Christian expectations

[Menotu]

People have expectations of certain groups of people: policeman, politicians, salesman, attorneys, women, men, priests/religious leaders, etc.
People have expectations of themselves, too.
Typically, they are thought to be honest, respectful, sincere, loving, etc.
No one is perfect (policemen and attorneys can lie, politicians can steal, salesmen rip you off, women can be masculine, men can be feminine, priest can molest children and adulterous, etc) Christians can (and do) slip up as well.

Questions to consider:
1) should people be harder on Christians when they slip up, understanding they aren't perfect but have a perfect being supporting them?
2) should people expect more out of Christians than they do policemen, priests, attorneys, etc, understanding they aren't perfect but have a perfect being supporting them?
3) should Christians be given more leeway when it comes to being hateful, forcing their views on society, endorsing laws that remove protection from other groups?
4) should Christians be given less leeway when it comes to the expectation of them being loving, caring and sincere to all people, regardless of religious (or lack of) belief?

[The Tanager]

Questions to consider:
1) should people be harder on Christians when they slip up, understanding they aren't perfect but have a perfect being supporting them?
2) should people expect more out of Christians than they do policemen, priests, attorneys, etc, understanding they aren't perfect but have a perfect being supporting them?
3) should Christians be given more leeway when it comes to being hateful, forcing their views on society, endorsing laws that remove protection from other groups?
4) should Christians be given less leeway when it comes to the expectation of them being loving, caring and sincere to all people, regardless of religious (or lack of) belief?

1) No, one has enough to worry about with their own self.

2) Yes.

3) No.

4) Yes. (I'm not sure how this is different than #2).

[onewithhim]

People have expectations of certain groups of people: policeman, politicians, salesman, attorneys, women, men, priests/religious leaders, etc.
People have expectations of themselves, too.
Typically, they are thought to be honest, respectful, sincere, loving, etc.
No one is perfect (policemen and attorneys can lie, politicians can steal, salesmen rip you off, women can be masculine, men can be feminine, priest can molest children and adulterous, etc) Christians can (and do) slip up as well.

Questions to consider:
1) should people be harder on Christians when they slip up, understanding they aren't perfect but have a perfect being supporting them?
2) should people expect more out of Christians than they do policemen, priests, attorneys, etc, understanding they aren't perfect but have a perfect being supporting them?
3) should Christians be given more leeway when it comes to being hateful, forcing their views on society, endorsing laws that remove protection from other groups?
4) should Christians be given less leeway when it comes to the expectation of them being loving, caring and sincere to all people, regardless of religious (or lack of) belief?

1) More is expected out of Christians because they are supposed to know the Bible and what Jesus taught, so if we are trying to act like Jesus we won't mess up nearly as often as the "world." Sure they aren't perfect, and nobody is. But Christians are expected to be listening to a higher calling---they know what God wants from them, and if they are genuine they won't willfully and deliberately sin. Christ's blood covers unintentional sins, the kind we inherited from Adam. God does not support people who intentionally sin.
2) Yes of course we expect more out of true Christians. It's sad that we can't trust policemen, priests and lawyers, but that's the way it is. It's interesting that you don't include priests as Christians. LOL. (You've been paying attention.)
3) No Christians should not be given "more leeway" when they act hatefully. Christians acting hatefully are not really Christians; if a Christian slips up on occasion and acts hatefully he should ask forgiveness right away! If he doesn't, he's on the side of Satan.
4) Yes, Christians should always be loving and kind. NO LEEWAY for meanness and hate. Christians are not to judge people, just tell them all the good news of the Kingdom and let them take it or leave it. We must be kind to everyone.



.

[brianbbs67]

Its not different from anything anyone is doing. The people who wish to be good, try to be good. Those that don't, don't even try. Your question really is , are those who declare them selves trying to be good, should be looked upon harder then those who don't?

I would say, trying(with pure intentions), is better than not trying at all. They assume a higher standard by declaring, and others point out their faults who have no standing.

[Tcg]

2) should people expect more out of Christians than they do policemen, priests, attorneys, etc, understanding they aren't perfect but have a perfect being supporting them?

Some policemen, priests, and attorneys are Christians so we should have the same expectation for those Christians as we do for other Christians.

Some Christians claim to have the Holy Spirit to guide them. If that were true, we should expect to see a drastic difference in the behavior of Christians.

Unfortunately, that isn't what we find, so no, there is no reason to expect more from Christians. Given that some Christians are known to cover up the sins of other Christians particularly in the area of pedophilia and sexual abuse, based on these documented occurrences, in some cases, we should expect a great deal less.


Tcg

[marco]

It's interesting that you don't include priests as Christians. LOL. (You've been paying attention.)
3) No Christians should not be given "more leeway" when they act hatefully. Christians acting hatefully are not really Christians; if a Christian slips up on occasion and acts hatefully he should ask forgiveness right away! If he doesn't, he's on the side of Satan.
4) Yes, Christians should always be loving and kind. NO LEEWAY for meanness and hate. Christians are not to judge people, just tell them all the good news of the Kingdom and let them take it or leave it. We must be kind to everyone.

That makes interesting reading. Priests are not Christians - note, priests and not SOME priests. A blanket condemnation of fellow Christians. The present pope, for example, seems to be liked even by those who do not share his Christianity.

And then follows

Christians should be loving and kind and ask for forgiveness when they have been mean-spirited. They must not judge or be influenced by hate.

Are JWs above the rules of Christian expectations?

[onewithhim]

It's interesting that you don't include priests as Christians. LOL. (You've been paying attention.)
3) No Christians should not be given "more leeway" when they act hatefully. Christians acting hatefully are not really Christians; if a Christian slips up on occasion and acts hatefully he should ask forgiveness right away! If he doesn't, he's on the side of Satan.
4) Yes, Christians should always be loving and kind. NO LEEWAY for meanness and hate. Christians are not to judge people, just tell them all the good news of the Kingdom and let them take it or leave it. We must be kind to everyone.

That makes interesting reading. Priests are not Christians - note, priests and not SOME priests. A blanket condemnation of fellow Christians. The present pope, for example, seems to be liked even by those who do not share his Christianity.

And then follows

Christians should be loving and kind and ask for forgiveness when they have been mean-spirited. They must not judge or be influenced by hate.

Are JWs above the rules of Christian expectations?

No, and I don't know what I say that calls that into question.There is a sinister, ominous, pernicious, and subtle movement on the spiritual level that comes from the "wicked spirits in high places" (Ephesians 11,12). One of the wicked spirits' favorite tool is Religion. They have it sewed up. People are fawning over the pope, for many reasons, the least of which is that he is teaching them the truth from the Bible (he rarely quotes it), The pope makes statements that are even contrary to the Bible. He is merely a "rock-star" idol that people adore, without thinking much. Indeed, if you read up on Jesuits, of which Francis is one, you would see, perhaps, what his agenda really is, or what it is associated with.

Is it wrong to be incensed about hypocrisy and evil? I think it is auspicious to warn people about this.

That includes priests. I have done MUCH reading and observing concerning priests. I am confident to say that 99.9% of them, if not directly implicated in pornographic acts, are at least knowledgeable about such acts, which are a PANDEMIC. They must all know what's going on, so none of them are innocent. To stay in that religion is tantamount to approving of the maltreatment of children and others. This is my opinion, formed through the last many years.

Do you think that a bishop, priest, or any other religious individual, when entering upon a lewd act on a child by another clergyman, is absolutely OK by quietly closing the door and doing nothing? If you say "no," then why do you condemn people like me who blow the whistle on these spiritually corrupt people? Am I not only refusing to close the door , so to speak, on lewd acts, but I am saying something in addition? Maybe I could help stop the vicious acts.

Am I not doing this?


.

[Tcg]

That includes priests. I have done MUCH reading and observing concerning priests. I am confident to say that 99.9% of them, if not directly implicated in pornographic acts, are at least knowledgeable about such acts, which are a PANDEMIC. They must all know what's going on, so none of them are innocent. To stay in that religion is tantamount to approving of the maltreatment of children and others. This is my opinion, formed through the last many years.

You of course don't identify the religion you are condemning. Given that the Jehovah's Witnesses have been found guilty of protecting pedophiles in their ranks, which is de facto approval of the maltreatment of children, why should any stay in the JW religion?


Tcg

[onewithhim]

That includes priests. I have done MUCH reading and observing concerning priests. I am confident to say that 99.9% of them, if not directly implicated in pornographic acts, are at least knowledgeable about such acts, which are a PANDEMIC. They must all know what's going on, so none of them are innocent. To stay in that religion is tantamount to approving of the maltreatment of children and others. This is my opinion, formed through the last many years.

You of course don't identify the religion you are condemning. Given that the Jehovah's Witnesses have been found guilty of protecting pedophiles in their ranks, which is de facto approval of the maltreatment of children, why should any stay in the JW religion?


Tcg

Where do you get your information from that says that JWs have been found guilty of protecting pedophiles? Has this indeed been proven?

If I was convinced that our brothers were protecting pedophiles, I would not be in this religion.

[Tcg]

That includes priests. I have done MUCH reading and observing concerning priests. I am confident to say that 99.9% of them, if not directly implicated in pornographic acts, are at least knowledgeable about such acts, which are a PANDEMIC. They must all know what's going on, so none of them are innocent. To stay in that religion is tantamount to approving of the maltreatment of children and others. This is my opinion, formed through the last many years.

You of course don't identify the religion you are condemning. Given that the Jehovah's Witnesses have been found guilty of protecting pedophiles in their ranks, which is de facto approval of the maltreatment of children, why should any stay in the JW religion?


Tcg

Where do you get your information from that says that JWs have been found guilty of protecting pedophiles? Has this indeed been proven?

If I was convinced that our brothers were protecting pedophiles, I would not be in this religion.

• In 2013 at the Jehovah's Witnesses congregation of Moston, Manchester, England, church elder and convicted child sex offender Jonathan Rose, following his completion of a nine-month jail sentence for paedophile offences, was allowed in a series of a public meetings to cross-examine the children he had molested.[60][61] Rose was finally 'disfellowshipped' after complaints to the police and the Charity Commission for England and Wales.[60]
  
  In a separate incident, prior to the trial and conviction for rape and sexual assault in June 2014 of Mark Sewell, an elder of the congregation in Barry, Wales, the church conducted an internal investigation of the allegations, where the women and children had to face their alleged abuser in “judicial committee� hearings organised by their church.[62] A child victim, for whom Sewell was later convicted of rape, alleged that she was questioned closely by church elders when she came forward years after the attack, and was required to describe the incident to them in intimate detail, with Sewell present, but her claims were dismissed by the committee and not taken to the police for further investigation.[63][64] In June Sewell was jailed for fourteen years for the rape and sexual abuse of parishioners, including children.[65][66] All but one of Sewell's fellow elders who investigated claims against him, declined to give evidence in his Crown Court trial. They also provided no assistance to police and prosecutors in their investigation, despite “dis-fellowshipping� Sewell 20 years previously, and destroyed evidence showing claims against Sewell dating back more than 20 years.[67] In June 2014, Sewell was sentenced to fourteen years in prison for eight sex offenses; in December 2014 he appealed unsuccessfully for reduction of his sentence.[68]
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%2 ... llegations

I'll now expect you to leave your religion as you have promised.


Tcg