Non-Christians more caring than Christians

[jasoncran]

when i was in the sin of bisexuality, i took offense to the idea that marriage per the bible is one man and one woman. the holy spirit told me i was wrong and no man ever knew in that church.

yet i was offended because i wanted that sin over god.that is the truth.did the bible speak to me? did it talk or was it god? no man ever told me or knew.

i heard it from the jw's and when i went to a pentacostal i knew that the bible of theirs did have the same verses on it. and the holy spirit told me not have communion because i was in sin. no man told me any of that.the holy spirit reminded me of what he said in his word.

 

[Aardverk]

........... 18 “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me." (John 15:18-21 NASB)

The message of love in John 15 is consistent with other teachings of Jesus but some start to doubt the authenticity of these words where Jesus is reported to say, "A slave is not greater than his master". In an age of capturing foreigners and forcing them into slavery, it is inevitable that some were greater than their masters.

Similarly, Colossians 3 instructs slaves to obey their masters yet Romans 6 tells us NOT to obey - IF the instructions are wrong.

If 'slave' or 'bond servant' is the correct translation (there is room for doubt) it is likely that these, and similar instructions for Christian slaves to be obedient were added by men to try to keep the slaves under control. The very obvious hatefulness of slavery or bondage would have been just as apparent to Jesus as it is to us. The civilized world, has now abolished slavery/bondage because it is so clearly wrong although a few fools still think that we should follow these words attributed to Jesus and willingly be obedient slaves to whoever wants to enslave us? I do not.

It's just a simple fact. If you tell the world the same things Jesus told the world many they will take offense and hate you just like they did Jesus for saying the things he did about them. That's why I said the gospel itself is an offense, but some insist it's the people sharing that gospel that are the offense for saying what they do.

That is quite different Jethro, you are now talking about preaching and that can very obviously cause offense. Please note that I did specifically refer to intelligent people and the Bible. Only a fool would consider the Bible itself offensive.

There is nothing you can say to these people that will make it better except to change the gospel to what they are sure it really is and not what the Bible says it is. They are certainly entitled to do that, but for some reason many of them are not content with letting us do and believe what we want.

Try to keep things in proportion. For every 100,000 evangelizing Christians you MAY find one atheist who actively wants to preach against Christianity. It seems from your comments that you meet offended people all the time. That should be telling you something Jethro.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The message of love in John 15 is consistent with other teachings of Jesus but some start to doubt the authenticity of these words where Jesus is reported to say, "A slave is not greater than his master". In an age of capturing foreigners and forcing them into slavery, it is inevitable that some were greater than their masters.

Similarly, Colossians 3 instructs slaves to obey their masters yet Romans 6 tells us NOT to obey - IF the instructions are wrong.

If 'slave' or 'bond servant' is the correct translation (there is room for doubt) it is likely that these, and similar instructions for Christian slaves to be obedient were added by men to try to keep the slaves under control. The very obvious hatefulness of slavery or bondage would have been just as apparent to Jesus as it is to us. The civilized world, has now abolished slavery/bondage because it is so clearly wrong although a few fools still think that we should follow these words attributed to Jesus and willingly be obedient slaves to whoever wants to enslave us? I do not.

That is quite different Jethro, you are now talking about preaching and that can very obviously cause offense. Please note that I did specifically refer to intelligent people and the Bible. Only a fool would consider the Bible itself offensive.

Then why are you offended by it?

You're not making sense. The Bible says we are all sinners. You firmly resist being called a sinner. You have said a number of times that offends you, but that's what the Bible clearly says.

Try to keep things in proportion. For every 100,000 evangelizing Christians you MAY find one atheist who actively wants to preach against Christianity.

I think you are more common than one out of 100,000, but I have no stats on that. It doesn't matter. It happens enough.

It seems from your comments that you meet offended people all the time. That should be telling you something Jethro.

Yeah, the gospel that starts with the fact that all men stand condemned as sinners before God and need redemption is offensive to some people.

The only way to make the gospel not offensive to them is to change what the Bible says. I'm not going to do that.

 

[Aardverk]

Then why are you offended by it?

I presume you are just being deliberately obtuse but I will answer nevertheless in the hope that you will stop and think.

I am not offended by the Bible Jethro. I have read it for way more than your life time.

You're not making sense. The Bible says we are all sinners. You firmly resist being called a sinner. You have said a number of times that offends you, but that's what the Bible clearly says.

As you well know, unlike you, I do not accept that the Bible is the infallible work of God. It is the work of many men and full of human failings, contradictions and errors. Have I really objected to being called a sinner? I wonder why? Perhaps the person telling me that I was a sinner was doing so based on assumption and misinterpretation. From memory, the main time we discussed this previously was in a thread about apostates and I was advocating that you do NOT call them evil sinners because you will drive them away. Sound familiar?

I think you are more common than one out of 100,000, but I have no stats on that. It doesn't matter. It happens enough.

Cheap dig Jethro and wrong on about 4 different levels.

Yeah, the gospel that starts with the fact that all men stand condemned as sinners before God and need redemption is offensive to some people. The only way to make the gospel not offensive to them is to change what the Bible says. I'm not going to do that.

I am sure you know that you are ignoring the facts but I will re-state them anyway in a different manner, in the hope that you will understand.

The Bible is not offensive Jethro. It is people you misuse the Bible to offend others. Some people are offensive when they selectively quote the Bible to suit their own prejudices. The sad thing is that it is so easy to do. The Bible has so many contradictions that we can make it say whatever we want - but I am repeating myself.

Rather than tossing quotes back and forth in a manner which rapidly becomes meaningless, I prefer to ask myself what Jesus would have done. Would he have insulted 'sinners' and driven them away? No - and neither should you. Think about the carrot as well as the stick. Think about - the greatest of these is love - and try to behave accordingly.

It is hardly surprising that many consider non-Christians more caring when their experience of some Christians is self-righteous, 'holier than thou' criticism. That really is off-message.

 

[stovebolts]

I think you know that I had a long search for ways to recover my faith once I started losing it. I struggle to see anything actually wrong with exploring various denominations or sects - just to see if they have an answer that I had not thought of. Clearly, when 'examining' a new church, it is the people and their beliefs which count - one must therefore observe and learn.

Far from standing at the back throwing rocks, I would either remain silent, observe and quietly go away OR, if they seemed intelligent and interesting, I would ask questions and challenge things that were clearly wrong. You can choose to call that throwing rocks if you like but how can you avoid asking questions and challenging notions if you are trying to learn?

Almost exactly the same applies to this forum. I have often responded robustly to personal attacks on me, and there have been quite a few of those, but I don't think you will find anywhere that I have 'thrown rocks'. I have certainly pointed out 'errors' but so does everyone else. Am I to be subject to different rules from everyone else?

Just wanted to make sure you knew that my post that you replied to wasn't directed toward you. But it looks as if it's hit a cord with you so I think it's important for me to give you a reply.

Actually, no... I didn't know you struggled with loosing your faith and that you've attempted to recover it. To a degree I understand that because there was a time when I lost belief in everything that meant anything to me except my faith. When my faith was also trying to be stripped from me I guarded it with everything I had because it was the only thing I had left that meant anything to me. yes... I remember those painful days. So when I hear you say that you you've worked hard at recovering your faith it tells me it was stripped away from you, but it meant something very deep to you that was worth reclaiming. Whether you realize it or not, I have a new found respect for you. It takes a lot to reclaim that which was stripped. Your a strong individual and I respect that in a person. You've got grit and you hold to what you understand as true. Weather I agree or disagree with on a subject with you, I always know where you stand and that's admirable in my book.

As far as throwing rocks, let me explain. No church is perfect and to think so is to live in a little bubble. It's one thing to look around a body of people to find fault and it's another thing to look around a body of people and find fault.

As I get older, I'm realizing that it's ok to accept people with their faults, and I hope that others will accept me with all my faults. Furthermore, it's not my place to impose my lifestyle upon others but in the same breath I'm also free to voice my reasoning to those who disagree or want to challenge my lifestyle and beliefs.

What I find though is that many times people go looking for an argument to justify themselves or to make themselves feel important or even smarter etc than others and when I recognize those types, I'm learning to shut my mouth and not fuel the fire because your not going to change their mind anyway.

As far as exploring other denominations or sects, I dont' see an issue with that either as long as one finds where they fit in and grow in Christ in a way that they actually live out the way of Christ, and not merely espouse their ideology.

From my own personal experience, I was in $cientology for awhile and before that I was influenced by zen philosophy. I've kept the good from both and have tossed away what I deem not good. Again, I don't see a problem with that.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I presume you are just being deliberately obtuse but I will answer nevertheless in the hope that you will stop and think.

You openly and plainly deny what the Bible says about the sinfulness of man. What is there to think about in regard to that except to think about abandoning the gospel of forgiveness of sin through the blood of Christ?

You are strongly opposed to the gospel message. The only route to take with your message is to abandon the forgiveness of God and the Bible. Is that what you are here in this forum to do?

I am not offended by the Bible Jethro. I have read it for way more than your life time.

I doubt it, but what does it matter if all your reading hasn't led you to faith in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sin? In fact, it has led you to resist the gospel message taught in the Bible.

As you well know, unlike you, I do not accept that the Bible is the infallible work of God. It is the work of many men and full of human failings, contradictions and errors. Have I really objected to being called a sinner? I wonder why? Perhaps the person telling me that I was a sinner was doing so based on assumption and misinterpretation.

Why is what the Bible says about you and me impolite and uncaring?

From memory, the main time we discussed this previously was in a thread about apostates and I was advocating that you do NOT call them evil sinners because you will drive them away. Sound familiar?

Don't forget, I pointed out that very same message draws people to God. So, should we suppress the message because some people are driven away from God by that message and in the process lose those who are drawn near by the message?

The Bible is not offensive Jethro. It is people you misuse the Bible to offend others. Some people are offensive when they selectively quote the Bible to suit their own prejudices. The sad thing is that it is so easy to do.

So, if I tell you what the Bible plainly says in response to what you claim is the real truth, that is being offensive?

...I prefer to ask myself what Jesus would have done. Would he have insulted 'sinners' and driven them away?

If insulting 'sinners' means telling them the truth about their sin and their separation from him because of their sin, then, 'yes', by that definition he insulted sinners and drove them away.

You did say you have read the Bible many years, right? How can you not know this?

Think about - the greatest of these is love - and try to behave accordingly.

"...speaking the truth in love..." (Ephesians 4:15 NASB)
Love doesn't mean we lie to people. It means telling the truth even when the truth is not what someone wants to hear. It's not loving to change the truth to suit someone who doesn't want to accept the truth.

You're in a Christian forum that believes in and supports all of the Bible. By being here you agree to have what you say challenged and refuted with what the Bible actually says.

It is hardly surprising that many consider non-Christians more caring when their experience of some Christians is self-righteous, 'holier than thou' criticism. That really is off-message.

It seems to be a given that just letting people know you are saved and forgiven of your sins causes those who are not to automatically assume you have a superior holier than thou attitude. That's very judgmental. But that's not surprising, because often those who view Christians as 'holier than thou' look for and exaggerate faults to tear them down to their size. Did you know it is pride that doesn't allow another person to be perceived as superior? Ironic, isn't it?


It's impossible to say or do anything 'right' in the eyes of unbelievers who perceive the gospel message itself to be offensive and insulting. For people like that it seems no matter how polite or respectful you share the truth you will be to them an insulting and offensive, bad person. There's nothing you can do to please them except compromise the truth and deny what the Bible so plainly says.

"10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." (Galatians 5: NIV1984)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is something that has been on my mind for a while…Somethingthat’s really bothered me about Christians mainly in America at themoment. I see the cold, self-righteousattitudes. The hateful responses from Christians over gay marriage debates. The multitude of answers to simplequestions. Heck, I know someone who usedto go to church and when she announced she was gay, ALL the people she knew andwere friends with slowly drifted away from her after that. So much for love.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o></o>

<o> </o>

It’s all these things…the horrible attitude of Christiansthat bothers me. It’s sad when I canfind more legitimately friendly and caring Atheists than I can Christians. Doesn’t it bother anyone else that we claimChrist leads to peace and yet a seemingly majority don’t even come close tofitting the description of a Christian? <o></o>

<o> </o>

Let’s discuss this…<o></o>

This won't bother you when you understand this: All people, believer and unbeliever alike, do unrighteous things. Some do more unrighteous things than others. The difference between the believer and the unbeliever is the (genuine) believer is growing up into the image and stature of Christ, glory to glory, as Paul says. The Christian is growing up into ever increasing deeds of the Spirit, while the unbeliever is going from bad to worse.

"...we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory..." (2 Corinthians 3:18 NIV1984)

"...everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived." (2 Tim. 3:12-13 NIV1984)

It's all about perspective.

 

[Aardverk]

............As I get older, I'm realizing that it's ok to accept people with their faults, and I hope that others will accept me with all my faults. Furthermore, it's not my place to impose my lifestyle upon others but in the same breath I'm also free to voice my reasoning to those who disagree or want to challenge my lifestyle and beliefs................

Thanks Mr Bolts. I'm glad to see that we try to accept people in the same way. It is difficult sometimes though

I won't bother to list them but the Bible says in so many ways - 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,' yet many Christians still want to point fingers rather than show humility, tolerance and love. I only hope to get a few to think for themselves rather than follow the bad example of intolerance shown by their peers.

 

[Aardverk]

...........You're in a Christian forum that believes in and supports all of the Bible. By being here you agree to have what you say challenged and refuted with what the Bible actually says...........]

I will respond to this point only Jethro. For the rest, you are obviously a lost cause.

You are absolutely wrong. SOME people on the forum may well "believe and support all of the Bible" but a great many do not. The vast majority of Christians, on this forum and world-wide, accept the main principles of Christianity and treat the rest of the Bible as interesting but not necessarily factual. You can surely work that out for yourself. :

'Opinion' is not fact. We have all seen you argue your beliefs on this forum with other Christians who also accept the Bible as fact :bicker but who hold different opinions to you. The different opinions are of course about how things should be interpreted - especially where their is conflicting scripture.

Can you not see then, that to hold a rigid belief based upon your own, or someone else's, 'opinion' is a dangerous thing to do? Opinions have caused many thousands of Christians to be slaughtered simply because they did not agree with someone else's opinions - which have since been proven wrong. You are not slaughtering people, I hope, but you are driving them away from Christianity and that is not a good idea - in my opinion.

Think on Jethro; you can not be a 'fisher of men' if you drive the men away Linking that back to the OP, you will give Christians a bad image of being un-caring.

 

[mcgyver]

This has been an interesting thread with a lot of good responses, so I thought I'd jump on in where "angels fear to tread".

It seems to me (and I may be wrong here), that if we as Christians (blood-bought, born-again, followers of The Way) stand on and obey the Word of God we are labeled as: "Unloving, homophobic, bigoted, hateful, narrow minded, intolerant hypocrites".

Seems like these words are used in the manner of a six-shooter at a quick draw contest!

But...if we see someone in commission of sin (any sin) and instead of confronting the sin we say: "There, there, it's OK...God loves you anyway. You go ahead and work it out...doesn't matter...maybe it's not really sin after all...etc.,etc."

Then somehow we are seen as being "Christ-like" and "loving". After all, God IS love...and Jesus loved everybody, even the "sinners"; right?

Yes...God is love, and yes...Jesus loves people. But God is also Holy, and Righteous, Perfect, and Just...and Jesus so many times forgave with the admonition: "Go your way, and sin no more".

In reference to the OP and the woman in the church...would it be surprising to find out that within the church (by definition the Body Of Christ), that one who is in commission of sin who fails to repent of that sin after being approached and given a chance to repent is to be placed outside the fellowship?

Paul didn't say that...Jesus Himself said it in Matthew 18. In fact He went so far as to say: But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

So then...in which situation would one be more loving:

A) A man is walking down a path toward a cliff he can't see. I tell him that there is a cliff ahead and that if he continues to walk on the path he's on he will fall off the cliff and die.

He says to me: "Mind your own business, I'll be just fine. I've been doing this for years and ain't never seen no cliff."

I reply: "Cool, I don't want you to think that I'm judging the way you're walking...that's not my place...just go ahead and know that I love you."

5 minutes later there's a scream....

B) Same situation, but instead I repeatedly try to warn him...he gets really ticked off because I keep telling him there's a cliff; and as he approaches the hidden cliff I run out and hit him with a full body tackle to prevent him going over the cliff.

I which case would I have shown more "love" to him?

See...there's the thing. We are called to be light and salt...and salt stings. It stings so badly in fact that many were fed to the wild beasts in the arena because of it...nothing new under the sun, is there?

 

[Aardverk]

.................It seems to me (and I may be wrong here), that if we as Christians (blood-bought, born-again, followers of The Way) stand on and obey the Word of God we are labeled as: "Unloving, homophobic, bigoted, hateful, narrow minded, intolerant hypocrites".

Hopefully only if you are.

A man is walking down a path toward a cliff he can't see. I tell him that there is a cliff ahead and that if he continues to walk on the path he's on he will fall off the cliff and die.

He says to me: "Mind your own business, I'll be just fine. I've been doing this for years and ain't never seen no cliff."

A nice illustration but just because you read in a book that there was a cliff there, that does not mean there is one. You can't actually see one.

That very same book tells us there are cliffs in places that most Christians are happy to ignore because they don't think those cliffs exists. Other books tell us there are cliffs which 100% of Christians ignore.

We can not prove there are any cliffs.

We certainly have no right to burn people for straying close to the edge that you perceive, nor to stop them falling over a cliff, nor to punish them once you think they have fallen over the cliff. That same book tells you not to judge them.

 

[Hammer]

It seems to me (and I may be wrong here), that if we as Christians (blood-bought, born-again, followers of The Way) stand on and obey the Word of God we are labeled as: "Unloving, homophobic, bigoted, hateful, narrow minded, intolerant hypocrites".

The wicked can't defend their virtue of their wickedness, so they attack the righteous for having standards. .. Or, a drunk arguing that drunkenness is good for society. It's so much easier just to call you a bigot or paradoxically "uncaring."

 

[Aardverk]

The wicked can't defend their virtue of their wickedness, so they attack the righteous for having standards. .. Or, a drunk arguing that drunkenness is good for society. It's so much easier just to call you a bigot or paradoxically "uncaring."

But your examples are deliberately unreasonable. A reasonable argument would be worded against something like......

1.

2. Since well before Jesus walked the Earth, mankind has used alcohol as a relaxant and socializing agent. Jesus personally provided alcohol to many people at several reported venues. It is a desirable 'drug' for the majority of the adult population of the planet and it is legal in every country except a few controlled by theocracies. Some people get carried away when they take too much alcohol and they are punished appropriately by the laws of man. In the interests of fairness, the vast majority of adults are left in peace to enjoy their alcohol as they have done for thousands of years.

Both of these situations strike me as being perfectly sensible. It would actually be interesting to hear a reasoned argument against the two actual situations instead of seeking to generalize based on extreme examples.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The wicked can't defend their virtue of their wickedness, so they attack the righteous for having standards. .. Or, a drunk arguing that drunkenness is good for society. It's so much easier just to call you a bigot or paradoxically "uncaring."

Brings this passage to mind:

"12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you." (1 John 3:12-13 NIV1984)


"...everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted..." (2 Timothy 3:12 NIV1984)

Just doing right shames the behavior of those who do not seek to do right but who instead lash out and try to rationalize the wrong they do and their right to do it. It's just the way it's going to be until Jesus comes.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

A) A man is walking down a path toward a cliff he can't see. I tell him that there is a cliff ahead and that if he continues to walk on the path he's on he will fall off the cliff and die.

He says to me: "Mind your own business, I'll be just fine. I've been doing this for years and ain't never seen no cliff."

I reply: "Cool, I don't want you to think that I'm judging the way you're walking...that's not my place...just go ahead and know that I love you."

5 minutes later there's a scream....

B) Same situation, but instead I repeatedly try to warn him...he gets really ticked off because I keep telling him there's a cliff; and as he approaches the hidden cliff I run out and hit him with a full body tackle to prevent him going over the cliff.

I which case would I have shown more "love" to him?

A woman I worked with used to complain about the intrusion of being told what the Bible talked about. I told her the analogy of seeing someone poking around in a plugged in toaster with a fork. You don't just look the other way. You try very hard to make sure that person understands fully the folly of what they are doing, even slamming them away from the toaster before they kill themselves. I explained how caring and loving that would actually be, not offensive and intrusive and mean.

In time, this woman told me she had an epiphany and was starting to see how wrong she was in how she had been treating people (she was a very angry abusive person--I told her the Bible said hatred was as murder). We didn't work together very long after that for me to know if she ever confessed her sins and accepted Jesus Christ. But one thing's for sure, if she did receive Christ, all my witnessing that at first seemed unfair, intrusive, and offensive, even mean, was actually some of the most loving and caring intervention she could have in her life.

"14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" (Romans 10:14 NIV1984)

 

[Hammer]

A woman I worked with used to complain about the intrusion of being told what the Bible talked about. I told her the analogy of seeing someone poking around in a plugged in toaster with a fork. You don't just look the other way. You try very hard to make sure that person understands fully the folly of what they are doing, even slamming them away from the toaster before they kill themselves. I explained how caring and loving that would actually be, not offensive and intrusive and mean.

That analogy only goes so far. We often see that not only is the immoral person poking around in a toaster with a fork, they want to tax you to teach your children to do the same. They want to come to your church or business and do the same. They want to have special rights because they're poking around in a toaster with a fork.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Hey everyone. Please keep in mind that discussion on homosexuality is prohibited in this forum. Thanks.

 

[Pigeon]

When it comes to associating with sinners I think there is an obvious line not to cross. Jesus fellowshiped with sinners but he did nothing to compromise his walk with God.

When I say sinner I guess I should use "non believer" instead. Since everyone is a sinner.


I can have fun with my atheist friends but there are some things I won't do. That line is different from person to person. And I think it benefits everyone to let non believing friends know about those lines. That way many awkward situations can be avoided.

But to me, in the end religion or no religion, everyone has standards. Or at least should, on what they are willing to tolerate.

 

[Aardverk]

When it comes to associating with sinners I think there is an obvious line not to cross. Jesus fellowshiped with sinners but he did nothing to compromise his walk with God.

When I say sinner I guess I should use "non believer" instead. Since everyone is a sinner.

I can have fun with my atheist friends but there are some things I won't do. That line is different from person to person. And I think it benefits everyone to let non believing friends know about those lines. That way many awkward situations can be avoided.

But to me, in the end religion or no religion, everyone has standards. Or at least should, on what they are willing to tolerate.

Wise words

I wish I could state things as clearly as that!

 

[Grazer]

This was just too funny (and true) not to post