The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The Emerging Church on Nightline

Though I am sure Pilgrim will reply, I desire to post a word or two here;

Which Christ, which saviour? For example in Leonard Sweet’s, (an Emergent theologian), Quantum Spirituality: A Postmodern Apologetic we have him saying;

It is exactly this “inner light” and the “union of the human with the divine” that Brian McLaren views in a “new kind” of Christian! This is the God of the ECM, is it your god, Kalled2Preach? (Isa 5:20).

Moreover, the depravity of this sect is seen in its pantheistic worldview. Sweet again reveals the poison of the ECM saying,

Thus, again we must ask which christ, which god, which mystic of the day?

Statements such as these reveal your immaturity in Christ and your lack of knowledge of the very enemies of the Church. This is one of the reasons young Christians are to submit themselves to older mature Christians, so they will not fall prey to such heresy! (1 Peter 5:5). The ECM is as Pilgrim stated, “deliberate, calculated and well planned.” Satan is not stupid!

Kalled2Preach, what is the purpose of false theology other than to divide and attempt to conquer the Church? What has no place in the Christian community in New Age blasphemy which is expounded by McLaren, Sweet, and “others.” The Scripture obligates true Christians to resist such blasphemy (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

On McLaren’s own website he is asked, “What do you believe about the Bible? Do you believe that it is the inerrant word of God?” His answer is: “About your last question, I believe the Bible is uniquely authoritative for Christians.”… Do you see a problem? Is the Bible authoritative for non-Christians, Mr. McLaren? What does uniquely mean Mr. McLaren? Do we really need to add to the Word of God, “extra-biblical paraphernalia, extra-sensory images, sounds, smells of candles and incense, silence, mystical meditation, making the sign of the cross, touching icons, statues of saints, rosary beads for Protestants, liturgy, yoga-like deep breathing—all for a full sensory immersion with the divine.” They borrow liturgical practices from the Orthodox, Lutheran, and Catholic Church and heavily from the traditions and views of Catholic Church Fathers. McLaren states, that not all people need to be Christians to follow Jesus. Some may be able to be "Buddhist or Hindu followers of Jesus.” As Ken Silva states, “It seems almost incredible to believe but the twin pythons of deception are attempting to strangle the Church of Jesus Christ in America by denying the very Word of God. On one side there is the Emergent Church Movement (ECM), wrapping itself around the Evangelical Church from within, and then there's the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), holding more and more Evangelical leaders in its grip from without.” If the ECM erodes the foundation of the Church--the Word of God--it is rightly called, “The Purpose-Driven Heresy.” We could go on and on, but time does not permit.

The Episcopal's have clown communion.

Rarely will you find anyone in the Emerging Church movement, who holds to the Doctrines of Grace, which is the "truth once delivered unto the saints". I am including those who profess to do so but in practice deny it. But allowing for the possible exception, I would therefore boldly say that 99% of those involved in this heretical movement teach and/or preach semi-Pelagianism/Arminianism and worse.

What is my understanding of the Biblical Christ and the Gospel? Well, that is easily answered by referring you to all the articles which I have online on the main website. But here are a few that deal with this matter specifically:

• A Gospel Summary by yours truly
• What is the Gospel? by Lorraine Boettner
• The Old Gospel and the New by J.I. Packer
• Reformed Evangelism by Morton Smith
• Another Gospel by John Cheeseman
• Two Views of the Gospel by Will Metzger
• Present Day Evangelism by A.W. Pink
• Another Gospel by A.W. Pink
• Evangelistic Malpractice by William MacDonald
• Back to What Basics? by Maurice Roberts
• How Can We Know God? by Michael Horton
• What is a Christian? by Wayne Mack
• What is it to Preach the Gospel? by Henry Mahan
• The Gospel - What is it? by Robert Haldane
• Modern Evangelism Unmasked by William F. Bell

"Vain" worship is anything which is offered as worship to God which He Himself has not required, either by direct command or by inference in the Scriptures. "Vain" worship can be said to be anything which is not in accord with God's revelation of Himself, i.e., His person and attributes. Thus all worship must in "spirit", i.e., from a regenerated heart, and in "truth", i.e., in accordance with His divine revelation. Here are some salient articles on this subject of worship:

• Do You Worship God? by George Swinnock
• Pleasing God in Our Worship by Robert Godfrey
• Worship by A.W. Pink
• Church-o-Rama or Corporate Worship by Monte E. Wilson
• Impatience and Idolatry by Ligon Duncan
• A Consuming Fire by R. Kent Hughes
• The Contemporary Church by John H. Armstrong
• Worship in the Melting Pot by Dr. Peter Masters
  
  
  Quote

  Kalled2Preach suggests:
  If we don't clothe and feed homeless people, then we can't properly share the gospel with them because we aren't giving them what they need at that moment. It is possible that they are already Christians in the first place.
  And where did you get the idea that to "properly share the gospel" necessitates giving someone what the "need" at the moment? Who determines what a "need" is? It would seem that you are equating "need" with something physical and/or emotional. But the Scriptures teach that man's more fundamental NEED is to be reconciled to God; God Who is wroth with man for his constant and deliberate rebellion against Him and all that is good. Thus it is the message of the Gospel (see the first part of my reply above) which man needs most. And what if one doesn't have that which would meet the physical need(s) of the person met, e.g., clothing, food, money, etc? Is it therefore forbidden to speak of that person's need for repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Are only those who are active in social concerns qualified to speak of Christ?
  
  As I clearly stated, the Church should be concerned with the temporal needs of those around them. But this is NOT the primary responsibility of the Church. To totally ignore and/or refuse to help those in need is against the teaching of Christ to be sure (cf. Jam 2:14-17), but such a thing is indicative of one's faith and not some qualification to proclaim the Gospel.
  
  
  Quote

  I remarked:
  What McLaren &co. are doing is deliberate, calculated and well planned. They know exactly what they believe and what they hope to achieve, both of which are contrary to sound biblical teaching.
  
  

  Quote

  Kalled2Preach protests:
  I really highly doubt that they are out to destroy us and our faith. This is nothing more than an unfounded personal attack on the men, and these have no place in the Christian community.
  The "attack" is anything but unfounded. What McLaren believes and is teaching personally and through his books is antithetical to historic biblical Christianity. He is spreading his venom for the sole purpose of CHANGING/EXCHANGING that which has been believed and taught in the Church for something far different; something which he has fabricated and believes to be "good". These teachings don't exist on their own. They come from McLaren &co., and thus it is they who are responsible for foisting them on people. This false outcry of "intolerance" has always been and will continue to be one of the Devil's ploys in order to gain entrance and/or influence in the Church. However, the Church is to be "intolerant" of anyone or any teaching which is contrary to that which is true. (cf. Gal 1:6-12; 2Cor 11:3, 4)
  
  In His grace,

Jesus healed the blind. He didn't condemn them. In John 9, there is a blind man and the disciples ask, "Who sinned that this man became blind. Him or his parents?" And Jesus said, "No one sinned, but he was made this way so that the works of God could be made manifest in him."

Jesus told a parable too along the same lines. He said,


Also, "righteous judgment" doesn't involve making fun of someone.

Yep, I've seen that before!

At the risk of violating Proverbs 26:17 (He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own Is like one who takes a dog by the ears.), I must point out that a possibility you raised as justification both for your rebuke of David and your sidestepping of Denny's exhortation to you--namely, that the above-mentioned dog was employed as a guide dog for a blind person--is simply not true.

In the several video scenes where the dog appears, it is always unharnassed; which would never occur to a guide dog in a public setting. More telling, in the final scene in the communion distribution line, is the fact that the dog is clearly being led by its person, rather than guiding her. That is no guide dog for the blind.

No, quite simply because if you watched the video you can see that the woman with the dog is obviously not blind, and that her dog is not a seeing-eye dog:

1) The woman is wearing glasses. [EDIT: I have learned that many blind people also wear eyeglasses in order to protect their eyes from projections like tree branches. So on it's own, this would not be a worthwhile criterion. However, in conjunction with the other observations made, it is clear the woman in consideration was not blind.]
2) The woman is looking around and clearly visibly aware.
3) The dog is on a normal leash rather than a blind halter.
4) When the woman goes to the front to receive communion, the dog is actually walking behind her.

Even if the woman was blind, and the dog was a seeing-eye dog, it's not like she's ALONE in the church! She doesn't need the dog in the service.


Okay, what on earth mental handicap is there where the person has some psychological "need" for his dog? You're just making things up as you go along, kinda like the "emerging church" is doing with doctrine and worship. You show me a person who "needs" his dog in a church service, and I'll show you an idolater.


It's unchristian of you to be tossing around backhanded accusations.

Other than a handicap (which is highly questionable in this case), what are the "many reasons" one would have to bring their dog into worship?

Kalled,


We're not talking here about condemnation, but about teaching the truth concerning the emerging church!

More tripe.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

So, the person wasn't blind. I was wrong, and I will admit to being so in this case.

BUT,

That doesn't give us a right to judge the person because of this one thing. It still seems very unChristian to me to just sit and make fun of someone because they brought their dog to church. Making fun of people is simply not Christian and not proper.


Also, where in Scripture does it say we can't bring our dog to church? And where in Scripture is having a pet with you considered idolatry?

Who made fun of whom? What I saw was some surprise that a pet dog was in the service. I didn't see anyone in this thread make fun of the woman who brought the dog.


Pets are not people, are not part of the church, and should not typically be brought into a worship service because orderliness and decorum are commanded of our corporate worship. And I said that anyone with a psychological "need" to have their dog with them is idolatrous.

Joe, you know, I really couldn't decide if I wanted to respond to you or to Pilgrim to maybe Kyle (CovenantInBlood) who seems to have been a bit rude to my friend Kalled, but you won out cause you had some really good verse references and because you have shown me in other threads that you do give thought to what's being said and I think you treat the younger men as brothers instead of lording it over as some are apt to do.

I'm actually going to skip the Leonard Sweet comments because I don't know him and I haven't read his stuff. I have read the article I've linked to with my original post (of which I'm sure everyone on this thread has read and carefully considered) and a few things by McLaren and a blurb or two from a few others, as I said, I haven't looked at all this as in depth as I'm sure each and every one of you have.

So, you said something about Isaiah 5 and specifically verse 20. This is a good passage to keep in mind, for all of us. I really like verse 13 but that's 2 paragraphs before and I don't think it needs expounding here. Someone of less tact might suggest that in warning and saying woe to a bro, someone might wish to remember the following verse, Isaiah 5:21 "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!"(ESV). Someone might say that. Of coarse, someone of lesser tact would say something about the next verse and stereotypical Presbyterians, but hopefully we don't have anyone on this board who is so crass as to make comments about an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. Certainly, I would not ever want to be such a person.


Statements such as these reveal your immaturity in Christ and your lack of knowledge of the very enemies of the Church. This is one of the reasons young Christians are to submit themselves to older mature Christians, so they will not fall prey to such heresy! (1 Peter 5:5). The ECM is as Pilgrim stated, “deliberate, calculated and well planned.” Satan is not stupid!


It is interesting that you should say this. I seem to recall something about judging not lest I be judged but you are older and you desire the position of or claim the position of overseer so I trust that as an older brother to a younger brother you're not trying to quarrel and I trust that you aren't writing with a craving for controversy and quarrels about words (I Timothy 3 & 6). Because I am sure that you and these other older brothers are not out at all for controversy or for quarrels or any of that, I'd have to agree, the devil isn't stupid, he's just stubborn. He's obviously been smart enough to make sure you and Pilgrim and Kalled and I don't get our hands on any of those hell sent memo's to emergent leaders. I mean, if you had articles showing the clear connection between all of these emergent leaders and the devil I'm certain you would go to great lengths to publish them to discredit these "false and heretical teachers". I simply hope that you elders are submitting to the eldest so that we are not the blind (or the sighted) being lead by the blind.

Now, I really ought to respond to the man Pilgrim. I admit, he's far more learned than I, he's written articles and spent countless hours sitting in front of the computer telling people via cyber space about the doctrines of grace (which is the gospel in its entirety, we know this because Spurgeon said so). We all know how important it is that all of cyber-space hear the good news, especially in these dark days when young whipper snappers are using these infernal machines to spread the venom and bite of heretical teaching to countless people who are not at all seeking for it or for truth. I really wish though that Pilgrim had commented on Jude over in the End of the Spear thread cause that might have been slightly more appropriate. Pilgrim instead chose to express the spirit of Jude to use here using verse three. I know that Pilgrim is always ready to write about our common salvation but like Jude he must continually remind us to contend (which I guess is different than quarreling) with people who pervert the gospel. Pilgrim no doubt wishes to remind us that it is God who judges and that like the archangel Michael we ought not to presume to pronounce blasphemous judgment. Pilgrim has so eloquintly layed out how Emergents are "grumblers, malcontents, followers of their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favortism to gain advantage."

Beloved, if you think there might be a bit of sarcasm in the above statements, you might, might, be correct. What do I see when I contrast the emergents I've read and met and the calvinist I've read and met? There are plenty of people calling themselves Christians who give Christianity a bad name. There are plenty of people professing the doctrines of grace and ignorant of the simplest application of them. There are likewise numerous people claiming to be emergent who do not represent the entire movement. That is one thing that must be acknowledge and I would hope is admired. These people don't claim to be bound by any other member of the movement and it gives them incredible flexibility which is lacking in certain groups. The emergents I have seen have not loved simply in word but also in deed. They do not claim infallibility or the equality of tradition with scripture and they do not get into meaningless quarrels about nonessential doctrines but they work together to discover what they believe and hope to be true.

What is it that draws so many people to emergent? The Post-Modernism? I don't think so, it's as hard as the movement is to define. The music? I again, don't think so, they seem to use the same songs youth use in countless "low church" services around the nation. What does draw people and what the average joe on the street is looking for is a faith that shows itself out in actions as our dear brother and epistle writing James once put forth, "Faith apart from works is dead." The thing we can say about emergent is that their faith is not dead, can that always be said of us (You and me, us)? We have a sacred responsibility to love God and obey His commandments. The greatest commandment is to Love the Lord your God (and notice this), that Jesus answering the question of what is the single greatest commandment gives what appears to be two! But no, it's not Jesus volunteering extra information but it's that we can't separate the two and yet the church has! IF we love God we will obey His commandments, we will NOT hate, we will NOT envy, we will NOT lust, we will NOT covet, etc. What we will do is demonstrate the love of God which has been shown to us. How can we who have received grace not also show grace?

You know that I love good preaching and I love good doctrinal reading and quotes from great Christians of the past, but what good has simply stating an argument or using complex thoughts done for us? Has preserving the church in a timeless bubble from the first century or from the 16th really won us the world? No, few people are won over to the gospel simply because of a mental component of being unable to argue past it. People are won when they see the benefit and the change of the gospel in the lives of those who have already received that free gift of grace. IF we seek Him and if those who are perishing are to seek Him, it must first be believed that He rewards those who seek Him diligently. So many of us are stoic and uptight and unwilling to sully our hands with dirty sinners and with the poor and the pathetic and the "lost causes", we've forgotten that Christ Jesus came to seek and to save that which is lost. He was active in pursuing the lost, but we so often times are not.

Are we called to meet people's emotional or physical needs only or as the primary needs? No, I agree, we all agree, the first need we all have is God, but sometimes it is more convincing and is a great tool to help people out with something that's troubling them or something that's holding them back. Irresistable grace doesn't always work in one day. Certainly getting someone a meal or something to warm them up seems a friendly and compassion filled thing to do and I think it just might fool people into thinking that our love is as Paul said it should be, genuine, and that it might fool people into thinking we're actually there for them instead of some petty competetition between Christians for who can get the biggest numbers on sunday morning. Frankly, I can only assume that we've generally as a Christian community collectively bought into the lies around us and we assume that bigger is always better or that we're trying to vastly overcompensate for something we lack elsewhere in life.

Gandhi once said, "I like your Christ but I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ." I have found few greater examples of how we as Christians are seen by the lost world. We have failed to engage culture and so we are seen as snobby. We add requirements to what must be believed to be saved, we require suits and ties and liking hymns (which I love) and we require full time attendence and all kinds of things (not that suits or attendence or such things are bad in and of themselves) and we many of us (thanks Mr. Finney) require people to only make a response to the gospel at a certain time, it's usually after we've bashed the pharisee's throughout the sermon who added to the law.

WE are great at encouraging each other to serve the Lord with gladness and then to remind ourselves that God is not served with human hands as if He needed anything. That assages our consciences and lets us rest easy, but we forget what Kalled reminded us of, in that you did or did not do it unto the least of these you did or did not do it unto the Lord Jesus.

Emergents aren't looking for great doctrine, you're never going to convince emergents they're wrong by just shouting over the internet "EMERGENTS ARE GOING TO HELL!" All that accomplishes is to create quarrels and fighting and division and to further our (Christiandom in its entirety) image of lacking the very grace we proclaim.

This emergent movement is different than a lot of the other faiths out there. The only way to show their falsehood and our own authenticity is to outdo them in being Christian and acting in a Christ like manner. How appropriate that Christians act like Christ, since Christos was originally defined "little Christ".


Finally, Denny, Kalled wasn't making backhanded accusations but speaking the truth, it is unchristian to make fun of people, or have we all forgotten Paul's words to the Corinthians? "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. . . We put no obstacle in anyone's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry" (II Corinthians 5:16a and 6:3). Also, I looked it up just to make sure, but I assume when you call his thoughts tripe that you're refering to the second definition, that it has no value and is as rubbish. How is having the 2nd side in what is to be a conversation of no value? Kalled presents us with a challenge and a question and calls us to consider and determine based on the Word of God, I call that something of value. Further, if you are as I think you were, trying to speak ill of Kalled's comments then I would suggest you not use the word sophistry because it carries the connotation that 1. his arguement is plausible (though misleading) and 2. that it displays ingenuity of reasoning (with hope to deceive someone). I trust also that you are not trying to say that Kalled2Preach is delibrately trying to mislead, if possible, even the elect because that to me seems to be lible (since it's in print). Simply put, I believe idolaters need Jesus too & I would be curious to know how much experience you've had with the mentally ill?

Well, I know I look forward to the days when my church and your church and the church universal will be known for its faith and love and good deeds which lead to and show a life of repentence. Christ Jesus came not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many. If any of us desires to be great He must first be the servant of all.

Grace be with all of us as we seek true consistancy in being Reformed and always Reforming to the Glory of God.

Brother Luke


"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good (or benefit) is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe- and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the alter? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness"- and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messangers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."


Acts 5:27-42







A. W. Tozer is awesome.

Brimstone,

I'm not angry but a couple of things caught my eye in your post that I think are relevant to this thread.


This is certainly true about us Christian sinners, but why didn't Gandhi become a Christian and then be the only "Holy Man" in all the earth. This (what Gandhi said) is exactly the kind of hypocritical judgment that the Scripture forbids! Do you really think you are going to win an argument in a Christian forum by quoting this Hindu man of "peace and love"? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />


They were hardly making fun of people but justifiably angry that someone would bring a pet dog into a Christian worship service.

Maybe "tripe" was a bit harsh but "sophistry" was not, as Kalled did accuse others of an unloving and judgmental spirit of condemnation, by quoting unapplicable Scripture. And, IMO, Kalled was doing this in a back door attempt to defend the heresy of the Emerging Church.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

I am sure Pilgrim and CovenantInBlood will respond to the appropriate sections of this. I will merely say a few words directly and indirectly pointed my direction by the incense of the ECM promoters here.

This is “one” of the problems with those in the ECM, they “haven't looked at all this as in depth.” They have not looked at the end from the beginning. They have not studied the scholars of the movement (Luke 6:39). They haven’t studied history. They don’t understand that their faith may become shipwreck! (1 Timothy 1:19). If one merely looks at the results of mysticism in history he can foretell the end of the ECM. The mystic denies objectivity in God's revelation. They would hold that no one can really know God with any certainty. It makes God and His providence to be always unknowable. To the mystic there is no certain purpose to anything. We must just accept things in our ignorance. This is McLaren and the ECM in a nutshell and the definition of mysticism in history.

A great mass of people moving in a certain direction (ECM), doesn’t make it the right direction (i.e. think of Noah’s day). Narrow is the road Luke (Matthew 7:13-14). If anything it should give one apprehension. IMO many in the Church are moving in the direction of ECM because of three basic reasons: (1) it is the present direction of the spirit of the Antichrist, (2) the naturalistic, atheistic secularism taught in our educational institutions and liberal churches leaves people spiritually hungry and secular humanism cannot satisfy man’s spiritual longings. Thus, individuals embrace New Age mysticism in order to attempt to fill this spiritual vacuum, (3) the non-speaking, non-directive, non-judgmental god of New Age thought allows sinful man to pursue his lusts without guilt and without fear. The New Age concept of god leaves man autonomous. A concept of god without moral absolutes. A god who will not judge sin and wickedness. (Atheism, New Age Mysticism, vs. Biblical Christianity).

You recall the verse, but you go too far with its definition. You failed to mention that the Church and its elders are to “righteously judge” (Deuteronomy 16:18; John 7:24). If there be no judgment at all then the Church is without discipline. However, the three marks of the true Church are: (1) the pure preaching of the Word of God as sound doctrine, (2) the lawful administration of the sacraments, and (3) the exercise of Church discipline pressing a holiness of life and obedience to the Word preached and taught. Thus, you have just announced for all to see that the ECM is not the true Church. If we understand McLaren the Word of God cannot be interpreted with certainty. Thus, again we have another mark of the true Church dismissed with the signature of this New Prophet’s pen. Without the authority of the Word of God, there may be no right administration of the sacraments. Thus, with the non-judgment attitude of the ECM it declares itself not to be the true Church!

Moreover, the Scripture clearly states, "mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them" (Romans 16:17). Part of the duty of any Christian and especially the leaders of the Church is to protect the body from false doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3-4, 4:6-7, 6:3-5; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9, 2:6-8) and mark the leaders and followers of such heretical movements so they will not, "beguile the hearts of the innocent" (Romans 16:18). Thus, in concert with the Word of God, heretics and those that hold to, promote, and defend their teachings will be marked here.

The ECM is of a spirit, but not the Holy Spirit. Will they incorporate some “good” in their movement? Of course, every cult does. They may feed the poor and meet other physical needs, the Mormons do too. They have counselors and attempt to meet the emotional needs of individuals, so does Hinduism. Cultic good is not biblical good! It is not for the glory of God alone and thus it is but ”a corrupt good.”

While the true Church could do much more (and should be encouraged to do more), in both of the above areas, it does not necessitate the need of joining a cult to do something. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" />

I did watch the video, and, it seems silly to bring the dog, but I don't think it is that big of a deal. If this is all that can be found in the entire clip that was worthy of posting and commenting, then what is all the controversy? I've seen very little discussion over what the pastors and people actually said and how heretical it is and how it is another gospel. So, maybe I was a bit off in my comments regarding the dog thing, but I did confess to being wrong. Did you not read that post?


I was not making my statements as a defense of the Emerging Church. I was making my comments because it seemed immature and unChristian to be making a mockery of someone bringing their dog to church.

Also, we don't know what was going on in the service. Maybe the dog was an illustrative device used by the Pastor. Who knows. Only God and the people at that service. My point was that we shouldn't be making fun of people or the things they do just because we don't like it. Making fun of people is never appropriate for the Christian.

And, the verses I used are not unapplicable. One of them just isn't a blatant statement. Sometimes we have to apply Scripture on our own rather than have someone do it for us. The story I shared about Jesus was to make the point that Jesus had compassion on the blind. I was using it to show that we should do the same with people who have a handicap. The parable I shared is to make the point that we have a responsibility to help people in need because in doing so we are serving Jesus. Notice the last part of that parable. God tells those on His left that because they DIDN'T help when someone needed it that they did the same to God. I think the connection holds that when we make fun of people or judge them with no knowledge that we are treating Christ in the same way; you would be passing judgment on Christ, which violates the 3rd Commandment (as I understand it), which states,