ARCHIVE - You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar

Goose

New member
Luther:

Luther said:

You don't have to be from the 60's to have the religion of a beat-nick (sp?). Those hippies are now the ones in the pulpits and perpetuating the same nonsense.

When I think of "Not a religion, it's a relationship", I think of people trying really hard to be spiritual while reading the Left Behind series. These individuals live a mediocre life, careful not to offend anyone, living a sanitized, lysol-filled life. These people reject creedal statements, promote "no creed but Christ" while they're watching Touched by an Angel and all sorts of other sappy nonsense that evangelicals use as an opiate. To proclaim relationship over creed tends to lose theological significance and reduces salvation to a buddy buddy relationship. It lacks any substance, and is what is most popular today. I am what people would describe as "confessional". I like creeds, I like hymns, I like church history and believe in the communion of saints. This may all sound incredibly random, it's just you happened to step on a pet peeve of mine.

Luther

thank you for the laughs. :) I agree. I'm not one of those people. I've never even read the Left Behind Series (not that reading them are bad!). I said the "heart". I was trying to focus on the spring of our heart, not the fruits that it waters. In John 3, with the story of Nicodemus, Jesus talked about trying to explain how if someone didn't understand you talking about the things of this world, how much harder it would be to explain heavenly things. I'm trying to say that they are missing something, that which is in the heart. I'm finding this to be difficult, even around my elder brothers and sisters in Christ it seems.
 

beanieboy

New member
Knight said:
beanie says...Are you claiming that the Pharisees and the Sadducees would be considered part of "the Church"??

The Sadducees didn't even believe in a after life, angels or a spiritual life in general. John the Bapist called them "vipers" and Jesus called them “hypocrites” and “a wicked and adulterous generation” (Matt. 16:1-4; 22:23).

And you are claiming the Pharisees and the Sadducees are part of Christ's church???

So just who is spreading the falsehood?

Are you claiming these weren't the religious leaders of the time?

Were they part of "Christ's Church?" No. But there were most certainly part of the preChrist Church. They quoted from Scripture.

Are you going to say that, therefore, none of this applies to those in Christ's Church today? That Jesus would not rebuke those who made a spectacle of their holiness, of how often they prayed, of how they exalted themselves for being better than a sinner?

Think I struck a nerve.

Again, I say that you are purposefully spreading falsehood. It's own consequence.
 

beanieboy

New member
Knight - can you explain specifically what happened? I think it is difficult to discuss an unspecified situation and how it vaguely becomes uncomfortable, and be able to comment on it.

I know the focus is on judging (sigh) again and gentleness vs. harsh rebuke, but it would be more helpful to have your example, and then apply it, rather than the moronic extremist examples that don't move the debate forward.
 

beanieboy

New member
Yxboom said:
Im sure quoting Ghandi isn't going to get much points in this Forum. Besides why do those who claim not to judge, judge more harshly than those who claim we should. Reminds me of King David after killing Uriah and sleeping with Bathsheba screamed for "Godly JUSTICE and VENGENCE" on the man who unrightly took anothers lamb.
I wonder how many people judge and complain if those men who went into the WTC buildings insisting that they should evacuate may have been harsh and abrupt about getting out. Some may have been told things they didn't like and had to actually stop what they were doing.
How much greater is Hell than a burning building yet if you are not PC and even hurt someone's ego you are the enemy and not the watchman how should be recieved. Seems incompetent. Just imagine the Fireman running out of the WTC building yet saying nothing expecting everyone to follow, or a night watchmen that rather than ring the Town Bell jumped off his post and evacuated expecting everyone to do the same. What good is an alarm that doesn't ring? Or for this Threads sake, a picture of a jar of honey is the closest thing to honey as most flies get when it comes to personal evangelism. ;)

If you were to walk in on your 5 year old playing doctor with the neighbor girl, would you say, YOUUUUUUU SINNNNNER! YOU PERVERT, WITH A LUSTFUL HEART! YOU ARE GOING TO HELL FOR THIS DISGUSTING THING THAT YOU ARE DOING, UNLESS YOU REPENT RIGHT NOW!

Oh, wait. Probably not. Because that would be extreeeeeeeeemist. See how that works. There is gentle rebuke. And there is harsh rebuke. And sometimes, harsh rebuke results in more harm than good.

Here's a book of Common Sense. Check it out.
 

Goose

New member
beanieboy said:


Are you claiming these weren't the religious leaders of the time?

Were they part of "Christ's Church?" No. But there were most certainly part of the preChrist Church. They quoted from Scripture.

Are you going to say that, therefore, none of this applies to those in Christ's Church today? That Jesus would not rebuke those who made a spectacle of their holiness, of how often they prayed, of how they exalted themselves for being better than a sinner?

Think I struck a nerve.

Again, I say that you are purposefully spreading falsehood. It's own consequence.

The devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness while he was filled with the Holy Spirit. The devil quoted scripture!

Luke 4:9-13 "And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:" Devil quotes scripture here: "For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season."
What you say is nothing new.

What you say is not a blow to christianity.

What you say applies to the world in which God lived in before there were christians who could openly rebuke these things.

There was evil like there is today. Satan was a religeous leader and still is. People worship him. That doesn't mean he's a member with God just because of human perception, like the perception the faithless had of the Pharisees. The devil loves people who worship themselves. Some of these people even go to church and I'm sure even some are on the pulpit! There are "christians" out there that Jesus warns us of. Worse will be done to these people in the end days then what was done to Sodom.

Who's making a spectacle of their holiness here? You obviously don't give Jesus the credit. Who do you give credit to? I give credit of my cleansing to Christ. I boast NOT of myself but of Him who cleansed me.

I think I struck a nerve. Particularly the brain part.

Pro 24:24-27 "He that saith unto the wicked, Thou [art] righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke [him] shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them."
 
Last edited:

Nathon Detroit

New member
Goose writes...
Knight,

I've had similar experiences with my WHOLE family. My brother and I are the only ones who try to have a strong relationship with God. My parents say that since they grew up going to a catholic school, they don't need what we do(church, bible, etc.). Yet my dad always comes to us with questions. It's hard to describe heavenly things. Like in John, where Jesus was talking about the re-birth to Nicodemus.

Goose
I hear ya goose! What many people know (and some do not) is that Jesus did not come here preaching "unity". He came preaching truth. And sometimes the truth divides!
Luke 12:51 “Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52 “For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 “Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
beanie says...
Are you claiming these weren't the religious leaders of the time?

Were they part of "Christ's Church?" No. But there were most certainly part of the preChrist Church. They quoted from Scripture.
Beanie almost every person on the face of the earth in Jesus time was "religious", and some of them were "leaders" but only a TINY fraction would have been considered a part of the "Church".

Quoting scripture hardly qualifies one as part of the church, you should know that as even you and many other non-christians on thin board quote scripture.
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
beanie says...
Oh, wait. Probably not. Because that would be extreeeeeeeeemist. See how that works. There is gentle rebuke. And there is harsh rebuke. And sometimes, harsh rebuke results in more harm than good.
Beanie I think you are missing the point.

Let me see if I can get you back on track....

I think there are times for both harsh rebuke and gentle rebuke or even just plain friendship and fellowship.

But the point is that many Christians in today's world think ANY type of rebuke (harsh or gentle) is un-Christian, which is where I disagree.
 

beanieboy

New member
Knight said:
beanie says...Beanie almost every person on the face of the earth in Jesus time was "religious", and some of them were "leaders" but only a TINY fraction would have been considered a part of the "Church".

Quoting scripture hardly qualifies one as part of the church, you should know that as even you and many other non-christians on thin board quote scripture.

The devil quotes scripture in the Gospel, but I wasn't saying that the devil was part of the Church.

Maybe I misunderstand.

My understanding is that the Pharissees and Sagusees (which I mispelled terribly) were the ones teaching in the synagogues. They had a lot of power, and Jesus was not only challenging this power, but exposing them for projecting outwardly that they were holy, while being rotten inside. They would roam the streets, beating their backs publicly, saying, "Search me, Oh, God" because they wanted people to see them as holy, and many did. And Jesus challenged this "falsehood." They claimed to preach God, yet because they were self serving, ended up leading people farther away from God.
The biggest area of contention, however, was that in exposing them as "blind fools," he challenged their authority, and in so, challenged their power. If they were exposed for what they were, no one would follow them or listen to them. And this is the biggest issue they had with Jesus. He was a threat to their power.

Am I wrong in this?

And secondly, you still haven't answered me. Jesus was talking to religious leaders, even if they were a TINY segment of the church. He wasn't talking to people who were seeking him. He wasn't saying, "Hey, Zacheus, you viper's brood! Hey, Mary Magdelan, you dog! You swine!" He was talking to people who considered themself better than others in the eyes of God. That was my point. To then KNOW that, but then say, "well, then I can go call a sinner a viper."
In the passage where Jesus was harsh with the Pharissees, he said that they made their converts twice as prepared for hell as they were themselves. Isn't, in KNOWINGLY misusing a passage, and equating it to permission to calling people outside the church vipers, at it's best, irresponsible, and at it worst, just bold face lying?
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
Beanie states...
And secondly, you still haven't answered me. Jesus was talking to religious leaders, even if they were a TINY segment of the church.
Ahhhhh!!! There you go again, and you were getting so close! The Pharisees and the Sadducees were not part of what we would call "the church"! The Pharisees and the Sadducees might have considered themselves part of their own church but they were not part of "the church" if we are to take the term "the church" to mean the followers of Jesus.

Didn't you read where I told you the Sadducees did not believe in a afterlife, angels or spiritual things in general?

Jesus was harsh with people outside His group of followers at times AND inside His group of followers at times! Remember what He said to Peter...
But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” - Matthew 16:23
 

beanieboy

New member
Knight said:
beanie says...Beanie I think you are missing the point.

Let me see if I can get you back on track....

I think there are times for both harsh rebuke and gentle rebuke or even just plain friendship and fellowship.

But the point is that many Christians in today's world think ANY type of rebuke (harsh or gentle) is un-Christian, which is where I disagree.

As I said, there is time for harsh rebuke, gentle rebuke, etc. I agree with you. It's just that on TOL it works like this:

A: One should not always use harsh rebuke. Sometimes it does more harm than good.
B: Oh, like when someone is in a burning building? You should just ask them to gently leave? Or maybe just let the building burn because you don't want to wake them?
A: Uh, no. That's extremist. I said "always." Sometimes it is inappropriate, such as, when a child does something that is relatively innocent, like playing doctor.
B: So we should NEVER use harsh rebuke?
A: AHHHHHHH! I said we should not ALWAYS use rebuke. It's not an always or never issue.

It's really frustrating.

Again, it is easier to apply one's belief to a specific situation, and not leave room for extremist burning building examples. Would you mind telling us what happened at the family gathering, what you said, what they said, etc., so that we can understand what we are talking about?

I don't know if you were in a screaming match over the Trinity during a Christmas Eve dinner, and telling your relative that they were going to burn in hell, while their kids sat there with tears streaming down their face, or if you were just confronting someone about their drinking problem, and how it is affecting the family. I have no reference except a vague situation where there was "uncomfortableness." Since you brought up your situation, would you mind being specific of what happened, so that we can use it as an example, and then assess the situation? And please, let's use it as an example, and not as an excuse to berate Knight.
For all I know, we may be in total agreement. Because I am unsure of the reference, I can't be sure.

Personally, I can't think of anyone who thinks they should never rebuke someone, christian or non. Again, I can't comment on the vagueness of "christians who never use harsh rebuke" without given specific examples of modern day life.

However, I bet there are more people in churches that say, "You are welcome here, because we are all part of God's family," than churches that make the world seem like the enemy, and treat them as such, saying, "You're going to hellll!" The latter brings back a memory of being 7 or 8, when my neighbors seemed to delight in telling me that, because I was Protestant, and they were Catholic. It begins by putting the other person on the defense. And that was never Christ's approach.
 

beanieboy

New member
Is that true, Knight? Can anyone confirm/deny this? This is not what I was taught.

Even if this were true, can we then say that it is okay to randomly call people vipers? That Jesus should have called sinners names in order to bring them to him? That is all I am saying.

If you are a hustler, people are going to be calling you names already, like skank and ho. Do you honestly think calling someone a slut, and then telling them that God can save them, is going to make them say, "Hey, I want to follow your religion?" I can tell you from experience that I was called faggot in high school by people that thought it was fun to pick on those who were weaker. Being called a faggot by a christian makes me view them exactly the same - as someone who enjoys being cruel and mean to other people.
 
Last edited:

Nathon Detroit

New member
Beanie says...
As I said, there is time for harsh rebuke, gentle rebuke, etc. I agree with you. It's just that on TOL it works like this:

A: One should not always use harsh rebuke. Sometimes it does more harm than good.
B: Oh, like when someone is in a burning building? You should just ask them to gently leave? Or maybe just let the building burn because you don't want to wake them?
A: Uh, no. That's extremist. I said "always." Sometimes it is inappropriate, such as, when a child does something that is relatively innocent, like playing doctor.
B: So we should NEVER use harsh rebuke?
A: AHHHHHHH! I said we should not ALWAYS use rebuke. It's not an always or never issue.
I think you make some good points and I think allot of your frustration is simply the result of the limitations of an internet forum. It would be far easier at times to talk one on one and many of the misunderstandings would vanish.

You continue...
I don't know if you were in a screaming match over the Trinity during a Christmas Eve dinner, and telling your relative that they were going to burn in hell, while their kids sat there with tears streaming down their face, or if you were just confronting someone about their drinking problem, and how it is affecting the family.
The specific situation is somewhat irrelevant I only used it as a vehicle to get to the question is the term "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" applicable to biblical evangelism?

You continue...
"You're going to hellll!" The latter brings back a memory of being 7 or 8, when my neighbors seemed to delight in telling me that, because I was Protestant, and they were Catholic. It begins by putting the other person on the defense. And that was never Christ's approach.
You see that is the point... sometimes Jesus DID use that approach!
“Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? - Matthew 23:33
 

His_saving_Grac

New member
Actually, Goose, you ARE boasting of yourself. You did not reply in humbleness, but out of personal pride.

You say that satan tempted Christ with scripture, but I have yet to read those verses in our bibles.

As Josephus Flavious reported, as well the Talmud, the pharisees were actually very religious and helpd tightly to their convictions. They both claim (and saw during their life times since they were written soon after the death of Jesus) the pharisees were " experts in scriptural interpretation, who remained in close touch with the ordinary people, working alongside them as humble tailors, showmakers and the like, and endgendering much affection for their education of children, for their founding of regional synagogues, and for the developement of an oral tradition of religious wisdom..." (Jesus: The Evidence by Ian Wilson, Page 105)

The author who is a christian, further went on that Josephus describe them having the "multitude on their side" They did not like the Roman regime and let them know. They had a paramilitary wing (the zealots) from which Simon the disciple came and probably Judas Iscariot also since Iscariot is closer to a nickname of "daggerman" or "assassin".

The pharisees entertained Jesus socially and exhibited a genuine concern for his safety (Luke 7:36; 13:31; 14;1 and elsewhere) anc according to Acts it was a pharisee called Gamaliel who supported the jewish christian community shortly after Jesus death against the jewish Sanhedrin (acts 5:34-40).

The pharisees believed in angels and spirits, and a conviction of a bodily ressurection at the end of time which is why they were against creamation of the body.

The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected all of this and it was their High Preist, Caiaphas, who hated Jesus the most and condemed him to death. They were the rich ones making the money off of the poor through the contributions to the church, buying up the poor people land and making them have to work the fields they once owned.

You claim satan is a religious leader, which I think you misstated. Satan does not appear in person to people demanding their worship. It is only once even mentioned in the bible, and that was the testing of Jesus. Those who claim to worship him have never met him, and 99.9% of what you see in movies is false.

So just as God is not a religious leader, neither is satan. God demands not our worship, but our love.
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
Beanie says...
Even if this were true, can we then say that it is okay to randomly call people vipers?
Randomnly calling people "viper's" would not only be wrong but psychotic don't you think?

You continue...
Do you honestly think calling someone a slut, and then telling them that God can save them, is going to make them say, "Hey, I want to follow your religion?"
Certainly not initially, but it is a Christians obligation to tell a sinner what the consequences of their actions will be.
You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. - Leviticus 19:17

1Timothy 5:20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

2Timothy 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,

Titus 2:15 Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.
Speak the truth and let let the chips fall where the may!
 

His_saving_Grac

New member
ND, PLEASE quit using the concordances and just read the entire bible. Quit looking up the word you want (in this case, rebuke) and then posting the passages you deem fit. If you read the entire bible, you will see that it is overwhelmingly against your thoughts.
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
HSG writes...
ND, PLEASE quit using the concordances and just read the entire bible. Quit looking up the word you want (in this case, rebuke) and then posting the passages you deem fit. If you read the entire bible, you will see that it is overwhelmingly against your thoughts.
In this case the word "rebuke" was 100% relevant to the discussion.
 

His_saving_Grac

New member
Knight said:
HSG writes...In this case the word "rebuke" was 100% relevant to the discussion.
I know it was relevant to your part of the discussion, but the words would loose their meaning in the overall context of the bible. You see, a concordance just shows you where that word is used, it does not give context. The Bible itself is the context. Everything must be read as a whole. The bible teaches us much, but as has been pointed out, it can be taken out of contest.

To use an example, monogamy is what we are taught. One husband, one wife. But if we look at the lives of all those who are people we rever in the OT, polygamy was the basis, rather that the exception. Only one person in the OT heros or leaders was monogamous. All others were polygamous. I challenge you to identify the only one (And it is NOT Adam)

If we also pick and choose our verses, incest is good, murder is good, infantcide is good, lying is good, greed is good, I can go on and on. It isn't until we read the entire book as a whole that we see the faults in verses. In fact, were it not for king James, the bible would HAVE to be read as a book, since chapters and verses did not exist until he placed them there.

You concordance is removing you from the entire word of God Instead of reading the bible, you look up only those verses supporting your claims. This is the biased way for knowing God. You have your belief and only want to read those words that agree with your belief. And that is exactly what a concordance does. It helps you find the words for your belief without having to read the entire bible and getting ALL of the wisdom contained therewithin. You are doing God and injustice, as well as hurting yourself by skipping everything but what a concordance (made by a man) has deemed nessessary for his biases also.

That is why you needed me to point out certain scripture. You didn't have a key word, so it wasn't accessable to you in the concordance, and you hadn't read it yourself in the bible. Don't you feel you are missing out of something great by doing this?
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
HSG please demonstrate how biblical context on the word 'rebuke' would change anything regarding this thread and discussion.
 
Top