I’m sure your right. It is not easy to “walk the walk” as they say. It is really a daily struggle to do what is right. To be sure the right path is not at all the easiest to follow as we are humans full of imperfections and many obstacles are placed in our way that make it difficult. I don’t know about Christianity as a whole as it encompasses so many different beliefs. But as a human with a relationship with God, it is in that, that I personally find solace in knowing that He will guide me to do what is right. Daily I struggle to do so and perhaps the people you have encountered do the same. I hope that someday that you will meet what you consider to be the perfect Christian. I don’t think I’ve ever met one but there seem to be some here who have a way of making It known they are His.
I didn’t mean to make this thread and then abandon it, but I’ve got to go to work. I’ll address some of the major points tomorrow, but for now I have to challenge the idea of “quiet Christians” that a lot of the replies here talk about.
Isn’t one of the points of Christianity that you’re supposed to talk about it? Didn’t Jesus tell Christians to spread the word of salvation and such? How can a person be a Christian, but remain quiet about it?
From my perspective, I think Jehovahs witnesses are acting the most like “Christians”. They work hard to spread their message, but still try to stay true to the nonviolent and do-unto-others philosophy.
You are absolutely correct - Christians are supposed to help others come to Christ. By being TOO quiet, we fail in that part of the mission.
I personally try to bring others to Christ THROUGH my quiet actions. I let them get to know me. When they ask what I did last weekend, and I say that I was doing some counseling for prostitutes (I work with a group that tries to provide alternative forms of earnings for women who want to leave prostitution), I STILL don’t tell them that it is through my church. I wait until I tell them, so that more questions will flow, rather than killing a conversation when I state that I go to church regularly.
Too many are scared of the right wing thumpers, so I think it is a better hunting strategy to be subtle and let them come to you than to go to their doors. There are millions of different ways to spread the word - I go for a more subtle route.
Mind you, I am semi-bragging here, but this IS a fairly anonymous message board after all.
By the power and prompting of the Holy Spirit, yes one will be compelled to, of our own strength, not really as this can be counterproductive. Evangelism (meaning messenger) is a gift of the Holy Spirit, again not everyone gets every gift. Some of the members have gifts that are more beneficial inside the church instead of reaching out to non-believers.
That’s debatable, actually. Right before the Jesus teaches the apostles the “Lords Prayer” ("Our Father, who aren’t in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name, etc) in Matthew 6 is this:
I am a Christian, and that passage is my argument against the more evangelical denominations. Teach, sure, but it’s actions not words. I’d type more in this post, but the passage already says it all.
I think there’s a distinction between doing good deeds so other people will see what a nice guy you are, and doing good deeds to draw people to the faith. One’s selfish, the other is doing it for the cause.
That is an act of defiance not submission. And Jesus never wrote or dictated any of the New Testament. It is a compilation of writings from his followers after the fact, which was translated and assembled into book form many years later.
“Art”, not “aren’t”. Your prayer says God (plural) is not in Heaven.
:smack:
Who said non-violence has to be sumissive? Foreswearing violence doesn’t mean you have to be a wuss about it; matter of fact, real non-violence requires a level of discipline that’s probably beyond most people.
Not sure what your point is about Jesus not being the author or the NT. I don’t recall anyone claiming he did; you asked where Jesus said not to defend yourself, and people pointed out where he is depicted as advocating non-violence. Are you saying that, if Jesus didn’t write (or dictate) “don’t defend yourself” directly, it’s not authoritative?
I know what you mean. If I ever meet a real Buddhist, I’LL be impressed. And I live in Thailand!
So are you saying it does not reflect the teachings of Jesus? If not, what can Christians depend on as the word of the Messiah? Or does each get to decide on his own what is the divine word, and which is a misattribution?
The idea of turning the other cheek has been enterpreted both ways so it’s difficult to say it’s anything but what you want it to mean.
I’m saying that the literal interpretation of the Bible is an oxymoron made worse by the fact that Jesus didn’t author it. While there is benefit to reading an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the words people remember Jesus speaking in Aramaic I think people often miss the forest for the tree’s.
What is this forest you speak of?
Now I’m really confused as to your point. What does literal interpretation of the Bible (which nobody in this thread is relying on, to my knowledge) have to do with Jesus’ statements about violence? Maybe I’m slow, but I’m not sure which is the forest, and what the trees, in your post.
Let me approach this again from the original departure point: according to the Gospel passages cited (stipulated - written years after Jesus’ life and based on memories and oral traditions subsequently written down), Jesus instructed his followers not to return violence with violence. I interpret the passages to advocate a kind of defiant, robust non-violence, intended to embarass the aggressor or to expose him to general approbation.
I don’t think my interpretation requires the words to have been written by Jesus, or even to have been an exact quotation; the meaning that comes through to me is pretty consistent with other sayings and actions of Jesus elsewhere in the Gospels.
He forgot to tell these Christians who, presumably, should be leading an exemplary life. And I don’t mean in how best to wield a crowbar or sledgehammer.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/1220/breaking83.htm
You do realize that the term “Christian” refers to anyone who chooses to describe herslf thusly, right? Contradictions be damned?
[QUOTE]
Absolutely. Just check out that Hindu, Gandhi. His non violent non cooperation stance was based in part on the teachings of Jesus I think. Watching the movie it struck me what incredible courage and discipline it took to follow through.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Yep, Gandhi was on my mind as I was writing my post.
I hear this often from Christians. I heard a radio interview on Christmas Day with the Archbishop of York, and he was stressing the fact that Christians are fallible and are sinners the same as everyone else. He was a lovely bloke, and he did have a point. But whenever I hear this from a Christian, I think, yeah, that’s a nice and humble thing to say, but it also seems to be a bit of a handy disclaimer as to why Christians feel free to not follow their own teachings.
I can’t think of a religion in which the adherents are 100% true to the teachings, but my gut feel is that Hindus and Buddhists probably put a little more real world effort into it, day to day. That’s just my impression, though.
I agree with you about Christians, but having met quite a few Hindus and Buddhists, I have to say that people are people, and everyone fucks up more or less in the same way.
Personally, I think one of the main reasons Christianity seems a bit off is that Jesus died so young; I don’t see how he he ever had the opportunity to flesh out his faith before being crucified. Basically, he got the idea that he was the messiah, preached a bit, performed some “miracles”, amassed a modest following, and finally, he tried to back up his words, lashing out in the temple in an act of extremely bad timing. If he’d lived until he was 50, maybe he would have resolved some of the conflicts in his theology. Then again, who knows what was going through this guy’s head? Jesus strikes me as a man who was as conflicted and convoluted as his message. I’ve heard him described more than once as a manic-depressive, and I’ve got to admit that it would explain a lot.
I think that’s why there are so many conflicting messages in Christianity. He preached peace, but talked about bringing a sword (and in context, I think he meant that quite literally). He talked about turning the other cheek, but attacked the money lenders. And so on and so forth.
To make matters worse, one of the main sources we have to work off of is the word of some whacked-out desert hippie who never even met the man, put all sorts of words into Jesus’s mouth, and basically turned Christ’s personal belief on its head. I can’t fathom Paul’s inclusion in the bible. I just . . . can’t. I mean, it sounds nice and it promises wonderful things for the faithful, and I suppose it’s poetic, but it sure as hell wasn’t what Christ was preaching, so when I hear about someone acting like a Christian, I really have to wonder how the hell he or she even knows where to begin.