Hey Everyone,
Muslims have 5 "Pillars". One of the pillars is going on the hajj. This is a journey to Mecca, and some surrounding areas, that each able bodied Muslim is required to take in their life. Here is a link to a virtual hajj. It gives a great and concise rundown of each step that must be taken.
Although I am not a Muslim, I believe it is important to understand the beliefs of others and take them seriously. If we think about it logically (and I believe from a biblical view), if someone does not agree with what we believe, it should not cause us to be intimidated, but should propel us towards conversations with those whom we do not agree. After all, if what we are saying is right, we have nothing to be fearful about. Also, if someone is not thinking properly, this should cause us to have a burden, not a spirit of ostracizing.
I am an evangelical Christian (just to clarify for those who do not know me). I want to say this because I believe the model given in Scripture is to lovingly engage unbelievers (one example would be Paul in Acts 17), instead of the opposite. I pray that we will be people who, with a bold gentleness, testify to the Gospel of Jesus. I also pray we will be people who, with great compassion, give a fair hearing to people who do not believe the same way. This should not produce a "spirit of compromise", but should empower us to study Scripture (and the way other people think) with fresh vigor. I have found that the more I talk with unbelievers, the more I realize the need for each of us (Christians) to be astute theologians. After all, we are all theologians, it is a matter of being a good or bad one.
Any Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
11 comments:
I have this innate physiological response of the hair on the back of my neck raising whenever someone talks about another person not "properly thinking" in reference to different beliefs. I will, however, check that response for right now and just make a comment that does not come from a place of anger or anything other than simple conversation.
Proper thinking is such a loaded phrase. It has a tendency to evoke a response similar to my initial reaction. I realize you (and Christians in general along with a whole slew of other religious folks) believe that you are strictly right and "unbelievers" are strictly wrong. You are very much entitled to that belief. I would just like to point out that in the spirit of having conversations with "unbelievers", you might get a little further if you reserve comments such as that and leave them out of it.
Here's why I say that. And please hear this as just a helpful suggestion. If, as you say, you have nothing to fear because what you say is right, let the merits of the faith speak for themselves. This is something I keep in mind every time I have a discussion with anyone regarding my personal beliefs. I don't have to convince anyone with my opinion of my own beliefs or others' beliefs. I simply present what it is I think and why...no judgements as to how "proper" it is or how right it is...and let that speak on its own. I let the other party make their own judgement of whether it is something that has merit or is something to discard.
I think if your god is as great as you believe him to be, this is even more true for christians. It wouldn't ever be necessary to make judgement about the properness of anyone's thinking because your god should be more than capable of getting the point across. If I were still an evangelical christian (as I was for 20 years growing up), I would definitely not want to hinder the efforts of god by making a statement such as that when it would seem that presenting the faith as it is would be enough. It isn't anyone's job to convince any other person. Each person will make a decision for themselves as to what they find meritorious enough to cling to.
Anonymous,
Brilliant thoughts! A few things about your comment:
1. Depending on what you mean by believers being "strictly right" and unbelievers as "strictly wrong", I would possibly have to disagree. I definitely believe that "Believers" can, should, and must learn from "unbelievers". We have a ton to learn from people like you. On the other side, if you are talking strictly about "proper thinking" in the terms of salvation, I would agree with your statement about Christianity being exclusive (or to use your terminology "strictly wrong").
Therefore, what I mean by "proper thinking" mainly has to do with what God thinks (I am speaking of what Christianity teaches). This does not mean that professing Christians are right in all areas of thinking. In fact, we are all wrong to some degree and thus the need to be perpetually learning.
2. In your statements about "god should be more than capable of getting his point across", instead of Christians trying to convince others. I would say a couple of things.
First of all, you are destroying your own point against me by trying to convince me that I should not try to convince others. We all try to convince each other, even if we come from the camp of "I want you to be convinced that I am not trying to convince you."
Next, I would say that God definitely does not "need us". Romans 1 says that even nature testifies about Him so that each person is without excuse. Therefore, in God choosing to use humans, it is a privilege, not a necessity. Paul talks about this reality in Ephesians 3:7.
3. To revisit the issue of "proper thinking" and possibly not using that word anymore in order to talk with unbelievers, I would say that you have taught me a ton. I say this because you seem to be the same "anonymous" that has wrote comments on my blog before. I have learned a ton from your insights and suggestions. The comment about "proper thinking" has come from a disposition that I have stated earlier (which is that God is the only one who thinks fully properly), therefore I want you to know you have taught me to think more properly. Your comments have encouraged me to not just continue using the terminology of "proper thinking", but to take time to define out what I mean.
4. As I already think I have shown, I would agree with you that "proper thinking" is definitely a loaded phrase. Yet, this should not cause us to stop using it. Therefore, I want you to know that your words have helped and challenged me to define out what I mean by "proper thinking" in a better way for future entries. Thanks:) (this point may seem a bit repetitious from the previous one, but I wanted to add some more to what I was thinking in #3)
I appreciate your comments and challenges a ton. You are very articulate. Please let me know your thoughts on my comments when you get a chance.
P.S. I think that "innate physiological response" is the reality that you ultimately do believe someone should "think properly", it is just coming from an "I will not try to convince" you reality.
Anonymous,
I forgot something...
Did you get to watch the "virtual Hajj"? It is well worth the time.
Love Truth
Vernon
"First of all, you are destroying your own point against me by trying to convince me that I should not try to convince others."
Touche.
While you are right that everyone does try to convince others to some degree, I suppose I am referring more to the subjective labels of "right" and "wrong" - or "proper" and "improper" if you prefer - that get tossed around within a conversation or debate. Let's see if I can make this follow...
If you believe what you believe to be right and something else (or all else) to be wrong, wouldn't the rightness or wrongness be self-evident in the facts of what you believe? You or me saying "it is right" or "it is wrong" makes it no more right than it is and no more wrong than it may be. Right and wrong are non-gradable. Something cannot be "more right" or "more wrong" in the same way that something cannot be "more black" or "more white." It just is.
So I say all of that to say your faith that you believe to be right doesn't need you to label it as such in order for it to be. Aside from my argument, you also have the bible to back you up, no? The bible is the equivalent of the facts and only the facts of your faith. I'm a facts kind of person.
One other thing I will comment on is again the term "proper thinking." Coming from a christian background, I am quite aware of the extensive christian jargon that exists within the church. The term "proper thinking" is one such example of this jargon. While I understand where it is coming from because of my background, many "unbelievers" will not know what it is that you mean. They will not interpret this phrase the same way that a christian will simply because it is a term referring to something very specific within the bible and the church. They don't have the scripture to refer back to. All they will hear is they are not thinking properly...and they will translate that to mean you are calling them wrong, unable to think, and even stupid. That would be the average layperson's interpretation of you telling them they do not think properly.
So I am glad to hear that you are committed to fully defining what it is you truly mean by this phrase. I think it will help tremendously.
And I must thank you too for helping me to more clearly define what I think and to state it more clearly. Yes, I am the same annonymous from before. I enjoy our little chats very much.
Oh, and I wasn't able to view the hajj yet. I have a slow connection. I'm sure it is fascinating.
Anonymous,
I am real sorry about the delay in response. I have not spent much time around my blog in the past couple of days. I have a few comments/questions:
1. What do you mean by, "The bible is the equivalent of the facts and only the facts of your faith. I'm a facts kind of person."?
I just want to make sure I am following your thinking properly, before I respond to this statement.
2.About the term "proper thinking". I stole this term from an atheist. Nietzsche talked about "The Herd Mentality" of professing Christians. He said that many people just walk around and "follow the herd". This is one of the reasons to use the term "proper thinking". It denotes that just "following a crowd" does not necessarily mean you are right. Therefore, the need to think is (and think properly) is of great importance.
I have not heard a ton of people talk about "proper thinking" in Christian circles, so maybe we just have not been around the same folks.
2. You sound like you had quite a bitter experience when you were in Christian circles. For that, I am terribly sorry.
I am not sure if you came from a legalistic background, but it kind of sounds like it. One of the things I have noticed with current "unbelievers" who used to be "believers" is the difficulty to talk about right and wrong. I would say the vast majority of "unbelievers" who I have talked with (that have not come from your background) do not get really defensive immediately, because they also know they CAN teach me a ton (I know this is a large generalization, but this has predominately been the case with me).
It seems that when you hear, "I think you are wrong," it can be easy for you to correlate this with, "You are stupid". Instead, it should be an invitation to help correct another persons thinking (if in fact they are wrong and you are right). The other side of it is that if you are wrong, it is a point to celebrate the invitation to think differently.
It also seems this defensiveness can come up because you have a very subjective, "you centered" view. What I mean by this is the "You can't tell me I am wrong" mentality. This happens when we are given over to subjectivism, I believe.
I was reading a quote by Daniel Taylor. He wrote a book called, Tell Me A Story (fyi...his basic premise is that we need to understand our life through the lens of story...also, I am more along the lines of your thinking of being a "facts person", but this book has been very stretching and helpful).
He says the following, "One of the enemies of story and of a healthy society is an uncritical relativism that says that truth and goodness are entirely subjective opinions, that everyone's stories (and values) are radically different and incommensurable, and that affirming some stories and rejecting other is by definition intolerant. Such knee-jerk relativism pervades our society and is the often unacknowledged basis for the fatalistic shrug of passivity, paralysis, and cynicism."
I believe this quote is helpful in figuring out some of the ends of a predominantly subjective worldview that you are holding.
3. I would not say that I toss around the words of "right" or "wrong" (according to your beginning statement). I also do not believe you think they are ultimately subjective. Let me try to give an example:
Say you see a homeless person being beat on the side of the road by a man. You go over to the offender and tell him, "Stop! What you are doing is wrong!" The offender looks at you and says, "This man was offending me by sitting down on the sidewalk, asking for money, and not working. So, I believe he is wrong and I am right. In fact, you can't tell me that I am wrong. Do not identify my actions as wrong. It is self evident that he is causing people to not come around our shops as much, which is causing a lowering in revenue. Therefore, my actions are correct."
I give this example because many people would come back and say, "Yea, but he is violating the homeless mans rights by beating him."
I would then ask, "How can you say it violated anything without first knowing the reality that truth is ultimately objective, not subjective. Total subjectivity is tossed around and enslaved to the emotions and sporadic thinking of man, who has historically shown can be given over to commit some incredibly unsettling atrocities. Again, how do we know it is an atrocity, because it is not ultimately subjected to what I may or may not think, it is objective.
I know I have not addressed all that you have said, but this is getting a little long.
Let me know your thoughts. I appreciate you taking the time to teach me a ton!
Have a great day.
Anonymous,
I TOTALLY FORGOT THIS ALSO...
If you get a chance, I think it would be good to read the book "The Prodigal God" by Tim Keller. It is not long (I am not sure what your time constraints are), but it is amazing.
Also, if you have any book suggestions, I would enjoy reading them.
If you are not in a position to buy it, I can send it to you, if you email me your address (vernon@Hisvoiceforsudan.com).
Let me know what you think.
Ok, I don't have a ton of time right at this moment, but I want to pose a question...or more of something to get your opinion about.
If truth and right and wrong are so objective, then why is it that there is no clear-cut consensus throughout the world about what that truth actually is? I would expect you to know this is true as you have spent so much time in the Sudan and thus are familiar with a culture other than your own. Do you see the exact same laws and rights and wrongs all throughout the world? No. There are many places in the world where people will be beaten, maimed, and even killed for crimes such as stealing. This often offends our sensibilities and we find it harsh or even inhumane. Are we right or are they right? Because there will be a large group on one side claiming the right and a large group on the other side claiming exactly the same thing. Who is right? If it is so objective, this truth of which you speak, why do so many religions have their very own versions of truth and right and wrong?
And this is not the only example I can give. Women are treated with great disrespect in many places in the world. The typical American will call that wrong. But there is a huge group calling it right. And more examples abound.
As far as TOTAL subjectivity...no, I don't believe in complete and total subjectivity. Here is my opinion on the subject. I will keep it brief.
I believe life is a series of choices and consequences. In order to live a productive life, each individual is responsible for making the best possible choice in every situation. How do we go about making the best possible choice? We examine the available choices and determine what effect the choice would have at an individual level, a community level, and a worldwide level. So many people stop at the individual level. And that's where a lot of people slip up. There are so many others to consider.
So right and wrong? Not necessarily. It's better described, in my opinion, by saying that a choice may or may not have taken into consideration all the parties involved (self, community, world). And choices lacking in consideration will often lead to unwanted or difficult consequences somewhere down the line for self or others. But if you really want to do the best you can, you pick yourself up and proceed with what you got from your choice. Yes, I do believe that we as individuals are ultimately responsible for our own "destiny" if you will. The choices that we make get us where we are and where we are going. Are the circumstances we find ourselves in (say from birth or disaster) always "fair"? Probably not. But it's not ours to question. It is simply for us to process and proceed.
Anonymous,
I have a few questions:
1. How would you be able to reconcile your second statement below with the first, if there is not some type of objective truth to measure a "good decision"? You may say, "I just told you I did not say I believe in Total subjectivity".
My question after this is, "How do you know when something becomes objective and when something is subjective?"
HERE ARE YOUR COMMENTS:
If truth and right and wrong are so objective, then why is it that there is no clear-cut consensus throughout the world about what that truth actually is?
I believe life is a series of choices and consequences. In order to live a productive life, each individual is responsible for making the best possible choice in every situation. How do we go about making the best possible choice? We examine the available choices and determine what effect the choice would have at an individual level, a community level, and a worldwide level. So many people stop at the individual level. And that's where a lot of people slip up. There are so many others to consider.
2. How do you define "fact"? If you base it off of evidence, how do you know the evidence is true? What makes it true? (I am asking this because you said you are a "facts person")
It definitely should not originate with people. After all, you just gave some incredibly powerful examples of the atrocities that humans commit. Also, since we know the "consensus" of "truth" among humans differs, it would not be a safe bet to bank everything on man's intellect. Therefore, we need to look outside of man.
3. I will grant you this part of a belief in subjectivity. I do not think it is inherently wrong to pick a red shirt to wear today, over wearing a blue shirt. What I am talking about in this "objective" way is morality (i.e. it would seem that if morality exists, it would only follow that a moral "law giver" exists).
Let me know your thoughts when you get a chance.
Also, what do you think about my book idea?
Have a great day
Vernon,
These dialogues are getting so lengthy that it seems impractical to continue them here. You have offered your email address previously and I want to ask if you are agreeable to continuing this communication by that means. I suppose I am ready to come out of the closet so to speak and reveal my identity. I do hope that you will still feel it a worthy conversation to continue even once you find out who I am. It has not been nor would it be a waste of your time.
So if you are agreeable, I will email you. Let me know.
Anonymous,
Sounds great.
Is this Katie Green? If not, no problem...I am pumped to continue this dialogue.
Love Truth
Anonymous,
I forgot to give you my email address! Oops! It is vernon@hisvoiceforsudan.com.
Also, If you are not Katie, I want you to take it as a compliment to be in the same breath as her. She is a brilliant thinker who I was able to spend a summer with as an intern in Houston...just FYI
Have a great day.
Post a Comment