Do believers have absolutely nothing in common with unbelievers?

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

According to Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:15, it would seem that believers have absolutely nothing in common whatsoever with unbelievers.

Yet, we all live, we all love, we all laugh, we all cry. Many of us are, in fact, trying to live a decent life. Most if not all of us have some sense of what is right and wrong. As I understand it, even the Catholic Church teaches this.

How, then, could Paul seem to say here that we have absolutely nothing in common with unbelievers?

Am I missing something?

Interestingly, some translations have “what part” or “portion”, as the Greek used is “meris” and the Latin (of Jerome) is “pars”. Could this make the difference here? What else could Paul be saying here besides saying that we have absolutely nothing in common with unbelievers? After all, before the portion about “having no part with”, Paul is stating that, apparently, morality has no part with immorality, yet not all unbelievers, and, I would argue, very few, are completely immoral. If Paul is saying something other than that we have absolutely nothing in common with one another, what is he saying? What is this “part” or “portion” of which he speaks here? The unbeliever has no “part” or “portion” in what with the unbeliever? If one argues that Paul here means our eternal reward, does not the Catholic Church also now teach that an unbeliever may make it even to heaven if he lives sincerely enough and abides by his honest moral code and that he will ultimately be judged by his own standards?

So, again, what does Paul mean that a believer has no “portion” or “part” with an unbeliever, if he doesn’t mean that we have absolutely nothing in common with them?

And, on a related note, after we deal with this main question, what does Paul mean by “unequally yoked”? Some would say this refers specifically to marriage, but where is the evidence of that in this passage? Does he mean that we are to cut off all association, whether that be acquaintanceship or even close friendship (which I believe is possible because of the commonalities that may exist between believers and unbelievers)? Does it rather mean simply that we are not supposed to have the same aims/goals, particularly when they relate to immorality? We are not to be drawn in the same direction, as under a yoke, when our two aims differ in terms of immorality? When the unbeliever is behaving immorally, we are not to participate with him in that immorality? Is it really as simple as that? Or, is there something more going on here? And, how does this relate to the statement that the believer has no “part” or “portion” with the unbeliever? Again, surely it can’t mean that we share absolutely none of the same goals in common! After all, both believers and unbelievers, at least many of them, share similar goals of, for instance, raising a family well, of having a good job, of living a happy life, of living a good life in the moral sense (many of them generally have this feeling, I would say) and so many other things, even though they may differ from us in the particulars of how that is accomplished. Indeed, isn’t that the humane, and, indeed, the Catholic way to think of unbelievers? Yet, so many translations today render this verse as if believers have absolutely nothing in common with unbelievers. Why do so many translations render this passage in such a way, if there is some other valid way to render it? And, again, what other way could it be rendered? Because, and I will say it again, but in a different way, at the deepest foundations, I would argue that believers have a decent amount in common with unbelievers, though I dare not, if the Apostle contradicts me, go against what he says. But, does he contradict me? And, ifhe does, how to I reconcile this with other Scriptures, Catholic teaching and, indeed, my common sense concerning the world that I see around me?

Gratias maximas.

P.S. Please forgive me if I have placed this in the wrong forum and please feel free to move it if I have, as I wasn’t quite sure where to place it. Since this seemed to be a rather “deep” and “detailed” matter, that is why I posted it here.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Salvete, omnes!

According to Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:15, it would seem that believers have absolutely nothing in common whatsoever with unbelievers.

I don’t think his words are intended to be absolutized. I think he means that the belief maxims of those of the faith versus those of the world are opposed. He is talking about the context of belief, not characteristics of being a human being, like laughing, as you point out. In Hebrews 2:14-17, we are told part of Jesus’ incarnation gave him solidarity with humanity by taking “flesh and blood” and becoming “like his brethren” (in all ways except sin) so make reparation for them. And since we know God loved the whole world so He sent His son, this would include Christ having these traits common with all mankind, including those in unbelief.

 

[thephilosopher6]

We are humans, so that’s one thing.

 

[fisherman_carl]

We all have noses.

“6:14 Do not be mismated: Or, “Do not be yoked together.” ● Paul’s injunction is probably inspired by Deut 22:10, which forbade the Israelites from yoking different kinds of animals together. with unbelievers: Paul is not saying that Christians should sever every casual, family, or business relationship with non-Christians (1 Cor 5:9–13). He is urging them to pull away from dagerous relationships that threaten their faith.” (ICSB)

 

[openmind77]

Salvete, omnes!

According to Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:15, it would seem that believers have absolutely nothing in common whatsoever with unbelievers.

Yet, we all live, we all love, we all laugh, we all cry. Many of us are, in fact, trying to live a decent life. Most if not all of us have some sense of what is right and wrong. As I understand it, even the Catholic Church teaches this.

How, then, could Paul seem to say here that we have absolutely nothing in common with unbelievers?

Am I missing something?

Interestingly, some translations have “what part” or “portion”, as the Greek used is “meris” and the Latin (of Jerome) is “pars”. Could this make the difference here? What else could Paul be saying here besides saying that we have absolutely nothing in common with unbelievers? After all, before the portion about “having no part with”, Paul is stating that, apparently, morality has no part with immorality, yet not all unbelievers, and, I would argue, very few, are completely immoral. If Paul is saying something other than that we have absolutely nothing in common with one another, what is he saying? What is this “part” or “portion” of which he speaks here? The unbeliever has no “part” or “portion” in what with the unbeliever? If one argues that Paul here means our eternal reward, does not the Catholic Church also now teach that an unbeliever may make it even to heaven if he lives sincerely enough and abides by his honest moral code and that he will ultimately be judged by his own standards?

So, again, what does Paul mean that a believer has no “portion” or “part” with an unbeliever, if he doesn’t mean that we have absolutely nothing in common with them?

And, on a related note, after we deal with this main question, what does Paul mean by “unequally yoked”? Some would say this refers specifically to marriage, but where is the evidence of that in this passage? Does he mean that we are to cut off all association, whether that be acquaintanceship or even close friendship (which I believe is possible because of the commonalities that may exist between believers and unbelievers)? Does it rather mean simply that we are not supposed to have the same aims/goals, particularly when they relate to immorality? We are not to be drawn in the same direction, as under a yoke, when our two aims differ in terms of immorality? When the unbeliever is behaving immorally, we are not to participate with him in that immorality? Is it really as simple as that? Or, is there something more going on here? And, how does this relate to the statement that the believer has no “part” or “portion” with the unbeliever? Again, surely it can’t mean that we share absolutely none of the same goals in common! After all, both believers and unbelievers, at least many of them, share similar goals of, for instance, raising a family well, of having a good job, of living a happy life, of living a good life in the moral sense (many of them generally have this feeling, I would say) and so many other things, even though they may differ from us in the particulars of how that is accomplished. Indeed, isn’t that the humane, and, indeed, the Catholic way to think of unbelievers? Yet, so many translations today render this verse as if believers have absolutely nothing in common with unbelievers. Why do so many translations render this passage in such a way, if there is some other valid way to render it? And, again, what other way could it be rendered? Because, and I will say it again, but in a different way, at the deepest foundations, I would argue that believers have a decent amount in common with unbelievers, though I dare not, if the Apostle contradicts me, go against what he says. But, does he contradict me? And, ifhe does, how to I reconcile this with other Scriptures, Catholic teaching and, indeed, my common sense concerning the world that I see around me?

Gratias maximas.

P.S. Please forgive me if I have placed this in the wrong forum and please feel free to move it if I have, as I wasn’t quite sure where to place it. Since this seemed to be a rather “deep” and “detailed” matter, that is why I posted it here.

Paul is just advising believers to stay away from unbelievers. Would not be so PC today!

You should probably move this post to Sacred Scripture - you may get better answers there.

 

[twf]

I hear some unbelievers like chicken. I like chicken.
Joking aside…of course we should have friendships with unbelievers. How could we evangelize / share our faith / be the salt of the earth otherwise? It is by our witness of love…by being the best friend possible…the best coworker possible…that we will win souls for Christ. St. Paul is noting the difficulties in sharing your life (as in marriage) with an unbeliever. Even today the Church discourages marriage between a Catholic and a non-Christian…the bishop must grant special permission (a dispensation for disparity of cult to be precise).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Since Protestants inherited the New Testament from the Catholic Church, they have some thing important in common with us.

What they seem to lack to a devastating degree is the unwillingness to be unified as one Church established by Christ. They seem to be satisfied that neither Christ nor St. Paul cared much about the unity of the Church, and this is proven by the thousands of Protestant sects that have emerged and keep emerging even today.

It is the devil who seeks to conquer Christians by dividing them against each other, and the devil must love those Christians who think these profound divisions are just fine. They seem to defend them to the hilt as any moral relativist would.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If you look for differences among people you’ll find them. If you look for similarities among people you’ll find those too. One strategy that pluralistic communities have is to try to emphasize their similarities and their common goals and use those as references for getting along.

They seem to be satisfied that neither Christ nor St. Paul cared much about the unity of the [Catholic] Church, and this is proven by the thousands of Protestant sects that have emerged and keep emerging even today.

I don’t think that this is universally applicable to protestants; the impression. There are protestants that seem to believe with sincerity that their sect is correct. I wouldn’t infer from this that they are apathetic to unity among Christians, but that the believe that the best direction path for everyone is the path that they are on.

There are those that believe that their sect is correct and that come judgement day God will take each person’s life experiences into consideration; believing that as long as a person sincerely is trying to please God that they still may have a chance for getting into heaven. They may try to convince others of the Truth of their pathway while also seeing the body of Christ as being more than just their own group.

There are also those that believe that multiple sects can be correct on the things that really matter and that some of the differences between them are trivial. I’ve seen this expressed through interdenominational churches. They seem to concentrate on a point that is related to this thread; what’s common between them. The one’s I’ve visited also seem to take a friendlier more inviting disposition to non-religious people, which may be a good way to keep them coming back to hear their message.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I don’t think his words are intended to be absolutized. I think he means that the belief maxims of those of the faith versus those of the world are opposed. He is talking about the context of belief, not characteristics of being a human being, like laughing, as you point out. In Hebrews 2:14-17, we are told part of Jesus’ incarnation gave him solidarity with humanity by taking “flesh and blood” and becoming “like his brethren” (in all ways except sin) so make reparation for them. And since we know God loved the whole world so He sent His son, this would include Christ having these traits common with all mankind, including those in unbelief.

But, don’t unbelievers often even have some moral things in common with believers? After all, many do, to varying extents, of course, try to live a “good” (in the sense of “moral”) life and, indeed, try to claim as much. Certainly they may differ as to what that moral life is, but, again, I would have to concur with Paul where he elsewhere states that even the Geniltes (unbelievers, arguably) of his time had some sense of a universal “moral law”. Indeed, I am a specialist in paga/pre-Christian classical (Greek and Roman) texts and, while there is certainly enough immorality narrated to go around, there is also a good deal of talk about, say, goodness, justice, loyalty and piety.

So, again, I ask what Paul saying here. I am especially concerned with his statement that we have either “nothing in common” or “no part with” unbelievers. That seems to exclude everything, or, at least moral things of the kind I mentioned above.

In still another place, though, Paul mentions that the secular rulers of his day dedicate themselves to fostering justice (or at least theoretically so?) by punishing the bad and rewarding the good. Here, he (arguably) attributes some moral sense to them and asks for the Christian’s obidence in good conscience for this reason.

So, again, what does Paul mean in saying that a believer has “nothing in common” or “no part with” an unbeliever? What does the literal “part” or “share” here mean?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

We all have noses.

“6:14 Do not be mismated: Or, “Do not be yoked together.” ● Paul’s injunction is probably inspired by Deut 22:10, which forbade the Israelites from yoking different kinds of animals together. with unbelievers: Paul is not saying that Christians should sever every casual, family, or business relationship with non-Christians (1 Cor 5:9–13). He is urging them to pull away from dagerous relationships that threaten their faith.” (ICSB)

Surely, I think our avoiding relationships that we know would very likely jeopardize our own spiritual walk is a wise thing.

Still, can Christians not have even closer friendships than just casual ones, say, in the office, again, based on my (and Paul’s?) assertion (in other places) that there can potentially be many commonalities between believers and unbelievers?

I mean, though, if one is strong enough, and I think more people are strong than they believer they are.

Of course, one might bring Paul’s statement (quoting the poet Menander) that “bad company corrupts good morals”. Still, Paul may have been making this as a statement of observation more than anything about what was currently happening in the church to which he was writing as they had some “bad apples” in their midst. He may not necessarily be advising all Christians always avoid all unbelievers because of this. Also, Paul may have been talking about believers who mix into groups of “baddies”, which, arguably, is more likely to corrupt the Christian than an individual Christian hanging with an individual unbeliever. That, after all, is called “hanging with the ‘wrong crowd’”. Still, I would argue that many Christians, by this point, have already made the decision to hang out with “bad ones” because something attracts them to them in a disordered way, so they are already on the way to moral decline even before they’ve started hanging ut with them. Another possible way to look at hanging with the “wrong crowd” may be that we shouldn’t “follow them everywhere”, certainly to places which might lead us into sin, say, into a bar if a vice of theirs is getting drunk.

Thoughts on all this?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I hear some unbelievers like chicken. I like chicken.
Joking aside…of course we should have friendships with unbelievers. How could we evangelize / share our faith / be the salt of the earth otherwise? It is by our witness of love…by being the best friend possible…the best coworker possible…that we will win souls for Christ. St. Paul is noting the difficulties in sharing your life (as in marriage) with an unbeliever. Even today the Church discourages marriage between a Catholic and a non-Christian…the bishop must grant special permission (a dispensation for disparity of cult to be precise).

I would initially agree that it is all right to have non-Christian friends if your moral fibre is up to it, as I stated above.

And, indeed, at least one ofthe Church Fathers, as I recall, said as much. Still, he seemed to advise what you imply (and forgive me for putting words into your mouth if I am!), that the only reason believers should have friendships with unbelievers is to witness to them. To me, that, to some extent, smacks of insincerity/pretense, so I would argue, while done with good intentions, it is not the best way. Sure, if a friendship like this leads to conversion, that’s AWESOME! But, I don’t think it should be the end-all and be-all. I think that, just as God does, we should ultimately be showing love to unbelievers for its own sake, for their benefit primarily and not (at least ultimately) for their conversion. God, after all, is said to make it rain and shine (taking both as positive in an agricultural society) on both the “righteous and the wicked”, though I suppose that one could argue that God/Jesus could not sin so that they were protected, even when hanging otu with unbelievers, from sinning as we might not be.

Thoughts?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Since Protestants inherited the New Testament from the Catholic Church, they have some thing important in common with us.

What they seem to lack to a devastating degree is the unwillingness to be unified as one Church established by Christ. They seem to be satisfied that neither Christ nor St. Paul cared much about the unity of the Church, and this is proven by the thousands of Protestant sects that have emerged and keep emerging even today.

It is the devil who seeks to conquer Christians by dividing them against each other, and the devil must love those Christians who think these profound divisions are just fine. They seem to defend them to the hilt as any moral relativist would.

So, how does your statement relate here to this post, since we are focusing on relationships with believers to unbelievers?

Are you perhaps saying that the people Paul is talkinga bout here are not so much non-Christians but Christians who are acting like non-Christians, so that the “unbelievers” mentioned are actually fellow (nominal) “Christians” but who are acting like actual unbelievers?

Indeed, Paul did once state, when his church was confused about what he meant, that it is not disallowed for believers to hang out with unbelievers, but that he was talking about fellow-Christians that were acting like unbelievers and that it was right to exclude them in an early form of excommunicaton.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Thanks to folks so far for their contributions.

To those who would still hold that marriage is what is being spoken of in our passage in question, why do you hold this, aside from the fact that it has been a traditionally understood interpretation? Again, there is no immediate context that would seem to suggest that marriage, that precise and that alone, is being spoken of here.