doc truyen hay 2014 , sach truyen hay , doc truyen , truyen tinh cam , truyen gay , truyen sex , truyen cuoi , truyen hai ,
iphone 6 price
Sometimes Jesus Hurts People’s Feelings

Sometimes Jesus Hurts People’s Feelings

by Mike Duran · 47 comments

Let me apologize ahead of time.

But I probably missed something. I mean, when did people’s “feelings” become so sacred? You know, this hyper-sensitivity to how Christians are perceived, whether or not we are making someone feel condemned or accepted or excluded or depressed or affirmed or… whatever.

  • Intentionally hurting people’s feelings? Wrong.
  • Being unconcerned with people’s feelings? Wrong.
  • Being flippant, thoughtless, reckless regarding people’s feelings? Wrong.
  • Unintentionally hurting people’s feelings? It happens.

And of course, trying not to look like complete asses is always a good thing. After all, they will know we are Christians by our love, not our Chik-Fil-A receipts. But what about when truth is lovingly spoken and it still hurts people’s feelings?

Apparently, the tactical recourse is to claim… anything that hurts someone’s feelings could not have been lovingly spoken.

Which kinda-sorta hamstrings truth-speaking. And places someone’s feelings above what they might actually need to hear. Or what we might need to speak.

But if feelings are so sacred, I’m not sure Jesus got the message. Yes, He is meek and lowly of heart (Matt. 11:29). He is a friend of sinners (Matt. 11:19). He knows us intimately and loves us deeply. I am incredibly thankful for these things! But He also came to bring a sword and divide households (Matt. 10:34). He came to call sinners to repentance (Lk. 5:32). And He will return to judge the world. These things have a tendency to grate.

Not hurting people’s feelings did not seem high on Jesus’ list of priorities.

  • Did Jesus care about the rich young ruler’s feelings when he told him to sell everything and give it to the poor?
  • Did Jesus care about the adulteress’s feelings when he told her to go and sin no more?
  • Did Jesus care about the Pharisee’s feelings when He called them a brood of vipers?
  • Did Jesus care about Nicodemus’ feelings when He told him he must be born again?
  • Did Jesus care about the multitudes’ feelings when He commanded them to eat His flesh and drink His blood, and drove them away?
  • Did Jesus care about the invalid’s feelings when he told him to stop sinning lest something worse come upon him?
  • Did Jesus care about the moneychangers’ feelings when He drove them out of the temple?
  • Did Jesus care about Peter’s feelings when He called him “Satan” and told him to split?
  • Did Jesus care about the feelings of potential disciples when He told them they couldn’t be followers unless they denied themselves and took up their crosses?

He was Jesus, so of course He cared about their feelings! He loved each one of them — including those blasted Pharisees. Their pain. Their brokenness. Their existential wanderings. Their rigid intolerance. Their genetic predispositions. Their squandered talents. How could He not care about them and their feelings? It just didn’t stop Him from speaking the truth.

Jesus loves you so much that He will risk hurting your feelings.

No, He won’t be mean, rude, pushy, or condemning. But He will tell you the truth. And whenever you tell the truth, you run the risk of hurting someone’s feelings. And being accused of being “mean, rude, pushy, or condemning.”

Sometimes hurt feelings are evidence of wrongly speaking. Sometimes hurt feelings are evidence of rightly speaking.

But hurt feelings are never always the indication of either.

Share this post!

{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }

Katherine Coble August 3, 2012 at 7:43 AM

The thing is, from where I sit, it looks like a lot of people are happily falling back on this argument as an excuse to not be considerate or pursuing relationships.

It looks like a lot of people are perfectly happy letting God be a bully for them.

This was, in fact, Peter’s chief problem. And it was the purpose behind his dream at Simon Tanner’s. Take and eat of the unclean….

Peter wanted to be able to use the Gospel as a cudgel. God wanted him to use it as a net.

Truth doesn’t preclude kindness. Christ doesn’t excuse rudeness. And just because you were saved before the other guy doesn’t mean you get to be the Forgiven Debtor and go beat others up over the amounts they have owing.

You were treated with Grace undeserved. There is no reason at all to not approach others the same way.

Reply

Mike Duran August 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM

Katherine, but you’re not saying anything I haven’t said here and don’t already believe. Intentionally hurting people’s feelings? Wrong. Being unconcerned with people’s feelings? Wrong. Being flippant, thoughtless, reckless regarding people’s feelings? Wrong. But does treating people w/ “grace undeserved” mean we don’t “speak the truth in love”?

Reply

Katherine Coble August 3, 2012 at 8:03 AM

I just see so many Christian blogs and facebook posts along this same theme. In the comments on my own blog it included Christians calling my friends and family deviant and abominations.

The response is “well, Jesus thinks those things! If your feelings are hurt, too bad! That’s the word of God!”

This isn’t any kind of loving way to speak to a person. And before 80 of you reply to this with “well, that’s the truth and that’s what the Bible says! Even about me! I’m a sinner too!” ask yourself if you would tell your own child or grandchild that he or she is a deviant abomination.

If it’s not said in a way you’d say it to someone you love deeply, then it’s not spoken in love.

Reply

Diane Graham August 3, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Sometimes stern words are loving words.

Reply

Mike Duran August 3, 2012 at 8:15 AM

I agree. I don’t think it’s my place to pronounce people “deviant and abominations.” The questions I’d ask are 1.) Do you think the Bible does teach that some things are “deviant and abominations” and 2.) Is there ever a point where Christians should lovingly stand against those things?

Reply

Katherine Coble August 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM

I think the Bible teaches that sin is in everyone. We are all abominations in God’s eyes, without the payment of Christ’s blood. When we stand against sin, as directed in the Bible, that means in our own lives. To say we “stand against a sin” and then in so doing allow our self righteousness to be a stumbling block for the woman who had an abortion, the divorced couple, the boy who stole from his mother’s purse to pay for drugs, the people who steal cable from the apartment upstairs, the teens who are having sex in the backseat of a car and on and on and on…we aren’t really “standing against sin.” We are enabling sin to continue because we have hidden GRACE. Standing against sin is to say in your own life “I have this sin of _______, God, I repent of this and ask for your deliverence on a daily basis and your continued guidance therein.” That’s how Christ tells us to stand against sin. Telling a stranger on another person’s blog that that stranger is a deviant is not standing against sin. It’s falling into the sin of pride. The sin of judgement.

Reply

Renee August 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM

I wish more people thought as you do.

Reply

sally apokedak August 3, 2012 at 7:33 PM

What about going to your brother when you see him in sin? The Bible does tell us to do that. We cannot ignore sin.

And, oops, I have told my children they are deviant abominations. Was I not supposed to do that? Uh oh.

The thing is that sometimes we are supposed to hurt people’s feelings. John the Baptist hurt people’s feelings, and so did Paul and so did many others. Hurting feelings is good if it saves someone. Befriending someone is good if it saves. Sometimes we speak harshly and sometimes we speak kindly and sometimes we stand up for the oppressed and we tell the oppressors to go to hell if they won’t stop. All these approaches are called for at different times.

The Bible clearly teaches this. You kick out of the church people who are sinning and won’t repent. You don’t worry about their feelings. You kick them out to save them, because you love them.

Reply

Christian August 4, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Yes, and the ‘deviant abominations’ comment isn’t the end of the story, it shouldn’t stop there. Yes, we’re inherently sinful but there’s redemption in Christ Jesus, if only we accept his outpouring of grace. To be a new creation we release control over our lives and make God, Lord of our lives.

Reply

Erica August 3, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Katherine,

I ran across a blog recently that said Jesus was kind and he dealt with issues more kindly than many Christians do to this day. I agree 100%.

However, as Mike pointed out, sometimes the truth is really grating and to hear. I live in a community where there is so much hate, crime, and pollution that me and my family are on a no more excuse, zero tolerance stance now. Many people know the Word of God around us and they are older than we are- they won’t take care of their children, they make excuses for keeping a neighborhood dirty, they and their children swear all the time…

I am not perfect by a long shot, but this is why we have to make it a point to cloak ourselves in Grace and Mercy at all times but still leave the truth uncovered.

Thanks and good discussion here!

Reply

Barb Riley August 3, 2012 at 10:15 AM

It’s not possible to be cloaked in grace and mercy with a zero tolerance stance.

Reply

Katherine Coble August 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Heh. A zero tolerance stance is the exact opposite of grace and mercy.

Reply

sally apokedak August 3, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Zero tolerance with parents who are abusing and neglecting children is loving to the children. Good for you.

Reply

Jill August 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Katherine, just as long as you allow that you are one of the most blunt people I’ve met (online). I like you for it. You speak the truth in love all the time and, no doubt, hurt others’ feelings without meaning to.

Reply

Katherine Coble August 3, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Oh, I’ve hurt many people’s feelings, albeit unknowingly. That’s why this is such an issue for me. I’ve seen exactly what happens when a person’s feelings are hurt. And I can’t imagine anyone think ing that such a thing is an okay witness.

Reply

Katherine Coble August 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Oh and also my sister and my husband would tell you I’m also one of the most blunt people you’ll probably meet in real life, too.

Reply

Jill August 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Bluntness could be an integral part of your personality, and it could also be a positive trait. God has tempered it in you, but that’s what God does. He tempers us, thankfully. I wasn’t criticizing you.

Reply

Katherine Coble August 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I didn’t at all take it as criticism.

Reply

Jessica Thomas August 3, 2012 at 7:46 AM

“Sometimes hurt feelings are evidence of rightly speaking.”

Yep. This seems foreign to my generation. If the truth hurts, it must not be the truth.

I have a term for it. It’s called “spineless”.

Reply

Erica August 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Good one!

Reply

Diane Graham August 3, 2012 at 7:52 AM

Seems to me society has a push to make everything okay and that simply is not the case. If I say telling a lie is a sin, does that mean I am not loving? How about murder? Am I a hater then? It is backward thinking. Jesus is the Truth and He precludes everything.

Reply

Jenn August 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Amen, Sister!

Reply

Nicole August 3, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Yes.

Reply

Renee August 3, 2012 at 8:32 AM

As usual, I will add my young, outspoken and slightly coarse opinion on the subject. ;)
I think more than half of the problems with my generation and the children coming from it, is the fact that people are entirely TOO sensetive.
Everyone tip toes around everyone else, terrified of upsetting each other’s delicate feelings.
When I was a kid, it was supposed to be “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!” but somewhere along the line… People forgot to be strong characters and decided that words Do hurt… Then decided that every word is meant to hurt. NOW, Everyone is in constant suspicion of his neighbor, looking for the slightest insult any casual comment could offer.

America needs to buck up, I think a little tough love (as well as a few good old fashioned beatings) would do more good than the general pussy footing Americans have adopted on all fronts.

Reply

Heather Day Gilbert August 3, 2012 at 8:42 AM

I couldn’t have phrased this better if I’d tried. I’ve been thinking this for a while now. Since when is it hateful to express or defend your beliefs? The double-standard is so obvious, yet seemingly invisible. Only certain beliefs/Biblical convictions are allowed to be vocalized, or you’re hateful. I think the truth is loving and freeing. Why wouldn’t I want to share that w/others, in a LOVING way? But sometimes, you’re fighting evil. And evil never plays nice.

Reply

Jill August 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

I wish I had a broader context for where you’re coming from with this. Our culture right now is determined to find an enemy outside themselves, rather than internally. It causes an us-against-them division that spawns ceaseless wars and infighting. The ultimate result is that we will speak the “truth” to the other and forget to look inwardly for self-examination, which means we are lying. This is obviously highly exploitable by those in power. How long have we been at war with so-called “terrorists”? How long have Christians fought a culture war against homosexuality? Did Christ fight culture wars? No, he did not. He worked within his culture and preached the truth to those who gathered to listen, and he spoke the truth to individuals about their private, individual sins. This is also the way the early church fathers worked. They didn’t attempt to buy legislation and change the political state using Christianity as their shield. They preached the gospel and spoke the hard truths to those who were already claiming to be Christians.

Reply

Mike Duran August 3, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Jill, if the truth spoken offends the person it’s spoken to, it potentially can cause “an us-against-them division that spawns ceaseless wars and infighting.” Which is probably why Jesus said, as well as coming to love, he came to bring a sword. The world hates Me, He said. So don’t be surprised if it hates you (Jn. 17). The culture war thing, especially as it relates to politics, I agree with you about. But Jesus, nor the early church, limited their witness to believers. Nor do I think Christians are asked to.

Reply

Jill August 3, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I didn’t at all claim that Jesus and the early church limited their witness to believers. They spread the gospel to unbelievers. But those hard teachings–all those letters by Paul–were given to believers. And, in fact, in Acts, the church leaders came to a decision not to overload even the new believers. They gave new believers a starting point, then told them that the law was read regularly in the temples, and they could hear it for themselves (this would be the same as a pastor giving a new believer a Bible for self study).

Reply

Mike Duran August 3, 2012 at 12:08 PM

But part of the “starting point for new believers” could be John 14:6. Which offends, like, half the nation.

Reply

Jill August 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

If we are convicted of our sins, we are either going to be offended or repentant. This is why I wanted a larger context for your article, especially in light of the recent Chik-fil-A fracas (which you triggered in my mind when you mentioned it). I don’t have too much quibble with the surface sense of your words. Where a person’s heart is when he writes an article such as this one is a whole different issue. So, honestly, I’m just trying to gauge where you’re coming from.

Yes, I understand that John 14:6 does offend those who don’t choose to follow Christ. Conversely, that verse is my greatest comfort.

Reply

J.L. Lyon August 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

A couple of things I think merit mention here:

First, you could actually argue that Christ fought a culture war against the religious leaders of the day. The Pharisees, for instance, had used religion to create a culture of spiritual oppression, and Jesus reserved some of his harshest words for them. The religious leaders themselves certainly viewed him as a threat, as they were the ones who called for his crucifixion. When sin becomes an accepted part of a culture, you can’t stand for truth without also standing against the culture. This was also the case with the apostles. I don’t recall Peter mincing words in his sermon on Pentecost. I don’t recall Paul telling the Gentiles they could keep their idols so long as they put the true God first. They most certainly fought a culture war, on several fronts.

Second, the Apostles lived under an imperial government. They would not have had recourse to influence through voting and legislation, as we do today. That is not to say they would have, but it’s a stretch to think they absolutely would not have tried.

Reply

Jill August 3, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I think you are absolutely wrong, here. Jesus didn’t fight a cultural war against the prominent political culture. He did the exact opposite. He sought to change the religious leaders of his own people who were supposed to be in a covenant relationship with God. This is the difference between reforming the leadership in the Christian church versus supporting legislation that will make this a “Christian” nation. This isn’t a Christian nation, just as Rome wasn’t. This is the weird irony of our modern times: American Christians seem to think we should have a Christian nation, and many seem to have no problem with Imperialism. Would you honestly claim that our nation isn’t Imperialist? We have military bases occupying almost every nation on earth. It appears that we not only love imperialism, but that Christians would like to revert to the way Rome was after they used Christianity as a political force. Christ didn’t attempt to make Rome a Christian nation. Neither did the early church leaders. Why do we want America to be a Christian nation? It does make me wonder what our motivations really are.

Reply

J.L. Lyon August 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM

In this time period, the religious and political culture were one and the same. Rome had a governor in Judea to collect taxes, but the Sanhedrin ruled (evidenced in Pilate’s quandary during Jesus’ “trial” and the rebellion in 70 ad). In fact, during this time religious culture was ingrained and in some places inseparable from political culture all over Rome. I agree it was not the kind of issue-based clashes we see today, but it was still a struggle between the reigning cultures of the day and the truth of the gospel.

As to the other, I’m not one of those who thinks we should legislate ourselves into a theocracy, though I know those people exist. My point was simply counter to what you said about them not buying legislation with Christianity as their shield. In my opinion this is irrelevant, because they had no such access and so cannot provide an example for us to follow. My personal opinion is that Christians can and should participate in government, not to turn us into a theocracy but to govern with holy principles and motivations. Not sure why that offends people, as it is in line with the highest traditions of the United States.

Lastly, an imperial government refers to a system of government, while imperial-ist suggests ideology. So while whether we are imperialist might be up for grabs, we certainly aren’t imperial.

Reply

Jill August 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

How are we not imperial?

Reply

J.L. Lyon August 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM

We are not ruled by an authoritarian emperor.

Reply

Jill August 3, 2012 at 1:07 PM

im·pe·ri·al/im?pi(?)r??l/
Adjective:

1. Of or relating to an empire: “Britain’s imperial era”.
2. Of or relating to an emperor: “the imperial family”.

We are an empire. Therefore, we are imperial.

Reply

J.L. Lyon August 3, 2012 at 2:12 PM

lol…not sure exactly what this adds to the discussion, but the US is not currently an empire in the same sense that Rome was. We are a representative democracy. We could argue semantics and conspiracy theories all day, but my original point remains that the apostles could not vote or influence legislation, so they do not provide a valid argument for whether Christians should engage in a political process like what exists today.

Reply

Melissa Ortega August 3, 2012 at 3:11 PM

*squeaks* I think actually that you are both correct and incorrect. The US is not an empire – correct – we have no emperor. The power of our government is divided into many branches with none having absolute, emperical authority.

As for being disimilar to Rome because we are a democracy – incorrect. Our form of government was actually based on the Roman Republic (one specific Roman in fact – can’t remember his name at the moment but I think it starts with a “C”) rather than the Greek democracy. Republics have representatives which act for the people (as in Rome) while democracy involves individuals having direct power to sway their goverment. There is a democractic process at work in our nation – we vote individually on some laws, etc., but our government behaves primarily as a Republic. Our elected representatives vote on our behalf. Rome began as a monarchy but that all changed in 509 B.C. when, because of the heinous acts of one of their kings, it moved toward a Republican form. This is why Julius Caesar was murdered – many feared he would accept the offer to become king and move the nation back toward its formal monarchy.

So, the apostles, IF citizens of Rome, would in fact have had some influence in their government should they have chosen to use it. Paul levied his political power at least once by declaring his Roman citizenship to save himself from a thrashing and to be taken to a higher court within this Republican system. The reason Jesus was crucified by Pilate was in large part a political favor to the Jews, but by no means was it done because they ruled that area. The Jews were a subculture within the Roman system, and even had their own courts and court system. The only reason they wanted Jesus placed in the Roman court system was so that he would be put to death, something their own court system would have prevented. They were still subordinates of the Roman government. The apostles, as Jews, would have been under these subsystems and the Roman system both, but would have had no power (except through their Jewish leaders) in Rome’s wider Republic.

An Imperialist nation is one that both expands and dominates subordinate nations through policies (usually involving trade, etc.) not necessarily kings, etc. That particular definition did not emerge until the 19th century. And by that definition, many believe that the US does behave as an Imperialist nation. Imperialism is also an ideology because the ideology (which deems that nation’s thinking/morality to be of higher value) must exist in order for it to move imperially. Darth Vader and his crew, incidentally, were both Imperical and Empirical. LOL Not all Empires operate in an Imperialist fashion, and neither do all Imperial govt’s have an Emperor.

Reply

J.L. Lyon August 3, 2012 at 3:49 PM

By the time period Jill and I are speaking of, the Roman Republic had ceased to exist. Most historians credit the death of the republic and the rise of the Roman Empire with the rise of Octavian/Augustus to the throne. The United States is a republic, yes, but the term “representative democracy” is the more specific term for describing our gov’t system. As for Judea, Rome certainly ruled in a military capacity, but the social/political culture was run by the Sanhedrin. Paul was a Roman citizen, but his “rights” as such were nowhere near as influential in that society as a Christian’s can be in society today. There is a difference in getting to be beheaded instead of crucified, and being able to influence government policy.

And now, back to talking about our feelings.

Jenn August 3, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I am so glad a friend shared this with me. What a fantastic post! Just the other day, I posted what I felt was a gentle and loving post attempting to give others insight into the true believer’s heart … that we’re not haters. I lost friends over it and took it down. But, I think it was a lesson in learning how to stand strong. Baby steps. The post is back and it’s staying. Jesus didn’t back down. His followers shouldn’t either. But, I learned first-hand that it’s not an easy thing to do. Good for you for posting this and remaining strong. Sometimes the truth hurts, no matter how it’s delivered.

Reply

Melissa Ortega August 3, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I think the single most difficult thing for human beings to understand about God is that he doesn’t switch from being Merciful to being Angry, from Angry to being Loving, from Loving to Just. God does not change at any point in any way ever. This means that He isn’t merciful one minute and angry and just the next. He is all these things at the same time. And since that’s so, it also means that God has demonstrated that these character traits are not exclusive of one another. In fact, it’s when these traits operate simultaneously (as they do in His own nature),that they perform more perfectly. Separated from one another, they aren’t like God at all. Because we are born with a nature the exact opposite of this, we just have trouble reconciling that. We are often (through the same faulty nature) trying to make Him in our image rather than judging our image by His. The truth is, if God can be both a good Judge (and he calls us to be good judges, rightly dividing the word of truth) and Merciful, then so can His Body.

Also, confusion sometimes comes for Christians (in the cultural war) in discerning the moment when issues that are lesser issues than salvation morph into something that is actually intrinsic to sharing the Gospel of salvation. During the hullabaloo this week, I was reminded of both John Adams (who famously defended the British against an angry public after the Boston Massacre before going on to revolting against the Crown) and Dietrich Bonhoeffer who lived in an economically ravaged Germany rife with hatred for “those rich, religious Jews.” In both instances, cultural dialogue mutated into something darker and more sinister, and both men found that standing by was no longer an option. They HAD to vocally and publically choose a side. I fear we are approaching a similar point in our current cultural dialogue. The eerie hallmarks are there.

Reply

sally apokedak August 3, 2012 at 8:14 PM

I think while we are allowed to speak we are required to speak. And I think there will come a day when we are jailed for speaking and we still will be required to obey God and not man.

Yes, we are to preach Christ, who is an offense to people. We are to follow after Christ. His message was, “repent for the Kingdom of God is near,” not “Don’t repent because God made you and he don’t make junk and he just wants you to be happy because he loves you and thinks you’re a loving and good person.”

Repent! All men everywhere are called to repent. That is not just for the church. All men are commanded to repent and invited to go to Christ and be saved.

Of course we are to speak in love. But sometimes harsh speech is loving. Sometimes people need soft speech. Sometimes they need to be slapped with harsh speech. The Holy Spirit needs to give us discernment. But if they get mad that doesn’t mean we didn’t speak well. Many people hardened their hearts against Christ. He still spoke well.

We aren’t supposed to speak the same way to all people, but one thing that is sure is that we need to speak. This idea that we can preach with our lives is not the truth. Our lives may complement the gospel, but the gospel itself requires words.

Once when I was a new Christian I didn’t speak to someone when I should have. He died a few weeks later and I’ve never forgotten that. I knew I was supposed to speak but I was afraid. I no longer care if people get mad at me. Love requires that I speak. I trust the Holy Spirit to prepare people ahead of me. I trust him to put in my path people I’m to speak to. I trust that he is able to make them plug their ears when I speak error and to make them hear when I speak truth.

I don’t know what else to do. I’m going to sin. I still have to try. I still have to speak. I still have to do my best to love my neighbors by speaking the truth to them.

Reply

Heather Day Gilbert August 4, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Yes, Sally, I, too haven’t said things on my heart when I had a chance, then that person has died. It’s a gruesome thing and it makes you determine to speak when God moves you to speak. And I agree. The time is limited when we’ll be able to vocalize our beliefs without heavier persecution. What we’re experiencing now is BULLYING. If you’re a Christian and you’re vocal, you’re bullied, plain and simple.

John the Baptist is a good example. He certainly candy-coated NOTHING. Nor did the prophets in the OT. Their heart BROKE for the people, but the message burned in them and they would’ve been unloving NOT to speak it. The gift of exhortation is real, and it’s not popular, EVER.

Reply

Jenni Noordhoek August 4, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I personally think that everyone seems to be both too sensitive and too blunt at the same time. Slam on someone else’s beliefs? Perfectly fine, it’s ‘speaking the truth in love’. Someone else slams your beliefs? They’re being ‘intolerant’. It’s stupid.

Also, the internet doesn’t seem to be an accurate sample of real life. A lot of people will say things on forums or FB that they won’t say in real life. My personal rule of thumb is that if I wouldn’t say it to somebody’s face, I won’t say it on the internet.

Honestly, I think that the toughest thing is to know when it’s appropriate to speak the truth. There’s no argument that we shouldn’t say the truth. It’s just when and where. I rarely come upon an internet discussion in which I wish someone had spoken up with the truth – many a time is it that I wish that someone would have just shut up.

Reply

sally apokedak August 4, 2012 at 3:01 PM

And I often come upon discussions, or rather love-fests, where I wish someone would speak the truth.

Reply

Jenni Noordhoek August 4, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Eheheh, you should hang out on my pet forum. Every two or three months there’s an explosion between the same people on the same basic philosophical subject. Certain people think they’re speaking the truth in love, but it’s very clear to us moderators that there’s a lot of ego and childish behaviour behind it.

There’s so much of the attitude of ‘speaking the truth’ that it ends up with the loudest and most prolific members & their threads being places of strife and chaos instead of respectful discussion.

The whole experience has rather turned me off from debating philosophy & theology with people. I’m sure there are proper times, places, and attitudes for it. I just don’t see myself taking part for a very long time. Reading it is a fascinating pasttime that gives me a headache, so I don’t partake in it unless I have a good reason to poke the threads. =P

Reply

Patricio September 25, 2012 at 9:59 PM

I’m not sure what ‘fire’ ignited this exchange?

I guess the “topic” simply makes many so-called Christians jump into their cultural, politically correct blender to instantly produce their tasteless, no-foam, 2-percent, soy milk morning prayer?

Truth: God offended in the Old Testament. Truth: Jesus offended in the New Testament. Truth: The Holy Spirit continues to offend, convict and turn those ‘who have ears to hear’ toward the Only Answer: Jesus.

It doesn’t matter what I or you think. It matters only what Jesus thinks!

Listen, let’s stop letting the “Me-Ism” … the Oprah crap her self-oriented followers have let seep under the doors of our churches.

Christ is not about “You”, no matter what the zoot-suit TV bookselling preachers say.

Christ is about “Him”.

It doesn’t matter if I’m offended. It matters only if I accept Him and follow Him.

I am tired of reading about the “feeling Jesus”. My feelings will not save me. My faith in Jesus, the One Who Was, Is, and Is to Come, will save me.

If my feelings get hurt, bring it on Jesus. You are Truth.

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:32

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: