Is this pushing an ideology?

[Laodicean60]

Christ the Lord welcomes and accepts repentant sinners.

This is the problem: the church should accept all sinners, not just repentant sinners, or they start their churches to worship God.

 

[David Lamb]

Jesus died for sinners, not the saved.

But the saved are saved sinners. As Paul wrote to the Christians at Ephesus:

“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.” (Eph 2:1-3 NKJV)

 

[David Lamb]

This is the problem: the church should accept all sinners, not just repentant sinners, or they start their churches to worship God.

I am unsure what you meant by, ".......not just repentant sinners, or they start their churches to worship God." Do you mean that if an existing church welcomes repentant sinners, those repentant sinners will leave and start their own church?

 

[Laodicean60]

In context:

JEBofChristTheLord​

to the Lord​

Site Supporter

• Yesterday at 5:24 AM
• Add bookmark
• #68

The concept that the Christain church doesn't accept sinners doesn't make any sense. If that was the policy, there wouldn't be any Christian churches.

Christ the Lord welcomes and accepts repentant sinners.

This is the problem: the church should accept all sinners, not just repentant sinners, or they start their churches to worship God.

Do you see?

I am unsure what you meant by, ".......not just repentant sinners, or they start their churches to worship God." Do you mean that if an existing church welcomes repentant sinners, those repentant sinners will leave and start their own church?

 

[ozso]

This is the problem: the church should accept all sinners, not just repentant sinners, or they start their churches to worship God.

There's the church as in the building with a pastor and a congregation. Many start out going to church unsaved, unrepentant. Lot's of times it's because someone they know invites them. So that's how it starts. New Christians are born again, and the family of Christ grows larger.

However, there's a bunch who skip the repent part and keep practicing sin full time. They're known as "carnal christians". I imagine sermons at such churches are really just motivational speeches. A purely humanistic approach. God on their terms.

 

[Laodicean60]

However, there's a bunch who skip the repent part and keep practicing sin full time. They're known as "carnal christians". I imagine sermons at such churches are really just motivational speeches. A purely humanistic approach. God on their terms.

I won't make assumptions about others, and the repent part is believing Jesus is lord, then the holy spirit starts to work on biblical teachings. Don't you know we are all carnal? We should not pat ourselves on the back and say "them" to make ourselves something we are not. This line of thinking has led us to tribalism of us versus them. I don't know what motivational speech is because the bible is full of it. Christians are waty too judgmental, speck and plank.

 

[ozso]

I won't make assumptions about others, and the repent part is believing Jesus is lord, then the holy spirit starts to work on biblical teachings. Don't you know we are all carnal? We should not pat ourselves on the back and say "them" to make ourselves something we are not. This line of thinking has led us to tribalism of us versus them. I don't know what motivational speech is because the bible is full of it. Christians are waty too judgmental, speck and plank.

We as Christians strive to put aside carnality. That's what Christ and the apostles tell us. Some however want to keep being as carnal as possible. They believe there's nothing wrong with it. And it's a them vs the fundamentalists situation. Those who teach obedience and holiness are despised by them. A motivation speech is all about you, and nothing about God. Except for all the great material stuff God is gong to give you. And a humanistic new age approach towards spiritualism. Paul speaks of this sort of pseudo-christianity and denounces it. One of their number one gaslights is "judge ye not" to trick Christians into not speaking up about it. A Christian needs to be able to discern what's of the world and what's of God.

 

[zippy2006]

Is this pushing an ideology?

What do you mean by "ideology"?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Of course they should because if they can dish it out, they should be able to take it. Unfortunately, your biases prevent you from seeing it.

Can you not conceive of a member of a minority receiving insults and abuse who never "dished it out"?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

So then is "diversity" something to be discouraged?

Who is this targeting?
White people.
Who are the only people excluded from the diversity?
The same.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Who is this targeting?
White people.
Who are the only people excluded from the diversity?
The same.

"White people" are the dominant culture. They are not "targeted" for anything except privilege.

But I can see how an emphasis on diversity might undermine our common sense of unity as human beings.
But that is where the problem really lies. Those in privilege seem to have a history of dehumanizing the minorities.
We certainly did it here in the United States. And are still doing it now.

 

[Laodicean60]

Can you not conceive of a member of a minority receiving insults and abuse who never "dished it out"?

Like who?

 

[Meowzltov]

View attachment 362980

and this

View attachment 362981

Yes, these are both pushing ideology. It's not the actual words. It the non-verbal communication, meaning the visual. For example, your logo "This is a safe space" because it is accompanied by a rainbow is clearly an indication that no one is allowed to express any thoughts that run counter to the LGBTQ ideology.

 

[Meowzltov]

"White people" are the dominant culture. They are not "targeted" for anything except privilege.

That is absolutely not true. One can be in a dominant group, but situation still arise where one is bullied, harassed, or otherwise discriminated against. Furthermore, it is sheer bigotry to assume that someone who is white automatically has privilege -- there are plenty of poor whites from broken homes who have suffered from trauma, and wealthy blacks who live in gated communities.

When my children were teens, we lived in a Barrio, because it was all I could afford. My son was routinely beaten up at high school while called all sorts of vile names for white people. He couldn't walk down the street to his friend's house because of knives and guns being pulled on him, telling him to get out of the neighborhood.

Does that sound privileged to you?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

"White people" are the dominant culture. They are not "targeted" for anything except privilege.

But I can see how an emphasis on diversity might undermine our common sense of unity as human beings.
But that is where the problem really lies. Those in privilege seem to have a history of dehumanizing the minorities.
We certainly did it here in the United States. And are still doing it now.

Not true. There is this false idea that the majority cannot be discriminated against. I can tell you that in my own family, we have experienced discrimination numerous times because of our race, our gender, and our faith. This includes government benefits, the denial of job hiring, and social treatment in public and private. The idea of "privilege" is a farce—it is more like open season on white people, males, and people of faith. If I were of the opposite ilk, I might suggest it is all "hate." But I am not going to dip as low as they and start calling everyone derogatory names and defaming their character with unjust and false accusations. They seem to have not problem doing this to innocent people.

 

[Ophiolite]

That is absolutely not true. One can be in a dominant group, but situation still arise where one is bullied, harassed, or otherwise discriminated against. Furthermore, it is sheer bigotry to assume that someone who is white automatically has privilege -- there are plenty of poor whites from broken homes who have suffered from trauma, and wealthy blacks who live in gated communities.

When my children were teens, we lived in a Barrio, because it was all I could afford. My son was routinely beaten up at high school while called all sorts of vile names for white people. He couldn't walk down the street to his friend's house because of knives and guns being pulled on him, telling him to get out of the neighborhood.

Does that sound privileged to you?

If we were to amend @Akita Suggagaki's post to read "When white people are the dominant culture, they are not "targeted" for anything except privilege", would you accept that?

Speaking as a white, male, middle-class baby-boomer, I have undoubtedly benefited from being white. On the other hand, usually to my amusement and only occassional disadvantage, I've been treated with contempt by some whites because I was clearly a sub-standard, working class yob, and by yet others because I was clearly an elitist, upper class, entitled <?>.

The human superpower seems to be taking real offence at any one who has the audacity to be different from them.

FInally, your experiences, impacting on your son as they did, must have been very painful to you. I'm sorry you both had to endure that.

 

[Meowzltov]

If we were to amend @Akita Suggagaki's post to read "When white people are the dominant culture, they are not "targeted" for anything except privilege", would you accept that?

How would that rewording change the substance of what was said? @Akita Suggagaki is suggesting that in a society such as mine where white people are the dominant culture, that a white person cannot be discriminated against. It's not true. I explained why it was not true. And I gave a personal example of when it wasn't true.

FInally, your experiences, impacting on your son as they did, must have been very painful to you. I'm sorry you both had to endure that.

Thank you.

 

[FireDragon76]

View attachment 362980

and this

View attachment 362981

Yes. But some ideologies are better than others. What's being encouraged here is an ideology associated with Green values (in the Clare Graves Spiral Dynamics model). It's certainly preferable to a sign that says "No Coloreds" or "No Irish need apply", a decidedly Blue ideology from our not-so-distant past.

Ultimately, all ideologies can be potentially problematic if they lead us to oversimplify complex problems, ignore nuance and context, and do not foster pragmatic solutions.