Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Trolling Tide Turning? God-people trolling
Options
Comments
-
Not at all. I don't see anything in Gospels or the writings of the Apostles that would encourage this. That's why I argue against it. It's fundamentally at odds with the way that Christians who have been saved by grace are meant to behave Biblically:James 2:8-13 wrote:But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
Or indeed, Jesus in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant makes much the same point.
Christianity has remained the same. I think what's happened in this case, and in Medieval Europe was that political power went to a lot of peoples heads. It's a reason why I promote Christianity as a grass-roots movement engaging with society from the ground up rather than a coercive pseudo-Christianity being forced in from the top down.
Sarky: I say Christianity is growing worldwide because it is approximately to 15,000 adherents on a daily basis according to Wikipedia. I've answered the question loud and clear about Uganda. I think that Christians can often get the wrong ideas, and become horribly judgemental just like the Pharisees that Jesus criticised in his place and time. It's going horribly wrong when people are killing in the name of Jesus, yes, absolutely. On the other hand, I think there are plenty of other Christians who are showing the full Gospel of grace in the world. Far more than those who are distorting the Gospel thankfully.0 -
philologos wrote: »You've repeatedly ignored my posts now. It's not just a little bit frustrating.
I don't believe that those actions are the consequences of Christianity. Such behaviour isn't consistent with Jesus' teaching and example.
It's pretty much the same reason I won't expect you to defend Mao, Stalin or Hoxha despite the fact that they all were atheists.
It could be argued that the actions of Mao or Stalin are contrary to the principles of Communism, which was supposed to improve the lives of all.
But it would be incredibly naive for someone to suggestion that Communism doesn't inevitably lead to actions like Mao or Stalin. Thus Communism as a principle must take some of the blame for these actions. Simply putting in a "improve the lives of all" clause doesn't excuse it.
Or to put it another way, they idea that you would create a society with centralised power and unquestioning devotion to the ideals of the system and then also say "Oh and make sure everything goes well and no one gets hurt" is ridiculous. Saying that Communism doesn't lead to Mao or Stalin because well sure didn't it state you shouldn't do this is grossly naive.
Same is true of Christianity. Saying that toleration of sinful behaviour leads to the corruption of those around you, and that Christians should shun and isolate those who continue to sin, but then saying that this won't lead to bad things because sure didn't Jesus also say be kind to everyone, is equally grossly naive.
In fact this doctrine shares many parallels with Communism, the idea of the rot in society corrupting others around it. Throughout history such notions have been used to justify isolating (sometimes violently) those who are considered to be corrupting society.0 -
The simple criteria I have for determining what is compatible with Christianity and what is not compatible with Christianity is really simple. Does it follow on from the logical consequence of Jesus' existence on the earth and what He achieved for mankind?
Killing people doesn't amount to being "devoted" to Christianity, as the logical consequence of Jesus coming into the world to save us isn't to kill people or to discriminate against them.
Simply put, Christianity doesn't encourage killing those in civil society for disobeying Christianity. In fact Paul himself distinguishes between civil society and the Christian church in 1 Corinthians 5 - 6. There is a difference between laws decreed by civil society (the world), and the law of God which is decreed by God. In fact it doesn't encourage lawsuits between believers either, these should be sorted out through the church - the universal body of Christ.
You've misinterpreted what Paul is actually saying I feel.0 -
philologos wrote: »Not at all. I don't see anything in Gospels or the writings of the Apostles that would encourage this. That's why I argue against it. It's fundamentally at odds with the way that Christians who have been saved by grace are meant to behave Biblically:
So the first 1900 odd years of Christianity have been wrong, and it's only now that its "true" meaning has been discovered, a meaning that coincidentally has its roots in non Christian inspired thinking and morals, that has been adopted by civilized society in general to such an extent that even Christians now have to accept it - but let me understand you correctly here - it's what Christians should have been doing all along and it's right there in the bible?0 -
The first 1900 years? Where are you pulling that figure out of?
I'd suggest a starting point of Constantine's legalisation of Christianity in Rome, and the power-trip that went to peoples heads during that time. The first century Christian community was a grass-roots one. That's the way Christianity was meant to be. It should have stayed working from the ground up rather than from the top down.
Also, I would point out that even if some people were using Christianity as a state-tool, there were Christians in society trying to earnestly live out their faith nonetheless. Other factors such as the lack of a Biblical text in the vernacular were problematic. It meant you had to listen to everything out of the priest rather than from the Bible. That was probably one of the major flaws as far as I see it of the RCC prior to the Reformation.
My thinking doesn't have its roots in non-Christian thinking, it has its roots in the New Testament. So, I'm going to count that as nonsense. Find me a single passage in the Apostles letters or in the Gospels that talks about Christians ruling over society?0 -
Advertisement
-
philologos wrote: »The simple criteria I have for determining what is compatible with Christianity and what is not compatible with Christianity is really simple. Does it follow on from the logical consequence of Jesus' existence on the earth and what He achieved for mankind?
Killing people doesn't amount to being "devoted" to Christianity, as the logical consequence of Jesus coming into the world to save us isn't to kill people or to discriminate against them.
Simply put, Christianity doesn't encourage killing those in civil society for disobeying Christianity. In fact Paul himself distinguishes between civil society and the Christian church in 1 Corinthians 5 - 6. There is a difference between laws decreed by civil society (the world), and the law of God which is decreed by God. In fact it doesn't encourage lawsuits between believers either, these should be sorted out through the church - the universal body of Christ.
You've misinterpreted what Paul is actually saying I feel.
Correct me if I am wrong then , but what you are saying is that this is what amounts to your own personal code as taken from the gospel ?
anything that is wrong is just that person was not abiding by the gospel .
But what if his reading is different than yours ? or can it be different ?0 -
philologos wrote: »Simply put, Christianity doesn't encourage killing those in civil society for disobeying Christianity. In fact Paul himself distinguishes between civil society and the Christian church in 1 Corinthians 5 - 6. There is a difference between laws decreed by civil society (the world), and the law of God which is decreed by God. In fact it doesn't encourage lawsuits between believers either, these should be sorted out through the church - the universal body of Christ.
You've misinterpreted what Paul is actually saying I feel.
Well again as I said I don't think Paul was saying you should kill sinners either. He was saying you should disassociate from them.
The problem is that when Paul said this Christianity was tiny and he seemed to believed the end times were near. The instructions were to make the tiny groups insular and avoid exposure to the outside lest it corrupt, and to expel unrepretant sinners from the group back into the outside world.
These instructions becoming increasingly difficult to manage as the size of the Christian population grows. When you have a whole town or city or even country that is Christian how do you shun sinners in order to stop their sin from corrupting others.
It is easy to see how people, taken up with the panic that their loved ones, their sons and daughters, would be corrupted by sinful behaviour of others leading to eternity in hell, would take extreme measures to remove the rot from the society.
I don't think that is what Paul envisioned, any more than Lenin envisioned Stalin when he was coming up with the Russian version of Communism. But that is a consequence of the ideas put forward.0 -
-
-
Zombrex: In terms of people within the church that's the case, he supported letting people go in order that they might see their mistake more clearly and return in the process. In terms of people outside Paul supported evangelism.It is easy to see how people, taken up with the panic that their loved ones, their sons and daughters, would be corrupted by sinful behaviour of others leading to eternity in hell, would take extreme measures to remove the rot from the society.
This isn't based in Christianity though. It would be a distortion as far as I can tell, and I think you've implied this too in the first line of your post.0 -
Advertisement
-
philologos wrote: »Zombrex: In terms of people within the church that's the case, he supported letting people go in order that they might see their mistake more clearly and return in the process. In terms of people outside Paul supported evangelism.
Again Phil you are some what missing the point.
When you live say England and the entire town is Christian, or heck even the entire county, where to you let the unrepentant sinners "go" to.
In Pauls time the Christian communities were tiny cult like cells. If you kicked someone out they just went back to ordinary life because ordinary life was not a Christian community.
This becomes impossible when everyone is Christian. You can't just let people back into their ordinary life because they were already in their ordinary life.philologos wrote: »This isn't based in Christianity though. It would be a distortion as far as I can tell, and I think you've implied this too in the first line of your post.
It is not Christianity as Paul envisioned it, but then none of you are living Christianity as Paul envisioned it. You are all supposed to be in heaven by now. Christianity was supposed to be tiny and it wasn't really supposed to get any bigger. But then the apocalypse never happened and it grew.
It is Christianity applied to not to 1st century cells but rather Christianity applied to towns, cities and countries.
Christianity is responsible for the notion that presence of sinners corrupts those around them to sin and that the unrepentant sinners and the saved must be excluded from one another.0 -
Zombrex: Simply put, that one would encourage them to repent before being involved in the church community. Death isn't the option.
If it isn't Christianity as is Biblical - then I'm satisfied with that conclusion. It also doesn't fit the guidelines that Jesus set out in the Gospels for church discipline.
Christianity believes that sin is undesirable, and that people should turn away from it and live for Christ. Christianity applied to towns, cities, and countries in a grass-roots movement still wouldn't involve the type of behaviour you described. It's inconsistent with what Jesus has commanded, this is why I refer to that kind of behaviour as Pharasaic.
Christianity doesn't encourage the notion that unrepentant sinners should be separated, but rather they should be encouraged to come to Christ in whatever way possible.0 -
philologos wrote: »Zombrex: Simply put, that one would encourage them to repent before being involved in the church community. Death isn't the option.
We are talking about unrepentant sinners. What, to your mind, is the correct way to interpret Paul's instructions to remove them from the church community when the church community is the entire community?
(and again I'm not saying that either Jesus nor Paul thought killing someone was the correct thing to do)philologos wrote: »Christianity believes that sin is undesirable, and that people should turn away from it and live for Christ. Christianity applied to towns, cities, and countries in a grass-roots movement still wouldn't involve the type of behaviour you described. It's inconsistent with what Jesus has commanded, this is why I refer to that kind of behaviour as Pharasaic.
What would it involve. How does one remove sinners from the church when the church is the entire country?philologos wrote: »Christianity doesn't encourage the notion that unrepentant sinners should be separated, but rather they should be encouraged to come to Christ in whatever way possible.
No actually it encourages the notion that unrepentant sinners should be separated. In Paul's time thought his meant simply removing them from the church group back into society and disassociating from them (similar to how Jesus says if your brother does not repent treat him as a Gentile or tax collector)0 -
People should be entitled to leave any church community freely. Nowhere in the New Testament does it speak about forcing people to become Christian by coercion. Unfortunately that was a later introduction by the political elite in Europe.
What would it involve to allow someone to leave a church? Just allow them to live contrary to the Gospel should they desire to, but stress the threat to their salvation and the necessity of repentance. If people are living in clear rejection of the Gospel, they've decided to reject Christianity.
It encourages that unrepentant sinners should be encouraged to repent or no longer take part in the church community. It doesn't say a pick about civil society.
As for treating people like Gentiles and tax collectors, it's interesting when you actually think about how Jesus actually treated Gentiles (John 4) and tax collectors (Mark 3).0 -
philologos wrote: »People should be entitled to leave any church community freely. Nowhere in the New Testament does it speak about forcing people to become Christian by coercion.
I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you simply don't get the point.
No one is talking about forcing people to become Christians by coercion. We are talking about expelling people from Christian communities when the Christian community is huge and takes up most of the country. This involves remove people from their homes and areas and forcing them to leave, or another method is imprisonment where they cannot influence others.philologos wrote: »What would it involve to allow someone to leave a church? Just allow them to live contrary to the Gospel should they desire to, but stress the threat to their salvation and the necessity of repentance.
And how does one do that when they cannot interact with anyone else?philologos wrote: »It encourages that unrepentant sinners should be encouraged to repent or no longer take part in the church community. It doesn't say a pick about civil society.
If everyone is a Christian then church and civil society are the same things.0 -
You're being ridiculous now. Church community is the Christian community that meets together on a regular basis in order to encourage eachother in the Gospel and to focus on living for Jesus on a daily basis.
If you seriously think that the Christian attitude to other people should be to remove them from their homes that's nuts really considering that Jesus commanded people to love their enemies and to pray for those who persecuted them. What's loving about throwing someone out of their house.
How do they do that? - Stress it before anyone leaves the church and stress that they desire them to come back and to know Christ.
It's nonsense to say that church and civil society are the same thing even in the case of 100% Christian population. People may go to church, but it doesn't give them the right to tell people to leave their homes. The point of the choice between repentance or leaving the church is ultimately to bring people back to the church, it's not to malign anyone to the degree that has happened in Uganda.0 -
philologos wrote: »You're being ridiculous now. Church community is the Christian community that meets together on a regular basis in order to encourage eachother in the Gospel and to focus on living for Jesus on a daily basis.
Yes and throughout history this has often included the entire community. In fact in America there are still towns where everyone goes to the one large church.
What is loving about treating an unrepentant sinner as a Gentile or tax collector?philologos wrote: »If you seriously think that the Christian attitude to other people should be to remove them from their homes that's nuts really considering that Jesus commanded people to love their enemies and to pray for those who persecuted them. What's loving about throwing someone out of their house.
This isn't about treating the unrepentant nice, it is about protecting the salvation of those left in the community.philologos wrote: »How do they do that? - Stress it before anyone leaves the church and stress that they desire them to come back and to know Christ.
And when you daughter meets them in the street? When your son is in school with them? When you wife meets them in the super market?
You seem to be confusing the church the building with the church the community. Paul did not simply say don't let them in the church building.
When Paul describes to the Corintinans not to associate with the sinful he is not simply saying don't let them into your church building.
1 Corinthians 5
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d]
Notice how at first Paul says it is impractical to simply not associate with the sinful but then, out of desperation one imagines, takes a much harsher tone calling on them to expel the wicked person from among you.
How do you expel a sinner from a community when the entire town or county is the community.0 -
Yes and throughout history this has often included the entire community. In fact in America there are still towns where everyone goes to the one large church.
civil governance != church.What is loving about treating an unrepentant sinner as a Gentile or tax collector?
Leave people who clearly don't want to be Christians outside of the church until they repent?
As I pointed out, how are Christians meant to treat Gentiles and tax-collectors?As for treating people like Gentiles and tax collectors, it's interesting when you actually think about how Jesus actually treated Gentiles (John 4) and tax collectors (Mark 3).This isn't about treating the unrepentant nice, it is about protecting the salvation of those left in the community.
Nonsense, Paul himself talks about letting people to their own way so that they might return.1 Timothy 1:18-20 wrote:By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.When Paul describes to the Corintinans not to associate with the sinful he is not simply saying don't let them into your church building.
You'd do well to focus on verses 11-13:11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
Read 11 and 12 again.How do you expel a sinner from a community when the entire town or county is the community.
Paul answers that much. Let them go their own way, but tell them that if they are to do so they can't be considered a part of the Christian church.0
Advertisement