Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.

by JonathanH 41 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  NewChapter

  Tec, we have been through this before---okay, so you have a certain view of Jesus, and you live accordingly. That's fine. But there are other details about Jesus and his father that you simply dismiss or say we don't have proper understanding, or it has been tainted in some way. That's fine too. And still, it is subjective. Another person reading the exact same scriptures as you can come to a very different conclusion. there is no need to be saying they aren't really Chrisitians!

  And in the law----if there is a dispute it can be brought to court. A judge is meant to sort it out----and the fact remains that YOU could be just as wrong as THEM----and no one will know until a ruling has come.

  If I see a person that preaches from the bible, quotes scriptures, supports their teachings with those scriptures, attends a church or does some form of worship, recognizes Jesus---then they are a Chrisitan. Period. Nobody likes their crazy aunts and uncles, but they don't get to say they aren't REALLY family.

  It's a cop out. I don't like how they act, even though they base their understanding on the teachings of Christ, therefore they aren't really Christians.

  NC
• 

  tec

  Okay, what if you had a feminist group that went around slaughtering men, or calling for the slaughter, or laughing at their pain, or calling for their submission? Their reasoning: they don't think that equality between men and women can ever be accomplished until men are subjugated as women once were, so that there is true understanding on both sides. Then both will be equal in their wrongdoing, and their fighting for their rights, and their understanding. So this group goes out and some kill, and others threaten, and others subjugate.

  Would you, as a feminist (I assume you are one if you want equality between men and women) separate yourself from that radical, fundamental group and call them out? Or support them in their cause?

  there is no need to be saying they aren't really Chrisitians!

  I agree and I can't say this because it is not my call to make. But I can say if someone is not following Christ and His teachings (even if it is just their actions that day), and I can question that person. We are supposed to think; to reason; to test.

  I can also say that someone who called for women to be burned at the stake and 'heretics' to be tortured and killed, did not have the spirit of Christ. I don't like to say it, because again, not my place. But if that person stated that Christ/God told them to do that... then I absolutely could and should call them out on it. (course, that would have gotten me burned at the stake too!)

  Paul and John both called people out as well. Rejecting false apostles/teachings was praised in the book of Revelations as well.

  Tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  Okay, what if you had a feminist group that went around slaughtering men, or calling for the slaughter, or laughing at their pain, or calling for their submission?

  Naturally I would separate myself from them----however they would still be feminists. I don't have to agree with their methods, and I can think of them as not only feminists, but also as murderers. I don't get to simply say "oh, they are really feminists, cuz they don't do things the way I would do them!"

  Yes I would call them out. We would all point out how they aren't helping the cause. But I would remain a feminist.

  This is my point. When a Christian does something distastful---other Christians tend to not talk about how they disagree with that person, but to state, decidedly that they simply aren't really Christians.

  JW's---oh, they aren't really Christian, cuz they don't do it my way. Yet they look to Jesus as their savior--and perhaps they don't have that one on one relationship that "REAL" Christians claim is necessary, but they view him as an exemplar and the son of god.

  The Crazy Baptists at Westboro---OH they aren't REALLY Chrisitans! Untrue. They are simply stressing the judgement portion of the bible, and other Chrisitans may find that distasteful, but they certainly don't get to push them out of the Christian fold. The way they are acting is just as in line with bible teaching as the way others act---they have chosen their emphasis.

  Jesus turned over tables and drove livestock out of the Temple. If someone pulled this move today, the first thing all the 'real' Christians would say would be 'Oh, he's not a "REAL" Christian.

  NC
• 

  oldflame

  Not all of us !
• 

  NewChapter

  I know Flame. The conversation started out about a certain type of Christian, and that is who I was addressing. I think the context made it clear---there are many Christians who accuse others of not being 'real' Christians when their behavior displeases them.

  NC
• 

  InterestedOne

  Searril - To summarize before I ask you a question, the OP makes a distinction between two types of warnings, and the distinction hinges on whether or not the messenger supports the threatener's actions. It is one thing to warn someone of a pending action that you -do not- support. It is quite another thing to warn someone of a pending action that you -do- support. When you support the threat contained in the message, the listener naturally feels threatened. If "threat" is not exactly the correct word for the second type of warning because the messenger isn't the one who will execute the action, do you have a better word that conveys the distinction?
• 

  Searril

  I am a pacifist. My interpretation of pacifism tells me it is right for me to go around blowing people's head's off with my shotgun.

  Do you believe I am a pacifist?
• 

  Searril

  It is one thing to warn someone of a pending action that you -do not- support. It is quite another thing to warn someone of a pending action that you -do- support. When you support the threat contained in the message, the listener naturally feels threatened. If "threat" is not exactly the correct word for the second type of warning because the messenger isn't the one who will execute the action, do you have a better word that conveys the distinction?

  I have not given any thought to what word, other than "warning", that would be appropriate under scenario #2 in your example. It seems to me that the word "warning" suffices perfectly.

  If I pull out the state's law books and turn to the statute that details the definition of murder and the punishment of such action, and then I read it to you, am I threatening you or am I informing you of what the law says may happen to you if you engage in the aforementioned crime? It cannot be a threat as I am not a police officer and I have no power nor authority to force the court to give you any sentence that is not handed down by a judge who is completely separate from me.

  We can make analogies back and forth until the cows come home, but in the end I have zero power over anyone, and zero influence with those who do have power, so I cannot issue threats toward any person, nor do I wish to. I have enough to worry about keeping my own self in order without being concerned about leveling threats against someone else's behavior.

  God will never ask my advice on what should be permitted, and if He ever were to do so He would undoubtedly disagree with me on my judgments. But Jesus says He requires mercy, not sacrafice, and I take Him at His word that He will be understanding toward my frailty.
• 

  tec

  When a Christian does something distastful---other Christians tend to not talk about how they disagree with that person, but to state, decidedly that they simply aren't really Christians.

  I can't speak for others... but I talk about the specific way in which I disagree with that person (or group), and why. I do plenty wrong myself, and so I would prefer someone do the same if they disagreed with me. Even though I have been told that I am not a real christian, myself... by other 'christians' and by atheists who think I'm doing christianity wrong. (like that makes any sense to me, lol)

  In any case, we don't get to decide who is or is not christian... including ourselves. We get to decide to follow Christ or not, and if we want to belong to Him and give ourselves to Him... but my understanding is that He decides who ACTUALLY does belong to Him.

  I do know that a disciple of Christ follows Christ. It does not matter what our interpretations are. It does matter that we follow his commands. Some of those are very black and white, with no interpretation necessary. We tend to throw interpretation around when we want to find a loophole and do what WE want to do, regardless of what Christ might have asked of us.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  Do you believe I am a pacifist?

  Paciifism has a very strong, objective definition. Christianity is subjective, and Christians contradict each other all the time. They are all working from a book full of such contradictions, and are free to read much into it. There simply is no firm definition. I suppose that is why there is no one single church---proof that christians all do things differently. If there were such a thing as a definition for christianity, they would all go to the same church.

  Now those churches may look at each other and decide, well THEY aren't really Chrisitian because they: go to war, wear makeup and jewelry, allow abortions, gamble, smoke, drink, celebrate Halloween etc.

  Just squabbling among themselves really. Many Evangelicals don't think that Catholics are really Christians. When I went to a Catholic school, the students would as each other "are you Christian" and they meant, are you Catholic, because those two terms were conflated in their minds.

  You give me a neutral defintion of Christianity that is not corrupted by your own subjective ideas, and the maybe you can use the christian/pacifism comparison.

  Definitions of 'Christianity' [-chee-an-i-tee] Dictionary.com - (Showing 1 definitions) (noun) 1. the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ

  And since you all can't agree on what those teachings are, you're gonna have to accept that you have your own loons.

  NC