Can we make MN less hostile?

[Grace]

I think we all are able to know when we cross that line into quarreling and not just kindly searching out truths if we allow the Holy Spirit to guide us. And some of us may have more trouble with the flesh (old nature) than others do in this area.

This, too, shall pass and become a distant memory.

Thanks so much Robert , for your diligence in monitoring Mennonet.

[Bootstrap]

I just read the last few weeks of this thread with amusement.

I am not Christian, but I have a question for you Christians. How do you think Jesus would be received on the internet today? How long before he would be banned on social media and on most Christian forums? I mean why was Jesus crucified? I think it was basically for "hate speech".

I think it was basically for "love speech" - loving sinners, tax collectors, Samaritans, Gentiles, healing people even on the Sabbath, calling Christians to love and not to hate, pointing out the hypocrisy of people who claim to love God but hate other people.

Look at the various times that the Pharisees and others decided to kill Jesus. For healing a blind man on the Sabbath?

Imagine if Jesus posted Matthew 23 on the internet replacing "Pharisees" with "rabbis". ("Pharisees" and "rabbis" are synonyms, "rabbis" just being the more modern term.) Jewish and liberal groups would call Jesus an anti-semite and call for his crucifixion. Not much has really changed in 2000 years.

Jesus wasn't talking to a persecuted minority. And it wasn't hate speech. It was a call to repentance, given directly to the Pharisees. He wasn't telling other people to hate the Pharisees.

Jesus was telling the religious establishment of his day, which was also a powerful political force, that they need to repent and stop shutting the door to those God has called to his Kingdom. Telling them that religious hypocrisy, seeking status and glory, and loading people down with burdens are real sins.

John 11 tells us what they were afraid of:

Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”

Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the people of Judea. Instead he withdrew to a region near the wilderness, to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples.

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jerusalem for their ceremonial cleansing before the Passover. They kept looking for Jesus, and as they stood in the temple courts they asked one another, “What do you think? Isn’t he coming to the festival at all?” But the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that anyone who found out where Jesus was should report it so that they might arrest him.

[Franklin]

I just read the last few weeks of this thread with amusement.

I am not Christian, but I have a question for you Christians. How do you think Jesus would be received on the internet today? How long before he would be banned on social media and on most Christian forums? I mean why was Jesus crucified? I think it was basically for "hate speech".

I think it was basically for "love speech" - loving sinners, tax collectors, Samaritans, Gentiles, healing people even on the Sabbath, calling Christians to love and not to hate, pointing out the hypocrisy of people who claim to love God but hate other people.

Look at the various times that the Pharisees and others decided to kill Jesus. For healing a blind man on the Sabbath?

Imagine if Jesus posted Matthew 23 on the internet replacing "Pharisees" with "rabbis". ("Pharisees" and "rabbis" are synonyms, "rabbis" just being the more modern term.) Jewish and liberal groups would call Jesus an anti-semite and call for his crucifixion. Not much has really changed in 2000 years.

Jesus wasn't talking to a persecuted minority. And it wasn't hate speech. It was a call to repentance, given directly to the Pharisees. He wasn't telling other people to hate the Pharisees.

Jesus was telling the religious establishment of his day, which was also a powerful political force, that they need to repent and stop shutting the door to those God has called to his Kingdom. Telling them that religious hypocrisy, seeking status and glory, and loading people down with burdens are real sins.

John 11 tells us what they were afraid of:

I put "hate speech" in quotes because I didn't actually mean hate speech, but rather what people call hate speech which is actually speech that modern culture hates. What Jesus was actually doing was following Leviticus 19:17 in rebuking those who needed it. And my point is that modern culture would consider this to be "hate speech", and that following Leviticus 19:17 is often seen as hostile, so one should be careful about censoring hostile speech.

Regarding Matthew 23, telling the Jewish establishment of today, which is a powerful political force, that they need to repent and stop shutting the door to those God has called to his Kingdom, and telling them that religious hypocrisy, seeking status and glory, and loading people down with burdens are real sins - all this would certainly be considered "hate speech" by those currently in power.

[Bootstrap]

I put "hate speech" in quotes because I didn't actually mean hate speech, but rather what people call hate speech which is actually speech that modern culture hates. What Jesus was actually doing was following Leviticus 19:17 in rebuking those who needed it. And my point is that modern culture would consider this to be "hate speech", and that following Leviticus 19:17 is often seen as hostile, so one should be careful about censoring hostile speech.

I think modern culture would say the Pharisees were spreading hate of Samaritans, tax collectors, Gentiles, and sinners. And living in self-righteous indignation. And in this case, Jesus seems to agree.

Jesus wants us to be holy. But not like that. And there really is such a thing as hate. When we start treating others as less than human, of no value, no concern to us, people who do not deserve love and have no place, we are not following Jesus.

In general, people who hate are also in denial of their hate. Which is why, for instance, the Grand Wizard of the KKK used to give interviews explaining how the KKK is really a very loving organization. And in the political sphere, people who hate generally claim that it is really THEM who hate US, and THEY are a real threat to us. And these same politicians ask us to give them more and more power so they can fight THEM to save US. That's a mainstay in modern political discourse. If you study history at all, you quickly see that this same argument was used by many dictators, who then used that power against US. Sadly, Christians sometimes buy into this too.

You don't see that in the New Testament. Instead, Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and to put our trust in God.

Regarding Matthew 23, telling the Jewish establishment of today, which is a powerful political force, that they need to repent and stop shutting the door to those God has called to his Kingdom, and telling them that religious hypocrisy, seeking status and glory, and loading people down with burdens are real sins - all this would certainly be considered "hate speech" by those currently in power.

A lot of this would be hard for anyone to see as hate speech - caring about the last, the least, and the lost. Some of it is definitely drawing a line against sin, e.g. against sexual immorality. But we don't have to hate on others to draw these lines. We probably can't force mainstream society to understand our world view, we probably can't make Caesar enforce it on others, but we can be salt and light to a lost and confused world

Regardless, I'd like to put my trust in Jesus and in God and do what the New Testament teaches. And that's about love, not hate or hostility.

[Josh]

Whether we like it or not the modern world classifies much of the New Testament as "hate speech", in particular, statements about immorality and statements that those who don't believe in Jesus and reject him will perish in hell. There is really no way to have any compromise between these two very different positions.

[QuietlyListening]

I have to shake my head at how adults 'speak' to each other on this forum. If you were to be in the same room speaking to each other face to face- I wonder if half of what you say or especially how you say it in writing would come across in speech.
saying things like 'reading impaired', referring to someone's opinion or what they said as 'sad as that is' or coming back with a reply in the same sarcastic/angry or whatever negative tone.

We can express differences without sounding sarcastic/angry/accusatory etc.
We don't have to label other people.
Own your opinion, give your opinion but don't project what the other person means.
Not everything liberal is bad, not everything conservative is good and vice versa.
Not everything that happens in this world bad or good has to have a conservative or liberal label put on it and labeling someone liberal because you think they are- sorry but no one likes to be labeled including the person who is labeling others.

Colossians 4:6 tells us to "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."
You can disagree and still be gracious. If we all followed that rule - things might not be so hostile.

I must say I get frustrated at the name calling and those same people don't see it in themselves but think 'others' are doing it. It applies to many here - no matter what your opinion is and where you want to categorize yourself.

[Sudsy]

I have to shake my head at how adults 'speak' to each other on this forum. If you were to be in the same room speaking to each other face to face- I wonder if half of what you say or especially how you say it in writing would come across in speech.
saying things like 'reading impaired', referring to someone's opinion or what they said as 'sad as that is' or coming back with a reply in the same sarcastic/angry or whatever negative tone.

We can express differences without sounding sarcastic/angry/accusatory etc.
We don't have to label other people.
Own your opinion, give your opinion but don't project what the other person means.
Not everything liberal is bad, not everything conservative is good and vice versa.
Not everything that happens in this world bad or good has to have a conservative or liberal label put on it and labeling someone liberal because you think they are- sorry but no one likes to be labeled including the person who is labeling others.

Colossians 4:6 tells us to "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."
You can disagree and still be gracious. If we all followed that rule - things might not be so hostile.

I must say I get frustrated at the name calling and those same people don't see it in themselves but think 'others' are doing it. It applies to many here - no matter what your opinion is and where you want to categorize yourself.

Thankyou for the admonition. I need it as much as anyone and the scripture verse you used is quite spot on. I think our responses reflect just how much we operate in the flesh rather than according to the Spirit. A reflection of our spiritual maturity. Imo, dropping the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' in all posts would go a long way to less hostility. I will try to avoid the use of these words entirely here as I take them to often mean just how 'worldly' or how 'godly' we are.

[Josh]

Not everything liberal is bad, not everything conservative is good and vice versa.

Generally speaking, the anti-Christian, pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, anti-Bible progressive left is bad. Those who pro-Bible, pro-Jesus and anti-abortion are not bad.

We have a few very loud anti-Bible liberals on this forum. I don’t think they should dominate the conversation just because they type the most words.

I must say I get frustrated at the name calling and those same people don't see it in themselves but think 'others' are doing it. It applies to many here - no matter what your opinion is and where you want to categorize yourself.

When someone consistently promotes homosexuality, claims the Bible isn’t literally true, and promotes abortion, what label should we give them?

[Sudsy]

Another verse comes to mind - Eph 4:2

With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love

[RZehr]

Colossians 4:6 tells us to "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."

See there, salty language is sanctioned by scripture. What's the problem?