The Ethics and Morality of Christians

[Yusuf Evans]

But you are the one telling them to do things, or rather to not do things. Let the person with authority tell them directly. And I don't mean by leaving the commands lying around in a book that one has to hunt for.

They have no reason to respect your authority.

Your authority is that of a child on the playground. "Yer gonna get in trouble if you don't stop doing that!"

Where's your evidence of that?

By that analogy, what authority do lawyers have? I mean, they went to school to learn about laws that are written in a book that you would have to search for.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

What authority do lawyers have?

The law has authority.

By living in this country, I inherently agree to be bound by it, and I have the right to attempt to change it if I don't like it.

I made no such covenant with the bible.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

What authority do lawyers have?

The law has authority.

By living in this country, I inherently agree to be bound by it, and I have the right to attempt to change it if I don't like it.

I made no such covenant with the bible.

Then where is telling someone about it wrong. Regardless if you have chosen to accept Christ or not, we are all required to obey the laws of God.

 

[SimplyMe]

An interesting point, although I think it might be a good idea for you to define what you mean by "believers". Jesus' ministry was almost exclusively Jew-centered, but Jews are not "believers" in the same sense that Christians are "believers".

In this case I'm basically using "believer" to talk of those who knew and understood the law. The woman caught in adultery knew enough that she felt guilt, so Christ's message was one of love, that he didn't condemn her but to sin no more. The Pharisees are a prime example as they were experts on the law yet often felt justified in "bending" the law to suit their own purposes and Jesus did condemn them -- hypocrisy seemed to be one of Jesus' pet peeves.

Again, an interesting point, but I think it's probably a bit more complicated than that. Many people who call themselves Christians insist that God doesn't really expect us to be perfect, and therefore won't punish us for failing to live up to that (impossible) standard. Not only that, but a large percentage of Americans can't list more than a few of the 10 Commandments, which would indicate (to me anyway) that most Americans don't even know what "perfect" means. Now don't get me wrong, relationship-oriented witnessing tends to be quite a bit more effective than other forms, but that fact alone isn't enough to invalidate the other kinds of witnessing.

As for the 10 commandments, it would help if we, as Christians, could agree with exactly which are the 10 commandments (is Keeping the Sabbath the 3rd or 4th commandment?).

Sure, it can be more complicated but I don't think it is for our purposes here. In America (and most of the Christian world), most people have a general idea of what Christians believe -- that most Christians believe homosexual acts are wrong or that Jesus is God, etc.). So if you go to witness to a homosexual about his sin, you are not telling that person anything new, they have already heard.

I had a person use the analogy of being in a boat floating downstream when you start approaching a waterfall, that the people in the boat need someone to warn them of the danger ahead. My response was that in America, people already know about the waterfall, they've already been warned. That after the 100th person warning about this waterfall up ahead it actually is counter-productive, people have quit listening. Further, in the case of sin, homosexuals are being told they are sinners and going to hell. Have you ever studied psychology and seen the effects of telling someone something repeatedly? We hope they only stop listening, but in many cases they actually start to believe they are evil and they can't be saved.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Then where is telling someone about it wrong. Regardless if you have chosen to accept Christ or not, we are all required to obey the laws of God.

Prove it.

I don't think I said it was wrong, just that it doesn't mean anything and is pointless.

However, there is no doubt that it is annoying. Unlike a police officer, you have no authority that we recognize and can simply be ignored.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Prove it.

I don't think I said it was wrong, just that it doesn't mean anything and is pointless.

However, there is no doubt that it is annoying. Unlike a police officer, you have no authority that we recognize and can simply be ignored.

I seriously doubt that anything anyone can say to you will allow you to change your mind about the Lord. Therefore, no sense in debating a pointless topic with you.

Secondly, I did not say I have authority, nor do any other Christians say it is by their authority they are letting someone know when they are stumbling. Your problem with Christians is with Christ himself.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Secondly, I did not say I have authority, nor do any other Christians say it is by their authority they are letting someone know when they are stumbling. Your problem with Christians is with Christ himself.

With what he is claimed to have said, yes. If he doesn't like what I am doing, he can come here and tell me himself.

I don't accept go-betweens.

 

[Fledge]

In this case I'm basically using "believer" to talk of those who knew and understood the law. The woman caught in adultery knew enough that she felt guilt, so Christ's message was one of love, that he didn't condemn her but to sin no more. The Pharisees are a prime example as they were experts on the law yet often felt justified in "bending" the law to suit their own purposes and Jesus did condemn them -- hypocrisy seemed to be one of Jesus' pet peeves.

Hypocrisy did seem to get Jesus riled up pretty quick...

As for the 10 commandments, it would help if we, as Christians, could agree with exactly which are the 10 commandments (is Keeping the Sabbath the 3rd or 4th commandment?).

Sure, it can be more complicated but I don't think it is for our purposes here. In America (and most of the Christian world), most people have a general idea of what Christians believe -- that most Christians believe homosexual acts are wrong or that Jesus is God, etc.). So if you go to witness to a homosexual about his sin, you are not telling that person anything new, they have already heard.

I think that this is somewhat true, but how many people are aware of the fact that Jesus apparently equates lust with adultery? Present-day American culture practically crams sexual images down our throats, and I very much doubt that there are many (if any) men in America who haven't thought that lust was normal/healthy at some point in their lives.

I had a person use the analogy of being in a boat floating downstream when you start approaching a waterfall, that the people in the boat need someone to warn them of the danger ahead. My response was that in America, people already know about the waterfall, they've already been warned. That after the 100th person warning about this waterfall up ahead it actually is counter-productive, people have quit listening. Further, in the case of sin, homosexuals are being told they are sinners and going to hell. Have you ever studied psychology and seen the effects of telling someone something repeatedly? We hope they only stop listening, but in many cases they actually start to believe they are evil and they can't be saved.

This right here is the reason why people must use discretion in how they witness. Right isn't necessarily directly related to righteous. I might be 100% accurate in telling a pair of homosexuals that they are sinning, but that doesn't make my telling them that 100% righteous. In fact, I faced this same situation recently, in a restaurant that I was working at. Two of the employees are lesbians, and it didn't take very long to decide whether or not I should say anything to them. Saying something to them would have done absolutely nothing (at best), and might well have had an extremely negative effect, so I kept my mouth shut. Had they ever wanted to know what I thought on the subject, I would have been free to discuss the issue with them, although that too would have required a great deal of discretion.

 

[Fledge]

although I would hold that you have badly mislabled the ultimate Author of the Bible.

Where's your evidence of that?

I take it that you find faith to be intellectually unacceptable (or worse)?

With what he is claimed to have said, yes. If he doesn't like what I am doing, he can come here and tell me himself.

I don't accept go-betweens.

Is there anything in which you would accept go-betweens?

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

I take it that you find faith to be intellectually unacceptable (or worse)?

Blind faith based on nothing but talk, yes.

I do have faith in things I have personally experienced. I have faith that my mom will always loves me, that the sun will rise tomorrow, etc. Because I have reason to.

Is there anything in which you would accept go-betweens?

Nothing as important as salvation is claimed to be.