Comments on: Liturgical Gangstas 17: Preaching Ananias, Sapphira and the Gospel http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/liturgical-gangstas-17-preaching-ananias-sapphira-and-the-gospel ...dispatches from the post-evangelical wilderness Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:47:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Eric R http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/liturgical-gangstas-17-preaching-ananias-sapphira-and-the-gospel/comment-page-1#comment-520738 Eric R Sat, 05 Dec 2009 05:29:23 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=5133#comment-520738 Sabio, Since the term "out of line" has been invoked a couple of times, and I'm the one that dropped it the first time, I'll own it. My apologies if you felt I was ganging up or piling on. That was not my intention. I was hoping to "hear" an interesting discussion, and was hoping to calm the rhetoric a little. Perhaps I made it worse. The Gangstas are big boys and I should've stayed out of it. Eric Sabio,

Since the term “out of line” has been invoked a couple of times, and I’m the one that dropped it the first time, I’ll own it. My apologies if you felt I was ganging up or piling on. That was not my intention. I was hoping to “hear” an interesting discussion, and was hoping to calm the rhetoric a little. Perhaps I made it worse. The Gangstas are big boys and I should’ve stayed out of it.

Eric

]]> By: JoanieD http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/liturgical-gangstas-17-preaching-ananias-sapphira-and-the-gospel/comment-page-1#comment-520729 JoanieD Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:51:37 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=5133#comment-520729 Hey, Sabio, sometimes it's hard to know how to defend people on these blogs, because people start taking sides and then it can get uglier and uglier. I did notice where someone on this blog called you a "name" and that made me uncomfortable. BUT...knowing how the internet is, I thought you and that person could have had prior encounters on other blogs in which he viewed you as giving him a "hard time" and thus he responded harshly to you on this blog. So not knowing the ins and outs of it all, I stayed out of the fray. But I will say that if an atheist shows up on what he or she knows is a Christian blog, that it certainly behooves that person to come in gently and with respect for those people's beliefs. If the point of posting is to point out how the Christians are wrong, then you have to ask yourself what is the purpose of doing that on the blog. Chances are very good that you will not change their point of view. I think that if a Christian is considering that his or her faith is unfounded and they are moving towards atheism, they will find atheists to talk to or write to when they need to do that. BUT...there is a lot of action on Michael's blog here and it can be interesting to be a part of it, so I can understand your wanting to jump in here. And obviously when you see things that you think are not well thought-out, you are going to want to point those out. But I think you need to be prepared for the fall-out...people will feel attacked or they will feel Christianity or Jesus is attacked and they WILL defend. I read your bio on your blog and know that you are a VERY well-educated man. But ask yourself...are you offering something better to the Christians that you think are wrong? I think you want Christians to be more open-minded (or gentle?) and as you know, not all Christians are alike. But I have never seen people become more gentle unless they are gently moved in that direction. You cannot push people to be gentle. It just doesn't work. Anyway, I hope you are enjoying this blog. Michael is a prolific writer and you will find fantastic writing in his archives. I wish you and yours all the best! Hey, Sabio, sometimes it’s hard to know how to defend people on these blogs, because people start taking sides and then it can get uglier and uglier. I did notice where someone on this blog called you a “name” and that made me uncomfortable. BUT…knowing how the internet is, I thought you and that person could have had prior encounters on other blogs in which he viewed you as giving him a “hard time” and thus he responded harshly to you on this blog. So not knowing the ins and outs of it all, I stayed out of the fray.

But I will say that if an atheist shows up on what he or she knows is a Christian blog, that it certainly behooves that person to come in gently and with respect for those people’s beliefs. If the point of posting is to point out how the Christians are wrong, then you have to ask yourself what is the purpose of doing that on the blog. Chances are very good that you will not change their point of view. I think that if a Christian is considering that his or her faith is unfounded and they are moving towards atheism, they will find atheists to talk to or write to when they need to do that. BUT…there is a lot of action on Michael’s blog here and it can be interesting to be a part of it, so I can understand your wanting to jump in here. And obviously when you see things that you think are not well thought-out, you are going to want to point those out. But I think you need to be prepared for the fall-out…people will feel attacked or they will feel Christianity or Jesus is attacked and they WILL defend.

I read your bio on your blog and know that you are a VERY well-educated man. But ask yourself…are you offering something better to the Christians that you think are wrong? I think you want Christians to be more open-minded (or gentle?) and as you know, not all Christians are alike. But I have never seen people become more gentle unless they are gently moved in that direction. You cannot push people to be gentle. It just doesn’t work.

Anyway, I hope you are enjoying this blog. Michael is a prolific writer and you will find fantastic writing in his archives. I wish you and yours all the best!

]]> By: Sabio Lantz http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/liturgical-gangstas-17-preaching-ananias-sapphira-and-the-gospel/comment-page-1#comment-520657 Sabio Lantz Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:19:00 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=5133#comment-520657 One common phenomena I see on Christian site is that no Christians jump in there and either defend the Atheist when he/she makes a good point, nor correct their fellow Christian when he/she is out of line. But there are the Christians who love ganging up and going in for the group kill -- or at least they view it this way. It is ugly. I have defended Christians on my site against atheists -- I think it is a good practice. If Christians did the same, it would make the look, well...., "Christian". (ooops, I said it) :-) One common phenomena I see on Christian site is that no Christians jump in there and either defend the Atheist when he/she makes a good point, nor correct their fellow Christian when he/she is out of line. But there are the Christians who love ganging up and going in for the group kill — or at least they view it this way. It is ugly.

I have defended Christians on my site against atheists — I think it is a good practice. If Christians did the same, it would make the look, well…., “Christian”. (ooops, I said it) :-)

]]> By: Jeff http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/liturgical-gangstas-17-preaching-ananias-sapphira-and-the-gospel/comment-page-1#comment-520646 Jeff Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:21:53 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=5133#comment-520646 I enjoy debating, but I think it can be done respectfully. I agree that this particular discussion seemed very uncomfortable at times---I think it got to the point that it discouraged rather than encouraged constructive debate. I enjoy debating, but I think it can be done respectfully. I agree that this particular discussion seemed very uncomfortable at times—I think it got to the point that it discouraged rather than encouraged constructive debate.

]]> By: JoanieD http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/liturgical-gangstas-17-preaching-ananias-sapphira-and-the-gospel/comment-page-1#comment-520632 JoanieD Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:34:50 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=5133#comment-520632 I am thinking that if there is not a place on the internet where Christians/atheists/agnostics can debate, there ought to be. I know Michael certainly does not forbid atheists to question things on this blog, but that is not his main purpose for the blog. If there was a blog out there dedicated to debating, then the folks doing that could know that they won't be out of line unless they start personally attacking in a mean way. I realize that for some folks, it is FUN to debate. So I understand Sabio saying (on the post on his own blog) that if he only commented on other atheists' blogs, it would be boring. For myself, I was on a debating team one year in high school and I didn't like it. I am more of an "encourager" and not a "debater" I guess. To be perfectly clear...I am not saying that anyone was out of "out of line" during this discussion. But I think maybe at times it got close to being uncomfortable for some folks who were reading and/or responding. Thinking about "debaters" and "encouragers" got me to thinking about the types of Christians that are out there. Here is a beginning of a list: 1. Debater (nothing better than a good debate to get the adrenaline flowing!) 2. Encourager (Is happy pointing out the good things others do, sometimes as a way to deflect from self.) 3. Teacher (Is thrilled to bring new, better information to people) 4. Lover (Just wants to "love Jesus" and gets uncomfortable hearing big words within Christianity. I may need a better word than "Lover!") 5. Wallflower (No one, including the wallflower, really knows what they are thinking) 6. Pray-er (Needs lots of quiet time in order to function and points out that we must always pray.) 7. Student (They have hundreds of books and more on the way.) 8. Worker (Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.) I realize most of us will have some of a number of these characteristics. Gee, how it that for getting off-topic! I am thinking that if there is not a place on the internet where Christians/atheists/agnostics can debate, there ought to be. I know Michael certainly does not forbid atheists to question things on this blog, but that is not his main purpose for the blog. If there was a blog out there dedicated to debating, then the folks doing that could know that they won’t be out of line unless they start personally attacking in a mean way. I realize that for some folks, it is FUN to debate. So I understand Sabio saying (on the post on his own blog) that if he only commented on other atheists’ blogs, it would be boring. For myself, I was on a debating team one year in high school and I didn’t like it. I am more of an “encourager” and not a “debater” I guess.

To be perfectly clear…I am not saying that anyone was out of “out of line” during this discussion. But I think maybe at times it got close to being uncomfortable for some folks who were reading and/or responding.

Thinking about “debaters” and “encouragers” got me to thinking about the types of Christians that are out there. Here is a beginning of a list:

1. Debater (nothing better than a good debate to get the adrenaline flowing!)
2. Encourager (Is happy pointing out the good things others do, sometimes as a way to deflect from self.)
3. Teacher (Is thrilled to bring new, better information to people)
4. Lover (Just wants to “love Jesus” and gets uncomfortable hearing big words within Christianity. I may need a better word than “Lover!”)
5. Wallflower (No one, including the wallflower, really knows what they are thinking)
6. Pray-er (Needs lots of quiet time in order to function and points out that we must always pray.)
7. Student (They have hundreds of books and more on the way.)
8. Worker (Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.)

I realize most of us will have some of a number of these characteristics.

Gee, how it that for getting off-topic!

]]> By: Margaret Catherine http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/liturgical-gangstas-17-preaching-ananias-sapphira-and-the-gospel/comment-page-1#comment-520568 Margaret Catherine Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:31:31 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=5133#comment-520568 :) :)

]]> By: Sabio Lantz http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/liturgical-gangstas-17-preaching-ananias-sapphira-and-the-gospel/comment-page-1#comment-520535 Sabio Lantz Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:31:06 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=5133#comment-520535 OK, These threads get confusing when someone answers for someoneelse. Jeff answered for Joe, it seems. Jeff, your first sentence did not make sense to me. The rest of you view of scripture is very familar to me. I am hoping Joe's surprises me, though. OK, These threads get confusing when someone answers for someoneelse.

Jeff answered for Joe, it seems.

Jeff, your first sentence did not make sense to me. The rest of you view of scripture is very familar to me. I am hoping Joe’s surprises me, though.

]]> By: Jeff http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/liturgical-gangstas-17-preaching-ananias-sapphira-and-the-gospel/comment-page-1#comment-520528 Jeff Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:25:20 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=5133#comment-520528 I don't think it's possible to hold the Bible to be inerrant and still have outright theological contradictions---that would undermine the notion that one God was the ultimate source behind it all. That being said, "tensions" certainly exist. God is a person just like you and just like you can't be boiled down to a pat description that says you always have to behave in a certain way and that's that, neither can God. It goes deeper than that, in that God transcends our ability to even understand Him fully, so that "apparent" contradictions from our perspective are just a matter of our being so utterly miniscule in our understanding by comparison. Parents show love to their children and children understand that. Parents also sometimes sternly rebuke their children, maybe at a moment's notice with no explanation or argument---the child may not understand why they can't do what they wanted to do and be angry at the parent and accuse them of being mean. The child doesn't have the understanding to realize that the parent was trying to prevent the child from walking into an oncoming car or putting their fingers into an electrical outlet. The point is that God is a person and acts differently at different times like any other person and that sometimes seeming contradictions in His actions are the fault of our limited understanding just like a child can't always understand why his or her parents act in certain ways. I don't mean these simple anwers to be somehow theologically complete and tie up every possible loose end, but I think they address the heart of the matter. I don’t think it’s possible to hold the Bible to be inerrant and still have outright theological contradictions—that would undermine the notion that one God was the ultimate source behind it all. That being said, “tensions” certainly exist. God is a person just like you and just like you can’t be boiled down to a pat description that says you always have to behave in a certain way and that’s that, neither can God. It goes deeper than that, in that God transcends our ability to even understand Him fully, so that “apparent” contradictions from our perspective are just a matter of our being so utterly miniscule in our understanding by comparison. Parents show love to their children and children understand that. Parents also sometimes sternly rebuke their children, maybe at a moment’s notice with no explanation or argument—the child may not understand why they can’t do what they wanted to do and be angry at the parent and accuse them of being mean. The child doesn’t have the understanding to realize that the parent was trying to prevent the child from walking into an oncoming car or putting their fingers into an electrical outlet. The point is that God is a person and acts differently at different times like any other person and that sometimes seeming contradictions in His actions are the fault of our limited understanding just like a child can’t always understand why his or her parents act in certain ways. I don’t mean these simple anwers to be somehow theologically complete and tie up every possible loose end, but I think they address the heart of the matter.

]]> By: Cool stuff on today’s Interwebs. « Sola Charis http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/liturgical-gangstas-17-preaching-ananias-sapphira-and-the-gospel/comment-page-1#comment-520525 Cool stuff on today’s Interwebs. « Sola Charis Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:42:03 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=5133#comment-520525 [...] Internet Monk explores how to preach the story of Ananias and Sapphira (in Acts 5) without obscuring the Gospel. [...] [...] Internet Monk explores how to preach the story of Ananias and Sapphira (in Acts 5) without obscuring the Gospel. [...]

]]> By: Sabio Lantz http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/liturgical-gangstas-17-preaching-ananias-sapphira-and-the-gospel/comment-page-1#comment-520515 Sabio Lantz Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:05:45 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/?p=5133#comment-520515 OK, Joe, you have us sitting on edge... What is the better way? I am actually curious how you will handle not being an errantist (is that a word)? You called them "theological tensions", but I would call them "theological contradictions". Mind you, I still think it is possible to be Christian and hold the Bible errant and having theological contradictions. After all, the early Christians didn't even have a Bible. I look forward to your theology of scriptures. OK, Joe, you have us sitting on edge… What is the better way?
I am actually curious how you will handle not being an errantist (is that a word)?
You called them “theological tensions”, but I would call them “theological contradictions”. Mind you, I still think it is possible to be Christian and hold the Bible errant and having theological contradictions. After all, the early Christians didn’t even have a Bible.
I look forward to your theology of scriptures.

]]>