Progressive Christians

What a load of organic fertilizer. You know nothing of which you speak.

 

Amongst the Catholics here in America there is definitely a downsizing and consolidation as churches are being closed and merged but it is hard to get any definite numbers. These closures are as a result of poor attendance and smaller congregations in general.

Perhaps the future of Christianity might be better served via informal gatherings rather than trying to support an aging infrastructure that is no longer relevant.

 

I think you're right to some extent - if people behaved as Jesus actually taught, many of our problems wouldn't be as severe as they are.

However, I don't see any passages that suggest we should limit our methods in being charitable.

Are you claiming that the message of Jesus was somehow OPPOSED to help beyond one individual giving aid to another individual?


Do you really think the message of Jesus is that our social safety net is an abomination?

 

I don't think we're at that date, yet.

The 'date' Christianity began was, objectively, when the mission of Christ was completed. We can see that looking back, even if the disciples did not, at the time. But once the realization hit them, of what had occurred, there began a worldview that changed mankind forever.

At the fulness of time, this Event.. the Sacrificial Atonement that happened on the cross.. the mystery of redemption that God had provided for the fallen race of man.. This Event, like no other in the annals of angels or the cosmos, was the climactic crescendo in the entire universe. Ancient people looked forward to that event.. not seeing it clearly, or understanding it. Everyone born since has looked back, perhaps confused by the message, but to those who receive it, the life changing Wisdom & Power of God.

Fully understand it? I hardly think so. Embracing and receiving the goal of His mission? Anyone who comes to Him. That has not changed, even if we can describe it better now, than then.

 

The Deity of Christ is the cornerstone of Christianity. The heresies of either humanizing Him to strip His deity, or spiritualizing Him to strip Him of His humanity are older than most.

I would be glad to discuss the historical validity of the canon of scripture, how it came to be, and what it means. This thread does not seem appropriate for that.

Perhaps the 'Bible II' thread?

 

Once again, the contribution of Jesus on Earth CLEARLY ended as he took leave of Earth.

But, Christianity took its form during a significant period that continued after that date as the writings and other testimony of witnesses and the interpretations of those studying them was carried out.

The definition of Christianity wasn't finalized before the first council of Nicea in 325ad (as I remember the date).

That is where Christianity decided the issue of the nature of Jesus and his relationship with God - which can't be overemphasized as a fundamental of Christianity.

I'm not sure why anyone would argue against the idea that Christianity was formed over a period of time between 300 and 400 years.

 

That is a matter of perspective. It CLEARLY began, once His mission was completed.

It comes down to the Mission. If Jesus was just an itinerant preacher, His death meant nothing. But, as the Creator of the Universe, His sacrificial death produced atonement for humanity's sin.

So the completion of His mission opened the Way for redemption. Thus began the official worldview of Christianity.

Not so, on any accounts. This is a phony caricature of Christianity, to smear it as a worldview.

Christianity was firing on all cylinders when the Holy Spirit was given, in the book of acts, before it, or any, NT manuscripts were written. Clarifying, exposing heresies, and confirming the books needed for an accurate, precise account of the Event of redemption took place, early in the movement, and that has continued to this day, as forums like this illustrate.

Many councils have convened, over the millennia, and their goal was to clarify and dispute error. The Nicene Creed is clear evidence of that. They were not originating anything, but confirming, correcting, and clarifying what was already in use, by the various churches.

..umm.. because it is false?

 

The Nicene Creed. The result of the convention of church leaders. Their clarifying statement, as to the definition of Christianity:

 

Christianity the religion is comprised of the response to events that occurred back then.

I would argue that response solidified over the next few hundred years.

I would say that period ended with the first council of Nicea, when the relationship between Jesus and God was worked out (clearly a central issue of Christianity) along with some other issues. Had everyone agreed on the definition of Christianity by that time, there wouldn't have been such a council.

Though there have been MANY issues since then (as noted by the plethora of denominations and sects) these divisions seem to pertain to less central issues. However, purgatory, the place of "works", the nature of heaven, the existence of hell and various other issues certainly raise debate.

 

On issues of the Bible and subsequent tradition of the Church, I submit this excerpt for consideration. Two quite dogmatic "communions" [Roman Catholic & Lutheran] have produced remarkable understanding and consensus on what constitutes Christian faith.

"Scripture and Tradition" http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...lla-comunione_en.html#Scripture_and_tradition

216. In the Lutheran-Catholic conversations a clear consensus has emerged that the doctrine of justification and the doctrine of the church belong together. This common understanding is stated in the document Church and Justification: “Catholics and Lutherans together testify to the salvation that is bestowed only in Christ and by grace alone and is received in faith. They recite in common the creed, confessing ‘one holy catholic and apostolic Church.’ Both the justification of sinners and the Church are fundamental articles of faith” (Church and Justification, 4).

217. Church and Justification also states: “Strictly and properly speaking, we do not believe in justification and in the Church, but in the Father, who has mercy on us and who gathers us in the Church as his people; and in Christ who justifies us and whose body the Church is; and in the Holy Spirit who sanctifies us and dwells in the Church. Our faith encompasses justification and the Church as work of the triune God which can be properly accepted only in faith in him” (Church and Justification, 5).

218. Although the documents Church and Justification and Apostolicity of the Church made significant contributions to a number of unresolved issues between Catholics and Lutherans, further ecumenical conversation is still needed on: the relation between the visibility and invisibility of the church, the relation between the universal and local church, the church as sacrament, the necessity of sacramental ordination in the life of the church, and the sacramental character of episcopal consecration. Future discussion must take into account the significant work already done in these and other important documents. This task is so urgent since Catholics and Lutherans have never ceased to confess together the faith in the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.”

 

Do you agree that you shouldn't help widows younger than sixty years old because they can get married again to a guy who will support them?

Do you agree that women should keep their heads covered in church and zip their lips?

Do you agree that when you get sick you should ask the elders to anoint you with magic oil and pray over you so that you will get well?

Do you agree that single people should remain unmarried?

Why do you think you will get into the gaudy bejeweled golden cube called New Jerusalem if you are not a member of one of the twelve tribes of Israel?

If you really believe in the Jesus character why can't you walk on water barefoot?

Do you pray in public?

If one of your fellow church-goers asked to borrow your car for a month or asked you for your tv would you do as requested?

Would you cut off your actual body parts or gouge out your eyes to keep from sinning?

Do you know what the real Ten Commandments are?

 

Strictly speaking engaging in homosexual activity is considered to be a form of sexual immorality per biblical rules, especially New Testament rules. That behavior is enough to prevent people from getting into the golden cube.

 

Protestant churches in America have always been cliquish with a limited customer base. They functioned well when the country had slavery and continued to do so until the end of Jim Crow and the end of racial segregation in housing. As cities and neighborhoods became more diverse the local church franchises lost their customer base and church attendance has continued to decline. Churches were one of the main forces behind racial segregation because they knew that if their local customer base moved that the new people would not attend the church and that it would go out of business.

Today, in most areas, the population is too diverse to support the old-style Protestant churches. The Mormons realized that a long time ago and started to recruit black members in an attempt to keep their franchise alive outside of Utah. You need everyone you can get to keep the doors open. In 2009 just three percent of Mormons were black. Before that there were none.

 

The evolution of thought on sexuality is informed by anthropological insight and an understanding that sexuality as a gift from God. The starting point for a Christian understanding of human sexuality is the belief that all humans are made in ‘the image of God’. Below is a listing of Christian groups who view sexuality as a celebration not a curse:

"LGBT-affirming denominations regard homosexuality as a natural occurrence. The United Church of Christ celebrates gay marriage,[31] and some parts of the Anglican[32] and Lutheran[33] churches allow for the blessing of gay unions. The United Church of Canada also allows same-sex marriage, and views sexual orientation as a gift from God. Within the Anglican communion, there are openly gay clergy, for example, Gene Robinson is an openly gay Bishop in the US Episcopal Church. Within the Lutheran communion, there are openly gay clergy, too, for example, bishop Eva Brunne is an openly lesbian Bishop in the Church of Sweden. Such religious groups and denominations interpretation of scripture and doctrine leads them to accept that homosexuality is morally acceptable, and a natural occurrence. For example, in 1988 the United Church of Canada, that country's largest Protestant denomination, affirmed that "a) All persons, regardless of their sexual orientation, who profess Jesus Christ and obedience to Him, are welcome to be or become full member of the Church; and b) All members of the Church are eligible to be considered for the Ordered Ministry."[34] In 2000, the Church's General Assembly further affirmed that "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God and part of the marvelous diversity of creation."[35]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality

 

So, are you saying that you are making up your own version of Christianity instead of the one Paul preached? You know what he said about that, don't you?

Galatians 1:8-9 (TLB) = "8 Let God’s curses fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other way to be saved than the one we told you about; yes, if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. 9 I will say it again: if anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon him."

You should read the fairy tale to know what is in it so that your God won't curse you.

 

According to the Bible those groups are false prophets and will be tossed into the lake of fire. Of course if they don't believe the fairy tale they have to appeal to new customers or else they will go out of business and have to get some real jobs to pay the bills. So lying is better than doing real work if they can fool the people.

 

Perhaps your understanding of Scripture but as you can see, many believers in Christ view the Creator as a loving God.

 

Loving God? That is a joke!

John 15:6 (TLB) = "6 If anyone separates from me, he is thrown away like a useless branch, withers, and is gathered into a pile with all the others and burned."

Just remember, when those 100 pound hailstones start falling on your head you and everyone else with be cursing your loving God with every curse word you can think of.

 

I have little interest in 'Christianity the Religion!' Christianity the Worldview, the Life, the Revelation... THAT is what moves the Soul of Man, and has for thousands of years, in spite of the setbacks from 'Christianity the Religion!'

Progressivism has little problem with religion, as it is steeped in religious dogma of its own. Progressives hate 'Christianity the Life', and smear it constantly with phony caricatures and distortions.

 

I really don't understand why you're asking me all these foolish questions. Can I assume they are translated from the bible? A book I've already stated as being one I would not reference for living my life?

 

WTF??

I didn't say that I moved - I said that Christianity moved.

And, I did not suggest that the changes in Christianity had to do with how to get to heaven.

 

Progressive concepts draw directly from the Bible.

I don't see a justification for there being conflict there.