In Reply to: Re: Escaping Dominionism posted by Mr. Don on January 10, 2008 at 06:00:07:
I don't know if you realize it or not, but in defending your denomination you are starting to sound just like those Family apologists who deny the authenticity of a person's experience of abuse because such abuse didn't occur in their home/church.
And isn't it more than just a little hypocritical that you deny, or at least question, the validity of that writer's experience even while you expect the subjects of your proselytizing to accept your experience of a personal relationship with Jesus?
What irks me about this latest post of yours is not that you are a believer, but that you are so arrogantly certain that your current belief system is superior to others. If you were so wrong for 30 years about TF's Jesus, as you put it, how can you be so certain you now worship the "true" Jesus, whoever that is? Doubtful scriptures and subjective personal experiences provide no reliable answers.
Your claim that I "... have no concept of the motivation of people who love and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" smacks of smug spiritual superiority, as does your claim that Catholics don't have a personal relationship with Jesus. Your initial response to me complained, falsely, that I was stereotyping all Assemblies of God churches (the author may have done that, but I didn't). Yet here you are making a broad generalization about all Catholics. You are judging Catholics by your own criteria/interpretation, yet your spiritual discernment was so profoundly wrong for so long. Such hypocrisy and spiritual elitism is exacerbated by your impulse to convert others (you'll have no luck with me).
The best response I can give to that is from an article: On The Teaching Of Religion
Here's an excerpt that gets to the heart of what I'm trying to say to you:
*************************************************
Religion is essentially a confrontation between an individual person and whatever that individual conceives to be the ultimate reality and ultimate source of value—a confrontation suffused with fear and trembling and contrition and awe—confrontation with a reality that is incomprehensible to humans, for the disparity between the human person and the ultimate is infinite and cannot be bridged.
Although adequate understanding is impossible, the individual commits himself or herself to a certain belief system—a certain way of construing the ultimate reality and a certain way of ordering her or his life. To be sure, this belief system is often provided ready made, and is often shared with others for solace and support. Nevertheless, it is the product of individual commitment. Consider an analogy. Philosopher and novelist George Santayana held that just as one cannot speak a language without speaking a particular language, so one cannot be religious without holding to a particular religion. This is true. At first glance, Santayana seems to be calling for steadfast loyalty to one’s own religion against all others, but we need to look further.
There is no one “true” language. Indeed, a person may be able to speak several languages, all with the one purpose of communicating. Chance occurrence, usually of birth, determines which language is primary. And just because language is an individual matter, attempting to impose an alien language, as imperial governments sometimes do, is an insult to the individual.
Similarly, there is no one “true” religion. A person may practice several religions (though usually at different times) all with the purpose of relating to the ultimate. It is chance occurrence, usually of birth, that determines which religion commands a person’s allegiance, or first allegiance. And imposition of an alien religion is an insult to the individual.
Religion, therefore, is essentially a set of individual commitments chosen on subjective grounds to provide understanding of a bewildering universe. No one’s commitment can be judged to be truer than another’s. Yes, I respect religion. The question is whether religion respects me.
Do religionists respect my belief system as my chosen commitment? Or do they condemn my commitment because it does not match theirs?
Unfortunately, some religionists mistake absolute commitment for absolute truth.