Should the Church change to reflect modern society?

I agree. Dress codes do change and reflect our social conventions... even in Church, but I do like that many in the Church hierarchy still dress in the traditional old guard way. I agree with intent also. God knows what is in our heart and I know that I cannot hide from His omnipresent gaze.

We are of like mind here.I am a big believer in our God given reason. It would be much easier if God would materialize before me and lay out His master plane... but until that happens I just pray, listen (perhaps a better word would be "reflect"), then go out the door and try to be of service to those in my life.

Again I agree... which is good, because arguing with everyone on the forums was just getting old. For me, I think many make God way more complex than He really is. I don't need verbose books to tell me what God is and what He wants. IMO God wants us to be happy, and he wants us to be of service to those around us. He wants us to lift people up, not put them down... He wants us to love our fellow mankind, not judge them, for judgment is the domain of God. I personally feel closest to God when I am giving of myself to help another human being... I feel furthest from God when I am being a selfish prick... which sadly happens more often than not.

I genuinely respect those who hold the Bible high... but for me it just made getting to God way harder than was really necessary.

 

hell no.

life is the underlying purpose of sex, procreation......

an abortion is the initial life, allowing their own life to perrish (see a cell division)

Homosexuality as an embodiment can be likened to monkey's f'ing footballs (just stupid)

if church knew how to convey the reason as being for life, versus a god, then the issue would not exist, in my opinion.

the 'weird' of christianity is to read what jesus per se said then comprehend what christians claim. The two are so far apart that it stinks to observe


To me; The best examples of anti-christs can often be found by observing 'christians'!





.

 

The remnant hasn't and will never change.

 

What would you define as "The Remnant"?

Would it be this................

1rem·nant
noun \ˈrem-nənt\
Definition of REMNANT
1
a : a usually small part, member, or trace remaining
b : a small surviving group —often used in plural
2
: an unsold or unused end of piece goods


Or this....

According to the Book of Isaiah, the remnant is a small group of Israelites who will survive the invasion of the Assyrian army under Tiglath-Pileser III (Isaiah 10:20–22). The remnant is promised that they will one day be brought back to the Promised Land by Yahweh (Isaiah 11:11–16). Isaiah again uses the terminology during Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem (Isaiah 37).

The concept of the remnant is taken up by several other prophets, including Micah, Jeremiah and Zephaniah. The post-exilic biblical literature (Ezra-Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah) consistently refers to the Jews who have returned from the Babylonian captivity as the remnant.

 

This is just a short and easy read for you

Question: "What does the Bible mean when it refers to a remnant?"

Answer: A remnant is a left-over amount from a larger portion or piece, whether it is food, material from which a garment is fashioned, or even a group of people. Although remnants could be looked upon as worthless scraps, and many times are, God assigned high value to those of His people whom He had set aside for holy purposes, those He labels as “remnants” in several places in the Bible. To begin, in Isaiah 10 the story is told of the Lord’s judgment upon the Assyrians. In Verse 12 God says: “I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes.” He continues in Verse 17, 18: “The Light of Israel will become a fire, their Holy One a flame; in a single day it will burn and consume his thorns and his briars. The splendor of his forests and fertile fields I will completely destroy, as when a sick man wastes away.”

Continuing, God relates how His people will turn back to Him as a result of this tremendous display of His strength—His utter destruction of most of Assyria: “In that day the remnant of Israel, the survivors of the house of Jacob, will no longer rely on him who struck them down but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God” (Isaiah 10: 20, 21). He goes on to assure the remaining Israelites that they need not fear the Assyrians, for soon He will destroy them.

There are other remnants—those left over from a larger group—in the Bible, even though the word “remnant” isn’t used to describe them. Noah and his family were the remnant saved out of the millions on the earth before the flood (Genesis 6). Only Lot and his two daughters survived the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, a very small remnant indeed (Genesis 19). When Elijah despaired that he was the only one left in Israel who had not bowed down to idols, God assured him that He had reserved a remnant of 7000 “whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him" (1 Kings 19).

God’s sovereign choice as to whom He will save and whom He will not can also be seen in the New Testament, as carried through from the Old Testament: “Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: ‘Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out His sentence on earth with speed and finality’” (Romans 9: 27-2. This implies that great multitudes of the Israelites would be cast off. If only a remnant was to be saved, many must be lost, and this was just the point which Paul was endeavoring to establish. While the word “remnant” means what is left, particularly what may remain after a battle or a great calamity, in this verse, it means a small part or portion. Out of the great multitude of the Israelites, there will be so few left as to make it proper to say that it was a mere remnant.

Of course, the most blessed remnant is that of the true Church, the body of Christ, chosen out of the millions who have lived and died over the centuries. Jesus made it clear that this remnant would be small when compared to the number of people on the earth throughout history. “Many” will find the way to eternal destruction, but “few” will find the way to eternal life (Matthew 7:13-14). We who believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior can, with great peace, rest in the fact that we belong to the “remnant.”


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-remnant.html#ixzz2NpENunud

 

Okay....thanks for the clarification.

 

I agree. I think the greatest threat to Christianity is found in the behavior of most Christians.

 

Indeed. Several days ago one suggested that I be raped with "a rubber dick" until I bled because I said I was in favor of removing In Gawd We Trust from money. Though I am willing to compromise if we change it to In Buddha We Trust.

 

I hear ya, I have some stories of my own. But Christians like that are IMO not actual Christians. They are the lunatic fringe that have hijacked the religion for their own self interests. Sadly it is hard nowadays to find an actual Christian that embodies by word and by deed the teachings of Christ. I have a couple close friends who are Christians, who go to Church each and every Sunday, live amazing happy and healthy lives, and never ever try to force their beliefs on me. They don't need to because their example alone speaks volumes over anything they could actually say.

My wife is a Buddhist, I think Buddhist philosophy is amazing. Not sure about that reincarnation stuff... but to each their own says I.

 

Actually, I don't know if I'm Buddhist or not, though I'm beginning to think I might be by accident as I learn more about it. Regarding reincarnation, read this and your doubts will be erased.

 

The OP should be change to: "should the church change to reflect REALITY?"
The answer is that it never will. The bible/quran specifically prohibit improvements to the texts, as their authors knew that people, if allowed to improve it, would certainly do so (kill gays, slavery is ok, torture is ok, women are worth 1/2 a man, etc.)....clearly religion is not about what's best or the world but what's best for the power of the founders and the cleric followers....it's about POWER, NOT TRUTH.

 

As a democratic country, government respect church rights. The government can not compel or force the church to married same sex couples because religious rites are a private matter not a government matter. Same sex if they want to get married they do it under a government employee such as a judge. As Christians we integrate with the society laws as long as it does not infringe upon our Christian beliefs and so far for the last 100 years or so everything is fine because Christian beliefs and secular democracy work well hand in hand because in a way modern democracy has its roots and influence from Christian values, concept and teachings.

Being gay is not a sin, it is the acts of gay prostitution that is a sin.

 

So are acts of heterosexual prostitution. And acts of prostitution and coercive sexuality are pretty much the only ones in which homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible. Consentual homosexual acts between two people who love each other were widely unknown of in biblical times. These days that we do know about them we can safely assume that they are just as pure as consentual heterosexual acts between two people who love each other.

 

You know, that can be a tough call. It sounds 'OK' in this modern secular society, but nothing is in scripture to support it; altho homosexual relationships were around in the days of the Greeks (Spartan soldiers & their companion boys 200-300 BC) and even Alexander the Great was said to have such relationships.

Again, I go back to the scripture that says "Man looks on the outside, but God looks on the inside," And "Only God knows the hearts (thoughts & intentions) of men...and so I wont judge personally...and will leave that to God. But can I vote for homosexual marriage, having no problem with civil unions in this republic..??

 

The relationship “Spartan soldiers & their companion boys 200-300 BC” had can hardly be described as a consensual homosexual relationships between two people who love each other.

As for looking on the inside: I recommend you search your conscience whether you are opposed to civil partnerships/homosexual marriage because you honestly (and imho erroneously) think God has a problem with loving homosexuals taking on responsibility for each other, or whether your opposition is rooted in raw and bigoted homophobia, that may as well be sported by any brutish enough atheist and that you just try to justify via your erroneous interpretation of Jesus Christ as a homophobe.

 

Homophobe?! How is that? That is the usual 'secular' name calling and judging' of one who they find in opposition to their 'loving & tolerant' stance of the topic under discussion! I gave an honest and scriptural reflection on the topic and you have gone off the rails...which usually smacks of emotion and 'feelings,' No sound quoting of scripture by which a believer shud base their belief system, as having but no leg to strand on but raw emotion...sounds like you got your feelings hurt? Remember, "Love is not easily offended.."

 

Again folks,
1. The church ALREADY HAS changed radically and constantly for hundreds of years.
2. It has continued to do so even more during the last 50 years.
3. How important was homosexuality and abortion to Jesus. In every Gospel ever written, He never once discussed either.
4. The Bible is not taken literally by anyone. Seriously, no one. But many people like to claim they do so that they can become self-proclaimed dictators of what God likes and doesn't.

 

Guess I stepped on your 'sloppy agape' version of 'modern' Christianity?!

That kind of outrageous defensiveness usually comes from deep-seated guilt with no scriptural verbiage to stand on..sorry if I hit a personal nerve in 'just discussing' it.

Btw, maybe you didnt read my post this thread concerning my friend, who I firmly believe "still went to heaven' following his suicide:

 

Sadly I see you chose not to follow my recommendation and that it is you who seems to be offended here, not me.

A homophobe is what I call somebody who would not grant homosexual relationships the same rights that he would grant heterosexual relationships.

Such an attitude can’t be in tune with my Christian faith, that tells me to respect the loving and caring relationships my homosexual neighbours have to the same extend that I want my loving and caring heterosexual relationship to be respected, especially seeing that - unlike us humans - Christ himself does not seem to care to much about our respective genders.

Scriptural evidence for my position:

For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:14)

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:2

 

A homophobe is a secular liberal term and you fell into 'their' trap'

Why didnt you bring out and post the scripture:

John 13:23
One of them, the disciple [John] whom Jesus loved

To back up Jesus participation in such relationships?!

Hopefully, you didnt read my last post b4 you went off, again..

 

I didn’t fall into anybody’s trap. You however seem to have fallen into the trap of the - unfortunately rather common - misconception that secularism equals liberalism/that being religious automatically necessitates you to be politically conservative.

I’m a Christian and if I lived in the USA it’s very likely that I’d be considered a liberal Christian.

But I’m fortunate enough to live in a country in which even the governing conservative Party (which happens to call itself the “Christian Democratic Union”) has come round to support gay marriage and gay adoption rights, and to be the member of a church that blesses homosexual partnerships if the couple wishes for a religious ceremony, based on the scriptural reasoning that I gave you and that you have not yet refuted.

Because I don’t think that this verse is ample scriptural evidence enough to make any claims about Jesus’ sexual orientation . With the lack of such evidence I remain agnostic about what Jesus’ sexual orientation was and whether or who with he entered a sexual partnership. That doesn’t matter much, because the answer to these questions would not affect my faith in Him in the slightest, whatever the answers may be.

??? Do you think I should spend more time with you in the forum? Sorry, but here and there I've got other people who need my attention.

 

Yeah, it's very obvious from your postings that you tend to read in what you want to, classifying all 'other' Christians other than you, as being bigoted homophobes (there's that scriptural word again) and missed my post saying:

And that you were called out having your pants down and still refuse to apologize, and apparently are 'purposely' ignoring my last post...tsk tsk

Sounds kinda 'closed minded' like the bigots you point fingers at!

But in the spirit of Christ, "I" forgive you......

 

Consensual same sex acts is not prostitution, it is unnatural, it is immoral, it is lack of spiritual discipline, it is a sin.

 

I'm sorry to inform you that we do not make legislation based on religious beliefs. You may believe it to be a "sin" (whatever that is), if so I'd advise you not to do it, but your views only apply to yourself.

 

An excellent example of the need for Christianity to change with the times....might actually help with the whole inrease the flock thingy.