Religous Debate: Does anyone know what the first commandment is?

[El_Machinae]

In situations where one is unsure of what God's will would be, then you should pray that his will be done regardless of your own desire.

Alternatively, one could think that God's will would be done regardless of what you do, and not have motivation.

Personally, I would encourage a person to collect as much information as possible, and make a well-thought reason behind their actions, and then act - if there is uncertainty. People can easily recognize when their actions will hurt or harm, but they need enough information to determine whether it is so. To not look for that information (when they're told it's there) can be immoral, IMHO.

 

[sanabas]

Shrug. Pure assumption on your part.

And on yours. You really don't think that charities who have evangelism as one of their stated aims would make sure they're being charitable in ways that allow them to evangelise?

 

[MobBoss]

Alternatively, one could think that God's will would be done regardless of what you do, and not have motivation.

That would be insufficient. Man has free will as well and can certainly perform deeds outside Gods will.

And on yours. You really don't think that charities who have evangelism as one of their stated aims would make sure they're being charitable in ways that allow them to evangelise?

The vast majority of religious organizations that I know and have come in contact with would still feed the hungry if they were allowed to evangelise or not. Both are doing God's will, however they dont necessarily have to be inclusive of each other. My church participates in a homeless feeding program right here in my home town where all we do is feed the homeless - we dont make them sit for a evangelism program prior to feeding them. What you dont seem to realize is feeding the needy is in itself doing the work of God.

 

[El_Machinae]

But you're not saying that all advertising is removed from your endeavours, are you? I suspect that the homeless know who's feeding them. Mind you, like I said, I think that's a fair price to charge.

 

[sanabas]

The vast majority of religious organizations that I know and have come in contact with would still feed the hungry if they were allowed to evangelise or not. Both are doing God's will, however they dont necessarily have to be inclusive of each other. My church participates in a homeless feeding program right here in my home town where all we do is feed the homeless - we dont make them sit for a evangelism program prior to feeding them. What you dont seem to realize is feeding the needy is in itself doing the work of God.

I'm not saying it's not. I'm not denying that there are plenty of religious organisations who perform charitable acts solely because their moral code says they should be charitable. There's also atheists that do the same, because their moral code says so too.

But there are religious organisations who perform charitable work because it allows them to evangelise, or choose how they'll be charitable to maximise how much they can evangelise.

 

[JoeM]

Huh? There's at least a couple of christian charity organisations that have stated they use the charitable acts to help evangelise. If some of those groups weren't allowed to evangelise as part of their charity, do you think they'd still perform that charity?

I see the difference, if you understand these definitions I believe you will also;

Advertising.
The activity of attracting public attention to a product or business, as by paid announcements in the print, broadcast, or electronic media.

Evangelising.
To preach the gospel.

 

[JoeM]

Actually I'm not really right about it in all cases, it depends on the person who happens to be a christian. Some christians realize that they must do what is right to them, and ultimately if god disagrees then so be it. So they make the same weighing of morals as people who are not religious and accept that they may be wrong - as do I.

I almost agree with you here; of course everyone who cares about it weighs up before they make a decision - the point I'm making is the old argument between moral absolutes and relativism, which (at least as yet) has no conclusion for those on the side of relativism.

Without starting that whole thread again, that is my point.


"Some christians realize that they must do what is right to them, and ultimately if god disagrees then so be it."

This is wrong, and simply because you feel you have 'won' and argument against a Christian does not mean you have 'won' against Christianity or proven your point.

The only acceptable form this sentence could take is "...some christians choose to sin." which of course is true.

 

[JoeM]

But you're not saying that all advertising is removed from your endeavours, are you? I suspect that the homeless know who's feeding them. Mind you, like I said, I think that's a fair price to charge.

This just makes me laugh and laugh

Tell me exactly what price the homeless have paid. And give me an example in which it is free.

 

[ironduck]

"Some christians realize that they must do what is right to them, and ultimately if god disagrees then so be it."

This is wrong, and simply because you feel you have 'won' and argument against a Christian does not mean you have 'won' against Christianity or proven your point.

How is it wrong? How can anyone do anything but weigh what is right to them? Do you too propose that they should ask someone else to decide for them?

As for winning an argument, that's a ridiculous statement. And I couldn't care less about 'winning against christianity'. I'd much rather win against poverty, war, hatred, diseases..

 

[El_Machinae]

This just makes me laugh and laugh

Tell me exactly what price the homeless have paid. And give me an example in which it is free.

The soup kitchen is called "Five loafs and Three Fishes", alluding to one of Jesus's miracles. Witnessing tracts are placed by the entrance. The server says "God bless" when laddling the soup.

It's called advertising, baby. Cigarette companies do the same thing, sponsoring an event just to have their name attached to it.

The 'price' the homeless pays is being exposed to advertising in order to get fed. And I'm okay with that. I'd rather charity be done in God's name than not at all. However, if the church was prevented from advertising (at all), some of us suspect that the charity dollars would have been spent differently (where advertising would be allowed).

And I considering "evangelising" to be basically "advertising for God".

 

[JoeM]

How is it wrong?

Because it contradicts their beliefs as Christians. If a person were to say that, they would not be Christian, hence 'it's wrong'.

How can anyone do anything but weigh what is right to them?

By thinking beyond their own desires.

Do you too propose that they should ask someone else to decide for them?]

No.

 

[JoeM]

It's called advertising, baby.

No it's not. God is not a product or business.

The 'price' the homeless pays is being exposed to advertising in order to get fed.

You've put the word price in quotes, indicating you don't mean it literally.

And I considering "evangelising" to be basically "advertising for God".

Fine, but I am merely pointing out that the faithful would easily recognise this as evangelising and not misconstrue the Lord as some sort of commodity.

 

[ironduck]

Because it contradicts their beliefs as Christians. If a person were to say that, they would not be Christian, hence 'it's wrong'.

I see, so you are judging who are christians. How are you making that judgement? By yourself I assume. There are people out there who consider themselves christian who you just said are not. Is that really for you to decide?

How can anyone do anything but weigh what is right to them?

By thinking beyond their own desires.

That is the same thing. When I weigh something as being right or wrong, it is me and no one else weighing that decision. So, it is right or wrong to me, the way I see the situation. The fact that I look beyond my own desires does not change the fact that it is ultimately me and not anyone else that makes the judgement.

 

[ironduck]

No it's not. God is not a product or business.

It is fully possible to advertise for an abstract concept. It's done all the time.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I don't see how he doesn't get that.

edit: JoeM, what's the motivation for evangelising, then? It's the point to expose people to the idea of God's love?

 

[JoeM]

I don't get it because the definition of advertising is tied to a product or business - it may be splitting hairs to some, but I find it very important,prticularly considering how much I loathe the advertising industry

Evangelising is qualitatively different.

 

[El_Machinae]

What is the point of evangelising then, if you can quantitatively determine it?

 

[ironduck]

Webster:

Advertise:
1 : to make something known to : NOTIFY
2 a : to make publicly and generally known <advertising their readiness to make concessions> b : to announce publicly especially by a printed notice or a broadcast c : to call public attention to especially by emphasizing desirable qualities so as to arouse a desire to buy or patronize : PROMOTE

Both 1 and 2a and 2b are definitely done by various religions.

 

[JoeM]

I see, so you are judging who are christians. How are you making that judgement? By yourself I assume. There are people out there who consider themselves christian who you just said are not. Is that really for you to decide?

No, no - you're making a mistake trying to pigeon-hole me there. It would be similar if I were to accuse you of telling me "what Christians think". Neither of us are guilty on these points.

If I were to "realize that they must do what is right to them, and ultimately if god disagrees then so be it." then I would not believe in Lord Jesus Christ as the True Way, hence I would not be a Christian. The way you have worded your sttement makes it look as though a Christian can agree with your statement, which they clearly cannot.

That is the same thing. When I weigh something as being right or wrong, it is me and no one else weighing that decision. So, it is right or wrong to me, the way I see the situation. The fact that I look beyond my own desires does not change the fact that it is ultimately me and not anyone else that makes the judgement.

No it's not the same thing - you are making a decision on morals which have no absolute basis, ultimately any act can be considered okay on these grounds. A Christian basis such moral decisions on the Word of God, which whether you believe or not, is an absolute.
When I said your own desires, I'm implying that any decision you make of your own accord is only ever based on your own wants and needs, not what is right or wrong. This may turn out to be the same thing in most situtions if you are a nice person, but on principle I don't believe it holds water.

 

[Azash]

OOC: This is the most long-lived thread in Off-Topic I know. It just rolls on and on and on..