Can your bible make you into a bigot and a 'jerk'?

[MoreCoffee]

You have to admit, there can be an insinuation of it. May not be intentional, but people will quickly become defensive. Or as we have seen with some, aggressive =/

The original post would, in my opinion, only make a person who wants to mistreat others on the excuse that "the bible made me do it" feel accused.

 

[MoreCoffee]

We are in agreement on those who use Scripture to justify being cruel. Though I am wary of saying the Bible is what leads them to such acts. This is an individual problem, and we know ideology and prejudice is shaped by many factors. People will always treat others unfairly or cruelly, that's the downside of living in a fallen world. We cannot let the evil of some taint our view of the rest. Of course we have those who spew vitriol while themselves leading lives of iniquity; not hard to spot a hypocrite - don't let those hinder the unshakable truth that all true followers should know.

We are urged as Christians to instruct, reprove and help others. And I do believe as Christians it is imperative we keep to the Word of God. This being said, I do not force my beliefs on unbelievers, but will certainly voice to fellow brothers and sisters (in Christ) if in error. it is our responsibility to never condone sin, and letting a brother believe they are not sinning, is very dangerous ground.

The Bible never tells a believer to treat another unfairly, cruelly or with partiality. What it does tell us is to follow in faith: spreading the Gospel of Salvation, and adhering to the Word in all facets of life. In my thoughts and actions, at the fore always is how I will answer to God.

I can easily condemn actions of a brother and love them all the same. God is testament enough to this. Any obstacles we face in this world are of the devil. How we handle them is important - remembering always, we answer to God not the world.

You rightly observed that "We are in agreement on those who use Scripture to justify being cruel. Though I am wary of saying the Bible is what leads them to such acts." The bible is not able to treat anybody cruelly even if some of the statements in it are capable of being construed as a call to act with cruelty. It is the way one reads the bible, how one wishes to apply it in life and work it out in the things one does, how one does them, and who one does them to that can result in cruelty. Making a commandment into an excuse for cruelty is more the fault of the one who acts with cruelty than the commandment. Words in books or spoken only have power to harm when they are used to excuse doing harm.

J R R Tolkein observed in his fairy tale (The Lord of the Rings) that the quintessentially evil Sauron could not even conceive of somebody wishing to destroy something that could only be used to harm and force and create cruelty. His perspective on power was that power was to be exercised OVER others thus DOING to them what the powerful desired without regard to the value and the personal dignity of those to whom it is done. His fiction was written to wheedle out the roots of our own human wickedness with regard to the exercise of power. We see how wicked human beings can be when we watch ruthless power brokers destroying their 'enemies'. In Australia we just had an example of it in the removal of an unpopular (and rather ineffective and possibly cruel) Prime Minister by his own party voting him out of office when a more popular man made a public challenge for the position. They did it in the hope of winning the next federal election (scheduled for no later than 12 months time).

Please excuse my foray into fiction and Australian politics. I added the comments on those matters because they give some focus to how worldly Christians can be in their own exercise of the small powers they have as moderators and policy makers in a discussion forum. It is something we ought to keep in mind; for the faithful the one and only power in all the universe (and above it all) who is capable rightly judging and condemning is God. The bible never individually condemns anybody we personally know in this world. The bible gives principles by which we ought to live our life but not so much how we ought to force others to live especially in matters of personal faith and morals. We may implore and instruct and correct with the wisdom present in the holy scriptures but that is very different from choosing to do things to harm those whom we ought to be helping.

 

[popsthebuilder]

yes it could lead to putting people in prison and even putting them to death in the name of the church .. hmmm

-------------------------------------



was that passive aggressive or aggressive passive ? ..lol

The truth

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[seekingsolace]

Please excuse my foray into fiction and Australian politics. I added the comments on those matters because they give some focus to how worldly Christians can be in their own exercise of the small powers they have as moderators and policy makers in a discussion forum. It is something we ought to keep in mind; for the faithful the one and only power in all the universe (and above it all) who is capable rightly judging and condemning is God. The bible never individually condemns anybody we personally know in this world. The bible gives principles by which we ought to live our life but not so much how we ought to force others to live especially in matters of personal faith and morals. We may implore and instruct and correct with the wisdom present in the holy scriptures but that is very different from choosing to do things to harm those whom we ought to be helping.

I agree with the sentiments outlined (in fiction and Australian politics - to boot) and I hope you understand I am of the same mind. I speak of this in regards to not harming the well being of others; instructing, correcting and in general - showing the love of God to others. And the greatest love I can show to another, is aiming always for their salvation.

I understand not forcing on others our beliefs. But I still fail to see how upholding a Christian value system is being cruel to others. In the sense that on a Christian community forum, married in the traditional view - will always be a marital union between man and woman in the eyes of God. Is it not important to make this distinction? If we do not make the distinction between good and bad, how can we help others? This isn't a very specific issue, but the whole spectrum of sins.

I do not feel it is a judgment or partiality to discern what is laid out for us. Speaking cruelly is; edifying is not.

The apostles did not patch over sins: Paul certainly did not mince his words, yet his love shone through.

 

[seekingsolace]

The original post would, in my opinion, only make a person who wants to mistreat others on the excuse that "the bible made me do it" feel accused.

I don't agree with that assessment. it suggests that anyone who opposed your view is a bigot. And the comment above is further insult to them.

Certainly people can be bigots, but everyone who disagrees is definitely not one.

 

[charis en excelcis]

I think that it is attitude that produces cruelty, hatred and violence. The Bible never expects the unbeliever to act as a believer. The question is one of what morality ought to be legislated. The Bible teaches that the purpose of government is to allow people to live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and dignity. This teaching, combined with instruction for us to love our neighbor and to not be busybodies, should be sufficient to guide us as to what we ought to say and how we ought to say it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think that it is attitude that produces cruelty, hatred and violence. The Bible never expects the unbeliever to act as a believer. The question is one of what morality ought to be legislated. The Bible teaches that the purpose of government is to allow people to live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and dignity. This teaching, combined with instruction for us to love our neighbor and to not be busybodies, should be sufficient to guide us as to what we ought to say and how we ought to say it.

The scriptures ought to be read for the instruction of the faithful - teaching them how to live their own life in all godliness and in peace with others and God. The scriptures ought not to be a weapon to hit and hurt others through the harsh judgemental acts of the faithful towards others.

 

[seekingsolace]

The scriptures ought to be read for the instruction of the faithful - teaching them how to live their own life in all godliness and in peace with others and God. The scriptures ought not to be a weapon to hit and hurt others through the harsh judgemental acts of the faithful towards others.

How are we teaching persons to live a life of godliness by living in open rebellion?

I think people are using 'judgment' far too easily in conversation. Lets use an example.

There is an active adulterer, paedophile and a murderer - which of these three would you be most accepting of in the Church congregation?

We all have an inherent bias towards greater and lesser sins. It is not judgment to evaluate them.

Letting any of them continue in sin and pretending it is okay is absolutely wrong. No amount of linguistic gymnastics will change that. Are we judgmental bigots for acknowledging one sin more than another? No.

 

[MoreCoffee]

How are we teaching persons to live a life of godliness by living in open rebellion?

I think people are using 'judgment' far too easily in conversation. Lets use an example.

There is an active adulterer, paedophile and a murderer - which of these three would you be most accepting of in the Church congregation?

We all have an inherent bias towards greater and lesser sins. It is not judgment to evaluate them.

Letting any of them continue in sin and pretending it is okay is absolutely wrong. No amount of linguistic gymnastics will change that. Are we judgmental bigots for acknowledging one sin more than another? No.

Your chosen examples are rather dramatic. But here is my answer

There is an active

• adulterer,
  (Adultery is not a crime under the laws of the land and it is often difficult to detect. Such a person is likely to be in a congregation right now without anybody noticing.)​
• paedophile
  (Paedophilic acts are a crime under the laws of the land and if detected ought to result in arrest, trial, and sentencing. Such a person once caught is unlikely to be in a congregation.)​
• and a murderer
  (Murder is a crime under the laws of the land and if detected ought to result in arrest, trial, and sentencing. Such a person is unlikely to be in a congregation.)​

- which of these three would you be most accepting of in the Church congregation?​

All three could be received into a congregation after serving their time in prison if they had served any time and the sex offender would be the one whose criminal past would follow them most closely because there is a sex offender's register in many jurisdictions and paedophiles are often required to inform the local authorities of their location and associations as well as their access to children. All of these measures are according to the laws of the land and have very little to do with how a particular congregation manages its membership.

If a murder "continues in sins" then presumably they continue murdering and would be serial killers who would likely be actively sought by the police. If the congregation knows of their crimes they would be required to inform the police under the laws of the land.

If a paedophile "continues in sins" then they too would be handed over to the police for their crimes and the congregation, if it knew of their crimes, would be required to inform the police under the laws of the land.

If an adulterer "continues in sins" then there is no crime under the laws of the land and if the congregation knew of their adultery they ought to let the pastor (priest) know and the church would take what actions it is able to under church law; deny access to communion, council against adultery, and if necessary exclude from fellowship in the church.

It is only in the case of the adulterer that the church and the people in it are asked to do anything voluntarily; would you shun a family member or a friend if they were involved in adultery? How about if they'd divorced for a frivolous reason and 'remarried'? Let me know what you'd do and what your local church would do.

 

[seekingsolace]

Your chosen examples are rather dramatic. But here is my answer

There is an active
All three could be received into a congregation after serving their time in prison if they had served any time and the sex offender would be the one whose criminal past would follow them most closely because there is a sex offender's register in many jurisdictions and paedophiles are often required to inform the local authorities of their location and associations as well as their access to children. All of these measures are according to the laws of the land and have very little to do with how a particular congregation manages its membership.​

I posed the questions (with dramatic flair - my specialty) to see how you would answer. As expected, you didn't address it; you skirted around the issue and imposed other restrictions. The purpose was never to discuss 'the law of the land' this is why I involved a Church setting. We aren't speaking of criminal laws, but our own judgments on the issue. And in this case I wanted to know yours, not the worlds.

I appreciate the time you took to respond, but to reiterate my point.

"We all have an inherent bias towards greater and lesser sins. It is not judgment to evaluate them."

"Letting any of them continue in sin and pretending it is okay is absolutely wrong. No amount of linguistic gymnastics will change that. Are we judgmental bigots for acknowledging one sin more than another? No."​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Perhaps my answer was too direct and too long for you to cope with.

Here is the short version.

Murder and paedophilia are civil crimes to be dealt with by the civil authority.

Adultery is a sin that very few denominations will treat as seriously as the Catholic Church does.

In all cases it is not the duty or the right of individual members of the Catholic Church to judge and condemn and act against those who sin outside of the confines of civil and church laws.

What would I do? Pray for the sinner, speak truthfully when called upon to do so, and leave the judgement to those called to do it by civil authority or by the church.

 

[seekingsolace]

Perhaps my answer was too direct and too long for you to cope with.

No MoreCoffee, your answer was an elaborate scheme to avoid the point of the question. Which once again you have done.

My point stands.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No MoreCoffee, your answer was an elaborate scheme to avoid the point of the question. Which once again you have done.

My point stands.

What point would that be?

 

[Hebrews 11]

In another forum, out of a desire to uphold traditional Christian marriage and the meaning of marriage as a union between one man and one woman in the sight of God and with God's blessing, a new set of rules was proposed which amounted to saying to same sex people who are legally married that they cannot use 'married' as their marital status. I objected to the proposed rule reasoning that I will not allow bible verses or the official pronouncements of my Church or the rules of the forum to turn me into a bigot. In brief, in a slogan like phrase, I will not willingly become Jerk for God or Bigoted for God. Will you let the things you do, how you do them, and who you to them to become mistreatment of another human being - made in the image of God - because there's a bible verse (or many verses) that condemn certain sins?

There is a old saying:
You do not read the Bible the Bible reads you.

 

[charis en excelcis]

I feel that I must address the original post that started this thread. "I objected to the proposed rule reasoning that I will not allow bible verses or the official pronouncements of my Church or the rules of the forum to turn me into a bigot. In brief, in a slogan like phrase, I will not willingly become Jerk for God or Bigoted for God." One definition of a bigot is "a person who hates and refuses to accept a member of a particular group." In this case, the group involved are homosexuals and the act of hatred was not allowing same sex couples to identify themselves as married. So, first of all I reject the proposition that this action alone was an act of hatred. Second, I reject the idea that Bible verses can make one a bigot. Hatred is an act of the sinful nature, not a result of the Bible. Righteousness can be practiced without abandoning the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.) I would, in fact, argue that being up front about sin is an act of love, if that action is done in love for the purpose of bringing some to salvation. Third, it is likely that if you lead a life of service to our Lord, you will be called names. If your goal is to not be called names, then you best not claim to pick up your cross and follow Him.

 

[Forgiven1]

I am trying to figure out how reading the Bible and the doctrines of one's church makes them a bigot. My church looks at gay marriage as something that is wrong, sinful and goes against the Bible. That does not make me a bigot. What makes one a bigot is our own thoughts, feelings and the culture of our personal lives. We are told to "hate the sin and love the sinner." Just because I disagree with one's lifestyle does not mean that I hate them at all. We can still be their friends and to pray for them.

With the question earlier about which sinner would be welcome. I say all of them. Why? We are to teach others about Christ's love. Who are we to turn these people away. We should welcome them with open arms and teach them so they may repent, come to faith and be baptized.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is a old saying:
You do not read the Bible the Bible reads you.

There is truth to that. How a person applies what they read is a sign of what is in them far more than what is in the bible.

 

[Hebrews 11]

There is truth to that. How a person applies what they read is a sign of what is in them far more than what is in the bible.

Amen

 

[Hebrews 11]

I must add to a condition that has occurred due to the recent marriage laws.

Many Churches will teach that you must obey the law of the land.

They will quote render unto Cesasar ...

I find this a bit amusing due to religious zelots being judgemental on others for breaking the law of the he land.

This circumstance is a result of legalism,and creates hypocrisy.

 

[Hebrews 11]

I must add to a condition that has occurred due to the recent marriage laws.

Many Churches will teach that you must obey the law of the land.

They will quote render unto Cesasar ...

I find this a bit amusing due to religious zelots being judgemental on others for breaking the law of the he land.

This circumstance is a result of legalism,and creates hypocrisy.