Just to keep the Christian/Non believer issue in perspective

[Tammy]

is how Christians seem to have to argue their point....time and time again. And believe me....I have no business in those posts....because I have never read the Bible nor do I have much background about any of it.

 

But....it has made me shy away from religion....in the fact that it seems so many never can seem to get it right....according to other Christians.

 

Maybe it is kind of like a Bible study or something?

[Jenny in Florida]

But....it has made me shy away from religion....in the fact that it seems so many never can seem to get it right....according to other Christians.

 

I was thinking something similar, that it doesn't seem to be enough to draw distinctions between Christians and "nonbelievers," but there also need to be lines drawn between those who "just say" they're Christians and "real" Christians.

 

I don't have a lot of baggage about organized religion, but my husband does. And I suspect it has a lot to do with these sorts of attitudes.

[Erica in PA]

is how Christians seem to have to argue their point....time and time again. And believe me....I have no business in those posts....because I have never read the Bible nor do I have much background about any of it.

 

But....it has made me shy away from religion....in the fact that it seems so many never can seem to get it right....according to other Christians.

 

Maybe it is kind of like a Bible study or something?

 

That is a good point, Tammy, and I will take that to heart and try to remember that. I hope other Christians will too... do we want to argue points about our faith here on a public homeschooling board, and present that kind of image of Christianity? I know I don't. That is a very good reason for me to try to reign in those tendencies.

[OnTheBrink]

Frankly, I'd rather see an honest, real discussion between two Christians than some sort of phony-pie-in-the-sky presentation of a Christian's life. Life isn't perfect; people aren't perfect; Christians aren't perfect. We read Scripture and understand it differently, which is why discussions are good things, and why Christians should read Scripture.

 

I'd much rather see "real" than see phony, be attracted to phony and then find myself disillusioned later. What attracted me to Christ was what HE did, not what others did, or do, or think. It's between me and Him, not me and anyone else who professes Christianity.

[Audrey]

is how Christians seem to have to argue their point....time and time again. And believe me....I have no business in those posts....because I have never read the Bible nor do I have much background about any of it.

 

But....it has made me shy away from religion....in the fact that it seems so many never can seem to get it right....according to other Christians.

 

Maybe it is kind of like a Bible study or something?

 

I know what you mean. I have no dog in this particular fight as I do not care if someone calls me non-Christian, non-believer, unbeliever, infidel, heathen, slime-o-the-earth. I could care less.

 

But... I do like reading these discussions/thread because yes... it is like Bible study and people study and culture study all rolled into one. I read. I learn. It helps me further inform my beliefs. :D

[mommaduck]

I don't understand the "negative" of "unbeliever"...it simply means the person doesn't believe that Christ was the Son of God and Saviour. It's better than what my neighbours call me (Christian of a different faith): "worldly" and "english" (both insults to me as I am neither...but I have grace with it, because I know how they think and can let it go...it's THEIR belief, not mine...I just believe they err LOL!)

[SherryTX]

I don't understand the "negative" of "unbeliever"...it simply means the person doesn't believe that Christ was the Son of God and Saviour. It's better than what my neighbours call me (Christian of a different faith): "worldly" and "english" (both insults to me as I am neither...but I have grace with it, because I know how they think and can let it go...it's THEIR belief, not mine...I just believe they err LOL!)

 

I prefer "infidel" personally.

:D

[Haiku]

I was sometimes taken aback by how many atheists avoided Christians. In their defense, I found it was because most had bad experiences.

 

I don't avoid Christians, but I will admit that when I meet someone new and find out they are Christian, I am a bit uncomfortable for a while until I figure out what their take is on non-Christians ... and as you mentioned, it's because of the numerous bad experiences I have had with some Christians throughout my entire life--starting in childhood and continuing to the present. (On the other hand, my best friend from the time I was 8 years old has always been a Christian, so I have had positive experiences as well.)

 

One of my dear friends is a very conservative Christian who only wears skirts, doesn't cut her hair, etc. We have had many discussions about the differences between our religious beliefs, and I have been very open with her about my bad experiences with Christians and my feelings of uncertainty around Christians I don't know. She told me that when she first met me, she was very concerned that I would dismiss her as a friend because of her Christian beliefs. We laughed about it, but it's actually sad that we were both afraid of being shunned for what we believe, even though, when you come right down to it, we believe basically the same things: be kind to people, live a life of service, live compassionately. Our similarities (both overt, in that we are both homeschooling transracial adoptive moms, and spiritual, in that we both try to live in a way that uplifts those around us) are greater than our differences in where we find out spiritual inspiration.

 

My friend has told me, "I hope that you meet with a favorable eternity, and beyond that it's none of my business." I can appreciate that. I feel the same way for her.

 

Tara

[Erica in PA]

Frankly, I'd rather see an honest, real discussion between two Christians than some sort of phony-pie-in-the-sky presentation of a Christian's life. Life isn't perfect; people aren't perfect; Christians aren't perfect. We read Scripture and understand it differently, which is why discussions are good things, and why Christians should read Scripture.

 

I'd much rather see "real" than see phony, be attracted to phony and then find myself disillusioned later. What attracted me to Christ was what HE did, not what others did, or do, or think. It's between me and Him, not me and anyone else who professes Christianity.

 

I agree with you, but my interpretation of Tammy's post was that she was referring to Christians actually *arguing* with one another or with others here on the boards. It's one thing to have an honest discussion about our differences, it's another to get heated and snippy and dismissive. The first can be a good thing (though to be honest I'm not sure that this board is the greatest place for that, even though I do participate in such discussions at times), the latter is obviously not.

[OnTheBrink]

I agree with you, but my interpretation of Tammy's post was that she was referring to Christians actually *arguing* with one another or with others here on the boards. It's one thing to have an honest discussion about our differences, it's another to get heated and snippy and dismissive. The first can be a good thing (though to be honest I'm not sure that this board is the greatest place for that, even though I do participate in such discussions at times), the latter is obviously not.

 

I see what you're saying. I hope I wasn't coming across as snippy or dismissive, because that's certainly not how I was feeling as I posted! And, you're probably right; this board probably isn't the ideal place for such discussions. But, it's doubtful I'll stay out of all of them. LOL

[Marylou]

 

Are you saying God saves the unrepentant?

 

No, I wasn't saying that.

[Erica in PA]

I see what you're saying. I hope I wasn't coming across as snippy or dismissive, because that's certainly not how I was feeling as I posted! And, you're probably right; this board probably isn't the ideal place for such discussions. But, it's doubtful I'll stay out of all of them. LOL

 

LOL, you weren't coming across that way at all!! Wouldn't that be lovely, if you and I got into a big argument about whether Christians should argue on this board!? :lol: And I probably won't stay out of all of them, either, ;), but this was a good reminder to me to watch myself a bit more.

[Tammy]

Yes, Erica....that is exactly what I meant. I have definitely learned a lot in some of the religious threads....where an actual discussion was taking place. I just don't find outright calling someone 'wrong'....and going back and forth about the same thing....much of a discussion, LOL.

[coralloyd]

is how Christians seem to have to argue their point....time and time again. And believe me....I have no business in those posts....because I have never read the Bible nor do I have much background about any of it.

 

But....it has made me shy away from religion....in the fact that it seems so many never can seem to get it right....according to other Christians.

 

Maybe it is kind of like a Bible study or something?

 

 

Tammy,

I am so sorry that you feel this way. I apoligize if there has ever been any comments, I personally have made, that would make you shy away from religion. You are right that as Christians we disagree on many, many things. There is one thing that we do agree on, and that is that the Bible is the ultimate truth (even though we interpret it differently). So don't let what we say discourage you from reading it, and finding out what it says for yourself.

 

To the Christians on this board- let's remember this, and as we discuss let's do it in love, and respect. We are brothers and sisters in Christ (and sometimes we fight like sibblings ;)). However, they will know us by our love. Peace.

[Elaine]

I prefer "infidel" personally.

:D

 

:D That was funny.

[emmsmama]

Taken literally there is nothing wrong with the term "unbeliever". I think it's just that it gives off the tone that "those poor unbelievers have to be saved". I'm not saying anybody who uses the term is being condescending, it just comes across that way to me any time the term is used. However it doesn't phase me as I'm fine with my beliefs and as long as someone else's beliefs don't harm others then I'm fine with them believing what they want to believe too. However as someone who isn't a Christian, I can say that if someone who is Christian wants to come off in a better light, they'd do better not using the term "unbeliever".

[mommaduck]

:D That was funny.

 

Well, I guess it could be more specific...never thought of it. (I'm an infidel, I guess also...to a Muslim)

 

Infidel

1. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.

2. One who has no religious beliefs.

3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.

[mommaduck]

Taken literally there is nothing wrong with the term "unbeliever". I think it's just that it gives off the tone that "those poor unbelievers have to be saved". I'm not saying anybody who uses the term is being condescending, it just comes across that way to me any time the term is used. However it doesn't phase me as I'm fine with my beliefs and as long as someone else's beliefs don't harm others then I'm fine with them believing what they want to believe too. However as someone who isn't a Christian, I can say that if someone who is Christian wants to come off in a better light, they'd do better not using the term "unbeliever".

 

What term would you suggest...a simple, one-word term that does not include the word Christian (Unchristian and non-christian)?

 

btw, I'm a Calvinist. Though I do believe that there is only one way, I also will not shove it down someone's throat. If they ask, I'll answer. If it's part of conversation, etc, I'll not hide what I am. I also don't expect anyone else to hide what they are. I'm fine with that. I have friends of various faiths and we each believe we are "most closely correct", but also respect each other where we are at. We have pretty interesting conversations ;) So you won't find me being condescending.

Edited April 14, 2009 by mommaduck

[TXMomof4]

It saddens me greatly to learn that Bible Study groups are actually being taught (or is that not the correct term here?) to not be friends with non-Christians. I just don't know what to say.

 

Astrid

 

That idea blows my mind. WWJD? right? I think he'd blow a lot of Christians straight out of the water - and go have dinner with some junkies and prostitutes. Where's the value of knowing Christ's love and forgiveness but withholding those same things from those who could benefit the most? I'm not talking about trying to convert them all - just being a friend and showing them the love and compassion Christ has shown me. I will be the first to say that it is hard for me to get out of my comfort zone and reach out to others, but it is also the most rewarding thing I've ever done. When you can touch the life of someone who is lonely, or sick, or in need of something you can provide without any benefit to yourself - that's an amazing moment in life.

[mommaduck]

That idea blows my mind. WWJD? right? I think he'd blow a lot of Christians straight out of the water - and go have dinner with some junkies and prostitutes. Where's the value of knowing Christ's love and forgiveness but withholding those same things from those who could benefit the most? I'm not talking about trying to convert them all - just being a friend and showing them the love and compassion Christ has shown me. I will be the first to say that it is hard for me to get out of my comfort zone and reach out to others, but it is also the most rewarding thing I've ever done. When you can touch the life of someone who is lonely, or sick, or in need of something you can provide without any benefit to yourself - that's an amazing moment in life.

 

Unless they are defining "friend" in a much stricter manner :confused: But, yes, there are groups that are like this....sad, but true.

[OnTheBrink]

LOL, you weren't coming across that way at all!! Wouldn't that be lovely, if you and I got into a big argument about whether Christians should argue on this board!? :lol: And I probably won't stay out of all of them, either, ;), but this was a good reminder to me to watch myself a bit more.

 

Now that would be a funny argument!

[OnTheBrink]

No, I wasn't saying that.

 

Thanks for clarifying. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

That doesn't mean it's pick on Christians decade. Especially on a homeschool board where 90% of the people are Christians.

 

 

Actually it is around 70%. We have had a recent poll on religion. And out of that 70% there are protestants, Catholics, Non-trinitarians, Restorationists, liberals, conservatives, evolutionists, creationists.... a very diverse group that disagrees with eachother quite a bit. Which is pretty obvious, don't you think? :001_huh:

 

But there seems to be a less diverse or more vocal minority, because I really would never guess that it was 70/30 based on posts. Really.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

Just the fact that Christians would say "she married a nice Christian boy" or "I do have morals, I am Christian after all" both quotes from members of this board, means that they are putting some power into that label KWIM? Even though people who claim to be Christians can and will do horrible things.

 

As far as Christians being having God's favor but Non-Christians being condemned, I will ask that you call to mind a prostitute named Rahab that saved God's people and was treated with favor along with her household.

 

Now as far as someone who murders not being Christian, I will refer you back to the story of King David of Jerusalem, who committed heinous acts in a moment of weakness but soon recovered his senses after being called to repentance.

 

 

 

 

We have no idea how to judge our fellow humans.

 

 

 

We are Buddhists, not (unfortunately) living Buddhas. Just like Christians are Christians, but not (unfortunately) the living embodiment of Christ's principles. People from all faiths and all walks of life are still people.

 

:iagree: Greta, I did not read this before I posted. :grouphug: So true.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[SherryTX]

 

My friend has told me, "I hope that you meet with a favorable eternity, and beyond that it's none of my business." I can appreciate that. I feel the same way for her.

 

Tara

 

Those are my favorite type of religious people. Thank you for sharing! :)

[SherryTX]

Well, I guess it could be more specific...never thought of it. (I'm an infidel, I guess also...to a Muslim)

 

Infidel

1. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.

2. One who has no religious beliefs.

3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.

 

All three apply to me.

(Speaking of infidels, the book Infidel by A. Hiris Ali is superb.)

[Peek a Boo]

Yeah, God calls for repentance of sins, known and unknown; and yeah, if you're not repentant, you're not forgiven of sins. The death on the cross was for everyone, but not everyone will repent and kneel at the cross. Those in rebellion against God are not saved.

 

What is the point of salvation if there is no repentance? Do you believe everyone is saved, regardless of their heart toward God, simply because Jesus died and rose again?

 

No, I do NOT believe that everyone is saved regardless of their heart towards God, but I do believe that it is possible for a Christian to have some areas of their life in which they do not even realize they need to repent.

 

Scripture shows that we are such HUGE sinners that even "the best" Christians have some huge thorns in our sides. Paul himself spoke of the struggle and how none of us can be completely righteous.

 

I do think that one's heart needs to be following God, but since scripture makes it clear that our hearts must be guarded from doing evil *even as as Christians* then it is clear that yes, Christians can certainly do evil things. Not every Christian is guilty of literal murder, but every Christian is capable of it because we ARE sinners. But God literally does not see our* sin because Christ paid for it.

*our= those whose belief is in Christ.

 

So I'll go back to the other question I asked:

does a Christian lose their salvation if they kill someone? During the time it takes them to repent of that particular crime, are they unsaved?

Or if a Christian lies? do they lose their salvation until they repent of that?

Even if they are otherwise living a faith-filled life?

 

and i do understand that you've got the two main groups of "once saved, always saved" and the "yes, you can lose your salvation." :)

 

{{and yes, I appreciate the discussion!!}}

[KidsHappen]

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. Never said that.

 

Man, you've got yourself all worked up about this, and you keep trying to put words in my mouth. No matter what else you accuse me of saying, I'm done. You win, I lose, I quit, whatever. :001_smile:

 

I've had enough conversations like this irl to know when someone just wants me to be wrong, and them to be right.

 

I have been following since your first post in this thread and I still have no idea what is is your are trying to say. You keep pointing out what you haven't said but have not really clarified what it is you meant by what you did say. I don't think that Peek has gotten herself all worked up and as far as I can tell, no wants you to be wrong, they just want you to clarify or support your statement. As a non-Christian, I am especially interested in the point you are trying to make. I don't understand if you are trying to say that a Christian would never kill in the first place or if a person would cease to be a Christian if they killed someone. I personally would find it helpful if you expounded a bit. Thanks.

[astrid]

That idea blows my mind. WWJD? right? I think he'd blow a lot of Christians straight out of the water - and go have dinner with some junkies and prostitutes. Where's the value of knowing Christ's love and forgiveness but withholding those same things from those who could benefit the most? I'm not talking about trying to convert them all - just being a friend and showing them the love and compassion Christ has shown me. I will be the first to say that it is hard for me to get out of my comfort zone and reach out to others, but it is also the most rewarding thing I've ever done. When you can touch the life of someone who is lonely, or sick, or in need of something you can provide without any benefit to yourself - that's an amazing moment in life.

 

Your response makes me think of a bumper sticker I saw once:

"Love your Christ. Not so hot on your Christians."

 

Thanks for your lovely thoughts. They touched me.

 

Astrid

[asta]

What term would you suggest...a simple, one-word term that does not include the word Christian (Unchristian and non-christian)?

 

My name.

 

 

asta

[Jenny in Atl]

 

But there seems to be a less diverse or more vocal minority, because I really would never guess that it was 70/30 based on posts. Really.

 

I don't think the minority posters are any less diverse that those who labeled themselves with a particular faith. I know a handful here, and few of us see things the exactly the same. Maybe it's just that the minority has finally started taking part in the board more fully then in years past?

[emmsmama]

What term would you suggest...a simple, one-word term that does not include the word Christian (Unchristian and non-christian)?

 

 

Non-Christian would probably be a preferable term if there has to be a pigeon-hole term. Unbeliever isn't even really accurate in a literal sense now that I've thought of it more. Just because someone isn't a Christian doesn't mean they are an "unbeliever". They just believe something different than you do.

[Jenny in Florida]

Just because someone isn't a Christian doesn't mean they are an "unbeliever". They just believe something different than you do.

 

Thank you. That's all some of us have been trying to explain.

[TXMomof4]

No, I do NOT believe that everyone is saved regardless of their heart towards God, but I do believe that it is possible for a Christian to have some areas of their life in which they do not even realize they need to repent.

 

I believe that this is true, but the more time we spend in prayer and in God's word and ask us to show us those areas - he's not going to leave us like we are. A sensitive heart will be open and searching out that sin instead of being complacent with the thought "I'm a pretty good person."

Pretty good is not the goal. We won't ever reach perfection - but that is what we're striving for.

 

Scripture shows that we are such HUGE sinners that even "the best" Christians have some huge thorns in our sides. Paul himself spoke of the struggle and how none of us can be completely righteous.

 

I do think that one's heart needs to be following God, but since scripture makes it clear that our hearts must be guarded from doing evil *even as as Christians* then it is clear that yes, Christians can certainly do evil things. Not every Christian is guilty of literal murder, but every Christian is capable of it because we ARE sinners. But God literally does not see our* sin because Christ paid for it.

*our= those whose belief is in Christ.

 

So I'll go back to the other question I asked:

does a Christian lose their salvation if they kill someone? During the time it takes them to repent of that particular crime, are they unsaved?

Or if a Christian lies? do they lose their salvation until they repent of that?

Even if they are otherwise living a faith-filled life?

 

I do believe that a person can sin and still be saved. We put the degrees on sin. Murder is very bad, slander only a little bad, gossip barely touches the radar screen. I understand that those all have different human consequences and so the perception of sin is that some is worse than others. However, all of those are sins. When they're listed in the Bible, they're right there one after the other. To God (IMO) the problem is a lack of love and concern for others. That can manifest itself in different ways - but they're all sin.(Romans 1:28-30)

 

 

and i do understand that you've got the two main groups of "once saved, always saved" and the "yes, you can lose your salvation." :)

 

I think any person who is content to live with their sin can become hardened to God and stray. Now, God hasn't given them up, but they can leave God. I think it comes down to semantics there. Did a person lose their salvation? No, I think they choose to give it up. I also think God would welcome them back in a heartbeat - if they chose to return to God. So the salvation is there - it's just being ignored? Does that make sense?

{{and yes, I appreciate the discussion!!}}

 

Now Peek, be nice.

[mommaduck]

My name.

 

 

asta

 

Asta, if I was talking directly about you, I would use your name and only if it was necessary to the conversation, and appropriate, would I mention that you weren't a Christian (and I would state it as "she's not a Christian"). The term, however, is used mostly when one is speaking about a group of people in a general sense (a sermon per example or study group). Your snark was noted, cute, but it didn't fit my question.

 

Non-Christian would probably be a preferable term if there has to be a pigeon-hole term. Unbeliever isn't even really accurate in a literal sense now that I've thought of it more. Just because someone isn't a Christian doesn't mean they are an "unbeliever". They just believe something different than you do.

 

It does fit technically depending upon what it is in reference to. If we are discussing Christianity, from a Christian standpoint in particular, "unbeliever" is one that does not believe that Christ is Son of God and Saviour in the traditional and historical sense (there are many variations that do...so it's not excluded down to one sect either).

[OnTheBrink]

No, I do NOT believe that everyone is saved regardless of their heart towards God, but I do believe that it is possible for a Christian to have some areas of their life in which they do not even realize they need to repent.

 

I agree with that. As we read Scripture and become closer to the Lord and more mature in the faith, we realize more and more of our sin.

 

Scripture shows that we are such HUGE sinners that even "the best" Christians have some huge thorns in our sides. Paul himself spoke of the struggle and how none of us can be completely righteous.

 

Right. Our righteousness is ONLY through Christ, not of ourselves at all.

 

I do think that one's heart needs to be following God, but since scripture makes it clear that our hearts must be guarded from doing evil *even as as Christians* then it is clear that yes, Christians can certainly do evil things. Not every Christian is guilty of literal murder, but every Christian is capable of it because we ARE sinners. But God literally does not see our* sin because Christ paid for it.

*our= those whose belief is in Christ.

 

So I'll go back to the other question I asked:

does a Christian lose their salvation if they kill someone? During the time it takes them to repent of that particular crime, are they unsaved?

Or if a Christian lies? do they lose their salvation until they repent of that?

Even if they are otherwise living a faith-filled life?

 

I don't believe salvation can be lost if one is truly saved, and only God truly knows a man's heart. People only see what's in front of them, so it's easy to say, "Oh, that person committed ___________ sin, ergo, they can't possibly be a Christian." But, Christian's aren't called to make that judgment. Called to keep each other accountable to the faith? Yes, but not called to condemn a fellow believer based on one action, if the action is followed by repentance. This is where the whole "Love believes all things, hopes all things, etc." thing can apply. As far as the time span between the act and the repentance, I think this is where God's grace and mercy are visibly manifest. His patience is more than we could ever understand.

 

and i do understand that you've got the two main groups of "once saved, always saved" and the "yes, you can lose your salvation." :)

 

{{and yes, I appreciate the discussion!!}}

 

me, too!

[Haiku]

It does fit technically depending upon what it is in reference to. If we are discussing Christianity, from a Christian standpoint in particular, "unbeliever" is one that does not believe that Christ is Son of God and Saviour in the traditional and historical sense

 

Fair enough, but you have a group of these unbelievers telling you that this term is offensive, so perhaps it should be abandoned regardless of its technical correctness. Would it be ok to refer to a racial group by a term that, according to your beliefs, is an accurate reflection of the group even if the members of that group found the term offensive? "Colored" does indeed mean "having color," but people of color found it offensive, and those of good will have abandoned the term.

 

Tara

[Jenny in Florida]

It does fit technically depending upon what it is in reference to. If we are discussing Christianity, from a Christian standpoint in particular, "unbeliever" is one that does not believe that Christ is Son of God and Saviour in the traditional and historical sense (there are many variations that do...so it's not excluded down to one sect either).

 

I guess how you look at this depends on whether you want to be "right" or you want to be kind. From your point of view--using the Bible and Christian standards--the term may be "correct," but it hurts other people's feelings. So, I suppose its appropriateness depends on your goal.

[moosemomma]

I have been reading this post for the last thirty minutes.

 

Can I ask a question? Why are we arguing over a word (unbeliever)? A child is dead, people. A young woman, a young mother has ruined her life and damaged the life of her young daughter - the woman allegedly murder her daughter's friend.

I suspect it is possible that a woman with an undiagnosed mental illness may be a rational explanation for what happened in Tracy, CA. When female abuses and murders a child (especially when that female is a mother) there is usually (not always) a mental illness involved.

 

People of all faiths (and no faiths) can be mentally ill and do horrific things in the throes of their illness. There can be unkind Christians and wonderfully kind non-Christians. Is there anyone here that does not agree with that statement?

 

I am a Christian because I believe in Christ. I believe he was the Son of God and that he walked on the earth for 33 years, was tried, crucified, died, laid in a tomb. I believe three days later he rose from the grave, alive. I believe he did this to atone for the sins against God I committed. I believe in these truths. That is what makes me a Christian. I am not perfect, in fact realizing how imperfect I was what brought me to my Christian belief.

 

I am sorry that some people don't like the label unbeliever. I have had labels used about me that I found hurtful (fat and middle-aged being two of them), but it does not change the truth in the label. A Christian innocently called non-Christians unbelievers because our faith is based on Belief.

 

Now, can everybody just play nice on the playground and keep everything in perspective.

 

Jill

[secular_mom]

I am sorry that some people don't like the label unbeliever. I have had labels used about me that I found hurtful (fat and middle-aged being two of them), but it does not change the truth in the label. A Christian innocently called non-Christians unbelievers because our faith is based on Belief.

 

Now, can everybody just play nice on the playground and keep everything in perspective.

 

Jill

 

Threads take different turns, that is the nature of message boards.

 

The thing is, most people are aware that calling someone fat is offensive. If a person still chooses to call someone fat, then they are aware that it will most likely cause offense, and that action will be seen as 'rude' by lots of members of society. (I would say "Most" instead of 'lots of', but I have no statistics to base that on)

 

The term 'unbeliever' is offensive to people who have different beliefs. It is a negative term. Many people involved in the "pro-life" movement found the term "anti-abortionists" to be offensive, so they changed their 'label'. They didn't like being labeled "anti", and that is understandable. Just as many people with differing (or no) beliefs may not like to be labeled "un". Surely it is reasonable to promote awareness. Surely having a group of people who have unintentionally caused others pain, reassess their wording and find a less offensive way to convey their idea will improve that group's image among the 'outsiders'.

 

Raising awareness is a good thing, IMO.

Edited April 14, 2009 by secular_mom
typos

[Haiku]

A Christian innocently called non-Christians unbelievers because our faith is based on Belief.

 

 

When you know better, you do better. Now everyone who has read this thread knows better than to call non-Christians "unbelievers." They may still choose to do so, but they will do so with the knowledge that they are being unkind.

 

Tara

[Jenny in Florida]

Can I ask a question? Why are we arguing over a word (unbeliever)? A child is dead, people. A young woman, a young mother has ruined her life and damaged the life of her young daughter - the woman allegedly murder her daughter's friend.

 

I'm sure we all agree that is tragic. There is no debate about that. However, as someone else said, threads do take turns.

 

I am sorry that some people don't like the label unbeliever. I have had labels used about me that I found hurtful (fat and middle-aged being two of them), but it does not change the truth in the label. A Christian innocently called non-Christians unbelievers because our faith is based on Belief.

 

But, see, for me the labels "fat" and "middle aged" would be true. "Nonbeliever" and "unbeliever" are not. And, as someone else said, I doubt any adult would go around calling me fat (I don't mind middle aged) to my face. But, somehow, discounting or ignoring my beliefs because they don't happen to be the same as yours is just fine and polite?

 

Also, the whole discussion about the "unbeliever/nonbeliever" label is a hold-over from another thread. So, there are those of us who are still pretty sensitive about it. Anyone who has read the other thread could not "innocently" use that term.

 

For the record, I think most of us are "playing nice." We're having a civil discussion and sharing our feelings and opinions.

[Erica in PA]

Fair enough, but you have a group of these unbelievers telling you that this term is offensive, so perhaps it should be abandoned regardless of its technical correctness. Would it be ok to refer to a racial group by a term that, according to your beliefs, is an accurate reflection of the group even if the members of that group found the term offensive? "Colored" does indeed mean "having color," but people of color found it offensive, and those of good will have abandoned the term.

 

Tara

 

That is a good point. However, I'm wondering about the fact that the Bible, the book on which Christians are seeking to base their lives and their beliefs, uses the term "unbeliever" many times. Obviously we can't conclude that using that word is actually *wrong,* or unkind, when it is included in our Scripture. Now I don't have a problem not using that word myself, because we aren't commanded to describe people that way, and you're right that there's little use in using a term that is going to offend people when you don't absolutely have to. So I'm fine with using other terms.

 

But I would think that it would lessen the offense for those of differing value systems to know that Christians are simply using the word that is used in the Bible-- they are not choosing the word to offend, or to suggest that that person believes *nothing.* They are simply using the word that their Scripture uses. In that sense it is different from using words like colored, etc., that do not come from a sacred text.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Erica in PA

[Jenny in Florida]

But I would think that it would lessen the offense for "those of differing value systems" to know that Christians are simply using the word that is used in the Bible-- they are not choosing the word to offend, or to suggest that that person believes *nothing.* They are simply using the word that their Scripture uses. In that sense it is different from using words like colored, etc., that do not come from a sacred text.

 

[i can't believe I'm wading in here, given how much pain I've brought on myself engaging in similar threads recently. But here I go . . .]

 

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you're asking people who don't believe what you believe to excuse you speaking about them in a hurtful way . . . based on what you believe that they don't believe.

 

In other words, citing "scriptural authority" doesn't work particularly well when the other person doesn't acknowledge your scripture as authoritative.

 

It's one thing to excuse someone's cultural or religious quirks if they don't know any better. It's quite another for someone to be told outright that they are doing something that is hurtful and yet keep doing it. I have great difficulty excusing that.

[Elaine]

I have been reading this post for the last thirty minutes.

 

Can I ask a question? Why are we arguing over a word (unbeliever)? A child is dead, people. A young woman, a young mother has ruined her life and damaged the life of her young daughter - the woman allegedly murder her daughter's friend.

I suspect it is possible that a woman with an undiagnosed mental illness may be a rational explanation for what happened in Tracy, CA. When female abuses and murders a child (especially when that female is a mother) there is usually (not always) a mental illness involved.

 

People of all faiths (and no faiths) can be mentally ill and do horrific things in the throes of their illness. There can be unkind Christians and wonderfully kind non-Christians. Is there anyone here that does not agree with that statement?

 

I am a Christian because I believe in Christ. I believe he was the Son of God and that he walked on the earth for 33 years, was tried, crucified, died, laid in a tomb. I believe three days later he rose from the grave, alive. I believe he did this to atone for the sins against God I committed. I believe in these truths. That is what makes me a Christian. I am not perfect, in fact realizing how imperfect I was what brought me to my Christian belief.

 

I am sorry that some people don't like the label unbeliever. I have had labels used about me that I found hurtful (fat and middle-aged being two of them), but it does not change the truth in the label. A Christian innocently called non-Christians unbelievers because our faith is based on Belief.

 

Now, can everybody just play nice on the playground and keep everything in perspective.

 

Jill

 

Great post.:001_smile:

[Elaine]

When you know better, you do better. Now everyone who has read this thread knows better than to call non-Christians "unbelievers." They may still choose to do so, but they will do so with the knowledge that they are being unkind.

 

Tara

 

Uh, no. I disagree. I will still call unsaved people "unbelievers" and I will do so without feeling like I am being unkind. I refer to someone who does not believe what I believe about Jesus, an unbeliever. That's not to be unkind but to simply say they don't believe what I believe. I don't see why the word has to take a negative connotation.

 

I don't believe in Islam, or Allah, or Buddha. That makes me an unbeliever, it does not make the people who do believe in those things unkind to call me so.

[Danestress]

and I still think that for me, as a Christian, to call someone who doesn't believe in the saving grace of Christ a "non-believer" is (1) inaccurate and (2) insulting.

 

Obviously the death of this child is a horrid tragedy, but I'm not sure why we can't mourn that death, feel shock at the crime involved, AND listen to our non-Christian sisters when they tell us that throwing around the term "non-believer" offends them. Their saying so doesn't mean they lack perspective. It probably means that they think we are capable of talking about more things at once and that there is no reason to wed ourselves to language that is non-descriptive.

 

Calling you fat was insulting, whether it was true or not. Calling someone who has a faith of their own a "Non-believer" is insulting AND inaccurate. I really don't get why it's important to Christian women here to insist on that term when it's so clearly not accurate and also perceived as arrogant.

 

I can recognize the sadness of this tragedy AND discuss linguistics AND think about what to have with my tea all at the same time.

[Jenny in Florida]

Uh, no. I disagree. I will still call unsaved people "unbelievers" and I will do so without feeling like I am being unkind. I refer to someone who does not believe what I believe about Jesus, an unbeliever. That's not to be unkind but to simply say they don't believe what I believe. I don't see why the word has to take a negative connotation.

 

Okay. You've made your position clear. My position is that, having been told some of us find your terminology insulting and choosing to continue using it is unkind. So, knowing how I feel, you are choosing to continue doing something that hurts me.

 

And I do wonder just how you know who is "saved?"

[Haiku]

I will still call unsaved people "unbelievers" and I will do so without feeling like I am being unkind. I refer to someone who does not believe what I believe about Jesus, an unbeliever. That's not to be unkind but to simply say they don't believe what I believe. I don't see why the word has to take a negative connotation.

 

I will still call people with brown skin "Negroes" and I will do so without feeling like I am being unkind. I refer to someone who is not the same color as I am as Negro. That's not to be unkind but to simply say they don't have my skin color. I don't see why the word has to take a negative connotation. :confused:

 

Regarding the word unbeliever being scriptural: Ok, I see your point, and I know that (many) Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant. To me, however, the Bible is a book that was written long ago. Old books often use words that are not considered kind or polite. Were I to discuss them with others, I would change the word to something that is not unkind.

 

Tara

[Jenny in Florida]

and I still think that for me, as a Christian, to call someone who doesn't believe in the saving grace of Christ a "non-believer" is (1) inaccurate and (2) insulting.

 

Thank you. I, at least, appreciate your kindness and consideration.

 

I can recognize the sadness of this tragedy AND discuss linguistics AND think about what to have with my tea all at the same time.

 

Me, too.