I did deal with it. You have stated your opinion and proved that your opinion is based on lies and prejudice. You also accused many of us in this thread of being prejudiced.
Oh well. My interpretation of it is that it’s directed toward those who profess to be disciples of Christ. One who believes that he or she is chosen to turn people toward Christ, and if His4Ever is such a one, well…?? ::shrugs::
This is not directed toward all Christians, the idea that sympathy is a bad thing. That’s ridiculous. I read it as: one who is honestly striving to ‘save’ others focus more on the path through Jesus and not on helping the ‘sinner’ in some other fashion. For the rest of us, Love thy neighbor and Judge not still apply. JMO.
Oddly enough, I’m fairly certain that I didn’t say I have a problem with the decision, nor did I attempt to contest it. I said only that I see things differently, and that I wouldn’t personally have made the same decision - In response to a poster who said that one of the reasons His4ever was attacked is her choice of forum for this thread. I really don’t care which forum it’s in. But the fact that she was guaranteed to be attacked for sharing her thoughts isn’t her fault, and she didn’t INTEND to cause a debate. I agree that moving a thread is up to the staff, and it is not a punishment. But posting something in a forum that the staff doesn’t agree with is not a valid reason to be attacked by the other posters. Shouldn’t they let the moderators do their own job?
I know you don’t like it when people disagree with you you, but though I don’t agree, I didn’t argue with the move - I only touched on the topic in response to somebody who mentioned it - and so there’s no need for you to look for a problem where none exists.
Without giving my opinion on the content of H4E’s OP, I have to agree that she should not be vilified for posting what she thought was a harmless little devotional that was aimed only at Christians. She was not intending to preach at heathens like me, but to reprove the faithful, something which she is just as entitled to do as Monty or [b[Joe_Cool** are.
Tee, the point of the passage in question is that sympathy and understanding ALONE are bad. Human sympathy and understanding in the face of problems don’t solve anything, from the Christian point of view. The point of the writing is that anything that doesn’t lead to Christ is bad by definition - because it doesn’t lead to Christ. Your sympathy and understanding are your strength. Your human desire to help. Leading the person to have faith in the human condition and in human nature, rather than in Christ.
You can’t just take a sentence by itself and ignore the context in which it was written.
And “to judge”, in the sense of “judge not…” means to condemn, not to discern. It means to carry out a sentence, not to determine right or wrong. In the case of the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery, the crime that Jesus made his point against wasn’t the saying that she was wrong. It was carrying out the sentence of stoning. We can judge actions according to right and wrong. But we do NOT have the authority to carry out sentence based on the Law. Only God can do that.
Jesus himself, when he showed her mercy, told her to “sin no more.” Mercy is meaningless if the person thinks it is deserved. She WAS sinning, and therefore needed Christ’s mercy.
I totally agree with your post Joe. My objection would have been to the idea that sympathy and understanding isn’t necessary, or that it is somehow contrary, as in this post:
I’m an (unapologetically) liberal Christian…not having much in common with literalists, I might be one of the very people the OP was directed to. 
That’s ok too.
I’m not quite sure the best way to go about that. For me, perhaps it would be a mixture of both consequenes and benefits. I hope that I wouldn’t call him or her stupid. I might express that if they made the wrong decision that they were deciding something they may later regret. After all if the boy or girl continues as they are, they just may wind up in jail. That statement could be true, you know.
Joe_Cool wrote:
Good lord! The notion that I get any sort of special breaks is patently absurd. In fact, I’ve been the brunt of considerable moderatorial wrath.
Greetings, all. I want to pop in for two reasons:
First, to suggest that maybe much of what Joe Cool had to say is apropos the entire situation that’s been presented. I disagree that sympathy and compassion are ever wrong, but I do see his point that in many situations they must be accompanied by something more, and of course in a Christian context the idea of introducing others who do not know Jesus to Him as a person, as a real individual with an influence on their lives in one way or another, is important.
My objection to “evangelical evangelism” (to create a solecism from the two disparate meanings of the term) has always been, not that it is in any way improper, but that it’s ineffective. Save for lel’s special case, not one person seems to be moved to inquire into whether he or she should believe in this person who is motivating His4Ever to say what she does. (There are those who would consider that result good! ;))
But what shows God to me many times is not the words of Scripture, the beauty of a service, the thoughts of a theologian, but the love implicit and explicit in people caring for other people – and His, there’s a profoundly moving example of that, with me as the recipient of all that love, at the top of MPSIMS right now. And that is perhaps the most humbling experience anyone can imagine – all I’m able to say is, “Wow, I don’t deserve all this!”
I’d sincerely suggest, His, that while you may see it your call to “be constant in and out of season, standing firm for His word whatever betide” – you need to take serious stock of whether what you are saying and doing is accomplishing the ends for which you intend it. My honest assessment is that it is not.
One serious problem I have here is your comment:
I don’t know if I can make this clear, but just as you might say to a devout Orthodox Jew, “It’s not whether you abstain from pork and working on Saturday that matters, but rather that you follow the moral law as set forth in Scripture,” those of us who read Jesus’s words and see what He seemed to put emphasis on are saying to you, “It’s not whether or not you follow the law at all that matters, but what you feel, and show you feel, towards the Triune God and the human beings he has created to share this planet with you.”
“Watered down,” Hell! It’s the tungsten-tough job of feeling and showing love towards God with every fiber of your being, every moment of your life, even when you might be tempted to feel despair (and I know that), and towards the people whom He loves as much as He loves you – whether or not they’ve acknowledged Him and whether or not they’re engaged in something that you, or Scripture, would define as sin.
My wife has been reading this thread along with me, and she has the following comment:
Poly: And if the person standing there doing the “correcting, reproving, and instructing” is at that very moment publicly not following the law he wants his audience to follow?
Monty, if you are my brother, it’s my responsibility to show love towards you by encouraging you when you’re down, rejoicing with you when you’re up, affirming you when you’re right, and challenging you when you’re wrong. But equally it’s your responsibility to be doing the same thing to me, as my brother.
If that sense of brotherhood and sisterhood doesn’t exist, then reproof, correction, and instruction are not going to “take” – because there will be no love behind it.
I trust that makes clear my answer to the question you’re implying?
Though your opinion is proven to be wrong.
There is a verse in the Bible (someone will find it, I am sure; its NT)
that says Mercy triumphs over judgment.
So…if we are merciful, we will not be judged harshly.
This I believe, IMHO, is the opposite of what His4Eve ris preaching.
Not meant as a censure of anyone. Just some relevant verses.
James 2:13
Jude 22, 23
Matthew 11:19
Well!
Thanks for the verse.
You are welcome. It’s snowing here. Rather pretty. 
Its horribly cold here (30!)
No snow, but I’d rather be in Texas!
Monty:
While my overall opinions of you and of the Mormon church remain largely unchanged for many other reasons that I really don’t want to waste time arguing about (“As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be,” etc), I will give you this:
I was wrong. I managed to confuse Mormon beliefs with something else (not sure what it was that I combined with JW teachings and decided it was Mormon).
From http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,810-1,00.html :
And from http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/m/mormon/mormon-idx?type=DIV0&byte=639 :
So I retract and apologize for the remark about Mormons believing that Jesus is a created being.
Then I “crossed the crowded ways of life and walked the paths of wretchedness and need” and had to come to realize in my heart that preaching, “Ye must be saved” is not the way to reach people. The fact is that everyone was saved the moment Jesus drew His last breath. But it’s kinda hard to make someone believe that when they walk the streets in search of a place to sleep, at the same time wondering where their next meal is coming from. To be saved is to be Christ to them.
While I appreciate your comments, Mrs. Polycarp, I humbly disagree that everyone is automatically saved by Jesus’ death. If this were so, there would be no need to go unto all the world and preach the gospel as Jesus’ commanded His disciples to do. It’s an individual decision each person much make. The fact that in Acts 16:30-31 where the jailor falls down before Paul and Silas and asks what he must do to be saved and they give him an answer shows that it isn’t an automatic thing granted universally to all at the moment of Christ’s death.
As far as those who are walking the streets wondering where their next meal is coming from, of course we should try to meet their needs first and show love in that way. After that, I believe we should share the good news of Christ with them. I believe that’s what they do at the mission, feed and provide a place to stay and also share the gospel.
So, while in a way I can agree with some of what you say; I don’t agree with everything.
Well, Joe, you’ve apologized for one half of the wrong. And refused to recognize the other half.
And my overall opinion of you remains the same based on my observation of you, not any preconceptions based on lies about the group you belong to.