Are Christians called to public relations?

[cholland]

Pope Benedict: "My visit to Jordan gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam."

Is this respect for their sincerity in their beliefs or the beliefs themselves? Are we to find neutral ground in order to worship the same God? Or are we called to something higher in which the gospel is supreme and expect ridicule, accusations of hate, and separation from the world?

[InTheFlesh]

My description of a self righteous person applies to you.

Would you stop that, please?

I don't feel the need to report you, but telling someone that they are self righteous is obviously against the rules.

I didn't realize I was offending the rules.
I mean self righteous
in the sense that he claims he does not need Jesus to be good.

Did it bother you when he called Christians self-righteous?

[cholland]

Ok, I wasn't really looking for you to preach at each other. I was looking for teachings/examples of Christ (or the rest of Scripture for that matter - OT and NT). Pro and Con of practicing public relations.

SO, no more preaching please. Calling each other self-righteous (or each others' religion) gets us no where.

cnorman18, if you don't like using Scripture to back up your claims, I suggest you stop posting since the subject of the question is "Christians" and they hold the Bible in the highest regard. Just assume we don't have brains and rely solely on God's word.

InTheFlesh, stop preaching and get to the question.

[InTheFlesh]

I have nowhere suggested that my description of a self-righteous Christian

Can you share your description of a self righteous Christian?
Curious to see if it applies to me.
My description of a self righteous person applies to you.

No, I think we're done.

I politely inform you that you have insulted me without reason, and you repeat the insult without justifying it.

Have a nice day - and you might want to read the part over again about paying attention to the way people see you. It's called "public relations."

Claims without substance or support.
Have a nice day.

And I did not insult you.
I only defined self righteous.
If you think being called self righteous is an insult,
then you should stop throwing it around.
This whole "self-righteous" talk came from your mouth.

[Jonah]

cholland,

Your assumption here that you have the right to tell someone to stop posting is wrong. It is only YOUR particular assertion that Christianity can only be understood as existing within your interpretation of the New Testament...and thus, can be used as a device to limit debate and who can debate.

1) Clearly, the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches hold tradition over Scripture.

2) Clearly, liberal Protestant Christianity has amended their sola scriptura position on a defacto basis.

3) Clearly, objective scholars of Christian history always go outside the New Testament.

It is only Christian fundamentalists who take your view, and you do not have the right to limit debate to your level of reverence for the Bible or to the Bible itself.

The authority you give to the Bible is arbitrary and historically non-sensible. It was only those Church institutions which hold tradition higher than Scripture that formed the canon of what you call the Bible. The canon was a defacto corpus with variations depending on community for centuries and centuries, and there was no iron-clad legal canon until the Council of Florence in the 1400s...and then, that canon wouldn't match yours.

History is history. Books are fun. They should be tried.

[cholland]

cholland,

Your assumption here that you have the right to tell someone to stop posting is wrong. It is only YOUR particular assertion that Christianity can only be understood as existing within your interpretation of the New Testament...and thus, can be used as a device to limit debate and who can debate.

1) Clearly, the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches hold tradition over Scripture.

2) Clearly, liberal Protestant Christianity has amended their sola scriptura position on a defacto basis.

3) Clearly, objective scholars of Christian history always go outside the New Testament.

It is only Christian fundamentalists who take your view, and you do not have the right to limit debate to your level of reverence for the Bible or to the Bible itself.

The authority you give to the Bible is arbitrary and historically non-sensible. It was only those Church institutions which hold tradition higher than Scripture that formed the canon of what you call the Bible. The canon was a defacto corpus with variations depending on community for centuries and centuries, and there was no iron-clad legal canon until the Council of Florence in the 1400s...and then, that canon wouldn't match yours.

History is history. Books are fun. They should be tried.

We are not here to debate the authority of the Bible. There are plenty of threads for that. The question "are Christians called to public relations?" implies (a) the Christian Bible is to be used since (b) we believe God communicates through said Bible and (c) this is the only common ground between denominations where we can agree this is where God calls us. If you would like me to state that explicitly in the OP in order to clearly define the debate, I will.

[otseng]

Do you not offer the same attitudes and actions?
Or are you back to that I'm better than thou attitude?
Self-righteous will get you knowhere my friend.
Sorry it bothers you that we are not all on such a high level of attitude and actions as yourself.

Later.

Moderator comment:

This would be considered to be comments of a personal nature. Please debate the topic without commenting on another's attitude.

[Jonah]

cholland,

Your claim is rejected.

There is not agreement that God communicates through the Bible and you have no right to establish your "implication" by fiat.

You do not define Christianity over against Christian traditions that don't subcribe to your notion of the Bible's authority. Bible does not equal Christianity.

And, especially since we are dealing with the Pope here, it is clear that the Pope will speak to who he wishes.

[cnorman18]

Ok, I wasn't really looking for you to preach at each other. I was looking for teachings/examples of Christ (or the rest of Scripture for that matter - OT and NT). Pro and Con of practicing public relations.

Excuse me, but I wasn't preaching at anyone. I addressed the subject directly, defining "public relations" as paying attention to what the public thinks; I gave examples from the life of Jesus himself to show that he did, in fact, try to project a positive image; and I questioned (and still question) what on Earth is wrong with that.

SO, no more preaching please. Calling each other self-righteous (or each others' religion) gets us no where.

I called no one self-righteous. I described a type of Christian that we've all seen and detest. I tried to show how the opposite attitude, that of disdaining public opinion, can become a self-defeating exercise in self-congratulation and egoism, which is also directly to the point.

That attitude is not, in fact, "the Gospel is supreme"; it is "the Gospel is the only thing there is; nothing else matters at all." I think it's counterproductive, and, more often than not, a way to worship one's own ego without regard to whether or not the Gospel message that is supposedly so precious to such persons is being heard at all.

Please notice that, though I am not a Christian, I am not speaking against the truth of the Christian religion. I am speaking of the effectiveness of different ways of proclaiming the Christian message. One way speaks of demonstrating one's love and righteousness through acts of lovingkindness, which makes the Gospel something attractive and worth hearing; that, not to put too fine a point on it, is what Jesus generally did. The other way claims love and righteousness, but offers nothing but judgment, preaching, and condemnation; words without deeds. That's been turning people off for centuries, and it amazes me that there are still so many Christians that don't understand that.

cnorman18, if you don't like using Scripture to back up your claims, I suggest you stop posting since the subject of the question is "Christians" and they hold the Bible in the highest regard.

Excuse me again; I did.

Further, though proof-texts must be respected on this subforum, I see nothing in the rules or guidelines that says they are required.

Just assume we don't have brains and rely solely on God's word.

Your words, not mine.

I don't think that's a particularly great image to project, either. "I am a brainless zombie who parrots what I am taught." Not the Bible, mind, but what one is taught about it. Not a lot of people around eager to sign up for that, I would think.

Ignore public relations, and you will be despised and/or ignored. If that's what you WANT, fine; but then let's not pretend you have any interest in actually convincing anyone to come to Christ.

All that, it seems to me, is directly on point. If you don't think so, maybe you didn't want debate; maybe you just wanted confirmation of your own ideas. There I can't help you.

[InTheFlesh]

[23] And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
[24] Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
[25] Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
[26] But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
[27] My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
[28] And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
[29] My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
[30] I and my Father are one.
[31] Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
[32] Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
[33] The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

[20] These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
[21] Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
[22] Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
[23] And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
[24] I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Matt.21
[12] And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

[15] And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
[16] And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
[17] And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
[18] And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

[13] And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
[14] And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
[15] And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
[16] And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

Are these the actions of a man who was concerned about public relations?

[Jonah]

Your proof texting does not establish itself as an authority by which to dictate the actions of others.

The Pope acts on the basis of the interests of the Roman Catholic Church, and in his mind, generally, the interests of the world. Perhaps you have the interest in making some back door argument that the Pope and RC is not "Christian". (Yawn) Well, that's a fundy christian re-run.

Your proof texting, selective as it is, assumes that no Christian could disagree with the texts you cite: that no Christian could assert the texts to be spurious and remain a Christian (by your definition); and that no Christian could rightfully disagree with all the actions described in those texts on a moral basis and rightfully remain Christian. Nonetheless, all that criticism and disagreement happens widely among people who claim to be Christian, and, there ain't nuthin you can do about that.

There is today, as there always has been, various versions of Arian Christianity which holds that Jesus was not God, but man. Or you could go with various gnostic Christianities and get in the same ball park. Regarding Jesus as a human only messiah, lowers him into the field of criticism. i.e. The Temple Cleansing was a morally wrong thing to do, fact or fiction, the concept of going to a super crowded public facility & event with armed men and attempting a religio-politico attack on concession vendors resulting in many innocent citizens, including children getting hurt and/or killed...is just plain immoral.

Moreover, you ignore other texts which have Jesus meeting with anyone and everyone. The Samaritan issue comes up because his home ground of southern Galilee bordered on Samaria...and the Samaritans and southern Galilee share cultural/historical traits as opposed to those of Judea. Leaders make deals.