Whenever a Christian disagrees with another Christian, one of them will ask if they're a Jehovah Witness or a Muslim. Why do they do that. It's annoying.
If you disagree why..
- Thread starter ATP
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
liafailrock
Well-Known Member
- Jul 4, 2015
- 496
- 337
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I guess it's the way the human mind works. When someone does not understand something, they have to categorize or box (in) the subject so that they feel they have a better handle on what they are facing. (And maybe by labeling it is an excuse NOT to face it) LOL
liafailrock
Well-Known Member
- Jul 4, 2015
- 496
- 337
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
OzSpen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
In over 50 years as a Christian, I don't recall that ever happening to me. 'You sound like a Baptist'; 'Pentecostals believe that'; 'I'm a Roman Catholic and we don't believe that' are the more common kinds of responses I receive.ATP said:
Like OzSpen, I have not seen Christians accuse other Christians of being non-Christians. More often, I see some kind of denominational separation, or a "packaged doctrine" (i.e., Calvinism, post-tribulation doctrine, etc.). There are many "die-hard" denominational zealots who believe their way is the only way. Thankfully they are a minority within the Church, in my experience, but they are still a sizable group. I grew up as a Southern Baptist, and any mention of other denominations brought about a murmur of disapproving grunts, though no one wanted to speak their mind on the subject, it seemed.
The problem, I think, is we forget the message of Mere Christianity: do not pair an agenda with your faith. We tend to have our pet doctrines. That adorable ball of fur is the "health and wealth" doctrine. The yapper at your ankles is Calvinism. The hulk in the corner gnawing on a bone is post-tribulation ideology. When someone introduces, say, a cat (like "poverty theology"), well the whole kennel just explodes into a riot. People in general don't like to listen, and the closed minds even more so. "My way is the only way, and anything you say to the contrary isn't true because I don't want it to be true." This often comes out as a righteous bellow of, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!"
Well, yes, Brethren, the Bible may say something, but you bring to the table all your preconceived notions from your experiences when you interpret what the Bible says. Therefore, in a very real way, you're translating it. A more accurate statement would be, "The Bible says it, this is how I see it, and I don't want to consider anything else." Most truths don't like to fit in snappy quips, or in the space of a bumper sticker or T-shirt. Passive aggression (or outright aggression) is rarely a way to counter a theological argument with which we disagree. There seems to be an attitude of "us versus them" that is encouraged in the Church, in the context of Christians and non-Christians. That is unfortunate, especially since that attitude carries over into our discussions with fellow Christians.
We spend a great deal of time trying to stomp the sandcastles of our Brethren, rather than suggesting a modification or two. It's not my job to shape your theology, and I'm certainly not going to bash you over the head with my interpretation of the Bible. I will point out my beliefs when asked, and let you ask further questions. The Bible is often analogized to a sword. Contrary to popular belief, a sword was a defensive weapon, meant to block an opponent before striking. The majority of the blade was often not sharp, leaving only the first few inches (or foot) to use as a cutting or stabbing instrument. It requires great finesse to properly handle a sword. Let us use the same logical, practiced approach to discuss our faith. Swinging like a mad man only makes one a laughing stock and an easy target for the calm swordsman.
As Always,
Waddle On
The problem, I think, is we forget the message of Mere Christianity: do not pair an agenda with your faith. We tend to have our pet doctrines. That adorable ball of fur is the "health and wealth" doctrine. The yapper at your ankles is Calvinism. The hulk in the corner gnawing on a bone is post-tribulation ideology. When someone introduces, say, a cat (like "poverty theology"), well the whole kennel just explodes into a riot. People in general don't like to listen, and the closed minds even more so. "My way is the only way, and anything you say to the contrary isn't true because I don't want it to be true." This often comes out as a righteous bellow of, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!"
Well, yes, Brethren, the Bible may say something, but you bring to the table all your preconceived notions from your experiences when you interpret what the Bible says. Therefore, in a very real way, you're translating it. A more accurate statement would be, "The Bible says it, this is how I see it, and I don't want to consider anything else." Most truths don't like to fit in snappy quips, or in the space of a bumper sticker or T-shirt. Passive aggression (or outright aggression) is rarely a way to counter a theological argument with which we disagree. There seems to be an attitude of "us versus them" that is encouraged in the Church, in the context of Christians and non-Christians. That is unfortunate, especially since that attitude carries over into our discussions with fellow Christians.
We spend a great deal of time trying to stomp the sandcastles of our Brethren, rather than suggesting a modification or two. It's not my job to shape your theology, and I'm certainly not going to bash you over the head with my interpretation of the Bible. I will point out my beliefs when asked, and let you ask further questions. The Bible is often analogized to a sword. Contrary to popular belief, a sword was a defensive weapon, meant to block an opponent before striking. The majority of the blade was often not sharp, leaving only the first few inches (or foot) to use as a cutting or stabbing instrument. It requires great finesse to properly handle a sword. Let us use the same logical, practiced approach to discuss our faith. Swinging like a mad man only makes one a laughing stock and an easy target for the calm swordsman.
As Always,
Waddle On
OzSpen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Z,Zenguin said:
Welcome to the forum. I hope you have an enjoyable time interacting with us (and learning the idiosyncrasies of a new forum.
Your post is very thought provoking for me. I'll take a couple of days to think through the issues but a few come immediately to mind.
- How are our presuppositions formed and what leads to change of them?
- I've battled my previous views on women in ministry, Calvinism vs Arminianism, cessationism vs continuationism of the gifts. I'm still in process with a couple of them.
- I'm not sure 'Mere Christianity' is the only issue we battle. Finding a church committed to 'mere Christianity' in a very secular Australia is difficult to contemplate, let along consider attending. Most are more committed to Rick Warren than C S Lewis's promotion of mere Christianity or biblical Christianity.
Thank you for the welcome, Oz.OzSpen said:
A person gains preconceived notions through their experiences, what they are taught, and what they choose to believe. We may read what the Bible says, but we want to believe we're in the right, so we may twist what Scripture says to justify certain behaviors. For example, we often speak of lust as a sin, yet we seem to ignore the sin of gluttony. In order to transform our minds, we must make the conscious choice to do so. I have fallen into the trap of going to church on Sundays, then drive home, thinking I have learned something. Never mind the fact I'm breaking the law by going five miles an hour over the speed limit. In society, there are sins that are socially accepted, and others that are not. We think of murder as one of the worst sins, yet it is no more or less sinful than stealing a candy bar or driving over the speed limit.
There is a culture within Christianity that I call "churchianity." Where Christianity seeks to transform the heart and mind, churchianity focuses on modifying behavior. You have to dress this way, listen to this type of music, play these kinds of games, abstain from these behaviors, and so on. That is not the freedom we have in Christ, and the Bible lays out that fact. Why, then, do many people never experience freedom? Because they have bought into the idea of churchianity, either by the instruction of their parents, or the influence of their particular church community.
We have to make the conscious choice to "kill our theological darlings." To hang on to an idea so stubbornly is pride. If we humble ourselves and allow God to teach us, then we are transformed.
I would agree mere Christianity is not our only battle, but I see it as a prominent one. There are Osteenites and Warrenites and other "-ites" who are closed to the idea of biblical Christianity. Many have cherry-picked their theology to fit their comfort, rather than risk the discomfort of truth.
OzSpen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
Zenguin,Zenguin said:
The older I get, the less likely I am to submit to churchianity that is not infused with biblical thinking. If I were 30 years younger, I may be influenced not to think as deeply about behavioural change that is not as deep as heart change.
That said, change of any sort at any age is difficult, whether that be change of telling white lies, losing large amounts of cash at the poker machines, or abusing my wife.
As an older Christian, one of the prominent dimensions I missed in the Christian life was having somebody to disciple me. It was a very hap-hazard nothingness when I first came to Christ. That kind of entrance into the Christian life makes it so much easier to lapse into becoming Osteenites, Warrenites, Copelandites, etc.
What do you incorporate in killing theological darlings? Which darlings are you thinking of?
Oz
I can see this thread developing into quite an interesting one. Zenguin, I agree in general with what you have shared, however, I don't see where you have allowed for anyone actually having a good sound concrete handle on truth. Is that possible do you think, that there be some who do follow sound Biblical doctrine, or do you think we are all victims of taking our personal baggage into our understanding of scripture? I have seen frequently as a former poster said, JWs contributions being rubbished on account of their church affiliation rather than on the merits of what they have said. I also belong to what is considered by some to be at worst a cult, and at best, an unorthodox Christian sect. So yes, we not only come to the Bible with our preconceived notions, but also to each other.
Similar threads
