Article: Real vs Fake Persecution CC

[Guest]

I was asking you to clarify, and you accused me of wrongdoing and not listening. Somehow you manage to attack me and paint yourself as a victim at the same time.  Wouldn't it be nicer to have a conversation? 

 

Yes, if you did not mean that the way it sounded, I apologize. 

[Guest]

One post in five pages is negative.  I think you are really blowing this out of proportion. Kind of proves the point of the initial article: We are so culturally programmed that there “will be persecution†that we develop a persecution complex which causes us to look at any given ink blot and see an intriguing case of anti-Christian discrimination.

 

It's just that people can see it starting and don't want to stick around for the rest.  

[Guest]

Yes... that's the part I disagree with.  I agree with the rest being abusive, but I disagree that any of that qualifies as persecution.

 

You might want to google the definition of persecution.

[Guest]

Great article on verbal persecution:

 

http://baptistcourier.com/bible-study/when-we-are-persecuted/

[NicAnn]

Great article on verbal persecution:

 

http://baptistcourier.com/bible-study/when-we-are-persecuted/

Some great scriptural reminders in that article. Thank you for posting it!

[SadieMarie]

This reminds me of a story about a woman I know who is Jewish and moved to rural Kentucky.  People were trying to be nice and welcoming by inviting her to their churches and she would thank them and say  "No thank you " that she was Jewish.  And people responded with "I'm sorry".   She never called it persecution, probably just they were taken aback and didn't know what to say but they did not stay there very long.

[Guest]

Some great scriptural reminders in that article. Thank you for posting it!

 

No problem!  :)

 

You know, I have to agree with this. On these boards, in particular, there are multiple topics I either don't participate in or bow out of very early precisely because the echo chamber/dog pile isn't worth the headache. For every participant that is thoughtful, respectful, and actually engages the premise, it seems three more are rude, personally attack, or refuse to actually accept an alternate premise to an argument.

 

There are a surprising number of boardies who concur with the minority sentiment on threads like these, but just don't want to deal with the drama. Not wanting to stick around and bludgeon something out doesn't actually indicate a lack of conviction or a weak argument. I'd say it's a sign of wisdom.

 

I may be way off base, but I generally consider this forum a fairly hostile place to frankly discuss belief. Multiple times I have seen these be misconstrued, nitpicked, misrepresented, or argued with attempts at shame (things like "wow." or "I can't believe you said that" are not actually decent counter arguments or productive to open discussion).

 

This could just be my own baggage on the topic, but there is a lot of truth to the fact that most folks who are of conservative religious or political belief just don't want to deal with the prevailing wind on this forum. Some of it verges into outright bullying and is simply not worth the mental energy to manage. Healthy, normal folks don't intentionally beat their heads against brick walls, and that is what arguing on the Internet often amounts to ;)

 

And NO, I'm not up for debating these assertions ad nauseum. This is my opinion, observation, and support of another poster. That's it.

 

Totally agree.  I've taken a very long break for this very reason... these topics are just impossible.  I only responded to show support to a couple of posters, as I hate to see fellow Christians without anyone to back them up.  However, sometimes I think it's best to just avoid certain controversies because they always turn out the same way.  I wish it didn't have to be that way.  I think that we should be able to voice our opinions without all the fallout that follows.

[umsami]

See, I thought people were bowing out because somebody attacked JWs….and they wanted to support them.

 

I guess I misread things.

 

In terms of verbal persecution…. yes I've had two very large men come up to me on a beach, and tell me "Isn't this beach for Americans? Why don't you go back where you came from."   I've had a person bang on my window, while I was at a traffic light.  I view those more as verbal assaults, though, then persecution.  For me, persecution is more long-standing.

[poppy]

Great article on verbal persecution:

 

http://baptistcourier.com/bible-study/when-we-are-persecuted/

 

That article really paints prosecution with a broad brush. Anytime anyone says any insult, lie, gossip or hurtful thing, it's persecution. If that is the standard by which you measure pescution, then it is experienced by nearly human on earth of every faith regularly.  Nothing to do with religion at all.

[Mergath]

I agree.  I've noticed that, in some circles, if you voice a Christian opinion, people argue and berate you (your opinion)... almost to the point of wanting to bully you out of your beliefs (with name-calling, sarcasm, and other insults).  The tone is always very negative and angry.

 

It's funny how when someone says anything negative about Christians or disagrees with their beliefs, that's persecution, but when Christians actually try to deny gay people their rights and outright slander them, it's not persecution, just Christians exercising their religious freedom.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

[Joanne]

Great article on verbal persecution:

 

http://baptistcourier.com/bible-study/when-we-are-persecuted/

 

This is an example of the issue being featured in the OP. it details perceived/manufactured persecution but is not a support for persecution. It trots out predictable scripture, but does not support the case of actual persecution happening here in the US.

[Guest]

I guess it's easier to deny that certain behaviors are persecution (when they clearly are based on the definitions of persecution) than to have to admit one is guilty of such a thing.  

 

Mergath, I'm not wanting to get into that debate, either, but I will say that just because I do not agree that homosexuality is okay, doesn't mean I would slander or mistreat a gay person.  Period.  It is wrong of you to assume that just because someone is a Christian, it means they are doing so.

 

Anyway, off to a late appointment!  Have a blessed day, everyone!  :)

[poppy]

I guess it's easier to deny that certain behaviors are persecution (when they clearly are based on the definitions of persecution) than to have to admit one is guilty of such a thing.  

 

Mergath, I'm not wanting to get into that debate, either, but I will say that just because I do not agree that homosexuality is okay, doesn't mean I would slander or mistreat a gay person.  Period.  It is wrong of you to assume that just because someone is a Christian, it means they are doing so.

 

Anyway, off to a late appointment!  Have a blessed day, everyone!   :)

 

My challenge back at this: if you'd use your vote to deny gay people access to marriage and legal benefits associated with it,  do you think that would fit under the definition of persecution?

 

[Mergath]

I guess it's easier to deny that certain behaviors are persecution (when they clearly are based on the definitions of persecution) than to have to admit one is guilty of such a thing.  

 

Mergath, I'm not wanting to get into that debate, either, but I will say that just because I do not agree that homosexuality is okay, doesn't mean I would slander or mistreat a gay person.  Period.  It is wrong of you to assume that just because someone is a Christian, it means they are doing so.

 

Anyway, off to a late appointment!  Have a blessed day, everyone!   :)

 

I'm not making any assumptions.  I have a pretty good idea who regularly persecutes members of the gay community based on past discussions here, and our lgbt members have had to deal with FAR more of it than any of the Christians here.

 

I really don't see how you can think the things you've said in the past don't qualify as persecution, but that things people have said about Christianity do.  You really don't see the disconnect there?  If I were to say that Christians are an abomination, unnatural, and shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt children, you wouldn't see that as you being persecuted?

[maize]

My challenge back at this: if you'd use your vote to deny gay people access to marriage and legal benefits associated with it, do you think that would fit under the definition of persecution?

Is it persecution to vote against anything that would benefit some group of people? If I vote against a new school bond, am I persecuting students or teachers? If I vote against legalizing pot am I persecuting pot users? If I vote to raise property taxes am I persecuting home owners? If I vote for the legal definition of marriage that I believe to be most beneficial to society am I persecuting those who want a different definition?

 

With respect to verbal abuse and name-calling, I would be comfortable calling it persecution regardless of who it is aimed at. It is hurtful, it is meant to be hurtful, it is just as abusive in the context of a public forum as it is in the intimate context of personal relationships. I stand adamantly against the "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" concept. And on this forum I have seen significantly more name-calling, derision, and bullying aimed at Christians and people who espouse traditional values than at others.

[Catwoman]

See, I thought people were bowing out because somebody attacked JWs….and they wanted to support them.

 

I guess I misread things.

 

In terms of verbal persecution…. yes I've had two very large men come up to me on a beach, and tell me "Isn't this beach for Americans? Why don't you go back where you came from."   I've had a person bang on my window, while I was at a traffic light.  I view those more as verbal assaults, though, then persecution.  For me, persecution is more long-standing.

I would view it as just plain scary and creepy! :eek:

 

I'm so sorry things like that have happened to you. There is absolutely no excuse for people to behave that way. :angry:

[SadieMarie]

I'm not making any assumptions.  I have a pretty good idea who regularly persecutes members of the gay community based on past discussions here, and our lgbt members have had to deal with FAR more of it than any of the Christians here.

 

I really don't see how you can think the things you've said in the past don't qualify as persecution, but that things people have said about Christianity do.  You really don't see the disconnect there?  If I were to say that Christians are an abomination, unnatural, and shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt children, you wouldn't see that as you being persecuted?

 

You forgot to point out that they could always choose not to be Christians and switch to Judaism or Islam or whatever...

[Haiku]

Is it persecution to vote against anything that would benefit some group of people? If I vote against a new school bond, am I persecuting students or teachers? If I vote against legalizing pot am I persecuting pot users? If I vote to raise property taxes am I persecuting home owners? If I vote for the legal definition of marriage that I believe to be most beneficial to society am I persecuting those who want a different definition?

 

None of these examples involve denying to one group of people rights you extend to other groups of people.

[*Lulu*]

Is it persecution to vote against anything that would benefit some group of people? If I vote against a new school bond, am I persecuting students or teachers? If I vote against legalizing pot am I persecuting pot users? If I vote to raise property taxes am I persecuting home owners? If I vote for the legal definition of marriage that I believe to be most beneficial to society am I persecuting those who want a different definition?

 

With respect to verbal abuse and name-calling, I would be comfortable calling it persecution regardless of who it is aimed at. It is hurtful, it is meant to be hurtful, it is just as abusive in the context of a public forum as it is in the intimate context of personal relationships. I stand adamantly against the "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" concept. And on this forum I have seen significantly more name-calling, derision, and bullying aimed at Christians and people who espouse traditional values than at others.

As a Christian who was raised with and once held traditional values and has moved to the more liberal end of the faith spectrum-

 

I only see the vitriol come out when a poster wants the traditional values they hold affirmed as better or more worthy than the values held by others.

 

Your rights stop where mine begin.

 

When you want to have your rights and force me to cede my rights in the name of your values, religiously motivated or otherwise, we're gonna have problems. And passionate responses should be expected when the topic is so personal and emotionally charged.

 

In the years I have been reading and posting here I can only recall a handful of times where a traditional value loving Christian was harshly treated without being the instigator.

 

If you throw rocks at someone and they flatten you it is a little disingenuous to say they are a bully.

[Mergath]

Is it persecution to vote against anything that would benefit some group of people? If I vote against a new school bond, am I persecuting students or teachers? If I vote against legalizing pot am I persecuting pot users? If I vote to raise property taxes am I persecuting home owners? If I vote for the legal definition of marriage that I believe to be most beneficial to society am I persecuting those who want a different definition?

 

It's persecution to deny people the same rights you enjoy just because you believe your God thinks the gay is icky.

 

If Christians had been a minority group denied the right to marry since society acknowledged their existence, yes, it would be persecution if I voted against extending them that right.  Just because a group has always been discriminated against doesn't make it somehow less wrong to continue to do so.

[umsami]

You forgot to point out that they could always choose not to be Christians and switch to Judaism or Islam or whatever...

 

If you're ever going to convert to Islam, do so during the next two weeks.  It's Ramadan…which means, multi-cultural awesome potluck every single night at many mosques.  Plus, insanely good sweets.   Oh…and for those who are bothered about men and women eating separately, I can tell you at least where I am…the women tend to make something extra for their "sisters". ;)  

 

(Total honesty, though, you don't have to convert to enjoy the food.  Mosques welcome any and all people, especially during Ramadan.  It's also a tradition in many Muslim countries to put out banquets for those who are hungry, so many see it as an extra blessing to feed people in need.  If you like yummy things made with phyllo dough, stop by.  It's also the time for qataif…which are little pancakes filled with cheese or nuts and deep fried.  Oh, and little date filled cookies called mamoul. )

[Denise in Florida]

Is it persecution to vote against anything that would benefit some group of people? If I vote against a new school bond, am I persecuting students or teachers? If I vote against legalizing pot am I persecuting pot users? If I vote to raise property taxes am I persecuting home owners? If I vote for the legal definition of marriage that I believe to be most beneficial to society am I persecuting those who want a different definition?

 

With respect to verbal abuse and name-calling, I would be comfortable calling it persecution regardless of who it is aimed at. It is hurtful, it is meant to be hurtful, it is just as abusive in the context of a public forum as it is in the intimate context of personal relationships. I stand adamantly against the "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" concept. And on this forum I have seen significantly more name-calling, derision, and bullying aimed at Christians and people who espouse traditional values than at others.

 

Sorry Maize, but I gotta go with yes it is persecution.

 

Voting against a school bond or pot does not deny an entire group of people a basic civil right that is already enjoyed by everyone else. 

 

I do not want to seem as if I am abusing or name calling, I would never say you can't believe what you believe. I just want the law to be impartial.

[SadieMarie]

If you're ever going to convert to Islam, do so during the next two weeks.  It's Ramadan…which means, multi-cultural awesome potluck every single night at many mosques.  Plus, insanely good sweets.   Oh…and for those who are bothered about men and women eating separately, I can tell you at least where I am…the women tend to make something extra for their "sisters". ;)

 

(Total honesty, though, you don't have to convert to enjoy the food.  Mosques welcome any and all people, especially during Ramadan.  It's also a tradition in many Muslim countries to put out banquets for those who are hungry, so many see it as an extra blessing to feed people in need.  If you like yummy things made with phyllo dough, stop by.  It's also the time for qataif…which are little pancakes filled with cheese or nuts and deep fried.  Oh, and little date filled cookies called mamoul. )

 

Phyllo dough you say?  :drool5:

[goldberry]

Jehovahs Witnesses make it point to invade other people's private property/space in order to proselytize.  That is probably the reason for the vast majority, if not all, of the unwelcome they receive.  There are other religions/religious groups who do the same thing.  I am sure they are not terribly welcome most of the time either.   If the Jehovahs Witnesses want to feel more welcome, they'll need to revamp their marketing strategy immensely.  Very few people enjoy having strangers come around to their private homes trying to sell them something.  That's not persecution.  That's just not allowing intruders the opportunity to annoy you in your own home. 

 

I agree with you that being annoyed someone knocked on your door and even asking them not to come again is not persecution.  Anyone has the right to take that stand. 

 

This, on the other hand...

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/man-shoots-19-times-at-jehovahs-witnesses-trying-to-get-them-off-property-105795/#!

 

(There were not any "No Trespassing" signs involved, which JWs respect. They also apologized and were leaving when asked to do so.)

 

 

.

[poppy]

If there is one thing everyone on this thread can agree on, it might just be that shooting at people just because they annoy you and aren't getting off your property fast enough is not a good idea.

[umsami]

If there is one thing everyone on this thread can agree on, it might just be that shooting at people just because they annoy you and aren't getting off your property fast enough is not a good idea.

 

Ah…see…I live in Florida…so….um….that sort of thing isn't so unusual. ;)

[zoobie]

Yes. The emergency plan is that half the congregation is armed on any given day, including my husband and sometimes myself. Someone shooting wouldn't make it far, given how many expert marksmen there are among us (and multiple military, along with a state trooper).

 

There are also emergency exit plans, yes, but realistically the men in the congregation are the biggest deterrent. The cowards threw it from a vehicle and sped off one time, and in off hours another, probably for just that reason.

 

It's not something we live in fear over, but when we're talking about being religiously targeted and persecution I think there may be some confusion over how much actually happens. These incidents got police reports filed, but nobody freaked out and demanded media attention or mounted social networking campaigns. Just because nobody knew about it but the body, a few police officers, an insurance agent, and the perps themselves, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But your random local agnostic isn't going to be aware of this having occurred, because it didn't make the rounds of local news. Make sense?

Yikes. I wonder how many "friendlies" would be shot in that scenario.

[AlmiraGulch]

If you're ever going to convert to Islam, do so during the next two weeks.  It's Ramadan…which means, multi-cultural awesome potluck every single night at many mosques.  Plus, insanely good sweets.   Oh…and for those who are bothered about men and women eating separately, I can tell you at least where I am…the women tend to make something extra for their "sisters". ;)

 

(Total honesty, though, you don't have to convert to enjoy the food.  Mosques welcome any and all people, especially during Ramadan.  It's also a tradition in many Muslim countries to put out banquets for those who are hungry, so many see it as an extra blessing to feed people in need.  If you like yummy things made with phyllo dough, stop by.  It's also the time for qataif…which are little pancakes filled with cheese or nuts and deep fried.  Oh, and little date filled cookies called mamoul. )

 

I'm not much into anyone's religion, but I'll go eat delicious food with welcoming people any day of the week!  This sounds so good......

[idnib]

If you're ever going to convert to Islam, do so during the next two weeks.  It's Ramadan…which means, multi-cultural awesome potluck every single night at many mosques.  Plus, insanely good sweets.   Oh…and for those who are bothered about men and women eating separately, I can tell you at least where I am…the women tend to make something extra for their "sisters". ;)

 

(Total honesty, though, you don't have to convert to enjoy the food.  Mosques welcome any and all people, especially during Ramadan.  It's also a tradition in many Muslim countries to put out banquets for those who are hungry, so many see it as an extra blessing to feed people in need.  If you like yummy things made with phyllo dough, stop by.  It's also the time for qataif…which are little pancakes filled with cheese or nuts and deep fried.  Oh, and little date filled cookies called mamoul. )

 

 

Yes, yes....lure them in with food. Mwahahaha....

[livetoread]

Yes. The emergency plan is that half the congregation is armed on any given day, including my husband and sometimes myself. Someone shooting wouldn't make it far, given how many expert marksmen there are among us (and multiple military, along with a state trooper).

 

There are also emergency exit plans, yes, but realistically the men in the congregation are the biggest deterrent. The cowards threw it from a vehicle and sped off one time, and in off hours another, probably for just that reason.

 

It's not something we live in fear over, but when we're talking about being religiously targeted and persecution I think there may be some confusion over how much actually happens. These incidents got police reports filed, but nobody freaked out and demanded media attention or mounted social networking campaigns. Just because nobody knew about it but the body, a few police officers, an insurance agent, and the perps themselves, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But your random local agnostic isn't going to be aware of this having occurred, because it didn't make the rounds of local news. Make sense?

Just think if the disciples and early Christians could have been carrying. When it was looking like martyr time, they could have pulled out their guns and said, "Persecute this!" Or something. The Fox's Book of Martyrs would have read quite differently anyway.

 

I wonder what would have happened to the religion if it had started out with the idea that you should use violence against persecution.

[idnib]

Great article on verbal persecution:

 

http://baptistcourier.com/bible-study/when-we-are-persecuted/

 

 

I read the article and am genuinely confused.  Since Jinnah has bowed out, can someone else clarify?

 

The below quote seems to be saying, unpleasant as it may be to be persecuted, if a Christian is not experiencing  persecution they're not doing it right. Keep pushing the envelope until you experience the inevitable persecution, however you perceive that. It makes persecution sound..."desirable" is not the right word...maybe "proof" that you're doing something right?

Persecution is not pleasant, yet it is part of the blessed, abundant life we are privileged to live as followers of Jesus. In Matthew 5:10-12, Jesus completed the Beatitudes. D.A. Carson has noted that this final beatitude is the one that binds up the other seven. He says, “If the disciple of Jesus never experiences any persecution at all, it may fairly be asked where righteousness is being displayed in his life.â€

 

 

 

 

[SemiSweet]

Just think if the disciples and early Christians could have been carrying. When it was looking like martyr time, they could have pulled out their guns and said, "Persecute this!" Or something. The Fox's Book of Martyrs would have read quite differently anyway.

 

I wonder what would have happened to the religion if it had started out with the idea that you should use violence against persecution.

What about Jesus in the temple overturning tables and driving people out? Surely he would be shot for his violence in a place of worship by today's standard?

[*Lulu*]

I am not unaccustomed to being around firearms and, having a FIL and extended family who were LEOs and carried everywhere, am not uncomfortable with the idea that there are concealed carriers in my vicinity.

 

I would not be comfortable in a worship service with people carrying in the manner pp described.

 

I would not be comfortable allowing my children the level of independence they currently enjoy during services knowing the church was full of weapons.

 

Somehow the juxtaposition of Christ's radical hospitality with the circle-the-wagon vibe strikes me as.........discordant.

[*Lulu*]

A new post by the same author whose post was at the start of this thread:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/no-jesus-didnt-command-we-own-weapons/

[chiguirre]

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised, nobody I know carries a gun and discharges it without serious provocation.

That's great, but not all gun owners are responsible. ColoradoPerkins' linked article is chilling. I personally find door to door proselytizing obnoxious, but getting out your shotgun and firing 19 times at the fleeing JWs is crazy. Luckily, they weren't martyred.

[Denise in Florida]

Well don't visit my church and you'll be fine if that's actually a concern. I don't know anyone who open carries, but there are guns and knives on many people there as a matter of course. That's the case all over the place up here. We have tons of kids running around and hospitality and fellowship abounds - far more than any other congregation I've been in (one of the many reason I love it).

 

Again, this is probably a cultural difference. Even the fairly squishy churches with a little less deep preaching than I generally enjoy still have plenty of guns, flannel, and snow boots up here. It's regional, especially among the more family oriented and conservative groups.

 

Somehow I've let myself be roped back in on this topic again. Foolish of me. I've already answered the initial post and several secondary questions, including hyperbolic and sarcastic ones. So I think I'm more than done with this, thanks :)

 

I agree that I might not be comfortable either; but, if it is the expectation/norm of the community then it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. :)  

 

One thing I keep seeing here is that all communities have their own way of doing things.  There is certainly nothing inherently wrong with a community/church choosing how to protect themselves. 

[Denise in Florida]

That's great, but not all gun owners are responsible. ColoradoPerkins' linked article is chilling. I personally find door to door proselytizing obnoxious, but getting out your shotgun and firing 19 times at the fleeing JWs is crazy. Luckily, they weren't martyred.

 

 

This does not sound like the sort of community Arctic Mama is describing though. :)

 

I don't foresee a time when I would carry a weapon, but I believe they can be handled responsibly. 

[*Lulu*]

I agree that I might not be comfortable either; but, if it is the expectation/norm of the community then it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. :)

 

One thing I keep seeing here is that all communities have their own way of doing things. There is certainly nothing inherently wrong with a community/church choosing how to protect themselves.

It certainly sounds like it may be a regional thing.

 

Which may mean I misread the tone of an earlier post. I took it as a "my church does it this way and it is the way all should be" when it may not have been intended as such.

 

Then again, despite my excellent red blooded 'merican credentials raised in a Southern-hunting-military-conservative family, I am a member of a UMC congregation that is probably too squishy for my opinion to count.

[marbel]

I agree that I might not be comfortable either; but, if it is the expectation/norm of the community then it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. :)

 

One thing I keep seeing here is that all communities have their own way of doing things.  There is certainly nothing inherently wrong with a community/church choosing how to protect themselves. 

 

I've been in a church where at least one person carried.  If asked, he would say that he was prepared to die for his faith and felt confident in his salvation, but he did not expect everyone in  the congregation to do so, particularly the children.  I don't think most people consider murder to be martyrdom just because it happens in a church.

[Denise in Florida]

If you're genuinely confused, I'll honor the question with a basic answer. The essential theology of Christianity is inherently offensive to the fallen, sinful world. Friendship with the world is described as enmity with God, and we cannot serve both - it's one or the other. If you look, act, preach, and speak so much like those you are supposed to be witnessing to that they see nothing at which to be affronted or contest, essential biblical truth is likely missing and the gospel is likely not being preached. This has nothing to do with the manner in which the witnessing or preaching is done, but the content alone.

 

If nobody could tell I was a Christian except by my verbal label as one, that means my words, interactions, manner of living, and basic comportment all deserves examination to see if I am truly saved. I John would be my recommendation for the short version of what a believer should be preaching through their words and deeds. A quick read if you are interested in what the life and faith of a saved believer should look like.

 

That is the quickest way I can clarify that for you. Read 1 John, or study Romans if you're interested in deeper exposition on the topic with dialectics included.

 

I agree with the above as far as the 'intent' of the passages. Unfortunately, in my experience (locally) many Christians seem to take this further to mean 'I can be as offensive as I want and it is okay with God".  When someone asks to be treated politely or left alone these same (poorly taught) Christians simply begin bludgeoning them with scripture.  That isn't the fault of the religion but it is the reality of the prospective convert/victim. :)

 

Arctic Mama - as we discussed earlier your words are in no way responsible for my reaction, my reaction comes from my experiences. 

 

My own Christian doctrine does not include total depravity nor do we assume that Christianity is inherently offensive to the world.  Although there are many who reject the message of Christ, we cannot drag them to faith we can only offer love and truth. 

 

I totally agree that if people can only tell I am a Christian because I say I am then I am doing it wrong. :)

[idnib]

If you're genuinely confused, I'll honor the question with a basic answer. The essential theology of Christianity is inherently offensive to the fallen, sinful world. Friendship with the world is described as enmity with God, and we cannot serve both - it's one or the other. If you look, act, preach, and speak so much like those you are supposed to be witnessing to that they see nothing at which to be affronted or contest, essential biblical truth is likely missing and the gospel is likely not being preached. This has nothing to do with the manner in which the witnessing or preaching is done, but the content alone.

 

If nobody could tell I was a Christian except by my verbal label as one, that means my words, interactions, manner of living, and basic comportment all deserves examination to see if I am truly saved. I John would be my recommendation for the short version of what a believer should be preaching through their words and deeds. A quick read if you are interested in what the life and faith of a saved believer should look like.

 

That is the quickest way I can clarify that for you. Read 1 John, or study Romans if you're interested in deeper exposition on the topic with dialectics included.

 

 

Thanks, this is helpful and makes sense. It's different from my worldview, but I understand the idea, kind of. It's difficult to reconcile that with the other thing I've heard about how God so loved the world He sent his only son with the idea that a person cannot serve the world and  God at the same time. I'll have to think on that one.

 

We recently bought a Bible after I saw a list similar to this one and I realized I need to learn more about the Bible's place in literature, history and everyday life. I will read the sections you told me about. Thanks for the direct pointers; it probably would have taken me forever to find what I'm looking for otherwise. 

 

2 questions, if you have the time, I understand if you don't:

 

1) When you say "friendship with the world" do you mean actual people, or are you referencing the material world in general?

 

2) Wrt the examination of basic components to see if one is truly saved, is that a personal, introspective process? Or something through the church group or through some sort of leadership?

[justasque]

I totally agree that if people can only tell I am a Christian because I say I am then I am doing it wrong. :)

 

Doesn't this depend on the nature of your interaction with people?  There's a very nice librarian in our local library who dresses in a contemporary, quietly stylish way, but over time I've noticed that she always wears long skirts and long-sleeved cardigans.  (Fashion-wise, her outfits don't call attention to themselves in the way Amish dress or Islamic dress would.)  It crosses my mind that she may dress this way for religious reasons, but there's nothing in the nature of our interaction that would indicate that she follows a particular religion, or which religion she follows.  She may be dressing this way out of conservative beliefs of Christian modesty, or following Jewish dress customs, or just because she likes the look.  If she is Christian, how would I tell?  What would be the difference between a nice Christian librarian and a nice Jewish librarian or a nice something-else librarian?

[Audrey]

A new post by the same author whose post was at the start of this thread:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/no-jesus-didnt-command-we-own-weapons/

 

That blog post is rather well done and spot on. 

 

Plus, I now have a new favourite word... gundamentalists.  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: :lol:  :lol:  

[Denise in Florida]

Doesn't this depend on the nature of your interaction with people?  There's a very nice librarian in our local library who dresses in a contemporary, quietly stylish way, but over time I've noticed that she always wears long skirts and long-sleeved cardigans.  (Fashion-wise, her outfits don't call attention to themselves in the way Amish dress or Islamic dress would.)  It crosses my mind that she may dress this way for religious reasons, but there's nothing in the nature of our interaction that would indicate that she follows a particular religion, or which religion she follows.  She may be dressing this way out of conservative beliefs of Christian modesty, or following Jewish dress customs, or just because she likes the look.  If she is Christian, how would I tell?  What would be the difference between a nice Christian librarian and a nice Jewish librarian or a nice something-else librarian?

 

Good point.  

 

I was looking at it the other way around. If I behave without love, hope, faith, patience, peace and kindness (things which are the fruits of the Spirit) then simply saying I am a Christian is not good enough.  These traits are of course not exclusive.  They may not look at me and say "Christian!" but they should not look at me and say "Christian? huh?? would not have guessed"

 

Does that clarify?

[*Lulu*]

Doesn't this depend on the nature of your interaction with people? There's a very nice librarian in our local library who dresses in a contemporary, quietly stylish way, but over time I've noticed that she always wears long skirts and long-sleeved cardigans. (Fashion-wise, her outfits don't call attention to themselves in the way Amish dress or Islamic dress would.) It crosses my mind that she may dress this way for religious reasons, but there's nothing in the nature of our interaction that would indicate that she follows a particular religion, or which religion she follows. She may be dressing this way out of conservative beliefs of Christian modesty, or following Jewish dress customs, or just because she likes the look. If she is Christian, how would I tell? What would be the difference between a nice Christian librarian and a nice Jewish librarian or a nice something-else librarian?

If she told you she was Jewish or Christian or Muslim you would not be surprised.

 

If she were rude, surly, and unkind then she said she was one if the aforementioned, you might be surprised.

 

If my words are all that confirm my faith, how does that reflect on my faith itself?

[*Lulu*]

Good point.

 

I was looking at it the other way around. If I behave without love, hope, faith, patience, peace and kindness (things which are the fruits of the Spirit) then simply saying I am a Christian is not good enough. These traits are of course not exclusive. They may not look at me and say "Christian!" but they should not look at me and say "Christian? huh?? would not have guessed"

 

Does that clarify?

Posted at the same time.

B)

[PeacefulChaos]

Didn't want to go back and find the one to quote - but the last article posted, about gundamentalists - I've never heard that before in my life.  People are actually trying to claim that it's biblical to carry weapons?  I don't get it.  

BUT I certainly think that people have a right to defend themselves and their family.  I know many don't agree, but I would absolutely do whatever was necessary to protect my kids.  #sorrynotsorry

 

 

I was driving from PA to NC recently (and then back up the same way) and once I hit VA 99% of the stations I went through when searching played Christian music. I think it very much depends on where you are :)

 

I'm sorry.  Christian radio SUCKS.

I also find it a little strange, though.  We live in VA and only have 1 Christian radio station in each city, as compared to all the secular ones.  Thank goodness.

Seriously.  I really don't care for Christian music.  especially not the type on the radio.  :ack2:

 

Most Christian stores I've been in (catering to Protestants, not Catholic Christians) sell a lot of greeting cards, do-dads like keychains and such, figurines, jewelry, home decor. All religious-themed, of course.  Sunday School stuff.  Christmas decorations.   Well, and books, of course!    It's been a long time since I've been in one, actually and I never spent much time in them because I don't tend to buy the stuff they sell.
 

And that is why I don't go in them, either!!  We don't have one in our little town... the last time I was in one we were looking at different Bible translations because DH wanted a new Bible.  That was probably 6 years ago?  It was in Springfield, MO (plenty of Christian bookstores there. ;))

 

Being marginalized means being not front and center. I'm merely saying that it's not a bad thing. Lots of people live that way. Society is becoming more pluralistic. That's a good thing, and Christians needn't be afraid. 

 

No hostility meant.

I think it's a good thing, and I'm a Christian myself!  

 

I probably watch more tv than the majority of people here (judging by previous posts) and I find references to church or a character going to a church when confused not at all unusual.  I did have to laugh at the Simpsons in the list of shows with religious characters (forgot to mention God occasionally makes an appearance - he's the only character with 5 fingers  :p )

 

I had to double check on Bones after a previous comment about it being cancelled, because the last episode was a total cliff hanger.  It is returning for at least one more season.   :hurray:

 

And Law and Order:SVU returns in September.   :D

 

I live in an area that is primarily Catholic, with Jewish and Atheist (or None) close behind.  I just did a search of my local cable companies religious channels (not programs, entire channels).  There are 3 Catholic stations, 1 Jewish station, and bunch of other Christian stations showing things like 700 Club and Billy Graham (not counting ones like Hallmark and Uplifting which really do show a TON of Christian themed movies).  

 

But, I definitely don't hear Christian music in stores except a little bit at Christmas time, nobody asks what church you attend as a default, and schools always have Christmas off but it's a toss-up whether they'll have Rosh Hoshanah, Ramadan or Good Friday off - varies from town to town.   And I've worked for one large company that had a lot of employees from India and did not designate any holidays. Employees could choose what holidays they wanted off.

 

I think I better never move.

 

My area is like this as well.  

and No one gets holidays off at work - it's all PTO that you use when you use it.  

I totally forgot about that. :)  I need to watch the Simpsons again.  I don't think I've watched it since I've had young kids, although my 8 year old channels Bart.

 

 

I'm Muslim and I get "Merry Christmas" all the time.  So do all of my friends.  We just say, "Merry Christmas" back.  It's not like it's a big deal.  Now, if you actually say "Happy Ramadan" or "Ramadan Mubarak" or "Ramadan Kareem" or "Happy Eid" or "Eid Sayeed" (any of the greetings for Muslim holidays)….and you're not Muslim?  Well, we'll fall over from shock. ;)  (Not really…it's actually very nice, but definitely a surprise. :))

So this wouldn't be offensive?  I'm just curious because I'm REALLY CLUELESS about Islam in general.  Sometimes when I've said something to people in our area they seem to be upset, as though I'm trying to be a poser or something.  Which I'm not - I'm really just trying to be nice.  

 

This reminds me of a story about a woman I know who is Jewish and moved to rural Kentucky.  People were trying to be nice and welcoming by inviting her to their churches and she would thank them and say  "No thank you " that she was Jewish.  And people responded with "I'm sorry".   She never called it persecution, probably just they were taken aback and didn't know what to say but they did not stay there very long.

 

Ah, see, I would think they had said 'I'm sorry' because they didn't mean to offend her by asking her to a church that wasn't part of her religion.  

 

My challenge back at this: if you'd use your vote to deny gay people access to marriage and legal benefits associated with it,  do you think that would fit under the definition of persecution?

 

I'll tiptoe in here and say: Please don't assume all Christians do this.  :)

[umsami]

Phyllo dough you say?  :drool5:

 

One of the things that I learned from my MIL is to make baklava with a custard filling instead of nuts.  (Of course, there is no bad baklava).  It's really easy….and very good.  I think it's best a little warm, but DH thinks it's best for breakfast the next day.

You can either make it with the phyllo sheets or the shredded phyllo dough.   

 

Start by making your sugar syrup.  The rule is hot syrup…cold baklava…or vice versa.  I usually just do one cup sugar, one cup of water, and a squeeze of lemon on the stove….and then add in some vanilla near the end.  You can also add rose water or orange water if you prefer them.

 

Easy way…mix up a batch of Jell-o vanilla pudding, following the instructions for pie filling. Buy the kind that you have to heat.

 

Next easiest way….make your own vanilla pudding from scratch.  I usually do it in the microwave.  2 cups of milk, 1/2 cup sugar, 3 tablespoons of cornstarch… nuke for 2 minutes…whisk…nuke another 2 minutes….whisk.  Keep nuking until thick….maybe a minute at a time.  Then stir in vanilla extract.  (Make it in a much larger bowl as the milk can go everywhere.)

 

Hard core…make up vanilla pastry cream.

 

You can add a little cinnamon to the pudding if you like that as well.

 

 

Now melt some butter.  Butter a pan, ideally one which fits your phyllo size or close to it.

 

If using the shredded phyllo, you simply add it to a bowl with the melted butter and mix it with your hands.  Usually about 1 stick is enough.  Put half in the pan….spread it around…top with vanilla pudding….then put the rest down.  Bake.  In DH's culture, it's called kunafa.

 

If using sheets, then put down two sheets, brush with butter, put down two more.  Use about half….then don't put butter on the last set of sheets….and put your vanilla filling down.  Try to keep it away from the edges, as it will burn.  Cover it with two more sheets of phyllo.  Press gently.  Butter…repeat until you finish the sheets.  

 

If the sheets are too big for your pan, fold them over as you place them down.  Alternate which side you fold over (so I fold over the top extra one time….and then the next time, I position it, so the extra is at the bottom.)

Now take a serrated knife and cut the phyllo dough (yes, before you bake it).  You can find fun designs online.  I'm not fancy, I do squares.

 

Pour any remaining butter on top (or at least brush it on).

 

Bake in a 350 oven until golden…usually about 40-50 minutes, but it depends on your oven.

 

When it comes out of the oven, pour the syrup on top.

 

Try and wait a few minutes so you don't get burned by the syrup before eating. :)

[livetoread]

Defending innocents isn't a sin. Retribution or vengeance, killing another for the sake of it, that's an issue.

 

I don't advocate violence against persecution, but I do absolutely advocate defense of others and myself from harm if it is preventable. What exactly is your point?

I don't really have one. I've always been interested in the whole "Jesus as pacifist" thing, both when I was a believer (in a more pacifist-ish leaning church) and still now that I'm no longer a believer. How far does one take his concepts? That's all. It's just intriguing to me and I was playing around with the idea of using violence to defend oneself against religious persecution.

 

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with shooting someone who is trying to kill you because you are a Christian (like the possible scenario in your church). Those are tough issues. I just wonder if the early Christian church would have been different if they had responded to their persecution by defending themselves using violence if necessary.

[Free]

I agree.  I've noticed that, in some circles, if you voice a Christian opinion, people argue and berate you (your opinion)... almost to the point of wanting to bully you out of your beliefs (with name-calling, sarcasm, and other insults).  The tone is always very negative and angry.

 

I think this only happens when Christian opinion is used as a euphemism for expressing bigotry and misogyny.