Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In short, when it comes to people, or doctrines and practices held by other groups, how do you decide where the line is for you between "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "all that is needed for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."?
For me, I ask myself two questions.
1. Are people besides those actively and freely engaging in this being hurt by it?
2. Are the fundamental human and civil rights of those who are not freely choosing to engage in this (whatever this is) being violated in some way?
If the answer to either of these is yes, then I speak out, then I try to do something about it, but if the answer on both counts is no and I just find it odd, it's not my place to interfere
In short, when it comes to people, or doctrines and practices held by other groups, how do you decide where the line is for you between "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "all that is needed for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."?
For me, I ask myself two questions.
1. Are people besides those actively and freely engaging in this being hurt by it?
2. Are the fundamental human and civil rights of those who are not freely choosing to engage in this (whatever this is) being violated in some way?
If the answer to either of these is yes, then I speak out, then I try to do something about it, but if the answer on both counts is no and I just find it odd, it's not my place to interfere
A good direction is found here.
NIV 1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
NIV 1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
Why does scripture always rely on SHAMING, DEMEANING and other wise COERCING others to consider god-in-the-box?
Why does god FEAR questions and refuse inquiry?
Test all spririts to know where they come from...yet when we do we are supposded to feel ASHAMED??
In short, when it comes to people, or doctrines and practices held by other groups, how do you decide where the line is for you between "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "all that is needed for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."?
For me, I ask myself two questions.
1. Are people besides those actively and freely engaging in this being hurt by it?
2. Are the fundamental human and civil rights of those who are not freely choosing to engage in this (whatever this is) being violated in some way?
If the answer to either of these is yes, then I speak out, then I try to do something about it, but if the answer on both counts is no and I just find it odd, it's not my place to interfere
Why does scripture always rely on SHAMING, DEMEANING and other wise COERCING others to consider god-in-the-box?
Why does god FEAR questions and refuse inquiry?
Test all spirits to know where they come from...yet when we do we are supposed to feel ASHAMED??
It's an instinct geared to human approval - which, whether we admit it or not, is important to us. No matter how much we may think we don't care about human and social opinion, we take what others think of us as indicators or how we think about ourselves.
So, if we believe in a religion, then 1st Peter 3.15 enjoins us to explain and justify our beliefs and views.
If we find those beliefs and views do not stand up to scrutiny, then we have a choice. The instinctive one is to play the "I don't care what you say, I still think.." card and retreat, hurling abuse over the shoulder to a likeminded group who will help you to tell yourself you are really right. (1)
Or you can say '"Damn' I was wrong - sorry!" and change your views. It is not the obvious method, but it comes surprisingly easy once you get accustomed to it. And there is no shame in it.
And to get to the op. correct views and thinking is important if we are going to have a society where the Goldenrule based way of treating people is to prevail over the method of imposing this or that belief if only you can sign up enough members to roll over all the others.
(1) it's too much tempting to write a foopnote longer than the post, but the refusal to admit to being wrong because the arguments are either in the Bible or inspired direct from God and therefore cannot be wrong - and if they look wrong compared to reality, then reality must be wrong..is a whole nuther subject..
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-08-2015 at 06:37 AM..
Why does scripture always rely on SHAMING, DEMEANING and other wise COERCING others to consider god-in-the-box?
Why does god FEAR questions and refuse inquiry?
Test all spririts to know where they come from...yet when we do we are supposded to feel ASHAMED??
The quote refers to malicious slander. And shame on anyone who commits that against another.
It also instructs to always have an answer and to be gentle and respectful when answering. That's not fearing or refusing inquiry. Every book in the Bible tells us not to be afraid.
You are using the Bible to disprove the Bible and that isn't really going to work.
As far as the OP, I try to be equipped to respond but the best I can do is to relate how Christ changed my life. ALSO, there are other non-Christian groups that are very 'out there' in neighborhoods, gas pumps, etc, who would love to "enlighten you". I always speak with them about one thing. "Who do you say Jesus is?" Because that's the question He gave others. And He said He's God. Those more recent religions (Mormans and Jehovah's Witnesses) do not teach that Jesus is God. So is he a liar or a lunatic? Because if he's not God, Lord of creation, then he must be a liar or lunatic.
Lee Strobel did some great writing on proof. He's an investigative reporter who was agnostic until he decided to "prove" by investigating that his wife's new faith was false. Of course, like so many who seek the truth, he became a believer.
The quote refers to malicious slander. And shame on anyone who commits that against another.
It also instructs to always have an answer and to be gentle and respectful when answering. That's not fearing or refusing inquiry. Every book in the Bible tells us not to be afraid.
You are using the Bible to disprove the Bible and that isn't really going to work.
As far as the OP, I try to be equipped to respond but the best I can do is to relate how Christ changed my life. ALSO, there are other non-Christian groups that are very 'out there' in neighborhoods, gas pumps, etc, who would love to "enlighten you". I always speak with them about one thing. "Who do you say Jesus is?" Because that's the question He gave others. And He said He's God. Those more recent religions (Mormans and Jehovah's Witnesses) do not teach that Jesus is God. So is he a liar or a lunatic? Because if he's not God, Lord of creation, then he must be a liar or lunatic.
Lee Strobel did some great writing on proof. He's an investigative reporter who was agnostic until he decided to "prove" by investigating that his wife's new faith was false. Of course, like so many who seek the truth, he became a believer.
Seek and ye shall find.
Pre ps. of course you are rather talking about doctrinal wrangling with other Christian doctrines. I need not comment.
I'm afraid that none of that is going to work except on the unprepared (the preferred pray of the predatory evangelist) because any religion can make such a difference to your life. Atheism has made more of a difference to my life than I could have possibly imagined.
Lee Strobel is a terrible apologist. He only gets away with it because he catches people off balance. "..all I can say is that if you’re using Strobel as an outreach tool, you are going to get burned. Despite his protestations to the contrary, Strobel is simply not a reporter doing “interviews.” He’s a propagandist feeding leading questions to sympathetic supporters who are going to give Strobel the predetermined, agreed-upon-in-advance answers that he’s seeking. Maybe that’s useful if you want to “fire up the faithful,” but it isn’t going to convince a skeptic."
The verses I quoted speak of no demeaning, shaming or coercing.
It shows how Christians are to respond to even malicious attacks on their beliefs.
Now if someone speaks badly to another, either they are not really a Christian or they have a lot yet to learn about being one.
I think he did. "so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."
The implication - and you shouldn't need this pointed out - is shaming others and demeaning them using the coals of fire method. Coercing I concede is a strong word for the aspect of talking others into faith ( and what is the point of talking to people already there?).
The thing is that this entire programme recoils. it is the Christian apologist who gets confounded and who then has to cheat, evade and dissemble. And when that is shown up, they are made to look like a hog's brunch. except that they then grab their martyrs' hat and stalk out telling themselves how they'll get their full satisfaction watching their nemesis burn...
I think he did. "so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."
The implication - and you shouldn't need this pointed out - is shaming others and demeaning them using the coals of fire method. Coercing I concede is a strong word for the aspect of talking others into faith ( and what is the point of talking to people already there?).
The thing is that this entire programme recoils. it is the Christian apologist who gets confounded and who then has to cheat, evade and dissemble. And when that is shown up, they are made to look like a hog's brunch. except that they then grab their martyrs' hat and stalk out telling themselves how they'll get their full satisfaction watching their nemesis burn...
It appears you and others here have misunderstood the quoted passage. It's not the Christian who does the shaming, but rather the person's conscience, since they spoke maliciously about another person, in error.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I need not comment.
It should be "What do you say Jesus is?" Or rather "was".
