Aim to please God, Not other people!

I know this is not a Christian site, but this is the Religion, Faith and Theology forum. If you don't like Christianity then you don't have to watch the video, or even post! There are plenty of threads on this site where people are arguing if Christianity is legit or not. I would like to keep this thread on topic with the theme of the video please..



I think too many Christians are content with being treated like doormats. I would even go as far to say that a lot of people seem to think that being all accepting and permissive is what makes Christians Christian. All too often I have heard 'That's not very Christian is it?' From people who aren't even Christian!

The biggest one that grinds my gears is when people say 'I'm sure Jesus wouldn't have minded this..' as an excuse to excuse sin and even revel in it.

Do any Christians here share my thoughts or feelings on this matter? Also what are your thoughts on the video? I was very tired when I made it so I apologise for the roughness around the edges!

Peace

Pffffth,.. Cant be bothered with pleasing other people .. why should I waste time pleasing someones figment of the imagination ? Have far better things to do that actually make a difference in the world ..

a reply to: TechUnique
I don't know if you saw my "Jesus said; Judge not" thread, which looked at one aspect of the same theme, viz. the way that people exploit the instruction by turning it into "If I'm doing something wrong, you're not allowed to criticise me, because that would be judgemental".
So yes, people can be prone to define your faith in ways which suit their purposes.

A very dodgy landlady once told me, when I queried her claim about what a non-existent rent-book contained, that as a Christian I should be believing her without question.
That particular lady certainly needed to be approached with "the wisdom of serpents".

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TechUnique
I don't know if you saw my "Jesus said; Judge not" thread, which looked at one aspect of the same theme, viz. the way that people exploit the instruction by turning it into "If I'm doing something wrong, you're not allowed to criticise me, because that would be judgemental".
So yes, people can be prone to define your faith in ways which suit their purposes.

You get what I'm talking about completely! That sounds like an interesting thread could you perhaps link me to it? God bless.

a reply to: TechUnique
Of course.
Jesus said; Judge not

a reply to: TechUnique

Aim to please God, Not other people!

No!

'Doormat' is definitely not the correct way to define Christian life. Humility is a core concept of Christianity yes, but not to the extent of accepting anything and everything that comes. Life is a struggle. It's not about simply being a sheep and cuddling with every passerby that comes your way. We're meant to do battle with temptation on a daily basis. Humility is the method by which we not only combat temptation, but how we can acknowledge our own weaknesses and grow closer to God. Do not mistake humility with complacence:

"Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming." ~Matthew 24:42

Too often do Christians 'fall asleep' in this way and lose their awareness of what is going on around them. We are always meant to be awake in this way, always watching and always being ready for what comes, whether that be someone who is in need of aid, or whether we are being made aware of our own mistakes. Don't be a doormat, be the doorman.

Loving God is the epitome of Christian life; learning to love God is the entire purpose of our existence here. If you truly love God, then you will naturally learn to love everything He has made, including your brothers and sisters. It's really that simple of an objective, but it's the hardest thing in the world to learn. You certainly cannot do this by being a doormat.

P.S: Congrats on the first vid, speaking out on your faith can be difficult. Do not get discouraged, you are on the right track.

originally posted by: Septimus
'Doormat' is definitely not the correct way to define Christian life. Humility is a core concept of Christianity yes, but not to the extent of accepting anything and everything that comes. Life is a struggle. It's not about simply being a sheep and cuddling with every passerby that comes your way. We're meant to do battle with temptation on a daily basis. Humility is the method by which we not only combat temptation, but how we can acknowledge our own weaknesses and grow closer to God. Do not mistake humility with complacence:

"Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming." ~Matthew 24:42

Too often do Christians 'fall asleep' in this way and lose their awareness of what is going on around them. We are always meant to be awake in this way, always watching and always being ready for what comes, whether that be someone who is in need of aid, or whether we are being made aware of our own mistakes. Don't be a doormat, be the doorman.

Loving God is the epitome of Christian life; learning to love God is the entire purpose of our existence here. If you truly love God, then you will naturally learn to love everything He has made, including your brothers and sisters. It's really that simple of an objective, but it's the hardest thing in the world to learn. You certainly cannot do this by being a doormat.

P.S: Congrats on the first vid, speaking out on your faith can be difficult. Do not get discouraged, you are on the right track.

Thanks for your comment! Was much appreciated and I agree with you fully.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TechUnique
Of course.
Jesus said; Judge not

Thanks will check it out now!

a reply to: TechUnique

I have some honest questions for you. I have to ask because not all Christian faiths believe the same thing.

Do you believe that the New Testament is the standard that should be followed?

If you do believe that then why are you picking parts of the Old Testament to quote and follow?


I have been told by Christians that the Old Testament is to read so they can understand the history of their faith, but it should not be followed.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I think above all else Jesus's teachings in the NT are the most important things that we should follow, but don't forget that Jesus also used scripture from the old testament when teaching.

What I'm saying is that I believe we should follow the new testament and apply it to our lives, that alone being 'enough' of the word of God to get by on and feed our souls, so to speak. That being said I think that the Old Testament should be studied with the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus in mind.

There is an immense amount of knowledge and wisdom in the OT that shouldn't be discounted. If it came between the 2 though the New Testament is definitely more important to our spiritual growth than the Old Testament.

That's just where I stand on the issue though, I'm not a scholar and I don't really have any authority when preaching the gospel or discussing it. I am just a babe in Christ and will be for some time!

I think this thread merely enforces a primitive, tribal us vs them mentality.

The crunchy outer crust of Judeo-Christian religion is all about that. People break their teeth on it.

The creamy center is not.

👣

a reply to: TechUnique

Well, I think I had already covered that Christians have told me the OT should be studied.

The thing that is a bit disconcerting has been when people pick parts of the OT and say they should be followed as well when they also give credence to the NT.

To me they are sort of claiming to know the mind of their God.

I am not judging anyone I am simply trying to understand something that seems very contradictory.

Some Christians say the NT replaced the OT and then some Christians claim to follow both. It is almost always those that follow both or pick pieces from the OT in their wisdom that I see in conflict with societal struggle for equality and fairness.


I know you are not a scholar, but I can ask how you came to the conclusion that it was OK to use segments of the OT in concert with the NT for a model in life. I am wondering if you took that task upon yourself o if you had guidance with it from an authority n the matter.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Sorry, but I haven't got time to debate the finer points with you as I know you, we'd be here for hours. As I said, I'd rather keep the thread as much on topic as possible and I can see it drifting off topic already.

a reply to: TechUnique

The biggest one that grinds my gears is when people say 'I'm sure Jesus wouldn't have minded this..' as an excuse to excuse sin and even revel in it.

Me too! Like when people defend the right to turn away LGBT for sexual immorality while saying that Jesus understands their divorce and that God has sanctioned their "new" marriage. Interesting that the Old Testament condoned divorce, while Jesus didn't and claimed marriage after divorce was adultery, every time!

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: Grimpachi

Sorry, but I haven't got time to debate the finer points with you as I know you, we'd be here for hours. As I said, I'd rather keep the thread as much on topic as possible and I can see it drifting off topic already.

I thought the subject was the video you made. I may be wrong, but you used a verse from proverbs and that seems to be basis of your argument.I am trying to understand how an OT verse can be used to justify the mentality of those who I thought were supposed to follow the NT.

That seems like it would be on topic to me.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TechUnique

Well, I think I had already covered that Christians have told me the OT should be studied.

The thing that is a bit disconcerting has been when people pick parts of the OT and say they should be followed as well when they also give credence to the NT.

To me they are sort of claiming to know the mind of their God.

I am not judging anyone I am simply trying to understand something that seems very contradictory.

Some Christians say the NT replaced the OT and then some Christians claim to follow both. It is almost always those that follow both or pick pieces from the OT in their wisdom that I see in conflict with societal struggle for equality and fairness.


I know you are not a scholar, but I can ask how you came to the conclusion that it was OK to use segments of the OT in concert with the NT for a model in life. I am wondering if you took that task upon yourself o if you had guidance with it from an authority n the matter.

The OT should certainly be studied. Judaism is the father of modern Christianity and the history of which is very useful to study for a Christian looking to better understand the origins of Christian philosophy. Jesus was the promised Messiah of the Jews (although they denied Him and had Him crucified for claiming to be) who in His death brought forth the fulfillment of a New Covenant:

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. ~Luke 22:20

That is why Christians do not practice much of the Judaic traditions such as abstaining from pork. That was the Old Covenant, which essentially entails the entirety of the Old Testament with it's various laws and restrictions. It was heavily based on earthly concerns, whereas the New Covenant is spiritual. You can learn more about the similarities/differences here.

While it's true Christians do not need to adhere to certain restrictions in the Old Testament, things like the 10 Commandments carried over into the New Covenant and are still very much in force to this day. To that end, if a Christian appears to pick pieces from the OT, it's because pieces did in fact carry over with the New Covenant and what they are now taught.

a reply to: Septimus

Is there any authority on what can be picked and chosen from in the OT to be carried over for Christians?


Here is my concern. There are all types of atrocious acts and mentalities that can be justified with the OT and there have been some who use it to do just that. I have no problem with those who study and learn their religious history, but whenever I see people pick parts from the OT to be applied to their lives it raises an eyebrow and I am sure I am not the only one that happens with.

I am just trying to understand why some Christians feel that one piece of the OT is acceptable carried over to the NT while disregarding others. How are those determinations made and by what authority are they doing it?

In many of the debates being had regarding the Christian faith when it is pointed out how the OT can be repressive, abusive, or worse quite often it is explained that the OT is not to be followed and it is the NT that is the authority yet some of those same people who stat that can be found picking and choosing parts of the OT for their benefit.

I think I should restate, I am not judging here I am simply trying to understand.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Jesus himself should come to mind when pondering this question. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill" ~Matthew 5:17

Jesus never said he was completely destroying the OT, quite the opposite. What Jesus meant was that he would be making full the Law (the 10 Commandments), or showing us the way to it's completion. The New Testament itself, and it's teachings should give some idea as to what was carried over from the OT.

As for modern takes on this subject, the Roman Catholic Church would be the only obvious interpreter of such lessons, as has been done many times in the past, and is likely the reason most of the archaic practices have been abolished. As an example; an excerpt from Cantate Domino (1442 AD) in regards to the practice of circumcision:

[The Catholic Church] "firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

While dated, and perhaps a bit blunt, this excerpt is clearly stating Mosaic Law (and in accordance with it, circumcision) is no longer practicable by Catholics for the means of salvation. The modern Church however is neutral on circumcision as a practice, but still holds fast that it is not necessary as a means of salvation as it was in the Old Covenant.

This is just one example of many of official interpretation made from Old Testament law. There are plenty more where that came from, and there may even be more in the future depending on what further nitpicking people may do or what other tired arguments they dig up from the ancient fields of the OT.

So where does that leave us? The Church is very clear on it's interpretations, however knowledgeable Catholics are of them. I cannot speak for Protestant interpretations, other than that they adhere strictly to whatever the Bible teaches... and to what ever assumptions that leads to.

a reply to: Septimus

Matthew 5:17 seems to be the tool used that WBC uses to justify their stances on issues.

I also think there is some debate on what Matthew 5:17 actually means by some Christians. As for those who see it as a free pass to model themselves over aspects of the OT I imagine it is pretty convenient and well known.

I would think such a verse would be troubling to those who truly wish to follow their Christs teachings because it opens a door to things that may be very contradictory. It can't be easy for those who take from both philosophies.


As for the Catholic Churches interpretations and decisions it is probably a bit easier for their followers to have an authority. Not so much for those who are not Catholic though. In these very threads I have seen many self-professed Christians denounce the Catholic Churches status as representative of their Christ.

I certainly can't determine which group is right or wrong nor will I try. They all make the claim as far as I know to being the true path.

Well, thank you for answering my questions and because of that I have a little better understanding now even if I do find these answers troubling.

a reply to: Grimpachi

My interpretation of the verse is that Jesus is trying to establish He's not going to create a completely new religion, but build on the one that is already there. It's pretty clear to me, but sadly that's not always the case. Everything seems to be open to interpretation in these times, and sadly people twist things to fit their own agendas. If only Jesus himself were here to clarify it all...

As for the Catholic Churches interpretations and decisions it is probably a bit easier for their followers to have an authority. Not so much for those who are not Catholic though. In these very threads I have seen many self-professed Christians denounce the Catholic Churches status as representative of their Christ.

That's an unfortunate reality of Protestantism. Without a central authority, it is highly open to self interpretation, and is therefore also rendered open to abuse. I'm all for having a personal experience with Christ, but if that relationship becomes confusing or becomes difficult to explain to others, it's nice to have guidance.

Well, thank you for answering my questions and because of that I have a little better understanding now even if I do find these answers troubling.

Thank you for asking. It's nice to clear the cobwebs out every once in a while.