Encounters
Posted by RazorsKissJan 15
At work, the other day, I had a discussion with a coworker, which centered around a discussion of The DaVinci Code. We discuss metaphysical or spiritual aspects of life quite often, but I engaged fully, this time – because he was not quite sympathetic to the specific claims made in The DaVinci Code, but sort of asking questions about themes in it – namely, Mary Magdalene’s supposed “marriage” to Jesus, and etc. That didn’t take long, as I explained the history of those claims, and who had made them – but that got me thinking – “what does he really think about the Bible?”
So, I asked him – “What do you think – is the Bible what it claims to be?” His answer, predictably, was to ask “in what way” – because, really, I wasn’t very specific. Have I ever mentioned that I don’t do apologetics in the real world very often? It’s my own shortcoming, and a result of the insular lifestyle I tend to lead. Well, anyway, I began to explain that the Bible claims to be the actual words of God, to man. His response was that it likely wasn’t the whole truth, but maybe part of the truth.
Well, my immediate response was to ask, in effect, that if it isn’t *the* truth, then what is? Is it found in the Mormons, or in Islam? Where? His response was, (also in effect), that truth was found in an individual person. Which, (also predictably), led me to ask – so, if truth is found in each individual, doesn’t truth always change?
What followed was, to me, an odd exchange. His point seemed, to me, to be that all morals are relative, and that what is true to one person is not true to another – and that the “belief” that it is true is what directs morality. My responses followed the pattern that if this is the case, then what Hitler did, or Hussein did, can be credibly justified by their belief that it is right. That was one aspect of the conversation. The other aspect was an attempt, on both parts, to explain exactly what we meant, when we said what we did. I don’t know if I understood him rightly, but by the end, he agreed with me that there is a concept of moral truth that over-arches what we believe to be true – but I don’t know if that was what he thought to begin with, or if it changed his mind. It’s hard to tell. I conceded that some moral decisions are situation dependent (such as killing someone – murder versus self-defense, or war), but that the basic principle remains the same.
It was a good exchange, but not anywhere near the “cut-and-dried” exchanges I’ve had in the past. He agrees that there is a spiritual world, that the physical came into being as the result of a non-physical force, and that there will be an eventual heaven and hell. However, it seems to me that he doesn’t think that the Christian way is what it says it is – the only way to an actual eternal existence in Heaven. We disagreed about the existence of an original or natural sin – but following a consistent moral code is very important to him. I enjoyed the discussion – as well as prior discussions we’ve had about the insufficiency of the limited-to-the-physical atheist/materialist viewpoint; but I’m not quite sure how I’d expand on this from here. Acer is what I’ll call him, since he uses that pseudonym online – and I had a lot of fun talking with him. (He may even read this – he knows about my blog :D) I’m not sure, exactly, what he really thinks, though. I’m not precisely worried about offending him by talking about Christianity – but I don’t want to badger him, either, or try to “win an argument”. That’s not the point. I’m a bit belligerent by nature, and I don’t want to be considered a bully. I also don’t want to lose the grip on the conversation by being too timid, either. I care about him, and I want to make sure he’s on the right track – not to become improperly judgemental and accusing. Speak the truth, in love…
It was interesting, and a bit scary – but I’m not quite sure how to handle it from here. Keep in mind – this is a friend from work, who reads this blog occasionally – so if you have comments, keep this in mind. (and Acer… if I messed anything up in our conversation, or I didn’t understand anything well enough – let me know!)
Thanks,
7 comments
Comment by Curious Servant on January 15, 2006 at 11:34 pm
This is typical of post-modernism. “Truth is relative and we all carry our own truth.”
I think the better way to addres current culture isn’t with the apologetics of CS Lewis or the like, but with stories.
Real experiences of life, of truth and lies and good and evil, have a more profound effect to those who wade through a luke warm pool of relative truth.
I think that is why my blog strikes a chord with many. The biggest responses I get to posts are always about the larger struggles of life, my life, and not about the logical arguments of faith.
Perhaps this person would be better approached in a converation that dealt with experience over text.
Comment by RazorsKiss on January 16, 2006 at 7:45 am
This is a real-life at-work convo, CS. I understand what you mean – and I was pretty heavy on analogy, because there’s no way you can communicate some concepts without them. I dunno. It wasn’t, really, logical arguments – it was a discussion, more, of the practical implications of thinking a certain way about morality, and the spirit. As a man thinketh in his heart, so shall he do – right?
Trackback by BlogWatch on January 17, 2006 at 9:46 am
It’s Your Life
Joshua aka RazorsKiss tells of a conversation at work about God, morals, and man. He requests advice on how to proceed….
Comment by RazorsKiss on January 17, 2006 at 11:33 pm
I’ev thought further about your comment, CS, and I took your advice yesterday, to an extent. When we sort of “picked up” where we left off (with me getting some input from him about whether I was coming across badly – he said I wasn’t), most of the discussion centered around relating stories – from the Bible. When we discussed the reliability of the Bible, it was in anecdotal form. When we discussed the deity of Jesus, it was to relate His statement “I and the Father are One” – and to tell it as a story. When we spoke of Paul, I gave the story of his background, and his dramatic “blinded on the road” conversion story.
I think I took your suggestion the wrong way, and on further contemplation of it, I think you were right, to an extent. I couched my logical progressions in the form of stories – relating the appropriate story from the Bible, and setting it into context, and letting the story speak for itself.
He seemed interested – and it wasn’t me, at all – the Bible is absolutely chock full of interesting stories, and stories which all tell a lesson, if you set them in context.
So, anyway, just wanted you to know. I may do a part 2 of this.
Comment by WeekendFisher on January 18, 2006 at 12:25 am
Sometimes it seems like people worry about us Christians, “What, are they really thinking everybody else is evil? Buddha said follow the right path; a bit bland but good advice all the same …” And I think most Christians have no problem with 90% of what Buddha said … it’s just that he’s in is grave and Jesus isn’t, y’know. I have no problem with saying to someone “right thought, right speech, right action” (etc.). But 1) that begs the question of what “right” is and 2) that begs the question of whether morality is the whole cigar. We’re dying. Jesus raises the dead.
Take care & God bless
WF
Comment by Owen on January 19, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Enjoyed your blog. I just finished reading the DaVinci Code and found it riddled with historical errors, but highly entertaining. For example, Dan gets it dead wrong about the Council of Nicea. Nicea was a battle over whether Christ was fully or partially divine; not whether he was solely human or solely divine. If you have a moment, take a look at my blog at http://emissaryx.blogspot.com/. Best!
Trackback by Pseudo-Polymath on February 18, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Morning Links…
Good morning.
Joshua aka RazorsKiss tells of a conversation at work about God, morals, and man. He requests advice on how to proceed.
John at Blogotional considers the questionable theology of a particular hymn his parish sang Sunday. He isn’t i…