointed for me to follow and I have not joined those discussions. But if you feel challenged by them then shouldn't that just encourage you to give your views with the hope of encouraging him to think closer to your way?

I have a relationship with Jesus and I take my faith serious. Yet I disagree with many of my fellow Christians here on several points. I do not see this as a reason to stop interacting with them. I have changed some of my stances though from interactions with them (for example, a disagreement with Herb about 4 years ago has made me reconsider my approach to the Bible and has encouraged me to take it more serious).

Through discussion and disagreement, we grow both as individual Christians and as a community. Your private group, with you or others dictating what discussions will be allowed, strikes me as being completely against the sort of community I seek. Maybe some others share your opinion. That's their choice, but I think its not the way to grow.

Permalink Reply by Tanner on October 14, 2012 at 6:25pm

A smaller community would/should/could create an environment of discipleship, the next step in Jesus' great commission in Matt 28. It is not enough to simply share the word, we are to make disciples and, Biblically, foster unity (Rom 15-1-7) around primary tenets of the Christian faith. It is the primary reason many churches, ours included, promote small groups or community groups or life groups or whatever they choose to call them. Discipleship happens in the context of Christ-centered relationship. 

I would not agree, at all, with the dissolution of this general and public group, but it would be nice to be able to actually be discipled by other Christian men without the distraction of being called a Muslim by a professing non-Christian looking to simply stir the pot or use baseless comments in an attempt to discredit another member, for example. That is free speech and this is a public group and all, it's just not really mature or manly or helpful to the overall discussion. As to responding to every one of these comments and the ramblings of someone like anil, 1 TIm 4 pretty well addresses it: v1-4 is the truth of the situation, v7 is command, and v10 reiterates that hope lies only in Jesus.

I think it's foolish to think that one can actually change someone's mind in an internet forum if the Holy Spirit isn't already at work in that person's heart and mind. The chivalrous rules of discussion and debate can't apply in this environment because anyone not looking to learn something is free to drop a ridiculous, false, distracting, or attacking comment in at any time. God can use any means He chooses to reach people's hearts so it should continue to be a Christian's responsibility to preach the Gospel of Jesus as clearly and concisely as possible, whether it is fashionable or not (2 Tim 4:1-5, 1:8-10), using every opportunity and medium available.

Permalink Reply by Nick H on October 15, 2012 at 1:35am

Tanner, I find its more often some Christian members who are the ones who discredit others. The only non-Christians who comment I can think of are Liam (who is obviously a former Christian and who knows, perhaps a potential returning member) and Shieldes (who is married to one). Neither are disrespectful I think. Other members have been accused of being non-Christian, but more so because their beliefs and way of expressing them don't jive with some more conservative members (Shane comes to mind). I don't include anil because as Will is pointing out, he is simply spamming websites with junk. I just ignore his posts. Recently, three (Elliot, Billy, and now Larry) have attempted to control what gets discussed and who discusses it within the Christian groups. I don't know much about Larry so I cannot comment on his motives but the other two seeked to control the message to fit their narrower definition of the faith. I prefer a more open form of the faith. One that includes all Christians and even non-Christians who show interest.

Permalink Reply by Tanner on October 15, 2012 at 12:12pm

What would be an acceptable definition of "Christian Man?"

Permalink Reply by Nick H on October 15, 2012 at 1:45pm

Why should I, or anyone else here, assume that they can answer that? As a child in an RC community, I would have thought the Nicene Creed was a good definition but I would imagine that non-Catholics would perhaps disagree with the final part of that. Likewise, I'm sure if I tried another definition I would also create a rule that disagreed with Mormons, or some other branch of Christ's followers.

Point is, it's not my job to decide what is, or isn't, a Christian Man. If I want to find Christians who share my particular set of beliefs then I will (and actually I have already) find a church that shares them and join them in their community at least once a week.

Here I hope to learn from the greater community of Christians, and even non-Christians whose inclusion might hopefully be a means for God to enter their hearts as well. 

Permalink Reply by Tanner on October 15, 2012 at 2:45pm

Likewise, I'm sure if I tried another definition I would also create a rule that disagreed with Mormons, or some other branch of Christ's followers.

That's evidence of the problem with all-inclusive universal non-definitions, Mormon's are not Christ's followers since they deny the existence of only one God, they deny the deity of Christ and his bodily resurrection, and they deny salvation by grace apart from works. Jesus deity is something he unequivocally professed about Himself, it's the very reason he was crucified the by Jews, perceived blasphemy. How can one profess to follow Jesus but only accept some of what He said about Himself as truth? One cannot be "mostly honest," either we accept Jesus for who HE said he was or deny Him. C.S Lewis summed it up best in the following statement from his book Mere Christianity:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.

This is a fine reason to engage the larger group. I agree whole-heartedly.

Here I hope to learn from the greater community of Christians, and even non-Christians whose inclusion might hopefully be a means for God to enter their hearts as well. 

Permalink Reply by Rebekah on October 15, 2012 at 2:50pm

It's my personality to search for rules/dogmas/dox even when there is none. For our purposes, I've always said the final definition of "Christian" applicable here is:

Regardless of the specifics, we can all agree on one thing. Jesus Christ was the perfect Man who died and rose again for us such that we could have fellowship with Him

Permalink Reply by Nick H on October 15, 2012 at 4:06pm

I agree and wrote this elsewhere.

Permalink Reply by JonEdanger on October 13, 2012 at 8:07am

I think this is an online illustration of why a town with 500 people has 11 Protestant churches.

Permalink Reply by Native Son on October 13, 2012 at 9:25am

Question.  Are those churches of separate denominations?  I recall seeing a Baptist church about every half-mile along old Route 66 between Oklahoma City and Checotah (Most of them were about the size of a two-car garage.)

Permalink Reply by JonEdanger on October 14, 2012 at 6:32pm

I used the generic "Protestant" so as not to single out any particular denomination.

Permalink Reply by Will on October 13, 2012 at 8:59am

I don't know if it will take off, but it's worth a try.  I know there are things I won't bring up on a group you can Google.  Also, when believers here ask for help, usually the first responders are nonbelievers, either answering from a non-Christian perspective (like Liam S) or from an anti-Christian perspective, flaming or saying "Why are you bothering with this Jesus stuff?"  That's fine for an apologetics debate, but as apologist C S Lewis said, you can't always be defending the faith; sometimes it's time to feed on it.

It may end up being a low-traffic group, but there's only one way to know.

First we must decide what it's for.  "I've got this going on in my life" works for me.  "What do you think of this issue/chunk of Bible" works for me.  I don't think learning the basics of the faith would work; a book would be better.  That is, it would need to be something you could discuss -- being a discussion board!

I think the other 2 responders so far are missing what Larry's saying -- or else *I'm* not getting it.  I don't hear him saying we should limit denominational affiliation.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page