A whites-only community in Arkansas looking to start a franchise in Missouri

[ViaCrucis]

The Jesus who saved me cares about THEM.

That's why I say what I say, that's why I'm here, that's why I'm angry when I see the crap I see here.

And how DARE people who call themselves Christians use Jesus to NOT care about people.

"Oh you are being emotional."

Yeah. Deal with it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ozso]

That it's good when Christians and non-Christians recognize common ground, because as Christians we are commanded to exist here in this world and live good lives in our communities. We build bridges, not throw rocks. And that what Scripture talks about when it speaks of the hostility of the world is the power structures of systemic evil which oppress, injure, and promote death, decay, injustice, and the things God very explicitly says He despises--because we serve and worship a God who genuinely cares about His creation. He genuinely wants to see human beings thrive.

The point of Christianity is not get people to sign on a dotted line so that they don't go to hell, and this world doesn't actually matter at all. The point of Christianity is that there is a God who is covenantly faithful to His good creation, and in spite of the hell we've created here and in spite of the hell that exists because of the devil, because of the evil that exists--He actually cares and wants the poor to be cared for, the hungry to be fed, for widows and orphans taken care of, and that the kingdom is both this-worldly and next-worldly.

Jesus didn't teach us to pray, "Your kingdom come later, Your will be done in heaven as it is in heaven" but "Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven".

That the preaching of the Gospel is not "Hey, join my religion so you can go to heaven after you die" but literally EVERYTHING the Gospel is actually about as written throughout the pages of Sacred Scripture. We cannot divorce eternal life from this life; we cannot divorce the Christian hope of the Age to Come from the kind of life we are called to live right now. If there is going to be a Day of Judgment, if God is going to make all things new, and Jesus rising from the dead is the evidence of this fact, then hey--I should live like these things are true. And that means people matter, that means my community matters, that means what happens to the immigrant, to the poor, to the hungry, to the thirsty, to the people who are neglected, unwanted, and tossed aside--they matter. Because if God's Kingdom is about the last being first, and the least being greatest, if God declares that it is the slave who stands at the top of the pyramid, then that matters.

What the world wants is a Christianity that supports a worldly agenda. Which is candy coated as empathy, caring and altruism but is really about enabling. It's not about feeding the poor, because every church I know of feeds the poor. It's about adopting the worldly version of what's good for mankind.

Then take that seriously. God wasn't impressed by the sacrifice of bulls and goats while the heart remained distant, hard, and callous to the needy. What makes you think God is going to be impressed by declarations of godliness, all the while looking upon the dispondant, the depressed, the anxious, the unwanted, the unloved, and the broken and saying "meh, I follow Jesus, I got my ticket to heaven".

-CryptoLutheran

What it means is the worldly version of righteousness is as filthy rags. A Christian can be loving and charitable and helpful as Jesus tells us to be, without going along with the worldly version of that. A Christian can benefit the world greatly without embracing worldliness.

 

[ozso]

The Jesus who saved me cares about THEM.

That's why I say what I say, that's why I'm here, that's why I'm angry when I see the crap I see here.

And how DARE people who call themselves Christians use Jesus to NOT care about people.

"Oh you are being emotional."

Yeah. Deal with it.

-CryptoLutheran

Caring and enabling are not the same thing. As a matter of fact they're pretty much mutually exclusive.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Caring and enabling are not the same thing. As a matter of fact they're pretty much mutually exclusive.

Enabling people to eat is the definition of caring about the hungry.

And not defending racists and calling racism racism is, most definitely enabling the victims of racism to not die because some fascists want to create Gilead--but that's also caring for people.

You know what's not caring for people? Enabling those who want to kill them.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

What it means is the worldly version of righteousness is as filthy rags. A Christian can be loving and charitable and helpful as Jesus tells us to be, without going along with the worldly version of that. A Christian can benefit the world greatly without embracing worldliness.

In this thread, we're talking about a group that wants to create a white supremacist compound in Missouri. So, in your expert opinion, is opposing racists worldly?

 

[MrMoe]

We do? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm asking for examples of suicidal empathy. I don't understand what that is, how it would manifest.

Here is Gad Saad, the author of Suicidal Empathy explaining what suicidal empathy is.

An extreme, non-political example would be the woman who forgave her mother’s murderer and let him live in her home. The man ended up murdering her too.

As for pathalogical altruism, as I've never previously heard or seen those two words in combination I am having difficulty in deciding what you may mean by them. As a left wing, tree hugging socialist I'm haven't discerned any tendency for my active altruism to run out of control. Perhaps you will be able to enlighten me.

(Please ignore the sub-text in above. That's just a side effect of supressed altruism and omission of empathy. )

Pretty much the same as suicidal empathy. It’s empathy without using your brain.

Coddling minorities or “the soft bigotry of low expectations”.

The left loves to coddle minorities to the point of treating them like children, or worse. Seeing them as dumb.

Some on the left think black people are unable to get an I.D.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul: “Right now, we have young Black kids growing up in the Bronx who don’t even know what the word computer is.”

“Defund the police!”

This is pretty self explanatory. Defund the police was a stupid slogan and idea. If you want better policing then more funding would be the appropriate way.

“Globalize the intifada!”

Students from predominantly left wing school chanted this. Most of who probably have no idea intifada meant uprising.

Then there the whole being soft on crime.

Most of the left’s suicidal empathy comes from seeing minorities as perpetual victims and trying to ingrain this mindset into them.

Recently Whoopi Goldberg on the View said that being black in America is just as bad as being a woman in Iran.

Co-host says living in America in 2025 as a woman is far different than living in Iran.

Whoopi: “Not if you’re black.”

This rich, black woman on a popular tv show thinks being black in America is equivalent to being a woman in Iran who can’t even dance in public or they’re in danger of being killed.

This is how successful the left has been at ingraining victimhood into minority groups. Thanks to the left, race relations have gotten worse.

Even this thread is an example of that. Ask yourself why a group of forty white people segregating themselves from society to live on a small patch of land is news worthy. The truth is it’s not.

 

[MrMoe]

So if I, a Christian, express my desire to follow Jesus, and point out the ideals and virtues which the Christian religion have taught for 2,000 years, that is disingenuous?

Because the desire to have empathy is simply taking Jesus seriously. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The fact that I want to be a disciple of Jesus, and not just play religious pretend, is something that I remember used to be celebrated in the Church.

Why is being a Christian now something which so many Christians hate?

-CryptoLutheran

Matthew 6:1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

This is what we know refer to as “virtue signalling” and the left are the kings of virtue signalling.

 

[ozso]

In this thread, we're talking about a group that wants to create a white supremacist compound in Missouri. So, in your expert opinion, is opposing racists worldly?

The matter we were discussing went off topic. What's being debated that's on topic isn't whether or not racism is bad, because everyone here is going to say that it's bad. What's being argued is whether or not it's a bad thing that a group of 40 racists isolated themselves to a 160 acre commune in a remote rural location. Apparently that's considered a bad thing by some because those 40 racists want to be the only ones who live in their commune of isolation.

Aside from that, there's whole lot of talk of being loving and epithetic by some, who at the same are displaying the exact opposite of love or empathy towards the racists. Probably because their version of love and empathy really means enabling.

 

[ozso]

Enabling people to eat is the definition of caring about the hungry.

And not defending racists and calling racism racism is, most definitely enabling the victims of racism to not die because some fascists want to create Gilead--but that's also caring for people.

You know what's not caring for people? Enabling those who want to kill them.

-CryptoLutheran

I've never seen anyone on CF argue against caring about the hungry. And since the hungry don't have anything to do with this, that's just a red herring.

No one here is defending racism. There are some here who are saying if small group of bad people want to isolate themselves from society, they have the right to do so, and there's no sensable reason to oppose them removing themselves from the community. It's a matter of choosing A) You want them to keep living among everyone else. Or B) You want them to remove themselves from everyone else. Choosing B seems like a no brainer, but apparently not.

 

[MrMoe]

"Pathological altruism" is a fun expression. It's like "rampant compassion".

Also, what is it called when someone loves people so much that they die on a cross for them?

"Jesus is absolutely out of control, He loves everyone too much. Did you see how He was having dinner with prostitutes, tax-collectors, and spending time in that leper colony?" - A disgruntled Pharisee, or modern day Fundamentalist, it's hard to tell the difference

-CryptLutheran

Then this following quote by Jesus is going blow your mind.

Matthew 26:6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, 7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table.

8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. 9 “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”

10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me.11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

WOW! JESUS WAS SO HEARTLESS! That money could have fed starving poor people! (My impersonation of a virtue signalling left winger).

 

[Bradskii]

2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

I don't see a lot of people boasting about what they individually do for those in need. What I see is a lot people asking why we aren't do more as a society for those people. And in fact, and more to the point, why are we being intentionally prevented from doing a lot more that would help.

It seems that it's a means to avoid addressing the problem by accusing those who want to help of either being hypocritical, as you just did, or of wanting to help with no thought of the consequences. It's nonsensical and bereft of any logic to say that if one means to help has a negative consequence then no help should be given at all. Notwithstanding that the person making that somewhat stupid argument seems to think that it excuses them from accusations of not caring. Their argument becomes that not helping is the right thing to do.

It's not an argument I'd ever have expected to see in a Christian forum.

 

[MrMoe]

I don't see a lot of people boasting about what they individually do for those in need.

I see it all the time here. That ‘I’m better than you. I actually care’ type attitude. That “holier than thou” attitude that is so prevalent on the left.

What I see is a lot people asking why we aren't do more as a society for those people.

The problem with that statement is that you can always say that no matter how much help society gives.

And in fact, and more to the point, why are we being intentionally prevented from doing a lot more that would help.

I don’t see anyone preventing others from the many charities in existence that many millions of people donate to each year.

It seems that it's a means to avoid addressing the problem by accusing those who want to help of either being hypocritical, as you just did,

I was quoting Jesus, and he was telling them not to do “as the hypocrites do in the synagogues”. Jesus wasn’t calling them hypocrites. He was telling them to behave like them.

or of wanting to help with no thought of the consequences.

Yes, that can be dangerous. Just look up the woman who forgave her mother’s killer and let him stay at her home. The killer ended up killing her too.

It's nonsensical and bereft of any logic to say that if one means to help has a negative consequence then no help should be given at all.

That is not my message at all. By all means help. Just use your brain.

Notwithstanding that the person making that somewhat stupid argument seems to think that it excuses them from accusations of not caring. Their argument becomes that not helping is the right thing to do.

It's not an argument I'd ever have expected to see in a Christian forum.

I have no idea who you’re talking about here. Who is “the person making that somewhat stupid argument”? Jesus?

 

[ozso]

Off topic, but part of the discussion in this thread:

Empathy is the ability to understand the feelings of another and to share the feelings of another.

The first part of that is a good trait. It's understanding what makes someone tick. To understand why they feel the way they do.

The second part, sharing those feelings, can become a problem. For example it's one thing to understand why a racist thinks and feels the way they do. But sharing those feelings can become problematic for obvious reasons. There's a big difference between "I understand how you feel" and "I share your feelings, I feel the same about it as you do".

Lets say you understand why a heroin addict is addicted heroin and will put using heroin ahead of everything else. But if you share that feeling, you might end up helping that person get their heroin fix no matter what. That's where empathy becomes enabling. And of course there's also the possibility that you end up sharing that person's feeling about heroin to the point where you yourself become a heroin addict.

 

[rambot]

What can people do if Hamas kills it's children? .

You could condemn Israel foe it's role

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, if you're not a friend of the world than you're an enemy of the world. There are Christians who are hated by the world, and there are Christians who are loved by the world. The ones who are loved by the world are the ones who go along with the world.

Jesus says: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. (John 15:18-19).

I guess "friend of the world" could take a lot of different meanings.

Could mean you like the way human arrangements are set up.
Or could mean you like just being here on earth as a living person.

I hope Christians dont mean the latter. But I sense some do.

 

[ozso]

I guess "friend of the world" could take a lot of different meanings.

Could mean you like the way human arrangements are set up.
Or could mean you like just being here on earth as a living person.

I hope Christians dont mean the latter. But I sense some do.

John's meaning is quite clear.

 

[durangodawood]

John's meaning is quite clear.

Perhaps with a lot of context. But not just from the quote that comes up in the link.

 

[ozso]

Perhaps with a lot of context. But not just from the quote that comes up in the link.

Fair enough. Oh and I meant James, not John. Although John adresses it too. In the case of James 4:4 it means aligning oneself with worldly values, priorities, and desires that are contrary to God's will. Conforming to the world's ways by adopting and embracing the sinful practices and customs of the world. Some Christians seem to think it's a matter of Christianity conforming to the world to make Christianity more acceptable and appealing to the world. And or they personally want to be both worldly and godly at the same time.

 

[durangodawood]

Fair enough. Oh and I meant James, not John. Although John adresses it too. In the case of James 4:4 it means aligning oneself with worldly values, priorities, and desires that are contrary to God's will. Conforming to the world's ways by adopting and embracing the sinful practices and customs of the world. Some Christians seem to think it's a matter of Christianity conforming to the world to make Christianity more acceptable and appealing to the world. And or they personally want to be both worldly and godly at the same time.

OK, that makes sense..... its about human arrangements and priorities, and not about creation generally.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What the world wants is a Christianity that supports a worldly agenda.

Speaking as the world, I don't want Christianity to do anything in particular.

I want We The People (through our 'worldly' government) to address certain issues like hunger, poverty and discrimination.