Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on October 29, 2014, 08:54:46 AM
-
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_EVANGELICALS_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
This was the most interesting line in the article to me:
Evangelicals in the millennial generation, ages 18-33, are twice as likely as their elders to support same-sex marriage, according to a survey released in February by the Public Religion Research Institute.
This is consistent with what I have read regarding acceptance of gay marriage as correlated with age. You have to wonder if acceptance will only grow as the opponents grow older and no one takes their place.
-
I would be curious if they were differentiating "acceptance" and "indifference".
-
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_EVANGELICALS_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
This was the most interesting line in the article to me:
Evangelicals in the millennial generation, ages 18-33, are twice as likely as their elders to support same-sex marriage, according to a survey released in February by the Public Religion Research Institute.
This is consistent with what I have read regarding acceptance of gay marriage as correlated with age. You have to wonder if acceptance will only grow as the opponents grow older and no one takes their place.
This is also consistent with a complete lack of education. Too many churches have failed their children in raising them to know the Word. (And I mean that both ways it can be taken.)
Among the myriad of issues, too many of our children don't understand compassion. They think it means letting people do whatever they want and "just loving them."
It is not loving to allow someone to go, unwarned, into harmful actions and ultimately to their doom. (Note I said nothing about stopping them. Our job isn't to change people, but to warn them.)
Speaking from experience, I've been absolutely amazed at the lack of biblical education of individuals who have been church members for 30+ years.
Incidentally, for a pastor to claim someone "can't be changed" in dealing with ANY sinful temptation is absolutely shocking to me. Fortunately, God is greater than his limited view of Him.
(Now, it's another thing to think "therapy" cannot change everyone. But that's not how the (admittedly, likely wrong) article phrased it.)
-
This is also consistent with a complete lack of education. Too many churches have failed their children in raising them to know the Word. (And I mean that both ways it can be taken.)
Among the myriad of issues, too many of our children don't understand compassion. They think it means letting people do whatever they want and "just loving them."
It is not loving to allow someone to go, unwarned, into harmful actions and ultimately to their doom. (Note I said nothing about stopping them. Our job isn't to change people, but to warn them.)
Speaking from experience, I've been absolutely amazed at the lack of biblical education of individuals who have been church members for 30+ years.
Incidentally, for a pastor to claim someone "can't be changed" in dealing with ANY sinful temptation is absolutely shocking to me. Fortunately, God is greater than his limited view of Him.
(Now, it's another thing to think "therapy" cannot change everyone. But that's not how the (admittedly, likely wrong) article phrased it.)
Dunno... Sounds like predestination/Calvinism to me.
-
Hewing to small-o Christian orthodoxy. Will the wonders never cease?
Evangelicals in the millennial generation, ages 18-33, are twice as likely as their elders to support same-sex marriage, according to a survey released in February by the Public Religion Research Institute.
Yeah, I have met many pinhead millennial sorta-Christians who have been more or less alienated from the Church after college. Heck, I nicknamed one of the local "emergent" church congregations "The Church of Disgruntled Narcissistic Single Evangelicals." They are looking through the telescope from the wrong end, searching for how relevant the Church and the Bible and God is to "me, me, and (most importantly) me."
-
Dunno... Sounds like predestination/Calvinism to me.
Actually, a Calvinist would just say that God has to be the one doing the changing.
-
Speaking from experience, I've been absolutely amazed at the lack of biblical education of individuals who have been church members for 30+ years.
I've notices that very few of the "Bible thumpers" out there can identify anything from the OT other than the high points of the most popular names, (Daniel, Noah, Moses, Jacob, maybe a little of Solomon, a few passages from Isaiah, etc.) and often have twisted views of even those. Often they're even pretty sketchy on the NT beyond the synoptic gospels and maybe Acts. It's like they just skimmed the Cliff's Notes. Pretty amusing to hear them claim something isn't in the Bible, then try to fabricate some really strained interpretation on the spot when you give them chapter and verse.
Incidentally, for a pastor to claim someone "can't be changed" in dealing with ANY sinful temptation is absolutely shocking to me. Fortunately, God is greater than his limited view of Him.
Especially since that would mean all those 12-step programs are utterly useless. The whole concept of repentance begins with changing one's attitude toward sinful actions.
-
Pretty amusing to hear them claim something isn't in the Bible, then try to fabricate some really strained interpretation on the spot when you give them chapter and verse.
So you've seen the Episcopal Church USA rationalizations of how the Bible doesn't really mean that homosexuality is a sin when it says that "men shall not lie with men"? I've read a few of them, and they really are a stretch.
-
Pretty amusing to hear them claim something isn't in the Bible, then try to fabricate some really strained interpretation on the spot when you give them chapter and verse.
So you've seen the Episcopal Church USA rationalizations of how the Bible doesn't really mean that homosexuality is a sin when it says that "men shall not lie with men"? I've read a few of them, and they really are a stretch.
I'd love to hear more about a group that doesn't maintain extra-Biblical doctrine or use strained interpretations/reinterpretations or selective reading along their doctrinal chain. Sounds like a unique organization.
-
I'd love to hear more about a group that doesn't maintain extra-Biblical doctrine or use strained interpretations/reinterpretations or selective reading along their doctrinal chain. Sounds like a unique organization.
Some are more unique than others.
http://www.wacriswell.org/Search/VideoTrans.cfm/sermon/1222.cfm
-
So you've seen the Episcopal Church USA rationalizations of how the Bible doesn't really mean that homosexuality is a sin when it says that "men shall not lie with men"? I've read a few of them, and they really are a stretch.
I have always wondered if one possible explanation for this is that some religions/clergy believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God as written, and some religions/clergy believe it is not and is subject to cultural and historical interpretation. FTR, this very debate has been going on in my denomination for decades now.
-
I have always wondered if one possible explanation for this is that some religions/clergy believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God as written, and some religions/clergy believe it is not and is subject to cultural and historical interpretation. FTR, this very debate has been going on in my denomination for decades now.
Isn't all the current published Bibles created out of cultural and historic interpretation? At one time groups of people sat down and determined which books to include and which ones to exclude.
If really was supposed to be the literal translation of god's word wouldn't all the ancient books be included in every version?
-
Isn't all the current published Bibles created out of cultural and historic interpretation? At one time groups of people sat down and determined which books to include and which ones to exclude.
If really was supposed to be the literal translation of god's word wouldn't all the ancient books be included in every version?
Not so much.
If you look at the copies of the Bible or components of the Bible over time you will find a consistency and fidelity to accuracy and accurate reproduction lacking in contemporaneous secular works and many secular works produced afterwards(1). It is...uncanny. Almost as if many of the ancient & medieval copyists believed their very souls depended on the fidelity of their manual labors. To put it another way, we are much more sure that we have the books of the OT and NT right than we do any of Plato's or Aristotle's works.
For instance, our pastor will read and translate from the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew real-time in our Bible study classes. We have a number of translations and he will ask variously how the RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, or KJV translate a verse. It is, again, uncanny how close they all are, despite the span of centuries and source materials used in these varied translations. [Let's hear it from all you KJV fans! Kay! Jay! Vee!, Kay! Jay! Vee! Woo-hoo!]
Very likely by the end of the 00s AD and almost certainly by the end of the 100s AD the Canon was complete save for a handful of smaller books of the Bible. These were the books read aloud and circulated with frequency amongst the churches of this time. In the 200s or so, there is surviving documentary evidence of lists of these agreed-upon works (works that were both contemporaneous and doctrinally correct). Included in the works of these early church fathers is discussion of works not making the cut. Gospel of Thomas, and the like that some folk call "rediscovered" which were discovered and dismissed two millennia ago.
The old myth that the Roman Catholic Church and Constantine selected the works of the Canon at the Council of Nicea just won;t die. Probably because it is too handy a lie/weapon with which to beat the Church.
(1) Detailed in James Hannam's book, a review of which can be found here:
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/10/gods-philosophers-how-medieval-world.html
This is a terrific book for those with an interest in science and history. The Merton Calculators are my heroes.
-
So you've seen the Episcopal Church USA rationalizations of how the Bible doesn't really mean that homosexuality is a sin when it says that "men shall not lie with men"? I've read a few of them, and they really are a stretch.
1Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1Tim 1: 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Seems pretty clear to me, and all NT, so no claiming that was part of the Jewish stuff that doesn't apply anymore. Some of them keep trying to argue the exact meaning of ἀρσενοκοῖται, but they start sounding like the Clinton defense pretty quickly.
-
ἀρσενοκοῖται
had to weasel around that.
-
Here’s a serious question for those of you in the thread that believe that the churches views on homosexuality cannot change because the bible doesn’t change. How can you square that with the changes in religious doctrine over time? Christianity (in general) has evolved. As an example, churches used to kill witches and justified slavery, and those views changed 180 degrees just in the history of this country. Different denominations use the same book but come to different conclusions on issues as fundamental as baptism and original sin. So isn’t it inaccurate to say the book means the same thing to everybody today as it did to people a couple centuries ago?
-
Here’s a serious question for those of you in the thread that believe that the churches views on homosexuality cannot change because the bible doesn’t change. How can you square that with the changes in religious doctrine over time? Christianity (in general) has evolved. As an example, churches used to kill witches and justified slavery, and those views changed 180 degrees just in the history of this country.
A lot of that came from higher individual literacy and easier access to books, including source material. For a large part of Christianity's history, the majority of Christians only knew what their leaders told them was in the Bible. Thus few really knew enough about it to question translations, nor to challenge any assertions as to what OT laws were no longer in effect. Notice how many of the changes followed within a few years of the development of vastly cheaper bulk printing and distribution methods.
-
I guess I would just say there are and have always been self centered people who cannot bring themselves to follow a doctrine, but must do their level best to make doctrine follow their own ideas. It is a "ends justify the means" thing.
-
I guess I would just say there are and have always been self centered people who cannot bring themselves to follow a doctrine, but must do their level best to make doctrine follow their own ideas. It is a "ends justify the means" thing.
Yup. Had to call one out recently on quoting a counterexample out of context as justification for a belief (and resulting actions) precisely opposite to the actual meaning.
-
I've never understood how pointing out that humans suck and are good at finding rationalizations for their bad actions functions to disprove a book that explicitly states that humans suck and are good at finding rationalizations for their bad actions.
"People are acting exactly how the Bible predicts they would, therefor the Bible must be wrong!"
???
-
Here’s a serious question for those of you in the thread that believe that the churches views on homosexuality cannot change because the bible doesn’t change. How can you square that with the changes in religious doctrine over time? Christianity (in general) has evolved. As an example, churches used to kill witches and justified slavery, and those views changed 180 degrees just in the history of this country. Different denominations use the same book but come to different conclusions on issues as fundamental as baptism and original sin. So isn’t it inaccurate to say the book means the same thing to everybody today as it did to people a couple centuries ago?
Er, no. That would be the state doing the executing. Those executed by the Spanish Inquisition were killed on the authority of the Spanish sovereign. Same thing with the Inquisition in the other countries (Spain was special). In general, the Church has not claimed secular authority, given that God said he would appoint such folk to wield his sword for him, thanks all the same. The agglomeration of secular authority to the person of the Pope WRT the Papal States was a Rather Big Deal during the Reformation and later.
[Wow, maybe some folk, later on in history, could go to some effort to limit the power of the state to establish a church within its bounds to help prevent just such a thing from happening? While still allowing the unfettered exercise thereof? We ought to get on that...]
The RC Church allows for its college of cardinals and whatnot to change some of their doctrine over time. That authority to change doctrine being a part of their doctrine. But believe you me, it is not done willy-nilly. They had councils working issues for DECADES trying to figure out what they doctrine should be on issues we may think trivial. Give the RC Church credit for doing their homework.
Other denominations, not so much. Meaning, they are scripture alone and everything at odds with scripture is bunk. Or some denominations have no fixed theology (liberal theology & such) and pretty much no longer qualify as small-O orthodox Christianity. Others take on as Canon extra-Biblical materials and spin off into non-Christianity in their own, unique fashion. Others just sort of universalize themselves out of any meaningful doctrine.
Small-O orthodox Christianity has been steady at it for a long while. All one has to do is break open works written by the early church fathers to see this. Augustine is a great place for early orthodoxy. In the middle ages, bust out some Aquinas. Renaissance/Reformation? Luther. And so on up to orthodox Christianity today. I am not a Baptist my own self, but WA Criswell can not be described as other than orthodox (if you want a contemporary example readily available for perusal).
I've never understood how pointing out that humans suck and are good at finding rationalizations for their bad actions functions to disprove a book that explicitly states that humans suck and are good at finding rationalizations for their bad actions.
"People are acting exactly how the Bible predicts they would, therefor the Bible must be wrong!"
???
Indeed.
-
I have always wondered if one possible explanation for this is that some religions/clergy believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God as written, and some religions/clergy believe it is not and is subject to cultural and historical interpretation. FTR, this very debate has been going on in my denomination for decades now.
What's truly amusing is that the Episcopal Church USA is the American branch of the Worldwide Anglican Communion. Until two fairly recent developments, for all practical and theological purposes, the Episcopal Church was the Anglican Church.
The first wedge between them was when Episcopalians started ordaining women as priests. (I'm still wonder when Episcopal clergy became "priests" -- when I was a kid they were "ministers.") The Anglicans elsewhere in the world didn't buy into that. The second, and much larger, wedge was (and is) the ordination of homosexual clergy. That really blew up when the Episcopal Church USA elevated a known-homosexual priest to bishop. Then a couple of years later they added a lesbian bishop. The rest of the Worldwide Anglican Communion was not amused.
It is not officially acknowledged, but in reality the Worldwide Anglican Communion is in a condition of schism. Not a huge number, but enough to be statistically significant, of formerly Episcopal parishes have formally withdrawn from the Episcopal Church USA and either gone independent or have affiliated with the Canadian arm of the Anglican Church or the South American or African arm.
It's a fascinating little spat. Stay tuned ... [popcorn]
-
Plenty of folk who still only know the bible as their leaders feed it to em. If they know it at all.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Plenty of folk who still only know the bible as their leaders feed it to em. If they know it at all.
Well, yeah. One reason it is important to elevate decent folk with orthodox doctrine to leadership, what with half the folk being of below median intelligence. Those with spare IQ points and an interest have more responsibility than your average parishioner. Maybe that is why many churches have boards of Elders and the like.
Tell me again what proportion of college sophomores in favor of legalizing weed can trace the pro-weed arguments back through the literature of political philosophy and provide a coherent philosophical argument for their position?
-
Ignorance and emotive reasoning are the basic human condition.
-
Well, yeah. One reason it is important to elevate decent folk with orthodox doctrine to leadership, what with half the folk being of below median intelligence. Those with spare IQ points and an interest have more responsibility than your average parishioner. Maybe that is why many churches have boards of Elders and the like.
Tell me again what proportion of college sophomores in favor of legalizing weed can trace the pro-weed arguments back through the literature of political philosophy and provide a coherent philosophical argument for their position?
The more I study science, especially biology the less I see god, I'm on the edge of saying hell with any religion that has deities.
-
The more I study science, especially biology the less I see god, I'm on the edge of saying hell with any religion that has deities.
That's funny, the microbiologists I know find the incredible complexity of even uni-cellular organisms to be one of the most solid arguments for a Creator. It's interesting having two respected research scientists on our board of elders.
-
This guy is like that. Interesting man
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Here’s a serious question for those of you in the thread that believe that the churches views on homosexuality cannot change because the bible doesn’t change. How can you square that with the changes in religious doctrine over time? Christianity (in general) has evolved. As an example, churches used to kill witches and justified slavery, and those views changed 180 degrees just in the history of this country. Different denominations use the same book but come to different conclusions on issues as fundamental as baptism and original sin. So isn’t it inaccurate to say the book means the same thing to everybody today as it did to people a couple centuries ago?
I expect the "gay marriage" silliness will follow after the witch-burning, and the positive good notions of slavery. I give it, at most, a few generations before it's as credible as those 1950s cigarette ads.
On the slavery deal, it's interesting that so many people have learned that the Bible sentences black people to slavery, through the "curse of Ham." Interesting because there is no curse on Ham. :laugh:
-
I expect the "gay marriage" silliness will follow after the witch-burning, and the positive good notions of slavery. I give it, at most, a few generations before it's as credible as those 1950s cigarette ads.
On the slavery deal, it's interesting that so many people have learned that the Bible sentences black people to slavery, through the "curse of Ham." Interesting because there is no curse on Ham. :laugh:
Or the "mark of Cain" (all of Cain's descendants died a *long* time ago)
-
That's funny, the microbiologists I know find the incredible complexity of even uni-cellular organisms to be one of the most solid arguments for a Creator. It's interesting having two respected research scientists on our board of elders.
The evolution of chemicals into proteins into unicellular wee beasties is what causes me to question is there really a deity. Also how our planet's water (universal solvent of life) is from extraterrestrial origins.
-
The wish not to believe can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.
-
And l Ron Hubbard proves some folks will believe anything
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
That's funny, the microbiologists I know find the incredible complexity of even uni-cellular organisms to be one of the most solid arguments for a Creator. It's interesting having two respected research scientists on our board of elders.
That.
-
That's funny, the microbiologists I know find the incredible complexity of even uni-cellular organisms to be one of the most solid arguments for a Creator. It's interesting having two respected research scientists on our board of elders.
I know several Nuclearphysicists that woek at Fermi Lab. We've had several interesting discussions regarding G-d and the creation of the Universe and matter. To a man they all agree that there must have been some intelligent design given the way the universe works and their discoveries.
-
The more I study science, especially biology the less I see god, I'm on the edge of saying hell with any religion that has deities.
A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Fired at first sight with what the Muse imparts,
In fearless youth we tempt the heights of Arts ;
While from the bounded level of our mind
Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind,
But, more advanced, behold with strange surprise
New distant scenes of endless science rise !
So pleased at first the towering Alps we try,
Mount o’er the vales, and seem to tread the sky ;
The eternal snows appear already past,
And the first clouds and mountains seem the last ;
But those attained, we tremble to survey
The growing labours of the lengthened way ;
The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes,
Hill peep o’er hills, and Alps on Alps arise !
-
The evolution of chemicals into proteins into unicellular wee beasties is what causes me to question is there really a deity. Also how our planet's water (universal solvent of life) is from extraterrestrial origins.
That is some of the part where i diverge from the Evolution as Origin idea. There is a point at which it can't be proven any more than any other origin idea and simply becomes a belief. I think I have come across as many Evolution believers who refuse to question their beliefs as Creation believers. Personally, I think it falls into the arena that if you don't believe in something, you will believe in anything. Those who give up on faith generally end up believing in something else even if it isn't a deity.
Regarding your statement above, according to all stuff I have seen about the formation of the Solar System, the entire Earth was from extraterrestial origins, not just the water. It just depends on the perspective you take. I would say the opposite of your statement though. The more I see about advanced biology and physics, the more amazing complexity I see that is unexplained by any modern origin ideas.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/10/28/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang/18053509/
And now the Pope says that evolution and the Big Bang Theory does not contradict the existence of God.
-
I know several Nuclearphysicists that woek at Fermi Lab. We've had several interesting discussions regarding G-d and the creation of the Universe and matter. To a man they all agree that there must have been some intelligent design given the way the universe works and their discoveries.
Actually a surprisingly common attitude among many scientists, but not one that many people are willing to publicly admit due to the groupthink and censure of badthought among academia.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/10/28/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang/18053509/
And now the Pope says that evolution and the Big Bang Theory does not contradict the existence of God.
That's been Catholic doctrine since the 1960's or a bit earlier. It also does not endorse those views, merely states that they are not heretical and incompatible with the faith.
-
Er, no. That would be the state doing the executing. Those executed by the Spanish Inquisition were killed on the authority of the Spanish sovereign. Same thing with the Inquisition in the other countries (Spain was special). In general, the Church has not claimed secular authority, given that God said he would appoint such folk to wield his sword for him, thanks all the same. The agglomeration of secular authority to the person of the Pope WRT the Papal States was a Rather Big Deal during the Reformation and later.
[Wow, maybe some folk, later on in history, could go to some effort to limit the power of the state to establish a church within its bounds to help prevent just such a thing from happening? While still allowing the unfettered exercise thereof? We ought to get on that...]
The RC Church allows for its college of cardinals and whatnot to change some of their doctrine over time. That authority to change doctrine being a part of their doctrine. But believe you me, it is not done willy-nilly. They had councils working issues for DECADES trying to figure out what they doctrine should be on issues we may think trivial. Give the RC Church credit for doing their homework.
Other denominations, not so much. Meaning, they are scripture alone and everything at odds with scripture is bunk. Or some denominations have no fixed theology (liberal theology & such) and pretty much no longer qualify as small-O orthodox Christianity. Others take on as Canon extra-Biblical materials and spin off into non-Christianity in their own, unique fashion. Others just sort of universalize themselves out of any meaningful doctrine.
Small-O orthodox Christianity has been steady at it for a long while. All one has to do is break open works written by the early church fathers to see this. Augustine is a great place for early orthodoxy. In the middle ages, bust out some Aquinas. Renaissance/Reformation? Luther. And so on up to orthodox Christianity today. I am not a Baptist my own self, but WA Criswell can not be described as other than orthodox (if you want a contemporary example readily available for perusal).
Indeed.
OK, you are right. It was the State, not the church, that executed them, even if the state at the time of the witch trials was very closely tied to the church. But my point was that the views of the church do change. In this example, 400 years ago capital punishment was backed (not carried out) by most or all churches. Today I would guess that most churches oppose it. The words in the bible are still the same, it's our culture's interpretation of it that has changed. That's why I think the churches views on acceptance of homosexuality will drift over to the side of acceptance.
-
OK, you are right. It was the State, not the church, that executed them, even if the state at the time of the witch trials was very closely tied to the church. But my point was that the views of the church do change. In this example, 400 years ago capital punishment was backed (not carried out) by most or all churches. Today I would guess that most churches oppose it. The words in the bible are still the same, it's our culture's interpretation of it that has changed. That's why I think the churches views on acceptance of homosexuality will drift over to the side of acceptance.
There are plenty of issues where there is no direct Biblical guidance, and there are even (gasp) lots of things that are not objectively "right" or "wrong" and thus opinions on them change over time. There are also a great number of secondary and tertiary issues that folks can disagree over without crossing from orthodoxy into heresy.
Sexual immorality being wrong is not one of those issues. It is clearly spelled out as wrong, and the only way to avoid that teaching is to have a low view of Scripture. I don't personally believe that someone who views the Bible as a collection of fairy tales that one can draw warm fuzzy life lessons from (and just ignore anything you don't like) as legitimate members of the Christian faith, any more than I am a Buddhist because I think some of their koans make good points.
-
I don't personally believe that someone who views the Bible as a collection of fairy tales that one can draw warm fuzzy life lessons from (and just ignore anything you don't like) as legitimate members of the Christian faith, any more than I am a Buddhist because I think some of their koans make good points.
And therein lies a large part of the problem; a good number of churches identify themselves as Christian while ignoring or very creatively interpreting large swaths of Scripture.
-
OK, you are right. It was the State, not the church, that executed them, even if the state at the time of the witch trials was very closely tied to the church. But my point was that the views of the church do change. In this example, 400 years ago capital punishment was backed (not carried out) by most or all churches. Today I would guess that most churches oppose it. The words in the bible are still the same, it's our culture's interpretation of it that has changed. That's why I think the churches views on acceptance of homosexuality will drift over to the side of acceptance.
Again, not so much.
I know that the LCMS views capital punishment as a legitimate power of gov't, as does the largest Christian denomination on earth, the RC Church.
I must ask: Do you spend much time with Christians? Have you spent any significant time in Christian churches? Have you studied the Bible and Christian history?
RC Catechism:
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm#
LCMS:
http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=549
S Baptists:
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/299
-
In fairness, if all I knew about what it means to be a Christian was from nominal cultural christians or adherents to mainline "Protestant" denominations I'd probably be experiencing the same confusion.
-
Again, not so much.
I know that the LCMS views capital punishment as a legitimate power of gov't, as does the largest Christian denomination on earth, the RC Church.
I must ask: Do you spend much time with Christians? Have you spent any significant time in Christian churches? Have you studied the Bible and Christian history?
RC Catechism:
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm#
LCMS:
http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=549
S Baptists:
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/299
Yes, I would guess more than half the people I know are Christians. I was raised in a Methodist household, but have not studied enough to consider myself anything close to a scholar on the matter. I am not a member of any church but attend on occasion.
That said, I must be talking to different Christians than you are. The General Board of the American Baptist Churches opposes it http://www.abc-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Capital-Punishment.pdf (http://www.abc-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Capital-Punishment.pdf),
the Pope (at the time) said "I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary" Link: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm (http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm),
the Church of Christ http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/1999uccgs22abolishdeathpen.pdf (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/1999uccgs22abolishdeathpen.pdf),
Methodist http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=6385 (http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=6385),
and Presbyterian churches http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/101/capital-punishment/ (http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/101/capital-punishment/)
all oppose it.
Those, and others I haven't listed, are the positions those churches have taken, aren't they?
-
Yes, I would guess more than half the people I know are Christians. I was raised in a Methodist household, but have not studied enough to consider myself anything close to a scholar on the matter. I am not a member of any church but attend on occasion.
That said, I must be talking to different Christians than you are. The General Board of the American Baptist Churches opposes it http://www.abc-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Capital-Punishment.pdf (http://www.abc-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Capital-Punishment.pdf),
the Pope (at the time) said "I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary" Link: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm (http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm),
the Church of Christ http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/1999uccgs22abolishdeathpen.pdf (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/1999uccgs22abolishdeathpen.pdf),
Methodist http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=6385 (http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=6385),
and Presbyterian churches http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/101/capital-punishment/ (http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/101/capital-punishment/)
all oppose it.
Those, and others I haven't listed, are the positions those churches have taken, aren't they?
In fairness, if all I knew about what it means to be a Christian was from nominal cultural christians or adherents to mainline "Protestant" denominations I'd probably be experiencing the same confusion.
-
Care to elaborate, or is this just saying I am not religious enough to understand?
-
and Presbyterian churches http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/101/capital-punishment/ (http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/101/capital-punishment/)
all oppose it.
A bit of topic drift: I noted the Presbyterian church's position on gun control:
http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/101/gun-control/
-
Care to elaborate, or is this just saying I am not religious enough to understand?
Church of Christ (depending on which flavor you are talking about) is not really an orthodox Christian organization, and the Methodists and Presbyterians are the mainline denominations I was referring to, which are largely populated by people who do not actually believe the Bible is anything but a bunch of pleasant fairy tales that can inspire us to more social justice.
-
Uh, yeah, what Balog & mak wrote.
Care to elaborate, or is this just saying I am not religious enough to understand?
You don't have to have a drop of religious conviction to understand. Understanding human nature can come in handy, though.
The underlying problem of the mainline churches cannot be solved by new programs of church development alone. That problem is the weakening of the spiritual conviction required to generate the enthusiasm and energy needed to sustain a vigorous communal life. Somehow, in the course of the past century, these churches lost the will or the ability to teach the Christian faith and what it requires to a succession of younger cohorts in such a way as to command their allegiance. Admittedly, doing so has become increasingly difficult for churches as close to the very center of American culture and institutional life as the mainline denominations are. The challenges posed to Christianity by various secular ideologies and moral systems have been truly formidable in recent times. Mainline Protestants in general and Presbyterians in particular are well educated. Many of their forebears read such authors as Darwin, H. L. Mencken, and Aldous Huxley. In response to the currents of modernity, denominational leaders promoted ecumenism and dialogue, but they did not devise or promote compelling new versions of a distinctively Christian faith. They did not fashion or preach a vigorous apologetics.
To put it another way, the USMC's adherents have much greater enthusiasm because, not despite, the USMC requiring more commitment and conviction than, say, do the Elks or the Rotary Club. And the USMC is willing to back it up with action and unabashed apologetics.
Mainline prot denoms with liberal theology have just about changed their views such that there is no need for them. A sign on the front door reading "Vote for social justice as defined this week." sums up their theology.
Martin Luther: "Here I am, I can do no other."(1)
Mainline Prot Minister: "Here I am, but I can move elsewhere if my position in any way causes you to be uncomfortable or my position is such that I may take incoming fire from the ruling class."
How is someone in the pews supposed to have any enthusiasm or hold any conviction if the guy behind the pulpit is a mealy-mouthed sack "meh" with no conviction?
========
And the Pope, while the leader of the RC Church, is not the sole arbiter of RC doctrine. It takes years & years to work through such issues through a maze of canon lawyers, bishops, councils, and cardinals. If it is in the RC Catechism, a RC can be pretty confident it is doctrine.
(1) Somewhat apocryphal, but still useful. A more accurate rendering and context: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen." Just as strong, more precise, but rendering the same sentiment.
-
There are plenty of issues where there is no direct Biblical guidance, and there are even (gasp) lots of things that are not objectively "right" or "wrong" and thus opinions on them change over time. There are also a great number of secondary and tertiary issues that folks can disagree over without crossing from orthodoxy into heresy.
Sexual immorality being wrong is not one of those issues. It is clearly spelled out as wrong, and the only way to avoid that teaching is to have a low view of Scripture. I don't personally believe that someone who views the Bible as a collection of fairy tales that one can draw warm fuzzy life lessons from (and just ignore anything you don't like) as legitimate members of the Christian faith, any more than I am a Buddhist because I think some of their koans make good points.
I heard a guest preacher who was pretty good who talked about homosexual marriage. He didn't have much issue with the general idea (tolerance, not acceptance) since heterosexuals have been living in sin and screwing around outside of marriage for years and no one is upset. He was only concerned about being forced to marry homosexuals and said he would refuse and go to prison if forced. Given that common law marriange is allowed in court in Texas, I am sort of surprised it hasn't been claimed by homosexual couples already.
-
Care to elaborate, or is this just saying I am not religious enough to understand?
As we can see from the same small group of certain members here, unless you follow a particular brand of Christianity, you are not a Christian. According to them.
-
OK, I thought what the Pope said would have some sway with their doctrine, but that's not my call. I did think, since the thread is about Baptist beliefs, that their clear stance against capital punishment would make my point that beliefs change. At at any rate, you are still free to believe the word, and meaning, doesn't change. I'll move along.
-
OK, I thought what the Pope said would have some sway with their doctrine, but that's not my call. I did think, since the thread is about Baptist beliefs, that their clear stance against capital punishment would make my point that beliefs change. At at any rate, you are still free to believe the word, and meaning, doesn't change. I'll move along.
Capital punishment is not an explicitly Biblical principle, so yes it changes over time.
-
As we can see from the same small group of certain members here, unless you follow a particular brand of Christianity, you are not a Christian. According to them.
I'm honestly curious: how do you define who is and is not a Christian? Is merely self-describing as "Christian" enough, even though Christianity is generally agreed on as a mono-theistic religion and there are avowed atheists who self-describe that way? Not being argumentative, I just literally don't understand the objection to saying "A member of Religion X is someone who believes the central tenets of Religion X."
-
A bit of topic drift: I noted the Presbyterian church's position on gun control:
http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/101/gun-control/
PINOs, and not the only Presbyterians.
-
PINOs, and not the only Presbyterians.
Yes, a Presbyterian friend of mine pointed that out after I posted it. Apparently, PC U.S.A. is pretty out there compared to other Presbyterians.
-
Interesting because there is no curse on Ham. :laugh:
Then why did God turn him into bacon?
-
Then why did God turn him into bacon?
I'm pretty sure equating ham and bacon is blasphemy.
-
Yes, a Presbyterian friend of mine pointed that out after I posted it. Apparently, PC U.S.A. is pretty out there compared to other Presbyterians.
Other Presbyterian groups tend to be much smaller. The history is complicated (http://www.history.pcusa.org/sites/default/files/connection_900.jpg).
-
I'm pretty sure that turning ham into bacon is a beatification, and not a curse.
-
Capital punishment is not an explicitly Biblical principle, so yes it changes over time.
It is an Old Testament principle. "An eye for an eye" is one of the Old Testament principles that were deemed to have been replaced by Jesus' teachings and are enshrined in the New Testament.
-
I'm honestly curious: how do you define who is and is not a Christian? Is merely self-describing as "Christian" enough, even though Christianity is generally agreed on as a mono-theistic religion and there are avowed atheists who self-describe that way?
I have never encountered nor have I ever heard of any atheist who self-describes as Christian.
-
I'm honestly curious: how do you define who is and is not a Christian? Is merely self-describing as "Christian" enough, even though Christianity is generally agreed on as a mono-theistic religion and there are avowed atheists who self-describe that way? Not being argumentative, I just literally don't understand the objection to saying "A member of Religion X is someone who believes the central tenets of Religion X."
With a slight modification, I concur with this question.
-
I have never encountered nor have I ever heard of any atheist who self-describes as Christian.
The head of one of the branches of one of the mainline denominations is (or was, I guess she may have retired by now) a lesbian who refused to profess a belief in a supernatural "god" of any sort.
-
The head of one of the branches of one of the mainline denominations is (or was, I guess she may have retired by now) a lesbian who refused to profess a belief in a supernatural "god" of any sort.
If she "changed" her "gender" to male, you would have to acknowledge that she is a male. Or you are a big meanie. You must call her what she pretends to be; not what she is.
In the same way, when a non-believer claims to be a Christian, you are a big meanie, to say otherwise. You must call her what she pretends to be; not what she is.
Had to steal this from elsewhere, as it says so much about our current culture. Sure, the "*kin" are a fringe minority, but they are an outgrowth of the zeitgeist. Everyone must be allowed to define themselves, and if you don't agree with them, you be hatin'!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fuad05JF.jpg&hash=52ceaa1c312401c4324efb6bd8f9f9af0f071bed)
-
If she "changed" her "gender" to male, you would have to acknowledge that she is a male. Or you are a big meanie. You must call her what she pretends to be; not what she is.
In the same way, when a non-believer claims to be a Christian, you are a big meanie, to say otherwise. You must call her what she pretends to be; not what she is.
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10685520_10105599508781394_4670312031157867391_n.jpg?oh=adea7bbd1ab4b1f3e05d4f90555ab458&oe=54F2A01E)
-
I'm pretty sure equating ham and bacon is blasphemy.
So all Canadians are going to hell?
-
So all Canadians are going to hell?
I hear the winters are nice there :lol:
-
OK, I thought what the Pope said would have some sway with their doctrine, but that's not my call. I did think, since the thread is about Baptist beliefs, that their clear stance against capital punishment would make my point that beliefs change. At at any rate, you are still free to believe the word, and meaning, doesn't change. I'll move along.
This thread is about Southern Baptist beliefs. The gulf between Southern Baptists and American Baptists is greater the the one between the former and Catholics. (Regular Baptists being much closer and having far less variation between individual churches than Southern.)
And that's just three of the Baptist denominations. They go from snake handling to charismatic to evangelical to effectively the mainline protestant churches (aforesaid American Baptists being one if these.)
And I must apologize, I meant my post to be taken humorously as you had basically picked mainline protestants after what Balog had said. I'm sorry to have been rude.
-
I know several Nuclearphysicists that woek at Fermi Lab. We've had several interesting discussions regarding G-d and the creation of the Universe and matter. To a man they all agree that there must have been some intelligent design given the way the universe works and their discoveries.
A lot of physicists are uncomfortable with a multiverse view of cosmology and find themselves with nothing else other than the anthropic principle to explain what is observed.
It must suck to reject the concept of God and then find after a lifetime of observation that life and humanity could only exist in what by observation appears to be an incredibly finely tuned reality :angel:
-
And that's just three of the Baptist denominations. They go from snake handling to charismatic to evangelical to effectively the mainline protestant churches (aforesaid American Baptists being one if these.)
And don't forget the various Primitive Baptist subgroups. I got invited to one of their church dances(!) where the preacher brought a case of beer(!).
-
I'm honestly curious: how do you define who is and is not a Christian? Is merely self-describing as "Christian" enough, even though Christianity is generally agreed on as a mono-theistic religion and there are avowed atheists who self-describe that way? Not being argumentative, I just literally don't understand the objection to saying "A member of Religion X is someone who believes the central tenets of Religion X."
I would say that Christian just means someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. I guess anyone can call themselves anything. It doesn't matter to me. I figure God is the one deciding who is saved and who isn't. I don't think I or any Church need to try to decide that.
-
It is an Old Testament principle. "An eye for an eye" is one of the Old Testament principles that were deemed to have been replaced by Jesus' teachings and are enshrined in the New Testament.
Since the Mosaic Law of the OT was a mix of secular and theocractic laws, I think you need to differentiate the two. The secular side can be used as a guideline to modern laws. I could be wrong, but I thought most of Jesus objections to enforcement were objections to mob rule and lack of any sort of impartial judgement. Plus, He was generally focusing on spiritual salvation rather than physical salvation. Maybe that is a discussion for another thread.
-
And don't forget the various Primitive Baptist subgroups. I got invited to one of their church dances(!) where the preacher brought a case of beer(!).
Are Primitive Baptists found anywhere outside of North Georgia?
-
And do they call themselves Primitive? Never heard of that one, but I never looked around for all the denominations.
-
We have several primitive baptist churches near here . Nice folks
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
We have several primitive baptist churches near here . Nice folks
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
So do primitive baptists only use natural bodies of water ???
=)
-
Are Primitive Baptists found anywhere outside of North Georgia?
Quite a few of them here in north central Texas.
-
I would say that Christian just means someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. I guess anyone can call themselves anything. It doesn't matter to me. I figure God is the one deciding who is saved and who isn't. I don't think I or any Church need to try to decide that.
Contradicting those that are spreading heresy in Christ's name is in fact one of the things we're pretty explicitly commanded to do.
-
Contradicting those that are spreading heresy in Christ's name is in fact one of the things we're pretty explicitly commanded to do.
And what qualifies you to define heresy? Is there some sort of consensus definition or is it more whatever I or my own church says it is?
-
http://online.wsj.com/articles/southern-baptists-gay-community-break-bread-at-conference-1414691923
The Southern Baptists and the gays are warming up to each other.
-
And what qualifies you to define heresy? Is there some sort of consensus definition or is it more whatever I or my own church says it is?
Yes, there is a broad base consensus on orthodox Christian doctrine. I'm honestly curious, do you feel that terms regarding religion have no meaning? Anyone can describe themselves as belonging to any group and it's true, regardless of what their actual beliefs are? To put it another way so you hopefully don't take it personally and actually answer, let me tell you a story then ask a question.
A guy in my platoon back in the day described himself as a Buddhist. According to the generally accepted orthodoxy, Buddhism is defined as a belief in a set of things: karma, reincarnation, 4 noble truths, the last of which is the noble eightfold path. His stated beliefs directly contradicted a large number of those orthodox beliefs. He believed in acquiring wealth and power as a prime good, held extremism as a virtue, reveled in inflicting suffering pain and death on the people we fought etc etc. Those are explicitly stated beliefs, that directly contravene the teachings he claimed to be a part of.
So was he a Buddhist?
-
Quite a few of them here in north central Texas.
There are even a few in California.
-
My personal belief system is similar to that of MechAg94 above, and I do not feel the compulsion to draw lines to exclude or include people into the group based upon my own criteria. You can certainly cite whatever criteria for membership in the Christian group that you want, but you should realize that not everyone outside of your congregation or denomination shares your beliefs. I think that good and moral behavior can be occur within or without organized religion, and I am more concerned with behavior than membership within a particular group or the stamp of approval of a particular person, clergy or congregation.
-
My personal belief system is similar to that of MechAg94 above, and I do not feel the compulsion to draw lines to exclude or include people into the group based upon my own criteria. You can certainly cite whatever criteria for membership in the Christian group that you want, but you should realize that not everyone outside of your congregation or denomination shares your beliefs. I think that good and moral behavior can be occur within or without organized religion, and I am more concerned with behavior than membership within a particular group or the stamp of approval of a particular person, clergy or congregation.
So.... was he a Buddhist?
Is that so hard a question to answer?
Personally, I believe people can live moral lives apart from the influence of religion. For that I am happy for them as living morally is better.
However, I believe that a moral life, lived apart from the sacrifice of Christ will lead that person to hell. I further believe that anyone telling them otherwise (especially one claiming to be a Christian) is guilty of great sin and will be held to account for leading others astray.
-
So.... was he a Buddhist?
Is that so hard a question to answer?
I have not the faintest idea. Was Hitler a Christian?
-
My personal belief system is similar to that of MechAg94 above, and I do not feel the compulsion to draw lines to exclude or include people into the group based upon my own criteria. You can certainly cite whatever criteria for membership in the Christian group that you want, but you should realize that not everyone outside of your congregation or denomination shares your beliefs. I think that good and moral behavior can be occur within or without organized religion, and I am more concerned with behavior than membership within a particular group or the stamp of approval of a particular person, clergy or congregation.
I don't know if I misspoke or not. I was only referring to judging other people who claim to be Christians. I certainly do have opinions on what is or is not good doctrine and who might not be Christian. Show me some specific beliefs someone teaches and we can talk about it. We can also talk about whether it gets in the way of Salvation. My pastor was pretty explicit that if you are at a Church that you think is teaching false doctrine, you should leave, quickly. You may try to confront them with the truth as you see it, but if they continue, you need to look out for yourself and your family's Christian life and find a better Church where you can learn. Let God take care of putting those people on the right path.
One thing I was always taught was the works in this life mean nothing as far as being saved and getting into Heaven. The best and nicest person in the world who has no faith in Christ will not get into Heaven. However, a lot of Christians will disagree or won't take a hard line on that. I can state my opinion and the reason loudly or softly, but other Christians need to decide for themselves. My responsibility is primarily to myself and my family.
-
I have not the faintest idea. Was Hitler a Christian?
That's not a hard question. The saving grace of Christ was available, even for someone as terrible as Hitler, up to the last moments of his life. Given the way he lived his life and the way he ended it, I very much doubt that he accepted that grace.
So, no. He wasn't a Christian.
Are you able to say that Hitler wasn't a Christian?
-
Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.
-
I have not the faintest idea. Was Hitler a Christian?
His recorded beliefs are not in line with Christian doctrine so no.
My personal belief system is similar to that of MechAg94 above, and I do not feel the compulsion to draw lines to exclude or include people into the group based upon my own criteria. You can certainly cite whatever criteria for membership in the Christian group that you want, but you should realize that not everyone outside of your congregation or denomination shares your beliefs. I think that good and moral behavior can be occur within or without organized religion, and I am more concerned with behavior than membership within a particular group or the stamp of approval of a particular person, clergy or congregation.
Compulsion, that's cute. "He's doing something I disagree with, it must just be a sign of mental illness!"
If we pretend words have no meaning it's rather hard to communicate. Words have meanings, and while there are plenty of squidgy cases at the edges where there is no hard and fast right or wrong that doesn't mean that it's impossible to quantify things. Saying "A member of Group X is defined as anyone who claims to be a member, and you're an awful judgy person if you don't accept that" is just silly, and you know that in every other aspect of your life.
If a person claims to be a Communist, but their actual stated beliefs are that there should be no form of government and that all "laws" should just be voluntary contracts then they aren't a Communist regardless of how they describe their beliefs. If a person claims to be a libertarian but their actual stated beliefs are that the government should control the means of production, forbid using any substance deemed harmful, and hold a monopoly n force then they aren't a libertarian regardless of how they describe their beliefs.
Neither of those is any type of objective judgement on the rightness or wrongness of either belief system, merely pointing out that the entire reason we have words to describe belief systems is to be able to classify these sorts of things.
-
My personal belief system is similar to that of MechAg94 above, and I do not feel the compulsion to draw lines to exclude or include people into the group based upon my own criteria. You can certainly cite whatever criteria for membership in the Christian group that you want, but you should realize that not everyone outside of your congregation or denomination shares your beliefs. I think that good and moral behavior can be occur within or without organized religion, and I am more concerned with behavior than membership within a particular group or the stamp of approval of a particular person, clergy or congregation.
So does that mean that I can be a Pagan without dancing naked under the full moon ???
=D
-
So does that mean that I can be a Pagan without dancing naked under the full moon ???
=D
Apparently it means you can be a Pagan while telling people about the miraculous visitation the angel Moroni paid to Joseph Smith, or about Allah and his Prophet Mohammed. ;/
-
So does that mean that I can be a Pagan without dancing naked under the full moon ???
=D
Only if you are one of those squishy Mainstream Protestant pagans.
-
I would say that Christian just means someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Ummm, errrr ... no. Just ... no.
A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the son of God, that He died to atone for our sins, and that on the third day after His crucifixion he rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.
By your definition, a Muslim could almost be described as a Christian, since Islam recognizes Jesus as "a" prophet. (Just not "the" prophet.)
-
Ummm, errrr ... no. Just ... no.
A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the son of God, that He died to atone for our sins, and that on the third day after His crucifixion he rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.
By your definition, a Muslim could almost be described as a Christian, since Islam recognizes Jesus as "a" prophet. (Just not "the" prophet.)
Christ himself taught those things about himself.* Neither a Muslim nor anyone else could believe and follow Christ, without also believing that Christ was the Son of God, etc. MechAg's definition is perfectly Biblical.
*With the correction that he ascended into heaven some days later.
-
My personal belief system is similar to that of MechAg94 above, and I do not feel the compulsion to draw lines to exclude or include people into the group based upon my own criteria. You can certainly cite whatever criteria for membership in the Christian group that you want, but you should realize that not everyone outside of your congregation or denomination shares your beliefs. I think that good and moral behavior can be occur within or without organized religion, and I am more concerned with behavior than membership within a particular group or the stamp of approval of a particular person, clergy or congregation.
That's all a little muddled, so let's see if we can clarify.
"My personal belief system is similar to that of MechAg94 above..."
MechAg said that a Christian is someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Christ. In this, there is no daylight between MechAg, Balog, or the way Christianity has commonly been defined. The idea that the Christian both believes in and follows Christ is found throughout the New Testament, as is the insistence that those who don't believe and obey are not part of Christ's flock.
"I do not feel the compulsion to draw lines to exclude or include people into the group based upon my own criteria."
I'm not sure how anyone could expect to claim that Balog is using his own criteria. The idea that Christianity (like most other things) has certain characteristics, and that failing to display these characteristics makes one a non-Christian is hardly unique to Balog. And Balog is hardly, by describing where people stand in relation to Christ's teachings, excluding or including anyone. They do that themselves.
"You can certainly cite whatever criteria for membership in the Christian group that you want, but you should realize that not everyone outside of your congregation or denomination shares your beliefs."
That is exactly what Balog is pointing out: some people claim the mantle of Christianity, but have different beliefs - beliefs that fall outside of Christendom.
"I think that good and moral behavior can be occur within or without organized religion, and I am more concerned with behavior than membership within a particular group or the stamp of approval of a particular person, clergy or congregation."
Ah. I suspected that was the problem. You think that Balog, by saying "So-and-so is not a Christian," is just expressing his dislike of So-and-so. In reality, he's just pointing out that So-and-so is not what he claims to be.
-
I think it would be most interesting to see the various criteria people here use to define who is a Christian.
-
I think it would be most interesting to see the various criteria people here use to define who is a Christian.
Anyone who hews to orthodoxy. The Nicene Creed is a good place to start to see what that means specifically. But all those creeds make no sense if one believes there is no supernaturla Creator, or that the Bible is just a collection of fairy tales etc.
-
I think it would be most interesting to see the various criteria people here use to define who is a Christian.
Not would be. Is. =)
-
I think it would be most interesting to see the various criteria people here use to define who is a Christian.
Nicene Creek and Apostles' Creed, work for me. At least as a first filter.
-
Please excuse my following paraphrase that is sure to inflame the orthodox :laugh:
Behold, a certain Jewish theologian stood up and tested Jesus, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"
He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, with all your mind, [Deuteronomy 6:5]; and your neighbor as yourself [Leviticus 19:18]."
He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."
But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?"
"A certain (insert "other" of choice) was going down from Chicago to St Louis, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain Roman Catholic priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Protestant minister also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side.
But a certain agnostic, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and provided first aid. He put him in his own vehicle, and brought him to the emergency room where they took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out his credit card, and paid the ER bill, and said to them, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond this charge to my card.'
Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"
The Jewish theologian said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
Orthodoxy and creeds are OK even necessary I guess; but the way of Jesus is pretty simple.
He says follow me ie emulate me.
In the end God separates the wheat from the chaff so I'll reserve my judgement on who and who is not justified. I've known plenty of doctrinally sound scoundrels as well as beautiful people of compassion who didn't self describe as Christians.
My hope in Jesus, in God is also a hope for those who don't subscribe to my 'orthodoxy'. I cannot know the internal dialog with God that other people engage in and I don't want to be a hindrance to that dialog.
I believe Jesus is the way the truth and the life yet I'm not convinced that adopting creeds and orthodoxies is what that means. It's more an inward condition, a result of an acknowledgement, a relationship with the God who is here and is not silent that precedes an outward confession of belief as well is reflected in how we treat others. A small kernel of faith is more efficacious than mental assent of creeds and orthodoxies.
Those who are agnostic should really just read the gospels while trying to filter out all of the Christian cultural baggage we've come to associate with following Jesus.
I did that and my faith in God through Christ has been strengthened.
-
Are Unitarians Christian? They say they are.
-
Are Unitarians Christian? They say they are.
I doubt Unitarians consider themselves orthodox Christians. So the answer is dependent on how specific the question is asked and the definition of the terms. Define Christian first.
Even if they are wrong doctrinally in my eyes it would not be unsurprising to me to find out that some walk with God.
Who knows a persons heart and has the authority to save a soul?
That's who I would ask if you are so curious.
-
Are Unitarians Christian? They say they are.
The original Unitarians were Christian, with the oddity (for lack of a better word) that they believed and taught a different understanding of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. To most Christians, these three represent three aspects of divinity, and are referred to as the Holy Trinity. The old Unitarian belief was that there was no trinity, that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were one with God and thus represented a unity rather than a trinity. Thus, "Unitarian."
And that's the way it still was when I was a youth. In the small town in Maine where I spent summers with my grandparents, there was an Episcopal church, a Roman Catholic church, a Congregational church, and a Unitarian church. My grandparents were both Episcopalians, but they preferred the Unitarian church there because of the simplicity of the services (which were not very different from the Congregational services, but I guess they liked the Unitarian pastor better).
Fast forward a few decades, and there are very few (if any) actual Unitarian churches left. Somewhere along the way the Unitarian church merged with the Universalist Society to become the Unitarian Universalist Society. Over the years I have had friends who were Unitarian Universalists and I have attended their services. It's extremely rare for them to even mention God or Jesus. I don't know what they are, but they aren't Christian. Personally, I question of they should even be considered a religion. I think they are more of a philosophy, and I think it's kind of a sham that their guides call themselves "ministers."
-
So does that mean that I can be a Pagan without dancing naked under the full moon ???
=D
please
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Are Unitarians Christian? They say they are.
Are any of the various LDS splinter groups who teach that their local leader is a unique prophet and therefore totally justified in forcing 12y/o girls to marry him? We can't exclude anyone from anything, words just mean whatever the person speaking them feels right?
-
I would say that Christian just means someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. I guess anyone can call themselves anything. It doesn't matter to me. I figure God is the one deciding who is saved and who isn't. I don't think I or any Church need to try to decide that.
I shouldn't have left the Belief/faith in Christ out of my definition. I could say it was assumed, but it was incorrect. I guess i shouldn't post on topics like this at work.
-
I think it would be most interesting to see the various criteria people here use to define who is a Christian.
Do they teach and follow the Word of God?
Judging the teachings of a group or a pastor is one thing. Judging whether individuals are Christian is something else. Sometimes, it is best just to not worry about everyone else and focus on your own Christian life.
-
Ummm, errrr ... no. Just ... no.
A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the son of God, that He died to atone for our sins, and that on the third day after His crucifixion he rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.
By your definition, a Muslim could almost be described as a Christian, since Islam recognizes Jesus as "a" prophet. (Just not "the" prophet.)
Yes, I shouldn't leave that out.
-
It's interesting that some folks feel god only saves good folks. On the contrary in my case he saved someone that lived anything but a moral life . All I had to do was be willing.the change in behavior came second and as a result
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Do they teach and follow the Word of God?
Most everyone with a pulpit claims to, but there are an alarming number of entirely conflicting interpretations of the same Word. Worse still, a good many of those interpretations are reasonable and rational at some level. Or at least make sense given various assumptions.
I wonder .... If words mean things, are Shi'ites Muslim? Are Sunni? Are Wahabbis? Same book, not even close to the same teachings.
Judging the teachings of a group or a pastor is one thing. Judging whether individuals are Christian is something else. Sometimes, it is best just to not worry about everyone else and focus on your own Christian life.
Very well put.
-
The original Unitarians...believed and taught a different understanding of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. To most Christians, these three represent three aspects of divinity, and are referred to as the Holy Trinity. The old Unitarian belief was that there was no trinity, that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were one with God and thus represented a unity rather than a trinity. Thus, "Unitarian"....
It's extremely rare for them to even mention God or Jesus. I don't know what they are, but they aren't Christian.
This is not a coincidence.
There is a reason why Christians (Roman, Eastern, Protestant, or otherwise) have historically insisted on certain tenets of orthodoxy. It's not because they are just weirdos, or have a hang-up about hypostatic unions and triune deities. It's because these abstract theological concepts are actually not just abstract theological concepts. They are the difference between knowing God, and refusing to even heed what God has to say about very basic things. Things like, just what/who we are worshiping.
-
This is not a coincidence.
There is a reason why Christians (Roman, Eastern, Protestant, or otherwise) have historically insisted on certain tenets of orthodoxy. It's not because they are just weirdos, or have a hang-up about hypostatic unions and triune deities. It's because these abstract theological concepts are actually not just abstract theological concepts. They are the difference between knowing God, and refusing to even heed what God has to say about very basic things. Things like, just what/who we are worshiping.
This.
Say what you will about the RC/Eastern church, they did their homework. Reading the early church fathers will elicit a feeling of vousjade, the feeling that the contemporary heterodoxies/heresies would not have happened if their leaders & adherents had read them, too. Because they all happened before. Seems the modern heterodox believes pretty fervently in recycling above all else.
-
This is not a coincidence.
There is a reason why Christians (Roman, Eastern, Protestant, or otherwise) have historically insisted on certain tenets of orthodoxy. It's not because they are just weirdos, or have a hang-up about hypostatic unions and triune deities. It's because these abstract theological concepts are actually not just abstract theological concepts. They are the difference between knowing God, and refusing to even heed what God has to say about very basic things. Things like, just what/who we are worshiping.
Men's group at church has covered some of the early church fathers, now going over the Didache (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache). The Didache is the earliest thing we have, outside the NT, and might possibly come from the time of the apostles. Even if one wishes to discount what the NT itself says, belief in Jesus as God goes back as far as we can go.
-
There is a book called The Jewish Gospels, the story of the Jewish Christ that lays out the historical context of the terms Son of man, Son of God, and what many of the Israelites were expecting of the Messiah.
Jesus was very much a first century Jew and understanding some of that culture adds a richer understanding to the gospels. The Jews of his day certainly understood that claiming to be the Son of man as well as the Son of God was a claim to not only being the Messiah but a claim to deity.
Just as a warning. The above book is not written by a Christian and I don't necessarily subscribe to everything he claims. Yet as a respected Talmud scholar his insights about the era in which Jesus lived is very interesting indeed. Just like today where there are many iterations of Christianity that is how it was in Israel. There was no one monolithic belief system. They were broken up into different competing groups as well as many various sects. For a very long time the followers of Jesus were just considered a Jewish sect, even long after the crucifixion and resurrection.
While codifying and agreeing upon good doctrine is important we also run the risk of being dramatically wrong about some things, not unlike the religious leaders of Jesus day. To think we the religious of our day don't share in the same hubris of the religiously learned of Jesus day would be a big error :)
-
Are any of the various LDS splinter groups who teach that their local leader is a unique prophet and therefore totally justified in forcing 12y/o girls to marry him? We can't exclude anyone from anything, words just mean whatever the person speaking them feels right?
Words can have both an absolute or relative meaning depending on the context. As someone in the building trades, you look at the word 'unionized' and think of someone belonging to a union. As a former chemist, I look at the word 'unionized' and I think of something that is not ionized. Who is correct? What is, to quote one of your favorite words, orthodoxy?
-
What is, to quote one of your favorite words, orthodoxy?
It is the accepted consensus of the experts in that field... :angel: =D
-
It is the accepted consensus of the experts in that field... :angel: =D
And then you get to that whole issue of who is an expert. You see theologians and clergy on one side arguing their interpretation of the Bible and Christian theory does not condemn gays, says that men are not leaders in the church and home solely from having an X chromosome, and the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God; and on the other hand, you find theologians and clergy arguing the exact opposite. If there is one thing that being a litigator taught me, is you can always find experts to support whatever position you want to take.
-
As we all know consensus isn't science =D
-
And then you get to that whole issue of who is an expert. You see theologians and clergy on one side arguing their interpretation of the Bible and Christian theory does not condemn gays, says that men are not leaders in the church and home solely from having an X chromosome, and the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God; and on the other hand, you find theologians and clergy arguing the exact opposite. If there is one thing that being a litigator taught me, is you can always find experts to support whatever position you want to take.
You don't understand. We're not saying that the Christians are the people who agree perfectly on every point of doctrine and practice. With the possible exception of the inerrancy of scripture, none of the things you mentioned there would be considered heresy. False teaching does not equal heresy.
As lee said, above, we're talking about creedal truths. Here's the Nicene creed. Notice what it includes, and what it doesn't.
Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm
There's nothing in there about sexual ethics or infant baptism or many of the other things on which denominations disagree.
-
Some of this made me remember one of my favorite songs, Mississippi Squirrel Revival by Ray Stevens.
http://youtu.be/K16fG1sDagU
-
says that men are not leaders in the church and home solely from having an X chromosome
I think you meant Y chromosome.
I don't know if you're presenting this as a caricature, or if you actually think that's Biblical. Or whatever. But it's a common misconception, so...
I guess some Christians might see it that way (and it's the kind of thing that doesn't rise to the level of heresy), but the Bible's much more specific than that. Biblically speaking, no one is a leader just because of being male. The Bible says that wives should submit to their husbands; not that women should submit to any man that happens to be standing around. The Bible (arguably) places some limitations on female leadership in the church, while clearly showing that women did have some say (literally) in the business of the early church. So it is true that the church leadership is traditionally mostly (or entirely) male, but having a Y chromosome doesn't automatically make anyone a leader.
-
The whole submission of women to their husbands never seems to be taken in the context of the husbands responsibility.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it.
Christ came as a servant, he washed the apostles feet. He exemplified sacrificial love.
But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
I could post a dozen different verses on the same theme.
Submission? We are to submit or serve each other.
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God
Gods idea of leadership doesn't line up with patriarchy. Gods leaders are servants. The whole servile woman and domineering manly man is cultural rubbish. There are a couple verses accommodating patriarchy just like there are verses acknowledging the reality of the master/slave relationship. In both cases the actual message delivered undermines the historical and cultural balance of power in those relationships without calling for revolt or rebellion.
Men are to love and serve their wives in the most servile and sacrificial way imaginable. Love like Jesus loved. Order and lay down your very life for her, submit all your personal desires to the greater good of the marriage. That was radical then and still is pretty radical. that's a far cry from "woman! get me a sammich!"
Masters were commanded to treat their slaves as brothers and sons. Kind of hard to be a slave owner and treat your "property" with love as a brother or son. The cognitive dissonance forces the slave owner to reevaluate the worth of the individual human. Love your slave like Jesus loved you. Is it no wonder that Christians eventually spearheaded the end of slavery in the world?
The books of the new testament were written for first century patriarchal societies. Just because there is a couple of acknowledgments of the way society worked back then doesn't mean we ignore the big picture message. Christianity was revolutionary but not in a violent overthrow or even civil disobedient way. It changed (and changes) hearts and made (makes) old modes of thinking obsolete.
-
I used Paul's letter in my wedding
Had a bimbo get all bent about using Paul the misogynist
I counseled her kindly and thanked her for her input
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The way I remember hearing it, submission was thought to be not the best word choice as it seems to have slavery or other connotations. "Under the authority of" or something similar was thought to be better. The man is supposed to be the leader of the family, not the dictator. And yeah, there is all sorts of other stuff about responsibilities in marriage. I guess I need to go study all that again.
-
I think you got the true meaning pretty well
I think when Paul tells men how they should love their wives he sets the stage for a balanced devoted relationship
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The words "submit" and "submission" are fine. No need to shade it for the pinheads as it is contemporary readers with the problem.
Both men and women submit to authority all the time and to a multitude of authorities throughout their lives. My wife told our children to get ready for school this morning. They did so and in so doing submitted to her authority. If I heeded the speed limit coming in to work, I submitted to the authority of the state. Somehow it becomes misogyny when the Bible talks about family relations. God seems to be more worried about orderly run families and nations being kept together than stroking some hyper-sensitive pre-harridan's self esteem.
-
I'm sure we have all known the guy who spouts off about submissive wives and how he is the leader of his household.
Then after you get to know or observe the family you see the same compromises being made as well as sharing of responsibilities that healthy couples all learn to make.
For some reason the rhetoric of submission is important to support except when it comes to the practical running of a household :rofl:
We're to wash each others feet (metaphorically). Submit and serve one another. Use common sense in the division of labor and responsibilities yet be flexible.
How the haters construe that as patriarchy and oppression is a mystery to me.
-
I can solve the mystery
They need a hook to hang their own failures in relationships on. And it needs be someone elses fault
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Words can have both an absolute or relative meaning depending on the context. As someone in the building trades, you look at the word 'unionized' and think of someone belonging to a union. As a former chemist, I look at the word 'unionized' and I think of something that is not ionized. Who is correct? What is, to quote one of your favorite words, orthodoxy?
Oh ffs...
Your example would be like one chemist seeing "unionized" and thinking of something that is not ionized, and another chemist using the same word to mean there is no such thing as ionization. This is not a contextual difference, where two different concepts are described using the same word, and it's beyond intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.