Just to keep the Christian/Non believer issue in perspective

[HRAAB]

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.

 

I just want to clarify this. If your friend said to you, "Elaine, I really find the term unbeliever offensive" would you still continue to call her that. I can see where in speaking generally about a group of people and calling them unbelievers one thing. But on a personal basis, when you've been told that person finds it offensive, would you still continue to do that?

 

Janet

[mommaduck]

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

 

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.

 

There are Jewish people that refer to us as xtian or x-tian. They refuse to use the term Christian. It's offensive to me how they write it, but it's offensive to them to write it the way that doesn't offend me. Because I've taken the time to understand their viewpoint and know that this is how they will refer to us amoungst themselves, then it doesn't bother me. They are not being derogatory, they are staying true to their faith. Ditto with "unbeliever". It doesn't bother me to be called an "infidel" by a Muslim. Why? Because from their context, that is exactly what I am. I am not a follower of Muhummad and do not believe him to have been a true prophet. I'm not worried about another group being politically correct about my stand with them.

 

Kindness is understanding also where the person is coming from. Unbeliever is not a derogatory term. Do some people use it derogatorily? Sure. Same as someone can say "black" and "white" in a derogatory manner, but others can use them and it's not a problem.

 

I wonder if some are truly offended by the term or are offended that Christianity IS exclusive and not a "universal salvation" type faith and this is their way of trying to "force" Christians into language that doesn't accurately describe our faith, but rather what they want it to be...or if some just want to be "martyrs" :glare:

[Elaine]

I just want to clarify this. If your friend said to you, "Elaine, I really find the term unbeliever offensive" would you still continue to call her that. I can see where in speaking generally about a group of people and calling them unbelievers one thing. But on a personal basis, when you've been told that person finds it offensive, would you still continue to do that?

 

Janet

 

I don't call my unbelieving friends "unbelievers" to their faces. I would imagine that I would not have the friends I have were I to do that, and I have friends from high school who are not Christian believers and they have never been offended by anything that I have said.

 

What I am having a hard time understanding is all of the offense being taken and the comments about feelings being hurt and name calling to people who use the term unbeliever. I used to work with a Jewish man who constantly told me that I was not one of the chosen because I am not Jewish. Okay. That's how he felt. It's silly to get offended over it. And I don't lump all Jewish people together as sharing his sentiment.

[emeraldjoy]

love

Edited April 14, 2009 by emeraldjoy
thought better....I should stay out of this.

[Elaine]

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?"

 

You are choosing to be offended over terminology and I really can't do anything about that. As I said in my post to Ishki, I don't call my unbelieveing friends unbelievers to their faces.

 

 

As to your saved question - I don't. All I know is that I am.

[mommaduck]

I don't call my unbelieving friends "unbelievers" to their faces. I would imagine that I would not have the friends I have were I to do that, and I have friends from high school who are not Christian believers and they have never been offended by anything that I have said.

 

What I am having a hard time understanding is all of the offense being taken and the comments about feelings being hurt and name calling to people who use the term unbeliever. I used to work with a Jewish man who constantly told me that I was not one of the chosen because I am not Jewish. Okay. That's how he felt. It's silly to get offended over it. And I don't lump all Jewish people together as sharing his sentiment.

:iagree:

[Elaine]

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.

 

 

This makes absolutely no sense to me. If they don't believe in the saving grace of Christ, they are an unbeliever of the saving grace of Christ. In short, an unbeliever. It's not meant to be insulting, it just is.

[Erica in PA]

.

 

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 understand where you're coming from, and I can see the wisdom in avoiding this term, knowing that in today's culture it causes offense, but I do have a question... You also said that "unbeliever" is clearly an inaccurate term... do you feel also that it is inaccurate when it is used in the Bible, then? Specifically, when Jesus Himself used the term unbeliever? (Luke 12:46) Or the other NT writers who used the term frequently?

[mommaduck]

"Nonbeliever" and "unbeliever" are not.

Depends on the context. If someone is discussing Christianity or an issue from a Christian perspective, then yes, if you do not believe that Christ is the Son of Gd and Saviour, then you are an "unbeliever" as much as I would be an "infidel" or "unbeliever" if Islam was being discussed or an issue from their perspective.

[Elaine]

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

Look, Tara, you always have great input and bring interesting, spirited debate to many threads and I am not looking to insult you.

 

You said," 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." I can't do that, because I would be changing the word of God, and I believe that it is inerrant and inspired by God. It's not for me to change.

[Jenny in Florida]

I wonder if some are truly offended by the term or are offended that Christianity IS exclusive and not a "universal salvation" type faith and this is their way of trying to "force" Christians into language that doesn't accurately describe our faith, but rather what they want it to be...or if some just want to be "martyrs" :glare:

 

I can speak only for myself. But I'm genuinely offended, and become more so every time you discount my views and my feelings.

[Jenny in Florida]

You are choosing to be offended over terminology and I really can't do anything about that. As I said in my post to Ishki, I don't call my unbelieveing friends unbelievers to their faces.

 

No, I am offended by the fact that you have been told repeatedly that what you are saying is hurtful and choose to continue. I think it's quite different.

[Jenny in Florida]

as much as I would be an "infidel" or "unbeliever" if Islam was being discussed or an issue from their perspective.

 

But, see, I think that's wrong, too.

 

And, from my point of view, although you do not believe what I believe, I would still respect that you do believe something and would never, never be so insulting as to imply that you don't.

[unsinkable]

My friend worked in a program for mentally retarded and developmentally disabled people...and the MRDD people were called patients. A few years ago, the parents of the patients didn't want the medical term patients, so the name was changed to clients. Fast forward more years and the parents of the clients didn't like the connotation of clients but couldn't come up with a different word. Now my friend's program calls the clients "people we serve."

 

Things change. Names change. People change.

 

I honestly can't think of a time I had to refer to a group of people in regard to the status of their Christianity.

 

But if I had to do it, I'll call them what ever they want to be called.

[mommaduck]

I can speak only for myself. But I'm genuinely offended, and become more so every time you discount my views and my feelings.

I'm not discounting them. I wonder if you are wanting something that others cannot in good conscience give. I do not know what your faith is or if you hold to any. I don't know you.

 

Do you believe that Christ is the Son of Gd and Saviour in the sense of traditional and historical Christianity? If you don't then you are an "unbeliever" (of what I just mentioned) WHEN, and only WHEN, the issue centers around that particular faith and in context of THAT conversation...but you might be a "believer" WHEN it centers around a faith that YOU DO hold to and the conversation is centered in THAT context.

 

JUST AS: I'm not a CHRISTian, but rather a X-tian, to some Jewish people...because Christ means Messiah and they do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. We disagree...but in their view and their context, this is true.

[Lovedtodeath]

Okay, well....

 

Since their is a Non-Christian social group with 62 members, (more members than any of the Christian groups) can we assume that Non-Christian is acceptable?

[mommaduck]

But, see, I think that's wrong, too.

 

And, from my point of view, although you do not believe what I believe, I would still respect that you do believe something and would never, never be so insulting as to imply that you don't.

 

See I think you have a misunderstanding of the term. "Unbeliever" in the context of use, does NOT mean that you have NO belief. It means that you do not believe in the foundations of that particular faith that is the context of the conversation.

[mommaduck]

Okay, well....

 

Since their is a Non-Christian social group with 62 members, (more members than any of the Christian groups) can we assume that Non-Christian is acceptable?

Sure...but if I know the person's faith, I would name their faith ;) "She's Jewish" rather than "She's an unbeliever". But when it's my pastor speaking from the pulpit and he's defining the terms of our faith, he will then switch into...we believers of this and the un/non believers of this.

[OnTheBrink]

See I think you have a misunderstanding of the term. "Unbeliever" in the context of use, does NOT mean that you have NO belief. It means that you do not believe in the foundations of that particular faith that is the context of the conversation.

 

This has been explained, more than once, in this thread and others. I think the horse is dead and decaying.

 

I've written out several posts, but deleted them all. I'll just say that I agree with Mommaduck and leave it at that.

[HRAAB]

Okay, here's how I see it. The words believe, belief, believer are not specifically Christian words. Christians don't have a monopoly on beliefs. Muslims believe, Jews believe, Hindus believe, on and on. So you're taking a word that applies to many different 'belief' systems and using it as a way to distinguish between Christians and non-Christians. In that case, it isn't accurate. Non-Christian is certainly accurate. Non-believer would only be accurate with clarification. Non-believer in Christ. It's a term that only makes sense among an exclusively Christian group. In any other diverse group, non-believer could apply to a myriad of topics.

 

Did any of that make any sense?

 

Janet

[Haiku]

Look, Tara, you always have great input and bring interesting, spirited debate to many threads and I am not looking to insult you.

 

Ok. Thanks. :)

 

You said," 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." I can't do that, because I would be changing the word of God, and I believe that it is inerrant and inspired by God. It's not for me to change.

Ok. I see what you are saying. As you may have guessed ;) , I disagree with you. But I understand why you feel the way you do and I won't press the issue anymore.

 

Tara

[Danestress]

This makes absolutely no sense to me. If they don't believe in the saving grace of Christ, they are an unbeliever of the saving grace of Christ. In short, an unbeliever. It's not meant to be insulting, it just is.

 

 

It's insulting because they aren't non-believers. They no-doubt believe things that are very important to them. What they are is non-Christians. Saying someone is a non-Christian is not insulting if it's true. But saying someone is a "non-believer" is a lie. It says they believe nothing. And when, as Christians, we say that we meant they don't believe in Christ, we show our ignorance. Because there is a really good word for not believing in Christ. It's "non-Christian."

 

To say someone is a "non-believer" is to say they believe in nothing, which is an insult to whatever it is they do actually believe in. It also, I think, implies that if you don't believe in Christ, you might as well believe in absolutely nothing because nothing else even credits being counted as a belief, so not believing in Christ is the same as not believing in anything at all.

[mommaduck]

Okay, here's how I see it. The words believe, belief, believer are not specifically Christian words. Christians don't have a monopoly on beliefs. Muslims believe, Jews believe, Hindus believe, on and on. So you're taking a word that applies to many different 'belief' systems and using it as a way to distinguish between Christians and non-Christians. In that case, it isn't accurate. Non-Christian is certainly accurate. Non-believer would only be accurate with clarification. Non-believer in Christ. It's a term that only makes sense among an exclusively Christian group. In any other diverse group, non-believer could apply to a myriad of topics.

 

Did any of that make any sense?

 

Janet

I agree...and it IS typically used by certain people, within the context of a certain type of conversation, where people already understand WHAT belief is being referred to. The problem is that even when used IN CONTEXT in a particular group amoungst themselves, people are saying, "I'm offended".

 

Context is everything.

Edited April 14, 2009 by mommaduck

[melissel]

It's insulting because they aren't non-believers. They no-doubt believe things that are very important to them. What they are is non-Christians. Saying someone is a non-Christian is not insulting if it's true. But saying someone is a "non-believer" is a lie. It says they believe nothing. And when, as Christians, we say that we meant they don't believe in Christ, we show our ignorance. Because there is a really good word for not believing in Christ. It's "non-Christian."

 

To say someone is a "non-believer" is to say they believe in nothing, which is an insult to whatever it is they do actually believe in. It also, I think, implies that if you don't believe in Christ, you might as well believe in absolutely nothing because nothing else even credits being counted as a belief, so not believing in Christ is the same as not believing in anything at all.

 

Very well put. Thank you for that.

[Melinda in VT]

It's insulting because they aren't non-believers. They no-doubt believe things that are very important to them. What they are is non-Christians. Saying someone is a non-Christian is not insulting if it's true. But saying someone is a "non-believer" is a lie. It says they believe nothing. And when, as Christians, we say that we meant they don't believe in Christ, we show our ignorance. Because there is a really good word for not believing in Christ. It's "non-Christian."

 

To say someone is a "non-believer" is to say they believe in nothing, which is an insult to whatever it is they do actually believe in. It also, I think, implies that if you don't believe in Christ, you might as well believe in absolutely nothing because nothing else even credits being counted as a belief, so not believing in Christ is the same as not believing in anything at all.

 

Thank you. This is exactly what I wanted to say, but you said it better than I would have.

[mommaduck]

To say someone is a "non-believer" is to say they believe in nothing, which is an insult to whatever it is they do actually believe in.

 

Depends on the context and the conversation.

 

It also, I think, implies that if you don't believe in Christ, you might as well believe in absolutely nothing because nothing else even credits being counted as a belief, so not believing in Christ is the same as not believing in anything at all.

 

To some, yes. To others, no. Depends on how you are meaning. If you mean to literally not believe anything at all, no. If you mean that they should view your faith as equal to theirs...well, that's asking them to be universal and thus denying part of their faith. Some view all faiths as equal in where they lead to and the direction they give. Some don't. You can't make someone change what they believe.

[Danestress]

He didn't speak English:) So the word he used wasn't "non-believer." It was Apistos which I have seen translated as "unbelieving" but also "unfaithful" and "faithless" as in "this faithless generation." Interestingly, Jesus used it when talking to Jews about their Jewish faith. So maybe we should use "non-believers" to refer to everyone who isn't Jewish, including ourselves :)

 

But you know I am mostly joking. I do think your point is a good one, and Paul uses the word to discuss people who don't believe in Christ, which I guess is a challenge to me.

 

My feeling is that there is an arrogance and a laziness in many American Christians in that we don't recognize that if we want to share the good news with people, it helps to really understand what it is they already believe. If you are witnessing to Jews, your job is really different than if you are witnessing to atheists or witnessing to Muslims or witnessing to tribal people with whatever set of beliefs they have. If are calling them "non-believers" then I think you are risking having them think you really have no idea what they actually believe, and thinking you are too lazy to find out, and that you don't care enough about as individuals to take the time to find out what they actually believe and to meet them where they are with love and respect. I think that will affect your ministry, and for the life of me I can't see why anyone would insist on using that term when there is a much better one!

 

In my experience, most people come to Christ in a relationship. They start by having a friend. Who wants to be in a relationship with someone who calls them a "non-believer" when they actually believe something. Perhaps it would be better to say, "Hey, what is it you believe?" because then we start building a real relationship in which we also can share out beliefs.

[mommaduck]

He didn't speak English:) So the word he used wasn't "non-believer." It was Apistos which I have seen translated as "unbelieving" but also "unfaithful" and "faithless" as in "this faithless generation." Interestingly, Jesus used it when talking to Jews about their Jewish faith. So maybe we should use "non-believers" to refer to everyone who isn't Jewish, including ourselves :)

 

But you know I am mostly joking. I do think your point is a good one, and Paul uses the word to discuss people who don't believe in Christ, which I guess is a challenge to me.

 

My feeling is that there is an arrogance and a laziness in many American Christians in that we don't recognize that if we want to share the good news with people, it helps to really understand what it is they already believe. If you are witnessing to Jews, your job is really different than if you are witnessing to atheists or witnessing to Muslims or witnessing to tribal people with whatever set of beliefs they have. If are calling them "non-believers" then I think you are risking having them think you really have no idea what they actually believe, and thinking you are too lazy to find out, and that you don't care enough about as individuals to take the time to find out what they actually believe and to meet them where they are with love and respect. I think that will affect your ministry, and for the life of me I can't see why anyone would insist on using that term when there is a much better one!

 

In my experience, most people come to Christ in a relationship. They start by having a friend. Who wants to be in a relationship with someone who calls them a "non-believer" when they actually believe something. Perhaps it would be better to say, "Hey, what is it you believe?" because then we start building a real relationship in which we also can share out beliefs.

I see your point on this. And most people that I know do exactly at you pointed out in the bottom of your post. They discuss their differing faiths and are respectful.

 

I don't know of anyone that uses the term "unbeliever" in a mixed conversation, unless someone is simply listening in on a conversation. Like stated, it's typically used within a closed group simply to distinguish when discussing an issue within a particular (any) faith. So I'm not sure where, in THIS manner, it is offensive.

[LG Gone Wild]

He didn't speak English:) So the word he used wasn't "non-believer." It was Apistos which I have seen translated as "unbelieving" but also "unfaithful" and "faithless" as in "this faithless generation." Interestingly, Jesus used it when talking to Jews about their Jewish faith. So maybe we should use "non-believers" to refer to everyone who isn't Jewish, including ourselves :)

 

But you know I am mostly joking. I do think your point is a good one, and Paul uses the word to discuss people who don't believe in Christ, which I guess is a challenge to me.

 

My feeling is that there is an arrogance and a laziness in many American Christians in that we don't recognize that if we want to share the good news with people, it helps to really understand what it is they already believe. If you are witnessing to Jews, your job is really different than if you are witnessing to atheists or witnessing to Muslims or witnessing to tribal people with whatever set of beliefs they have. If are calling them "non-believers" then I think you are risking having them think you really have no idea what they actually believe, and thinking you are too lazy to find out, and that you don't care enough about as individuals to take the time to find out what they actually believe and to meet them where they are with love and respect. I think that will affect your ministry, and for the life of me I can't see why anyone would insist on using that term when there is a much better one!

 

In my experience, most people come to Christ in a relationship. They start by having a friend. Who wants to be in a relationship with someone who calls them a "non-believer" when they actually believe something. Perhaps it would be better to say, "Hey, what is it you believe?" because then we start building a real relationship in which we also can share out beliefs.

 

 

Ditto. Your post reminds me of Scott Hahn's books Opus Dei and Rome Sweet Home, where he recounts those two different approaches of sharing his religion and beliefs. If he were to approach me in that heavy handed way he used to employ, I might have sent on him on his way with a flea in his ear and quite possibly a black eye for getting in my face.

[Jenny in Florida]

See I think you have a misunderstanding of the term. "Unbeliever" in the context of use, does NOT mean that you have NO belief. It means that you do not believe in the foundations of that particular faith that is the context of the conversation.

 

No misunderstanding. I understand perfectly well what you mean, and I still find it hurtful. But, since you're "right" according to your belief system, I'm obviously not going to change your mind.

 

However, I do think it's worth noting that this is one of those interactions with a Christian that may cause "nonbelievers" to walk away with negative feelings.

[Jenny in Florida]

It's insulting because they aren't non-believers. They no-doubt believe things that are very important to them. What they are is non-Christians.

 

Again, thank you for your understanding and compassion.

[melissel]

I don't know of anyone that uses the term "unbeliever" in a mixed conversation, unless someone is simply listening in on a conversation. Like stated, it's typically used within a closed group simply to distinguish when discussing an issue within a particular (any) faith. So I'm not sure where, in THIS manner, it is offensive.

 

Can I ask, though, why you'd be comfortable using a term in private that you wouldn't feel comfortable using in a mixed faith gathering? I would think that would be an indication of your recognition, on some level, of a deeper issue. I don't generally use terminology in private conversations that I wouldn't use in a more public setting. (And I'm not asking this in a snarky way at all--I have a much bigger problem with the term "saved" than I do with the term "unbeliever." I'm really just wondering about your reasoning.)

[Lovedtodeath]

However, I do think it's worth noting that this is one of those interactions with a Christian that may cause "nonbelievers" to walk away with negative feelings.

Well, we really must understand that Christians are a diverse group and that there will be entire groups of Christians who would turn many off from Christianity and there will be other groups that believe in a totally different set of doctrines and behave totally differently.

 

Matt 7:22,23 "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and expel demons in your name and perform many powerful works in your name? And then I will confess to them, 'I never knew you, get away from me you workers of lawlessness'"

Matthew

Can I ask, though, why you'd be comfortable using a term in private that you wouldn't feel comfortable using in a mixed faith gathering?

Because simply, if I am talking to someone who has the same faith and I use the term unbeliever they know exactly what I mean. I would mean someone who is not a Jehovah's Witness. That is not what Mommaduck would mean if she were to use the term with someone who shares her faith. And it would have a different meaning altogether in a group of mixed faiths, to the point of making no sense at all. Edited April 14, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Haiku]

Some view all faiths as equal in where they lead to and the direction they give. Some don't. You can't make someone change what they believe.

 

Just because someone tries to avoid using terms that describe a group of people in ways that make that group uncomfortable does not mean that someone is changing what they believe. I don't believe all faiths are equal. I don't believe that they all lead to the same favorable outcome. I believe my faith is correct.

 

There seems to be a propensity to equate sensitivity toward other's beliefs and feelings about religion with a pan-religious, anything-goes worldview, but I don't think that's a valid equation. I can wholeheartedly believe I am right and still avoid contentious terms.

 

Tara

[mommaduck]

Can I ask, though, why you'd be comfortable using a term in private that you wouldn't feel comfortable using in a mixed faith gathering? I would think that would be an indication of your recognition, on some level, of a deeper issue. I don't generally use terminology in private conversations that I wouldn't use in a more public setting. (And I'm not asking this in a snarky way at all--I have a much bigger problem with the term "saved" than I do with the term "unbeliever." I'm really just wondering about your reasoning.)

Because of context and manner. The term, in and of itself, is not offensive. In some contexts it is applicable. In other contexts it is not or is being used to intentionally hurt. I most see it used in proper context. I occasionally see it misused (like being called "worldly" or "legalist")

[mommaduck]

No misunderstanding. I understand perfectly well what you mean, and I still find it hurtful. But, since you're "right" according to your belief system, I'm obviously not going to change your mind.

 

No more than you are insisting that you are "right".

 

However, I do think it's worth noting that this is one of those interactions with a Christian that may cause "nonbelievers" to walk away with negative feelings.

 

I have friends of various faiths. We discuss. We state our beliefs from our view points, both the positive and the negative. We respect each other in that. I may not agree with the way they use a term, but I try to find out and understand why they use it. They are not responsible for my being hurt by a term that they use differently amoungst themselves than we do and vise versa.

 

Again, I don't know anyone that would be in an interaction with you and say, "well, since you are an unbeliever..." They would say, "well, since you are *name your faith*"

 

As for negative feelings, I guess it's the same as how many Christians walk away with negative feelings due to interactions with various people of other faiths. The blame goes both ways. It's not "those big bad Christians", just as it's not "those big bad (insert faith)".

Edited April 14, 2009 by mommaduck

[Nestof3]

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

 

I'm sorry, but I do not assume I know better than Jesus Christ -- if He used the word, it is a correct word. It is a frame of reference word.

 

I am not putting anyone down on this board. I have no ill feelings or feelings of unkindness to anyone on this board.

 

The OP was seeking feedback from Christians about unbelievers -- clearly people who do not believe Christ is the Way. If the OP had asked for feedback from those of a different faith, I never would have responded. It was a frame of reference.

Edited April 14, 2009 by nestof3

[emmsmama]

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'm honestly not offended or getting my panties in a bunch about the term, I'm just saying that I don't find it accurate seeing as just because someone doesn't believe in Christ, that doesn't mean they are a unbeliever. I am also saying that it comes across as condescending, whether that's the way it's intended or not, so Christians want to win people over, they'd do better not to use it. I'm not going to be won over either way, but if Christians are trying to portray themselves in a positive light, they'd do better not to use the word, so it's just a helpful suggestion I'm trying to make so you know how the word comes across to others :)

 

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:

 

Eek. I wouldn't use the term. Historically it originally meant a person of African or non-African decent with black skin, however nowadays it's often used as a racial slur or insult to mean uneducated, illiterate, or other negative things. I get that we often go over board being PC, but I'm not sure why you couldn't use a term that has less chance of coming across as offensive.

[mommaduck]

I'm honestly not offended or getting my panties in a bunch about the term, I'm just saying that I don't find it accurate seeing as just because someone doesn't believe in Christ, that doesn't mean they are a unbeliever. I am also saying that it comes across as condescending, whether that's the way it's intended or not, so Christians want to win people over, they'd do better not to use it. I'm not going to be won over either way, but if Christians are trying to portray themselves in a positive light, they'd do better not to use the word, so it's just a helpful suggestion I'm trying to make so you know how the word comes across to others :)

 

 

I guess, when used in proper context, it really has nothing to do with trying to win someone over. I also try to portray myself in a positive light as myself. Christianity is part of who I am. There are many that will view me negatively just because of that. Or because I'm a homeschooler. Or because I watch tv. Or...see what I'm saying? I'm not out to please everyone. I try to use kind words, respect others, etc. But when a word is being used in a correct manner, in the proper situation (aka, from the pulpit, on a specific topic, to a specific group of people), then I cannot for the life of me figure what business it is of anyone else's just as it's not my business if the local Iman wants to call all Christians "heretics" when in conversation with his congregation or a Priest wants to call us "separated brethern" from his pulpit to his congregation. Same with a couple of people of shared belief having a discussion. So I don't see where the condensation is, unless...

 

...if someone unwisely used the term amoungst a mixed group or in the wrong manner, I would hope they will learn from their mistake. We all make them in our zeal for our own various faiths ;) (or someone intentionally tossed it in as a barb, but that can happen with ANY word and by anyone...you know, the whole "bless your heart" thing LOL)

[Elizabeth Conley]

A word or two about "nonbelievers".

 

A remarkably high percentage of people self-identify as Christians, and don't run around calling everyone who doesn't ascribe to our particular brand of Christianity as "nonbelievers".

 

As a boring, garden variety Methodist, I get a bit crabby about being witnessed to by the more flamboyant brands of Christianity. I sympathize with people who aren't Christians. I wonder, "Is this what it's like for the Jews, the Buddhists and the Agnostics? I can see why this is irritating."

 

It is irritating. There aren't as many "nonbelievers" around as some imagine. Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans and the rest of us boring, garden variety Christians know there are flashier denominations out there. If we were cut out for a more flamboyant church, we'd have sought out such congregations. We're not. We like our sedate Sunday services and low key ministries. We like our relationships within the greater community, because we believe we can do more good if we get out a bit. We're just as Christian, but we tend to choose more low key ministries to support, and we don't mind if it takes a lifetime to introduce someone to Christ.

 

When someone pushes a fluffy little pamphlet on me about how to become a "real" Christian in 3 easy steps, I really don't know how to take it. Ditto for the cutesy little books about how a few selected Bible verses can "save" me, or give me a "personal" relationship with Christ. My "Old Fashioned," boring salvation isn't enough, apparently. The relationship with Christ that currently brings me Joy and Peace won't do. Why? I don't know. This is the part where I get really confused.

 

I suggest that insular Christians take their relationships with supposed "nonbelievers" a bit more patiently. Many of the people they imagine to be nonbelievers are lifelong Christians with strong ties within the vast Body of Christ that extends far beyond church walls. Those who aren't are nonetheless unlikely to enjoy being aggressively proselytized by someone who has no genuine personal interest in them. A calmer approach would definitely open more doors than the "My Way or the Highway...

 

...to H#ll" approach. Just get to know people as they really are. If they don't want to join your church after your first three conversations, maybe it wouldn't hurt to keep in touch. Many worthwhile people take a bit longer to build a relationship with. It can take as long as 10 years to get around to talking with people about Christ, but it's worth the wait. Conversations between people with a genuine, long term relationship carry a lot more weight.

[Peek a Boo]

There are Jewish people that refer to us as xtian or x-tian. They refuse to use the term Christian. It's offensive to me how they write it, but it's offensive to them to write it the way that doesn't offend me. Because I've taken the time to understand their viewpoint and know that this is how they will refer to us amoungst themselves, then it doesn't bother me. They are not being derogatory, they are staying true to their faith. Ditto with "unbeliever". It doesn't bother me to be called an "infidel" by a Muslim. Why? Because from their context, that is exactly what I am. I am not a follower of Muhummad and do not believe him to have been a true prophet. I'm not worried about another group being politically correct about my stand with them.

 

Kindness is understanding also where the person is coming from. Unbeliever is not a derogatory term. Do some people use it derogatorily? Sure. Same as someone can say "black" and "white" in a derogatory manner, but others can use them and it's not a problem.

 

I wonder if some are truly offended by the term or are offended that Christianity IS exclusive and not a "universal salvation" type faith and this is their way of trying to "force" Christians into language that doesn't accurately describe our faith, but rather what they want it to be...or if some just want to be "martyrs" :glare:

:iagree:

 

 

This is not about Christians having any monopoly on a term.

first, let's get a basic fact straight:

 

unbeliever:

1 : one that does not believe in a particular religious faith

2 : one that does not believe : an incredulous person: doubter, skeptic

 

Y'all continue to assert that "unbeliever" MUST mean something that it does not.

Look it up.

Neither definition says "one who believes in NOTHING."

Both definitions assume an object of belief: doubter of what? skeptic of what??

You are continuing to be insulted over a made up definition.

 

 

Originally Posted by Jenny in Florida

However, I do think it's worth noting that this is one of those interactions with a Christian that may cause "nonbelievers" to walk away with negative feelings.

 

yeah. we know that already.

Scripture is clear that our belief is going to offend people.

 

in case y'all missed that:

 

Scripture is clear that our belief is going to offend people.

 

For those that the truth is going to offend, well, that pretty much falls under the realm of Too Bad. I'm told to shake the dust from my feet and move on. You probably aren't going to like it if I tell you the rest of the faith either. It's not my job or purpose as a Christian to save you or make you feel comfortable. that's another one of those "what people think they know about Christianity vs what Christianity actually is."

 

I do agree that when used in proper context, it really has nothing to do with trying to win someone over. I'm not running around calling everyone an unbeliever, but neither am i going to go out of my way to cushion the faith. And i say this as someone w/ several atheist/ agnostic friends who do fit the definition of unbeliever.

 

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

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

 

 

uh.... yeah.... Christ was "so loved" that they Killed Him.

 

If one really loved Christ as Christ wanted to be loved, then they would love His People too.

[mommaduck]

A word or two about "nonbelievers".

 

A remarkably high percentage of people self-identify as Christians, and don't run around calling everyone who doesn't ascribe to our particular brand of Christianity as "nonbelievers".

 

As a boring, garden variety Methodist, I get a bit crabby about being witnessed to by the more flamboyant brands of Christianity. I sympathize with people who aren't Christians. I wonder, "Is this what it's like for the Jews, the Buddhists and the Agnostics? I can see why this is irritating."

 

It is irritating. There aren't as many "nonbelievers" around as some imagine. Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans and the rest of us boring, garden variety Christians know there are flashier denominations out there. If we were cut out for a more flamboyant church, we'd have sought out such congregations. We're not. We like our sedate Sunday services and low key ministries. We like our relationships within the greater community, because we believe we can do more good if we get out a bit. We're just as Christian, but we tend to choose more low key ministries to support, and we don't mind if it takes a lifetime to introduce someone to Christ.

 

When someone pushes a fluffy little pamphlet on me about how to become a "real" Christian in 3 easy steps, I really don't know how to take it. Ditto for the cutesy little books about how a few selected Bible verses can "save" me, or give me a "personal" relationship with Christ. My "Old Fashioned," boring salvation isn't enough, apparently. The relationship with Christ that currently brings me Joy and Peace won't do. Why? I don't know. This is the part where I get really confused.

 

I suggest that insular Christians take their relationships with supposed "nonbelievers" a bit more patiently. Many of the people they imagine to be nonbelievers are lifelong Christians with strong ties within the vast Body of Christ that extends far beyond church walls. Those who aren't are nonetheless unlikely to enjoy being aggressively proselytized by someone who has no genuine personal interest in them. A calmer approach would definitely open more doors than the "My Way or the Highway...

 

...to H#ll" approach. Just get to know people as they really are. If they don't want to join your church after your first three conversations, maybe it wouldn't hurt to keep in touch. Many worthwhile people take a bit longer to build a relationship with. It can take as long as 10 years to get around to talking with people about Christ, but it's worth the wait. Conversations between people with a genuine, long term relationship carry a lot more weight.

Totally agree :)

[mommaduck]

Originally Posted by Jenny in Florida

However, I do think it's worth noting that this is one of those interactions with a Christian that may cause "nonbelievers" to walk away with negative feelings.

 

yeah. we know that already.

Scripture is clear that our belief is going to offend people.

 

in case y'all missed that:

 

Scripture is clear that our belief is going to offend people.

 

For those that the truth is going to offend, well, that pretty much falls under the realm of Too Bad. I'm told to shake the dust from my feet and move on. You probably aren't going to like it if I tell you the rest of the faith either. It's not my job or purpose as a Christian to save you or make you feel comfortable. that's another one of those "what people think they know about Christianity vs what Christianity actually is."

 

I do agree that when used in proper context, it really has nothing to do with trying to win someone over. I'm not running around calling everyone an unbeliever, but neither am i going to go out of my way to cushion the faith. And i say this as someone w/ several atheist/ agnostic friends who do fit the definition of unbeliever.

 

 

 

uh.... yeah.... Christ was "so loved" that they Killed Him.

 

If one really loved Christ as Christ wanted to be loved, then they would love His People too.

:iagree:

[Peek a Boo]

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.

 

 

 

I don't believe salvation can be lost if one is truly saved, and only God truly knows a man's heart….. 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.

 

I agree :) My only point from the beginning has been that the blanket statement of "Christians don't kill people" is completely unscriptural.

[Peek a Boo]

I suggest that insular Christians take their relationships with supposed "nonbelievers" a bit more patiently. ....Many worthwhile people take a bit longer to build a relationship with. It can take as long as 10 years to get around to talking with people about Christ, but it's worth the wait. Conversations between people with a genuine, long term relationship carry a lot more weight.

 

ftr, most of this conversation hasn't been about how Christians witness [and I tend to agree w/ your assessment], but about an unbeliever's reception of the word unbeliever. ;)

 

What i try to keep in mind is that every Christian has different gifts for witnessing. Some are called to serve sheltered: safe at home. Others are called to head to the bar and hang w/ the prostitutes. Others are loud wackos wandering in the wilderness. There is a time, place, season, and audience for each of these types of Christians.

[Haiku]

Eek. I wouldn't use the term. Historically it originally meant a person of African or non-African decent with black skin, however nowadays it's often used as a racial slur or insult to mean uneducated, illiterate, or other negative things. I get that we often go over board being PC, but I'm not sure why you couldn't use a term that has less chance of coming across as offensive.

 

I don't use the term Negro. My post was a quote of someone else's where I replaced the word "unbeliever" with the word "Negro" to illustrate that if we look at the situation from a different perspective, we might have different feelings about it. I don't think you read my entire post. :)

 

Tara

[Haiku]

 

The OP was seeking feedback from Christians about unbelievers

 

Wrong thread. That was another thread. But I responded to that one too. ;)

 

Tara

[Nestof3]

Wrong thread. That was another thread. But I responded to that one too. ;)

 

Tara

 

Oops -- you are right, I was wrong. All of the threads are running together to me. LOL

[OnTheBrink]

I agree :) My only point from the beginning has been that the blanket statement of "Christians don't kill people" is completely unscriptural.

 

OK, I'd have to agree with that. :D