Popularity and Usefulness

[johnthebaptist]

If one wants to be popular, one can get in the habit of telling people what they want to hear. On the other hand, if one wants to be useful, one can get in the habit of telling people what they need to hear.

Edited January 30, 2021 by johnthebaptist

[Riverwalker]

So very true. We have been shamed into silence for so long, that we afraid to speak the truth lest we get scorned and called a hater, intolerant, unfeeling, uncompassionate  or any other name that they can throw out there to get you to shut up.  And that's all they want, for the truth tellers to put a cork in it, for the light bearers to put a basket over it.

 

Matthew 5:14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

This can be done any number of ways, including just living a Christian life and not being ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  And never compromising the truth, to get along

Making someone comfortable on their way to hell is a disservice.  Speak the truth....and if you happen to step on some toes, you can pray for healing later

 

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by Riverwalker

[teddyv]

We also have to ensure we are actually speaking truth.

For example, there was a documentary posted recently in the Videos section that was speaking to homosexuality (which the mods thankfully deleted). The producers of that video however engaged in all sorts of logical fallacies in presenting their arguments (besides other issues like intentionally pejorative language). If we cannot make a cogent, honest case for our positions grounded in the love and welfare of our fellow humans, then we should get better at that, or just shut up.

[johnthebaptist]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

We also have to ensure we are actually speaking truth.

For example, there was a documentary posted recently in the Videos section that was speaking to homosexuality (which the mods thankfully deleted). The producers of that video however engaged in all sorts of logical fallacies in presenting their arguments (besides other issues like intentionally pejorative language). If we cannot make a cogent, honest case for our positions grounded in the love and welfare of our fellow humans, then we should get better at that, or just shut up.

Yes, Leviticus 18:22 is very clear about homosexuality (You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination). Everybody knows that, but look how many church leaders and politicians say otherwise in an apparent effort to be popular (and rise in rank).

[teddyv]

3 hours ago, johnthebaptist said:

Yes, Leviticus 18:22 is very clear about homosexuality (You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination). Everybody knows that, but look how many church leaders and politicians say otherwise in an apparent effort to be popular (and rise in rank).

And also forget that capital crimes in the OT required the witness of 2 or 3 people.

[johnthebaptist]

2 minutes ago, teddyv said:

And also forget that capital crimes in the OT required the witness of 2 or 3 people.

Yes, when someone accuses a Republican (or a Democrat) of a crime and there are no other witnesses, then you shouldn't assume he is guilty, I don't think.

[teddyv]

 

1 minute ago, johnthebaptist said:

Yes, when someone accuses a Republican (or a Democrat) of a crime and there are no other witnesses, then you shouldn't assume he is guilty, I don't think.

??????? 

[johnthebaptist]

1 minute ago, teddyv said:

 

??????? 

Our Republican president nomimated a judge to fill a vacancy on our Supreme Court. The Democrats tried to block his nomination on the basis of one highly doubtful accuser.

[Marathoner]

Behold how this topic swiftly devolved into the airing of political opinions. A pity. 

[Marathoner]

3 hours ago, johnthebaptist said:

Yes, when someone accuses a Republican (or a Democrat) of a crime and there are no other witnesses, then you shouldn't assume he is guilty, I don't think.

This is where it started: with the author of the topic no less. Perhaps this thread belongs in the U.S. Politics forum?