Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Proof of Jesus?

Wed, 11 May 2005 05:00:58 -0700

One more important thing: by concentrating on cultural engagement for the purpose of being able to relate to others in the culture, I may have given the impression that I don't think the arts and media have any intrinsic value for us. I don't believe this. Although a really enriching TV show is rare, and there are relatively few movies and books that fall into this category, there are definitely some very worthwhile ones. There are some that expand our thinking, teach us about people, force us to ask important questions, or simply add to our enjoyment of life and give us an appreciation for what is creatively and excellently done. We only lose by ignoring them. On the other hand, personal preference and skill enter into this; some people just don't learn well or benefit much from these sources. And overexposure without careful discernment does pose the risk of allowing ourselves to be too greatly influenced.
 
Debbie  
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Proof of Jesus?

I would like to argue for both approaches. A lot depends on what circles you move in; nobody is called to salt the entire earth. If you hang out with people who do a great deal of TV- and movie-watching, so that their conversation, their metaphors and so on, arise from that, then you do need to know what they're talking about. If you hang out with people who read a lot or listen to a lot of popular music, you need to know about those things. Any Christian who expects to offer a serious critique of those media, or credible alternatives, must also obviously be well acquainted with them--or at the very least with strategically chosen representative pieces. And Christians who do so are desperately needed.
 
On the other hand, if you move with people who don't to much of those things, it is not that necessary to do any yourself. First of all, Judy has an extremely important point about being available to people. Watching TV and movies, reading novels, listening to music, etc. all take huge amounts of time (not to mention the risk of information overload if you try to be at all thorough) and are not the kind of activity where you can simultaneously have good interaction with live people. (What shall it profit me if I gain all cultural knowledge and lose my own family relationships?) Besides, those media are artifacts, one step removed from people's actual heads. The "trickle-down" reality means that you can engage and understand your culture pretty well just by living with people, listening to them talk about their own experiences and ideas of life, finding out what their values and perceptions are. And anyway, there are many "practical" ministries that involve a lot more action than extended conversations of this kind. They are about serving somebody soup, explaining to them how to do basic personal hygiene, or helping them navigate the bureaucracy to get their immigration papers.
 
One thing I'm sure of, "not loving the world" does not mean shutting oneself off from its cultural artifacts or its people, or ignoring what is going on. I am only one generation removed from horse-and-buggy, no-newspaper Mennonite. There are a lot of admirable things about that lifestyle, but (assuming they have the gospel to give at all, which many of them don't) they certainly don't have much impact on the community immediately around them or on any larger scene. At worst they function merely as a sort of freak show like the bearded lady at the circus. 
 
I'm also sure that we must not recoil or shrink back in fear from the media. They are part of a good education, not that education is everything or that one educates oneself with equal intensity at all stages of life. As a parent I do not want to communicate fear of the culture to my children. I see it in many Christians and it is intellectually and spiritually quite debilitating, IMO. I don't foist stuff on my kids that is too challenging, but I also don't shelter them from the culture. It is important for me to remember too that their generation is, on the whole, more into the media than mine, so if they aren't to be marginalized by their peers, they have to know the media scene.
 
Keeping up with the news is a bit different thing. Especially in a democracy, it is important! I don't do as well at it as I should.
 
Debbie   
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Lance Muir
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Proof of Jesus?

You raise an important consideration. An acquaintance speaks of the distinction between 'adapt and adopt'. He describes the 'between' as finer than a hair and harder than a diamond'.
 
Two persons in this past week spoke of presenting, both to adults and youth, on 'The Da Vinci Code'. This book is a cultural phenomenon (25 million hc sold thus far, with a movie to come out next year starring Tom Hanks (do you know who he is?)). Some are simply concerned to sort out fact from fiction.
 
On 'not loving the world', I'm reasonably confident that it does not refer to that which these two (a Coptic Orthodox priest and a layman) did in their respective churches.
 
I'd appreciate both your observations and, the observations of others, especially parents, as to what they believe/teach on this. This, by the by, might well include our Mormon constituency.
 
thanks,
 
Lance 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: May 11, 2005 05:45
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] [TruthTalk] Proof of Jesus?

Available to ppl is one thing, culturally caught up is something else again; what do we have to offer when we
are 'just like them' and involved in the same things. But then I guess your doctrine of the 'incarnation' would cover all that..  What do you suppose it means not to love the world or the things that are in the world because to do this is to find
oneself Gods enemy?  jt
 
On Wed, 11 May 2005 05:08:54 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Some may, others may not. Your way of living is good 'for you'. Others are and, ought to be, more culturally engaged.
 
But I am not saying "we're all human" Lance because this statement IMO most of the time is an excuse to keep sinning. I believe the reason for what you call the level of frustration at being unable to be understood by me is because you are not speaking Kingdom language - You communicate on what I consider to be a worldly level. As for me, I watch a little News but that's about it. I'm not interested in worldly entertainment, philosophies, music, or the arts .. and I don't apologize for that.  Life is much too short to waste any more of it than I already have.  jt
 
On Tue, 10 May 2005 08:35:00 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What you just said that I believe warrants serious attention (mine/others): 'if/when' Amen! 'not wrong 100% of the time'=no one is perfect/we're all human=you just said nothing! (up is not down/black is not white) 
 
What did not receive even 'honorable mention': The level of frustration expressed by many at their failed attempt to be understood by you.
 
What I have said, do say and, will continue to say:You, Judy, are a faithful servant of God. I thank God for you.
 
I'm not God Lance but if/when I say what God says and you reject it - you are not rejecting me you are
rejecting Him; that's just the way it is.  Not to say I have it all together but I am not wrong 100% of the
time and some of what you label bizarre just may be so.... especially since your interpretation is so out of
whack because of the 'enlightenment' - jt
 
On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:44:13 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hearing God through His Word and exactitude in interpretation are two very different categories. As someone who is so often 'misinterpreted, Judy, I should have thought you'd have understood that by now. That is why, in spite of some of your rather bizarre theological observations, I see the heart of a faithful servant of God in you.

They have boxed themselves in Izzy - because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God and they can not receive the Word of God because ITO noone can rightly interpret same which is very sad..... I have to wonder if this is a sign of the times we are now living in.  judyt
 
On Tue, 10 May 2005 05:42:02 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Izzy's stance below is an attempt to have one's cake and eat it too: to live by a system in which all truth claims must be submitted to the criterion of "proof" while at the same time exercising, about this particular truth claim, a confidence that is independent of proof.  

Debbie

 

Where�d you get that assumption, Debbie?  My stance is no such thing�that is only your inference.  I never required �proof� to believe, and don�t require �proof� to continue to believe.  But, since you were the one to ask the question, if you COULD prove to me that Jesus wasn�t �real� I would have to no longer believe in Him, or live in total denial of actual proof.  That isn�t faith; it�s insanity. Faith triumphs over doubt�not over actual reality.  I can have all the faith in the world that the gravity doesn�t exist, but that doesn�t get me anywhere.  If God could be proven to not exist (I have a hard time even writing something so ridiculous) it would be foolish to continue to believe, as there would be no possible purpose or reward for it. 

 

Perhaps you have decided ahead of time to believe in spite of real proof to the contrary because you think it is possible that He can actually be proven untrue? I have no fear of it, and don�t go seeking after proof for that reason�I need no reassurance that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. He is my every breath. Izzy

 

 
 
 
 

Reply via email to