As to Chris F's comment, I agree we should be on topic and in context when to quote scripture. And I also agree that the authoritativeness of a text is only valid to the extent that you believe the text. So if we are talking to someone that doesn't view the scripture as authoritative, then reference to scripture should be limited. For instance, when I talk about the reasons that I believe that torture is inappropriate, with Christians I will talk about the concept of Imageo Dei (the fact that I believe that all people are created in the image of God and therefore deserve respect and proper treatment because of the image of God that is in them). But if I am talking to a secular group I will be much more pragmatic about the reasons that I believe torture is inappropriate (doesn't work, bad information, reciprocal treatment, etc.)

The problem comes when talking about ethical reasons for doing an activity where there are very few reasons that come outside of scripture or Christian belief. Then all I can really do is say why I believe that I should do or not do something and point to my own reasons, with the understanding that those reasons may not work for the person I am talking to.

I hope that isn't too far off topic.

One conclusion with Bill, in spite of all your compassion is….Nothing.
The may have a lack of empathy and guilt for all his actions, but that does not mean you should stop trying.

1 Corinthians 2:12-15
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The idea that you can completely dismiss those that disagree with you negates Jesus's commands to love your enemy and pray for them. Yes you don't have to be abused by them, but praying for them and seeking the best for them is part of our role as Christians.

As to Chris F's comments. I don't know. I have been a Christian too long to be able to have an objective response. I believe that Christians should have a better response at compassion, but I know too many Christians that are bad at compassion and too many non-Christians that are good at it to believe that it is universally true.

I think someone who lives in a way that is opposite of what you believe and is happy where they are and continues to thrive in where they are and ON TOP OF THAT openly scorns and mocks they way you have chosen to live deserves neither your compassion or your ministry. You can choose to give it to them, I'm just saying you don't have to feel bad if you don't.

Just my opinion.

Since I've been on the inside, though, I've noticed a disparity between the amount of attention and raw effort spent by Christians and non-Christians. And I think it harkens back to the worldview thing. My speculation is that since Christians feel like they need compassion themselves, because they consider themselves sinners, they are more likely to extend it to others. Televangelists and fundy media coverage, aside.

I love your point about "mercy vs justice" and "mercy vs fear."

peace|dewde

But, I agree with you on the "everyone needs a second chance" thing, but it's hard to be the one who is responsible for providing that second chance… not really because of some need to mete out justice, but more in that if the second chance gets abused, you're stuck holding a large part of the blame. So, I think it's more "mercy versus fear" than "mercy versus justice." I think that it's almost always a good idea to take the risk and offer that compassion and a second chance (combined with appropriate educational and support resources), but the possible downside often (as in your case with Bill) seems severe enough to make fear win out. As you say, it's tough.