Non-Christians more caring than Christians

[evenifigoalone]

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

I like.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

It's okay to say 'sinner'. The Bible itself distinguishes between the righteous and the unrighteous this way--those who have the righteousness of Christ credited to their account, and those who don't because of unbelief.

If somebody can't accept that distinction they're simply not ready for salvation. In fact, what they think about being a 'sinner' and God's justice in judging the 'sinner' is IMO the number one way to know if they are ready.

 

[Milk-Drops]

That analogy only goes so far. We often see that not only is the immoral person poking around in a toaster with a fork,

there are no such people. Unless you want to be specific.

they want to tax you to teach your children to do the same.

No there isn't' any such vague nonsense going on.

They want to come to your church or business and do the same.

They also want to steal all your cantaloupe and do the hokey pokey with Robin Williams.

They want to have special rights because they're poking around in a toaster with a fork.

And certain Christians and others want special rights to subvent the rights of others and victim blame, slut shame, and whatever else it is in order to keep anyone from daring to consider that maybe society isn't always completely right when being prejudice to ( whatever) and needs to rethink some things. ;)

 

[mcgyver]

Sorry to take so long in getting back to this, but that pesky "real life" intruded on my internet time! ;)

I did want to reply to you though...

Hopefully only if you are.

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.

But then again, neither can the mountain climber who finds himself falling into a crevasse. Simply because one may not be able to "see" the cliff does not detract from the reality of the cliff's existence.

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.

Could you expound on this a bit? I'm not really sure what you are referencing here.

We can not prove there are any cliffs.

Sure we can...When a man who historically lived, historically died and was buried; and historically rose alive the third day declaring that He is the Lord of Glory says that there are cliffs...and He can show us how to avoid them...Well, He's got my attention.

(BTW, after 22 years studying the resurrection I have no problem using the word "historically" )

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.

Let me take these one at a time:

We certainly have no right to burn people for straying close to the edge that you perceive... Agreed. Not our place.

nor to stop them falling over a cliff: I would refer you to Ezekiel 33:1-7 (pertaining to being a watchman at the walls), Matthew 5:13-17, et.al. God has given us both permission and a commission to stand for His righteousness and to warn of wickedness and the penalty for sin.

In the illustration I used at first...the "tackling" was used for emphasis only. I cannot keep someone from falling off the edge if they so choose. It's not my place anyway. My call is to warn of peril...and if someone ignores that warning and keeps going the way he's going, then it's on him. He is the one who will bear the burden of his own choice, yet I can not back away from warning him even when it is unpopular. (Just to clarify here...)

nor to punish them once you think they have fallen over the cliff. No argument here...

That same book tells you not to judge them. If you are referring to Matthew 7:1-3, that passage is about hypocrisy, not judgment per se.

In John 7:24 we are told: "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

We are certainly given permission to judge sin...based not on what WE feel is sin...but upon what God declares is sin. In other words: "We can call sin...sin", and can tell one that they are in commission of sin. After that, it's between them and God.

 

[Aardverk]

……… then again, neither can the mountain climber who finds himself falling into a crevasse. Simply because one may not be able to "see" the cliff does not detract from the reality of the cliff's existence.

I’m not certain that you understood my point but no matter, I think the other bits are more interesting.
It may help if I explain that I also regard the Bible as a history book. I believe Jesus lived and died and that much of the words attributed to Him are probably fairly accurate. I have doubts about him rising again in three days because so many other ‘gods’ before Him did exactly the same – and I don’t believe any of them did either. They also had 12 disciples and a last supper and converted wine into their blood etc. There are far too many risks of oral tradition conflation for my liking and zero historical confirmation. There is simply too much contradiction in the Bible for it to be the work of an infallible God. It is clearly the work of men, many men, and cobbling together so many disparate texts has left us with a very confusing book which has led to wars, conflict and mass slaughter rather than love and peace – which, to me, was the clear message of Jesus. With that as a background, I will respond to your points but we are at the risk of straying off-topic and getting deleted.

Could you expound on this a bit? I'm not really sure what you are referencing here.

Just an example:

Exodus 31:14 “Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.â€​

But nearly all of us work on the Sabbath now and think nothing of it. None of us consider for one moment killing those who work on the Sabbath or even those who work on a Sunday. I do not accept the weasel words about a ‘New Covenant’ rendering earlier laws redundant. According to Matthew, Jesus stated the situation VERY clearly.

Mathew 5:18 “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.â€​

Sure we can...When a man who historically lived, historically died and was buried; and historically rose alive the third day declaring that He is the Lord of Glory says that there are cliffs...and He can show us how to avoid them...Well, He's got my attention.

I understand your point of view. I really do wish I could share it but I do not think it as simple as that for various reasons - some of which below.

In the illustration I used at first...the "tackling" was used for emphasis only. I cannot keep someone from falling off the edge if they so choose. It's not my place anyway. My call is to warn of peril...and if someone ignores that warning and keeps going the way he's going, then it's on him. He is the one who will bear the burden of his own choice, yet I can not back away from warning him even when it is unpopular. (Just to clarify here...)

OK, I can accept that. You feel it your duty and you are therefore right to do your duty. Where care is needed is the manner of execution of that duty. I see nothing wrong with telling people what the Bible says and telling them that you believe it. That can be considered ‘good work’. Where it goes wrong is people who choose to lecture/preach to those who do not want to listen – probably because they have heard it all before. In that case the 'preacher' is simply being a nuisance and being counter-productive. Similarly, those who label others ‘evil’ or ‘sinner’ or ‘witch’ etc really are stepping beyond the boundaries of common sense and driving people away from Christianity. Linking this to the OP, people who do that often appear to be uncaring, cruel even, as well as (sometimes) stupid. It is not surprising that unbelievers can appear more caring.

If you are referring to Matthew 7:1-3, that passage is about hypocrisy, not judgment per se.

I would agree that Matthew 7:3-5 is about hypocrisy but 7:1-2 is not, it is clearly saying ‘Judge not’ and warning what will happen if you do. Also:

James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?​

In John 7:24 we are told: "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.â€

John 7:24 is the epitome of weasel words used by scurrilous people (not you) for hundreds of years. According to most interpretations it means, ‘ignore the letter of the law and decide for yourself what is right and wrong’. It allows people to make their own mind up about right and wrong. Whether that was what John had in mind or what Jesus had in mind we will never know but it is often used to ‘escape’ from some of the ‘nonsense’ elements in the Bible – such as killing people for working on the Sabbath.

We are certainly given permission to judge sin...based not on what WE feel is sin...but upon what God declares is sin. In other words: "We can call sin...sin", and can tell one that they are in commission of sin. After that, it's between them and God.

Hmmm. John 7:24 again lets us make a righteous judgement so there is a vague area here. One person may read the Bible precisely and 'read' that something is a sin but another, wiser person may make a righteous judgement and realize that it is not a sin. That second person is more likely following the actual teachings of Jesus far more closely and, back to the OP, is likely to be seen as a more loving, more caring person.

Sorry this has been so long but you raised some really interesting issues .

 

[mcgyver]

First of all, let me say that I appreciate the tone and timbre of your replies. It is refreshing to have an exchange of ideas without it turning into a virtual "shouting match"!

I have never personally seen anyone won to the Gospel of Christ by getting beaten repeatedly over the head with the bible. I personally feel that our fervency for the "defense of the faith" must be tempered with compassion, lest we simply become the type of zealot who would dust off the rack and conduct inquisitions. To put it another way: It has been well said that the sharing of the gospel is akin to one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.

Having said that, I'd like to address a couple of things here:

I'd love to chat with you about the reasons I believe the scripture to be inspired, but that would be a topic for another thread, for sure!

So let's start with something that does pertain to the OP: Law and Grace, the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant ushered in by Christ.

I would quote here your examples of Levitical Law, but for some reason the formatting is wacky this a.m. (Probably a user/keyboard interface error... )

Let me once again illustrate with an analogy:

I live in Florida, and am therefore subject to the laws of the state of Florida and the USA. If I emigrate to (say) Germany and there become a naturalized citizen, no longer am I subject to the laws of either the State of Florida nor the USA. I am now subject to the laws of the country in which I reside.

In much the same way the Christian (I'll focus on the Christian, although the Levitical Law was never binding upon the Gentile anyway) has found a new citizenship and is no longer bound to the Levitical Law given on Sinai. We have been relieved of the Ceremonial Laws of Worship, Diet, etc.

Of course the red herring that is always offered is along the lines of: "Well, if the Ten Commandments no longer apply (it's always the 10 Commandments, isn't it? ) then it's ok to murder, right?"

The answer is a resounding "NO!" Murder is illegal in Florida; murder is illegal in Germany (for purposes of the illustration).

This falls under what I call "The higher moral law of God" for lack of a better term. This is something which is transcendent. I feel that (with the rare exception of the true sociopath) that everyone is born with an innate sense of right and wrong.

Paul wrote of this in Romans 2:14-15.

So then the question arises: What is the purpose of the (Levitical) Law?

I think that we need to understand that the Law was given to God's people (the Jews) in order to illustrate the fact that God's standard is absolute perfection (365 "thou shalt nots" 248 "thou must do's" and a penalty for each); and to demonstrate to them (and us) that we can never attain that standard by our own devices. We need then a savior, an intercessor, one who can plead our case before God on our behalf. This is of course Jesus Christ.

What we have then is not a contradiction, but rather a gross misapplication and understanding of the purpose of the law. Galatians 3:24-25 here.

Moving on in the next post.

 

[mcgyver]

John 7:24 is the epitome of weasel words used by scurrilous people (not you) for hundreds of years. According to most interpretations it means, ‘ignore the letter of the law and decide for yourself what is right and wrong’. It allows people to make their own mind up about right and wrong. Whether that was what John had in mind or what Jesus had in mind we will never know but it is often used to ‘escape’ from some of the ‘nonsense’ elements in the Bible – such as killing people for working on the Sabbath.

You're right...another case of people attempting to justify their own actions in their own eyes. But I would submit that simply because there have been people who have wantonly abused this in no way detracts from the underlying principle involved as I will attempt to show after your next quote

Hmmm. John 7:24 again lets us make a righteous judgement so there is a vague area here. One person may read the Bible precisely and 'read' that something is a sin but another, wiser person may make a righteous judgement and realize that it is not a sin. That second person is more likely following the actual teachings of Jesus far more closely and, back to the OP, is likely to be seen as a more loving, more caring person.

Once again this comes full circle to the question: "Is (fill in the blank) really sinful?"

I'm a Baptist, and I remember when many Baptist churches taught that dancing was sinful, playing cards was sinful, having a beer was sinful, women wearing dresses with a hem above the ankle was sinful...and the litany goes on.

Where the church universal has run into problems is that so many times we have fallen into the same condemnation suffered by the Pharisees: "Teaching as commandments of God the traditions of men". Tradition and denominational doctrine trumping what is taught in the scripture. :o

So it goes.... We must insure that if we are going to say that something is sinful, then in "judging with a righteous judgment" we must make sure that it is God who declares such action sinful.

The other dynamic involved in reference to the OP is this:

I am assuming that the woman in question is a member of the church. Not knowing the denomination, I don't know their requirement for membership.

However I can say that by definition, the church is the body of Christ and therefore only a Christian (born-again, bought by the blood) can be a member of the church according to the scripture.

Therefore as a member of the church, if one is in commission of any sexual immorality (or any sin for that matter); it must lovingly be dealt with. "Shall we continue in sin that Grace may abound? Certainly not."

Matthew 18:15-17 and Galatians 6:1 are two passages that tell us how to deal with a sinning brother (or sister in this case).

Although Christians sin, for the Christian sin should be the exception rather than the rule...something we fall into and not something we wholeheartedly embrace.

So then, is (in this case) homosexuality a sin? According to the word of God (New Testament) any sexual immorality (to include homosexuality) is sin. Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10, et al.

By John 7:24, Galatians 6:1, and Matthew 18 we can then say: "Dear sister, you are sinning against God in this matter and you need to repent of it" and be sure that we're not just saying it's sin because we don't like it.

This is where it all ties together.

Sorry this has been so long but you raised some really interesting issues .

You ought to see me get on a roll... :toofunny

(Oh, wait a minute...you just did... )

 

[Aardverk]

You're right...another case of people attempting to justify their own actions in their own eyes........... Once again this comes full circle to the question: "Is (fill in the blank) really sinful?"

I'm a Baptist, and I remember when many Baptist churches taught that dancing was sinful, playing cards was sinful, having a beer was sinful, women wearing dresses with a hem above the ankle was sinful...and the litany goes on.

Where the church universal has run into problems is that so many times we have fallen into the same condemnation suffered by the Pharisees: "Teaching as commandments of God the traditions of men". Tradition and denominational doctrine trumping what is taught in the scripture. :o

So it goes.... We must insure that if we are going to say that something is sinful, then in "judging with a righteous judgment" we must make sure that it is God who declares such action sinful.

A similar story - I was brought up a Catholic and again, some things were (are?) regarded as sins that you probably do not:

Your reference to Matthew 15:9 pretty well summarizes my lack of confidence in the Bible. The men who wrote it did so for their own ends. I see little evidence for the hand of God and much evidence of male bias and clerical bias plus compromise imposed by Constantine. God would have done a better job, I feel sure of that. The factions are far more numerous now than before it was written.

Going back to your previous post, I do understand the notion of a 'New Covenant ushered in by the arrival of Christ' but I don't see the supporting words anywhere, rather the opposite. I fear that is just men's wishes again and a way of circumventing some of the difficulties presented by the clear words in the Bible.

I am similarly disturbed by the notion that the Jews were God's chosen people and indeed the current claim that Christians are now God's chosen people. Muslims of course make exactly the same claim, as have the leaders of just about every religion ever invented. Should we really believe any of those claims without any evidence? I find it difficult to imagine God creating a world full of people and then saying to himself, 'I think I will ignore 99% of them and concentrate just on the Jews, they're my favorites - no, hang on, I prefer the Christians now, no, wait, let me think about this, I just want to give a few more people dreams and visions.....'. It just doesn't sound plausible does it?

I don't want to believe in a fickle God but on the other hand, that could explain the mosquitoes and disease etc ;).

Anyway, thanks for your kind words, I share your sentiments. Good to have met you.

 

[Igloo]

Blind post: I think a significant reason we see so much "cold-shoulder" Christianity is largely in part because people do not understand God's love and grace. We have a bunch of Christians or church-goers that are trying to live up to God's law, and they are afraid of what could happen if they violate God's law, and they at least partially judge their worth according to how well they are living up to God's law. With this, they also judge other Christians' worth/s according to how well those Christians live up to God's law. This creates a judgemental society, where if you are sinning, other Christians will look down on you. And if they try to correct you and you don't immediately repent, they step away from you a bit because they are afraid they might get sucked into the "sin" (whether it is one or not) that are you committing. As well, these same Christians don't tend to have many non-Christian friends (at least the Christians who are more serious about their faith), because they are afraid these non-Christians could suck them into sinful behaviors. If these Christians knew God's love, they would realize that it isn't their job to be other people's critics, and that it is typically love that brings people out of sins, not cutting people off.

As for non-Christians being more caring- they don't have a law to worry about living up to. Nobody is waving Hell in their faces for lack of obedience (I'm not saying God does that, but people do it to themselves, as does the devil). So the non-Christians are able to not be hindered as much in their caring toward other people, as well as in their choosing of who they will care for. I'm not saying Christians can't love like that, as they can; I'm just saying why many Christians don't.

 

[Hammer]

Non-Christians are a hundred times more uncaring than are Christians. I just read over at Fox News that actress Stacey Dash has been receiving hate email/tweets, including death threats, since announcing her support for Romney. Chick-fil-A caved and stopped supporting pro-family groups because in spite of increased Christian support, vicious tactics from homosexual activists were too costly.

Fred Phelps openly hates homosexuals, or does he? I'm certain that he's a liberal activist, a false-flag operator, intending to make Christians look bad. (Protesting at the funerals of heterosexual soldiers in a military that didn't allow homosexuals to serve openly. Think about it.) In any case, he doesn't represent how the vast majority of Christians respond to homosexuals. But, look at how homosexuals treat Christians! With extreme viciousness and intolerance.

 

[Aardverk]

Blind post: I think a significant reason we see so much "cold-shoulder" Christianity is largely in part because people do not understand God's love and grace. We have a bunch of Christians or church-goers that are trying to live up to God's law, and they are afraid of what could happen if they violate God's law, and they at least partially judge their worth according to how well they are living up to God's law. With this, they also judge other Christians' worth/s according to how well those Christians live up to God's law. This creates a judgemental society, where if you are sinning, other Christians will look down on you. And if they try to correct you and you don't immediately repent, they step away from you a bit because they are afraid they might get sucked into the "sin" (whether it is one or not) that are you committing. As well, these same Christians don't tend to have many non-Christian friends (at least the Christians who are more serious about their faith), because they are afraid these non-Christians could suck them into sinful behaviors. If these Christians knew God's love, they would realize that it isn't their job to be other people's critics, and that it is typically love that brings people out of sins, not cutting people off.

As for non-Christians being more caring- they don't have a law to worry about living up to. Nobody is waving Hell in their faces for lack of obedience (I'm not saying God does that, but people do it to themselves, as does the devil). So the non-Christians are able to not be hindered as much in their caring toward other people, as well as in their choosing of who they will care for. I'm not saying Christians can't love like that, as they can; I'm just saying why many Christians don't.

Well said! You have accurately described a very common problem.

The people on the 'receiving end' of that problem are the ones who are driven away from Christianity - and that is very sad

 

[Aardverk]

Non-Christians are a hundred times more uncaring than are Christians. I just read over at Fox News that actress Stacey Dash has been receiving hate email/tweets, including death threats, since announcing her support for Romney. Chick-fil-A caved and stopped supporting pro-family groups because in spite of increased Christian support, vicious tactics from homosexual activists were too costly.

Fred Phelps openly hates homosexuals, or does he? I'm certain that he's a liberal activist, a false-flag operator, intending to make Christians look bad. (Protesting at the funerals of heterosexual soldiers in a military that didn't allow homosexuals to serve openly. Think about it.) In any case, he doesn't represent how the vast majority of Christians respond to homosexuals. But, look at how homosexuals treat Christians! With extreme viciousness and intolerance.

Perhaps just a little biased?




ed! Is this guy for real?

 

[reba]

These are Christian forums i would hope the Christians showed bias to our Scriptures

 

[Atonement]

These are Christian forums i would hope the Christians showed bias to our Scriptures

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Take Chick-fil-A. The offense to homosexual activists of the company is the beliefs of the CEO, not any practices of the restaurant. Yet, for that pro-family belief, homosexual activists committed vandalism and public indecency at Check-fil-A restaurants. Homosexual activists launched a campaign to disrupt service (clogging the drive through line at the lunch hour by ordering just free water). Homosexual activists launched boycotts against companies that did business with Chick-fil-A. Some Liberal politicians even said they'd block Chick-fil-A from opening up restaurants.

In reply to myself pointing out the nature of tactics of homosexuals activists, one of them decided to mock my post, without any intent or effort to say anything constructive. Those people are so intolerant, when they have no good reason to object to people having good values, in the first place.

Bravo!


It does amaze me how those who are offended by the gospel seem to feel zero obligation to not be as offensive, and much more, than what they perceive the gospel, and Christians standing up for the gospel, to be to them. Simply amazing.

But that is where the road clearly ends for all to plainly see on this ridiculous notion that unbelievers and atheists are somehow better and more righteous than the actual people of God themselves. It has become very plain to me over the years that unbelievers and atheists seem good because they, like all 'natural' unsaved people, keep their lives comfortable and in control by the sin they resort to to do that. But the Christian is almost constantly being buffeted and tempted to lash out because they are trying very hard not to get out of difficulties the way the world does, and how they used to get out of them to stay happy--by sinning.

It's not an excuse for the bad behavior of Christians, but it does help explain the reason that true Christians can lash out when they are being buffeted by life. It goes back to the truth that God is discipling his children to walk between the lines, while the world, since they don't belong to him, are not being subjected to the narrow lines of controlled living God expects of his children.

Like I said, it's all about perspective. The Christian violates the straight and narrow, but repents and is made a little better. The non-Christian makes his own rules, violates God's sense of right and wrong, and is no better for it, and is actually cementing their bondage to the wrong they commit. In the end, they will be rejected.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

These are Christian forums i would hope the Christians showed bias to our Scriptures

Yes. Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Aardverk]

These are Christian forums i would hope the Christians showed bias to our Scriptures

I have no problem with that Reba. I see nothing about Scripture in that statement though, just hate.

 

[Aardverk]

...........In reply to myself pointing out the nature of tactics of homosexuals activists, one of them decided to mock my post, without any intent or effort to say anything constructive........

Assuming this is targeted at me, I do owe you an apology Hammer. I have been away and was not aware of the Chick-fil-A disruption so I did not fully understand your point. Sorry.

As for the rest, you are of course entitled to your opinion. I'm sure you will understand that some of us dislike intolerance and discrimination. Re-read your post and see if you think it was factual or biased.

By the way, I am not homosexual nor an activist but I guess you deserve that cheap shot. Actually, on second thoughts you don't. It is a perfect example of the bias and half-truth that you displayed earlier. Critical, inaccurate and you obviously couldn't care less about either. Exactly what this thread is about.

If your post was not directed at me, I will happily withdraw this post

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Judging the non-believer is not a purview of the Christian, therefore criticism of the non-believer for his/her viewpoint is counterproductive and a waste of effort. We as Christians are not assigned the task of judging the world. We are assigned the task of winning the world to Christ. Christians who choose to "hate" -- I use the term as the non-believers and the LGBT alliance use it -- by judging are doing nothing to win souls, and in fact are driving souls away from God.

If we want to truly make a difference in this world, we as Christians must love as Christ loves. That does not entail condemning sinners. It entails loving them where they are at, just as Jesus did.

Respectfully I say, if you want to condemn others rather than love them, stay out of the discussion. You are not doing anyone any favors and you certainly are not showing the love of your Savior.

 

[Aardverk]

........It's not an excuse for the bad behavior of Christians, but it does help explain the reason that true Christians can lash out when they are being buffeted by life. ...............

I hope we would agree that there is never an excuse for 'bad behavior', whatever we may agree that is. 'Bad behavior' is exhibited by all of us and none of us should be excused for it, hopefully though, other people may understand the reason for our failings and forgive us. That is where unbelievers have a natural 'advantage' in appearing more caring.

Sometimes when someone lashes out, the reason is not at all clear. The trigger for the 'bad behavior' may be something quite trivial to us but it may be the straw that broke the camel's back. That annoying homosexual that may be making a nuisance of himself may have suffered intolerance and insult for weeks, months or years more likely, he may just have been pushed over the edge by something trivial and provoked into 'bad behavior'. I feel that we should all try to understand that in everyone - without exception, be they Christian, Muslim, or unbeliever. Homosexual or heterosexual.

The biggest problem we have is agreeing what 'bad behavior' is. The Law of the Land seems to be a good starting point as that SHOULD be impartial. Once people stray away from impartiality, we have several names for those people; none of them liked by religious people. If I, or anyone else, should use one of those words, it should be understood as part of the English language, not as an insult. If I wish to insult someone, I will make that pretty clear ;)

So - tolerance, love and understanding are good things. Yes? Bias and bigotry are bad. Yes? I'm sure we agree; so how do we live up to it and make it clear to others that we do? That is, I believe, at the root of the OP.