Christ's Church: Sinners, Saints, Both?

[CUDA]

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?
4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

you might want to re-think how you judge others Thorne

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.
15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.
17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.
18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.
20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.
22For in my inner being I delight in God's law;
23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.
24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Paul CLEARLY talks here about living in sin even AFTER we have been saved by grace, even to the point of calling himself a sinner, even tho he himself was saved

[Sergeant Thorne]

Judge sin? Yes. Judge doctrine?

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

If I can't judge doctrine, then where does that leave me? To apply Romans 2 to doctrine doesn't make sense. Read 2 Timothy 3. As believers we are to judge these things according to the word of God (verse 16).

Furthermore, on the subject of judging, you might want to consider 1 Corinthians 5 together with Romans 2. Not that it necessarily applies here, but the Bible clearly has more to say on the subject.

I appreciate your quote, Cuda, but I think you're mistaken.


On the subject of sin, I think there's more to it than that. What does it mean to be dead to sin (Romans 6:11)? The Bible says that in Him there is no sin (1 John 3:5), and we are exhorted to abide in him (1 John 2:28).

My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Are we really supposed to resign ourselves to living in sin in this life?

4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

Get yourself a Bible that is based on the Majority Text, instead of the NU Text, Cuda. The Majority Text is overwhelmingly more faithful to the originals. The NU has only semi-recently become popular (extremely popular, go figure), and it has a sordid history of changes and deletions. The Majority Text is just that: it agrees with the majority of the historical manuscripts, and even other historical documents that quote scripture, such as the writings of the early church fathers. The KJV and the NKJV are both based on the Majority Text.

[Kilarin]

A saint is nothing more than a person who's life is hidden in Christ's. That is to say he/she is a genuine Christian. This does NOT mean they are "perfect" as the world sees it.
...
A sinner, as I understand it, is someone who's life is controlled by sin; those who's actions and attitudes are apposed to God. In short: those who are not covered by Christ's blood.
...
So I disagree with Kilarin on that premise.

I can agree with that definition, all I meant by saying that Saints were sinners was that they are not perfect and still need the covering grace of Christ. I should have defined my terms better.

We daily do things that are outside of God's precepts but it does not break covenant.

Here I'm a little more uncomfortable with what you are saying. Would you say that Peter broke covenant with Christ when he denied Him?
To clarify MY position: ANY attempt to live our lives apart from Christ is sin. All other sins are a result of that one big sin. And this sin, even the greatest saints on earth are guilty of on a regular basis. BUT, if they have given their lives to Christ, He is still covering them and working with them so that day by day they will learn to lean on Him more and more. We fall, we even fall frequently, but that does NOT mean we have fallen completely out of our relationship with Him, just so long as we keep turning back to Him every time we fall away.

The difference between a saint and a sinner is the difference between Peter and Judas. They BOTH fell, but when Peter fell, her turned back to Christ, Judas turned away. They BOTH sinned, but one relied upon Christ to cover the sin, the other sought his own solution.

Could you clarify here, because I'm not certain if we are in disagreement or not.

Are we really supposed to resign ourselves to living in sin in this life?

Christ covering our sins does NOT mean we continue to live in sin without change. Inviting Christ into your heart is like inviting your mother-in-law into your house. He IS going to make changes. He has promised to save us FROM our sins. The only way to stop those changes is to push Christ out. At the same time, anyone who pretends that they have achieved a sinless state here on this earth is a liar.

There is an almost absolutely pervasive tendency to disregard the conditions, the absolutes, and the guidelines set forth in the Bible in favor of concentrating wholey on the more easy and attractive ideas of love, acceptance, and "tolerance", etc.

And so far, no one in this discussion has suggested "accepting" sin. I've been very clear that the church should never compromise it's principles of what is right and what is wrong. The question is, can you love someone who is doing wrong? Can you sit in a pew next to them?

Recall that the whole discussion started because of the suggestion that Christians should bring unrepentant sinners into the church as a means of evangelization, and particularly homosexuals.

And I still stand behind that stance 100%. The smoking example I used previously lays out exactly how I think people who have not accepted Christ and are still involved in opens sin should be dealt with in the church. And it lines up with the Biblical example of Christ. By all means, BRING THEM IN! Where else can they hear the word of the Lord better than in a church? No, don't make them members until they have accepted the message. But don't push them away from listening, and DO invite them to come in and listen!

Important point: The Bible does NOT say it is a sin to be a homosexual. It says that homosexual behavior is a sin. This is just like it's not a sin to be an alcoholic, but it is a sin give in to it. I don't think this point is in dispute, but I did want to clarify it just in case.

Get yourself a Bible that is based on the Majority Text

I find it best to work from multiple versions. No one translation is perfect.

[Sergeant Thorne]

The question is, can you love someone who is doing wrong? Can you sit in a pew next to them?

No, that's not the question. And it isn't an issue with me. The question is should the church be used as an evangelization center contrary to the example of scripture.

At the same time, anyone who pretends that they have achieved a sinless state here on this earth is a liar.

According to scripture, anyone who is abiding in Christ is in a sinless state. It's the one who says he has no sin that is a lier. I don't totally understand it, all I know is that people who claim that we must "sin daily in thought, word, and deed" ignore an important part of salvation.

The smoking example I used previously lays out exactly how I think people who have not accepted Christ and are still involved in opens sin should be dealt with in the church. And it lines up with the Biblical example of Christ. By all means, BRING THEM IN! Where else can they hear the word of the Lord better than in a church? No, don't make them members until they have accepted the message. But don't push them away from listening, and DO invite them to come in and listen!

And I'll accept that as soon as you can show it to me in the Bible.

Important point: The Bible does NOT say it is a sin to be a homosexual.

What's the important point? They're called homosexuals and alcoholics because of the propensity and practice of the action itself, which is a sin.

I find it best to work from multiple versions. No one translation is perfect.

But I didn't say anything about the translation. I could say a few damning things on that front, but I was talking about the underlying texts themselves being compromised from the original word of God.

[Duper]

We daily do things that are outside of God's precepts but it does not break covenant.

Here I'm a little more uncomfortable with what you are saying. Would you say that Peter broke covenant with Christ when he denied Him?
To clarify MY position: ANY attempt to live our lives apart from Christ is sin. All other sins are a result of that one big sin. And this sin, even the greatest saints on earth are guilty of on a regular basis. BUT, if they have given their lives to Christ, He is still covering them and working with them so that day by day they will learn to lean on Him more and more. We fall, we even fall frequently, but that does NOT mean we have fallen completely out of our relationship with Him, just so long as we keep turning back to Him every time we fall away.

The difference between a saint and a sinner is the difference between Peter and Judas. They BOTH fell, but when Peter fell, her turned back to Christ, Judas turned away. They BOTH sinned, but one relied upon Christ to cover the sin, the other sought his own solution.

Could you clarify here, because I'm not certain if we are in disagreement or not.

...They BOTH fell, but when Peter fell, her turned back to Christ, Judas turned away. They BOTH sinned, but one relied upon Christ to cover the sin, the other sought his own solution.

Precisely!!!!!
THAT is the difference between a sinner and a saint who sins.

Some other great examples of this are Moses and David. Both transgressed greatly and angered God. Both received discipline, but BOTH sit on counsel before God and considered friends.

In the parable of the sheep and the goats, The Lord told the Goats that He never knew them. We don't do good works to show that we are saved, but we do them because we are saved. It' comes from a nature within us.

I'm not fooled into thinking that we do not sin. I Do know that we are not bound to it. It is not our master. We do not serve it. So we are in agreement.

I guess you could say:"It's not What you know, it's Who you KNOW."

Also, there is a great song by DC Talk some years ago that addresses this very issue.

I keep trying to find a life
On my own, apart from you
I am the king of excuses
Ive got one for every selfish thing I do

Whats going on inside of me?
I despise my own behavior
This only serves to confirm my suspicions
That Im still a man in need of a savior

(chorus)
I wanna be in the light
As you are in the light
I wanna shine like the stars in the heavens
Oh, lord be my light and be my salvation
Cause all I want is to be in the light
All I want is to be in the light

The disease of self runs through my blood
Its a cancer fatal to my soul
Every attempt on my behalf has failed
To bring this sickness under control

Tell me, whats going on inside of me?
I despise my own behavior
This only serves to confirm my suspicions
That Im still a man in need of a savior

(repeat chorus)

Honesty becomes me
[theres nothing left to lose]
The secrets that did run me
[in your presence are defused]
Pride has no position
[and riches have no worth]
The fame that once did cover me
[has been sentenced to this earth]
Has been sentenced to this earth

Tell me, whats going on inside of me?
I despise my own behavior
This only serves to confirm my suspicions
That Im still a man in need of a savior

(repeat chorus 2x)

[theres no other place that I want to be]
[no other place that I can see]
[a place to be thats just right]
[someday Im gonna be in the light]
[you are in the light]
[thats where I need to be]
[thats right where I need to be]

While salvation from sin may be a "one time deal" as I stated earlier, we most definitely work out our salvation throughout our lives as Paul states.

Are we as Christians sinners? no. Are we new creations that need to learn to master sin as God called upon Cain to do? Yes. THIS VERY THING was the good news when the apostles and Jesus walked the earth. Sin is a primary concern in eastern culture. In today's western culture steeped in relativism, no one considers right a wrong a valid issue so this message is lost as so is the wonder. I could care less about "flying away". Or living in the millennium. I have eternal life (both present and future, not just when I die) and I get to remain in the presence of God the Father.

Sorry, that was a lot longer than I'm sure you were wanting.

[Duper]

I still haven't read through this entire thread and indeed I'm guilty of skimming even now. (got a headache)

The \"church\" as a thing has many perceived definitions as we have seen on this board over the years.

I'm going to address this in the strictest sense. The Church is the body of Christ. It is the invisible collective group of believers. Remember that the two will become one flesh.

The church as most people see it (organized religion on the whole though not without exception)is the harlot described in Revelation. (this is whole other topic and I'm not intending a debate on it.

Heck where churches as organizations are concerned; there are atheists acting as \"pastors\" with the title of Doctors. They hold a doctorate in theology and that's all it takes with some churches. This is heresy.

[Foil]

The "church" as a thing has many perceived definitions as we have seen on this board over the years.

I'm going to address this in the strictest sense. The Church is the body of Christ. It is the invisible collective group of believers.

I think that's part of the misunderstanding in this thread.

Using the definition of "the church" as "the body/assembly of Christian believers", it simply follows that a non-believer isn't a part of that group. I don't think anyone here has a problem with that conclusion under the above definition. To say otherwise would be a strict contradiction.

However, my statements earlier were not that a sinner could be considered as a member of the church. My statements were that the sinner should be welcomed by the church.

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

The New Testament seems to suggest that people were not barred from the assembly:

23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in [those who are] uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on [his] face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.

Nevertheless, as a practice, that is completely other than the examples, patterns, and commands for evangelism presented in the Bible.

So you're saying "it's in I Corinthians 14, it doesn't match the Biblical example"? I find it very ironic that the one Biblical citation you used supports the exact opposite of your claim.

So if you would... humor me and show me where the Biblical example is to turn sinners away (note that I'm not talking about discipline of church members).

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

Regarding the "John" scenario, since you don't want to give a direct answer, allow me to propose another one to help me understand your perspective:

Sarah is an unbeliever who has never heard anything about Christ. She shows up at a congregational service one day by accident. Based on your perspective that evangelism has to be done outside the church body, should she be taken away from the church (i.e. away from the rest of the believers) before she is presented the gospel?

[Kilarin]

The question is should the church be used as an evangelization center contrary to the example of scripture.

I find this stance to be very odd. As foil has already pointed out, 1 Cor 14 makes it clear that unbelievers were expected to be in attendance at churches. AND that every effort should be made to make them feel welcome, or at least not unfavorably impressed.

I'll add another, but not quite as strong text:
acts 11:26 And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
What is this other than an evangelistic campaign?

One of the major POINTs of churches is the Gospel Commission: Mk 16:15 Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

We have already discussed texts that say the church must deal with church members who have fallen into open sin. I don't disagree with you at all there. BUT, where do you get this idea that it is contrary to scripture to use the church as an evangelization center?!? We HAVE Bible text indicating that the purpose of the church is outreach. We HAVE Bible text that discuss unbelievers in church. We have the clear example of Christ. I would like to see your answer to Foil's question. Can you come up with any Bible text that says unbelievers should not be invited in to the church? Not that they shouldn't be made members, but that we should not attempt to reach out to them through sermons in church?

According to scripture, anyone who is abiding in Christ is in a sinless state. It's the one who says he has no sin that is a lier. I don't totally understand it, all I know is that people who claim that we must "sin daily in thought, word, and deed" ignore an important part of salvation.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Do you believe that a Christian who is abiding in Christ never falls and sins? That they can achieve perfection here on earth?

The Bible does not describe the church as a country club for perfect people to sit around it. It describes it as a center for preaching the Gospel to both the converted and the unconverted.

They're called homosexuals and alcoholics because of the propensity and practice of the action itself, which is a sin.

Propensity is not sin. An alcoholic who is "on the wagon" is still an alcoholic, they just aren't PRACTICING alcoholic behavior. A man with XYY chromosome has a TENDENCY towards violence, but that doesn't mean they have to engage in violent behavior. God DOES occasionally remove the temptation entirely from our lives. But more often He just helps us to learn to lean on Him for the strength and courage to not give in.

To be homosexual simply means that one has sexual attraction to members of ones own sex. The Bible says acting on that attraction is sin. To say that BEING homosexual is sinful would be equivalent of saying that being a heterosexual is sinful, since a heterosexual can be tempted to sinful behavior as well.

Sorry, that was a lot longer than I'm sure you were wanting.

No no! A long clarification was exactly what I asked for. Thank you. And I don't think I'm actually in disagreement with you. I just need to define my terms better.

[Drakona]

The church as we know it today has been through long, historical development, and is very far removed from the church of the new testament. I think everybody knows that, though I think some people would be surprised how very different the two are. I love to make the point that the letters in the new testament were simply read to the assembly. Can you imagine, today? Just getting up and reading Romans in its entirety? Who would stay awake?

There are a lot of people who think we should imitate the apostolic church, and that has some merit. Sure, we may find it a little strange to meet in houses and wear togas, but at least we're closer to the source, right? At least it beats two thousand years of accumulated cruft, right?

I'm not convinced. I believe it's our job to apply our wisdom and understanding to learn what the church is supposed to be and do--and then try to accomplish that. Even folks who argue for imitating the aposolic church believe that to some degree--nobody seriously proposes speaking greek. I suppose you'll want a prooftext for that approach; John 15:15 is as good as any (\"I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.\") It's not an easy verse to interpret fairly, but I think the implication that we're supposed to undestand what God is trying to accomplish and use our utmost reasoning ability to achieve it is fair.

Really, though, the view comes from a wider impression I have. It seems to me that scripture is absolutely preoccupied with the listener understanding and intelligently practicing righteousness. Proverbs is filled with exhortations to understanding, and the prophets frequently complained that Israel practiced dead rituals without understanding. Jesus seemed constantly taken aback and frustrated with what people didn't understand, with connections he thought they should already have made. In spite of the fact that Israel was given many rituals they could not understand, Jesus was frustrated with how little they understood the moral laws. But my main impression comes from the epistles. Instruction flows from understanding. Do X so that you will accomplish Y. Do not speak in tongues so that your meetings will be peaceful and orderly. Women should be silent in opposition to a heretical teaching about lady oracles. 1 Cor. 7 is a long treatise on the pros and cons of marriage; Paul says nothing about what you should do, and everything about what you are trying to achieve.

So I don't think the new testament is a good source for proscriptive church practices. Partly because we aren't orginizationally the same. Where they practiced secret meetings, we practice open ones; just because it happens to be tangentially mentioned doesn't make it a command. That has nothing to do with whether the church should be open or closed, and everything to do with the times. But the larger reason is that I believe it is our job to understand what the church should be, and build it that way. The descriptions of the ancient church are instructive, but unless we understand what we're doing, we have no idea if we're copying the right bits.

Adding to the complication is the absolute myriad of forms the church has had over the centuries. Monastaries. State churches. Parachurches. Home churches. All with very different rules. All attempting (more or less successfully) to reflect the character of God. People like to lift one teaching about the new testament church out and apply it to a completely different organization and culture. Who knows if it still reflects the character of God??

So to answer the question, you have to go back to what the church is supposed to be and do, and how unbelievers interact with each. Here are some things, off the top of my head, that the church does, and how I think unbelievers interact.


Teaching: The church is a place where believers teach each other about spiritual things, and grow in understanding. Unbelievers should absolutely be taught spiritual things, inasmuch as they are able to understand, and should always be welcomed when teaching is going on. Unbelievers absolutely should not be allowed to teach spiritual things. They simply aren't qualified. I might be willing to make an exception in cases of an unbeliever with a genuine theological background who wants to teach technical concepts. I think that might work out okay--but keep an eye on it.

Fellowship / Exercise of brotherly love: The church is a place where believers show love to each other and grow together in community. Unbelievers absolutely should be welcomed and included in this. Most unbelievers I've seen stumble into a real Christian community like this are astonished by it, and wind up surprised by how thirsty they are.

Prayer together: The church is a place where believers pray together, for each other and for the world. This is pretty much somethign believers do--unbeleivers by and large aren't really interested. They could be prayed for, and in unusual circumstances, they could do the praying. It certainly wouldn't make sense to allow an unbeliever to set up a ministry doing this, though; that's a lie, or another religion.

Worship: The church is a place where believers corporately worship God. I'm inclined to say this is a believers-only thing. Unbelievers could watch, I guess, but they're likely to not understand what they're seeing. I don't think they could participate without it being a lie. I don't think they'd want to, anyway; no one likes to lie.

Prophesy/Guidance: The church is a place where believers can communicate God's messages to each other, or corporately seek God's guidance on a matter. Definitely a believers-only thing. Unbelievers might learn some things by watching, but I just can't see having them participate going well.

Confession: The church is a place where believers confess their sins to one another, and forgive or pray for each other. I don't think unbelievers will have the spiritual sensetivity to really participate in this, but I see no reason to bar them from participating inasmuch as they have desire and ability. Indeed, it is half of the gospel acted out, and very good experience.

Discipline / Teaching Righteousness: The church is a place where believers hold each other accountable for sin, confront each other about it, encourage each other to be righteous, and even teach each other what righteousness is. I'm very much in favor of a double standard here. Unbelievers simply don't have the same drive and desire in pursuing righteousness, nor do they have the Lord's help, so it doesn't make sense to expect the same results. Since you give people encouragement based on their experience, though, you won't be treating unbelievers all that differently. I definitely don't think it's bad for unbelievers to see believers admonishing each other and enforcing Christian standards. It really depends on the person. Sometimes we preach grace too much, and some people need to be told that yes, they're sinners, and yes, that's serious business. But a lot of people have been burned by others preaching holiness too much, and they don't understand the intent of the message, and go away thinking, \"Yeah, well, what do you know?\" and feeling judged. A lot of \"sinners\" I hang out with are really shocked when they encounter genuine grace and humility in the face of their obvious sin, and unbelievers in the church can grow convicted over time just as they watch Christian behavior. So I guess both holiness and grace are important messages. Use judgement.

The church certainly does more, but that's my take. Whether unbelievers should be included or not depends on what you're doing and what the effects will be. Use sound judgement. Pursue holiness within the church and the salvation of the lost. You'll learn by trying and making mistakes how best to accomplish that in any situation.

[Bet51987]

Drakona, I know you didn't mean it this way but after reading every word and how you feel unbelievers should be \"watched\" and \"monitored\", or don't think we atheists can be righteous without God's help made be feel like jumping in the back seat of my car with Zuruck.

Bee

[Foil]

Ewwww.....

I think Drakona did a pretty good job of striking a balance between the warnings against Christians getting involved with sinners in a way that might pull them away from God, and the call for Christians to treat outsiders the way Christ did (with dignity and a sense of welcome).

She's not saying that Christians should be exclusive or push outsiders away (as it seems Thorne has been implying). On the contrary, I'd say Drakona made it a point that outsiders should be welcomed in, with the only exceptions being the types of gatherings and teaching arenas that specifically require a working faith.

[Kilarin]

Great post Drakona!

after reading every word and how you feel unbelievers should be "watched" and "monitored",

Drakona's comments on watching and monitoring were with regard to unbelievers placed into positions of teaching/leadership within a church. I'm with her that I would hesitate to have unbelievers in those positions to start with. This is only rational. If you were president of a local Evolution Education club, you might be very happy to have a young earth creationist in attendance, but you wouldn't put them into any position involving teaching or authority. If under some strange circumstance you DID allow them to teach at your club, it's only rational that you would keep an eye on what they were teaching. I don't see this as an insult.

or don't think we atheists can be righteous without God's help

It's basic Christian doctrine that we don't believe ANYONE can be righteous without God's help.

made be feel like jumping in the back seat of my car with Zuruck.

While we might disagree on whether or not this would be a sin, I hope we can agree it would be monumentally bad taste.
(Sorry Zuruck, couldn't resist, just JOKING!!!!)

[Bet51987]

If you were president of a local Evolution Education club, you might be very happy to have a young earth creationist in attendance, but you wouldn't put them into any position involving teaching or authority. If under some strange circumstance you DID allow them to teach at your club, it's only rational that you would keep an eye on what they were teaching.

I admit I would do the same thing if I were in a position to do so and is why I treaded lightly. It just came across as overly pious to me because I'm one of those unbelievers she speaks of. I still participate in church activities and don't need monitoring. But I do understand...kinda.

Bee

[Lothar]

I still participate in church activities and don't need monitoring.

There's a big difference between "participating" and "teaching". If you (given the beliefs you've expressed on this board) wanted to come to my church and be a part of activities, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If you wanted to teach a Bible study or a Sunday School class, it would have to be under very special circumstances and with a Christian co-teacher.

I once worked with a math professor who was an atheist, but who I'd allow to teach Bible history and theology. He'd spent years studying it, and had some really solid technical knowledge. I'd still want a Christian as his co-teacher, though, who'd be able to respond to anything he said that was problematic.

[Drakona]

Well, the only place I advocated \"monitoring\" was for someone in a position to teach, and you should actually do this whether it's a believer or not. Everyone has the capability to teach falsely, whether they are good or ill-intentioned, and that can be extremely destructive. I would be more cautious with an unbeliever on the job, though, for fairly obvious reasons.

It's worth mentioning that my model for teaching is more \"practical instruction/apprenticeship\" than \"working through the Sunday School material.\" Anyone could do the latter, but it would take very special circumstances (like those I mentioned) to pesuade me that an unbeliever was qualified to do the former at all.

Understand, that's not a knock on intelligence or capabilities. Just experience and motivation. I wouldn't hire a non-musician as a piano teacher or recruit a Republican to make phone calls for the Democrats, either.

My comments will read differently to non-Christians because they tend to look at church activities as social activities or rituals, and can see no reason for exclusivity other than \"club membership\" or maybe \"making outsides feel unwelcome.\" Of course, that's not it as all. As a believer, I have a concern for the actual content and what the experience means, and that's what I'm trying to protect.

When I was in grad school (for mathematics), one of my fellow students asked me what I was studying. I responded that I was studying theology, mathematics, and computer programming--and that I reguarded them in that order of difficulty. He (an atheist) laughed at my studying of theology and commented, \"Well, that won't take long.\" On the contrary, I found it more difficult and interesting than my graduate work in math! Why the difference in perception? Because he, as an atheist, assumed it wasn't real, he assumed it was all nonsense and equivocation and there wasn't anything interesting to learn. But because to me, as a Christian, it was real, I had a great concern for the consistency and accuracy of the material, its science and methods, and so forth. Where I saw the infinite and divine as concepts to struggle with, he saw them as collections of unrelated, nonsensical, uninteresting trivia.

The same thing happens in church. The unbeliever looks in at worship from the outside and sees some singing, maybe some dancing, maybe some inspirational speaking, and sees . . . maybe a ritual, maybe a social thing, maybe just an emotional experience. Not too big a deal, certainly nothing is going to be spoiled by who's participating.

But from the believer's point of view, something very spiritually specific and intimate and real is happening. Like a special moment in a romantic convrsation, the baring of the soul before God that goes on in worship is a very precious and sacred and easily-disrupted thing. The music and the speaking is like the music and food on a date; they set the scene, perhaps, or may express some emotion--but they are not the core of the experience.

From a believer's point of view (depending on how worship is conducted), having an unbeliever along is a little like a cross between having a couple at the next table go through the motions and mean none of it, and having brought along your best friend, who is just there for the food, or to watch what you are doing. It's . . . well, I won't say it's something I would ban, because I think it's a very revealing experience for people to witness worship. But it's . . . odd. Definitely makes it harder to be really uninhibited and intimate. Unbelievers should tread lightly, because something sacred is going on, and to participate without participating is somewhere between a mockery and a lie, and that's not good.

Same's true with prayer, with confession, with intercession. The believer sees and experiences a layer of spiritual activity that the unbeliever doesn't. This spiritual activity is the \"meat\" of the event, and the stuff the unbeliever observes and participates in is just the setting and the form. So this isn't a knock on unbeleivers or an attempt at exclusivity or snobbery or anything like that. It's just . . . well, it's like having a blind man at a painter's convention. There's only so much you can do without being disruptive.

You've got to remember--and I know this seems strange: We actually believe this stuff. It's real to us.

That all is, of course, assuming you have a church that functions that way. Many churches don't. If you're in a church where you can't immediately see what activities would and wouldn't work with participation by unbelievers, you've got much, much bigger problems on your hands.

Though I will (perhaps offensively) say that I stand by my statement that you need God's help to be righteous. You absolutely do. This is not a statement of prejudice or theology; this is a practical effect I'm talking about that is as daily real to me as gravity. Comparing personal attempts at self-discipline and righteousness with the transformational power of God is like comparing a seagull to a 747. Yeah, if you're the seagull, you might eventually get to any given place, given enough time and effort and motivation. But working with God is something else entirely. You absolutely need God's help to practically pursue righteousness.

[Bet51987]

I still participate in church activities and don't need monitoring.

There's a big difference between "participating" and "teaching". If you (given the beliefs you've expressed on this board) wanted to come to my church and be a part of activities, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If you wanted to teach a Bible study or a Sunday School class, it would have to be under very special circumstances and with a Christian co-teacher.

I once worked with a math professor who was an atheist, but who I'd allow to teach Bible history and theology. He'd spent years studying it, and had some really solid technical knowledge. I'd still want a Christian as his co-teacher, though, who'd be able to respond to anything he said that was problematic.

I agree completely and admitted my argument was weak. I just envisioned that a wicked witch was pushing me down with her big thumb. because I was one of the unbelievers that participates and on occasion talks with kids about God....unmonitored. Please realize that I don't preach atheism to them.

But now it brings up a question. Suppose that a fully qualified technical bible instructor suddenly turned atheist. How would you know, and because he liked his job and his work was impeccable, would it make a difference to those he taught.

Bettina

[Bet51987]

...You absolutely need God's help to practically pursue righteousness.

Like I told Lothar, my argument with you was weak and my response was based on my sensitivity. However, the quote above irks me too because the antonym means to be wicked and immoral and atheists are not. Well, no less than theists.

Bee

[roid]

But now it brings up a question. Suppose that a fully qualified technical bible instructor suddenly turned atheist. How would you know, and because he liked his job and his work was impeccable, would it make a difference to those he taught.

Bettina

For it to be a problem would indicate that towing the ideological line was more important to the church than truth and accuracy.

This is what churches are.
Those who actually wish to LEARN should goto school instead of church.

[snoopy]

However, the quote above irks me too because the antonym means to be wicked and immoral and atheists are not. Well, no less than theists.

Bee

That's precisely correct, in a sense. We all are equally in need of God's work to be anything other than wicked and immoral. Realistically, no one ever stops being as such. Some people appear to be "better" (in the good/bad moral sense, not the superior/inferior sense) than others, either genuinely or simply in appearance, but when compared to the standard of perfection, we've all fallen short.

Now, I do think there is a difference between Christians and non-Christians when it comes to morality. The difference, as I see it, is what is going on inside the person. As Christian, in theory, is motivated to act as they do out of a sense of thankfulness and indebtedness to God. Their good deeds flow from who they have become as Christians, and their evil deeds constitute a departure from their "true selves." This brings us back to New Testament warnings about deceivers in the church- if someone is consistently doing evil, and will not recognize it and repent, it reveals that quite possibly the evil is not such much of a departure from who they really are as their claim to the name "Christian" would indicate. The mark of a Christian should be the way that their own sin breaks their heart.

On the other hand, a non-Christian has self-motivation to drive their actions. It's easy to point to the convict and say that they are obviously operating out of selfish and evil motivations, but what about the good, charitable atheist? Well, I'd put forth that the ultimate motives driving even the most generous, good, and charitable atheist are, at best, purely selfish & prideful. Now I'm not saying that they harbor evil thoughts and feelings toward everyone around them, but they do have a desire to do it themselves, without God. That attitude, in God's book, is just as bad as all of the evil thoughts one could have toward other people. That's hard for good acting people to swallow. Note that there is a large difference in the concept of "evil" between Christians and non-Christians. In fact, that's what we believe initiates one's change from being a non-Christian to being a Christian- one's view of "evil" and their relationship to it changes in that they suddenly recognize their own incredible evilness.

In practice, though, we've all learned cultured behavior well enough that the majority of prideful, selfish, evil people hide it behind good fronts that end up looking just as clean as that of the most selfless, humble person out there. So, the real question that divides cultured behavior from genuine Christianity is the why, and, this is what absolutely must be initiated and completed by God and only God.

[snoopy]

If you have no respect for the Bible, kindly move along to a topic that does interest you. Thanks.

I think you missed the beginning of the thread, Roid. plz2quittrolling,kthxbye.

[Foil]

If you have no respect for the Bible, kindly move along to a topic that does interest you. Thanks.

I think you missed the beginning of the thread, Roid. plz2quittrolling,kthxbye.

The above brings up a question to me, which I think is relevant to the topic at hand:

Should Christians exclude unbelievers from theological and church-related discussions, such as this one?

...On one hand, to do so would help prevent ridiculous "drive-bys" (e.g. roid's post), and would help keep the discussion from being misled by non-faith arguments.

...On the other, to do so seems to go against the call to evangelize, in the sense that we should talk about the nature of God with others.

What do you guys/gals think?

[Sergeant Thorne]

One of the reasons I asked that was because I knew it would draw out the discussion by deviating from the purpose of the topic.

When it comes to a discussion of doctrine, non-Christians need not apply. Sorry, but we are discussing Christian doctrine, non-Christian opinion is almost invariably not relevant. Unless you're going to come in here and tell me what the Bible says about something, which is fine by me. Aside from that, I asked politely, If you don't respect Biblical views, I'd appreciate it if you would start up new topic to address anything being said in here.

[Kilarin]

When it comes to a discussion of doctrine, non-Christians need not apply. Sorry, but we are discussing Christian doctrine, non-Christian opinion is almost invariably not relevant.

Attempting to disprove Christian doctrine has been a lead in to the conversion of many great Christians.

Attempting to isolate yourself from those who disagree with you is one of the first moves of people who are afraid their beliefs are not strong enough to stand under attack.

Unless you're going to come in here and tell me what the Bible says about something, which is fine by me.

But here I think we are in agreement. Note that I said previously that unbelievers should be welcome at church, just so long as they are not DISRUPTIVE.

ANYONE interested in participating in the discussion, with ANY point of view, including not only all branches of Christianity, but also atheist, agnostics, and pagans, are welcome in my opinion. Random sniping is not participating in the discussion.

To turn it around, if the discussion was about evolution, a creationist who jumped in and posted "evolutionist are all going to hell" would not be participating in the discussion, but merely sniping.

So, as long as you have something to say, jump in and enter the discussion, I'm happy to have you! If you are just sniping, I'm not going to bother to snipe back.

To defend roid:

For it to be a problem would indicate that towing the ideological line was more important to the church than truth and accuracy.

Unfortunantly, this is true sometimes. But it's actually a problem with humanity in general, not Christianity only. You will note that it is a problem that Science has had to fight against many times, and science was designed specifically to avoid this very problem.

And that's why I don't find the statement very useful. To say that Christianity has been more interested in its own ideology than in truth is just to say that Christianity is made up of humans. It doesn't prove that any particular group of Christians at any particular time are guilty of doing this, and especially it doesn't prove that a particular argument is false.

What do you guys/gals think?

In my opinion, CERTAINLY allow their participation if they aren't just sniping. The snipers require a bit more of a delicate touch though. Banning or moderating wouldn't be necessary if everyone participating in the discussion would just ignore the times anyone (including Christians) slips into sniping. And if sniping is ignored, it isn't so disruptive. Banning and moderating is necessary at times, but is also very disruptive and leaves people with a VERY bad taste in their mouths.

[Bet51987]

... We all are equally in need of God's work to be anything other than wicked and immoral. Realistically, no one ever stops being as such. Some people appear to be "better" (in the good/bad moral sense, not the superior/inferior sense) than others, either genuinely or simply in appearance, but when compared to the standard of perfection, we've all fallen short.

Now, I do think there is a difference between Christians and non-Christians when it comes to morality. The difference, as I see it, is what is going on inside the person. As Christian, in theory, is motivated to act as they do out of a sense of thankfulness and indebtedness to God. Their good deeds flow from who they have become as Christians, and their evil deeds constitute a departure from their "true selves." This brings us back to New Testament warnings about deceivers in the church- if someone is consistently doing evil, and will not recognize it and repent, it reveals that quite possibly the evil is not such much of a departure from who they really are as their claim to the name "Christian" would indicate. The mark of a Christian should be the way that their own sin breaks their heart.

On the other hand, a non-Christian has self-motivation to drive their actions. It's easy to point to the convict and say that they are obviously operating out of selfish and evil motivations, but what about the good, charitable atheist? Well, I'd put forth that the ultimate motives driving even the most generous, good, and charitable atheist are, at best, purely selfish & prideful. Now I'm not saying that they harbor evil thoughts and feelings toward everyone around them, but they do have a desire to do it themselves, without God. That attitude, in God's book, is just as bad as all of the evil thoughts one could have toward other people. That's hard for good acting people to swallow. Note that there is a large difference in the concept of "evil" between Christians and non-Christians. In fact, that's what we believe initiates one's change from being a non-Christian to being a Christian- one's view of "evil" and their relationship to it changes in that they suddenly recognize their own incredible evilness.

In practice, though, we've all learned cultured behavior well enough that the majority of prideful, selfish, evil people hide it behind good fronts that end up looking just as clean as that of the most selfless, humble person out there. So, the real question that divides cultured behavior from genuine Christianity is the why, and, this is what absolutely must be initiated and completed by God and only God.

Snoopy, your very subtle use of the words "selfish", "prideful", and "evil" when describing the atheist is what I would have expected from an ultra devout Christian like yourself. When you say a Christian's motivation to be good is derived from his love for God, I could easily point out years of the pedophile priest, the church's reluctance to remove them from the priesthood, the bishop's absurd blaming of the altar boys for the priest's fall from glory, etc, etc. I'm not trying to take a cheap shot but merely pointing out that morality is not dependent on whether you are a believer or unbeliever as was already mentioned in other threads. BTW.. Yes, I'm one who hides but I have never done any harm.

Oh, and don't get cultured behavior confused with programmed behavior. Hope some day to see you in the mines where we can settle this...

Bee

[Dakatsu]

/me pulls out his dissecting tools, and prepares to carve this into small pieces. Reading this one sentence at a time...

On the other hand, a non-Christian has self-motivation to drive their actions.

Mmkay Mr. Mackey, mmkay!

It's easy to point to the convict and say that they are obviously operating out of selfish and evil motivations, but what about the good, charitable atheist?

He is... a charitable atheist? Kinda funny how you are comparing a convict to an atheist its almost as if you are trying to...

Well, I'd put forth that the ultimate motives driving even the most generous, good, and charitable atheist are, at best, purely selfish & prideful

And that all Christians are perfect and do everything for Jesus Christ! That, my dear sir, is a serious load of Bovine Fecal Matter of the Male Gender! I help people whenever I can. I assume that helping a girl pick up the books she dropped in the hallway has some secret plan to have sex with her and her best friend?

Now I'm not saying that they harbor evil thoughts and feelings toward everyone around them, but they do have a desire to do it themselves, without God.

While Christians use God to torture people *cough*CRUSADES AND INQUISITION*cough*

That attitude, in God's book, is just as bad as all of the evil thoughts one could have toward other people.

So being an atheist and being an ★■◆● are one in the same? Thats refresing to know! I'll tell my girlfriend that I am an evil person and that she should leave me, but Hitler would be a good match for her!

That's hard for good acting people to swallow.

Actually, yes it is, as I kind of threw up after I swallowed it; it tastes really bad!

Note that there is a large difference in the concept of "evil" between Christians and non-Christians.

I sure do! Faggots are bad people who go to hell if your Christian, while that isn't too bad if your a non-christian!

In fact, that's what we believe initiates one's change from being a non-Christian to being a Christian- one's view of "evil" and their relationship to it changes in that they suddenly recognize their own incredible evilness.

My girlfriend recognizes my evilness, then she ties me up and gags me, where it goes from there, nobody knows! Never knew we were such strong Christians!

WAIT...
/me digs into my picture folder of 1,370 files...



PERFECT!

This post brought to you by Sarcasm!
© Dakatsu, All L33tness Reserved.

[Spidey]

I’m sorry, I know I’m not welcome in this thread, but I had to respond to at least one of these.

Why would anyone think only Christians dislike gays? You know they hang them in Iran!

Carry on...

[roid]

But now it brings up a question. Suppose that a fully qualified technical bible instructor suddenly turned atheist. How would you know, and because he liked his job and his work was impeccable, would it make a difference to those he taught.

Bettina

For it to be a problem would indicate that towing the ideological line was more important to the church than truth and accuracy.

This is what churches are.
Those who actually wish to LEARN should goto school instead of church.

If you have no respect for the Bible, kindly move along to a topic that does interest you. Thanks.

I think you missed the beginning of the thread, Roid. plz2quittrolling,kthxbye.

i first of all typed BIBLE STUDY GROUP, but then removed it and typed SCHOOL instead - i honestly thought it was a better word. Bible Study Groups are essentially Schools. (in hindsight, i can now see how this misunderstanding might be read as antagonistic though)
i've heard ppl here say they attend bible study groups. I think they would be much more condusive to learning than church. My experience with Bible Study Groups however was just a ceremony like church; To openly question things, like doctrine, was taboo even at Bible studies.
But when i hear you guys talk about Bible Study Groups i assume they are better.

You don't yell out "Are you sure?!" at church sermons, lol. You tow the line or you gtfo. From my POV, i see "Churches" as places to conduct religious ceremonies. The fact that preachy sermons are considered ceremonies in their own right, i think reflects poorly on the Church. I don't worship the minister, she is not holy, she's just a person. She's just saying stuff that she made up (ie: a sermon), i don't goto church to treat someone's subjective POV sermon as "holy". They talk as if they have the authority of God - as if they cannot be questioned.
(fleeting thought: I wonder if it's considered a form of idol worship.)


I mean to point out the inherent differences between Church and School (ie: bible study groups).
Should not Church be a place for religious ceremony?
Why are preachy sermons considered religious ceremonies? Do they not cheapen the holiness of the Church setting?

I agree a non believer could have problems conducting religious ceremony - if the intent is for the minister to be intuitively linked with the spirit realm (ie: inspired of God). But as proven by Bettina's performances - a sufficiently tallented showman can pull it off. I would say that Bettina's singing is deeply a part of religious ceremony - it's not dissimilar to chanting mantras. And her performance does wonders for the Church.

If people knew she was a non-believer - they may need some suspension of disbelief to get the same effect from her. i think they'd manage.
In her performances she seems to connect to people on an emotional level, and she says that she really does feel it deeply. I think she's so moving because people can take her performance as a very HUMAN part of the ceremony - it's worshiping/honoring the beauty of humanity. It's deeply religious, but like many religious ceremonies it is perhaps not limited to just her church's religious beliefs, but is something that touches all of humanity.
Perhaps it shouldn't be called religous, but spiritual.
ie: it's religiously moving, yet transcends subjective religious beliefs.

You could honestly call her a priestess

yeah, she's an athiest

does it really make her performance any less spiritually moving, just because she's not owned by any religion? And her performance can therefore not be used as a religious weapon against other faiths?
(ie: it cant be said that "she's a great performer because she subscribes to religion X")

When an English runner breaks the 100m sprinting world record it doesn't make England great, it makes humanity great. Humanity pushed the envelope forward.

[Foil]

roid has an interesting point there.

We've been talking about which arenas are appropriate for non-believers to attend, but we have yet to talk about arenas where it's appropriate for believers to openly discuss and ask the tough questions about their faith.

In the small-group Bible studies my wife and I participate in, we've gotten into some pretty deep discussion, and there's been disagreement at times. I personally think this is a good thing... but I also know there are those who believe Christians should accept what they are taught without question, because questioning is a sign of a lack of faith.

... Thoughts?

[Kilarin]

roid has an interesting point there.

Yes, and thank you very much for explaining that roid.

I also know there are those who believe Christians should accept what they are taught without question, because questioning is a sign of a lack of faith.

Ick! Yeah, I've run into those as well. Even within my own church, and at my church, questioning is part of the doctrine.
You aren't supposed to stand up and interrupt during the church service, of course, but the pastor should expect any text he quotes to be double checked by those in the pews, and after church, pastors are often challenged on the content of the sermon. Not by everyone, mind you, there are a lot of shy people out there, but there are also plenty who won't hesitate to take Bible in hand and straighten the pastor out.

Sabbath School (Equivalent of most churches Sunday School) is wide open for discussion, questions, and polite but serious disagreement.

[roid]

we have yet to talk about arenas where it's appropriate for believers to openly discuss and ask the tough questions about their faith.

Yes but not just that - is it appropriate for ministers to put across their own imperfect viewpoint in such a holy place? Does this not cheapen the perfection of God - and thus any inherent holyness in the Church, the place itself?

Why is the Church holy?
Have we gone astray? The Churches have become like faux schools - they are like real schools, but without any real seeking of or respect for truth.
Have we gone astray? Where Churches ever supposed to be like schools? Was there a time when Churches were merely for religious ritual and ceremony - conducted by priests who followed rituals dictated from above without interpretation?
Since when did priests become social JUDGES; absorbing all the murkiness and grey areas that come with an evolving social system of laws and civil punishments.
When was there ever such murkiness in religious ritual and ceremony? It seems like something that should not even be related.

It seems churches are mostly concerned with telling people howto interpret God's word. And it's all different - all churches have different ideas. There is nothing holy about this - unless you suggest that each Church has it's own God, or that each Minister is essentially God himself.

So - why goto Church to hear someone TELL you howto interpret God's word, if the minister's words are imperfect? Therefore - the minister has no ultimate authority, he is imperfect and so are his sermons. And to suggest otherwise - ie: by treating the sermon as a holy thing given by God not to be questioned or interupted - by giving the minister the respect only God deserves - we are committing idolatory.
We are treating a man as God, we are treating a man's word as God's word.

Is not the Church a holy place? What's so holy about it, if it's just a place for men to pretend they are Gods.
Amongst all of this human defilement - Where is God?



Just what are we getting outof Church?

If churches are for religious ceremony.
And it is taboo to interupt the ceremony when the minister is giving a sermon.
Does not this send the message that \"towing the line\" is considered a religious ceremony?

I'm not sure i really like the implications of that. It makes me VERY VERY uneasy.

- towing the line, keeping the peace, not rocking the boat, saving face. Respect for the institution.

i know it goes against the grain - to disrupt a church sermon. But think about it. Why not, what are we respecting here? the minister? what's so special about them. The minister is not God.

Perhaps the urge to disrupt the sermon is based on some deep inner feeling that knows that something is wrong here - that something isn't jiving with the spirit of the \"holy place\".
Maybe deep down we feel the sacredness of the holy-place is being defiled by imperfect humans daring to assume the throne of GOD.

[Kilarin]

i know it goes against the grain - to disrupt a church sermon. But think about it. Why not, what are we respecting here? the minister? what's so special about them. The minister is not God

At my church, its not even always the minister up front. Not interrupting the sermon doesn't have anything to do with the pastor being holy, or not holy. It's about basic politeness to the one who is speaking and respect for the others who are listening. In a sabbath school forum, the audience is smaller and the format is DESIGNED to encourage discussion. A pastor is giving a presentation. When someone from the government stands up front and says "Please hold your questions until the end of the presentation", its a similar situation. Give the speaker time to have their say, THEN respond, in the proper forum.

It's just common courtesy, respect, and order. The same as you would find in ANY organization. Some formats are designed for discussion during the presentation. Some are designed for duscussion AFTER the presentation.

[Duper]

Roid, you really need to go back and read this thread. You've missed some important stuff on what the Church really is; either that or you have just dismissed it.

In either case, you've taken a very predictable stance and your ideas are certainly main line secular.

The Church isn't holy because of our actions. We will admit that is far from the case. The Church is holy because God has made us so. It should be noted that not everyone that goes to church is a christian. Obviously. And not all, or even the \"best\" christians act perfect even 85% of the time. probably more like 20% and the further along in your walk with God, the more a person realizes how UNperfect they are. Painfully aware.

Church, God, Christianity, all of it is about one on one with God. Flip back a page or two to my definition of the church. It is the invisible collective group of followers of Christ. I say invisible because, in the end, God himself will determine who really belong to Him. I'm sure there will be a flurry of retorts to that statement, but for us who know God, are not bothered by this. How can we be sure? heh, how do you know someone loves you? You folks? Your friends? How do you really know? Those who don't need to go spend some to figure it out. It will be one of the most important things they do.... ever.

[Bet51987]

@Roid, I don't know what to say except that I was really moved by what you said and stunned that you could see that deep inside me. Not many here can. Yes, I usually get emotional during my performance and many people pick up on that as being something spiritual but I reserve the words spiritual and priestess to believers. I'm just an emotional humanist who really cares about those I see in church...just like you said. Again, thanks for making me feel good.

@Foil
Roid has raised much more than just a few points. When I was younger I was one of those who was \"forced\" to tow the line with my religious instructor simply because I asked the \"wrong\" questions and if you remember, I told the story of how he called the parents of those who were \"not participating\". Altough dad only mentioned it to me briefly, I learned to keep real quiet in class for the rest of my time with him.

Also I wish people like Snoopy, Drakona, Lothar, etc would spend more time in these discussions instead of posting \"all or nothing\" kinds of posts. I know time is not always on their side but a few lines could be useful.

@Duper, I know my dad and my priest love me because of the aura that surrounds me when our eyes meet and you're right; It's the most important thing ever and I can't live without it. However, I don't get that feeling from the God who is absent no matter how emotional and spiritual I feel. I never did, and not to bring up an old thread, but Mother Teresa never did either. Go read her book.

Bee

[Duper]

hehe, it's not \"her\" book. (if it's the compilation of her letters) if it is, i won't ever. They were private and I intend on keeping them that way where i am concerned. We each meet with God.
It is OUR responsibility.

That is to say. We can not use what other people do or have done (and for pete sakes Dakat, leave the crusades thing alone...sheesh... ) as an excuse when it's out time before God. Jesus said of the goats.. I do not know you. This of course is speaking of relation and not that He's never heard of the person. (just for clarification).

So, I would say that if you can not feel or hear God, then I would look inside first. I do not have an answer for Mother Teresa. That's between her and God. As for myself, I've heard God and been aware of Him in my life (even when I was in the same place you are) since I was quite young. .. 5 or 6.

If you WANT it, you will go after it. If you don't then you won't and that's Your choice. As it is everyone's here on this board. The outstanding thing about mother Teresa is that she CONTINUED to serve God and seek after Him even in the midst of not feeling or \"hearing\". She didn't give up and say \"oh, God doesn't love me and it's all worthless\".
Why have you given up?

btw, I don't mean to give the impression i don't have my down times or times when I don't feel alone. Feelings are merely that in these cases. I KNOW different from what I'm felling.

oh a quik side note. Where Snoop Drak and Lothar are concerned. They have all been here long enough and put in enough energy to know that it does little good to vigorously debate a topic here anymore. They spend significant time writing out their posts before hand. They can speak for themselves certainly. It has been my exp watching and interacting that after they lay down excellent proofing and reason that their posts get sidestepped or replies are made in the form of splitting hairs into infinity.

I think they have grown tired.

I post what i think and that's about it anymore. I will assert truth into a topic and leave it. Most the time it gets ignored, if not, then it's usually flamed. *shrug* welcome to the internet.

[Drakona]

Also I wish people like Snoopy, Drakona, Lothar, etc would spend more time in these discussions instead of posting "all or nothing" kinds of posts. I know time is not always on their side but a few lines could be useful.

Thank you. I'll try, but you have to understand I'm pretty busy. I only get on my computer and the internet about twice a week; a thread can easily move from interesting to "way too much to respond to" in that space of time.

This one's way past that point, but I'll make a stab.

...You absolutely need God's help to practically pursue righteousness.

Like I told Lothar, my argument with you was weak and my response was based on my sensitivity. However, the quote above irks me too because the antonym means to be wicked and immoral and atheists are not. Well, no less than theists.

There's a subtle point here.

"Good" and "evil", or equivalently "righteousness" and "wickedness" are a spectrum (Christians say otherwise, but I'll get to that). Practically speaking, everybody knows that. You've got your run-of-the-mill jerks, and then you've got your actual criminals, and then you've got your supervillians. And on the other end, to quote Rich Mullins,

Well I am a good Midwestern boy
I give an honest day's work if I can get it
I don't cheat on my taxes
I don't cheat on my girl
I've got values that would make the White House jealous

Well I do get a little much over-impressed
'Til I think of Peter and Paul and the apostles
I don't stack up too well against them I guess
But by the standards 'round here I ain't doing that awful

There's decent, and then there's good, and while most of us aren't exactly devoting our lives to helping the poor and defending the innocent, but by the standards 'round here, we ain't that awful.

But there's something else about the words "good" and "evil"--in spite of the fact that there's a spectrum, we do actually draw a line. We do actually divide people into two groups, one good and one evil. Most of us do it like this: Anybody who's as good as me, or better, is "good"; anybody who's worse is "evil". We honor the good, and despise (or punish or fight, depending) the evil.

So that seems like an insult, doesn't it? If I say Christians are righteous, and others aren't, I'm saying we're better than the rest of you. That's an insult. Heck, not only would it be an insult to point it out of it were true, you're pretty sure it's not true.

Of course, that's not what I'm saying at all. When the Christian talks about good and evil, he's not talking about relative to himself. He's talking about relative to God.

That's worth stopping and thinking about. I know some of you don't think God is very good, but you're wrong. God is good to a degree that shocks and ashames the holiest of saints. God is good to a degree that we can't fathom. God is good to a degree that it ought to terrify you that he exists.

You hear Christians say "all sin is just sin" and "everyone's evil." On the one hand, that always irritates me, because it's obviously wrong. There's evil and then there's evil, and recognizing that is absolutely Biblical. On the other hand, it's completely true; On the good-evil scale, one person might be a 5, and another might be a 50. God's infinity. We're all evil compared to him.

So don't take it as too much of an insult if I call you evil. I mean, it might help if I point out that I see traces of evil in how I put that last post together.

(Back when I actually kept a blog, I posted on a topic touching most of these themes. If you'd like to read a better post about it than I have time to regurgitate now, go here.)

So where do I get off saying Christians are righteous (and others aren't) by God's standard? Heh, no time to explain tonight. Ask another Christian, they can 'splain it to ya. It's true, though.

I wish I had time to say more; I must go to bed. I really wish I had more time to engage Roid's excellent questions, but I do want to comment on one paragraph that caught my eye . . .

You don't yell out "Are you sure?!" at church sermons, lol. . . .

I wish we did. The most courage I ever have is to give the pastor a stern talkin' to after church.

You tow the line or you gtfo. From my POV, i see "Churches" as places to conduct religious ceremonies. The fact that preachy sermons are considered ceremonies in their own right, i think reflects poorly on the Church. I don't worship the minister, she is not holy, she's just a person. She's just saying stuff that she made up (ie: a sermon), i don't goto church to treat someone's subjective POV sermon as "holy". They talk as if they have the authority of God - as if they cannot be questioned.

So true. Pastors are welcomed as though they have the word of God; they'll even claim it casually. Generally speaking, they don't. It's false prophecy. I wish we still carried out the Old Testament punishment for that.

(fleeting thought: I wonder if it's considered a form of idol worship.)

I don't know about idol worship, but I consider it the re-establishment of the priesthood. The very priesthood Christ died to abolish.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Just wanted to say that I appreciated your post, Roid. Gotta be one of the only times you've said something I don't disagree with.

I've heard you came from a background of being a Jehovah's Witness. It makes me feel the same when I hear you and Bettina talk about matters of religion. I'm of the persuasion that you both hail from lifeless religions. Both with their impressive form and tradition, but both without the life or relationship promised to Christians by God in the Bible. I'm not trying to flatter at all, but personally I think it speaks well of both of you, on a certain level, that you don't buy it.

Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods which have not profited those who have been occupied with them.

To answer a subject you brought up in your post, Roid, I don't think the church is at all what it was meant to be. When a man stands up and starts saying something wrong (that is, something contrary to scripture, since the Bible is "the word of God"--the source of Christian doctrine), he ought to be taken to task for it at the earliest opportunity. With respect for the speaker and the audience, and with humility and Godly fear, but with an equal degree of urgency.

5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Further-more, Christ himself is to be the head of the "body"--the church. The Bible says there is one teacher, even the Christ (Matt 23:10). Non of this is figurative. If the churches of our day are not under the direct lordship of Jesus Christ, and under the anointing of God's own spirit (non-figurative, non-poetic) in everything they do, or if they claim they are but there is no real proof... they are a lie. It's pretentious. God himself is supposed to be involved... actively, not merely a figurehead or even a distant deity.

I have one interest in Christianity--one thing that I'm completely invested in (to whatever degree I am invested, to be honest). God himself, revealed by the word of God--the Bible. If that's not true, then it's all worthless. But I feel that there is a great deal of evidence that it is true, though that evidence is interpreted differently (sometimes outrageously: take recent historic accounts of divine healing) by people of a different world-view. I've encountered thousands of arguments, but no facts, in condemnation of my faith in God through Jesus Christ.

[snoopy]

I've been a slacker about posting again on here, so here we go for more.

First, thanks, Roid for a genuine post.

Does it cheaper the perfection & holiness of God for man to interact with it? (preach about it, discuss it, etc.)

I'd say yes. It's really beyond our comprehension, so anything we could possibly do with it falls short. That being said, we're called to deal with it, teach about it, and generally touch it. It's more important that we make it impact our daily lives than that we preserve it's full value. Choosing to deliberately cheapen it, however, is a different matter.

Has the church gone astray?

Since we're fallible humans, absolutely yes. Is it because many churches don't focus enough on studying the word and maintaining good systematic theology? Yes. Are sermons completely misled? I don't think so. In theory, sermons are supposed to deal with application of the word, not interpretation. In theory, everyone will come to a sermon having read the passage, studied it, and will have a good grasp on what the passage means. Inevitably this doesn't happen, so the pastor has to do some interpretive coaching before he can get to the applicational message that he wants to deliver. People listening should have a good enough knowledge of the Bible that they can not only \"test\" the interpretive coaching, but also the application encouraged.

As has been said before, pastor's messages get questioned all the time, it's just rude to interrupt when a speech is being delivered in a monologue format.

The thing is, Sunday services aren't intended to be the extent of church life. Bible studies and Sunday school are intended to be forums to study a passage and determine, is a classroom/discussion format, interpretative details of passages. Social events are meant to provide a fellowship aspect to church life.

Furthermore, most churches, in practice, are led by a committee of people. The pastor may be the front-man, but it's rarely (and is dangerous for it to be) a single person leading a congregation. Usually, if a pastor starts saying things that are out of line, they won't have their position for long. Do these committees \"tow the line?\" Yes, to some point, but not on what people would consider \"core beliefs of the christian faith.\" I mean, they argue over things like when people should be baptized, and you're rarely going to find a church where the elders don't all agree on one or the other, because people of similar options gravitate to each other, but neither side can point to something in the Bible that decisively proves one side wrong. That being said, church splits, people coming and going from churches, pastors getting fired, etc. etc. (generally bad things) happen all of the time because of differences of opinion on interpretation of the Bible. I'd venture to say that any \"Christian\" that doesn't have STRONG opinions about biblical interpretation are just faking it. Many people are very careless about how they develop those opinions, but if someone were to start preaching differently than their beliefs, the large majority of Christians would do something about it.

When you say a Christian's motivation to be good is derived from his love for God, I could easily point out years of the pedophile priest, the church's reluctance to remove them from the priesthood, the bishop's absurd blaming of the altar boys for the priest's fall from glory, etc, etc. I'm not trying to take a cheap shot but merely pointing out that morality is not dependent on whether you are a believer or unbeliever as was already mentioned in other threads. BTW.. Yes, I'm one who hides but I have never done any harm.

First, I'll point out that all evil behavior springs from the selfishness & evilness that is a part of all of our bodies.

Second, I don't believe that many pedophile priests set out to be priests to somehow make it easier for them to enact their pedophilia, and if they did, they where obviously faking their piety along the whole way. In most cases, they started serving the church with the best of intentions, and probably determined to leave whatever sinfulness they had in their past behind. Along the way, however, their evil side, if I may call it such, sorta took over again, and they ended up just faking it. I won't speculate on their initial true motivations (most likely ones that they where unaware of themselves), but I'll say that they probably had the best of intentions.

Be it via culture or programming, most of us are pretty good at hiding exactly how evil we are from showing on the outside.

[Foil]

Wow, some good discussion going on here. Not sure how I missed reading a few of those posts, but it's good to get back to them.


On the topic of roid's post about challenging religious authority:

From my experience, it has less to do with people's fear of challenging the establishment, and more to do with the willingness of the pastor and elders to accept such challenges. For example, I've talked to a church leader who was so convinced he had it all figured out, that he simply dismissed any questioning of his teaching as nonsense. On the other hand, my favorite pastor/theologian always welcomed challenges to his teaching, and started a tradition of regular "open forum discussions" for church on various heavy topics (racism, war, etc.).

...pastor's messages get questioned all the time, it's just rude to interrupt when a speech is being delivered in a monologue format.

That's true, though it's also somewhat dependent on cultural and ethnic influences. I've been to a couple of services in African-American churches where it's acceptable to not only give a hearty "Amen" to a good point, but people can stand up and ask questions.

[Jeff250]

Snoopy, am I correct to say that you are taking up the view of psychological egoism, with the extension that God, through divine intervention, allows one to overcome this?

People can argue for or against psychological egoism all day (there are some criticisms in the article I linked). My beef is that if you're going to maintain the position that all actions (of non-Christians) are selfish, they must be selfish in a most trivial way that isn't useful for ethical discussion, especially compared to the ordinary understanding of selfishness and how we typically think about it. Any person who gives money to charity might do so out of some sort of selfishness, but surely this is trivial selfishness compared to the person who steals money from charity.

Do any other of the elect here feel that they have unlocked some sort of newfound capacity for altruism that would have otherwise been impossible if they were not saved? Remember, this question will be used to determine if you are a true Christian.

[Sergeant Thorne]

What difference does it make whether a given "Christian" is more unselfish than the non-Christian next to them? Christianity is a selfless calling. The Bible speaks of believers being transformed into the image of Christ.

18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Was Christ selfish? Is it right for anyone who calls themself a Christian to be motivated by selfish ambitions? If I as a child of *God* am incapable of being any more unselfish than an unbeliever, then what am I? A lier?

(Editorially speaking) Are you any less selfish for giving out some money rather than holding it back, if either one is to benefit yourself more than others? Granted the object of charity is better off, but an unselfish act has to originate from unselfish intentions. If it originates from selfish intentions, that makes it a selfish act, no matter the consequences. It is entirely a matter of what's in your heart. Of course, selfishness that helps others is better than selfishness that does not. However, the consequences have not made you any less selfish.

Someone might say, "what's wrong with this kind of selfishness?" Some people may think I'm splitting hairs, and that it doesn't matter, but selfishness is selfishness. Selfishness is a habit, and it's a habit of caring about yourself more than others. That's what's wrong with it, and why it's important to understand--if only for our own personal edification--that selfishness that helps others is not unselfish.