How should a faithful Christian interact with non-believers?
Never partner or have fellowship with an unbeliever.
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2 Corinthians 6:14
Never talk to or welcome unbelievers because they are wicked.
Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
2 John 1:9-11
Talk to unbelievers and be prepared to respectfully answer their questions.
Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
Colossians 4:5-6
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
1 Peter 3:15
Speak gibberish to unbelievers. (speak in tounges)
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.
1 Corinthians 14:22
… or Kill them.
They agreed that anyone who refused to seek the LORD, the God of Israel, would be put to death—whether young or old, man or woman.
2 Chronicles 15:13
Tags: God, Bible, Contradiction, Jesus, Christian, Conflicting, Faith, Flawed, Inconsistent, Non-believers, Unbelievers, Flaws
December 17, 2009 at 3:52 am |
I have known about the first two verses and kind of knew about the 3rd verse. I have always wondered if those apply to denominations within christianity.
So this speaking in tongues isn’t what I have been led to believe it is then. I have never seen anyone speak in tongue other then in their church either when I was there in person or on video. Is there another verse where the speaking in tongues is mentioned in the bible? Does this mean that those people speaking in tongue are doing it because there are non-believers in the church?
Damn killing the non-believer is really showing how much love is in their religion. Does this mean that not all believers follow the words of the bible? If they do wouldn’t there be no non-believers on earth?
December 17, 2009 at 8:51 am |
The original purpose of speaking in tongues (in the book of Acts) was to amaze the people who witnessed it. Foreign people heard native Israelites speaking their language, which of course proved God is real. Also the fire that appeared above their heads didn’t hurt. Sounds very believable, eh?
If you hear a Christian attempting to speak in tongues today, it is not remotely a real language. It is the incoherent ramblings of a crazy person. Today, Fundamental Christians actually believe they can translate this ridiculous blather to proclaim to other believers what God is saying.
But yes, the initial purpose was to speak to unbelievers as a miraculous sign. Christians like to use it today to prove how super holy and anointed by God they are. Or it could be to prove how bat-shit crazy they are.
December 17, 2009 at 9:33 pm |
2 Chronicles 15:13 is in the Old Testament. There’s this thing about it being nailed to the cross (Col 2:14) and (2 Cor 3:13) in the New Testament.
December 17, 2009 at 9:41 pm |
Jesus was God’s “do over”. He screwed up the first time, so he killed himself as a sacrifice to himself to save the world from himself.
Whether Jesus nailed the Old Testament law to the cross or not is irrelevant. God wanted non-believers, disobedient children, homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers, raped women, and children and babies from enemy nations to be killed. The he changed his mind and sent Jesus.
Such wisdom and holiness which is worthy of my worship.
December 17, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Okay, just so I’m clear. God’s plan after killing himself as a sacrifice was to bless his beloved people with a highly flawed collection of texts (which you openly admit is “not perfect”) containing fictional fables, inconsistent teaching, conflicting testimony by unknown authors, unfulfilled prophesies and evil laws commanding murder. And then threaten to toss people into a lake of fire if they don’t believe the absurd and erroneous stories are true.
This was the best God could do? If the eternal fate of every person is decided by belief in this story, why wouldn’t God make it more credible? Does he enjoy sending people to hell?
December 17, 2009 at 9:54 pm |
Whether what you say is true or not, I am explaining why Christians don’t follow that.
But you are looking at it as though the entirety of the Old Testament must be accepted as really coming from God. Jesus himself mocks the Old Testament in John 10:34-36 “Isn’t it written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”‘? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken, how do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” Never does Jesus say the Old Testament is perfect. Not even here. When he says “and the scripture cannot be broken” it is part of the if-statement: “If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken” but he doesn’t say that either is actually true. And he says “Isn’t it written in your law” not taking ownership of the Law. John is the only gospel to explicitly make Jesus out to be God, yet it is also the one in which he denies the Old Testament the most. The only gospel that plainly says he is God also has him avoid calling the Law his own, saying instead “Isn’t it written in YOUR law”? At another time he makes the snide remark about them hating him “so that the word might be fulfilled which is written in THEIR law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’” (John 15:25) No my law, their law.
December 19, 2009 at 9:58 am |
Yo, since you think the New Testament is important to follow, can you please explain which of the contradictory verses from the New Testament cited in the original post should be be followed by Christians, and why the other(s) should be disregarded?
After that, another good topic might be, why did New Testament writers find it necessary to point to prophesies in the Old Testament to help prove Jesus was God if we should disregard what the Old Testament says?
December 17, 2009 at 10:57 pm |
I have just now read all of 1 Corinthians 14. It argues that while speaking in tongues is OK, it is communication only with God since other people cannot understand it. Therefore, it is better for private worship and is not very useful in a church setting because others can’t learn from it if they do not understand it; it should be kept to a minimum in a church meeting.
I know I am out of my depth here, but Verses 20, 21, and 22 seem to me to be out of place. I was reading along following the argument quite well but when I came to those verses they seemed quite jarring, different in style and interrupting the flow of the argument. They do not seem to add anything to the message; in fact, they confuse it because they are inconsistent with the entire rest of the chapter.
Verse 23 begins to sum up the message: “So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?”
So, whether or not those three verses were in the original epistle and despite the words of Verse 22, the author does not seem to think speaking in tongues is fruitful for impressing unbelievers.
December 17, 2009 at 12:03 pm |
Funny about the “speaking in tongues” thing – even in Christian terms, it’s supposed to be universally regarded as a sign of demonic possession, NOT of being infused with the holy spirit…
(I guess it’s true when they say “If you meet Buddha on the street…”)
December 18, 2009 at 1:40 am |
No it isn’t universally seen as demonic possession. The AoG followers will alway have at least a few people who walk up to the front of the church and start their baby talk. It is funny to see and it is usually the same ones. I figure it is an attempt to impress their buddies at church with how rightous they are.
December 17, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
Well, all that I can say is that we’ve come a long way from “Love They Neighbour”!
December 18, 2009 at 8:21 pm |
Dealing with unbelievers is certainly a problem for the religious – fight or flight? Working for an atheist boss is probably a common dilemma, since the ungodly tend to get advanced degrees. It might be better for everyone if the devout would retire to enclaves where they can exempt themselves from our sinful hankering after knowledge and entertainment. Of course, no child brides will be allowed.